Hey, GOP, where should taxes be set at?

After watching Grover Norquist again say that no taxes should go up, I wanted to ask him a question. But since I can't ask him, I'll ask the GOP: Where should taxes be?

I understand that no one wants to see their taxes rise, but what is the floor for taxes? Right now, although historic norms for federal taxes raised are 19% of the GDP, we are running at just under 16%, and have been since the Bush tax cuts took effect. Since you say that taxes should never be raised, is this the bottom for you, or should they be lower? Either way, what programs do you believe should be cut? Should education be slashed? Should older people not have health care, therefore dying at an early age, or going to Emergency Rooms, increasing the overall health cost? Should poor people with children not get help with feeding their children, making it harder for those children to get ahead through education, ensuring a never-ending impoverished class of people? Should we stop research and development? Stop public broadcasting on TV and the radio? Cut all this out and you still run over a trillion dollar a year deficit. That's right, the math doesn't add up.

So, GOP, where should taxes be set at? And if you want to balance the budget, where else do you cut?

Tea Party making Boehner abridge his power just a step.

When Speaker of the House John Boehner gave up and quit talking with the President on the fiscal cliff, he did much more than that. In many ways, Speaker Boehner said that he and the House of Representatives can't negotiate a compromise. In saying that, why would anyone now ask him to sit in a room and try to negotiate a way out of this problem?

President Obama has gotten the Speaker, House minority leader Pelosi, Senate Leader Reid, and Senate minority leader McConnell to agree to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about the upcoming fiscal cliff. But what can Speaker Boehner say in that meeting? "Remember last week when I threw out my hands and said I was out of the loop, that it was up to the President and the Senate to make a deal? Well, I really didn't mean that, and here's what I think we should do." What do you think would happen? Say something like that at any meeting, and you'd be laughed out of the room. And although decorum will ensure that laughter won't ring through the room, I'd love to be a fly in that wall.

After last week's House vote on the Boehner's plan B was squashed by the Tea Party, they did more than just stop a vote from being taken. They made sure that Speaker Boehner's powers were abridged, and in at least during the fiscal cliff talks, made the Speaker completely useless. And I wonder, since the Tea Party believes in as little government as possible, if they haven't taken a step toward making the government so dysfunctional that people won't want it in their lives anymore. If so, they took a step to their own aim: Government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.         

What is an entitlement?

Now that Christmas  is over, it's good to see that serious people are getting back to the job of trying to fix the mess this country is in. And as I noticed Speaker Boehner has decided that he doesn't need to be there, I started thinking of one of the central tenets of the GOP: Cut entitlements. But this got me thinking: What is an entitlement?

In its basic form , an entitlement is something that you get for doing nothing. If a person pays into the government for something through taxes, is anything in return an entitlement? A person pays into social security every time they are paid with a paycheck. So, how can what you get back form this be an entitlement? The government can run a surplus or a deficit on these funds, but that's not an entitlement. In the same way, medicare is run the same way, although less money goes to fund medicare. No retirement pay can be entitlement, either. This is simply money not given to a person while working and put away for when they meet a requirement to receive the money.

So what are actual entitlements? In one respect, a tax break is an entitlement, both corporate and personal tax breaks. A person or company pays nothing in to receive the money, or to not pay taxes on the money. So yes, in my thinking, that means deductions of children, research and development, charitable contributions, and other deductions are entitlements.

So GOP, do you really want to cut entitlements? Well, tell me what you think an entitlement is, and I'll see what I think about it. But really, I doubt an entitlement to you is an entitlement to me. So GOP, what's an entitlement to you?      

Question for NRA: We waited 3 days for this?

After waiting 3 days for the NRA to give America its plan to stop the violence and attempt to murders like what happened in Newtown last Friday, the NRA gave a statement today saying their idea to stop the violence is: Have armed guards at every school. In other words, let's stop the violence by having more guns at schools.
So, the NRA doesn't think that limiting clips would help? The NRA doesn't think background checks help and should be included in all gun sales? The NRA believes that those on the terrorists hot lists and can't fly should be able to get a gun? The NRA doesn't believe that all court records should be computerized  so that legally incompetent people can be barred from gun ownership? You said today that the only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Don't you think that making gun ownership for bad people harder is a worthwhile goal for a society?
NRA, you said Tuesday that you would wait until Friday to make a statement. Some people thought that you  might change your stance, while others were sure you would just spew out the same BS that you always do. So NRA, we waited 3 days for this same BS you always spout?      

GOP tries to prove Mayan prophecy just a day off

Late Thursday night, the Tea Party basically told the American people and the world to go jump in a lake (Oh, I could really say my thoughts if this wasn't a G-Rated column) when they rebuked Speaker Boehner and refused to vote for a tax increase for families making more than 1 million dollars. Yes, the GOP refused to raise the taxes on just 41,000 families. Wasn't that enough for the GOP? No, they wanted taxes to go up on zero families, not one. So what has that got to do with the Mayan prophecy?

As it is generally known, the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. Well, if the GOP takes the country over the cliff, then the stock market will drop sharply. Cuts in the budget for next year is expected to raise unemployment rates by 1 to 3% for the year or two in the United States. But that's not where it stops. The credit rating for America would go down, causing another downgrade in the country's credit rating. This would make it more expensive for us to borrow money, but as the world is tied to our ability to borrow money, we would also be making it harder on other countries to borrow money. Which would increase the austerity push in all countries, especially in southern Europe. So this would also increase their unemployment rate. And with unemployment running in some counties at 20 to 30 %, how do you think they will react to this? Yes, with protests and possible riots. Do I need to keep going on and tell you what would happen after that?

Many years ago, the Mayan calendar ended with the year and date December 21, 2012. On their calendar, there is no date after this. After this day, nothing is certain. Today, on December 20, 2012, the GOP tried to prove, that basically, the Mayan prophecy is off by just a day.        

NRA promises to speak on Friday-- and then goes on the attack

There was a thought in some corners that maybe the NRA was finally willing to talk about new gun laws when they sent out a statement yesterday that said they would wait until Friday to make a statement, and were willing to talk about ways to stop massacres like Newtown in the future. But last night, it was shown that the NRA will never see any reason to limit guns when they went on the attack last night
.
While the NRA said they would wait until Friday to give their ideas on Newtown, NRA News, an internet-based arm of the NRA, last night went on the air and said that any laws limiting gun ownership was unacceptable to the NRA. They again gave their stock answer to the problem: More guns would have limited the damage done by the massacre. Then on the radio last night, an NRA statesman (Or someone speaking for the NRA) said that actions taken by people like Senator Feinstein showed that President Obama was indeed planning on taking people's guns away in the President's second term. Exactly how is limiting rounds in the clips, 100% background checks for all gun sales, and stopping the manufacture of military hardware for civilian use going into people's homes and taking their gun away? Is there any bill in the President's first term that limited gun use? No! As a matter of fact, the one gun law he did sign expanded gun rights, allowing guns in [places like national parks and on Amtrak.) Has there been a rash of train robberies I hadn't heard of prior to this bill being signed?)

The NRA said they'd wait until Friday to make a statement on the massacre in Newtown, but they turned right around and went on the attack last night. But with their refusal to listen to ideas, their stubbornness in  just repeating their stock answer, and their lying about the President, the NRA showed their complete lack of respect for a majority of the American people.      

A nation of hatred

While most of America was still mourning Sunday and Monday, there was an entire group of people that were spewing out hate for all to hear. First Sunday, there was the article by Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips and Tea Party Nation member Timothy Birdnow that stated that teachers were leaders in the problems of the country, calling them evil. They stated children need to be home schooled since teachers weren't to be trusted. Obviously, they don't care about hard-working teachers, and disregarded heroic actions taken by teachers during that Connecticut massacre. Then they attacked President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, calling them out for actions taken during Fat and Furious, and refusing to call them by their title. They did this to show their complete disdain for the two men. Of course, it didn't matter to them that their facts in Fast and Furious is totally wrong.
Then, when President Obama went on TV Sunday night on all channels, cutting into the Sunday Night Football Game on NBC, twitter was ablaze with people who called the President every name in the book. It was reported that thousands of people used the "N" word to voice their disapproval, while some, if not most, said that either he had no right to break into the broadcast, had stolen the election, or was from Kenya.
Then on Monday, while the NRA was still mum, the farther right-leaning Gun Owners of America got on TV and stated their views on guns. Larry Pratt, who I believe heads the group, stated that there should be no gun control laws so that people could use their guns to overthrow their government. While Mr. Pratt stated that no one action could spur people to overthrow their government, but that if people feel that the government is acting against them, then they had the right to overthrow the government. I guess simple democracy doesn't matter to that group.  
America, for the most part, is a country full of caring, loving, forgiving, and compromising people. But within its borders, there is a large group of people that believe in none of that. They have their own radio shows they listen to, their their own TV shows to watch, and even their own news channel. They have become, simply, a nation of hatred.    

NRA knows its position is weak, if not untenable.

I've said for a long time that the weaker a position is, or someone thinks their position is weak, the harder it is foe someone to defend it. So when someone is quiet about their position when they are being questioned about it, you can be fairly sure that they believe their position is untenable. This proved correct in 2010 with the Affordable Health Care, as Democrats didn't believe they could win on the facts, ran away from the bill. This was proved again in the 2012 election, as the GOP ran away from candidates who spouted the party line, knowing it wasn't what American wanted. And now the NRA is clamming up, sending no representatives from their organization to the Sunday shows to voice their opinion on actions to attempt to cut down on massacres like last Friday. This shows they know their position is unacceptable to a majority of the American people. A couple of elected officials with strong ties to the NRA tried to explain that one more gun in the right hands would have stopped the carnage. This is the NRA answer after all such tragedies, and it rang just as hollow over the weekend as it had in the past. And that's why NRA officials themselves didn't go on the shows. They know their position is weak at best, and very probably completely untenable to the American people.

