Mehlman also addressed his place in a Republican Party that has in recent years ramped up anti-gay measures: "I can't change the fact that I wasn't in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that."

Mehlman has made quiet, apparently sincere efforts to work in favor of causes the party he once headed still opposes:

Chad Griffin, the California-based political strategist who organized opposition to Proposition 8, said that Mehlman's quiet contributions to the American Foundation for Equal Rights are "tremendous," adding that "when we achieve equal equality, he will be one of the people to thank for it." Mehlman has become a de facto strategist for the group, and he has opened up his rolodex -- recruiting, as co-hosts for the AFER fundraiser: Paul Singer, a major Republican donor, hedge fund executive, and the president of the Manhattan Institute; Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the GOP's top lawyers; Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and two former GOP governors, William Weld of Massachusetts and Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey.

Mehlman now lives in what Ambinder calls the "gay Mecca" of Chelsea  but past admitting his homosexuality, he refused to discuss his personal life.

Another former head of the RNC, Ed Gillespie, said that in spite of Mehlman's admission and pro-gay sentiments expressed by other leading Republicans, he does not foresee any changes in the current Republican Party platform where policies affecting homosexuals are concerned.

[The Atlantic]

When the nonsense messages about “death panels” and assisted suicide are swept aside, the most consistent Republican argument in the health care debate is that reform will somehow endanger Medicare. The Democrats, who created Medicare and have protected the program from Republican presidents and legislators for the past five decades, were suddenly determined to destroy it with budget cuts. Only the Republicans, who opposed Medicare from the beginning, could now be trusted to preserve the program from the dastardly president and his allies in the Congressional majority.

Republican leaders have articulated that message with remarkable unanimity from day one. During the initial debate over health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, Mike Enzi of Wyoming warned that “[Democrats] are cutting hundreds of billions from the elderly,” a clear reference to Medicare. The House minority leader, John Boehner, stepped forward to frighten senior voters with the claim that if reform reduced projected spending on Medicare, the result would be “fewer choices and lower health care quality for our nation’s seniors.” The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, accused Democrats of seeking to “raid Medicare.”

As usual, the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, went the furthest, buying television spots to raise alarms about “a government-run health care experiment that will cut over $500 billion from Medicare to be used to pay for their plan.” Without pausing to notice the irony—since Medicare is the nation’s premier “government-run health care experiment”—Mr. Steele posed as the savior who would protect Medicare by promoting a “seniors health care bill of rights.”

But last week, this charade ended when Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, author of the House Republican budget proposal, revealed that nothing had really changed. Like every right-wing Republican, Mr. Ryan still wants to kill Medicare, leaving seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry. His budget plan proposes a “defined benefit” voucher system that would eventually abolish traditional Medicare in order to control future deficits. The Republican Study Committee, an influential conservative caucus of House Republicans, favors the same kind of proposal. In fact, converting Medicare into a subsidy for insurance companies has been a key objective of Republican legislators ever since Newt Gingrich served as House speaker, when he pushed a plan that he promised would let Medicare “wither on the vine.” (Lately, Mr. Gingrich has refashioned himself as a Medicare advocate, by insisting that costs must be controlled somehow without cutting the program’s budget—but then, he is probably dreaming of another presidential run.)

Unfortunately for Republicans like Mr. Ryan, there are at least two essential flaws in their plan to privatize Medicare. The first is that Medicare—that government-run experiment, now almost 45 years old—remains exceptionally popular across all income, ideological, geographical and age groups. It is especially popular when compared with private insurers, beating them on measures of customer satisfaction, security and trust by 20 percentage points or more.

The second flaw is that Medicare—that costly, budget-busting entitlement—continues to exceed private-sector providers in efficiency by well over 10 percent. Only with lavish subsidies have the so-called Medicare Advantage private plans been able to compete for customers. And many elderly consumers have returned to traditional Medicare because the private insurers dropped their coverage when they actually became ill.

