As soon as the hashtag #RepublicanMovies took off on Friday, Twitter users couldn't help but weigh in and adjust some of their favorite movie titles to reflect today's GOP. By Saturday evening, it was among the top trending topics on Twitter.

Needless to say, the results weren't exactly done in adoration -- but we thought many of them were pretty damn funny. (#DemocratMovies didn't take off as well, for what it's worth.)

Here are some of our favorites. Share with us your favorite #RepublicanMovies by tweeting at @HuffPostComedy using that hashtag!

This week was all about the Supreme Court -- and the suddenly surprising John Roberts. First, the Chief Justice guided the court through a split-the-baby decision on Arizona's immigration law, allowing the noxious "show-your-papers" provision to stand while striking down three others. (Splitting the baby was very much in vogue: see News Corp.) Then came the landmark health care ruling in which Roberts, perhaps mindful of a recent poll showing three-quarters of Americans think he and his fellow justices allow political views to influence their decisions, found a narrow way to uphold Obamacare -- a move that left many conservatives fuming, caused Justice Kennedy to accuse Roberts of "vast judicial overreaching," and prompted Albert Brooks to tweet: "It's a terrific day in America. I'm gonna go out and get wildly sick." Much closer to home, we mourned the passing -- and celebrated the life -- of Nora Ephron (see here, here, here, here, here -- and read Nora's HuffPost posts here).

Add your voice to the conversation on Twitter: twitter.com/ariannahuff

President Obama sounded weary and maybe a tad worried late Friday during a rambling conference call with campaign donors whom he repeatedly begged to send money—and send it now.

LOS ANGELES — Rodney King was remembered in Los Angeles on Saturday as a forgiving man who bore the scars of his infamous beating with dignity.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who delivered the eulogy at Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills, said before the funeral that King never showed bitterness to the officers who beat him.

"People should not be judged by the mistakes that they make, but by how they rise above them," Sharpton said outside the Hall of Freedom at the sprawling cemetery grounds. "Rodney had risen above his mistakes. He never mocked anyone – not the police, not the justice system, not anyone."

"He became a symbol of forgiveness," Sharpton said.

The funeral came nearly two weeks after King was found dead at the bottom of the swimming pool at his Rialto, Calif. home on June 17. He was 47.

Family members held a private service early in the day, followed by a public memorial and burial. Mourners signed a guest book and surveyed newspaper clippings from the days when King dominated headlines in 1991 and 1992. A large photograph of a smiling King was set on an easel.

Daughter Laura Dene King, 28, said she was proud to have had her father in her life for as long as she did, especially considering she almost lost him when she was six years old.

"I will remember his smile, his unconditional love," she said.

Several donors helped pay for the funeral, the reception afterwards, and other arrangements. Television producer Anthony Zuiker donated $10,000, and said he was at the funeral to show support for King's family.

"We lost a symbol, but they lost a loved one," said Zuiker, creator of the CSI: series.

Lawrence Spagnola, who co-authored King's 2012 book "The Riot Within: My Journey from Rebellion to Redemption," sat with family members at both services.

The family can be proud of the "amazing degree of grace and wisdom" with which King carried himself after being violently thrust into the media spotlight, Spagnola said.

King's death is being treated as an accidental drowning but authorities are awaiting autopsy results to determine the official cause of death.

He became famous after his beating by Los Angeles police in 1991 was captured on videotape and broadcast worldwide, as were photos of his bloodied and bruised face.

The images of the grainy video became a national symbol of police brutality. It was played over and over for the following year, inflaming racial tensions across the country.

More than a year later, four officers charged with felony assault in the beating were acquitted by a jury with no black members. The verdict sparked one of the most costly and deadly race riots in U.S. history.

During the unrest, which left more than 50 people dead and caused more than $1 billion in property damage, King famously pleaded for peace by asking, "Can we all get along?"

His famous words were embroidered on the lid of King's casket, next to a portrait of him.

"He never asked if people would remember Rodney King. But he wondered if they would remember those words," Spagnola said. "I told him, `long after you're gone, your words are going to live.' And I think he took some solace in that."

Happy now, Darrell Issa? The effort you led to discredit Attorney General Eric Holder got you what you wanted from the beginning: a vote to hold in contempt the Attorney General of the United States. You told the New York Times, "This was not the outcome I had sought." There's a word for that.

Regardless, you've earned your coveted footnote: the Congressman who brought about the first such sanction of a sitting cabinet member in U.S. history. And not just any cabinet member, but the one responsible for effective, professional, nonpartisan law enforcement. Not even Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft, two of history's least distinguished incumbents of the AG's office, met the fate of Eric Holder.

