Eye Recommend ----- I Know Why the Caged Bird Shrieks

I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SHRIEKS, by Charles M. Blow -- "One doesn’t have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient. In fact, a man convinced of his virtue even in the midst of his vice is the worst kind of man."
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/blow-i-know-why-the-caged-bird-shrieks/

September 10 - Monday Quote(s)

Some of my favorite quotes from the DNC...

monday quote(s):
Ted Strickland -- “Barack Obama is betting on the American worker. Mitt Romney is betting on a Bermuda shell corporation. Barack Obama saved the American auto industry. Mitt Romney saved on his taxes.”

Bill Clinton -- “We believe ‘we are all in this together’ is a better philosophy than ‘ you are on your own’…Democracy doesn’t have to be a blood sport. It can be an honorable enterprise.”

Michelle Obama -- “(Barack Obama) believes that when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you. You reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.”
　
And these three by Barack Obama -- “You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can't visit the Olympics without insulting your closest ally.”

“Have a surplus? Try a tax cut. Deficit too high? Try another. Feeling a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, reel back some regulations and call us in the morning.”

“If you turn away now--if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn’t possible…well, change will not happen. If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote: Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should make for themselves. Only you can make sure that doesn’t happen...if you believe in a country where everyone gets a far shot and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules, then I need you to vote this November.”

Eye Recommend --- The GOP Fact Vacuum

THE GOP FACT VACUUM, by Charles M. Blow -- "Sally Kohn, a contributor to Fox News, said:

'Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech'."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/opinion/blow-the-gop-fact-vacuum.html

Mitt Romney, Warm and Fuzzy?

1.   Let’s face it, Mitt Romney has a personality problem--he really doesn’t have one. His wife, Ann, has been brought in to “warm up” his image.

what eye thynk: In an interview a few days before the Republican National Convention, she spoke with correspondent Chris Wallace and described how Mitt had ironed his own shirt just that morning. “I noticed he was doing laundry last night”. (My husband occasionally does laundry too, but I don’t necessarily feel that announcing that to the general public earns warm and fuzzy points.)

During her speech at the RNC on Tuesday night, she spoke to female voters telling them that “You can trust Mitt”. (Trust him to do what? To make sure I pay more in taxes so he can pay less? To take away my right to make my own health choices?) “No one will care more.“ (About who--the rich? ‘Cause he doesn’t even appear to be aware that I exist let alone “care” about me.) And notice, that, while these statements were enthusiastically cheered by the Republican faithful, Ann Romney offered no details on why I should trust him or how he was going to show he cares. Platitudes without facts do not make me feel warm and fuzzy.

She went on to say his wealth is his own doing, “no hand me down”. In an interview earlier this year, Mr. Romney said “I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad.” Well, either you did or you didn’t. You would think, as husband and wife, they might have gotten their facts straight on this. (Once again, the warm and fuzzy thing eludes me here.)

Earlier in the campaign, when asked about Mitt’s refusal to release more of their tax returns, and in an effort to bring this whole trust-Mitt-he-is-the-best thing into the public discussion she said “You should really look at where Mitt has led his life and where he’s been financing”. Well, yes, Ann, we’d love to do that. We’d love to know, is he investing in America or just fleecing it? But, see, your husband won’t let us. Secrecy for no apparent reason doesn’t get my warm and fuzzy going and it doesn't make me trust the man; it just makes me wonder what he is hiding.
　
　
2. Mitt himself has tried to explain his apparent inability to connect with voters on a personal level.

what eye thynk: Earlier this week, when asked about this issue, he answered “Remember that Popeye line, ‘I am what I am and that’s all what I am’”.   Apparently not even Mitt can explain the void where his personality should be.

According to a story in the New York Times this morning, in 2008 Mr. Romney told friends that, looking back on his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination, he felt he had come off as a caricature he did not recognize: emotionally uncaring, intellectually inauthentic and ideologically malleable.

Well, with all the issue hopping he has done since then, at least he can say that nothing has changed there.
　

