Posts tagged 2012

I’ve decided I want to own a business just in case the GOP manages to pass their overbroad conscience bill. I have a moral objection to providing any kind of healthcare to a person who would strip it from others based on what a sky-god supposedly meant.

Yeah, I have that moral objection. But I would provide comprehensive health insurance anyhow. Why? Because it’s the right goddamn thing to do, even if I feel those folks should reap what they have sown for others.

If you have a moral objection to birth control, psychological treatment, etc. – don’t use that service. Don’t use contraception.

If you want to live by the Bible, hooray for you. Not all of us want that. Some of us don’t see an unintended pregnancy as a miracle. Some of us don’t think you can pray away depression.

No one is preventing you from attending church or practicing your faith. No one is stopping you from attempting to ram your version of Jesus Christ as a science-denying patriarch down my throat. All we ask is that you obey laws passed years ago.

If a church wanted to violate child labor laws, would politicians support an exception? After the start of the 2012 election cycle, I’m afraid to ask. We already allow churches to waive anti-discrimination laws and give them privileged tax status based upon their status as a church. If churches are going to lobby to control my body, the least they can do is acknowledge their organizational purpose is no longer shepherding a flock – it’s ringleading the political circus.

Until you render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, I argue churches pay taxes and follow the laws of any other political organization/business. There’s my moral objection – currently, they’re not. Assuming the GOP throws a successful tantrum on this issue, I will continue to make this moral objection.

I want to think the American people can see this conscience clause BS as a reactionary throwback, little more than circuses in a time of limited bread. But when the people elected to lead us are leading that circus parade of morality police instead, I fear my faith may be misplaced.

So in the future, come work for my law firm. I’ll provide comprehensive coverage for contraception and the like – even for those who change their minds and join the 98% of Catholics and 99% of Americans who admit to using contraception at least once. You won’t have to ask for it because it will already be there.

Why? Because it’s the ethical, moral thing to do.

 jsenum replied to your post: Rick Santorum wins Minnesota and Missouri

Clearly you have not been paying attention. Bachmann and her foundry brethren have gotten huge. You should the new article in the Rolling Stone about the Anoka/Hennepin schools promoting bullying of LGBTQ kids.

I have been paying attention, but it just stuns me that Santorum gained that much ground in a couple of weeks… just two weeks ago, he was behind Romney, and three weeks ago was behind Gingrich and Romney. Minnesota had their jump to the left multiple times, but I think we’re seeing more of the step to the right thing.

LET’S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!

Actually, no. Not if it means heading back to the 1950s alternate universe that never existed and yet is fondly remembered in every GOP primary and caucus…

And I read that article, but here it is for those who didn’t: “School of Hate: One Town’s War on Gay Teens”. It’s both hideous and hopeful.

And now they’ve all dropped out.

This means Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul must be Satan’s draft picks.

Shit.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

MSNBC and Fox News are both hammering home that out of all the candidates in the GOP primary in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich’s support was the highest among people who said the most important factor in their selection was a candidate who could defeat Barack Obama. Coincidentally, beating Obama was the most important factor in candidate choice to nearly 50% of voters. Fox News is also pointing out his strong performances in debates with his zingers at the media and fellow candidates and his stubborn refusal to go gently into that good night as factors in his rise in the polls, and his overall victory in South Carolina.

Um, guys?

You know that after January 20, 2013, the president-elect is now the president. That means said president has to actually do shit. Things will not be magically fixed just because you voted out Barack Obama. In fact, much of what Gingrich wants to do in office could make things worse. 

I imagine the thought process of many voters when considering Gingrich goes like this:

1. Doughy white guy says shit I like. He sounds smart. He says he’s going to beat Obama. He sounds confident, unlike that sputtering asshat with tax problems. Plus, he’ll end Obama’s war on my religion.
2. Fuck the lazy-ass poor people. Get jobs, douchebags. He’ll even put kids to work, too.
3. Open marriage? Shit, at least he could beat Obama.
4. Vote Newt Gingrich. 
5. *POOF* Teatopia, y’all!