The country's interest is best served when both the executive and the legislative branches resist partisan showboating and rigorously defend against the politicization of the Department of Justice.

There's cause for ambivalence about President Obama's claim of executive privilege. Such a claim makes sense if shielding behind-the-scenes conversation about the flaws of "Operation Fast and Furious" can legitimately be defended as a life-saving measure. But if the internal back-and-forth is simply embarrassing or inconvenient, hiding behind executive privilege is both unnecessary and foolish.

A shaky constitutional claim on a major gun case provides ammunition for the NRA and the Gun Owners of America. In their respective campaigns to paint the president as a weak defender if not an enemy of private gun ownership, they have already begun issuing report cards on individual members of congress. An A to those who voted in favor of the contempt citation, Fs to those who voted no or walked out in protest over the vote. Politically, it simply doesn't matter that the Congressional battle is not over guns but the internal conversation of a president and his staff.

On the subject of saving lives, the loss of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was a tragedy no matter who was responsible or how it happened. But let's not forget the Bush administration's multiple uses of the same tactics used to "climb the ladder" of the hierarchy of Mexican drug cartels. Such tracing and tracking of firearms and other items of evidence (think drug supplies, marked bills, stolen property) is common in law enforcement. If managed lawfully and competently (much in question in this case), it's an essential public safety tool.

For a politician to suggest that the agent's life would have been spared had the federal government not allowed the putative murder weapon to migrate south of the border, is naïve or disingenuous. (Thanks in part to the pro-gun lobby, drug-dealing thugs on either side of the border have no trouble buying or stealing vast arsenals of high-powered weaponry.)

But seeking to make political hay of the death of Agent Terry is despicable. The same could be said of efforts to taint the reputation of the highest law enforcement official in the land.

ARCATA, Calif. — Faced with growing chaos in the state’s medical marijuana industry, this city in Northern California passed an ordinance in 2008 that meticulously detailed, over 11 pages, how the drug could be grown and sold here.

Hungover from all that celebrating in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act? Well, with the cold light of a new day, hopefully, comes the realization that this little victory doesn't in any way mean that the battle is over when it comes to trying to provide Americans with health care that won't either leave them to die or just kill them with bills.

It took all of about five minutes for the tea partying right to completely lose its collective shit over the high court's ruling and what's important to keep in mind going forward is that -- in keeping with tradition -- Republicans absolutely will not let it stand and will never let it go. Get ready for weeks, months and years of attempts to repeal the ACA outright or clever back-door legislative tricks aimed at whittling away at it piece by piece; the over-the-top, drama queenie rhetoric from the usual Republican mouthpieces all but confirms this.

Take, for example, the words of Breitbart non-journalist Ben Shapiro, who tweeted that the Supreme Court's decision not to strike down a measure that attempts to guarantee affordable health care for millions of people represents, literally, "the end of America as we know it." Or maybe Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, who calls the ACA a "crushing blow to freedom." Or former Michigan GOP spokesman Matt Davis, who fired off an e-mail, wondering aloud if "armed rebellion" was now justified in the wake of the ruling. Or libertarian Christ child Rand Paul, who didn't even bother disagreeing with the decision but instead went right to dismissing it as unconstitutional, regardless of what the highest court in the land had to say.

It was Paul's reaction that was both especially irksome and not the least bit surprising, mostly because it so perfectly summed up the entire right-wing mindset and illustrates where their blind outrage comes from and how it will continue to manifest itself. It's all there: the complete ignorance as to how our government works; the arrogant belief that any reality that challenges conservative demands, be it a decision by the voters or the Supreme Court, can be casually dismissed as illegitimate; the unwavering obstinacy and vow to fight on no matter how many times they're told that they can't have it their way. This is the kind of thinking and behavior we've come to expect from the modern Republican party: From their willingness to hold the entire country hostage in what should have been an entirely routine and apolitical debate over the debt ceiling, to the insane conspiracy theories they concoct or enable to demonize Barack Obama as an impostor whose presidency isn't legally valid, to their insistence in fighting and refighting battles they lost decades ago, today's Republicans simply refuse to take no for an answer.

What's more, their go-to tactic for getting their demands met involves behaving like your average six-year-old: they stick their fingers in their ears, then stomp and scream in the hope that we'll all relent just to get a little peace and quiet, that we'll ultimately value our sanity more than our political ideals.