Eye Recommend --- How the Republicans Built It

HOW THE REPUBLICANS BUILT IT, New York Times editorial -- "Voters looking for a few nuggets of truth would not have found them in Tampa on Tuesday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/opinion/how-the-republicans-built-it.html?_r=1

Mitt Romney, Jobs Creator?

1. Mr. Romney keeps waving his Bain credentials to show how he can run a business, (or a country), and create jobs.

what eye thynk: Bain is a private equity company, designed to make money for its investors. Even Rush Limbaugh agrees that these kinds of companies are not job creators. “That is not what they do." Jobs may be a bi-product, but it is never the stated goal and job cuts are very often the consequence of having your business taken over by a private equity firm.

Instead of looking at his record as a businessman at Bain, we should be looking instead at his record as the governor of Massachusetts. While Mr. Romney was governor, Massachusetts ranked 47 out of 50 states in job growth.  Why should we expect anything different to happen with him in the White House?


2. Mr. Romney insists that President Obama is entirely to blame for our jobless rate.

what eye thynk:  Our current unemployment rate is too high, we can all agree on that; but it is improving--slowly, but improving. In 2010, we added 940,000 new jobs. In 2011, we added 1.6M new jobs. The private sector added more jobs in June 2012 than at any time since the beginning of the recession. The public sector is not doing as well, but with a Congress that refuses to fund government programs, there can be no government hiring. Still, our current unemployment rate is lower today than at any point since March 2009 when businesses were still shedding employees like fleas because of the October 2008 financial meltdown. So, yes, the recovery is slow; but it is still a recovery.

Mitt Romney once said that blaming the president for the jobs market was “poppycock”. In 2004, when John Kerry was attacking Bush’s jobs record, Mr. Romney defended W by saying: “The people of America recognize that the slowdown in jobs that occurred during the early years of the Bush administration were the result of a perfect storm. And an effort by one candidate to somehow say, ‘Oh, this recession and the slowdown in jobs was the result of somehow this president magically being elected’, people in America just dismiss that as being poppycock…Every indication is that the economic policies adopted and pursued by this president are creating jobs…And so the people of America have to ask, ‘Do I stay with the president who is rebuilding the economy, who is creating jobs, or do you want to stop mid-stream and find someone new?”

For once, I agree with Mitt. Blaming the President for the jobs market is “poppycock” and I see no need to “stop mid-stream and find someone new”, especially someone who couldn’t do any better than 47 out of 50 when he was last in charge.

Mitt Romney, Decision Maker?

1. Domestic Policy - Can’t Make a Decision Without a Committee -- In a meeting with Rupert Murdoch during a previous campaign, Romney said he would bring in McKinsey, (a management consulting firm), to help him set up his cabinet.

what eye thynk:   Mr. Murdoch was not impressed with the McKinsey idea; but Mitt Romney’s statement says much about his approach to government. Mr. Romney says he can run this country because he knows how to run a business and he will bring in more business types to help him with his job. But the United States is not a corporation and cannot be run like one.  Don't forget, the last CEO who became President was Herbert Hoover and we know how that turned out.

Think about the make-up of the board of directors on any corporation. For the most part, they are rich white guys who may or may not know anything about the business on whose board they serve and who most certainly are not experienced in government leadership roles. Do we really want some corporate board member making decisions on our military? Or choices about our education policies? What about transportation? Energy? Labor? Do we want an actuary serving as Secretary of Health and Human Services? And where in corporate American will we find a Secretary of State?  Sheldon Adelsen maybe?

This is not the type of domestic leadership plan I want from my President.  I am not an employee. I am a citizen and I want my President to remember that.

　
2. Foreign Policy - Can’t Make a Decision Without a Buddy -- Romney said of his friend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We can almost speak in shorthand”. He also said he wouldn’t make any decisions about Israel without consulting his buddy. “I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’”

what eye thynk: So who is going to write our Middle East foreign policy, us or Israel? Will Romney make us sub-contractors to Israel‘s desires?

