Rick Perry - the new Taliban

I was just talking the other day to someone about this thing that happened in our Texas Senate.  It's as if the Republican Party has decided to take it's direction straight from the Taliban's play book.  

I really thought this whole issue of abortion was behind us.  That the people in this country were sensible enough to understand that it is better that abortions take place where it's safe and clean than in back alley underground places.  

I thought they understood that Planned Parenthood was a sole source of health care for many people who could not afford it otherwise.

  

But the good people of this state have lost their minds and their vision.  Women have had the right to vote for just under 100 years.  I'm no longer convinced that that right is secure.  

This photo really does say it all, doesn't it?  He's an idiot cowboy who likes to play with guns and believes women should be at home barefoot and pregnant.

Liberty Without Virtue

I have been unable to get this concept that Laura Ingraham brought up during the debate out of my head:

"The GOP must seize the center or die." 

I believe that her argument is the basis of the Republican position as to why they believe certain things cannot be allowed i.e. abortion and gay marriage.

Neither party will argue that it is ok to murder someone.  That is not a liberty with virtue, neither is theft nor fraud.  You will not find it part of any political platform. Why?

Because, I believe, intuitively both parties DO agree that liberty without virtue is meaningless.  I think most Americans believe this but they may not be able to articulate it. The GOP has hi-jacked this argument.

So, the question is, does the Republican Party believe that the Democratic party lacks virtue in their perception of Liberty.  I get the impression that the Republican Party is saying "hey, here is this round hole and if you shape yourself into a round peg, you'll fit it and your life will be ok. And we really only want policies in place that make it possible for the round pegs to do well and thrive. If you are not a round peg and you cannot conform yourself to be a round peg, then your liberties are without virtue and therefore they are meaningless. We don't want to protect them.  It's your choice not to be a round peg.

I want to address the issue of gay marriage, again.  What in life can be more virtuous than a lifelong commitment to another person?  If two people consent to love and commit to one another and to take care of one another for the rest of their lives, how is this lacking in virtue?  How is it lacking in Morality?  Why is it that the Republican Party feels that protecting this liberty between two people of the same sex would be a breakdown in the direction of our country?  There is no Moral breach in this act.  Simply because a heterosexual cannot comprehend that the love and connection between two homosexual individuals is as real as it is between two heterosexuals does not make it less real...i.e. less valid.  Why does the Republican Party believe that only they know which liberties are virtuous and which ones are not.  
Do the parents of these homosexual individuals see their children lacking in virtue or morals simply because they want to marry the person they love?

What I find interesting as it relates to abortion is how they are able to dismiss the woman altogether in an effort to save an entity that is not yet here.  They want to dismiss her even when the life is simply a zygot.  Where is the virtue in this? Where is the virtue in forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want?  Where is the virtue in removing the government assistance programs she would need if she gave birth to this child?  I don't understand where they are coming from.

Are they assuming this woman is single and that her problems will go away if she gets married?

Why do they dismiss her from the equation?  Why do they believe that her life can no longer be her own once she becomes pregnant. Will we get to the point that if someone suspects that a woman will abort her pregnancy that it would be justifiable cause to incarcerate her until such time that she gives birth.  Is that where we are going with this?

How is it that the fight to protect this woman's liberty is lacking in virtue?  

The Democratic Party needs to do a better job at demonstrating that we do believe in liberty with virtue.  We need to help people understand that the Republican Party is NOT the authority on right and wrong, on Morals and on Virtue.  Indeed, the Democratic Party is a much stronger champion of personal liberty and I think it's a stretch to accuse the Party of lacking virtue.  It's time to help people understand that we believe there is virtue in individual liberties.