Can we talk about guns NOW?

The killings today at the Connecticut elementary school is truly a national tragedy. But not because, while it is just the latest incident in this country of mass shootings, it was done at an elementary school. No, what makes it a national tragedy is that after all the other killings, we never had a debate over the gun laws in this country. The NRA has so corrupted the political process that even after the senseless killings in Arizona, and Colorado, and Virginia Tech, that Congress couldn't even debate gun issues like re-enacting the assault weapons ban, limiting rounds in a clip, and the ease of evading background checks when buying a gun.

I spent 20 years in the military, so I am no all-guns-are-bad liberal. There are very good reasons for owning a gun, including hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. But after every incident of these mass killings, people always say that we need to mourn, and it isn't the right time to talk about gun laws. But, after 20 children were killed today at their school, is the NRA still saying that new gun laws are off-limits, that we can't figure out a way to try to stop these senseless killings?

There were over 2 dozen people killed at an elementary school today. Can we have a debate on guns NOW?

GOP's 2 plans-Ruin America in January and Ruin America later

With the news that Speaker Boehner's plan to get stop America from going off the fiscal cliff is to lock in all the Bush-tax cut rates, including the top 2%, it has become apparent that the GOP has two plans for America. There is one GOP group, considered reckless and truly conservative by some, whose plan is to give nothing to the President, refuse to compromise at all, and let the country go off the fiscal cliff. This would ensure that the economy loses what little steam it has, and would start the country down another recession. Then there is another GOP group, a group most consider well-thinking and moderate, who think that Boehner should give into the President on the tax question. But their plan is simply to refuse to raise the debt ceiling in February or March, ruining the country's credit rating and defaulting on the country's debts  This would start the country down a path toward another depression.

So, the GOP has two plans for America. One of the plans, which is considered reckless, is to refuse to compromise with the President and it starts the country down the path to another recession. The other plan, which is seen as moderate, gives the President a small victory now but refuses to pay bills starting later in the year, starting the country down a path to a depression. Great ideas, GOP: Ruin the country in January, or ruin the country later in the year.      

Michigan becomes a Right-To-Work state?

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is getting ready to sign a bill that would make Michigan a right-to-work state, and liberals are fighting to try to block it. Why? Well, there are 3 very good reasons. First, this was something that not only did Gov. Snyder not campaign on this, he actually campaigned against Michigan becoming a right-to-work state. Secondly, the state GOP has added appropriations to the bill. Why would they do that? Because spending bills can't be voted on by the people. So that means that if the bill passes, the people would have no right to overturn it. But thirdly, and the biggest reason why they are fighting it, is that it is simply bad for the workers in Michigan. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that workers in right-to-work states make 9.4% less than workers in collective bargaining states. Think this goes back in lower consumer prices in those states? Of course not, and so while labor costs are low, prices are very close to  even. There are regional differences, of course. But generally, this means labor costs are low, the selling price is the same, which means the company's profits go up.
There are many reason for the workers in Michigan to fight the right-to-work law working its way through the Michigan legislature. But the fact that it is a bad bill for the people of Michigan is the best reason of all.

McConnell's misstep shows GOP inflexibility

Much is being made of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's objection to the bill that he himself had asked a vote to be taken on. This in effect meant that he filibustered the bill he had asked for, meaning no vote could be taken on a bill he had asked to be voted on. And while this is laughable, it just highlights the major problem with GOP today.

Politics is the art of cajoling people into agreeing with you, but even more it is the art of compromise. It is the majority party finding positions that the minority can accept. And the minority has to agree with that after they get the best deal they can, and that since most of the country disagrees with them, the other side will get the most in any bill. If the bills are unpopular, or take the country down a road that hurts the country, then the majority will lose their advantage, and the minority will be the majority. This is why the two sides must agree on common ground and pass that bill, to show the country that while both sides have some different ideas, they can move forward for the betterment of the country.

But when one side become inflexible, refuses to accept the views of the other side, or even refuses to debate with the other side, then one of three things can happen. The majority can refuse to talk to the minority and pass bills unilaterally. When this happens, any bill that a large part of the country finds questionable can be used against them, and they are in trouble. Second, the minority can refuse to debate and allow the majority to run the country. But if the bills that are passed are acceptable to the country, they look irrelevant, and they are in trouble. But in the third case, the minority can refuse to debate and refuse to allow bills to get passed unless they completely agree with them. The majority will look lost and helpless, the minority will look obstinate, and it is the country that is in trouble. Sound familiar?

The filibuster by the Senate Minority Leader of a bill he had requested a vote on has to be one of the strangest things that's ever happened in Washington. But in reality, McConnell's misstep simply showed exactly how inflexible the GOP has become.        

Senator takes his ball and goes home.

So South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has decided that the Senate isn't the best place for his talents, and has resigned to head Heritage House, a conservative think tank. He believes that his new position will allow him to guide a new, young group of like-minded hard right-wing politicians. In this, he may actually be right. As a Senator, Jim DeMint doesn't have a signature bill that he was able to pass, and his best skill was fund-raising for right-wing politicians running for Senate, like Rand Paul and Todd Akin. So in fact, Senator DeMint has basically admitted that he hasn't been able to change the way the Senate works, or acts, or to get the kind of bills that he believes the country needs passed. And he believes that he can have a bigger voice at the Heritage House, which of course he will. But doesn't this remind remind everyone of a time when they young and some kid decides that he/she doesn't like the way thing are going and leaves, taking their ball so no one can play the game any more. And normally, it was the fact that the kid just didn't get the result they wanted. A GOP politician acting like a petulant child? Now there's something that only right-wing radio personalities can do better.      

NRA shows its stupidity

The day after the funeral of Jovan Belcher, the NRA (National Rifle Association) decided that they couldn't stay quiet any more. So today, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre couldn't help but put his two cents worth in on the senseless killing of Kasandra Perkins, and in doing so showing his complete stupidity.

Mr. LaPierre was quoted as saying that the problem wasn't the fact that Belcher had a gun, but that Kasandra Perkins didn't have one. SAY WHAT? It was known through tweets that Belcher had 8 guns. Living together, does he really believe that she didn't know this? Doesn't he think that if she wanted to get one of the guns, she could have?

The real problem was that once, again, a gun that I would bet was bought to protect people in the residence was used in the killing of someone who lived at the residence. But this isn't the first time, or even a minority incident, of a gun being used to kill a person when it was bought to protect them. There were 8 guns that could be used by someone in that house. Does any sane person really believe that a ninth gun was needed, or that another gun would have averted this tragedy?        

America needs serious thoughts, and GOP takes flights of fancy

With less than 4 weeks before America goes over the fiscal cliff and less than 3 weeks before Congress adjourns until next year, this would seem like a good time for people to get a firm grasp of facts and take action. But whether it's the man on the street, political operatives, or the elected officials in Washington, the GOP seems to continue to live in the their own bubble world.

When it comes to the every day GOP man on the street, Fox News will be glad to know that they are still getting their news from them, and not the real world. 49% of the people that identify themselves as members of the GOP believe that ACORN, a Democrat party-based voter registration group, stole the election. This despite the fact that ACORN has been out of existence for the last 3 years. Meanwhile, 50% believe that that it was voter fraud that cause Romney to lose the election. So the fact that Romney lost by over 3 million votes most be lost on them. And 25% believe that their state should secede for the United States, and another 19% believe that their state should look into it, or aren't sure.

For GOP political types, there's good old Grover Norquist that takes the cake when it comes to tooting his own horn and misstating the truth. While on Meet The Press, Grover decided, after twisting the meaning of several laws to suit his purpose, finished his part on the show saying that if taxes are raised or President Obama takes the country over the cliff (No mention of Boehner or the GOP's part in that), that there would be a Tea Party II that will make Tea Party I look like a, well, a tea party, with rallies and marching in the street. Now there's some reality for everyone.

Then there's the actual elected officials in Washington. First it was Senator Ron Paul that said that secession is a deep American tradition. Oh really? Did it work in 1860? Then 38 GOP Senators voted against a treaty that would use the American Disabilities Act as a guide for the UN. Needing a 2/3 vote for, this didn't pass. Why done these Senators vote this way? Because to them, the UN has no right to tell the US what rules we should follow. The fact that it would have given the UN no right to make a law in this country, or change any law in this country made no difference to them.

In this time of uncertainty, America needs people who can make serious rational decision. Too bad the GOP has decided to continue to live in their bubble, and to have thoughts of flights of fancy.                

Another fiscal cliff offer that's laughable

After calling President Obama's offer on how to stop going over the fiscal cliff laughable, Speaker of the House Boehner trotted out his offer and, in a show of realism, offered the same package that he had turned down in 2011. So how is this realism? Well, maybe it's not realism, but 20-20 hindsight. Speaker Boehner seems to have realized that the best deal the Tea Party was ever going to get is one they turned down in the middle of last year. But there was an election between then and now, and the Tea Party ideas got voted down. The GOP/Tea Party lost the presidential election, lost seats in the Senate and the House, and although  they kept control of the House, Democrats won more votes nationally than the GOP did. So after all that, they offer a plan that they themselves rejected but now want the President to sign. Now, that's what I call a laughable offer.  

Why the Tea Party will jump off the cliff.

