The Democrats’ Progressive Party Platform and the Issues at Stake This November

Wednesday, September 5th, 2012

Somewhat overlooked in the excitement generated by powerful speeches given by Michelle Obama, keynote speaker Julian Castro, Lily Ledbetter, Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA), and others, was the fact that the Democratic Party yesterday also approved a progressive party platform that stands up for Medicare, Social Security, the right to organize, marriage equality, and many of the other policies and values that make this country great.   The contrast with the reactionary platform that the GOP approved at their convention last week illustrates well the fundamental differences between the two parties and the critical issues at stake this November.

Here are some of the highlights from the 2012 Democratic Party platform, and key places where that platform is diametrically opposed to the GOP’s agenda:

Medicare

The Democratic platform vows to defend Medicare as a guaranteed, universal program for seniors, stating:

Democrats adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare; unlike our opponents we will not ask seniors to pay thousands of dollars more every year while they watch the value of their Medicare benefits evaporate. Democrats believe that Medicare is a sacred compact with our seniors.

By contrast, the Republican platform specifically calls for ending Medicare as a “defined-benefit entitlement” and replacing it with inadequate vouchers.

Worker’s Rights

In an age of increasing attacks on working people and labor unions, it is refreshing to see the Democratic platform include a ringing endorsement of the right to organize, stating:

Democrats believe that the right to organize and collectively bargain is a fundamental American value; every American should have a voice on the job and a chance to negotiate for a fair day’s pay after a hard day’s work. We will continue to fight for the right of all workers to organize and join a union. Unions helped build the greatest middle class the world has ever known. Their work resulted in the 40-hour workweek and weekends, paid leave and pensions, the minimum wage and health insurance, and Social Security and Medicare – the cornerstones of middle class security. We will fight for labor laws that provide a fair process for workers to choose union representation, that facilitate the collective bargaining process, and that strengthen remedies for violations of the law. We will fight for collective bargaining rights for police officers, nurses, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, teachers, and other public sector workers – jobs that are a proven path to the middle class for millions of Americans. We will continue to vigorously oppose “Right to Work” and “paycheck protection” efforts, and so-called “Save our Secret Ballot” measures whenever they are proposed.  We will raise the minimum wage, and index it to inflation.

By contrast, the GOP platform promises to continue the attacks on labor unions that have been carried out by GOP Governors, and calls ultimately for a national right-to-work-for-less law.

Campaign Finance

The Democratic platform calls for reducing the corrupting influence of money on our political system and echoes President Obama’s recent suggestion that a constitutional amendment to allow us to take back our democracy may be necessary:

We support campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary. We support legislation to close loopholes and require greater disclosure of campaign spending. . . . . We support requiring groups trying to influence elections to reveal their donors so the public will know who’s funding the political ads it sees.

The GOP platform reiterates that party’s opposition to even such basic steps as the DISCLOSE Act, which would require disclosure of donors to SuperPACs and other groups that try to influence elections.

Taxes

The Democratic platform sets forth President Obama’s call for billionaires and big corporations to pay more of their fair share, stating:

We support allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire and closing loopholes and deductions for the largest corporations and the highest-earning taxpayers. We are committed to reforming our tax code so that it is fairer and simpler, creating a tax code that lives up to the Buffett Rule so no millionaire pays a smaller share of his or her income in taxes than middle class families do. . . . . The Democratic Party opposes efforts to give additional tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class and investments in our future.

The Republican platform calls for further tax giveaways to the wealthy, including elimination of the estate tax, and consideration of repealing the 16th Amendment, which allows for a federal income tax, in favor of a regressive national sales tax.

Reproductive Freedom

The Democratic platform strongly endorses reproductive freedom, stating:

Democrats support access to affordable family planning services, and President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers.

. . . .

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

The GOP platform calls for passage of a “human life amendment” to the Constitution, which would apply the 14th Amendment to unborn fetuses and effectively outlaw choice even in cases of rape and incest, and repeats the false claim that abortion “endangers the health and well-being of women.”

Equality

The Democratic platform strongly supports equality for women and LGBT Americans, stating:

We are committed to ensuring full equality for women: we reaffirm our support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, support the Paycheck Fairness Act, and will urge ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

. . . .

We support the Employment Non- Discrimination Act because people should not be fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

. . . .

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.  We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

The GOP platform describes approval of marriage equality as an “assault on the foundations of our society” and calls for a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

Climate Change

The Democratic platform acknowledges the threat that is climate change and the need for action, stating:

We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation – an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making. We affirm the science of climate change, commit to significantly reducing the pollution that causes climate change, and know we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits.