This is what we have to look forward to in the health care battle -- and yes, it's still a battle. We may have won a skirmish, but for hardline conservatives the larger war remains and will always be waged. This fight isn't over for them. It will never be. Not until they're satisfied on this issue and every other one and until they're given back complete control of our government. This is simply the way the Republicans are these days. Give them what they want and no one gets hurt. A complete refusal to accept any way other than their own -- anyone other than themselves -- as legitimate. Screw the will of the people, the good of the country, or the rule of law -- none of that can even be present when the GOP isn't in charge or isn't getting what it wants.

The only hope for progress is to be as ruthless, relentless and cunning as they are. Because they're not going to give up on this or anything else they petulantly demand.

This fight is just starting for them. As they say, an elephant never forgets.

Cross-posted at The Daily Banter

HYANNIS, Mass. -- A special summer exhibit on Jackie Kennedy's life on Cape Cod has opened at the John F. Kennedy Hyannis Museum.

The exhibit includes photos, handwritten letters and other artifacts from her time on the Cape.

The curator said the exhibit captures Kennedy enjoying carefree days with her family, a different glimpse of a woman who was an international sensation.

It includes a 1953 Life magazine pictorial depicting time she spent on the Cape with John F. Kennedy when they were engaged.

Other images chronicle Jackie Kennedy's life on the Cape during her husband's presidency, when the couple and their children would frequent Hyannis Port.

The exhibit also includes a display about Jackie Kennedy's 1962 India visit while she was first lady.

Larry Kudlow, IBD
In the hours following the Supreme Court's decision to ratify Obamacare, Romney got $4.6 million in donations from 47,000 individuals. The tide is with him. The Supremes are a game-changer.But Romney has to make the case. He needs to link the anemic jobs and economic situation to the Obamacare tax, spend and regulate fiscal drag. And he has to add to that mix the dangers to our freedoms embodied in Justice John Roberts' expansion of the power to tax our personal behavior.Scott Rasmussen says the idea of Obamacare repeal has held steady at around 54 percent ever since its passage in...

Hallelujah. The Supreme Court of our land has given Obamacare a clean constitutional bill of health, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, who says government does have the power to tax those who can afford to buy health insurance, but won't.

Republicans framed Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, as a loss of individual freedom. But the only freedom lost is the freedom to be treated without having to pay for it, which is what the uninsured do when they have to go to emergency rooms. Most of us have health care, of course, if we have family and children to care for. Individual responsibility really means one should have to pay for their own health care, rather than taxpayers or the already insured.

So why are Republicans so adamantly against it, when they claim to believe in individual responsibility, and the constitution? It is because they might be taxed more, and of course they maintain all taxes are fundamentally evil. They say they abhor any kind of government aid or regulation as if they lived 100 years ago, when everyone had to take care of themselves -- or suffer the consequences. But that was when birth and death rates were far worse than today, and we lived shorter lives. Are there any Republicans who would like to return to those days? Please stand up!

More Americans will be healthy, both physically and financially, since medical bankruptcies will become rarer and serious disease rates should drop, since preventative health care will be encouraged. And simple math tells us that with some 30 million more insured due to the mandate requirement, health care costs will be spread among more users of health care.

So know that health care premiums will drop, since as with Medicare, administrative costs will be severely restricted -- 85 percent of premiums have to be spent on health care -- so that providers cannot as they currently do use more than 25 percent of their premiums just for marketing, which means overselling all those medicines (like erectile dysfunction aids) that choke our daily television screens.

Actually, the real results of what is not yet a universal health care system with 20 million are not being openly discussed, at least yet. It should release a surge of consumer spending, for instance, according to economists such as Robert Shiller. Consumers will no longer have to put so much aside for those sick days because they no longer have to worry so much about budget busting medical bills. They might even enjoy more vacation days to spend with their families, if they take advantage of available preventative care measures for such things as obesity and bad diets.

Yale Economist Robert Shiller has been advocating just such universal insurance for years in books such as The New Financial Order, Risk in the 21st Century, and Finance and the Good Society. It is part of his thesis that with the information age's ability to collate huge amounts of information we can level the playing field against risky outcomes, such as loss of income, or value in one's home, or even serious illness, by insuring against such outcomes.

"If firms and individuals cannot insure themselves against bad outcomes, they will be necessarily cautious; the economy will grow more slowly than it should," says a New York Times book review of Finance and The Good Society. "A company will not invest in a new factory if it cannot hedge against swings in exchange rates that might render its investment unprofitable. An individual will not consume to the full extent of his capacity if he cannot insure his house or health."

