Spineless People! That would be most of Congress.

Two items have come in front of Congress, and if anyone there wonders why their approval level is so low, they don't have to wonder any more. First, the Simpson-Bowles bill finally went in front of Congress. Yes, after years of both the GOP and Democrats complaining that the President that he wouldn't put this comprise to help pare back the deficit, it was finally put up for a vote. And how many votes did this remarkable bill get? 38. In the Senate. Oh no, in the house. Yep, that's right, all of 38 votes out of over 400! Think the President won't bring this up when he talks about a do-nothing Congress? Was that enough for the week to help cement their low approval rating? For Congress? Hell NO! They had to make sure the oil tax incentives were kept in place first. The Senate voted on whether these tax incentives should stop, and in a 51-49 vote, the bill was defeated. WTF, you may ask, is that about? A bill can get a majority of the votes and still not get passed? That's right, because in the Senate, you need 60 votes to pass a bill. Yep, oil companies keep getting tax shelters, and a compromise bill to help bring down the deficit is basically laughed off the floor. Well done, Congress. You've proved this week that you are the most spineless people in the country, and if anything, your approval rating, if anything, is way too high.

Who's to blame for the bias?

Watching excerpts of interviews with Robert Zimmerman and Robert Zimmerman, Jr. as they defend George, I am taken aback by their obvious lack of a proper term. In all that I seen, both of them are saying what happened to George: He was on the ground, he had to move his head to ensure he wasn't beaten up worse, things like that. But were they there? No, and so they never should state what happened, but that George had said that these things happened. If they aren't saying it, they're biasing one side of the discussion, and stations should point this out. But if they said that, and certain stations are refusing to air that part, they are trying to bias the other side of the discussion. And if the stations are trying to bias viewers, that's much worse and much more troublesome than the family defending George.  

Sins of the father

I have no problems with any parent defending his/her child, but Robert Zimmerman, you come the closest to making me change my mind. So what was your basic sin that gets me thinking of changing that view? Was it telling another son, Robert Jr., what George had told you? No that wasn't it. Was it staunchly defending George? No, I expect that. Could it have been where you went on the attack, saying that the President and all liberal groups and stations were promoting hatred? Yep, I have to admit, that was it.You and your family better hope that either no jury pool saw your vile attack, or that George never goes on trial. Because if the jury ever sees and hears your rancor toward the President, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and others, they won't question where he possibly got a bias against blacks. They'll know exactly where it came from. And yes, it came from the sins of the father.  

Supreme Court Deliberations

Well, after 3 days of questions and testimony, the Supreme Court will deliberate the Affordable health Care Act, better known as ObamaCare. And no matter which side you're on, there is one thing I really don't understand. Why did it go in front of the Supreme Court? This is a bill that stops insurance agencies from denying coverage for a pre-existing illnesses, allows but doesn't require children to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26, allows states to opt out of the bill if they have a better idea to cover every one by 2017, and beginning in 2014 requires all people to have insurance, the individual mandate part of the bill, which was a GOP idea. That's right. The mandate hasn't started yet, and the states still have 5 years to devise their own plan. So the entire bill isn't in effect yet. So again, why was this bill in front of the Supreme Court in 2012?

Justice is blind, but right wingers aren't

A man who is a member of a local watch sees a young man acting suspicious and chases him down, shooting him.and killing him. Under the eyes of justice, it doesn't matter if the young man or the shooter is white, black, Hispanic, Asian, native American or any combination of these, or none of these. But imagine the outrage from the right wing if a black member of a local watch group had disregarded the police and chased a young white man, shooting and killing him. Think they would say it was okay for the shooter to disregard the police telling him not to chase? Think they would have aired any story backing any reason for the shooting? Think they would have let any racial epitaphs said from the shooter to the police go? Think the victim's school record would have been opened up? But the young man wasn't white was he, but black. So for right-wingers, nothing will be looked at the same. Lady Justice doesn't see color, because she's blind to such matters. But right-wingers, they're not blind are they? And that makes them racists. No ifs, ands, or buts.        

Commander-in-Chief Etch-A-Sketch?