While most pundits in Washington believe that, when it comes to solving the fiscal cliff, President Obama has the upper hand, I look at the problem completely differently. Yes, when it comes to the cliff, President Obama is winning, and the GOP looks like complete losers to most people. But that's because to most people, government has a place in our day-to-day life. But to the Tea Party, the government is something that needs to be small enough to, in one person's word, "put in a bathtub and drown".  Think the people who believe that are scared of making the government smaller and going off the fiscal cliff? Of course not! And there are over 80 Tea Party people in the House who are hard core enough and believe in the Tea Party mantra over country enough that they'd never sign a bill that would do anything but make the government smaller. To them, that's all they got elected to do, and that's the only bill they'll sign.
So no matter what bill is finally signed, don't expect a unanimous vote. When a party is trying to starve the government and kill it if at all possible, taking it over a cliff is just a step in the right direction to them.    

Sorry, GOP. Its wasn't the messenger that made you lose.

With the election over 3 weeks ago, some GOP pundits and politicians are saying that it was Romney that caused the GOP to lose the election, and not their ideas. Well, I'm sorry to say GOP, but you have it all wrong. Don't believe me? Just look at the Senate, the House, and the debates.

In almost every instant that a hard-right Tea Party candidate defeated a so-called RINO in the Senate primaries, they were beaten by the Democrat in the general election. After winning a majority of the state houses in 2010 and redistricting the state to make it easier for the GOP to win House elections, the Democrats still won 8 more seats than they did in 2010, and nationally Democrats won more votes in the House than the GOP did. And when did Romney do best with the American people? It was after the first debate, where Romney went against everything that he he was for in the primaries. He stated in the debate that he was for immigration reform, against lowering taxes on the rich, for abortion in certain circumstances, and against drastic cuts in government programs. This went against everything he said he was for during the primaries. And the acceptance of his policies soared, and his favorable numbers went up. But then, in the next few days and weeks, he slowly but surely took back his what he said in the debate and reverted back to the Romney that he was in the primary. This was a way to assure the far right that he was really one of them. But with every step back to the right, his favorables went down with the American people, as did the acceptance of his policies.

I'm sorry, GOP, but it wan't the messenger that caused you to lose the election. The fact that your ideas for the country are anti- immigrant, homophobic, anti-social services, and pro-Big Business were the reason you lost. It wasn't the messenger, it WAS the message. And the fact that you can't see that shows just how out-of-touch with America you really are.        

Washington, get your head out of your rear!

I'm so tired of all the talk coming out of Washington! Why? Because both sides refuse to look at the truth. And what is the truth? The truth is that when it comes to taxes and expenditures, both sides need to look at the past to ensure the country's future. In the past, both taxes and expenditures ran between 19% and 21% of GDP. But now, taxes are less than 16% and expenditures are over 24%. So, you spineless politicians, tell the people the truth. Both have to go back to close to their historic averages, so taxes have to go up while expenditures have to go down. During times of war, both can go a point or two. Are we at war? If so, then taxes have to be a little higher, as the Defense Department expenditures are up. Then, both the GOP and the Democrats have to understand that Social Security money is only to be used for Social Security. Then say no matter how money is earned, it gets taxed the same. No more different rates for hedge fund managers than there is for author or a construction worker. Now, start with those truths and iron out a deal.

Oh, that's right. One side says the problem is that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. (They're right, they don't.) And the other side say that entitlements need to be cut. (They're partially right. Expenditures need to go down.) But have we heard the real truth? No, and for that, both sides should be chastised. But the first thing you have to do, Washington politicians, is get your head out of ass and look at the truth.

Who won the elections?

With Congress coming back from their Thanksgiving vacation this week, I have to ask: Who won the election? I'm asking because the GOP, while talking a good game of compromise, seem to be giving the same type of talking points that Mitt Romney gave during the election.
On the Sunday talk shows, many GOP said that they need to compromise and put revenue on the table. But then when asked, they said that it was their preference that rates not increase. But loopholes could be slashed if all entitlement were on the table, including the Affordable Care Act. WAIT!!!!! Did n't we just have an election? And Romney did lose, right? And the Democrats won more seats in both the Senate and the House than they had last Congress. And in all elections, if the national numbers were added up, more people voted for the Democrats than the GOP in the Presidential election, the Senate elections, and yes, the House election.
Grover Norquist said before the election that the only thing that he wanted the President to do was sign the bills that the GOP sent to him. If the Democrats and President Obama go along with the fiasco that the GOP is peddling, Grover will get exactly what he wants, and in a way, he'll have won the election. So again I ask, who really won the election. The next few months will tell us if the Democrats have the backbone to really win the election.    

Companies aren't people. They don't even care about people.

While companies are made up of people, they aren't people, and except to take their money, don't even care about people. And this Thanksgiving is showing America how companies don't care, or really, even think about people.
Look at the paper and the ads on TV and don't immediately think to yourself, "Ooh, I've got to get that deal." No, ask yourself if you want your kids, your cousins, your parents, or anyone you are sitting will be sitting with Thanksgiving to leave and go to work at 10pm or midnight. Of course you don't. But no company cares, so tomorrow night, thousands if not millions of workers will leave their family to go and get a store ready for a sale. And is the store sale needed? Well, stores will tell you that 40% of their yearly profit comes from "Black Friday". But will opening a few hours earlier really add that much to the bottom line? And imagine if a company ran a full page ad saying that they want their employees to enjoy their Thanksgiving, and that they would open at 7am and have a true sale form 7 to 10. Not all day, or super early. And then they added that they want everyone to be at the sale, but they also know that happy employees make customer shopping easier and more enjoyable, so that's why they had this policy. Think people wouldn't notice and be at that sale, and remember that company throughout the year? But has any company done this? No, of course not. That's because they care more about trying to make a bigger profit than they do about their employees or their image.
Now, I spent 20 years in the military, so I know that there are some places and jobs that aren't able to take holidays off. But really, are Kohl's, Macy's, Sears and other stores places that can't be closed a few hours on a holiday?
Companies aren't people. They don't care about the people they know, their employees. So what makes anyone think that they care about people they don't know, the customer, except to get their money? It's been that way for a long time, but this Thanksgiving has just pointed out how widespread the condition really is.          

Beware who you make a villain, liberals.

After the election, the Tea Party (GOP) has gone into a time of self-reflection, as every party does when they lose. And the liberals in the Democratic Party has rightly thumped their chest and are saying that conservation  has taken a step back. And they are going after every target they can. But is that wise? Let's look at two companies that are rebelling against election of Obama and their moves against The Affordable Health Care Act.
The owner of Papa's John Pizzas has said that he will cut employees hours to under 30 hours a week so that he doesn't have to comply with the act. And while some liberals are denouncing the move, others see a bright side: Less hours per employee means more employees. So some liberals have held their wrath. Now, the owner of Denny's has said that he will add a 5% surcharge to all bills due to the act being enforced, and if customers think this unfair, then shorten the tip to the waiter/waitress. And liberal bile has gone against this man. Short the tip to the server because they get health care? HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!!!!!
But look at it this way: If the owner of Denny's had said that he wants to comply with the law and have all of the employees get health care, but the bill will go up 5%, what would I, other left-leaning moderates, and liberals have said? Our family bill there is less than $40 dollars for the entire family, but now it's $42, and $2 goes to ensure it's employees have health insurance? LETS GO TO DENNY'S!! And yes, let's tip the server $8.40 instead of $8. And the fact that Papa John's doesn't want the company employees to have health care? Well, let's go to any other pizza place, ones that treated their employees correctly.
So look at both situations and decide which owner is really making the right decision. And liberals, beware who you're making a villain. It may not be as cut and dried as you think it is. And isn't that the mistake the Tea Party made in 2012?      

I've lost respect for you, Senator McCain.

I spent 20 years in the Air Force, so naturally, I have had great respect for John McCain. But what he is doing now has undone all the respect that I've had for him. I was very proud of the way in 2008 he told that woman who said that Obama was an un-American Muslim, and he quickly told her she was wrong. But sometime after that, maybe he got a right-wing challenge in Arizona, he slowly became not the maverick of the GOP, but a stalwart member of the Tea Party. And now, with this vendetta he has against Susan Rice, for whatever reason, he's gone and shown what I guess is now his true self. On Wednesday, his Senate committee was getting a classified briefing on what happened in Benghazi, but Senator McCain wasn't there. Where was he? Standing in front of a camera, complaining that the White House and its agencies were refusing to give his committee a briefing. What's wrong, Senator, not having cameras in a classified briefing cramping your style, or do you just not care about facts and want to rail against Susan Rice and the Obama Administration? Or, is it a little bit of both?
Either way, to me, it really doesn't matter. I've lost all respect for you, Senator McCain.    

