New GOP Meme: Obama Administration Did Not Raise Taxes On The Middle Class

It's becoming clear that the old Republican political Wurlitzer is simply not what it used to be. Check out yesterday's story to circulate - the OMB director gaffedbecause he insisted the Obama Administration had not raised taxes and would not raise taxes on any person earning $250,000 or less. That's a gaffe? In a campaign year? Here's the theory, as transmitted through Politico:

On Wednesday, acting Office of Management and Budget Director Jeffrey Zients appeared to tell the House Budget Committee that the individual mandate isn’t a tax. Which could be a bit of a problem, since the Obama administration is defending the mandate before the Supreme Court by arguing that it is a tax — for legal purposes, anyway.

Oh noes! The ACA is sunk in the Supreme Court now! seems to be the political theory. Needless to say, this will have no effect on what the Supreme Court does. (Hell, I even have a stalwart conservative judge's legal opinion to explain why it does not matter in the legal process.) But in theory, it could matter politically - Republicans are arguing that the Obama Administration will not raise taxes on persons making $250,000 or less. I would think that the Obama Administration would be happy about this. I'm not sure what political purpose it serves Republicans.

Karl Rove must wonder how stupid the people running the GOP Wurlitzer are these days.

< NYPD Street Stops Soar 600% Under Bloomberg | Underwear Bomber Sentenced to Consecutive Life Terms >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Republicans for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    Obama must be doing something "right" - no wonder he grins like that all the time.

    Apparently if Romney wasn't so "moderate" Obama would never have had a chance.

    20% of Republicans leaning to Obama!
    In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul.

    Obama a Shoe-in for 2012 Re-election!

    I read this two days ago and ended up (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    snarfing when I laughed.

    I hope (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    it didn't hurt? ;-)

    How unusual is a cross-over vote (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    like this?

    How many Republicans voted for Bill Clinton?

    Perhaps moderate Republicans cannot stomach the current GOP.

    Perhaps this is a comment on the radicalness of the GOP, not the Republicaness of Obama.


    My money's (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    on a little bit of both.

    10% in '92, ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:48:36 PM EST
    ... 13% in '96.



    But there's no way in he// that Obama's getting 20% of the GOP vote in November.


    if Santorum is the nominee (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:51:08 PM EST
    I dont think so.  
    Romney not so much.  the people who wont vote for him certainly wont vote for Obama either.  in that case 20%(at least) will just stay home.  or vote for some third party.

    heres why (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    Campaigning in Idaho on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum suggested that he is opposed to a public school system overseen by the government.

    "We didn't have government-run schools for a long time in this country, for the majority of the time in this country," he said. "We had private education. We had local education. Parents actually controlled the education of their children. What a great idea that is."

    you know what.
    there are lots of republicans who actually like public education.  among other things.


    No one here will click your spam links (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    They won't be here any longer than your user account will be, anyway...

    With the Republicans seeming to cater to (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    (what we all dearly hope is) the minority wing of their party, and the Democrats more or less ignoring or sneering at the minority liberal wing of their party, the result is that I think significant numbers of both parties feel, as I do, that we are completely unrepresented, and faced with "choices" that don't really speak to our beliefs and opinions.  

    Oh sure, I can look at the GOP and instantly tell you I'm having none of what they're selling - there is nothing they offer that I want or need.  But then, I turn to the Democratic side, and no, it's not certifiably crazy, there's no hate, no frothing at the mouth, but there's a lot of authoritarian policy, disregard for rights, catering to - or do we call that "accommodating" now? - the religious concerns of the other side, too much willingness to use women as bargaining chips, a "look forward" mindset that has let the banks and Wall Street not just off the hook for their misdeeds, but rewarded them for it (we should have known, when we were told we had to look farward, not back, at the actions and policies of the Bush administration), too much interest in weakening the social safety net, and on and on.  There is nothing - absolutely nothing - that gives me any confidence that Obama and the Democrats will, once re-elected, make a major pivot - or even much of a minor one - away from these policies and move to the left.  

    So...as much as some Democrats seem just giddy over the display of crazy the GOP is putting on, because they believe this makes Obama a shoo-in, I would caution them to consider that, yes, Obama might very well win, and by a large margin, in November, but...it pretty much guarantees that we're just going to keep moving to the right, and we'll get more of what we've had the last three years: conservative policy in a Democratic wrapper.

    No wonder the percentage of conservatives-for-Obama is growing, huh?  But they're not moving over to his side because they've had some kind of liberal come-to-Jesus epiphany - they're moving his way because he looks more like what they believe conservative policy should look like.

    Can't speak for anyone else, but I don't find much to celebrate there.

    [Sometimes makes me wonder if we aren't being gaslighted by the GOP to re-make the Democratic Party in a way that just plain eliminates any semblance of liberal, progressive ideology at all.]