This is remarkably similar to liberal pals of mine who are pissed Obama didn’t unbreak everything in four years and bring about the opposite of Teatopia. If you listened to Obama and examined his voting record, you’d see he’s fairly moderate. In fact, compared to past Republicans, i.e. Richard Nixon, he’s more to the right.

But in the 2012 Electoral Race to the Bottom, sponsored by Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the facts don’t matter and Barack Obama must be defeated. Even if it means nominating a man with absolutely no character or ability to lead. Why is it so tough to wrap my brain around voters supporting Newt Gingrich?

• Speaking of the Citizens United decision, Gingrich Productions has “produced three films on religion and one each on energy, Ronald Reagan and the threat of radical Islam.” These films are little more than GOP talking point advertisements. Gingrich’s funding partner? As The Wall Street Journal points out, these were “all done as joint projects with the conservative activist group, Citizens United. The latest project: A film on American exceptionalism, another likely campaign theme.” 


• He’s admitted to multiple affairs, while attacking others on “family values” and holding himself up as a moral paragon. His personal life is irrelevant until he begins throwing stones in his obviously glass house.


• He doesn’t use a racism dog-whistle so much as a racism air-raid siren. Gingrich defended his diatribe from the Jan. 16th GOP debate, which he launched into when Juan Williams asked him about the racial overtones of his comments regarding poor children lacking “work habits”, employing children as janitors in poor, urban neighborhoods, and the black community needing to demand food stamps versus paychecks. And how did he choose to defend this? 
  
  Newt Gingrich decided to attack Juan Williams, claiming on Friday, “I had a very interesting dialogue Monday night in Myrtle Beach with Juan Williams about the idea of work, which seemed to Juan Williams to be a strange, distant concept.” So in order to defend himself against charges of racism, he essentially states Williams is lazy. Williams was the African-American man who had the audacity to ask him a tough question, and that does not seem to sit well with Newt several days later.


• As a US House Representative, he kited twenty-two personal checks using the now-defunct House Bank, charges uncovered during the “Rubbergate” scandal - including a check for over $9,000 to the IRS. One of the whistleblowers on this scandal? Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn.


• He blasted colleagues for ties to lobbyists and corruption, yet Gingrich accepted a check from Employment Policies Institute lobbyist Richard B. Berman for $25,000. This particular check, supposedly given to Gingrich as a donation for a college course he was teaching, led former Rep. Ben Jones (D-Ga.) to demand an ethics investigation by the US House because the note attached to the contribution raised questions of possible criminal wrongdoing by suggesting Gingrich used his influence on behalf of the lobbyist at a 1993 congressional hearing.
   
  The note stated in a postscript: “Newt - Thanks again for the help on today’s committee hearing.” The subsequent investigation into this charge, shady book deals, and other fundraising activity lead to over 80 ethics charges against Gingrich and a plea deal with an unprecedented $300,000 fine. Gingrich resigned as well.

A side note from Esquire on the ethics investigation: [Emphasis mine]

The House Ethics Committee started investigating GOPAC’s donations to his college class and caught him trying to hide his tracks by raising money through a charity for inner-city kids called the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation. Another charity of his called Earning by Learning actually spent half its money supporting a former Gingrich staffer who was writing his biography… The Ethics Committee found him guilty of laundering donations through charities, submitting “inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable” testimony, and making “an effort to have the material appear to be nonpartisan on its face, yet serve as a partisan, political message for the purpose of building the Republican party.”

And yes, it’s those same inner-city kids he wants to make janitors. 

Gingrich is running what he claims to be a revolutionary campaign of ideas. Yet those ideas are little more than attacking fellow candidates, the media, and Barack Obama for issues ranging from corruption and immorality, to favoritism and anti-Americanism. Gingrich employs a set of cliches and fiery debate invective that gets voters in the booth on primary day as evidenced by South Carolina. Can he continue this into the general election?