GOP keeps its head in the sand

It didn't take the GOP much more than a week to show they learned nothing from the election, that they hate most of America, have no clue about what most Americans want, or in short, are following their mascot, the ostrich, and have their heads in the sand. And it came from every almost part of the GOP.
From the religious right, the leader of one group said that the reason Latinos voted for the Democrats in the election and will in the future is that they are all socialists. He stated that they all came from Mexico and that socialism is in their veins. Can a person be any more generic about a group of people and more totally wrong that he was? To start with, you don't flee a place if you believe in what they are doing. Then, if a political belief is ingrained in a person, how come children when they vote normally vote opposite of their parents? And, of course, finally, Latinos don't come from just one country, but several, and for many reasons, and with many beliefs.  
Then the states got into the act. First, it was a Wisconsin legislator who said that if voter ID laws had been in effect, Romney would have won the state. Say what? Obama won the state by over 200,000 votes. Was she saying that over 200,000 people voted illegally in Wisconsin? Or was she saying that voter ID laws would keep over 200,000 legal voters from voting? The former is statistically impossible, while the latter would mean that she really doesn't care about everyone's vote. Then the Ohio legislature went back into session, and with a GOP majority, made their first 2 bills defunding Planned Parenthood at the state level, and making abortions illegal after 6 weeks in Ohio. So, did Romney and the far right win the state? No, both President Obama and Democratic Senator Brown won the state, partially by standing up for women's rights, as women voted for Obama over Romney by 11%.
But then, the national GOP couldn't stay out of the act after all this, could they? First, Paul Ryan said that really, the nation had accepted the GOP message of lowering taxes and cutting domestic spending. What? Didn't you and Mitt lose the election? Then, Mitt Romney got into the act. He again got on 47% soap box, stating that the reason he lost the race was that President Obama had given free stuff to blacks, Latinos, and women. So, nothing about the country not liking the direction you wanted to take the country?
No, not one of you can see the real truth can you? And do you know why? Well, in my opinion, it's because you all have your heads stuck in the sand, or maybe, somewhere actually darker and more personal is where you have your heads.  

Are American elections 3rd rate?

More than a week after the election, several House and Senate seats are still in doubt. Recounts? NO!! It took 5 days to name Obama the winner in Florida, and there are still ballots in a few states that haven't been counted, mostly in Arizona. This should be a shame to all Americans, no matter what party affiliation you belong to. If we heard that any other country took almost a week to count presidential or prime minister votes, we'd think they were the most backwater country on the planet. Is that what America has become? I don't think so, but when it comes to voting and the counting of votes, American elections are at best 3rd rate.  

Kansas wants schooling to be 2 R's not 3.

Yesterday, it was announced that the State of Kansas would look into getting rid of cursive writing in school. The reason given was that since kids get on computers at such an early age, learning the art of writing was no  longer a necessary skill. Now, does anyone really believe that? Could there be another reason? It couldn't be  that with Kansas, being a very conservative state, sees this as way to help balance the budget by eliminating some teachers' spots, could it? And this would have the added advantage of taking union membership away from the Teachers Union, thereby weakening the Democrats ability to raise money in the state, right? So for the Kansas Tea Party, this is a win/win situation, right? But what company wants to set up business in a state that believes learning to write is no longer needed? How low would the state taxes for company have to go before the education of the people no longer matter to a company?
So, the State of Kansas is looking into eliminating writing from school. No one should be surprised, I guess. After all, if the state, controlled by the Tea Party, doesn't believe in science, what's writing? Just another bothersome thing that the government is making us do, I guess.          

Racism and hatred has many faces

While Tuesday was a great day for some people, for others, it gave them a reason to show their racism and hatred for not only President Obama, but in a way, for a majority of voters. And it came in all kinds of shapes and sizes. There was a woman in Arizona that tweeted that the N-word guy got in office. Think she's not racist? When interviewed by a local TV station, she said that of course she wasn't a racist. And she added that while she wouldn't assassinate the President, it wouldn't bother her if someone else did. No hatred in her heart, is there? Then there were the students at the University of Mississippi that after hearing President Obama had won started burning Obama/Biden campaign signs. Think minorities at the university who woke up to that sight felt love and understanding?

Now, these are very overt acts of racism and hatred. But there were other ways that some people showed their that in their own way, they had the same feelings. There was the owner of a company that, the day after the election, let his employees know that their hours would be cut back from 30 to 25 hours a week. Why? Well, at least he didn't beat around the bush. He told them that with the Obama re-election, the Affordable Care Act would be law, and since the threshold for companies to comply with the act is 30 hours, he was cutting back hours to ensure he wouldn't have to comply. Now, while this may not be overtly racist, it's hard to think that in some way, he doesn't have, if not hatred, at least animosity, toward everyone who voted for President Obama. Then there was the owner of a coal mine that fired 138 miners Friday, citing the Obama re-election as the reason. So, did any laws on the mining of coal change from Tuesday morning until Thursday night? No. So why didn't he wait until new laws were enacted? Because he wanted the workers to know the reason for the firing, and wanted to sow hatred for the Obama administration in them.

But it isn't just people that seem to have these feeling. The Supreme Court on Friday agree to hear the case that the State of Tennessee brought before it asking that the Voting Rights Act be struck down, saying that the law no longer is needed. This, after a summer in which several states either limited early voting or enacting restrictive ID laws, making it harder for some people to vote. Think Tennessee brought this case so more people could vote? No, Tennessee brought the case so it could get the federal government off its' back and Tennessee could run elections the way it wants. While the case may not have racist or hatred underpinnings, it's hard to imagine that, if the Supreme Court agrees and strikes down the Voting Rights Act, many people will be disenfranchised, and the reasons will be racism and hatred.

Tuesday night was a great night, and the country will move forward. But in other ways, in a lot of places, the old ways of racism and hatred still have roots, and has many faces.                

GOP, your transformation is complete.

It should have taken everyone less than 2 days after the election to realize that the GOP learned nothing from the results Tuesday night. And it took the GOP exactly 1 hour to begin to show their contempt for President Obama and the truth. After winning the presidency, late Tuesday night or early Wednesday, President Obama called Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, and John Boehner, Speaker of the House. What did they talk about? Well, they didn't talk about anything, as the President was told both McConnell and Boehner were asleep (2 separate calls). So the President calls the Senate Minority Leader and the Speaker of the House and they either lied and had aides tell President Obama that they were asleep, or they told their aides that the President wasn't important enough to be woken up I'm not sure which is actually worse.

Later Wednesday, McConnell made a statement that said that President Obama hadn't won a mandate, and that the GOP House had been voted back to reign in runaway spending by the Democrats. So, President Obama  wins the election by over 3 million votes and got over 300 votes in the Electoral College , but that's not a mandate? And yes, the House is still in GOP hands, but you lost over a dozen seats even after holding a majority of the state houses and redistricting the state to maximize your vote. And, in total, more people voted for the Democratic House members then for the GOP House members. Later Wednesday, Boehner gave what though of by most pundits as a more conciliatory stance when he said he wanted to work with the President. But The Speaker also said that the President need to come to the table with a plan that lowered tax rates while closing loopholes. Sound familiar? It should, since that's just what Romney ran on and lost. In other words,  The House Speaker thinks what is needed is what the American people just voted down?

Then Thursday, the GOP PACS and pundits started to jump in. Karl Rove said that in truth, Romney lost because the Democrats suppressed the vote of the GOP by painting Romney as a rich businessman. So, GOP governors making voting harder by limiting early voting and putting strict ID laws in place isn't trying to restrict the vote, but telling the truth is? And later Thursday, GOP pundits form Bill O'Reilly to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh said that the reason the GOP lost is that the demographics aren't what it used to be. No, to them, the problems of the GOP isn't policy, but what America looks like now.

So, it's should be apparent to everyone that this GOP isn't the same GOP from 20 years ago, or even from 8 years ago. So now, GOP, you are The Tea Party, and since facts and the truth doesn't matter to you, your mascot is an ostrich. Go stick your head in the sand, GOP, because your transformation is complete.            

The near complete delusions of the GOP

I normally don't watch Fox News as I think facts should be real rather than made up, but I thought that the day after the election, I should see what the right is thinking about the election. So yesterday, I decided that watching Bill O'Reilly would give me a good eye on what their thinking is this week. And, I'll say this for Bill, the hour didn't disappoint me.
He started with his thoughts that if Romney had pushed the Libya attack in the last debate, he would have won the election. Excuse me, but isn't the investigation still on-going? So what was he going to attack the President on, the fact that different people were using different reports to brief the country? No, sorry that wasn't going to swing the election. Then he said the while Tropical Storm Sandy helped the President, the fact that in the last few days Romney never went on the attack. So, you think that Romney attacking President Obama while the President was doing his job ensuring FEMA was responding to the needs of the states and the people that had been affected by Sandy? Yeah, that would have made Romney look big, wouldn't it? No, of course not, it would make him look small and petty.
Then guests after guests came on saying things like the demographics were wrong. The demographics in the election just happened to follow the 2010 Census within a percent, so it obviously couldn't be that GOP policies don't speak to the needs of women and minorities. Then one guest said the if the economy was still tanked in 4 years, blacks would still vote for Obama. Um, you do know that Obama can't run again in 2016, don't you? Or that while the economy isn't improving as quickly as anyone would like, it really tanking at all. That would be more like in October 2008, when the nation lost almost half a million jobs, than October 2012, when the nation picked up over 170,00 jobs. Another guest said that the left thinks that Mitt Romney, which he described as a good and decent person, is what's wrong with the country. This less than 24 hours after President Obama Mitt and the entire Romney family good and decent people who love their country. Yeah, these are just some of the examples of the non-fact facts that the GOP believes and aren't true.
But Bill did say one thing that did really scare me, even if it's only a little bit correct. In his summation, he stated that if the economy was still bad in 2016, the Democratic Party would be extinct.What scares me is that if the GOP really believes that, what reason do they have to compromise? The country could be in for another 4 years like the last two. And all because of the near complete delusions of the GOP.    

1 election, but really, 2 countries.

While the election may be over, the blaming, the back-stabbing, and the blood-letting by the GOP has just started. And I haven't heard anyone state what I think is the true problem with politics today: We may be The United States, but we're really 2 countries.
There is one country that knows that getting along with others that may different ideas is essential to every day living. This is the country that has people who live in big cities, people who have immigrated to this country and had to compromise and assimilate to get along, and people that want to learn from other people. This country knows that government can help people, protect minorities rights, and is needed in ways small and large.
Then there's this other country, the rural, parochial one. This country has people who aren't comfortable around new ideas and new people, people who believe their way is the only way, and people who are frightened by things and ideas that they aren't use to. In this country, because there is no way other than theirs, there in no need for government, and in almost all cases simply an intrusion.
We just had an election and we're still the United States, but in almost every way, we're still 2 different countries.  