Debate over the center and the GOP

I listened to a fabulous debate on NPR titled Will the GOP Die If It Doesn't Seize the Center.  There was an exchange, found on the Charlie Rose Show that really stuck with me.  It goes as follows:

Ralph Reed:

"Well, I think conservatism in a nutshell is a philosophy that argues that as government gets bigger, that freedom necessarily constricts.  And we believe people are best able to rise as high and as far as their God-given talents, abilities,ambitions, and desires will carry them when government gets out of the way and allows free men and women to do those things that are best left to them.  Government should be small. It should be limited, and it should be confined to specific enumerated purposes"

John Donvan:"Where do the social issues fit in?"

Laura Ingraham:

"It's the idea of ordered liberty. Jefferson wrote about it.  Madison, Mickey's favorite framer, wrote about it, that liberty without virtue is really meaningless because my idea of liberty could conflict with your personal space or everyone does what everyone wants to do in his or her own time, and obviously you'll have natural conflicts.  So ordered liberty is obviously the best. And a moral core, encouraging moral behavior,society changes, maybe society will change what the meaning of the world "moral" is, and I understand that.  But the morality has a place. We see it playing out today with the reaction to what happened in the horrible attack in Boston.  Morality is around us.  We can try to ignore it, we can try to say that -"

End of exchange.   And then:

Ralph Reed:

"But the fact of the matter is that what the Republican Party stands for, what it fights for and what it seeks to advance, is policies that will strengthen marriage, family, childbearing and rearing, so that young people are not left behind in circumstances where this young girl could end up finding herself. We seek policies that strengthen the family, because we know that if somebody gets married and stays married, bears children within the institution of marriage, and gets a job, any job, and graduates from high school --that person that I just described, in the United States of America, you know what that-- what chance that person has of living in poverty? 

Two percent. You do the opposite of those four behaviors, you don't graduate from high school, you don't get your first job, you bear children outside the institution of marriage, you have an 85 percent chance of living in poverty. And I read “Losing Ground.” And Charles Murray's exactly right. But the sociology and pathology of poverty in America today is largely as a result of government policies that don't strengthen those institutions "

Wow.  Where does one begin?

I find it interesting that she bring up the reaction to the bombing in Boston as an example of morality "playing itself out".  Not sure what she means here but it's an easy example because NO ONE is going to debate the lack of virtue or morality in the act. And the left certainly is not interested in pressing such liberties.  But I wonder if Laura would point that event out if instead it was an abortion clinic that had been bombed.  Would that continue to be an example that she would bring up as an immoral act?  

But let's address what was really implied in the question with regard to social issues: First, gay marriage.  How is it that gay marriage is a moral issue and how is it that the Republican Party is the authority on what's moral?

Her argument implies that progressive or liberal movements are not moral if they don't follow the moral code or principles prescribed by the Right.  Because, after all, the Right strongly believes  "people are best able to rise as high and as far as their God-given talents, abilities,ambitions, and desires will carry them when government gets out of the way and allows free men and women to do those things that are best left to them."  But according to Laura, only if those people are following the correct MORAL freedoms.  As opposed to freedoms the Right deems as "IMMORAL."  

Their Achilles heel is their belief that only THEY know what the correct moral freedoms are. 

There are a ton of Christian believers on the Left who have morals and who do not believe that gay marriage is a moral issue.  But the Right believes that it is a moral issue and that their perception of morality is superior to that of the Left.  So to abandon or compromise on their point of view on this issue is to turn their back on morality.  I keep hearing Rick Santorum saying "What a snob" when I think of this.

This even goes with the issue of Pro-Choice.  It is moral to remove the reproductive rights of a woman in order to force her to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and to force her to have a baby she does not want.  That in the Republican point of view is moral and the right thing to do.  And the Left's moral point of view that a woman has total control over her body and can make decisions with regard to aborting a pregnancy is considered IMMORAL and therefore it would be considered a liberty without virtue; and therefore not a liberty worth protecting.

I have to say, I'm very glad she cleared that up for me.


My question is to what extent does the Party believe they should go to protect their virtuous freedoms from "corruption".

