No GOP war on women?

Once again, members of the GOP stated that it was just a media myth that the GOP was waging a War on Women. Really? So the GOP hasn't tried to outlaw birth control bills in Colorado and Mississippi by trying to pass a "Birth at Conception" Law? Yes, they did. So GOP state governments and governors in almost half the states haven't required an internal ultrasound before allowing an abortion, even if it's not medically necessary, while another half a dozen states don't require some type of ultrasound before an abortion? Oh, yes they do. And who has to pay for these ultrasounds? No, not the states, but the women themselves, although the procedures aren't medically required. And wasn't it Missouri's own GOP Senator Blunt that tried to pass a law that would allow bosses to ask about the sexual necessity before deciding whether birth control pills would be allowed on a company's health plan. You don't consider this a "War a Women"? What do you call it, going back to the stone age?

The Romney speech starts the pivot, and 1 in 3 is only good in baseball

While Romney's Tuesday night speech was the best one he's given this year, the most important thing about the speech was how far he pivoted. With a theme to fairness, he railed against politicians giving favored treatment to friends. You mean like the GOP voting down repealing oil subsidies? He railed against parents not being able to decide which school their child goes to. So the GOP is for school vouchers? He railed against the massive debt being amassed. Now I agree with that one, but isn't the Bush Tax Cut and the war in Iraq the twin pillars that started the latest rounds of yearly deficits? You know, 1 for 3 isn't a very good batting average anywhere except baseball. And when the one hit is basically a foul ball that is miscalled, it isn't a very good average anywhere. But again, when 2 out of 3 aren't even GOP talking points, or backed by the party, how good a batting average do you really have?  

Can you hold a primary & have everyone win?

Newt Gingrich must be wondering what is wrong with him. And GOP, can you do anything right? We find out that the Iowa caucuses have finally finished their second naming process, and do you know who won? Was it Romney, who was named the winner that night? No, that would be too easy. So, it was Santorum, who was named the winner a couple of weeks later, right? No, it was Ron Paul, who has won at least half of the Iowa  delegates. I'm sorry Iowa Tea Party people, but when was the Iowa caucus? Was it really over 3 months ago? Yes, it was, and we're just now learning who really won the delegate count. Is this really any way to run an election process? Newt still wants to know why he his name wasn't called as the winner somewhere along the road. He did go to a zoo in your state, didn't he?

Why I liked Jon Huntsman

I watched Jon Huntsman on Morning Joe Monday morning, and I was reminded why I liked him so much. He didn't sugar-coat anything, and in many ways bashed both President Obama and the Tea Party. He said that the country wants a leader, and the President really wasn't leading. He also said that the Tea Party now was so far right, they refused to let him talk at a conservative conference because he said that there were things that the President did right, and that abortion is a law that as long as it is legal should be enforced, like any other law. He compared the Tea Party to communist China, where no one who disagrees with the power can speak. And he was right on all his facts, and all his opinions about what is going on in the country. He ripped the President, the Congress, and many other seats of power, including corporations. Why the Tea Party didn't nominate this guy, I only have 1 idea: He was an ambassador in the Obama administration, and working for the good of the country is completely against the Tea Party way.  

West is the bigger problem, not Nugent

While I'm completely taken aback by Ted Nugent's rants, he doesn't bother me nearly as much as Allen West (T), Representative from Florida. While Mr. Nugent's rants are vile and disgusting, he's not anyone in any position of authority, and he isn't trying to state a fact, just give his misguided, ignorant, bigoted opinion to like-minded idiots. But Mr. West, as a sitting member of Congress, is in a position of authority and is spouting a lie. He spoke to a group and said that 78 to 81 members of Congress aren't really Democrats but Communists. Oh really? This is just an out and out lie, but that doesn't bother Mr. West. Why do I think that this statement isn't true? How many votes are there to nationalize entire industries like automobiles and natural resources? How many companies like GM, Ford, or Shell have been turned into national companies with the government running them? That's right, none. And there's not even any talk of this. Want to see a country where there are Communists? Try Argentina, which just nationalized oil production there. This is what Communists believe in, but have any members of Congress brought a bill suggesting that? No, and Mr. West knows that. So why isn't his lie getting more publicity? Well, it's not unusual for an idiot to get more notoriety than a liar, is it? But the liar is always the bigger problem, since there's always someone who'll believe the lie.Or in this case, the millions who'll believe the lie, especially when people don't point out the lie because it's the idiot that's getting all the publicity.    