As multiple news outlets discussed today, Gingrich’s unfavorability rating is the highest of any candidate among moderates and independents. This is a significant voting bloc the GOP will seek to court from Obama. Gingrich is not stupid. He is effective in debates. He calls other candidates “Washington elites” (when he spent significantly more time in Washington than any other candidate running) and the crowd goes wild.

Mitt Romney, the ostensible front-runner, is a terrible candidate in debates. He is easily rattled and incapable of answering a direct question. The GOP field is in disarray and looking for unity. The former Speaker of the House is an experienced politician - though divisive - and may be the one to watch going into Super Tuesday in the next several weeks. Perhaps a theory posited by Gingrich in 1988 explains his success: “In every election in American history, both parties have their cliches. The party that has the cliches that ring true wins.”

The 2012 primary season promises to be a dog and pony show until the bitter end - or until the money runs out. This election cycle reinforces the idea that American politics is little more than contemporary bread and circuses, only less bread and more circuses. Elections are ideally about issues and governance. This year, the only stated mission of the GOP is to rid the White House of Obama, and Gingrich is the candidate best at smearing Obama as somewhere between Benedict Arnold and Benito Mussolini.

Voters are responding well in the primary to this kind of messaging, but the GOP will hopefully discover it’s difficult to run on a platform of needing to do nothing besides regain control of the presidency. To run on a platform that consists of “beat the other guy and BAM! TEATOPIA!” is simply intellectually dishonest. But if it’s intellectually (and morally) dishonest they want, the GOP has their man in Gingrich. If it’s beat Obama they want, they may get it. However, January 21, 2013 and every day after is another day Obama will no longer be available as the executive target, and another day when the new president will be expected to lead. The GOP may be content to run a cliche-machine, powered by egomaniacal bile, but American voters deserve more than just some guy nominated to beat Obama.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

And then there were four…

Here’s my live coverage of tonight’s debate. Not as painful as last time, but I do miss Perry’s bumbling. Newt Gingrich lambasted moderator John King for asking about allegations he requested an open marriage from wife #2, Mitt Romney sputtered over taxes, Rick Santorum launched some serious volleys at Romney and Gingrich, and Ron Paul got testy when he felt ignored.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Don’t forget kids, there’s a debate tonight on CNN. The fun starts at 8 PM EST. I’ll be live-blogging on Twitter. Follow me: @meglanker

Also, don’t forget about GOP Bingo! Cards are here and pasted below. Since I don’t have time to update/replace Rick Perry spaces, take any space that mentions Perry as a free space. It’s redistribution of the free spaces so everyone has more. Because I am more of a socialist than Obama. </sarcasm>

I’m going to miss Perry’s head-scratching debate performances. Someone make an emotional montage, please.

Submit your bingo cards here, or email them to meglanker@gmail.com.

Cheers,

Meg

cognitivedissonance:

Here’s the link itself to the album. Hover your mouse in the right-hand corner of each image to download the card. As always, submit your card here or via email to meglanker@gmail.com. GIF prizes awarded for the most bingos on one card, first bingo, most bingos across all cards, and blackouts (Note: Can lead to alcohol-related blackouts). 

What better way to celebrate a day named for Martin Luther King, Jr. than to watch a bunch of old rich white men discuss how they’ll “save” America? Now with the only adult on stage *cough* Jon Huntsman *cough* out of the race, I’m sure it’ll be interesting. Will Newt finally vanquish Romney with his mind lasers? Will Perry strike out on an adventure by counting to our? Watch it and see!

These cards are also good for the CNN debate on Thursday night. I’m only going to change them if someone else drops out.

Live-stream for the Fox News debate is here. I’ll be live-blogging the debate @meglanker on Twitter. 

Spread the word and good luck! Remember, we all lose at GOP Bingo, so let’s lose together. 

Please stop assuming I will back Ron Paul because I’m progressive, support ending the drug war, and wish to abolish our current imperialist system of meddling in world affairs.

There are numerous reasons to not support Paul. I’m going straight to a sampling of the legislative record.

