Recent history doesn't favor the GOP.

There has been a lot of chatter on social networks that the GOP can't be racists since it was the Democrats who actually were members of the KKK. If you go back far enough, that's true. But recent history isn't as nice to the GOP as they would like it to be.

If you go back in history to the start of the KKK, back in the late 1860s, it's obvious that those in the hoods were, almost totally, Democrats. The Republican Party, led by Lincoln, was the party pushing for abolition. But even Lincoln had to wait for a victory to announce the Emancipation Proclamation due to questions about slavery in the GOP. So immediately after the Civil War, it was the northern Democrats that were carpetbaggers, and those in the south that still believed in states rights and slavery couldn't be in the Party of Lincoln, and they were Democrats. And over the next 100 years, however, a schism in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party emerged. For those Democrats from the north, soon after the turn of the century, they believed that government was need to stop the excess of big business, and leveling the playing field for everyone. Southern Democrats rallied behind their belief in religion and states rights. The GOP, their stronghold in the north, were for big businesses. Behind the northern Democrats, they were able to pass the New Deal, and after WWII, de-segregate the military. This act by President Truman caused the rift between northern and southern Democrats that became the push by the GOP for their Southern Strategy after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act was passed in the mid 1960s. By this time, the GOP had only big business in their corner. They hadn't won the White House with a true member of the GOP (Eisenhower in 1952 was asked to run by both the GOP and the Democratic Party) since before the Great Depression. How to gain the White House, the GOP asked themselves. Their answer has lead to the 2 political parties that we know today. They would try to push dis-satisfied southern Democrats, who disliked the way both the Democratic Party and the federal government was over-riding states rights, to vote for them. Big business already wanted the federal government out of their lives, so the GOP, which started as the party for federal government outlawing states rights over slavery, became the small or no federal government party, giving southern states their rights to nullify federal laws, and against laws regulating businesses.

So, if you go back far enough in history, it was the Democratic Party that was against equal rights for all Americans. But recent history doesn't favor the GOP, who for the last 40 years has pushed for states rights nullifying federal laws, since those states rights have their background in segregation and racism.              

GOP: We'll mis-remember JFK, thank you very much.

The GOP has decided now that since almost everyone has such a strong, warm feeling for John F. Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death, they'll remember him as a conservative. But GOP, you're not remembering JFK, you're mis-remembering him.

For some reason, the GOP has put out a narrative this week that our 35th President was, and would be today, a conservative. Just so I know, GOP, was it the fact that he called Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was in jail that lead you to believe he'd be conservative today? Or was it the fact that he forced the University of Alabama to de-segregate, and pushed the federal government over states' rights that showed he wasn't a liberal? Maybe you think that he'd go against Teddy and the entire Kennedy family, and everything he stood for, and everything the family still stand for. After all, he didn't have Bobby with him every step of the way, and appoint him Attorney General, did he?

The GOP is like the rest of the country and looking back at the life and death of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy. But just like the rest of their ideas, they can't even get this right. But at least they're consistent. They can't get anything correct about what America is right now, why should we expect anything different when they look at the past?      

Why do you hate the President, GOP?

A letter to our local paper, The Kansas City Star, yesterday, was written by a local woman who gave the reasons why she opposes President Obama. She then conclude that race had nothing to do with it, and that people shouldn't be calling other people names. So, I wondered why she felt this way about the President. These are what she stated were her objections, and my answers to her. There are also other things that I'm adding here, as I have no limit on words I can use, and the paper has a 200 word limit.

She stated that she hated Obamacare (The ACA) and the auto bailout. I wondered, does she not like government regulations and tax breaks for companies? Does she think the government has no responsibility for what happens to millions of Americans if the economy collapses? Does she think all government regulations should be struck down, and no tax breaks given to companies? If so, does she hate the GOP for all the tax breaks and loopholes the oil companies have? If not, why? Is it just these things she's against?

She also stated that she disagrees with trying terrorists in civilian courts. So, she disagreed with both Clinton and George W. Bush, who had terrorists tried in civilian courts, right? She added she hated the expanding federal government. But, in fact, there are now 1000 fewer civilians working for the government than there was in 2004, the smallest amount in the Bush administration. She also hates the burgeoning debt under Obama. Did she feel the same way with Bush, who turned surplus budgets into massive debts?