So at least we are on the way to a better health care system. It's a start.

Harlan Green © 2012

Wesley Pruden, Wash Times
Now the fun begins. Nothing can fire the anger of an American like the arrogance of a government lawyer with his foot on the throat of a helpless citizen, and the justices of the Supreme Court are the government lawyers with the biggest feet of all.The justices sent a message loud and clear in their decision upholding Obamacare and the requirement that everybody has to buy a health insurance policy, or else. That's a tax, the court held, and the power to tax is the holiest of holies for any government. It's the first rule of politics as well. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the father of the...

Caroline Baum, Bloomberg
It isn’t working. Or it didn’t work. At least it hasn’t worked yet. Why not try something different?“It” refers to traditional countercyclical monetary and fiscal policies that are used, as the name suggests, to counteract the effects of recession and subpar growth. For the Federal Reserve, this means stimulating aggregate demand, which generally entails lowering the benchmark overnight rate and increasing the money supply through outright securities purchases; or, in the current environment, using unconventional tools -- carrot, stick and...

William Martel, The Diplomat
It takes time for societies and policymakers to understand that a major shift in global affairs is afoot. But what we see clearly, in recent months, is the emergence of a new constellation of powers.Such a concert of nations can only inject turmoil into the international system. It is a relatively new phenomenon that represents a radical shift in international politics, perhaps as momentous as the Soviet Union's collapse two decades ago. By coordinating their policies, this grouping of powers is beginning to profoundly reshape global affairs, especially in the Asia-Pacific, Indo-Pacific,...

Fred Kaplan, Slate
Conventional wisdom holds that U.S. presidential elections do not hinge on foreign policy. On this point, conventional wisdom is almost certainly correct. But it shouldn't be, for two reasons. First, foreign policy is the one realm in which presidents can do pretty much what they want. (Congress may rant at some action but rarely halts it.) Second, in this election in particular, Mitt Romney's statements on foreign policy range from vague to ill-informed to downright dangerous.Does Romney believe the things that he's said about arms control, Russia, the Middle East, the defense...

Peter Ferrara, Forbes
President Obama's June 14 address in Cleveland presented his foundational economic policy arguments for this fall's campaign.  We will hear those same rhetorical points over and over this year, at least until his pollsters realize they are doing more harm than good.The marker Obama himself laid down for judging his economic policies is whether they would serve "to create strong, sustained growth"¦pay down our long-term debt"¦[and] generate good, middle class jobs"¦."Â  Last week, we discussed how his economic policies would consistently...

Blacks and whites in today's South seemingly have come to terms -- terms that amaze outsiders -- about living together in a halfway house of racialized politics.

The South's new political order essentially is a case of white and black cooperation in still-strained and peculiarly regional fashion. Peaceful coexistence -- Southern style!

Biracial Accommodation

Interestingly and importantly, white Southern politicos have been joined by many blacks, liberal interests and governmental agencies in adopting an accommodational approach to public life. Both races seem super-sensitive and responsive to their competing cultures, frankly because it serves select purposes of progress and practicality in this troubled land.

Modern Southern politics is indeed biracial in the sense that constitutional white supremacy and statutory segregation have yielded to openness and opportunity for blacks to participate. But the South's implementation of "biracialism" could just as well be labeled "bi-racialism" -- with a hyphenated emphasis on racial divisions of power, race-sensitive deliberations of policy, and sometimes dualistic programs for whites and blacks. Furthermore, "bi-racialism" often smells of "bi-racism" as politicians pursue electoral arrangements and governing outcomes for their own racial interests and to placate their racial constituencies.

Legacy of Hard History

The curious historical reality is that race-based policies and practices have now become routine options in regional politics. There's a lot to be criticized about the halfway house of racialized politics, but it has proven functional and stable in this region. Biracial accommodation has survived -- very alive if not well -- the lingering stench of racism, civil rights litigation, judicial scrutiny, fiscal concerns, and begrudged acceptance among blacks and whites.

It is not pretty civics; it's just the continuing legacy and evolving politics of hard history. Race is the acknowledged, powerful continuity in a new game whereby both whites and blacks now biracially accommodate important adjustments and routine politics in regional life. The practice of racial politics varies from state to state and even within states, and much remains to be improved. But I believe that my analytical construct accurately depicts and explains real change throughout the Old Confederacy.

Thus this is a qualitatively different racial system featuring new cultural ideas and approaches to politics. As demonstrated in the rest of this series, the new regime can be distinguished from that of yesteryear in substance, style, strategy, operation and outcomes.