H.R.875 - Marriage Protection Act of 2011, co-sponsored by Paul and 12 other representatives, introduced March 2, 2011.

This bill sought to amend Title 28, Chapter 99 of the US Code to read:

“No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C.”

Here’s Section 1738C:

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

That’s the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], which is currently facing several constitutional challenges in federal court. Basically, Mr. Constitutionalist Ron Paul sponsored a bill to ban federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from having any kind of jurisdiction over constitutional review of DOMA. Eighth grade civics says differently. Remember that whole checks and balances thing?

H.R.358 - Protect Life Act, co-sponsored by Paul and 144 other representatives, introduced January 20th, 2011. Passed the US House October 13, 2011.

This bill sought to ban private health insurance companies from participating in federal exchanges if the company offered coverage to women for abortion or abortion-related services as part of an insurance policy, and also states if people receive federal healthcare subsidies to purchase private insurance plans, they cannot use the subsidy to purchase private comprehensive health insurance plans that cover abortion. If a woman wanted her insurance to cover abortion, she would have to purchase a separate policy to cover abortion - basically, an abortion rider. 

This bill would limit private enterprise from providing something consumers want. Seems contradictory to what a free-market denizen would advocate. But that’s not the worst part. This is:

And finally, it overrides protections for pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay, including women in active labor. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her—including an emergency abortion—or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her.

H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die.

Paul is an OB/GYN and knows emergencies can arise during pregnancy requiring termination, making his co-sponsorship of this bill especially shameful. Read Mikki Kendall’s Salon article, “Abortion Saved My Life”, for an example of what happens when doctors refuse to treat women.

H.R.1095 - Freedom to Bank Act, sponsored by Paul with no co-sponsors, introduced March 15, 2011

The bill’s stated purpose:

“Sunset Federal laws and regulations which treat the American people like children by denying them the opportunity to make their own decision regarding control of their bank accounts and what type of information they wish to receive from their banks.”

So what’s that mean? Well, Paul thinks “no creditor, depository institution, or credit union shall be required to provide periodic statements of account to any customer.” Your bank would no longer be required to provide account statements or other information about investments or accounts unless you specifically know to ask for it.

Do I even need to go into how bad this idea truly is?

H.R.2040 - National Right-to-Work Act, co-sponsored by Paul and 71 other representatives, introduced May 26, 2011

Right to work is one of those warm and fuzzy newspeak names for something quite terrible. Here’s information on right to work states:

• The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).
• Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).
• 21 percent more people lack health insurance in right to work states compared to free-bargaining states.
• Maximum weekly worker compensation benefits are $30 higher in free states ($609 versus $579) in right to work states.
• According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.

Oh, and my own state of Wyoming is a right to work state. Currently, Wyoming has the highest wage gap of any state, and is one of the deadliest places to work in the nation. Ron Paul thinks it would be super cool if we enacted a policy that contributed to these conditions nationwide. Because freedom.

H.R.1830 - To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption, sponsored by Ron Paul and three co-sponsors, introduced May 11, 2011

Wasn’t the milk pasteurization question settled awhile ago? Anyhow, Paul believes “a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (such as administrative, civil, criminal, or other actions) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption.” In other words, selling unpasteurized milk is a-OK because Salmonella, Listeria, Q-fever, and E.coli are just the risks you take in a free society.

H.R.1164 - National Language Act of 2011, co-sponsored by Paul and 22 other representatives, introduced March 17, 2011

This bill would declare the official language of the US to be English. It would require all government business be transacted in English, and further state that “no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English.” Income tax forms would no longer be available in Spanish or any other language, nor information on government programs or benefits. This would even include information on joining the military and could potentially include the right to an interpreter when arrested or conducting business in the courts, i.e. divorce.

Further, this would affect voting rights by repealing Section 1973AA–1A of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

The Congress finds that, through the use of various practices and procedures, citizens of language minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation.