While Israel certainly has the right to exist, there will never be peace in that region until Israel acknowledges that their existence does not annul the rights of all other peoples to a homeland of their own.

If we are going to maintain any credence as a world leader, the President of the United States needs to be seen as a fair and open listener to every country; one who can look on a question from the view of an outsider without prejudice.
We cannot be seen as an Israeli rubber stamp.  Leadership decisions cannot be outsourced.
　

Flip-flop Friday -- Romney on Coal (Clean Air is Good Only for Massachusetts?)

“That place kills people. I will not create jobs that kill people…If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health.” -- 2003, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts as he fought to close a coal powered electric plant in that state.

“We have 250 years left of coal. Why in the world wouldn’t we use it? We’re going to take advantage of our energy resources to save your jobs and...use our inexpensive carbon-based resources..." -- 2012, Mitt Romney as he campaigned in Beallsville, Ohio this past week.

what eye thynk:  To address the jobs issue, according to industry statistics, jobs in the coal industry reached a 15 year high in 2011; but Mitt has never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good stump speech.

As for the environmental and health side of the coal argument, President Obama has introduced initiatives to develop cost-effective clean coal technology while the Recovery Act is invested in carbon capture research.  I'm not sure that there will ever be a completely "clean" way to use coal; but at least this administration is addressing the problem while at the same time attempting to develop alternate technologies like wind, wave and solar power--new technologies that will create even more new jobs.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, wants to  leave things just the way they are.  Why waste all that coal?  Sure, we're continuing to damage our fragile environment, (an issue agreed upon by most of the industrialized world); but, hey, using coal is inexpensive!  And the thousands of lives lost each year that are attributed to air tainted by coal based pollutants?  Well, those lives are just the price he's willing to pay. 

 When clean air was the popular choice in Massachusetts in 2003, he was staunchly on the opposite side of this issue.  I guess we're supposed to believe that clean air is good only for Massachusetts, not the rest of America, (sort of like universal health care).

Of course, the real issue here is not coal vs. solar or natural gas or wind or whatever.  The real issue isn't the truth about jobs gained or lost as the coal industry changes.   It is simply the case of a man pandering for votes; a man who will jump the track on any issue as long as you let him know when and where.

Romney's Hypocritical Welfare Argument

In Des Moines on Wednesday, Romney continued his attack on President Obama and welfare saying that when the work requirement was first argued in Congress, then Senator Obama voted against it, (which is true). Mr. Romney went on, “Now he's President, and just a few days ago he put that original intent in place with a very careful executive action, he removed the requirement of work from welfare”.

what eye thynk: First, let’s get the facts straight…the work-for-welfare requirement has not been removed. Then, let’s call Romney's latest attack what it is…hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services granted all states some flexibility in the work-for-welfare requirement first put into effect in 1996 under President Clinton.  Following the President's signature, states will now be permitted to extend training periods as well as grant some exemptions. Each state must show that they have a plan better suited to their individual needs and must ask for and gain approval before making any changes. This is the exact type of flexibility that was sought by twenty-nine Republican governors in 2005 -- INCLUDING THEN GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY.

Last year, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, (Republican) asked for and was granted an easing of the work rule. Some families in that state can now be exempted from the work requirement for six months while officials work with them to stabilize their household.

More recently, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, (Republican) asked that refugee families be treated differently because of cultural barriers to employment.

The President, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, has given states exactly what they have been asking for for seven years, but Romney refuses to acknowledge that the impetus for the changes originated with Republicans like himself, choosing instead to vilify the President in the hope that his sanctimonious outpouring of outrage will drive a wedge between President Obama and blue collar voters.

The numbers of white and minority welfare recipients are currently fairly equal, but why allow facts to get in the way when ignoring them can be used to feed the latent racism of this country’s conservatives? And what better way to do that than to malign our first black President by portraying him as coddling his own?

Romney, the Businessman. Think About It.

Mitt Romney continues to campaign on his business record saying it is this record that proves he is ready and capable of running the country.