Now this leads us to the issue regarding this issue of marriage.  Something else the Republicans do not understand.  We have a pretty high divorce rate in this country.  We also have a pretty high number of single women who do not want to be married.  Why?  Because marriage is no longer a path to survival for WOMEN.   In order for the GOP's ideal society to exist, they would have to promote and push policies that prevent women from being healthy, happy and productive outside of marriage.   Divorce would have to be more difficult.

Dear John Schnatter

Dear John Schnatter,

I read your petulant comment that since it will require a 14 cent increase per pizza to provide healthcare to your employees, you've decided to just reduce full-time employees to 30 hours.  Sort of like you're sticking it to everyone that the election didn't go your way.

I am a very very loyal Papa John's customer but I have some news for you. 

You're a "ME TOO" product.  Pizza, even good pizza, can be found just about anywhere. 

I read the article today of your position on the issue.  Hey, you have the right to do whatever you like; it's your company.  But did you know that Starbucks offers healthcare to all of their employees, even their part-timers? It doesn't seem to hurt their bottom line.

After having read this article today, I found myself craving pizza like nobody's business.  So, I decided to log into Domino's and give them a try since it's been so long.  I discovered something while there.  They have a new crust called called Brooklyn Style.  OMG, that is my favorite.  They get what makes it so great.

You lost me the first time because of your petulance; but now you've lost me because I just discovered, Dominos has a better pizza.

There's a really really important saying in business, "People like doing business with people they like."  I think that's true for companies, too.  I don't like you anymore Papa John, you seem petulant and shortsighted;  I don't won't to contribute to your profits.

You just lost your first loyal patron.

GFT

Oh no he didn't!

Romney said "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/romney-sticks-by-victims-comments-but-calls-them-off-cuff/#ixzz26pqc1ahs

I cannot believe how stupid this man is.  I really cannot but what's worse is how disappointed I am that so many people continue to believe that he can lead our country through anything.  

Does anyone have a clue how hard Obama is working to win this election?  While serving the role of President, he is also campaigning his heart out.  He has pulled in the assistance of the Clintons and others to help him.  Does Romney really believe that Obama is working this hard for a bunch of free-loaders?  

Though not in this quote, he also said these people don't pay taxes.  Really?  Is that why Romney has been so forthcoming with his own returns?  Because the way I see it, he's hiding the truth about his personal responsibility.

You know, he may have a great plan to get us out of debt but his stupidity will create such chaos and disorder that he'll end up driving us deeper into this hole.  He opens his mouth without thinking; and when he's caught in the error, he doubles-down.  Rather than correct his path, his pride drives him further into it.  I see him getting us into a useless war simply because he refused to rethink a position.

But here's the real question.  If Obama's supporters are all free-loaders looking for government handouts, who's funding his campaign?  Obama has raised a lot of money!  I suspect that Romney's constituents have allowed the wealthier among them to fund his campaign while Obama's constituents have taken matters into their own hands.

The Nasties are back.

During the conventions, especially the Republican convention, I noticed how nasty my Republican Facebook friends were being.  Interestingly, they were cyber-nasty.  I see a lot of these people in public and they are very nice and cordial; and more than likely would not say what they say on Facebook directly to my face.  This is an interesting phenomenon to me.

I think the nasty was an attempt to lower support for Obama in order to help bump Romney.  Romney didn't get a bump.  I don't even think he got a nudge.

Then came the Democratic convention.  And though Fox News disagrees, they hit it out of the park.  Michele Obama, Julian Castro and Bill Clinton really drove it home and after the convention, Barack Obama got quite a nice bump ahead of Romney.

Well, my Republican friends, though they don't want to admit it, are discovering that Romney just cannot do what needs to happen to come up in the polls. So, they are back to nasty cyber attacking in order to tear down the lead the Obama has.