The Congress declares that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting these practices, and by prescribing other remedial devices.
…
A covered State or political subdivision for the purposes of this subsection if the Director of the Census determines:

• That more than 5 percent of the citizens of voting age of such State or political subdivision are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient
• More than 10,000 of the citizens of voting age of such political subdivision are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient
• Or in the case of a political subdivision that contains all or any part of an Indian reservation, more than 5 percent of the American Indian or Alaska Native citizens of voting age within the Indian reservation are members of a single language minority and are limited-English proficient
• And the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority as a group is higher than the national illiteracy rate.

This bill will prevent people from voting. Period. And don’t give me any whining about voters who are not proficient in English don’t know anything about the candidates, issues, etc… First off, do you think native English speakers are well-informed? Second, even his supporters recognize the need for campaign materials in a language other than English. Check out Vota Ron Paul and this thread on the Ron Paul Forums. A few quotes:

• From California: Los Angeles County has (before redistricting) 18 Congressional Districts. Spanish is heavily spoken (and advertised). It would be helpful to us here in the third world, if the campaign would create a slim jim in Spanish. It would be great if the campaign could provide an official translation. Without Spanish materials, we are limited in who we can recruit. 
• From Wyoming: I am also interested in spanish campaign materials…there is a large population here…let no stone go unturned…
• From Pennsylvania: This would be about as well recieved in the GOP primary as putting out official campaign materials to promote an end to the war on drugs. It’s probably something best handled at the grassroots level.

So there you have it, Ron Paul fans. Ron Paul is more concerned about my right to drink unpasteurized milk than whether I would potentially die after being denied life-saving care based on a doctor’s religious conviction. He’s more concerned that my bank not be forced to provide me a bank statement than if the Defense of Marriage Act violates the constitution he claims to live and breathe. This is just from 2011 - and what I could turn up in 60 minutes. Don’t prod me to make a weekend of it.

Sincerely,

Meg

P.S.: Check out the Family Protection Act from 1980, sponsored by Ron Paul with no co-sponsors. I did. And I was disgusted. The act provides no federal penalty or implementation of guidelines “for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.”

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Why?

3 reasons: Because at least one of his supporters have no clue what out of context means, it was requested, and because I can.

Mittens out of context!

Click the link to see from whence the snipped, edited, or otherwise out-of-context quote came.

• “I don’t know how to fix the Republican Party.” 

If Romney can’t, someone else definitely can, AMIRITE??!!

• “It is not wrong to ask for government help.”

Mitt Romney wants to institute a welfare state.

• “I’m going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign.”

We know.

• “Well, I want to make sure we have a safety net to get people higher.”

Mitt Romney, supporter of legalizing drugs?

• “If I’m President of the United States, we’re gonna get rid of our constitution, and the people in the states.”

Mitt Romney, running on a dictatorial, Soylent Green platform.

• “I ultimately laid off individuals and put free enterprise on trial. And guess what? That happens.”

I wish someone would, but who knew Romney was so anti-capitalist?

• “I’ve been looking at some video clips on YouTube of the Kardashian wedding and the promise of until death do we part.”

Awww… I bet he’s heartbroken.

• “I like Ron Paul.”

Then why don’t you drop out and make way?

• “I like people who service me.”

Everyone needs a good happy ending every now and again, right?

• “We have millions of people who’ve been suffering, 25 million people that are out of work or have stopped looking for work. It’s very good news. I hope we continue to see good news.”

Now, I know Bain Capital would be stoked, but that’s just mean.

• “I believe in an America that’s based upon a social welfare state.”

That’s so brave of Romney to admit as a Republican.

• “We have to have taxes that are too high.”

Now that’s not going to be popular with your base at all!

• “I believe in getting down. I think that builds our economy.”

Sex: Stimulating to people and the economy.

• “I’m Wall Street.”

We know.

• “I will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity.”

Won’t someone think of the children?!

• “I think humans contribute little.”

Dear God! Romneybot 3000 shall replace us all with Romneybot 3000 v. 2.0.

Now that’s how you take words out of context, kids.