In this headline, I think I've just nailed down Romney's biggest problem: Do we know what he stands for, and will other countries know what he stands for? Is he a moderate, who believes in legalized abortions and gay marriages, or is he a hard-right winger, who believes that Planned Parenthood should no longer be in service? Do we know which one he is? Does Mitt even know? And if he's pliable, believing in no real core beliefs, can other countries know what he stands for? Will our own State Department know what deals and treaties should be attempted, and which would be bad for the country, in the eyes of the President? Will the Defense Department answer to the President, or will they always convince him to follow their lead, since he has no beliefs of his own? Is this the kind of candidate you want, GOP? I hate to say it (and I thought I never would), I'd rather see Santorum run than Romney. I may not agree with Rick, but I know where he stands, and at least I can respect him for his honesty. That's more than I can say for candidate Etch-A-Sketch.  

Romney wins, but so did the Tea Party

Mitt Romney won Illinois convincingly last night, but in a strange and odd way, the Tea Party was the big winner. Didn't Santorum get his butt kicked? Am I out of my mind, you ask? Well, maybe, but to get such a large win, Romney had to go hard right. First Amendment against forcing groups to add contraception pills to health services? Oh, he went farther right than that. He said that Planned Parenthood needed to be stopped funded and closed. When a woman asked him where she should go to get the tests she needed, he said he didn't care. Yes, he didn't say no abortions, or even no birth control. He said no to simple health care like Pap Smears. You think Romney can pivot back to the middle after that one? Neither does the Tea Party. And that's why they were big winners last night.  

A Tea Party truth shows its basic lie.

Michael Patrick Leahy, one of the founders of the Tea Party, said a basic truth on Morning Joe this morning which also shows one of its basic lies. Oh yes, he said, the Tea Party was started in February of 2009 as a backlash to President Obama's horrible bills, but they were not against the man himself. Say what? Even the people on the show could see through the charade. When Obama was the President, it was on the middle of January. The bills in January and February were Bush's stimulus.So why did they want to backlash Obama? Could it be because they didn't like a black President? Probably.    

How long is too long?

As a retired military man, I completely understand the mantra of "Don't quit until the mission is done." But really, what was the mission? To ensure Iraq didn't have WMDs, to find and destroy the people who conceived 9/11, and to make a home for them nearly impossible. We've toppled Saddam, we've killed bin-Laden, we've got Al-Queda hiding or on the run in Asia and Africa. So why is the military still there? Nothing in the military mission said to build a nation, nor should it. Sorry, Mr. President, once bin-Laden was killed, there was no reason for the military to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Get them out now, but at an acceptably safe rate. The missiom was never ti build a nation. If you want to build a nation, build this one.    

Conservatives, do you know history?

Listening to conservatives today, you'd swear that all that is needed to get on of them in the White House is for the GOP to nominate one. Rally? Name the last 2 true conservative that America elected? George W. Bush? How can a man that signed Medicare Part B, invaded 2 countries, and ballooned the government conservative? That's right, he wasn't. George H. Bush? Even more liberal than W. ever thought about being. Ronald Reagan? This is a man that raised taxes to help balance the budget rather than cut government programs . But, okay, that's one. Now name the one before him. Eisenhower? So you consider a man that started the space race and built the interstate highway system to be a conservative? Of course you don't. So keep going back. Truman, an everyday man from Missouri? Integrated the service, and temporarily nationalized industries to force companies to bargain if good faith with unions. Nope, either may knock him out, both definitely does. So we go back to Cal Coolidge. So two true conservatives in the last 84 years. And only one in the last 80. And you think that all that's needed to elect a true conservative is to nominate one? Not only do you not know history, it looks like you don't know America, either.      

Newt may decide the GOP nominee

Although Newt Gingrich didn't win either Alabama or Mississippi, the results may have helped him decide who will be the GOP nominee at the convention. Doesn't make much sense, but in a way, it's very true. If Gingrich had won those states, had Santorum come in a strong second, and had Romney come in a weak third, someone may have become a candidate and tried to get on as many of the remaining primaries as possible. This would mean that although Newt would have a few more delegates, he wouldn't be able to decide who should be the candidate, as all the candidates would have been so weak, it would have led to a completely fractured convention. But now, it may very well be that Romney goes into the convention with just a hundred delegates less than the number needed to win the nomination. So there's Newt with his delegates, and what can he do. Do nothing, hope that his delegates stay with him and other delegates come to him on the second ballot. Do nothing, and watch his delegates leave for Santorum. Or advise his delegates where to go. And in that case, who is close enough to have that push him over the threshold and has anything to give Newt? That's right, Romney. In either of the last two cases, it's Newt's delegates that push the winner over the top. So it's very possible that although Newt didn't win either state tonight, he may have given himself a bigger voice in who the ultimate nominee will be.  

Southern GOP, are you that effing stupid?

