Obamacare Cartoons

Smugness watch: Some liberals say it's okay to hate Trump voters

There is, in some precincts on the left, an earnest attempt to understand Trump voters, those strange creatures that are standing by their man, and figure out how the Democrats might win them back.
During the campaign I talked about Donald Democrats and how the billionaire’s appeal to working-class folks might help him win the election, as he did in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Dems used to be the party of the working class, but Trump made a connection that the party of global trade deals and climate change failed to forge.
“Democrats often sound patronizing when speaking of Trump voters…It’s hard to win over voters whom you’re insulting,” New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote last month.
But now there’s a counterargument emerging about Trump voters, which can be summarized thusly: Screw ’em.
This mad-as-hell view has been galvanized by reports that many Trump voters may lose their health insurance if the House version of ObamaCare repeal passes. The liberal gloaters say it serves them right.
From this perspective, those voters are too dumb to vote in their own economic self-interest and they’re probably gone for good. So it’s better to energize the Bernie Sanders base than to struggle to understand why many blue-collar Americans feel alienated from the Obama/Clinton party.
Frank Rich, the former Times columnist now with New York magazine, makes this argument in ridiculing what he calls Hillbilly Chic.
He questions whether “pandering” to Trump voters is “another counterproductive detour into liberal guilt, self-flagellation, and political correctness.” Rather than feeling everyone’s pain, “might the time have at last come for Democrats to weaponize their anger instead of swallowing it?”
Rich admits that “the party is a wreck,” with no power and most of its leaders “of Social Security age.” But he sees Trump voters as basically synonymous with the GOP:
“That makes it all the more a fool’s errand for Democrats to fudge or abandon their own values to cater to the white-identity politics of the hard-core, often self-sabotaging Trump voters who helped drive the country into a ditch on Election Day. If we are free to loathe Trump, we are free to loathe his most loyal voters, who have put the rest of us at risk.”
Sounds like Frank is weaponizing his own anger.
I just don’t get the loathing, unless you subscribe to the view that anyone who supports Trump is by definition odious. If the Democrats write off everyone who backed Trump, even if it was because they didn’t trust Hillary, aren’t they making it harder to put together an electoral majority of liberals and minorities?
Salon takes a different tack with a critical piece titled “The Smug Style in American Politics.” (There are photos of Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann, though they have nothing to do with the article.)
The story by Conor Lynch says the Democratic view is of “large numbers of American people voting against their apparent interests because of their ignorance and cultural backwardness.
“After decades of watching millions of Americans vote for right-wing charlatans who advocated economic policies that serve the wealthy and screw everyone else, some liberals have basically given up on appealing to these perceived yokels, who seem to care more about criminalizing abortion and hoarding guns than obtaining health are and decent wages. They are dumb, credulous and often intolerant; so why should we — progressive, rational, forward-thinking liberals — sympathize or try to reason with them? Let them lose their health care; maybe they’ll learn something this time around (though we all know they won’t).”
Lynch concludes that both parties have failed these voters and that “cheering as people lose their health insurance may not be the best way to go about this.”
Ya think?
We live in a divided country. And when Barack Obama won in 2008, some of those who opposed him tried to marginalize him and vowed to “take our country back.”
Do some in Obama’s party want to do the same thing now? Blame not just the Republican president but the 60 million people who put him in the White House? Isn’t that a big, well, smug?
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Immigration: As LA rebuffs Trump's order, others embrace it

Los Angeles mayor expands protection for immigrants

Los Angeles went a step further than the rest of the country Tuesday in shielding illegal immigrants from immigration officials: It passed a directive forbidding firefighters and airport police from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
The directive was yet another attempt by the city to rebuff the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The Los Angeles Police Department already prohibits police from even asking a suspect’s legal status – even with probable cause.
It follows a wave of similar measures across the country by cities and states that are vowing to not only resist the president’s tough immigration measures – but outright defy it.
DHS NAMES LOCAL JAILS THAT WON'T HOLD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
“In Los Angeles, we don't separate people from their families because it's inhumane,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Tuesday. “In Los Angeles, we don't demonize our hardworking neighbors just because they speak another language or come from another country. That's un-American.”
There are about 300 jurisdictions that don't cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to turn over illegal immigrants.
President Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds from these so-called sanctuary cities. The administration has refused to tell Fox News if, when or how they plan to do so.
But while states like New York and California are pushing to defy the president’s immigration policies, others are embracing them.
WHITE HOUSE BLAMES MD. SCHOOL RAPE ON LAX BORDER, SANCTUARY POLICIES
Several states are attempting to leverage the power of the purse to force more liberal cities to cooperate with ICE. Lawmakers in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Texas introduced bills to penalize sanctuary cities. On Tuesday, Mississippi became the first state to approve such a bill. The governor has vowed to sign it.
By contrast, lawmakers in California are close to passing legislation that would prohibit police or jails from even talking to ICE, a move critics say is a clear violation of federal law.
That proposal is opposed by several sheriffs who oversee jails, including LA Sheriff Jim McDonnell.
"We look to be able to strike that balance between public safety and trust," said McDonnell, who oversees the nation's largest jail.
"We do a better job because we work together than we otherwise would; counter-terrorism is a great example."
McDonnell is one of the few politicians opposing the bill because it would prohibit jail officials from even identifying violent criminal aliens for deportation.
"We can allow ICE access to those individuals. That's a system that by and large works very well for us at this point and one of the main reasons I look at Senate Bill 54 as something that is unnecessary."
McDonnell also told the Los Angeles Times that the proposal before state lawmakers would hurt immigrants – not help them. He told the Times that if immigration officials cannot go to the jails to pick up illegal immigrants then they will fan out through the streets to find them.
“They are going to have no choice but to go into the communities and arrest not only the individual they are seeking but also people who are with that person, or other people in the area who are undocumented,” McDonnell told the Times. “That is something none of us want.”