Let's begin with substance and style.

Substance

Simply and centrally, contemporary Southern politics is more moderate in its issues and more progressive in its practices than what happened in the Old South or the post-civil rights movement South during the latter decades of the twentieth century.

Numerous factors -- such as demographic adjustments, cultural shifts, legal pressures, partisan developments, and moderating politicians -- figure into this regional progress, but a key explanation is that African Americans have joined the political process as competitive and cooperative agents of change. As a consequence, outright racism is no longer a common staple of electoral campaigns, and state and local governments now pursue more equitable priorities.

The South is still a conservative region; the racial divide continues to impact the political process; and biracial accommodation among politicians has yet to translate into full fairness and equality in broader Southern society. But the new race game is substantively different from Southern politics of the past.

Style

In terms of style, the new politics is more open and honest about race, in mainly positive ways, than were previous politicians. Southern society has shed sinister racist ways of the past, but race constantly, consciously, and subconsciously impacts public life. Sophisticated Southerners recognize the reality of their racial legacy; they have adopted more genteel, yet direct, manners in conducting the political business of contemporary regional democracy.

Hence the changing public face and discourse of the new Southern politics. Race continues as the most useful, single factor of both analysis and power in the South, but people down here understand that they have to adjust their language and conduct to political realities and a new way of life.

Consequently, the style and substance of Southern politics has changed. The race-talking has softened and racial issues have blurred into broader, more substantive and conventional considerations among the diversifying Southern populace.

In my next post, I'll discuss the changing strategy, operation and outcomes of Southern politics.

Disclosure and Acknowledgement: This series includes edited, updated material from one of my books: The South's New Racial Politics: Inside the Race game of Recent Southern History (2009): and portions of these posts will be included in an upcoming book. I'm grateful to NewSouth Books for allowing me to borrow from those publications for my discussions on the Huffington Post.

Well, that was a pretty stunning week. Lots of other things happened politically, but in truth it was a one-issue type of week, so this is going to be a one-issue type of column.

I must admit being personally stunned at the Obamacare decision -- not so much what it said (stunning enough), but who said it. Before the ruling, I would have given odds on two or three possible permutations: a 5-4 ruling with Kennedy being the swing vote (either way), or quite possibly a 6-3 ruling upholding Obamacare and the mandate, with Roberts joining Kennedy and the liberal wing (likely because Roberts would realize he needed to be on the right side of history on this one). But I don't think I ever even considered the possibility of a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the key swing vote. I don't feel too bad for missing this possibility, because everyone else in the entire media/political/legal universe also missed it.

Which was why it was so stunning. It was as if Lex Luthor suddenly decided that fighting next to Superman for truth, justice, and the American way was truly the right thing to do. Roberts may have prompted this last sentence (I admit) with his comment about where he's heading on vacation (to Malta, which Roberts joked was an "impregnable island fortress")... where maybe he'll seek some solitude, perhaps...?

All kidding aside, though, it certainly has been fun to see the other side spin. As a child's reader might put it: "See GOP spin. Spin, spin, spin! So sad, the spinning."

Was that too snarky? Well, it's been a snarkadelic week for Democrats, so hopefully you'll excuse my excess. Let's just get on with the rest of the column, shall we?

 

Speaking of snark, we have an Honorable Mention to hand out to Pennsylvania state senator Daylin Leach, for calling Republicans on the carpet for nakedly admitting that their voter ID law was (no surprise) all about winning elections for Republicans. Leach's response: "If you have to stop people voting to win elections, your ideas suck."

As previously mentioned, it's been a snarky week. Another Honorable Mention goes out to Representative Luis Gutierrez for his presentation about Arizona's immigration law on the House floor this week. Gutierrez used the "happy couple" Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez to make a point: "Because I'm not a trained Arizona official, I somehow got that backwards. Actually, Ms. Gomez, of Texas, has helped Mr. Bieber, of Canada, learn all about his adopted country. Justin, when you perform in Phoenix, remember to bring your papers." He then went on to offer up other examples (such as Geraldo Rivera and Ted Koppel), before concluding with: "the point is simple. The idea that any government official can determine who belongs in America and who doesn't simply by looking at them is completely ridiculous, unfair and un-American." This was a brilliant way to frame the argument, and deserves a round of applause.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than President Barack Obama, who gained two major (if partial) victories this week in the Supreme Court, on the Arizona law and on Obamacare. Obama was careful to not appear too football-spikey (or end-zone-dancey, take your pick) in his address after the Obamacare court ruling was announced, but both of these rulings are a clear victory for Obama.