At the end, Romney showed class while others couldn't.

Well, for the most part, the 2012 election is over, and the Obama administration will get a second term. And while it may have taken Romney a while to come to same conclusion as the networks, I give him no grief for that. The difference in a few states was so small that I can completely understand Mitt wanting to make sure that he lost. Then when Romney came out, he gave what I think was his best speech of the campaign. He was short and sweet, yet congratulated the President and asked the GOP to work with him. Then he thanked everyone who worked with him, said that they had done their best and there was no one to blame,  and then basically said goodbye. It looked very heart-felt and sincere, and hit the right tone. Too bad Todd Akin couldn't have done the same. He basically congratulated his followers and said that their way thinking was right and had won the day. But even he was 5 steps above Donald Trump, who stated that the election was a sham and a fraud and that President Obama didn't really win. Before you bow out, Mitt, you couldn't give some of that class to the rest of the Tea Party, could you? No, I didn't think you could, and I doubt they'd accept it, anyway.        

Hypocrites til the end, I guess

With less than 3 days until the election, I was hoping that maybe the ads would start be either fewer or at least not as chock full of out and out lies or completely hypocritical garbage. But watching the Kansas State football game tonight, I was reminded that no matter what I may hope for, the GOP will continue to lather it up right until the last second.
It was a simple enough 30 second ad for Todd Akin. It started out saying that, unlike his opponent, he was against runaway federal spending. Mr. Akin, you can't even start out with a simple truth, can you? No one in Washington and almost no American at all believes that this deficit spending can go on indefinitely. And that includes your opponent. But where to make cuts and what revenue increases might be need to help balance the budget, that's the rub. So, was the rest of the ad about his other ideas? No, of course not. You wouldn't want to tell people about your desire to get rid of the minimum wage, or to state that at conception is when the country considers a fetus a person, which will make most birth control pill illegal, would you? You wouldn't want to remind voters that to you, things like Pell Grants and student loans to be like cancer, would you? Well, at least you didn't lie.

But then the ad stated Todd Akin would gladly back the Romney agenda, where Claire McCaskill, the incumbent Senator, would do all she could to stop the Romney agenda. For this, I say half lie and half hypocritical garbage. No Mr. Akin, you wouldn't back the Romney agenda, you would expect him to follow your hard right Tea Party platform, and your agenda. So this is an out and out lie. And you have the audacity to complain about McCaskill not supporting Romney after the entire GOP has spent the last 4 years refusing to work with President Obama? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Then, to finish it off, the ad states that it was paid for by some GOP PAC and the GOP Senatorial Committee. Yes, it's the same GOP Senatorial Committee that in August said they refused to give any money  to the Akin campaign due to his extreme views. Nothing like telling lies from start to finish throughout the entire ad. Hypocrites to the end, I guess.          

The differences in the 2 presidential campaigns

While having lunch with my mom and 2 of my sisters, one of my sisters said that no matter who was elected president, it probably wouldn't make much difference. And I tried to explain that while that may have been true in the past, the differences between the two parties were too great to expect that to be true. While I tried to highlight the many differences, I should have just pointed out 2 differences in the last 2 days between the campaigns.
Since I DVR just about everything, I rarely see commercials. But last night I saw both an Obama ad and a pro-Romney ad made by a PAC. Obama's ad was simply him talking into the camera, explaining his plans for the next 4 years if elected president. He talked about the need for better education, his plan for a diversified energy future for the country, his desire for the tax on the top 2% to return to the rate that it was during the Clinton administration, and his plan to have the military leave Afghanistan and use the money to help rebuild America. The pro-Romney ad was set in China in the year 2030 with a man telling other Chinese men that like the fallen empires of Greece and Rome, it was inevitable that the American empire would fall. And since the Chinese had loaned the U.S. so much money, America now worked for them. In other words, a smarmy negative ad that told nothing of Romney's plan for the country.
The other difference, although not as great, was what the last 2 former Presidents were doing. President Clinton was on the stump giving speeches for President Obama in several states, including Ohio and Florida, with the press in tow. So Clinton was basically pressing the flesh, trying to get the faithful to vote for the president. And what was George W. Bush doing the last few days? Well, he was actually pressing the flesh, in a way, too. He was in the Cayman Island as the key note speaker at a 2 day conference for people who wanted to learn the advantages of moving their money to tax-free shelters to the island. And what was the keynote speech? Well, since no press was allowed at the conference, no one really knows. But at least Bush was talking to, almost unanimously, Romney voters.
Need to know what the differences in the 2 campaigns are this year? I think these 2 things highlight the differences very well.  

Mayor, better late than never, I guess

While I normally like the decisions of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I really don't understand why he decided today to cancel the marathon. As someone who ran in races in many states and in a couple of countries, I know there is no way that I could have run in any race where just a few blocks away people had no power, or just got their power back. But what I don't understand is why it took until Friday to make the decision. At a certain point Tuesday, didn't he know the general extent of the damage and how long it would take to get the city back to at least semi-normal? I think he should have cancelled the race on Tuesday or Wednesday. By Friday before the race on Sunday, a lot of people would go there. But I guess it's better late than never telling people that the race is cancelled.    

Mitt, how many issues can you waffle on?

Once again, Mitt Romney has decided that he wants to take both sides of an issue. And while this comes as no surprise to anyone who has watched him this last 18 months, yesterday's announcement had to be the most crass pandering attempt at getting votes that Mitt has ever done. And with all his pandering, that's saying quite a lot. Yesterday, Mitt said that under a Romney administration, FEMA would always have enough funding to do its job. Really? REALLY? So that wasn't you on the stage during a GOP debate that said that FEMA money needed to be block granted back to the states or better yet to private companies? That wasn't you who said that FEMA was an agency that needed to be scaled back as it isn't important enough to borrow money from China to keep open? It was you, Mitt, that said that the Ryan Budget is wonderful, although it cuts funding FEMA by 80%, right? Yes, I'm sure you feel very strongly about keeping FEMA strong and well-funded, since the day after the storm you were asked almost a dozen times about your stance on FEMA and you refused to answer any of the questions. No, you waited another full day and then sent out a press release by a spokesperson rather than making your own statement.
I hope that the American people can see through your pandering and refuse to vote for you. But if you do get elected, I hope before you take the oath of office you can get to a hospital and can get a spine transplant, since yours is obviously very weak.    

Romney walks a fine line-and falls off

I know that Mitt Romney is walking a very thin line during Sandy and the aftermath clean-up, but somehow he still got in wrong Tuesday. So would someone tell me the difference between a political rally in Ohio and a  relief rally in Ohio. I can't find one, and I doubt anyone else can either. And right on the Red Cross webpage, it states that bulk food or clothing isn't wanted and actually in the webpage as some of the items not to send. But there was Romney on the line accepting bulk food. New Jersey Gov. Christie set the correct tone when he said that he didn't give damn about politics right now since he had bigger problems to worry about. Former President Clinton and Vice-President Biden were both on the campaign trail and were at rallies, so Mitt, why can't you just call a rally and rally, tone down your vitriol against Obama and state what you're for. But that's the rub, isn't it. You're for dismantling FEMA and just giving the money to the states. Think that would work real well right now? Mitt, you could have said that there were no rallies during the disaster or held rallies and said the right things. But you couldn't afford to do the former, and I doubt you'd know how to do the latter. So all you did in walking that thin line was to fall off.      

Still want FEMA gone, Mitt?

As the storm continues to pummel the northeast, although people of parties and independents hope for the best, it should be remembered what Mitt Romney said about FEMA last year. During a debate last year, Mitt said that the money should go to the states and let them decide how to spend the money and what to spend it on, and that even better than that would be for the money to go to businesses. So under Mitt's plan, there'd be no FEMA and states would simply fend for themselves. Think the people of Delaware and Rhode Island want to compete with New York and New Jersey for clean-up dollars? Because wouldn't every state be on their own and trying to get companies to help with the clean-up? And wouldn't each state fight for the right to run their state as they want? So some governors could dispense money liberally while others could penny-pinch and lower taxes on businesses? You may want FEMA gone, Mitt, but millions of people will be glad it's there after the storm. And hopefully they'll remember what you said about FEMA when they vote on November 6th.

How much lower can the GOP go?

Every day, after everything I hear from the GOP, I expect that they can't go any lower. But every day, they seem to find a new low. I thought that yesterday, when Romney Co-Chairperson John Sununu, Jr. said that Gen. Colin Powell was only backing and voting for Obama because they were both black to be the low point for the GOP. And yes, that was an incredibly low point. For Sununu not only said that Powell was voting for Obama because of race, he was proud that the general had used race as the reason for his vote. So with one swing he said the Obama had no reason for people to vote for him except for race, called Powell a racist who only cares about race, but gives his backing for white racists to vote for Romney. After all, if it's okay for blacks to vote for Obama just because he's black, then it must be okay for whites to vote for Romney because he's white, right? Thought that was as low as the GOP could ever go? Think again. And Romney didn't need a spokesperson for this one.
Speaking in Ohio, Romney stated that Jeep was planning to move all their productions from Ohio to China. This can't be true, can it? No, absolutely it's not! But a right-wing blogger read that Jeep was looking into building Jeeps for China in China and wrote that Jeep was stopping production in North America. A Romney staffer read it (I take it Mitt didn't read it himself) and added it to a speech. And so Romney out and out lied about Ohioans losing jobs to China. Jeep later sent out press release explaining their stance, but think the people at that rally will hear about that or Romney will make a correction?
Every day, I hear something from the GOP in their statements to the American people which is racist, a distortion, or an out-and-out lie and I hope that's as low as this group of GOP people can go. But every day, they find a new way to go even lower. Just how low can the GOP go?    