The GOP platform is silent on the issue, which I suppose is better than joining Mitt Romney in echoing the false claims of climate deniers.

 

Party platforms are, of course, not binding documents and, as such, there is no guarantee that the policies set forth in either party’s platform will come to fruition.  But the platforms do provide a good sense of the agenda each party would pursue if they were to be in power, and offer an important look at the values and goals that motivate the people who would assume positions of power if their party wins.  And what the Democratic and Republican platforms shows is that under a Democratic Administration with a Democratic Congress , political debates would revolve around deciding the best ways to enact the types of progressive policies and goals that are set forth above, rather than having to spend four years playing defense on issues like Medicare, choice, LGBT equality, etc. As such, the Democrat’s 2012 platform draws a clear contrast between the retrograde and reactionary policies and values that today’s GOP is offering, and demonstrates well why all of us progressives need to stand up and fight for our President over these next two months.

So What’s the Big Deal about What Todd Akin Said?

Saturday, August 25th, 2012

(By Fay Paxton, cross-posted as The Pragmatic Pundit)

Republicans have been spewing hateful, ignorant nonsense since Obama threw his hat in the ring.  They ramped up their Tourette’s after the 2010 election and despite the most racist, anti-homosexual, anti-women, anti-worker and frankly anti-American rhetoric,  they’ve been excused with a wink and a nod, and childish postulations that “both sides do it”.  So the idea that another Republican said something inflammatory, especially about women, should come as no surprise.

How is Todd Akin able to run for office, anyway?  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that he has been voting from an address where he has not resided for a decade.  For a “normal” citizen that would be “felony” voter fraud, worthy of jail time and the loss of voting privileges for life.   But clearly, there is no such criteria for politicians.  Mitt Romney had the same issue, but he was able to simply change a tax filing and then run for governor.  But that’s another issue.  The issue at hand is the Republican obsession with women’s reproduction.

Hoping to take down abortion and Obama, Republicans thought they had a winning issue in the debate over “personhood.” Lawmakers in Virginia passed a personhood bill in the House of Delegates; in Oklahoma, the Senate overwhelmingly gave the green light to a similar plan; referendums were introduced twice in Colorado and once in Mississippi.  And in at least a dozen states, anti-abortion activists are attempting to place such initiatives on the ballots this year.

The laws are intended to override the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, Roe v. Wade and effectively prohibit virtually all abortions.  It is of interest to note that in 2011, Supreme Court Justice “Broccoli” Scalia argued that women do not have equal protection under the 14th amendment as “people” because men’s rights are guaranteed by specific language in the Constitution, but women’s rights are not mentioned.

It’s no secret that I believe  many republican men hate their mothers (even the ones who help them lie).  Insensitive, stupid statements have been made across the nation as Republicans try to drag women back to the dark ages.  Men who like and respect women don’t have ideas like this:

* Rep. John  LaBruzzo  of Louisiana proposed that women who receive public welfare benefits receive $1,000 if they voluntarily choose to be sterilized.  I suppose that’s better than the government reigniting eugenics, but it strikes me as an odd position for politicians who want to protect an embryo.

* Rep. Dan Burton sponsored an amendment that would promote contraception for wild horses while he voted against contraception for women.  I guess impregnating a horse would be a political disaster.

* Rep. Chris Smith of Nevada wants to redefine rape. He feels pregnancies resulting in women who were raped while drugged or extremely intoxicated,  mentally incapable, or victims of date rape would not be considered  the result of [“forcible rape”].  You drunken retards are just a bunch of shameless hussies.

* South Dakota Rep. Phil Jensen proposed to make homicide  permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child…making it legal to murder doctors who perform abortions. Pre-natal Stand Your Ground.

* Two Maryland Republican officials, C. Paul Smith and Kirby Delauter, justified their decision to cut Head Start by saying that women should really be married and home with their kids, thus rendering the program unnecessary,

Romney and Ryan both support personhood. In fact, Ryan also cosponsored a federal personhood bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the exact same legal rights as a human being.

Republicans have actually been crazy for a long time.

In 1988, in an abortion debate Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature’s leading abortion foe, said:

“It is almost but not quite impossible to become pregnant on the basis of rape. The odds are one in millions and millions and millions. And there is a physical reason for that….Rape, obviously, is a traumatic experience. When that traumatic experience is undergone, a woman secretes a certain secretion, which has a tendency to kill sperm.”