Because of the court's actions, Republicans have been robbed of two lines of attack they were depending on in the upcoming election: "Obama's just wasted his time" while in office, and "the constitutional law professor doesn't understand the Constitution." Neither will be deployed by the right-wing echo chamber now, which is a relief.

Instead, perhaps they'll dust off a tactic from fifty years ago, and begin screaming "Impeach John Roberts!" Boy, that'd certainly be amusing, wouldn't it?

See, it's tough this week to avoid snark. Oh, well, nothing to do but drop these little snark-bomblets and move along....

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

There weren't a whole lot of disappointing Democrats this week, but one group does deserve singling out. Seventeen Democrats in the House voted with Republicans to hold a sitting member of the president's cabinet in contempt of Congress. This is an unprecedented step, but one entirely expected by Republicans trying to gin up some sort of scandal in an election year.

Many Democrats staged a walkout during the vote, in protest. Which reminds me, everyone who walked out certainly deserves an Honorable Mention this week. But perhaps because of a threat by the National Rifle Association to use this vote against House members, 17 Democrats not only stayed for the vote, but voted with the Republicans.

All 17 of them (Politico has a convenient list) deserve this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[See the list, and if your representative appears on it, use the main House page, to find their contact info so you can let him or her know what you think of his or her actions.]

 

Volume 216 (6/29/12)

But wait -- there's more!

OK, I admit, I've been waiting to use that line for a very specific reason. Barry Becher has sadly passed away. You may not know his name, but if you are of a certain age, you will certainly remember his face from television, as he was a pioneer in the world of infomercials. Becher was the guy who tried to convince America to buy Ginsu knives.

Since this column is all about framing things in snappy ways, we have to at least salute Becher's family, who are reportedly considering carving "But wait, there's more" into his tombstone. In our humble opinion, this would be the greatest epitaph since Mel Blanc's immortal "That's all, folks!"

Humor aside, this week's talking points are (quite obviously) all on one subject. If Roberts had ruled differently, we'd have a much different group of these, today, but thankfully we can come out swinging instead of in a defensive crouch. President Obama -- and Democrats in general -- have done an abysmal job on selling the concept of Obamacare to the country. This is borne out in poll after poll which shows that millions of Americans just have no idea what is contained in the new law. What we have here, to borrow a movie quote, is a failure to communicate.

Which is why we're here, every Friday, of course. So let's get on with it.

 

   Obama Cares

This one is so strong, I had to make it the column's title as well. To give full credit where credit is due, I saw this on a Huffington Post comment on another article, and it struck me with both its brilliance and its simplicity. The best talking points are the simplest one, and for the life of me, I can't see how this could be made any easier to understand while at the same time drawing such a stark contrast with the opposition.

"I am struck in the entire fight over the Affordable Care Act that Republicans may look back and regret one tactical error -- tying the president so closely to the legislation. They've used the term 'Obamacare' so often that now even the president accepts the label. But, years from now, this will only serve to remind people exactly who made their lives better and who was against it. In fact, I'd go even further and suggest a new campaign slogan for the president -- a simple bumper sticker with two words on it: 'Obama Cares.' Obama does care, even if Republicans don't. If I were the president, I'd be proud to run on that slogan."

 

   Taxing nonsense

It took a few hours, but the Republican spin (other than the naked rage directed at John Roberts) finally settled on the argument: "It's a TAX!!! Obama TAXED everyone!!! Run for the hills!!!" Or something like that, it's hard to tell at times. Fortunately, this is nonsense, and quite easy to debunk.

"The Republican argument that this is somehow the biggest tax ever levied on the middle class is nothing but horse manure. Let's look at who will not be paying this tax, shall we? Do you have health insurance, either through your employer or by purchasing it? Then you will not be taxed. Even if you don't have health insurance, are you too poor to afford it? Then you will not be taxed. Do you make so little money that you don't pay federal income taxes? Then you will not be taxed. There -- that takes care of roughly 98 percent of the population. Which leaves two percent of Americans who will have to pay this new tax, because they can indeed afford health insurance, but refuse to buy it. What this tax means is that these folks will no longer be able to continue their free ride -- with the rest of us footing the bill in higher premiums -- without their paying a price for doing so. Republicans are trying to scare everyone into thinking they'll have to pay a new tax, but 98 percent of Americans will be completely exempt from it -- a fact they fail to mention."

 

   Whatever happened to "personal responsibility"?