She wrote that she hated that President Obama apologized to our enemies. Now, does she mean she hates that we opened up a dialogue with Iran, or is she talking about the truthful speech he gave in Egypt stating past administrations' actions and apologizing for those that were illegal and stopped the will of the people from electing their own leaders? She really doesn't think either is good for our country?

Shen then went on to write her dislike for the President's failed economic plan and the increasing dependency of people on the federal government. But really, since the GOP took the House in 2010, what economic plan has gotten through? In fact, she hates the fact that the GOP has ceased having a plan to get people back to work. They can't pass a transportation bill to rebuild roads and bridges, they can't pass a farm bill, other than to give big companies subsidies. This is part of the reason so many need the help of the government. And does she really want programs like Meals on Wheels and Head Start slashed?  

She concluded with Solyndra and Jeremiah Wright. Again, she doesn't believe that government should help companies. That's her prerogative, but in giving some businesses tax breaks while denying them to others, wasn't government already trying to decide winners and losers? Why did this start to bother her under Obama? And with Jeremiah Wright, isn't she saying that the racial makeup and background of his Christian reverend does bother her?

The lady who wrote the letter stating that race had nothing to do with her dislike with the President finished it with saying she doesn't like his black reverend. And throughout her letter, she stated that she disliked the President for doing things other Presidents did, and for some things that actually aren't true. So, when you get down to it, why is it you hate President Obama, GOP? Are you sure there isn't a deeper reason, and yet one that is only skin deep?              

Nationally, Christie is walking a very thin line.

Chris Christie won the election for his 2nd term Tuesday, giving a speech that was nothing but a "I'm running for the Presidency in 2016" speech. It took everyone of the far right Tea Party hopefuls for 2016 1 day to attack him. But in truth, Christie is walking a very thin line if he has any national aspirations.

In truth, Christie has views that, for the most part, are right in line with the Tea Party. But in defending himself from the right, he'll have to worry about voters not only on the left, but Independents and moderates in the GOP. These are just some of his views, and what he'll lose when he states them to the Tea Party:
-- He doesn't believe in abortion. For every Tea Party voter who will accept that view, he'll probably lose 2 votes, 1 from the middle and one from the left.
-- Christie believes in slashing education funds, and hates teachers who oppose these cuts. No, not just their union, but teachers themselves. For every vote he gets from the Tea Party, he'll lose 2 on the left and 1 in the middle.
-- Christie only accepted same-sex marriage in New Jersey because the state supreme court said he had to. Since he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, he'll lose probably 10 votes for every vote he gains from the Tea Party. They simply won't care how he felt, only that they'll hate that he didn't go any farther.

To top this off, 75% of New Jersey residents who were affected by Superstorm Sandy disapprove of his handling of the relief efforts. When this gets out to the national audience, Christie will probably lose millions of potential voters without gaining 1 vote from the Tea Party. They won't care about the money, except to be mad he accepted it and shook the President's hand.

If Chris Christie is running for the Presidency in 2016, he'll have to run on a very thin line. Every step he takes to prove he's a true conservative will lose him many voters, with no guarantee of Tea Party acceptance. No matter how much weight he loses, and I don't put his weight against him, that's going to be an easy wire for him to fall off of in 2016.            

Day-after election general thoughts.

Tuesday night really didn't throw any surprises in a true off-off year election. But that's didn't mean there aren't a few trends, and I have a few thoughts.