In 1995, Republican Representative Henry Aldridge debated a proposal to eliminate a state abortion fund for poor women:

“The facts show that people who are raped…who are truly raped…the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant…. “Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”

In 2003, Democrats sought to block the appointment of  James Leon Holmes, a Bush nominee to a Federal Judgeship. Among other things, Holmes had written in a 1997 article that

“concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”

Anyway, I’ve said it before, men have the right to their beliefs, I just don’t want them imposed on me. I respect the opinions of people who speak from experience and have a stake in the outcome of the problem they seek to resolve. To my way of thinking, if they really want to have credibility about the abortion issue, then men should get knocked up. Until then, I for one would appreciate it if they would just shut-up.

An Etch-A-Sketch Won’t Stand Up to the Right Wing

Friday, April 13th, 2012

With Rick Santorum having suspended his Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney is now the presumptive Republican candidate for President.  Over the preceding week or so, as it became clear that Romney would be the nominee, President Obama’s campaign sharpened its attacks on Romney and the rest of the GOP.  At the same time, Romney began making a predictable move towards the political center.  Many will attack this move as yet another example of Multiple Choice Mitt flip-flopping on the issues.  But Romney’s failure to stand up during the Republican primaries for the centrist values he will spend all fall pretending to support is a far more politically and substantively telling fact, as it shows that Romney would be unable as President to stand up to the rabid reactionaries who have overtaken his own party.

Romney first came onto the national scene, of course, as Governor of Massachusetts. Given that state’s progressive political leanings, Romney not surprisingly governed as a relative moderate.  He helped develop and signed the RomneyCare health care reform plan upon which ObamaCare is based.  Romney acknowledged the reality of climate change, and took relatively moderate positions on LGBT rights, immigration reform, and even choice.  Based on this record, Romney was widely perceived as a fairly moderate Republican who was not in league with the fire-breathing reactionaries who run today’s GOP.

A radically different Romney, however, appeared during the GOP Presidential primary this year.  Faced with a Republican Party that had been overtaken by rabid reactionaries, Romney decided not to fight for the centrism that he needed to pursue in Massachusetts or the reality-based conservatism that had been championed by his father George Romney in the 1960s.  Instead, Romney time and time again joined in and encouraged the level of craziness that define today’s GOP.  Examples abound, including:

* Supported Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “marvelous” Austerity Budget, which would abolish Medicare and eviscerate social investments in order to finance $4.6 trillion in tax giveaways to the wealthy

* Sided with GOP Governor’s Scott Walker (WI) and John Kasich’s (OH) politically unpopular attacks on the rights of public employees to collectively bargain over their wages, benefits, and working conditions

* Vowed to “get rid of” funding for Planned Parenthood, and supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to deny its employees health insurance coverage for contraception

* Echoed the climate deniers’ false claims that “we don’t know what is causing climate change”

* Declared Arizona’s harsh anti-immigration law to be a “model” for the nation, promised to veto the DREAM Act, and took other steps that led blogger Steve Benen to justifiably declare Romney “the the most right-wing candidate on immigration of any competitive presidential hopeful in generations.”

* Signed the 2012 pledge of the anti-LGBT National Organization for Marriage, thereby vowing to support a federal anti-marriage equality Constitutional amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and appoint so-called “originalist” federal judges.

* Promised to abolish ObamaCare on day one of any Romney Presidential Administration.

Now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee, however, Romney is making a predictable move back to the center.  For example, as Thomas Edsall pointed out at the New York Times a few days ago, Romney has already made subtle changes to his rhetoric on immigration, reproductive freedom, and economic issues that suggest a less right wing approach. And Romney is already trying to back away from his attacks on Planned Parenthood and support for the Blunt Amendment by suggesting that women will support him once they understand his “real positions.”  As Romney’s communications director Eric Fehrnstrom might say, the Etch-a-Sketching has already begun.

With Romney’s positions bouncing around like a ping pong ball, how should Democrats react?  Remembering the attacks that were successfully leveled at John Kerry in 2004, many will eagerly brand Romney a flip-flopper who lacks the values and principles needed to be President.  And that is certainly true.  But to the extent such a focus requires pointing out that Romney is taking more moderate positions during the general election, that approach could also backfire as it could help Romney falsely convince voters that he truly is a centrist.  As Paul Krugman recently pointed out, the chattering classes in DC, in their desperation to find moderate Republicans who don’t really exist anymore, continue to try to portray Paul Ryan as a reasonable and fiscally responsible politician, despite his budget proposal that would increase the deficit, end Medicare, and slash the safety net in order to finance $4.6 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy.  If the chattering classes are doing that for Paul Ryan, imagine how eager they will be to accept Romney’s effort to convince voters that he really is a moderate.