This is a good GOP talking point to throw back in their face. We've actually got more than one of these here today.

"The Republican Party, as I recall, used to stand for 'personal responsibility' -- which is why the mandate idea originally came from the Heritage Foundation in the first place. Quoting from the document which suggested the idea: 'The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns.' The Heritage Foundation went on to state that the enforcement would likely be in the form of 'a fine.' See? Republicans used to decry freeloaders who, by their irresponsibility, caused the rest of us to pay higher prices. Again, quoting from the Heritage document: 'Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be "free riders" on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement.' They came up with the idea of penalizing these so-called 'free riders' in order to incentivize personal responsibility among the citizenry. It's sad to see how low the GOP has sunk -- because now, they're actually defending the freeloaders and championing 'personal irresponsibility.' How times have changed, eh?"

 

   Replace with what?

Another former talking point from the right to fling back in their faces.

"After Obamacare passed, the Republicans made much political hay over their plans to, quote, repeal and replace, unquote, the new law. They've made lots of noise and had many a tantrum over the 'repeal' part of that slogan, but we've heard nary a word about what they would replace it with. You want to repeal ending the pre-existing condition loophole for insurance companies? What would you replace it with? You want to repeal allowing children on their parents' health insurance? What would you replace it with? You want to repeal fixing the donut hole for seniors' prescription drug benefits? What are you going to enact in its place? You want to repeal the rule that forces insurance companies to send rebates out instead of just shoveling more money into CEO pay? So you're for profits over actual health care. You want to repeal free preventative care? Are you sure about that? You want to return to the days where insurance companies could set lifetime caps or just kick you off their coverage if you got sick? And replace it with what, exactly? Nothing? Republicans have had two years now to come up with a plan of their own which accomplishes all this. They haven't. Mitt Romney had a plan, and it's now called Obamacare. Mitt doesn't like to be reminded of this, but he doesn't seem to have any new plan that I've heard of. So, to sum up: After two years' time, the Republicans have no plan. That's because they never really meant 'repeal and replace' -- they just meant the repeal part."

 

   But Fox News said...

OK, we can't resist any more, we're just going to turn the rest of the column over to pure snark. This one is handy, say, for a Democratic politician being interviewed on Fox News, whenever a moment of levity is called for...

"Are you sure about that? I heard differently on Fox News -- and aren't they always right? Even CNN agreed with them, from what I remember."

 

   You already blew that argument, didn't you?

Republicans used to have what they considered a dandy argument against the "gummint takeover" of health insurance, but now this argument doesn't hold much water any more -- through their own doing. The argument was, in a nutshell, that the big, bad Democrats were "putting government between the patient and the doctor." Since then, Republicans have done exactly that, in some pretty shocking ways. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley showed every other Democrat exactly how to shoot this argument down, using the weapon of Republicans' own actions, in a recent interview:

The only healthcare mandate they [Republicans] can embrace are transvaginal probes for women.

 

   It's all right, it's all right.

And finally, a catchall phrase to keep handy, when faced with Republican fulminations and tornado-quality spinning, this week.

"Really? You're saying the court decision was a big win for conservatives? That's really what you're going with? Wow. So Napoleon's greatest victory was actually Waterloo, I guess? Hey, as the late, great John Lennon sang: 'Whatever gets you through the night.' "

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

In August 2008 Barack Obama gave a speech at the Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum that aired live on CNN. In that speech he made what I believe is the most damaging statement any political leader can make with regard to gay people and our marriages. When asked by Pastor Rick Warren to define marriage, Barack Obama answered, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God is in the mix."

The idea that God Almighty finds heterosexual marriages to be "sacred" while discriminating against the unions of gay people is not a new one by any means. Far too many young LGBT kids grow up believing that God hates them. Anti-gay pastors and politicians have long used religious dogma as a weapon in the fight against LGBT equality. But to hear that Barack Obama essentially held the same religious view of gay marriage as that of Rick Santorum was nothing short of stunning. Sadly, it's also the same viewpoint the president adamantly stood behind throughout much of his presidency. Even after his recent "evolution" on the issue of gay marriage, President Obama has never actually renounced or even bothered to clarify his religious viewpoint.

Speaking at a fundraising reception in Atlanta this week, President Obama stated, "I'll always tell you what I thought. I'll always tell you what I believe." If that is truly the case, then it's past time for the president to tell America if his religious views on gay marriage have also evolved. During a time when far too many young gay kids are killing themselves, there is simply no longer time for equivocation. Does the president still believe that God only sees heterosexual marriages as "sacred," or does he feel that God's grace now shines on gay people, as well?