Romney/Ryan decide to take the air out of ball, so to speak

Today the Romney/Ryan campaign let reporters know that there would be no more interviews until after the election. And Paul Ryan bowed out of a town hall conference call tonight in which questions would be screened beforehand. So, has the campaign really taken the air out of the ball, started running out the clock, take a knee (Use any sports analogy you like) with 12 days to go to the election? They won't talk about Mourdock and the rape comment? They won't talk about the court case against Mitt Romney and Bain? They'll just go from campaign stop to campaign stop giving their speeches and not answering questions? Fine. But if anything happens in the world that might show a problem for America or even when the job numbers for October next Friday comes out, don't go out and try to talk to reporters. If you won't answer their questions when they want to talk to you, don't talk to them when you want to say something. Say something on Wednesday, the 7th of November. Or better yet, give a concession speech on the night of the 6th. If you can't stand the heat of the reporters question now, you have no right to sit in the White House later.  

Correction to the Romney ad

Unlike the GOP, when I make a mistake, I'll be glad to correct it. So the Romney ad that said the Romney was backing Mourdock came out on Monday, the day before the Indiana Senatorial debate, and not Wednesday, the day after, as I thought and wrote about earlier. But the ad hasn't been taken off the air, and Romney hasn't taken back his endorsement. As a matter of fact, he said nothing about Mourdock's comment on rape and abortion, but instead, had a spokesperson say that Romney didn't agree with Mourdock's views. Yeah, that's quite a backbone you have there, Mitt.

Romney splits the difference and takes both sides-again!

Tuesday night in an Indiana Senator debate, GOP candidate Richard Mourdock stated that the only exemption that he would accept for an abortion was the life of the mother. So this would mean that rape or incest would not be an acceptable reason for an abortion any time after conception. This was quickly countered by Mitt Romney, who said that Mr. Mourdock's view wasn't his view and wasn't a plan for his his administration. But then the very next day, Wednesday, ads went up in Indiana with Romney saying that Richard Mourdock needed to be elected, and giving him Romney's full support. Now, I can think of dozens of policies that Romney has changed on, most in the last four weeks. But I can't think of any candidate that in one day he or she has tried to placate both sides of an issue. I find this to be completely unacceptable and it gives me another reason to not vote for Romney. But this also begs the question that I wanted Romney to answer on TV: What part of the 2012 GOP platform if you were President would you veto, if any. I believe that although Romney may not agree with all the far right ideas of the GOP now, it would show that he doesn't have strong enough beliefs to go against the GOP in any way. And that is completely unacceptable to me.  

Romney's mis-statements made Obama the winner

While the president missed several opportunities to point out several errors the Governor Romney made, mistakes that could have sealed the deal for President Obama, the third presidential debate was still won by President Obama.
Within the first half hour, it became obvious that when it got down to the gist of the actions, Romney has either been lying to the GOP base and is in lock-step with the president in most foreign policies or he lied Tuesday night about his stance on Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan and even Iran. So I'm sure there will be a lot of spin today and probably for the next few days by the GOP as they try to get Romney back to his old position of no timeline in Afghanistan, a no-fly zone in Syria, and allowing Israel to attack Iran in an attempt to truly cripple their nuclear military capabilities. But if that's because Romney really doesn't care much about foreign policies, which is a definite possibility since he's basically a business man, that's very scary due to the advisers he has working for him. And this is one of two very easy opportunities that President Obama missed.
The first was when Romney talked about the Obama Middle East tour, one that Romney is calling "The Apology Tour." Imagine if the president had told the truth and said, "Governor Romney, during the Bush years, it was thought by many in the Arab world and some here at home that the U.S. was at war with Islam, and I wanted to assure them and all the American people that wasn't the policy of the government. But Governor Romney, with 17 of your 24 advisers being part of the Bush Administration, how would you assure them, and why should we think your policies would be different from the former president's policies?" It would have been a devastating blow.
The other point was a very simple point that Romney made that Obama may not have had a chance to question, but Romney did say that a 5% cut in all domestic spending was his way of balancing the budget. But later Romney said that education and Research and Development (R&D) needed to be strengthened. So does education and R&D need more money or not?
But even with these missed opportunities, Romney seemed unsure about where he stood on many areas, or at least there wasn't any difference between his position and Obama's. He lied about his position on the auto-bailout, which the president pointed out. And because Romney never seemed comfortable, or really didn't want to talk about foreign policies, it gave President Obama a fairly easy win.                 

What's wrong with American politics today.

On The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, Senator Lindsey Graham said more about what's wrong with politics in one sentence than anyone could say in an entire book. On the show, Senator Graham stated that he, Senator John McCain and Senator Kelly Ayotte had sent a letter to the CIA Director asking to be briefed about the situation in Benghazi. Senator Graham, why did you pick 3 GOP Senators to send this letter? Wouldn't the letter have had more impact if it was a bipartisan letter with at least one Democrat asking for this briefing? It doesn't surprise me that the Director, General Petraeus, a decorated Army veteran of 37 years years, wouldn't brief these 3 people separately, or that until all the facts are in, he would be reluctant to brief the appropriate Senate committee. But Senator Graham and most of the GOP don't care being bipartisan, or for waiting for all the facts before deciding what actually happened. All they care about is the headline in the paper, to demonize the other side. A
And in a way, I want to thank Senator Graham for showing me and the American people what's wrong with American politics today. In one sentence, he said more about the problem with Washington than any book about gridlock has explained to the American people.   

More lies from the right, and why they're being said.

In a move to try to get more women to vote for Romney, more lies are being told about bills that the GOP would want passed. This afternoon on The Andrea Mitchell Show, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison stated that the Blunt Amendment would simply allow Catholic organizations  to back out of any insurance plans that included birth control pills. But as she well knows, the Blunt Amendment allows any employer or company to bow out of any insurance plan that the employer or company finds religiously or morally objectionable. In fact, doesn't have to be about birth control, but any item in the insurance plan that the employer or company objectionable could be used to opt out of the plan.
But this brings up another and, I think, more important question that the GOP/Tea Party need to ask itself. If your ideas for America are so great for the country and would be accepted by a majority of the people, why are you distorting them and your candidate is running away from them? Could it be that if the American people found out how far-right your plans for America is, they'd never vote for you? If so, what does it say about you and Tea Party tell that you can't state what your plans really do to America?      

Why Obama and Romney can't talk about the future in specifics

After two presidential debates, the majority of people still don't know where either candidate would take the country and what their plan for the future is. Well, maybe not a majority of people, but most of the undecided people, at least. And the reasons both Obama and Romney each can't state their plan and their party's plan for the future of the country show why Congress is so hated right now.
For the president, all he has to do is tell America about each of the bills he has sitting in the House and say that getting those bills passed would be most of his agenda in his next administration. That these bill would drop the number of unemployed by at 1.5% (CBO's worst estimate), and with the savings in the defense department after the drawdown in Afghanistan going to pay down the debt and help domestic spending. But all that would take the help of the GOP, both in the House and the Senate. And since they have refused to pass these bills and have obstructed the president in the past, it's highly unlikely that they'd do so in the future. So America, not only vote for me, but make sure I have a Democratic Congress, and that is the future the country can have. But since President Obama knows that this would just cause the GOP to say, "See, we told you that he refuses to compromise", he doesn't go down that road. It doesn't matter that the GOP is actually the group that is blocking the president's agenda, but that would be their answer. And enough people would actually believe the GOP lie that it could cause Obama to lose. And why say something that may be construed to benefit the other side? So that's why Obama can't be specific when talking about the future.
But for Romney, he has another complete different problem. If he believes in the GOP 2012 plank, then in theory all he has to do is tell America what it is and allow the people to decide which way they want to take the country. But that's the rub. In polls, America has shown that they really don't like the GOP plank. Cutting out environmental policies to allow companies to pollute and making it harder to sue when they do, passing the Personhood Amendment, eliminating financial laws to allow banking institutions to go back to pre-2008 laws, passing the Blunt Amendment allow to businesses to opt out of any insurance plans if any part of the insurance includes something that the company finds morally unacceptable, get rid of the Department of Education, eliminating all grants and loans to college students,  and overturn the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Consumer Protection Agency bill. These are all in the plank in some form, and all would be widely unpopular with the American people. Even the Affordable Healthcare Bill (Obamacare), which the GOP wants to repeal, while being slightly unpopular (It's now 47 for 53 against), isn't really all that unpopular. Take out the individual mandate, and all the other parts of the bill are acceptable to the American people. This is why Romney can't get specific.
But one thing Romney doesn't need talk about is Democratic obstruction. For in the House, the GOP is in control. And the GOP may get control hold the Senate. This would allow the GOP plank to go through pretty much unobstructed. But even if the GOP gains control of the Senate, can't the Democrats filibuster just like the GOP has done? Well, while the minority party in the Senate can filibuster just about bill, they can't filibuster an appropriations bill. And all they need to do is to de-fund all the agency they can't get rid of, and the effect is the same. So while one party can do what they want only if the other party agrees, the other party doesn't need that to happen. Think this would be acceptable to most Americans if this was explained to them? This is why the American people need both candidates to tell the truth about the future, and another reason why Romney will never get specific about the future.            