What do the Republicans really intend for Medicare? Are they truly its staunchest defenders? Or do they plan to decimate its benefits and have it devolve into private vouchers as soon as they regain power? Perhaps there is one answer for the voting public—and another for the insurance companies.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  jconason@observer.com

To appreciate that Michael Steele has already performed a valuable service for the Republican Party, you need only enter the name of his closest competitor in the January election for party chairman into Google’s search bar.

The name of Katon Dawson, the South Carolina G.O.P. chairman who was edged out by Steele on the sixth ballot, prompts the search engine to suggest the following additional search terms: “country club”; “Forest Lake Club”; “racist”; and “segregation.”

Those suggestions are a reflection of the words that Google’s users most often associate with Dawson, whose candidacy was blown off course by the revelation that he’d been a member for 12 years of the whites-only Forest Lake Country Club (resigning his membership only last September, as he readied his chairman’s campaign) and by his own boast that his interest in politics grew out of his opposition to busing in late-1960s South Carolina.

Even with that baggage, a switch of just seven votes on the final ballot would have made Dawson, and not Steele, the public face of the G.O.P. for the next two years. So as they grumble, with plenty of justification, about the public relations blundering that has marked their new chairman’s first six weeks on the job, Republicans should remember: if Steele hadn’t won, Democrats and the media would have been armed with far more damaging ammunition.

Still, Steele’s job security is the subject of some discussion right now, mainly the result of his recent dust-up with, and subsequent apology to, Rush Limbaugh. Steele’s crime in the matter varies depending on your vantage point.

To the party’s die-hard base, his use of the words “incendiary” and “ugly” to describe Limbaugh’s style is akin to a violation of the third commandment’s injunction against taking the Lord’s name in vain. To more pragmatic Republicans, Steele simply revealed himself to be a clumsy, gaffe-prone communicator – someone who hadn’t meant to provoke a distracting fight with Limbaugh and his Dittoheads but who created one anyway by not choosing his words carefully. And to Democrats and much of the media, Steele’s sin was one of self-emasculation – kissing King Rush’s ring rather than standing by his own words.

Now, there is some movement from within the Republican National Committee to force Steele out, with North Carolina’s national committeewoman, Ada Fisher, openly calling for his resignation. Fisher backed Dawson in the chairman’s fight and her maneuver smacks more of sour grapes opportunism – a chance to undo the January result and install her preferred candidate – than genuine concern for the welfare of the G.O.P., and there is no sign as yet that the get-rid-of-Steele movement involves any R.N.C. member besides Fisher herself.

Within the party’s Washington establishment, there is apparently some support to split the chairmanship into two roles, one public and one private, with Steele focusing on media appearances and someone else handling the day-to-day administrative duties. This isn’t an uncommon arrangement in either party – Democrats are essentially doing the same thing now, with Tim Kaine acting as the part-time general chairman while a group of political professionals tend to the nitty-gritty work – but in this particular case, it would seem to miss the point, since Steele’s troubles have grown out of his media appearances.

The best solution for Republicans is probably to do nothing at all. For one thing, it’s not like there’s some compelling, media-savvy alternative candidate waiting in the wings. Remember, the second place finisher in January was a member of an all-white country club at this time last year. To throw Steele out in favor of Dawson would be politically suicidal, and the other January also-rans – Saul Anuzis, Ken Blackwell, and then-Chairman Mike Duncan – have their own administrative and public relations liabilities as well.

And while the media circus that his Limbaugh comments set off created an unwanted media circus – and catered directly to the Democrats’ efforts to portray the G.O.P. as the Party of Rush – Steele is hardly the reason that fewer Americans than ever before now identify themselves as Republicans. The party’s image problem has been years in the making, and no matter who the national chairman is and what he or she is saying, it won’t be reversed as long as the party’s elected officials stubbornly cling to a dated and discredited vision of conservative dogma that has fallen almost completely out of favor with independent voters.