Last month in an interview on Radio Iowa when asked to defend his off shore accounts, he said, “I don’t manage them. I don’t even know where they are”. According to Mr. Romney, these accounts are managed by a trustee and Mr. Romney makes no hands-on decisions about them.

what eye thynk: Mr. Romney is running on his business record, but large parts of his business enterprises are actually being run by a trustee with no day to day input from Mr. Romney.

So, if we follow this to the Land of Ludicrous, maybe the trustee should be running instead of Mr. Romney?

And, yes, I realize this is silly and there are lots of holes to aim for, but there are just days when Swiss cheese silly is the best way to make a point.  A man who is so wealthy that he doesn't even know where all his money is located cannot possibly understand the economic realities of middle class America. 

If you want my serious take on whether I think Mr. Romney’s business record makes him the right choice for President of the United States, read my post from March 21 of this year: http://whateyethynk.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-unemployment-joke-who-cares.html
  
It reads, in part, “We need answers, and ‘I know how to run a business’ is not an answer. You can’t run a country like you run a corporation. When part of your citizenry asks for decent health care, you can’t fire them because you don’t like their attitude. When the budget doesn’t balance, you can’t sell off a couple of states to raise capital. Think about it”.

Please.  Think about it.

August 6 - Monday Quote

If only we could get Mitt and the rest of the 1% to be more in touch with their inner patriot...


monday quote: While some people might find it distasteful to pay taxes, I don't. I find it patriotic. (Mark Cuban, Am. Businessman 1958-   )

Devalued by Romney

Much has been written about Mitt Romney’s overseas trip this past week. One of the most deconstructed exchanges has been his comparison of Israel and Palestine.

While in Israel, he spoke at length about the difference in Israeli and Palestinian economic situations, comparing the two countries' GDP, (gross domestic product) and pointing out that Israel's GDP is much higher than Palestine's. His interpretation of that was that Israel is populated by a higher class of people with a better developed “culture".  "…and as I come here and look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things."

What eye thynk: “…a few other things”? Really, that’s the best his speech writers could do?

The difference in these two countries’ economic picture has very little to do with “culture” and much to do with economic sanctions forced upon the people of Palestine by the government of Israel. No country can develop a prosperous economy if its citizens are isolated, forbidden trade and restricted from regular, gainful employment.

All of that is obvious to anyone, (except, apparently, Mitt),  and has been dissected by every media outlet over the past few days; but what struck me the most about Mr. Romney’s speech wasn’t the summary of his judgment, but the criteria that he used.

His determination of each country’s “accomplishments” was based solely on their monetary worth--not education, not customs, not religion, not art or music, not family unit, not morality--simply by how much money they have. Can anyone listen to his words and believe that he would judge the 99% in this country any differently?

The man has only one yardstick--money--and if you don’t have it, you are inferior. I may be holding onto the lower end of the middle class by my fingernails, but that doesn’t make me less worthy of notice as a person and citizen of this country.

The fact that the possibility exists that we could elect a man who would impugn my value based simply on the state of my bank account angers me.  And if you’re one of the 99%, it should anger you too.

Flip-flop Friday - Romney on Abortion

“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.” -- 2002, Mitt Romney at a debate during his campaign for governor of Massachusetts.   That same year, Mr. Romney signed a pledge for Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts declaring his support for "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade". 

“I am fighting for an overturning of Roe v. Wade.” -- 2008, during an interview with Tim Russert.

“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision…” -- 2012, statement issued by Mr. Romney during his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

what eye thynk: Yesterday he was “devoted and dedicated to honoring”.  Today he says "we recommit ourselves to reversing”.  Tomorrow?

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary says it better than I can...

• chameleon - a person given to often expedient or facile change in ideas or character
• expedient - suitable for achieving a particular end, especially governed by self-interest
• facile - easily accomplished, shallow, often lacking in sincerity or depth 

Meet Mr. Romney, the most expediently facile chameleon ever to take the American political stage.