As such, it will be far more important to portray Romney not simply as a flip flopper, but rather as a candidate so lacking in values, principles, and spine that, when the cards were down, he was entirely unable to stand up to the right wing and, instead, joined in the attacks on reproductive freedom, immigrants, LGBT Americans, working people, the poor, etc.  Given this performance, imagine how Romney would act as President, when he would be under extreme pressure from the Koch Brothers, right wing activists, and the Fox “News”-led conservative media echo chamber to carry out their right wing agenda.  When Romney is deciding who to appoint to the federal judiciary and to his cabinet, would he stand up to the right wing?  When Romney is deciding what Executive Orders to issue, would he stand up to the right wing?  When Romney is deciding whether to veto reactionary legislation passed by a Republican Congress, would he stand up to the right wing?  Romney’s performance during the GOP Presidential primaries demonstrates that the answer to each of those questions is almost certainly no.

In short, no matter how much Romney tries to moderate his positions over the next seven months, we need to remind voters that on issue after issue, Romney was more than happy to take on rabidly reactionary positions as his own throughout the GOP primary.  Romney may try to Etch-A-Sketch his way out of those positions now, but an Etch-A-Sketch is not going to stand up to the right wing reactionaries that have taken over the GOP and that would be running the show during a Romney Administration.

 

I Wouldn’t Trust Rick Santorum With My Access to Contraception

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-13th Century) is a social troglodyte whose obsession with limiting reproductive freedom has led him to be a leader in the conservative effort to stop coverage of birth control as preventive care for which there would be no insurance co-pays, and to make the absolutely ridiculous and offensive claim that pre-natal testing is little more than a liberal plot to increase abortions.  In a concession to the political popularity of access to contraception, however, Santorum has also made a recent push to claim that he has no interest in outlawing birth control, telling the Washington Post that “the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd.”  Predictably, conservative commentators have echoed this claim to assert that Santorum doesn’t pose a threat to access to birth control, with Ross Douthat at the New York Times claiming:

Even the fiercest conservative critics of the White House’s contraception mandate — yes, Rick Santorum included — agree that artificial birth control should be legal and available.

But the only thing absurd here is the suggestion that we should not be concerned about the legality or availability of contraception if, heaven forbid, Santorum were to become President.  In fact, there are at least three reasons why supporters of access to contraception should be terrified of a Santorum Presidency:

1. Santorum has made clear that he objects to birth control: In an interview last October, Santorum said the following about birth control:

One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

Similarly, in 2006, Santorum expressed the following views about contraception:

I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s  a healthy thing for our country.

Certainly a person could have these personal beliefs while still supporting the right to birth control as a matter of government policy.  But given how focused Santorum is on restricting reproductive freedoms, that is not a risk I’d be willing to take.

2. Santorum Rejects the Right to Privacy: Santorum’s statements regarding contraception become even more problematic when combined with his opposition to a Constitutional right to privacy.  In particular, Santorum has been very vocal in his opposition to the groundbreaking 1965 Supreme Court decision of Griswold v. Connecticut.  That decision established the Constitutional right to privacy that protects many of the individual liberties that we take for granted today.  It also struck down as unconstitutional a Connecticut law that made the use of contraception illegal.  Reversing Griswold, as Santorum would like to see happen, would once again allow states to outlaw the use of birth control.

3. Santorum is Not a True Supporter of Federal Funding for Contraception Services - In attempting to appear reasonable, Santorum has noted that, despite his personal beliefs about contraception, he has in the past voted in favor of funding for Title X, the federal program that supports family planning clinics that provide access to contraception and other preventive services to millions of low income families.  But more recently, Santorum has pledged to end federal funding for contraception.  Those Title X programs that Santorum wishes to defund annually provide contraception and other family planning services to millions of low income women.

The simple fact is that Santorum is a politician who cannot be trusted with any issue relating to family planning or reproductive freedom.  Commentators of any stripe should know better than to accept his claims regarding support for contraception at face value.

Well Played, Mr. President

Saturday, February 11th, 2012

A few weeks ago, the Obama Administration, standing up to strong opposition from conservative religious organizations, finalized rules under the Affordable Care Act to require that contraception be included as a preventive health service that insurance policies must cover with no co-pay.  This policy will help millions of women afford access to birth control and also save money by reducing unintended pregnancies.  And, in order to mollify concerns of conservative Christian organizations, the Obama Administration provided an exemption for religious institutions when they are solely practicing their religion.