ObamaCare replacement bill in jeopardy after conservatives, moderates fail to reach deal

House Republicans' ObamaCare replacement plan was in peril early Thursday after lengthy leadership and committee meetings failed to produce an agreement that would shore up support among conservative members.
"We have not cut the deal yet," said House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. The committee spent 13 hours in session Wednesday without setting up a formal rule governing debate on the health care bill, which had been expected to be voted on by the full House Thursday.
Sessions said he suspected that House Republicans would try to agree on a path forward for the bill when they meet in conference Thursday morning.
The Rules Committee, usually tightly controlled by GOP leadership, had been expected to let the chamber vote on revisions that top Republicans concocted to win votes. These include adding federal aid for older people and protecting upstate New York counties -- but not Democratic-run New York City -- from repaying the state billions of dollars for Medicaid costs.
Instead, the meeting broke up without any of the amendments being voted on.
While the committee was in session, House Speaker Paul Ryan was meeting with moderate Republicans from Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maine and New York as well as members of leadership. One of those moderates, Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., issued a statement Wednesday saying he would oppose the bill.
"I believe this bill, in its current form, will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans, particularly for low-to-moderate income and older individuals," Dent said before calling for House Republicans to "step back from this vote and arbitrary deadline to focus on getting health care reform done right to ensure that American families have access to affordable health care."
However, another Pennsylvania Republican, Lou Barletta, said he had switched from "no" to "yes" after Trump endorsed his bill to use Social Security numbers to hinder people from fraudulently collecting tax credits. Barletta, an outspoken foe of illegal immigration, said he had been promised a vote next month on the measure by Ryan.
The talks had focused on language to placate conservatives demanding repeal of ObamaCare's requirements that insurers pay for so-called "essential health benefits" — specified services like maternity care, prescription drugs and substance abuse treatment.
Earlier Wednesday evening, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus sounded a note of optimism after President Donald Trump huddled at the White House with 18 lawmakers, a mix of supporters and opponents.
"Tonight is an encouraging night," said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who for days has said he has the votes to kill the measure. "But I don't want to be so optimistic as to say the deal is done."
The Republican legislation would halt Obama's tax penalties against people who don't buy coverage and cut the federal-state Medicaid program for low earners, which the statute expanded. It would provide tax credits to help people pay medical bills, though generally skimpier than the aid Obama's statute provides. It also would allow insurers to charge older Americans more and repeal tax boosts the law imposed on high-income people and health industry companies.
In a count by The Associated Press, at least 26 Republicans said they opposed the bill and others were leaning that way, enough to narrowly defeat the measure. The number was in constant flux amid eleventh-hour lobbying by the White House and GOP leaders.
Including vacancies and expected absentees, the bill would be defeated if 23 Republicans join all Democrats in voting "no."
In a show of support for the opponents, the conservative Koch network promised Wednesday night to spend millions of dollars to defeat the health care overhaul, the influential network's most aggressive move against the bill.
Moderates were daunted by projections of 24 million Americans dropping their health coverage in a decade and higher out-of-pocket costs for many low-income and older people, as predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In addition to Trump's powow at the White House, Vice President Mike Pence saw around two dozen lawmakers. Participants in the Pence meeting said there were no visible signs of weakened opposition and described one tense moment. Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, said White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told them: "We've got to do this. I know you don't like it, but you have to vote for this."
Weber said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, bristled.
"When somebody tells me I have to do something, odds are really good that I will do exactly the opposite," Barton said, according to Weber.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said that talk of deleting the insurance coverage requirements had converted him into a supporter. But before the late talks, others were skeptical.
"We're being asked to sign a blank check," said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., who's been an opponent. "In the past, that hasn't worked out so well."
Some Republicans were showing irritation at their party's holdouts, all but accusing them of damaging the GOP.
"At some point we have to cowboy up and prove we can govern," said Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. "Otherwise we're just going to be the `no' party and some people are OK with that, it appears."

London attack: UK police arrest 7 in massive pre-dawn raids

British police said Thursday that six homes were raided and seven arrests were made in connection to the terror attack that left five dead, including the attacker and a police officer.
Armed police carried out the raid in the central city of Birmingham, about 130 miles north of London. Police said they believed the attacker acted alone and was “inspired by international terrorism.” The identity of the attacker has not been released.
UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon added that the assumption is the attack was related to “Islamic terrorism in some form.”
The chaos unfolded on the Westminster Bridge near the Parliament building when an SUV mowed down pedestrians on the bridge. London metro police counterterrorism Chief Mark Rowley said that 29 people were hospitalized and seven were in critical condition.
British Prime Minister Theresa May called the attack a “sick and depraved” act, but did not elevate the terror threat level, which was already at severe.
Three civilians were among those killed. Rowley identified the officer as Keith Palmer, 45, who had served as an officer for 15 years.
Rowley said Wednesday it was still “too early” to release the name of the attacker, but added that officials "think we know who the attacker is and are working to establish who his associates are."
Armed and unarmed patrols have been stepped up as a precaution across the country, he said.