I believe every woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. Personally, I don't know what I would choose to do if faced with an unwanted pregnancy; but that doesn't mean I would condemn you if you chose differently.  Roe v. Wade doesn’t force any woman to have an abortion; it simply gives every woman the right to make her own life choices. And they should be YOUR life choices--not mine, not your neighbor's, not Mr. Romney’s.

No matter where you stand on Roe v. Wade, you will want to elect someone who stands with you and who will still be standing with you next year.  If you choose to stand with Romney, make sure you are wearing comfortable walking shoes and watch him closely--he could change color at any time.

Willard Mitt Ramirez-Romney for President?

Earlier this year, Mr. Romney was quoted as saying that it would be “disingenuous” of him to claim Mexican heritage.

Now, as he finds himself on the losing end of the projected Hispanic vote count, he is making an all out attempt to connect with Latino voters by playing the Mexican emigration card. Recently, in an apparent attempt to show he is "one of them" he told a group of national Hispanic leaders in Florida that his father emigrated from Mexico.

what eye thynk: How incredibly patronizing.

He didn’t bother to mention that the reason his father had to "emigrate" was that his grandfather had fled to Mexico from the U.S. to avoid America’s anti-polygamy laws.

And it only gets worse. The Romney campaign is now running a Spanish language ad that features one of the Romney sons saying, “My grandfather was born in Mexico. I’m proud of my heritage.”

What heritage?! They were living in Mexico as American citizens in a Mormon church colony. They weren’t there to become Mexican citizens or even to soak up the local culture. They only wanted to continue the early Mormon practice of polygamy and if they could convert a few Mexicans along the way, that would be fine too. They didn’t even speak Spanish for Pete’s sake!

George Romney didn’t emigrate to the United States. He packed his suitcase and moved back home.

The whole thing reeks of  smarmy.  Just another example of Mitt being willing to say and do anything to get what he wants.

Mitt's Tax Return Tap Dance

Mitt Romney has released one complete tax return, (2010), and one estimated return, (2011).  He is adamant about not releasing additional tax returns. When his father ran for president in 1968, he released twelve years of his tax returns. At that time, George Romney explained “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.”

what eye thynk: “…perhaps done for show.“ How prophetic. Can there be any question that, prior to this run for president, George’s son kept a substantial portion of his money in tax protected foreign accounts? Can there be any question that, in 2010, when Mitt decided on another try for the White House, some of that money was moved to U.S. accounts in order to make his tax return “show” ready?

His campaign keeps saying that prior to 2010 Mitt paid all the taxes that were legally required. What he and his campaign fail to grasp, but what is painfully obvious to the average American, is that there is a vast difference between legally required and morally just.  The average American doesn’t get to choose how much of his income will be taxed.

When Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, attempted to explain that shielding money from the I.R.S. was praise worthy, (“It’s really American to avoid paying taxes legally”), his explanation only served to highlight the “other-liness” of Mitt Romney and his ilk.

It is possible that we’re wrong in chasing this issue. It is possible that Mr. Romney's older tax returns would show a higher tax rate, fewer off shore accounts and millions of dollars invested in American companies; but, if so, why keep them hidden? This is not an issue that is going to die, not while Mitt’s recalcitrance is keeping it fed and watered.

As for myself, I believe the 13.9% tax rate he paid in 2010 was probably a high watermark rate for him and Mitt is refusing to release more tax returns because they would expose a man who, while he wants to run the country, does not want to have to pay for its maintenance.

Norquist vs. the Citizens of the U.S.?

If Congress cannot get past their present income tax stalemate, the Bush tax cuts will expire on January 1, 2013 raising income taxes for everyone. The Democrats would like to extend the cuts for middle and lower income Americans for one year while ending the cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, who signed the Norquist I-will-never-raise-taxes pledge want to make the tax cuts permanent. This week, Democrats offered a new solution to this conundrum. They offered to allow all the tax cuts to expire on January 1 and would then immediately vote to re-instate the tax cuts for those in the lower and middle income brackets.

Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch O’Connell said “This isn’t an economic agenda. It’s an ideological crusade”

what eye thynk: I would call the Democratic plan a convoluted last ditch effort, but an “ideological crusade”? No. 