I really hate it; and people I liked and had respect for are falling so far from grace.  It makes me wonder about their character.    I get the same icky feeling I would get when I was young and being picked on in school.  These cyber bullies are adults yet they behave like they are 12 and 13. 

I've heard people say this is the most important election in their lifetime; but it was being said by the Republicans.  And they said as though there was nothing but doom on the horizon.  I thought they were exaggerating.  But I don't feel that way anymore.  It is the most important election in my lifetime; I fear that we will lose our freedom to speak out if Obama loses.  The cyber bullies will win.

I think I need to sign off now so I can donate to Obama's campaign.

Mounting anger with the Republican Party

Here are two very interesting events. Event probably isn't the right word but I'm at a loss for something more appropriate.

Here is the first.

And the second:

I'm seeing a pattern of frustration in dealing with the Republican Party. They have become so dishonest and extreme and when you talk to them, they don't want to address any specific points. If you'll notice in the second video, the chairman continues to answer questions with questions. He won't address the issue. THERE IS NO DIALOG.

I'm seeing this with my extreme right peers.

This election is really important. The Republicans are out of control and I fear the consequences if they get re-elected in office. I've never been so concerned as this.

In both instances, the men are venting their frustration with the party. They are not allowing themselves to be interrupted because their point needs to be made.

Chris Matthews has a really strong B.S. meter.

Wilkes, Akin and the Republican Party

I think that a lot of people don't understand the significance of the Akin slip. When Akin discussed the issue of legitimate rape, he was serious. He really did, and possibly still does, believe that to be true. Afterall, a real doctor said so.

But what does this doctor have to do with the rest of the Republican Party?

The Pro-Life movement wants all abortions banned; even in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape and incest. The only political party that is going to make that happen is the Republican Party. The problem is that a lot of the men in that party are having problems with the idea of a woman being forced to carry her rapists baby.

So, forward steps Dr. Wilkes, whose role it is to help get these folks over the idea that a woman would have to be forced to carry her rapist's baby.

Recently, I used the word uterus on my facebook page during an argument with a right wing male friend during an argument about Akin. At the very mention of this organ, my friend decided to exit the argument - said the word uterus made him queasy. I believe this is very typical. The men in Washington who are being encouraged to legislate this law have no interest in understanding the biology and anatomy of the female body. If a doctor comes along and tells these men what they need to know, without using words like vagina and uterus, then that would be more comfortable.

Akin believed Dr. Wilkes when he said that a woman's body shuts down during a rape and prevents pregnancy. And I'm certain when he got that particular lesson on female biology, that he was among many of his Right Wing colleagues. His colleagues accepted this argument because it helped them to find it conscionable to ban abortion, even in the case of rape. If indeed a rape victim got pregnant, then the rape was not legitimate and the lawmaker doesn't have to feel guilty for his position on the subject.

Romney is not that far removed from Wilkes. As discussed in this article. He's trying to distance himself from Akin's remarks. And truth-be-told, Romney probably doesn't believe Wilkes' rhetoric. The problem, however, is that Romney probably wasn't vocal enough against it because he wants the Party's support.

The disturbing issue here is that Akin inadvertently pulled back the curtain and let us look inside. And what we saw was that men wanted to make decisions about the rights of women based on bogus information. It left us with the question regarding other bogus information they received on other issues. It revealed a complete lack of interest in gathering accurate information. The Republican Party has become a group of really ignorant people who have made it a point to remove themselves as far as they possibly can from the people they govern. They set rules without regard to impact.

Obama really needs to win this election. If he loses, I believe women are at risk of becoming less than 2nd class citizens. The Pro Life Movement wants to reduce the significance of a woman to less than that of a zygot and the Republican Party is about to deliver it to them.

Paul Ryan for President....er, I mean, Vice President

Interesting choice this Paul Ryan for VP.

You know, I can almost hear Romney say "How do you like me now!?, Huh?....Huh?" He can't win this standing on his own two feet, so he picked someone younger, more vibrant, and with stronger ideas than his own.