    Women as bargaining chips (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    There was no compromise on making contraception available to all women no matter where they work.  The policy did not change.

    I suppose the fact that the words "compromise" and "accomodation" appeared in the same sentence as "contraception" is the problem.

    The head of NOW and Planned Parenthood had no problem with the compromise.  Cecile Richards even pointed out the advance in women's health care by having contraception covered in all insurance plans without co-pays.


    the policy did not change (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    & that is a good thing

    the fact that contraception for women is now covered in all insurance plans without co-pays is also an unalloyed good

    that these things are good is not what is being challenged by those of us who have expressed our displeasure, not with what (finally) turned out to be the substance of President Obama's "accommodation" of the Roman Catholic bishops, but with his having deemed a religious (& regressive) perspective on women's rights worthy of any "accommodation" at all in such a secular domain as federal policy on health care

    i wonder what other religious organizations will now be further encouraged to demand "accommodation" in secular space, & at what threat, implied or fulfilled, to whose full political personhood


    Obama had no choice (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:36:40 PM EST
    after Democrats, including John Kerry, came out against the original policy.



    honestly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    I find it a little strange they did not go with the compromise from the start.  supposedly it was discussed months ago and the were warned about the possible backlash.

    sometimes I have to ask "what were they thinking?"


    "what were they thinking" (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    Who do you think comes off looking bad in this whole thing?

    I don't think the answer to that is Obama.


    well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    both sides seem to think this is a winning issue.  I just saw a poll on CNN that said 50% disapprove of the compromise.  is that true?  who knows.  but I think one thing that is true is that the issue will possibly energize the demoralized republican base at least a tiny bit.  of course it may also energize the dem base as well.  honestly it just all seems like a bit of a distraction.  which is no doubt the point for the republicans.  the economic news is better by the day and they need another shiny object to distract their followers.

    it seems a little like Obama gave them one when he did not need to.  

    having said that, now they are pushing the idea that no one who objects should have to provide contraceptive insurance who finds is morally objectionable so its entirely possible that even the compromise might have yielded the same result.

    I hate armchair quarterbacks so I will give you the point.  perhaps nothing they could have done would have made any difference in the republican response. I stand corrected.  the administration probably did what seemed sensible at the time.

    and you are certainly correct that they come out of this looking much better than the opposition.


    more clearly (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    he got the GOP to go completely bat$hit and start ranting about birth control.

    You really think this is the topic Mittens wanted on the air in the runup to another GOP primary?


    If that was indeed (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    the strategy.  Hats Off to the Obama team.

    to continue (none / 0) (#76)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    today's thought experiment, i will now attempt an accurate formulation of your perspective on this issue

    i think you are saying that because President Obama decided not to force the Catholic Church's hand, the outcome is that women employees of Catholic-owned secular institutions will be able to enjoy the full contraceptive benefits of the ACA with no interruption in or refusal of service, & that this outcome is more important than what would probably have been long & possibly doomed battle over First Amendment principles

    is that your take on this?


    A political strategy (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:33:34 PM EST
    Interesting how the talk-- including one misbegotten hearing by Issa & all his boys-- has devolved to show the real loony thinking of "modern day" Republicans in casting a pre-Spring spotlight on the matter of contraception.  In 2012, the media is spotlighting Republicans who are opposed to (or questioning of) contraception. Somehow, I think that many, many women might remember this months from now...this very personal, hit-it-home issue.

    That the President accorded a major religious institution an accommodation (again, without change in substance) makes sense from a diplomatic long-term avenue and, certainly, from the political numbers perspective.  As for the latter:  In addition to the political calculus in key electoral vote states, the polls taken immediately before the compromise suggested more of a split than the esoteric summer questions asked before the Bishops organized pressure-on-the-flock campaign. Reference the Pew Research Center.

    Addams Family:  My take is that it is sometimes the better course to act in a diplomatic fashion--even when the resisting force is being intransigent & beyond reason--in order to obtain the needed reform.  To have attempted to charge ahead with the various potential splits in Democratic districts would only have provided a short-term élan, and the consequence may well have been to portray the Bishops as First Amendment martyrs to the majority who don't read beyond the first paragraph.  

    Now, see what has transpired:  The Bishops are being cast in some accounts as "extremely conservative" and the Republicans are getting into the substantive area of contraception like a briar patch.  Without taking this line of thinking too far, one could argue that this resembles how this Congress has been played/allowed themselves to be played by the WH all along...this House of Representatives with it's obdurancy, it's 12 percent range rating, and with the image of the reasonable Obama In the background.