Mr. O'Connell's comment is even more absurd when you remember that it is coming from the man who, in 2008, said that his party’s main objective would be to defeat President Obama. Not to improve the economy, not to seek an end to a baseless war, not to protect the health of American citizens nor safeguard the environment, not to do anything constructive -- simply to defeat President Obama.

Also consider that this is the party that boasts that over one thousand Republicans, (including Mitt Romney), have signed Grover Norquist’s I-will-never-raise-taxes pledge and have bull-headedly stuck with it even though economists on both sides of the aisle have said we need to generate more tax revenue if we are to have any hope of reducing our national debt.  Now, that is what I would call an "ideological crusade".

Recently some Republicans have voiced their regret at having signed up to be one of Norquist’s groupies. Taking a cue from ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, (“I don’t believe you outsource your principles and convictions…”), Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, has said he intends to attempt to convince his fellow Republicans that the time for compromise on tax issues is here. Unfortunately, many of the congressional Republicans whose names are on Norquist’s list fear reprisals from their own party members if they go back on their pledge.

What really angers me about this pledge business is that the same Republicans who are so intent on remaining loyal to Mr. Norquist seem to have forgotten that they also swore an oath of office when they became a member of Congress; and nowhere in that oath does it mention swearing allegiance to one man’s dogma. The United States is supposed to be a country governed by the people, for the people---not by the people, for Grover Norquist.

The Democratic plan, (which, frankly, makes me a little nervous; I mean who is to say that those middle and lower income tax cuts will be reinstated as promised?), gives the Republicans a way to avoid actually voting to raise taxes on the wealthy, allotting them some cover from those who would take to the media to renounce them as pledge breakers. It is sad that governing has come to this -- that in order to accomplish anything, we have to find a way around a self-engendered roadblock.

Mitch O’Connell, who seems to have appointed himself Grover Norquist’s lieutenant/enforcer, needs to look at his own party when he begins throwing around words like “ideological crusade”. Democrats have bent themselves into pretzel-like contortions to assist the Republicans in avoiding any Norquist blowback. Now it is up to the Republicans to decide where their allegiance should rest-- with Norquist or with the country they promised to serve.

Romney Proves Himself to be Essentially Clueless

In a speech to the NAACP this past week, Mr. Romney promised to “eliminate every nonessential, expensive program I can find; and that includes Obamacare”.

what eye thynk: Just one short question for you, Mitt.  When did health care become “nonessential”?

The last I heard, we are all human and even the healthiest among us will find himself in need of a doctor’s care at some point.

Do you think the family who is forced to choose between groceries or a doctor visit for their son thinks health care is “nonessential”? Do you think the lady next door who must choose between paying her electric bill or refilling her heart medication thinks health care is “nonessential”?  What about a young man just starting out who suddenly finds himself facing a life threatening illness and who, in absence of his ACA health plan, would be denied care simply because he could not pay for it? Nonessential?

If your family has a catastrophic illness, I guess you can just tap into that Swiss bank account and pay for their care in cash; but for the rest of us, health care is a basic necessity. Your statement is incredibly callous and insensate and shows just how unaware you are of the realities of everyday life for those of us not on your Hampton VIP list.

Health care should not be a privilege allotted exclusively to the wealthy. It would be nice to see the concern you and your fellow conservatives exhibit for the unborn extended to include those of us already possessed of corporality.

And, by the way, the proper name is the “Affordable Care Act”. Please try to remember that.

Flip-flop Friday - Romney on Gay Rights and Marriage Equality

“As we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” -- 1994, in a letter from Mitt Romney to the gay rights group Log Cabin Club, written during his run for the U.S. Senate.

“Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear.”-- 2003 as governor of Massachusetts after that state’s Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling that denial of marriage to same sex couples was not legal. Gov. Romney continued to fight their decision until 2007 when his one term as governor ended.