Presidential Debate #2

In last night's debate, it didn't take long for the President Obama to show that this debate would be different from the first debate, but it didn't take Mitt Romney even one question to keep up his strategy from the first debate: Move to the center if not out and out lie about what you've been advocating for the last year.
The very first question was about jobs and education, and after backing the Ryan budget which slashes the Department of Education and eliminates Pell Grants for the last year, Romney said that he liked Pell Grants. But when he talked about his 5 point plan for new jobs, President Obama retorted that in fact, Romney had only 1 point: His 20% tax cut. And for the next 90 minutes or so, the president came back and pointed out each flip-flop and showed every flaw in Romney's thinking. Whether it was The Lily Ledbetter Bill or House bills that would allow employers to opt out insurance plans that would include birth control pills or the Attack in Libya, when Mitt made a mistake or misstated things, President Obama not only pointed it out, he pounced and made Romney try to defend his statement, which he couldn't do. And whether it was Mitt not pointing out the differences in the 1983 and the 2008 recessions (The '83 was primarily caused an oil price raise and squeeze, while the '08 near-depression was caused by a world-wide financial collapse), or his   flip-flop on The Dream Act to allow illegals that are students to get green cards when they graduate (He has stated he'd veto the bill if President many times in the past), or lying about his backing of the Arizona Papers Bill, it seemed that Romney could never get a consistent fact correct. And all the while the president was glad to point out the fallacies in what Mitt was saying.
But as bad as Tuesday night's debate was for Romney, there was at least one shining light that he could hang his hat on: Although his momentum has been blunted, he's still in the race this morning, and if the president had been this way in the first debate, there'd be no doubt who'd be the president for the next 4 years, and his name wouldn't be Romney.      

The difference between Romney and Bush #43

A question on a Sunday talk show was: If the panel could ask Romney and Obama one question in the town hall meeting debate Tuesday night, what would it be? And for the most part, the questions were what anyone would expect. But one person said they'd ask Romney what policies he'd have that were different form George W. Bush. And he said that he was sure that if there was an answer, it would be not one thing different. But I think this actually paints Bush #43 in the wrong light. Does anyone think that W. would try to take all public finds from PBS or Planned Parenthood like Romney plans on doing? Yes, I have no doubt that on foreign policy, a Romney administration would be act the as Bush did, as the Neo-Cons that were in the Bush #43 administration are also in places of power in the Romney campaign. But on domestic policy, the Bush administration was not as right-wing fanatical as the GOP mainstream is now. My question, again, would be: What part of the GOP national plank would you veto? On this, I doubt there would be an answer. Is Romney really one of the far right that dominates the GOP, and therefore knows of nothing, or does he disagree with parts of plank and in not wanting to upset the GOP base keep quiet?
There's differences between the Bush #43 administration and the Romney campaign, and Romney is much farther right on domestic policies than W. ever was, but is Romney as far right as the mainstream GOP is now? That's the question I'd like to have answered.    

Fox News, be truthful and change your name

After watching the vice-presidential debate, I taped the both MSNBC and Fox News to get the reactions. And while I did find MSNBC's coverage to be slanted toward Biden, it was nothing like the complete hatchet job done on the vice-president by Fox News. So that got me thinking: What part of news is Fox really interested in? What news do they actually break? I have seen a couple liberal people on a couple of their shows, but are any of their shows actual news shows? I guess tape from 2007 is considered late breaking news. I have an idea for them, although I'm sure they won't listen to me. But, if you are going to tell the truth, even if it as only as you see it, shouldn't your name tell who you really are. So I suggest that you take the name News out and just be the Fox GOP/ Tea Party Channel. You could really take the GOP out and be the Fox Tea Party Channel. You could still have a few liberal people on the shows to give the viewer a sense of balance. But if you're the channel that's suppose to be fair and balanced, at least be fair to everyone and say who you really are: The Fox Tea Party Channel.      

My reaction to the Vice-Presidential debate

After watching the vice-presidential debate, I again didn't see the same debate that I followed on twitter last night. But this time I know why, and after changing a few things, I agree with what I read. But my reaction isn't really what I thought it would be before the debate. I really thought that Ryan was enough of a wonk that he would be able to explain his domestic agenda but have trouble with foreign policy. But in fact, except for his answer about Afghanistan, he was able to at least to stay even with Biden. So in foreign policy part of the debate, where I thought Biden would wipe the floor with Ryan, I gave Biden a very small win. But in the domestic areas, Vice-President Biden had a ready response for everything that Ryan threw at him. And I'm sorry, Congressman Ryan, but I really wish you'd get your facts correct. A trimmed-down Department of Defense would have the fewest ships since World War I? Not even close. A Romney/Ryan administration would allow abortions in certain cases? But your own bill (The personhood bill) would make all abortions illegal. You stated that judges shouldn't have a say in abortions, but legislatures should have the final say. But then why do you make anti-abortion a litmus test for all judges? And isn't the judiciary the final say in whether any law is legal or not? If a tax increase on the rich won't balance the budget, and you were right, it won't, then how does another tax decrease balance the budget? And finally, Congressman Ryan, have you ever heard of the separation of Church and States? If so, if you vote to ensure the country follows your religion, haven't you gone much farther over the line than the Obama administration and allowing birth control pills to be on all health care policies? I could go on, but I think it is easy to see why I gave Biden a huge win in the domestic policy section of the debate.
And finally, I thought the moderator did a great job, but I really wasn't all that happy with her questions. Or maybe a better way of saying it is that while last week's 90 minute debate seemed to take 3 hours, this 90 minute debate seemed to fly by. Other than her background in foreign policy, I don't know why she started there. I also wanted her to ask questions about immigration, gun control, voting rights, and gay rights, but none of these were brought up, not in this debate or in the first debate. But I did think she did a great job of moderating, although I know those in the Tea Party will disagree.
And I'm sorry Fox News, the vice-president was not cranky or mean-spirited or anything like that. Yes, he did interrupt Congressman Ryan too much, but I think that in those cases, he just couldn't wait to show out the flaws in the Ryan's proposals. And even I laughed at some of the things that Ryan said, so the Vice-President's laughs didn't bother me. And while I have found some people on MSNBC to take a rather slanted view of the debate, for the most part I found most of the reporting to be very fair to Rep. Ryan.
But in saying that, I do think that Fox News and the Tea Party (GOP) are happy with Ryan's performance in the debate. They will find a few nuggets and sound-bites that will drive their point home to their viewers, but I don't see how any undecided voters would be swayed by what Ryan said. And there were many who will look on Biden in a new and better light. And in doing that, they'll have a more favorable view of the entire Obama administration. And isn't that the entire purpose of any debate?
      

Vice-presidential debate: A question for Ryan

With the vice-presidential debate being held later this week, I don't know how many people will be watching, but I do have a question that I would like to have answered by Rep. Ryan. I am sure that every time Vice-president Biden brings up the Ryan budget, he will try to explain a little, but I'm also sure he'll remind Biden that it's the Romney/Ryan ticket, not the Ryan/Romney ticket. And he'll say that Romney isn't going to use his budget. But that would lead to my question that I hope Biden asks. If Romney isn't using your budget, isn't going to cut programs that you want to cut, doesn't agree with your plans for social security, medicare, and medicade, doesn't agree with the personhood amendment that you and Rep. Akin sponsored, and you have no foreign policy experience to give him, why did Mr. Romney pick you? And if Mr. Romney disagrees with all your major plans, why did you say yes to being his running mate? Planning on changing his mind and convincing him of your ideas? And if so, why should we believe him now? Well, that may be more than one question, but that's what I'd like to know if I got the chance.    

Mitt's debate is civil, his friend's aren't

While Mitt's debate performance could be called several things, one thing it was to everyone was civil. While he disagreed with the president on several items, he didn't put the president down in any way. But for his friends in the GOP, and people in his campaign, they decided that being completely uncivil, mean, and vile was the way to go. First Newt Gingrich decided to go to the right-wing dog-whistle words. Newt said that for as long as he was in American politics, he couldn't understand the president, that the president didn't seem to have any rhythm in the debate, and didn't know why basketball was important to him. He could have just said that the president was a black man from Kenya and the meaning would have been the same and just as clear to the right-wing. But as bad as Newt was, he paled in comparison to John Sununu. a spokesman for the Romney campaign. He went on MSNBC on said that the president had a bad debate because the president is lazy. When asked if he wanted to take it back, or at least restate it, Sununu said no. Then on Fox News, when asked if  he thought the president would have a better debate next week, he said, of course not, that the president is too dumb to get better next time. So Sununu called the president lazy and dumb. Do  you really think, Mr. Sununu, that because President Obama didn't call out Mitt on all his lies that he's lazy and stupid? You know, with friends like this Mitt, it really doesn't matter how civil you are. If you won't get on TV and say they went too far, they show exactly how you really feel. And it doesn't matter how civil you try to be, the American people will take into account your friends, who aren't civil in any way.        

GOP tells ESPN: Your show's name is wrong!