A poll cam out today that stated that in Mississippi and Alabama, almost half of the people voting in the GOP primary today believe that the President is a Muslim. I only have one question to those people: Are you that fucking stupid? So, you've seen him put down a rug (or whatever the cloth is called that they kneel on and pray) and pray 5 times a day? Of course not. And this is one of the religion's most sacred acts. If a Catholic doesn't go to church any day of the week, or even any day of the year, including Easter and Christmas, are they really Catholic? No, they're not. And you would not believe them if they told you they were Catholic because they don't follow its basic tenets of what a person needs to do to be a Catholic. Their actions would preclude you from believing what they said. So why does anyone believe that the President is a Muslim when even the President says he isn't. And he's not following a basic tenet of the religion, so he isn't following the religion. So why do half the GOP voters in Mississippi and Alabama believe he's a Muslim? Are you ignorant of the facts, don't care about them, or are you just plain stupid? If you're none of that, then that means you're bigoted racists. Actually, if you're any of these things, you're bigoted racists. And what does that say for the GOP in the south?

Game Change? Yes, and it changed 2012 politics, too

I watched the HBO movie Game Change, and although I do have a different and slightly better view of Sarah Palin, I have much worse thoughts now on all those behind the scene in her being picked. Not so much because of the 2008 election, but because of this election, and I'm afraid, all elections in the future. Why? Because I wonder, if McCain had picked a safe, boring, but very competent person, man or woman, would Cain  have have run, and therefore, gotten into the GOP debates? Very doubtful. Maybe the same could be said for Bachmann, Santorum, and maybe Newt. In other words, could a dynamic, basically one-trick candidate even try to run for President? I don't know. But I do know that Sarah Palin, by her beliefs and cult-of-personality, not her ideas, energized a large group of people. This emboldened others this year, and will far into the future, to try the same thing. And millions of Americans will follow these cult-of-personalities, but they will always be a minority. Think the debates were torture to watch? Wait until there are only one-trick candidates, preying on only the most base and crass of emotions, to choose from on the GOP side. Then, people will stop and ask themselves, who was the first to set us on this path, and who put that person there?  All they'll have to do is watch Game Change, and wonder why she was ever chosen.      

Rush's Missouri Bust

I am completely amazed at the backlash at Rush's Bust in the Missouri Hall of Fame after the Fluke controversy. Not at the backlash, but at the timing. For all of you complaining, have you heard some of what he has been spouting for the last 30 years? One of the reasons Rush is taken aback by the backlash is the simple fact that this is very mild for him, and the person he went after was someone normally out of the limelight. And maybe that's one of the reasons for the backlash. This is just a student at Georgetown Law School, no public figure. So maybe we figured, if it could happen to her, it could happen to you, or me, one of our friends, or our family. So now some people are seeing Rush differently than they were when he's just going after public figures. I have to admit, when I heard Rush was getting a bust in the state hall of fame, I thought it was a horrible idea. What would most people think about the state if Rush was in the hall of fame? But then I realized that smart people would realize there are obnoxious jerks celebrated in every state ( Just look at most governors-LOL!!), and idiots already think of Rush as an icon. So I'm sorry I can't get all work up over Rush's bust. To me, Rush has been a bust for many years.  

Is John Brown spinning in his grave?

Thinking about Santorum visiting Kansas today, I was struck by how at home his views are there. With the views of Governor Brownback being almost completely in line with the Santorum views, with taxes being cut for the rich and services cut for the poor, with doctors being killed for legal surgeries in the state, most would swear this is a state right between Mississippi and Alabama. But wasn't this the state where the fighting started that would soon turn into the Civil War? Wasn't Kansas on the side of the union? Now, it is a large part of the confederate south. Seeing Brownback and Santorum so at home in Kansas, I wonder if John Brown is spinning in his grave. If not, he must know nothing about what has happened to the state he loved.  

Keep the GOP contests going

After 20 debates, over 20 states have voted, and I still want more from the GOP. Am I nuts? Maybe. But what would it say to people if you told them that of course we want your vote in November, but we hope your primary doesn't matter due to where you lived. Of course if you lived in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, we'd want to know who you liked in the primaries. But any state that votes after Super Tuesday, I hope we've already made up our mind, and your vote won't matter to our selection process. If you said that to anyone in either party before the first primary or caucus, they'd wonder if you really believed in democracy. So come on GOP, keep the fighting going. It may not be good for the candidates, but it's great for a small idea called democracy.  

The more things change ...