Steele, too, is probably wise to stick around – something he’s given every indication he intends to do. Party chairmen are sort of like coaches in sports, who enjoy often-undeserved credit when their teams succeed and who suffer often-unjustified scorn when their squads fall short.

Mel Martinez, one of Steele’s predecessors as chairman, recognized this in late 2007 and quit his post after only 10 months on the job. (Unlike Steele, Martinez had been purely a figurehead leader, tending to media appearances only.) Martinez understood that, no matter what he did or said, his party was headed for a drubbing in 2008 and that escaping blame would be impossible. So he quit.

Steele is in a different position. His party may be unwilling to develop a message that could lead to long-term success, but in the short-term, the G.O.P. is actually fairly well positioned for the major races on the 2009 and 2010 calendar. Completely in spite of itself (and its chairman), the G.O.P. could emerge from next year’s elections of 2010 claiming to be on the move. That would allow Steele to claim success – and vindication – something Martinez knew would never be a possibility for himself. That’s reason enough to stick around and take some abuse.

Of course, one interpretation of the recent foreclosure crisis is that homeownership became too prevalent, and many families overreached with subprime loans, owning houses they could never really afford. While the platform lacks many specifics, the Republicans seem to acknowledge this, saying that government action shouldn't "implicitly encourage" anyone to buy beyond their means.

Overall, the few paragraphs that spell out the party's approach to housing policy take a free-market approach, in contrast to the Democrats, who seem to have emphasized more new standards and affordable housing efforts in the platform they passed last week.

More from the G.O.P.:

We bumped into David Sampson, a former deputy Commerce secretary under George W. Bush and president of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, early this afternoon. He seemed very much on task and undistracted by Gustav.

"Obviously, the atmosphere here is much more subdued because of the landfall of the hurricane," he said of St. Paul compared with Denver. "It's a fundamentally different environment, but our purpose is to have meaningful discussions with key members of Congress, and we've had that opportunity already this morning."

Mr. Sampson's main task here and in Denver, he said, is to advocate for Congress to pass a bill that reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program, which allows residents in low-lying areas (including parts of New York City) normally avoided by insurance companies to buy federally-backed insurance.

"The most important [issue] from our industry perspective is, ironically enough, reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, which expires Sept. 30. The House has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a bill," he said. ''Once the party's over, they have to go back to work [and reconcile their bills]."

But hidden away in the weeklong liquor-soaked political and media festivals is, surprisingly, a somewhat lengthy discussion of policy. Both the Democrats and Republicans use the conventions to approve their party platforms for the next four years, each of which devote attention to a huge array of issues, offering the outline of a policy agenda for the party.

So as attention shifts toward the Republican National Convention in St. Paul next week, we thought we'd take a look at the urban development and housing policy portions of the platform approved by Democrats Monday and a draft Republican platform up for approval in coming days.

Generally, the Democrats were slightly more specific in their outline than the Republicans, calling for a number of new regulations, increased funding and new programs, whereas the G.O.P. expressed support for home-ownership incentives and policy that encourages vibrant economic development.

The Democrats, with far more registered voters living in urban areas than the suburban and rurally concentrated Republicans and a nominee who worked as a community activist in urban Chicago, devote considerably more attention to urban economic development in the platform than does the G.O.P.

The Democrats, who write that the Bush administration "has ignored urban areas," say they would boost funding for an array of programs that give grants and other assistance to cities and urban organizations. The platform also calls for a "Homebuyer's Bill of Rights" that would establish new lending standards.

And in two pledges that would likely please City Hall in New York, the party says it would further support affordable rental housing and restore cuts to public housing. The city's housing authority has had to undergo substantial budget cuts with less federal funding in recent years, there is a long list of private developers seeking tax-free bonds for below-market rate housing due to a federal cap on the bonds.