ESPN has a show called Numbers Never Lie, and after the unemployment rate was reported at 7.8% today, the GOP said that yes, those numbers are a bald face lie. Why does the GOP disbelieve the numbers? Well, actually, it started the night of the the 2008 election. The same night that Obama was elected, the GOP hierarchy decided to give the President-elect no victories to ensure that Obama would be a one-term president. So every vote that came up after the GOP won the House in 2010 that was suggested by the president was tabled, including jobs bills that would lower the unemployment rate. And every month that the unemployment rate was above 8%, which is what Obama said the rate would never get above, the GOP made sure the nation knew, and they hung the number like a noose around the president's neck. Why did Obama use this number? When the recession of 2008 was thought to be a 3.5% decline, economists thought this would be the number if the government stepped in. But when the recession came in at over a 9% decline, after the election, the unemployment rate had to go higher. But the GOP has used the 8% number anyway. But today when the unemployment number came out today at 7.8%, the GOP said that the Obama administration had cooked the books to make up for a bad debate Wednesday night. It doesn't matter that for months economists had questioned the high numbers the last 3 months. It doesn't matter that several people in the know of how the numbers are crunched have said the numbers could never be manipulated.  It didn't matter that the drop was only .3 of 1 percent, the GOP said it couldn't be true. And it had to be manipulated by the administration. No proof needed for the GOP to believe it's true. To the GOP, if the number isn't something acceptable to them, they lie. Sorry ESPN, to the GOP, that show's name is wrong: If they don't believe them, the numbers do lie.

The debate-Did I see the same one you did?

I watched last night's Presidential debate earlier today, as I was watching something else last night, and I'm not sure I saw the same debate that everyone else did. While I was watching the tweets from the debate last night, I thought that President Obama was getting killed. But I saw something different, actually something completely different, from what I thought I'd see. What I saw was two campaigns that had two different plans going into the debate, and they both did what they wanted. Romney, being behind in the polls, wanted to attack the president, and President Obama, being ahead in the polls, didn't want to talk down and bully Romney. He wanted to play it safe, as it was, just stating the facts and let the people decide which one was right. He even said so several times. So what was actually said, what actually happened, and what should happen for both candidates in the future?

Well, to start with, those aren't the real questions, Jim. What are the difference in the candidates on any issue isn't the question, it's what you're trying to find out. So Jim, you want to know the differences in the candidates? Then, to use the first question as an example, Mr. President, both you and Gov. Romney agree that the unemployment rate is too high. What is your plan to lower the rate? Gov. Romney, what's your plan?  Now, if there's no time left, it's your job to stop the debate and move on. Any high school debater knows this. But, as any debater knows, the topics are general, and it's the debaters job to shoot holes in the other side's argument. Debates aren't Sunday morning shows, where the host draws distinctions from the two sides. So Mr. President, you were poorly prepared for the flip-flops that Gov. Romney said that were different than his stump speech at rallies. He stated that he wanted the best schools, and thought there were many things that Education Secretary Arne Duncan had enacted that were good, but one of the Departments the GOP want eliminated is Education. No tax cuts for the rich? You've been arguing for tax cuts and trickle down economics for this entire campaign. Some regulations for businesses are good, including parts of Dodd-Frank, you said. But you've been arguing that Dodd-Frank should be repealed since even before it was passed. So on some items, you abandoned the far right GOP budget plan. But in other items, you were a true conservative. Every time you stated what it would cost a small business to enact ObamaCare, it was by a small business group. Do you really think they'd agree any regulation would be approved by them? You stated that it is immoral that debt be passed from one generation to the other, but the Ryan budget, which you've stated is outstanding, doesn't balance the budget until 2040. So how does that work for you? And you complained about the president not getting any GOP votes for ObamaCare. But, it was good enough for your state when you were governor, and you said that you worked with both sides to pass the bill. And it was the Heritage Foundation, a GOP think tank, that came up with the individual mandate. So why isn't it the GOP's fault that they couldn't agree? I could go on, and may in another blog, but I'll try to wrap this up.

So, what really happened? Well, we were just reminded that Gov. Romney is a good debater, and the GOP knows how to read the rules. And the President Obama, no matter what the GOP says, really doesn't like to attack the other side. He isn't comfortable putting the other side in a box. He had many chances, and I agree with MSNBC that he should have gone on the attack on obvious lies and flip-flops.

So what should happen in the future debates? Well for Romney, he has to keep on the attack and hope the president doesn't call him on it. For the president, he has to actually debate. When Romney states a lie or goes against what he's stated on the campaign, he has to point it out and pressure Romney on the point. The first debate isn't a blueprint for all the other debates, and the president can come back after a so-so first debate. It was done in 2004 with George W. Bush after Kerry won the first debate. I believe W. was a 2 term president, and so can Obama.                

Why have government at all, Mr. Akin?

Once again, Todd Akin, vying to be a Senator from Missouri, has stated his complete disgust for government. Speaking on his vote on the Fair Pay Act, which he against, he said that it wasn't that he was voting against women, but that he thought government had no place telling a business what it should pay a person. And yes, he is against any minimum wage, saying that government has no right to set pay or prices. So, what are you running for a seat in government for if you believe government has no place in a person's life? You believe that social security, medicare, and medicaid is illegal, so you don't believe in a safety net for the elderly. You think that government has no right to tell a businesses how it should be run. So you don't believe in civil rights. You believe that education aid, grants, and loans are, in your own words, "Like third stage cancer." So you don't believe that the poor should be given a hand up to help them get ahead. So what do you think government is good for? Oh, that's right, in your eyes, government is there to ensure women have no say in their health care, overriding her wants and the doctor's advice. Well, at least you believe government is good for at least one thing. And that's one more thing than you're good at, Mr. Akin.    

Romney is a Crosby, Stills, and Nash fan, I guess.

While on the campaign trail today, Mitt Romney showed his true side, both of them. In a one-on-one interview for a national audience, when asked to show an example of his compassion and empathy for everyday people, Mitt used as an example the Universal Health Care Law he signed as governor of Massachusetts. Then, less than an hour later, he spoke at a GOP Romney/Ryan rally and said that the thing that best showed President Obama's love of government over personal initiative is: The Universal Health Care Law signed by the president. Which, of course, was based on Romney's own health care bill. Now, while some are finding this an incredibly fast case of flip-flopping, I happen to think that actually, he is just a Crosby, Stills, and Nash fan. You know the song: Love the one you're with. In other words, Mitt thinks that it's okay to say whatever you think the person in front of you wants to hear. To a group that wants to hear the most conservative, anti-Obama ideas available, that's what Mitt will give them. To a group that believes in moderation and doesn't believe in right-wing dogma, Mitt will give them that.
Yes, the song said that if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with. And in Mitt's case, it's if I can't be with someone who agrees with what I believe, I'll believe in what the people I'm with believe in. Unfortunately, Mitt, that's also being called being spineless. Ask any woman. Oh, that's right, the GOP doesn't believe that women should have certain rights, like equal pay. I guess you really are a Crosby, Stills, and Nash fan.          

Ann tries to humanize Mitt-- and fails

Ann Romney went on the The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to humanize Mitt. At least I guess that's why she went on the show, as any spouse going on an entertainment show would do. But if that was her goal, she failed miserably. When asked if she considers Mitt frugal or cheap, she replied, "Cheap." When asked to give an example, she said that when Mitt leaves the house, he'll turn off the hot water heater to save money. And occasionally, he'll forget to turn it back on when they get back home. And she's learned that cold showers really aren't that bad. WHAT??????? Now, I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say she was talking about when they go on vacation. But, is it really a good thing that the man who the GOP wants to be the next president is considered cheap and not frugal by his own wife? And do we really want our president to be the type of man who can't remember what he turned off when he goes on vacation? If this was an attempt to make Mitt seem more human, it failed miserably.    

Want to check your facts, Pres. Ahmadinejad?

I'm one of those people that loves to check facts, so when the Iranian president said that Iran has been around for 10,000 years, I just wondered if this was true. And so I checked a 1900 world map, and sure enough, he was right: There was no Israel. But there was also no Iran, Iraq, or Palestine. Actually, the map I saw had no Afghanistan or Libya, either. It seems that these counties, and their boundaries, were made after WWI or even later. But don't worry about being a liar when you're in this country. We have a party in this country that refuses to tell the truth and wants to get rid of all those who disagree with them. They may not be comfortable with you, but you do seem to have a lot in common. They don't want to check their facts, either, but are you sure you don't want to?    

Kansas proves time travel-no DeLorean needed

Who needs a DeLorean when you can go back in time like a Kansas town just did. Overland Park, a suburb of Kansas City, has just approved a law which allows citizens to carry a gun in plain sight. That's right, no more 1880s Dodge City is needed to use as a symbol of a town that has people walking around with guns on their hips. Now, the state of Kansas can use the 2012 city of Overland Park as that symbol. Want to guess what party controls Overland Park? Well, let's just say that while the the national GOP party may want to take the country back to the 1950s, they have nothing to tell Overland Park about time travel. That city wants to go back 130 years, and was just able to it, no special car needed. By the way, Alice, I'd stay in the Emerald City for a while. There's no telling what year it would be if  you came back to Kansas, now.    

Romney ad-libs and tells his true thoughts again

Mitt Romney spoke today about mis-steps he thinks President Obama has made in foreign policy and allowed America, in his mind, to look weak. And the four items he used were the killing of the Ambassador in Libya, the civil unrest in Syria, the election of a pro right-wing Muslim president in Egypt, and the Iranian nuclear reactors. Now I can debate any of these items and what we should or shouldn't do, but why is an election on this list, Mitt? Do you really believe that a nation electing a leader is something we should or even could step in the middle of an election and influence who is elected? So you want to go back to when America put despots in power in countries, or do you want to stop millions who disagree with your views and stop them form voting? Oh wait. I guess if it's good enough for GOP legislatures to do here in America, disenfranchising millions of people in an attempt to get the vote they want , then it must be okay for the rest of the world. Maybe you didn't ad-lib after all, but you definitely spoke your true thoughts.