Yesterday the Supreme Court largely upheld the Affordable Care Act, and we can be sure that over the next few weeks, countless stories of Americans who have been affected by the ACA and the ruling will emerge. The voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans, who have long faced barriers in accessing adequate, affordable, and competent health care are crucial in this debate, and need to be heard. The health disparities facing LGBT Americans are daunting, and unequal access to health care is a roadblock to full equality. Yesterday's historic ruling ensures that the Affordable Care Act and its provisions will continue to positively affect the LGBT community.

Statistics show that only 57 percent of transgender Americans have health insurance, compared with approximately 82 percent of heterosexual adults and 77 percent of LGB adults. And as many as 2 million children living in LGBT families face significant challenges to accessing adequate health care as a result of bias, stigma, and barriers to access. The Obama administration understands these health disparities and has focused on remedying reduced access to affordable health care, restrictions on medical decision making, unwelcoming health-care environments, and increased health outcome disparities.

An unwelcoming or hostile health-care environment is a serious problem, with data showing that 29 percent of LGB adults and 48 percent of transgender adults delayed or never sought care for themselves. The ACA helps LGBT Americans and their families receive the health care that suits them by including provisions for data collection and research to better understand LGBT health disparities, prioritizing cultural competency and diversity for all health-care professionals, and by making it easier to find providers offering coverage for same-sex partners.

With the Patient's Bill of Rights, the ACA ends abuses by insurance companies that deny coverage based on preexisting conditions or put annual limits on coverage, which has a disproportionately adverse impact on HIV-positive and transgender patients. It also extends federal nondiscrimination protections to the health-care system, for the first time including protections for Americans living with disabilities and with HIV and AIDS. Additionally, the ACA benefits people living with HIV and AIDS by making prescription drugs more affordable.

Another barrier facing the LGBT community, and particularly transgender people, is high rates of unemployment and employment discrimination. Because we still do not have federal protections against discrimination in the workplace, transgender people face higher rates of termination, bias, and harassment, contributing to lower rates of employer-provided health-insurance coverage. Yesterday's ruling is a mixed bag, however, because while private insurance exchanges will include nondiscrimination provisions so that people cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the ruling challenges the Medicaid expansion provision. We have a lot of work to do to continue to address the disparities facing not only LGBT people but Americans with lower incomes, and people of color who need Medicaid.

Preventive care is one of the touchstones of this landmark policy, and the impact on the health of the LGBT community is enormous. To address disparities, the ACA includes coverage of preventive care for Medicare beneficiaries, including HIV and STI testing, depression screening, vaccinations, tobacco-use screening, cholesterol and high-blood-pressure screening, and well-woman services.

For all these reasons, the Affordable Care Act is an essential step forward in closing LGBT health disparities.

In addition to the provisions outlined in the ACA, this administration and the Department of Health and Human Services has:

• Issued an advance directive to fix hospital visitation issues to ensure that hospitals allow patients however the families are formed.
• Addressed gaps in cultural competency with training programs.
• Fund research that collects crucial data as it relates specifically to LGBT people and their families.
• Added new features to healthcare.gov to allow individuals to find health plans that fit their needs, including coverage that will include same-sex spouses.
• Relaunched stopbullying.gov to address bullying and the enormous impact it has on a young person's mental, emotional, and physical health.

While the Obama administration has done more for LGBT health than any other administration, we must continue to hold our leaders accountable, because even with yesterday's ruling, there is still a lot of work to be done at the federal level to address LGBT inequality.

First and foremost, DOMA must go. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriages of gay and lesbian couples who are legally married in their home states. Because most employee benefits are regulated under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and are subject to DOMA, employers are therefore not required to extend health-insurance benefits to the partners of LGBT employees or their partners' children. We also need to fight for the full implementation of this law and continued and expanded Medicaid coverage for those who are most vulnerable.

In the February 2012 White House Conference on LGBT Health, Secretary Sebelius said that one of the core principles that guides this administration is fairness. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling upholds this very value and is a huge step forward in the fight for equality for LGBT Americans. The dream of being able to protect one's family and live a healthy life should not be a political football and is something every American should be able to access regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. While the ACA goes a long way in addressing the numerous health disparities facing the LGBT community, we know that we have a long way to go.

So this is my promise: We will continue to fight even as we celebrate.

For further reading on what the Obama administration is doing to ensure better health care for LGBT Americans, read the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' "Making Improvements for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Americans."