--- To no one's surprise, Chris Christie won a second term as New Jersey's governor, and for the life of me, I really don't understand why. This is a governor in a very Democratic state that has cut education funds, although a judge did put some of the money back in the budget, vetoed his own gun control bill after talking to the NRA, and refused to allow same-sex marriages until the state Supreme Court forced him to. The Democrats in New Jersey, for the most part, have rolled over for him, and the Democratic nominee for the governorship was right to call out her party. If the Democrats in the US Congress acted like those in New Jersey, the Affordable Care Act would have been defunded last month. Shame on them. And Democratic voters who voted for Christie and passed a minimum wage hike that Christie vetoed, shame on you. So you like the Governor, but don't like his policies?
--- Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia governor's race, making it the the first time in over 30 years that the party that was in the White House won the governorship. But in a lot of ways, it was a very sobering victory for Democrats. Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP nominee, was thought to be as far right as a politician could be, except for the Lieutenant Governor nominee, and he came within 4 points of winning. To the Tea Party, this won't be thought of as a loss, but as a back-stabbing by the GOP establishment, who pulled their money out of the race in the last week. Exit polling confirms this, as 25% of the Cuccinelli voters said that if he lost, it was because he wasn't right-wing enough. They won't blame his far right-wing views, but the establishment GOP.
--- A moderate GOPer beat a Tea Party backed GOP nominee in the GOP run-off in Alabama's #01 US Congressional district. Much is being made that the establishment GOP beat the Tea Party. But that district is in Mobile, AL, one of the few big towns in Alabama, and the home of a naval base. Simply, I think that if a moderate GOPer can't win in that kind of district, then they're dead all over the south. And with only a 4 point win, they're pretty close to dead right now.
--- The Tea Party not only didn't learn any lessons from Tuesday night, they're getting meaner and nastier. The Tea Party Nominee in Alabama refused to back the winner in the general election, and Cuccinelli has refused, so far, to talk to McAuliffe congratulating him. They're (The Tea Party) not going anywhere for a long time, and they have no desire to get along, even with those in their own party.

Tuesday night, several elections played big roles in the make-up of the country. But in most ways, it looks like it's just like it was Monday night. Most people don't like the Tea Party, and the Tea Party doesn't care. Their goal is to nullify every federal law they can, and last night was just a step along the way for them. It's everyone's job to stop them.  
  

Governing's a bitch, isn't it, GOP?

The House of Representatives this week set the work schedule for 2014 at 113 days. Yes, Speaker Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership decided at 10 days a month at work is too much, so they set the bar at 9.5 days a month. But don't worry GOP, you probably won't work that many days. Why?

Well, the rest of the year, the House is scheduled to work 16 days. but the House leadership says that they probably won't be in sessions that many days because there's nothing for them to do. My answer to that: Nothing to do, you lazy jackasses? So to you, America doesn't need more jobs, or roads don't need to be fixed, or a farm bill doesn't need to get passed? That's not even saying anything about immigration, which is just sitting on your desk after the Senate passed it. I guess you don't care about any of those things, do you?

For the rest of the year, the House may not work the 16 days they're scheduled. Next year, they're only scheduled to work 113 days. Governing's a real pain in the ass to you, isn't it, GOP?    

Raise the minimum wage NOW!

There is a lot of talk about raising the minimum wage, and most of the talk is either how companies can't afford it and how it will start a round of inflation, or it needs to be raised to a living wage. When looking at a couple of facts, not conjecture, it's hard to see where either of the first two things would happen, and the last is definitely true.

Since job loss from the financial collapse of 2008/2009 bottomed out , 61% off all jobs gains have been minimum wage or just slightly higher. This means that it isn't just teenagers and first-time workers who are getting these jobs, but everyday Americans who were fired from middle-wage jobs that are taking these jobs. Now, I'm not suggesting that these jobs go for their current scales to $40,000 a year jobs, but that the salaries have to get to at least a living wage, maybe $10-11 an hour. Now, some might say that companies that have these jobs can't survive if salaries are raised that high. But in companies that pay these wages, retail and restaurant stores, wages are only 18% of expenses. So how would wage increases that made wages just 20 or 21% of expenses break a company? Most economists agree that companies could pass those costs to customers with little to no problems. One study says a McDonald's Meal Deal would go up by less than 70 cents, and most family-type restaurants would increase their meals less than a dollar. Retail costs to consumer, since most outlets do bigger business, would be increased no more than a Big Mac Meal. It's hard to see where inflation would run rampant, and several studies say the economy is so big, it would increase inflation by less than 1%.

When you look at facts and studies, it's easy to see that million of Americans need the minimum wage to increase, and it would have little effect on the economy. And there is even a few studies that show that when the minimum wage is raised, certain things like SNAP and money to the poor would actually be less needed, and it would help the deficit. So Congress, why aren't you looking at raising the minimum wage? It needs to be raised NOW!