The Republicans, by contrast, focus on encouraging homeownership in their draft, which could see changes next week. However, likely an acknowledgement that the recent mortgage crisis came as a result of too many people buying homes that could not afford, the platform declares that "government action must not implicitly encourage anyone to borrow more than they can afford to repay." The party also calls for voucher programs for homebuyers and "urban homesteading," a program that gives vacant housing to poor families at cheap rates.

Of course, all is not to say that the party platform is by any means a binding document. Rather, it is a broad outline for each party to follow; and, in the case of the Democrats, is closely linked with the agenda of Senator Barack Obama. The Republican plaftorm differs from the agenda of Senator John McCain on a number of issues.

The R.N.C. is sending mail soliciting donations of $100 for a "Two-Month Emergency Pledge" to help John McCain. Saying the next two months will determine the winner of the election, the mail comes with a letter from McCain, who writes "The Obama Democrats have launched a massive 50-state registration drive which will result directly in dramatically increasing Democrat voter turnout on November 4^th."

"With enormous fundraising resources at their disposal – including wealthy special interests, Big Labor, and unregulated "527" soft-money groups – they have already registered more than 200,000 new Democrats in Pennsylvania, more than 165,000 in North Carolina, and more than 150,000 in Indiana."

He continues,  "Make no mistake: If the Obama  Democrats succeed in gaining total control of Washington in November, they will instantly move to raise your taxes, expand the federal government, socialize medicine, appoint liberal judges,  and retreat from Iraq."

But the relevant bar is really whether it’s enough to fund the 50-state, mega-scale campaign Obama is running, and enough, compared with what McCain has, to make up for the loss of public financing.

At least in the opinion of one Democratic consultant I spoke to today, it is.

The consultant, speaking on background, said the total amount of money at Obama's disposal, when combined with the D.N.C.'s haul, comes to roughly $92 million on hand, and "allows them to be confident to keep putting people in place" in the states, and spending loads of money on organization and campaign infrastructure. The number, the consultant also noted, was raised in a month when the campaign had to address fallout from Hillary Clinton's angry donors, who weren't exactly feeling generous to Obama or the D.N.C. Also, Obama fund-raisers had to contend with anger among his previously staunch supporters in the Netroots, who expressed anger over Obama's vote in favor of the FISA legislation.

The consultant said the campaign's gimmicky competitions, like the one that gave small-dollar donors a chance to win backstage time with Obama, was smart, because it helped keep the average contribution number to $68, which gives them a Democratic-sounding talking point.

Regardless of the size of the individual donations, the consultant said, the total permitted Obama to keep quietly spending money on personnel and infrastructure, and to crush McCain in advertising spending.

"In terms of management of resources they're the best campaign we've had," said the consultant. "That's the part of their operation that has been really impressive."

In the basement of the Broadlawns Medical Center, a hospital that specializes in treating the uninsured in Des Moines, Ia., Clinton stood in front of backdrop that said "American Health Choices Plan” to detail her long-awaited $110 billion plan mandating that all Americans should qualify for health insurance.

And, as she and her aides wanted to make perfectly clear, her new plan for universal health care was very different from her old one.

“I intend to be the President who accomplishes that goal finally for our country,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in the early primary state.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton is the last of the Democratic frontrunners to unveil a health-care plan. As in an earlier proposal from John Edwards, hers requires insurance for every American, theoretically covering 47 million people who are currently uninsured. (Barack Obama’s plan does not technically require universal coverage, operating instead on the assumption that if health care were made inexpensive enough, all Americans would acquire it.)

Since the beginning of her campaign, Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged the failure of her first effort in 1993 and 1994, arguing, as she did again today, “I still have the scars to show from that exercise.” As against critics who point to her earlier failure, she positioned her health-care battle as First Lady as experience necessary for the task now.

“Perhaps more than anyone else,” she said, “I know just how hard this fight will be.”

The plan offers federal subsidies to bring down the costs of coverage and prevents insurance companies from denying coverage or boosting premiums on the chronically sick. It calls on large business and corporations to help contribute to the health insurance of their employees on a sliding scale, while providing small businesses with tax incentives to help cover their employees.