Wow! Did Super Tuesday really change the GOP landscape! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha! Yeah, right. Santorum won 3 states, Gingrich one state, and Romney won the rest. But Ohio was so close, it showed how the heart and the mind of the GOP are completely split, as Mitt is too liberal for the heart of the GOP (The Tea Party), and Rick is too socially conservative for the mind (the moderates and big business part of the GOP). Newt showed exactly how regional he is as a candidate, winning only his home state of Georgia. And where did he say he was going next? Well. of course it's Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas, the most conservative northern state in the country. Yes, the up-coming contests may work well for Newt, but, come on. Not going to contest Illinois? But that still makes you a better candidate than Ron Paul, who has won nothing. So the change from last Tuesday? Yeah, that's right, nothing has really changed. Romney amasses delegates, but can't close the deal. Santorum keeps going on, getting delegates but not slowing down Romney. The more things change, the more they stay the same.  

Apology is no apology

Finally on day 4, Rush apologizes to Miss Fluke. But did he really? Did he say he was wrong about her statement? No. Did he say that he should take not only his words but his ideas back? No. He said that he used poor choice of words. He said he was trying to be amusing, but he wasn't. Is this an apology in any way? Hell no! It is a way to get advertisers back, but hopefully they won't go back to such a complete and utter jackass and worthless person and sponsor his show. Again, as I have said before, Rush has the right to speak his filth if he wants. And any company who agrees with his views on this and all his other vile beliefs can sponsor his show. But tell us who you are so we can decide whether we want to buy your products. Those who like Rush should, and those that don't shouldn't. That's how democracy and the free market works. But Rush, don't try blowing smoke up our ass with a poor attempt to get forgiveness. You said it, you meant it, and now you have to own it. That statement was no apology was no apology, just a statement trying to get sponsors back.  

How will you stand up to a leader?

So, Mitt, Rick, and Newt, you want to be commander-in-chief. So tell all Americans why we should believe that you will stand up to the leader of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or even Israel if you won't stand up to Rush Limbaugh? Besides being obscene, irresponsible, and nearly libelous, they were wrong. The woman in question didn't speak on The Hill about her life, she talked about someone she knew that needed to use birth control pills not for birth control, but as a medicine she needs to control a disease. Has no one in the GOP actually looked at her testimony, or did they look at it and decide they didn't care what she said? Candidates, if you won't set Rush straight, why should we believe you have the spine to go face-to-face with another country's leader?  

Get Rush off the air-- at least for a while

Well, Rush has basically stepped in it. He has decided that every woman who has ever used birth control is a slut, and that women that gets birth control under the Obama health bill should put their sex acts on DVD so everyone can see them since, in his eyes, everyone has paid for them. Now, I won't debate the merits of  birth control in a modern medical bill, but Rush, sluts? So every woman who, along withe her husband,  has used birth control to decide when the best time to have children is and how many children to have is a slut? This is one of the most irrational, illogical, and ignorant thing that Rush has ever said. But yes, he has the right to say them. But to his sponsors, I say either get him off the air, suspend him, or tell us who you are and that you back his show. I don't listen to his show, so I don't know who his sponsors are. Sponsors of Rush, have the guts to broadcast your names in papers and on other radio and TV stations to state who you are and that you back Rush. I don't care if you are the milk I drink, the toothpaste brand I use, or anything that I use, if you sponsor Rush and do nothing, I want nothing to do with you. Rush shouldn't get away with this without some retribution, and it's up to you, the sponsors, to make him pay. And if you agree with him, we should have the right to know that, too.

As a moderate, I don't want Romney

As a moderate, you may think that I'd rather have Santrorum win the the GOP nomination rather than Romney because he'd be easier to beat . But no, that's not my thinking.Yes, Romney is more moderate, I think. But where does he stand? Again today, Romney waffled to appease a voting electorate. Blunt amendment good?  No, I don't agree with that thought.. One hour later, I didn't understand the question. Yes, you bet I'm for it. Why the change? Many ideas, but really, who cares? I know where Rick Santorum stands. And I think most Americans do. Do we know know where Romney stands? Wait twenty minutes and it may change. At this perilous time in our country, I want someone who won't waiver about their beliefs. Agree with Rick? Sometimes yes, most of the time no. But I know where he stands. On all the issues. As a retired military man, I want a commander-in-chief that won't change his/her mind when political backers say that's not the right way to go. To the GOP power, a far right person may be not the person you want to elect, but isn't that better for the country than someone you can't trust?