Predictably, conservatives who are opposed to reproductive freedom are outraged by this development.  The leadership of the Catholic Church, along with the GOP Presidential candidates, seized on the fact that religious organizations that are operating secular entities would still need to provide no co-pay contraception policies to the employees of the secular entities.  Revving up its fake outrage machine, conservatives and their media collaborators portrayed the Obama Administration contraception policy as somehow an attack on religious liberty.

The religious liberty argument rings hollow here.  The exemption for religious institutions from the requirement to cover reproductive health services as preventive care when they are solely practicing their religion protected whatever core religious principles are at stake.  But once an institution, whether religious or non-religious, enters into the rest of society and, for example, runs a hospital, bookstore, nursing home, or charity where people of other religions (or no religion) are likely to work or be served, that institution can and should follow the same rules and receive the same benefits as everyone else.  In the present situation, that means hospitals, etc. that are operated by religious organizations were required to cover preventive services under health insurance plans, just as any other employer would.  Otherwise, we would be allowing the religious beliefs of an employer to be used as an excuse to deprive its employees, whether they agree with those beliefs or not, of their rights to health services.  If employees of a secular organization run by a religious entity don’t want to use birth control, they don’t have to. But now those employees have a choice to do so just like everyone else in society.

Despite the lack of any actual interference with religious liberty, the fake right wing outrage was predictably picked up by the media and started to spook some on the left.  Early last week, the Obama Administration hinted that it would be open to a compromise on the issue, which led conservatives, sensing blood in the water, to increase their feeding frenzy around this issue.  Then, on Friday, President Obama announced the compromise:

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.  The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

In other words, this policy, which is similar to one that has been in effect in Hawaii for at least a few years, ensures that women will have access to contraception as preventive care, while also enabling religious organizations that oppose reproductive rights to avoid directly paying for contraceptive health insurance coverage.

While some have tried to paint this compromise as caving in to conservative pressure, we see it more as a politically astute move by the Obama Administration because, in essence, three things have happened:

* women have been assured free access to contraception and other reproductive health services, just as both men and women are with every other preventive health services

* President Obama has shown himself, once again, to be the only reasonable adult in the room, who is willing to fight for his principles while also working to reasonably compromise on issues

* The GOP has proven yet again that they are out of touch with the American people, by stirring up a tempest in a teapot over an issue that the American people support the President on. 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used contraception, and the majority of Americans, including Catholics, support covering contraception as preventive care.

In other words, the Obama Administration advanced women’s rights, once again demonstrated its reasonableness, and drawn the GOP into a battle that shows how out of touch Republicans are with the majority of the American people.  Well played, Mr. President.

Weekend Reading List

Friday, February 10th, 2012

For this weekend’s reading list we have a moving photo essay about the human toll of coal mining, the dangers posed by the lawsuit to strike down the anti-marriage-equality Proposition 8 going to the Supreme Court, ways to save the global economy, the importance of unions to democracy and the middle class, and the political benefits of President Obama’s contraception compromise.

If you have any feedback on these articles, or would like to recommend an article for next weekend’s reading list, please let us know in the comments section below or at the Winning Progressive Facebook page.

 

Coal – The Big Picture – a moving photo essay of the terrible human toll that the mining of 7000 megatons of coal has on people in the nearly seventy countries worldwide that mine coal.

Gambling With Gay Marriage - An essay detailing how, for all of the legal merits of the federal court challenge to California’s anti-marriage-equality Proposition 8, the case poses a huge political risk of either a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in favor of bans on marriage equality or a 5-4 pro-equality decision that triggers a political backlash against marriage equality.

13 Out of the Tinderbox Ways to Save the Economy – A series of essays in this month’s Foreign Policy magazine about ways to save the global economy, including essays calling for reducing military spending, increasing inflation, a $1 trillion global investment in infrastructure, and greening cities.

Unions Make Democracy Work For the Middle Class -  A new report from the Center for American Progress about how unions are critical to both a secure middle class and a vibrant democracy

Contraception Row Could Rebound in Obama’s Favor - an argument that President Obama’s contraception “compromise” – which still ensures that everyone has access to no co-pay contraception – should politically benefit Obama as he has shown himself to be reasonable while the GOP has loudly taken a public position that is opposed to the views of the majority of Americans.