Consumers would have a choice between their current plans or expanded versions of Medicare and the health-insurance coverage presently available to federal employees.

“Choice is at the heart of my plan,” she said.

She proposes to pay for the plan with a mix of reinstated taxes and cost-cutting provisions like emphasizing preventative care and digitalizing medical records.

Much of the speech was meant to allay concerns that she was depriving those who are currently insured of their health-care coverage in order to cover the uninsured, a notion that was promoted by drug and insurance companies in the 1990's and which proved fatal to her original plan. She emphasized that she did not want to scrap the existing system or create a new bureaucracy, and instead wanted to build on the existing system. She talked about “shared responsibility,” that she now knew reform required a “consensus for change” that she had been working to achieve in the Senate “vote by vote.” For Americans satisfied with their private insurance, she said, “nothing changes.”

The announcement came under early attack from her political rivals--in some cases before the announcement was even made. In the hours before her speech on Monday, the Republican National Committee e-mailed reporters a report about what they called “Hillarycare.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Edwards, whose plan Mrs. Clinton’s most closely resembles, tried to preemptively up the ante against her speech with a proposal to strip the President and Congress of their health-care coverage if no universal plan is in place by mid-2009.

In a statement released immediately after the completion of Clinton’s speech, Mr. Obama said, in part, that the plan was “similar to the one I put forth last spring, though my universal health-care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that’s been offered in this campaign. But the real key to passing any health care reform is the ability to bring people together in an open, transparent process that builds a broad consensus for change.”

But the plan she was most clearly competing against was her own 1994 proposal.

That effort, a 1,300-page monster ridiculed for the secrecy with which it was drafted and the obliqueness of its detail, collapsed in 1994. The negative effects rippled throughout her husband’s administration, helping the Republicans take over Congress and endangering many of her husband’s domestic initiatives.

The substantive differences, according to Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, are that the new plan provides for a tax incentive rather than punitive measures for small businesses; that there’s no national board overseeing everything, and no requirement that everyone join a government pool.

“It’s more of a carrot approach,” said Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling.

Also, not incidentally, the announcement of the new plan wasn’t nearly as specific as what was presented in 1994.

As Mrs. Clinton’s senior policy adviser Neera Tanden said, specifying every detail “could lead to a lot of confusion.”

The advisers said that her plan was more expensive than Mr. Obama’s because his was not truly universal, and that there were important differences between her plan and the one Mr. Edwards put forth. Most significantly, they said, the Edwards plan requires small businesses to cover their employees. Mrs. Clinton’s instead offers incentives to small business owners to insure their employees, as high as 50 percent of premium costs for firms with fewer than 25 employees.

Another difference, the advisors said, was that Clinton’s plan does not subsidize the health insurance of people earning more than $250,000, beyond the benefits provided by her national system.

In 1994, the industry spent billions of dollars lobbying against the reform and airing the “Harry and Louise” ads, in which a middle-class couple worries that they would lose their health care in the maze of a "billion-dollar bureaucracy."

Yesterday, her advisers and aides were at greater pains to refute the old Harry and Louise initiative than any that were brought forth by her latter-day critics and political opponents.

"We have no intention of creating a new bureaucracy,” said health care adviser Laurie Rubiner.

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at M.I.T. who helped create the lauded Massachusetts health care system (and who advised all of the leading Democrats on their health care plans), said he found the Clinton proposal to be “excellent.” He said that it went further than the Obama plan in that it mandated universal coverage, and was more progressive than the Edwards campaign’s in that it would end tax breaks on health-care benefits for wealth Americans that went beyond the baseline benefits provided by the federal system.

But he also said that Mr. Edwards went further in requiring small businesses to cover workers, where Clinton only offered incentives for them to do so. Which, he suggested, was very much by design. “It’s a very, very different plan,” Mr. Gruber said. “In 1994 she was talking about ripping up and starting over. This is incremental universalism.”