In other words, he's defining himself through his Vice President.

So, Ryan's first stop is to campaign in Iowa while Obama is there. He's putting his VP up against Obama instead of facing him off on his own. Does this mean that Romney will face off against Biden?

So this leads to the next question.

Who, exactly, is the GOP presenting as it's choice for President? Romney or Ryan?

Romney's introduction of Ryan as the Next President of the United States sort of has a Freudian slip feel to it. Even when he talks up Ryan on 60 Minutes, he touts Ryan as a leader and a man who gets things done. In other words, it almost sounded like he was saying he had his own "Obama" on his team now.

Barack Obama doesn't need a strong V.P. pick to win this election; he's got what it takes to do it on his own. I think that's what it comes down to between these two men. Ryan claims that Obama isn't a leader but he's wrong. Romney is the one lacking leadership skills, that's why he's picking Ryan. People are going to listen to Romney but they are going to wait to hear what Ryan has to say.

Ryan's not the kind of man to compromise. He is very tough on his positions and I feel pretty certain that there is a gentleman's agreement between Romney and Ryan that in order for Ryan to agree to take this place on the ticket, Romney has to agree to Ryan's Plan for Prosperity.

Ryan has taken a huge risk; if they lose this election, this could be the end of his influence in Congress. People won't have as much confidence in his ideas.

I do have to say that I'm glad Romney chose him. In doing so, he really did clearly define the differences between the two options.

I'm a Small Business Owner and I support Barack Obama

I have to admit that I fell for the trick. The GOP did a great job distorting what Barack Obama said about businesses. So, now that I have it all in perspective, I don't believe that our President is setting the ground for communist policies. It's all good.

Thank you Jon Stewart - you put it all in perspective.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

"You Didn't Build That" - a blunder, methinks.

As anyone who reads my blog knows, I strongly support Barack Obama. But even I had to take pause when I read his statement that because business owners got help along the way, they didn't build their businesses.

I have my own business. And yes, I received an SBA loan. But I also paid that loan back and I paid for it with money I earned. I have sacrificed a lot to get myself where I am today. I forfeited vacations and a lot of play time. I also endured an audit that shut me down for 6 weeks. I can assure you, no one else earned my money for me.

I understand where he is coming from but there is still an underlying concern that is gnawing away at me. Karl Marx argued this, too. I believe it was his Labor Theory of Value. Something to the effect that the laborers did all the work not the business owner and therefore the laborers should be compensated with almost everything the product yielded minus the cost of the materials used to create it.

In this argument, it doesn't seem to matter that the owner invested his own money into the capital equipment that made it possible for the laborer to do his job. Everyone ignores the fact that the owner identified a need for the service or product and created a way to produce it and deliver it to the market. There are many things that a laborer cannot or is not willing to do to create such opportunities for himself.

There is a reason that not every real estate agent becomes a broker. It's true that if one is the broker, one can earn a greater percentage from each transaction. But it also leaves one with the responsibility of building a brand, purchasing office equipment, insurance, advertising, etc. I don't know if Karl Marx was ever able to place a value on risk. But if you want to know why more people don't just jump out there and start their own business, the answer lies within one's comfort level in taking risk.

My second major concern about this comment is that even though he may not have meant it to it's extreme, the man coming behind Obama might. If we leave this comment unchecked and unchallenged, someone with very real dreams of power would have the stage set. I can't help but think of Lenin; if I'm not mistaken, when he discovered his "New Deal" was not working, he was going to put property back into the hands of the private sector. Stalin had him killed before he could do it; and well, we know how that turned out. There is someone in Obama's shadow that could see lots of potential here.

Now this scenario is the extreme. We all have seen that communism doesn't work and I don't for one second believe that this is going to lead to communism; but his statement lays the groundwork for it. Our country, and capitalism specifically, is based on the idea that we create our own wealth.