“I would, unlike this president, defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the (U.S.) constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.” -- 2012, Mitt Romney speaking to the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

what eye thynk: So, when Romney wanted to be a U.S. Senator from historically liberal Massachusetts, he was for equal rights for the LGTB community. By the time he became governor of Massachusetts, and no longer needed their support, he was against it.

Now, he would like to change our U.S. Constitution to reflect his current prejudices, turning every gay, lesbian, transgender and bi-sexual American into a second class citizen.  But, stick around, this is only July. Mitt has plenty of time to find another view to embrace on this issue.

If God has a sense of humor, we’ll find out that Sheldon Adelson is secretly gay and wants to marry one of the Koch brothers. Then we can all watch Mitt spin in circles as he tries to retain access to all that Adelson-Koch money while attempting to convince the far right that he is still one of them.

FLIP --“Look at my record. I’ve been best-buds with members of the Log Cabin Club since 1994!”
FLOP -- “But I privately pitied them and only became friendly so I could help them pray away the gay!”
FLIP -- “Look at my record again. I even asked Richard Grenell, an openly gay man, to be my campaign advisor on foreign affairs. No, wait, my conservative patrons didn’t like him and he was forced to quit before he really started. Sorry. Forget that one. My bad.”
FLOP --“You see, I cleansed my campaign of all that nasty gay influence when you asked me to! (And I want you to know that Sheldon is, in reality, a woman. He has just been pretending to be a man because of a secret Russian plot to kidnap him and turn him into a prostitute at one of his own Macau casinos. So, you see, that Adelson-Koch marriage is really okay. And, besides, they‘re both really rich, and the rich are the BEST!)”

If God were fair, He would guarantee that every family included at least one gay member so all straight people could see that being gay is just a different way of being human.  Unfortunately, God, and life, aren't fair.  It is up to us to ensure that equality is equal.  Stopping Mitt is one way to continue the fight.

If You Can't Get What You Want Fair and Square -- Cheat

Last week, North Carolina’s Governor Bev Perdue (D) vetoed a budget passed by her state’s Republican legislature that cut all funding for Planned Parenthood. The Republicans overrode her veto.

Last year the same pattern of pass/veto/override occurred, but a Federal judge stopped the defunding of Planned Parenthood by saying that a state may not target a particular health care provider simply because it advocates abortion rights since, though abortions cannot be paid for with federal money, they are legal under federal law.

This year, the Republican legislature is attempting to get around the judge’s ruling by not naming Planned Parenthood openly. Instead they use language prohibiting the state from contracting with “private providers” of family planning services. Since Planned Parenthood is the only organization in North Carolina that fits this criteria, the result is the same.

what eye thynk: Will these people never give up? This new budget language is nothing but a blatant attempt to scam the court into overlooking their prejudicial stand on a woman’s legal right to choose.

And North Carolina is not alone in this. Recently, Ohio abortion foes got language added to Governor John Kasich’s budget review bill stripping Planned Parenthood of 1.7M in federal money that was to be used for health care in that state. Since federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions, what do they think they are actually accomplishing?

As a side note, this is money that you and I pay as taxes that is supposed to come back to us in services--services to which these legislators are denying us access. If our state refuses the money, we don’t get a refund; it just becomes money we threw into the wind and for which we gain no benefit.

This Republican anti-abortion posturing may look good to their religious conservative fan base; but, in the end, they have achieved nothing in their war on abortion rights and, in fact, may be making it worse. By defunding Planned Parenthood, these conservatives are not only denying poor women in North Carolina, Ohio and other states basic health care, but also their access to contraception.

Less contraception can only result in more unwanted pregnancies. And more unwanted pregnancies can only result in more abortions--which Planned Parenthood will still be providing using the same private funds they were using before this legislative finagling started.　

July 9 - Monday Quote

All the Republicans who continue to insist that Ronald Reagan was the be-all and end-all of conservative politics, should remember that he also stood for fairness in our tax laws and that being wealthy shouldn't exempt you from paying your fair share.

monday quote:  We are going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it. (Ronald Reagan, President, 1911-2004)