NRA Convention

This year's NRA Convention is held this weekend in St. Louis, and ... what? In St.Louis? NRA, you have your convention in a city that has had one of the highest murder rates in the country? So you want to make sure guns are easier to get there so murders are more prevalent in St. Louis? What, was Dodge City all booked up this weekend? But, St. Louis, really? Are you as a city so in need of conventions that you'll allow a group that has helped make you a national leader in death? Yes, I know as someone who was born in Kansas City I have a natural dislike for St. Louis, but if the convention was held in Kansas City, I'd say something about it. But there's something about the marriage of the NRA Convention and St. Louis that's just too bizarre not to talk about. Now having Ann Romney talk at your convention, a woman who's not running for any office and probably doesn't even own a gun, that's something that's completely another story.

Difference between the GOP and Democrats

No matter what you feel about the 2 parties, it was interesting to hear the backlash against Hillary Rosen and her tirade against Ann Romney. Most of the Democrats on TV, radio, and social networks such as Twitter quickly denounced Ms. Rosen (and those that have backed her have lost some of my respect, and I'll take what they say with a grain of salt for a while. Sorry Joan Walsh.). This includes both the President and the Vice-President, who said that Ms. Rosen's tirade was was outrageous, ill-advised, and incorrect. So where were the leaders of the GOP when Rush lied and attempted to defame Sandra Fluke? Did any of the candidates for President step in and try to rein him in? No, and yes, part of the reason is that Hillary Rosen is not as important in Democratic circles as Rush is in GOP circles. But mostly, in my opinion, it gets down to the fact that those that lead the GOP have no spine for correcting anyone that backs them, while Democratic Party leaders will speak up against those that are wrong in their own party. And that's a very big difference between the 2 parties.  

Santorum drops out, and the tightrope walking begins

Rick Santorum bowed out of the GOP Presidential Campaign, and the question for some will be how fast can Romney can pivot away from the far-right agenda of the GOP. When he does, this will be to secure votes from Independents that he'll need to become President. But for me, the question is, how far will he pivot to the center is the real question. If he goes very far away from the GOP platform, will the base of the GOP vote for him? If he doesn't, will independents vote for him? This will be a very high tightrope act that Mitt will have to navigate, and Democrats should help him in no way to stay on the rope. The President should hammer at the GOP agenda, and force Romney to either back it or step away from it. Either way, Mitt loses voters, either to the President or to apathy. Is there a way to for Mitt walk the tightrope and not lose voters? If there is, then Mitt is no circus performer, and will probably the 45th President of the United States. But either way, it will be a great act to watch, and a very important one for the country.

GOP Re-writing history?

Since I have said from the start that I thought Romney would win the GOP presidential nomination, nothing Tuesday surprised me. But I am surprised that Santorum is trying to re-write history. And maybe it isn't just him, but the entire GOP as it's constituted now. The history that they are trying to re-write is the 1976 election. According to their version of history, President Ford lost the election because he was a moderate. Really? So the fact that Ford was never elected to a national office had nothing to do with it? Remember, the GOP ticket in 72 was Nixon and Agnew. Think that pardoning Nixon, while probably the best thing for the country, had nothing to do with it? Think that the fight for the nomination with Reagan had nothing to do with it? It was all because Ford was a moderate? That wouldn't be re-writing history, that would be a complete distortion of history, and a bold-face lie. But that won't stop the GOP from believing it, will it? The truth has never stopped the GOP this year from believing something, has it?