On the flip side, this does not mean that I support Mitt Romney. I think Mitt Romney is a fake and will sell this country down the river. He has abandoned his ideals in exchange for a place in the White House. Once there, he's going to owe a lot of crooked people a lot of favors. He's not going to make this country better. He's going to go with status quo and continue policies that help people that don't need help.

I'm stuck and I need to know Obama knows better.

Joe Biden Hits the Nail on the Head

"“A job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about your self-respect. It’s about your place in your community. It’s about who you are.” —VP Biden on the road in Ohio.

He gets me....he really gets me.

I don't like who I become when the only goal in life becomes the money.

A Letter to Romney

Dear Romney:

Why should I vote for you to be President of the U.S.? I see that you are a financial success and that you found ways to make money by exploiting opportunities. Yes, you're very clever at making money.

I am not in a position to exploit any situation in order to make a living and I don't have money to put into a Swiss bank but am in a position to earn my living. I work very hard earning my money.

My problem is that I want to like the choices I've made at the end of the day; can you relate to that? Having money in the bank is important, yes. Being able to meet all my financial obligations is important, yes. But I need to like who I am at the end of the day.

Should I be finding more ways to exploit the system so that I can put more money in my bank account? When you decided that outsourcing was a good idea, did you care about how this would impact anyone? If these tough choices were necessary in order to keep making money for yourself, what tough choices should I expect you to be making if you're President? Who will you really be thinking about when you make those tough choices?

Do you believe it's ok to make a buck anyway you can....as long as it's legal? Is that the standard, now?

"Make a buck anyway you can as long as it's legal" I wonder how long I would be in business if that were my motto.

I have to believe that I can be an honest, forth-right person and still be able to make a living and even have something in the bank. It's detrimental to my happiness.

I just don't think you get that. Something tells me, it's all about the win and the money. Everything else can fall to the wayside.

Tell me, how are you a better choice than Barack Obama?

A Girl from Texas

Romney Supports Health Insurance for Everyone

"I think my plan is a good plan that should be adopted by other states...... I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what we do. But what I would say at the federal level is, "We'll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured." I want to get everybody insured. " Mitt Romney 2008 TRANSCRIPT: ABC News

"The former Massachusetts governor said the mandate was necessary to achieve universal coverage in the state.

In order to qualify for the tax exemption, Romney added "...you gotta have health insurance because we want everybody in the system. No more free riders."

During the interview Romney held up his health care law as a model that "could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans." CNN Romney's health care mandate included tax penalty.

Affordable Health Care - we need the facts

Ok, Ms. Stephanie Cutter, we need the hard facts on the Affordable Health Care Act so we can let people understand what it is the Republicans want to take away from us. Ever heard of the "take away close"? You have a great opportunity here to use the Republicans determination to take this act away from us to actually win on the Affordable Health Care Act.

*********************************************************************************

Here is great information from Stephanie Cutter.

Stephanie Cutter...telling it like it is.

Here's another video by Stephanie Cutter. She's talking about Mitt Romney's track record as it relates to outsourcing.

Romney, out of touch? Really?

I'm shocked! Truly, I am. Here's the story.

Please make more like this

I love this ad. It's easy for me to post it on my facebook without feeling "political". It doesn't flame anyone and it isn't cynical. I don't feel manipulated when I view it. So, to the powers that be.....Please, make more like this one! Thanks GFT

Borrow the Money from your Parents

Did he really say this?  Mitt Romney seems to think that students who want further education but can't afford to pay for it themselves actually have a choice to borrow the money from their parents.  First of all, most parents want more for their children than they have for themselves and would pay for their children's education if they could afford it.  Secondly, parents don't loan education money to their children, they give it to them.  It's their own investment as they hope their children will be in a position to help them in their "golden years".

C'mon, Mitt, I'm just waiting for it.....when are you gonna say it?  "Let them eat cake",  you're so close.