    My own inclination, in my personal & professional life, had typically been to go into a position assertively and with full verbal force.  I still prefer that active approach--even tho I might not display it on a blog.  Yet, as some savvy relatives would advise me from time to time: "you can catch mor flies with honey than you can with vinegar.". In my estimation, Obama fully appreciates the electoral advantages of that adage.  And, when we now see the Republican opposition flagrantly displaying themselves on this issue, the advantage is for all of us as well.  (I'll end my speech now.)


    thank you, christine (none / 0) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    i always appreciate your thoughtful perspective on this & other issues, even when we disagree, & i have also been trying to understand your perspective on this one

    apart from the political upside for Obama (a no-brainer in our badly degraded political climate), i think you are arguing that, had there been no accommodation from the Obama administration, the Catholic Church would simply have exempted itself from the ACA's requirement that it directly provide (via employer-based health insurance) contraception to women employees of church-owned business organizations in the secular realm, and would have claimed (perhaps correctly) a First Amendment right to that exemption

    is that your take on this?


    Somewhere in-between (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    The Church has resources to pursue this issue however it chooses.  In this case--in the absence of the  WH adjustment--the Bishops had crafted an argument about religious freedom being attacked that had a surficial attraction for a significant number of people.  That caused a doubt among these people...and that kind of doubt, when nurtured bay allies on the Right can grow and be corrosive in the broader polity.

    The Church appeared poised to pursue the position through the courts.  While I suspect, that the argument would not have stood, insofar as it dragged out, the reporting and uncertainty could erode the political situation for the President as well as provide an emotional wedge in several societal. & religious components.  As a destabilized in a way, it would have injected a negative distraction from the problems genuinely confronting society.  That Obama shifted the onus to the insurers in religious institutions as hospitals, educational institutions deftly removed any colorable claim that the Church was obliged to spend $$$ or energy to meet the rule with which they have long disagreed from a religious standpoint.

    In sum:  the Bishops could have "delayed" via legal argument and could have made a more powerful push in the public opinion court prior to the adjustment.

    Thanks for your kind words...and central question, Addams Family.  I enjoy the give & take we've had...and, the challenges that you raise.


    ok, thanks for the clarification & nuance (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:27:13 PM EST
    i do understand the realpolitik here, & as "accommodations" go, the substance & the outcome of this one are to be applauded, even celebrated

    on prinicple, however, i wish that all the Roman Catholics who practice both birth control and Catholicism had taken this fight to the bishops instead of standing by & wringing their hands while the bishops dragged it into the public square, with who knows what long-term ramifications for the body politic as a whole


    ok, too, Addams Family (none / 0) (#99)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    When I peel the onion that the spiritual and political parts of me comprise, I completely agree with your underlying feelings.  Eventually, these Bishops will age and the focus will change.  The outspokenness & courage of Sister Keehan & the Catholic Hospitals Assoc. is a step in the direction of respectfully confronting what needs to be confronted.  Peace, friend.

    with respect (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    these Bishops will age and the focus will change

    havent people been hoping for that for about a thousand years?


    good on Sister Keehan (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    &, my other misgivings notwithstanding, i must admit it's fun, for a change, watching a Democratic president get the best of the GOP on a so-called wedge issue

    but i would not be me if i didn't add that this begs the question of why anything related to contraception should even be such a wedge, when the right to contraception has been settled law for a very long time, but never mind

    there's a reason why purists like me wisely stay out of politics - that's why i never voted for Ralph Nader, even though i agreed with almost every position he advocated: takes one to know one


    I'm still waiting for someone to posit a (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:25:42 PM EST
    reasonable explanation for why the Bishops chose this occasion to protest the infringement of their religious freedom when it has been well documented that Catholic institutions that provide prescription drug coverage for their employees have been, for over a decade, complying with EEOC regulations that do not allow for discrimination in coverage on the basis of gender, and covering contraception for their female employees.

    And I also await an explanation for why the president has not and did not raise that point when the Bishops decided to make a stink.

    It's all politics, isn't it?  Positioning and posturing for power in the middle of a presidential election season.  Gosh, no ulterior motives there, huh?

    While it seems to have ended well for women, at least as far as where things stand now, what disturbs me is that any risk was ever taken with women's access to contraception coverage in the first place - it could have turned out differently, and I think there is still room for that to happen.

    It would have done my heart good to see Obama call BS on the Bishops instead of engaging them - I would even call it "indulging" them - in a way that ensures that they will continue to push religious doctrine up against secular government in every arena they can.


    i agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:01:09 PM EST
    & i think we can all agree that it worked out for women -- this time

    but it does seem that not everyone has caught on to the connection between, on the one hand, the bishops' sudden fit of the vapors &, on the other, a federal law reaffirming a woman's right to control her own body

    & i just can't help wondering how President Obama's "accommodation" of the bishops would have gone over with some if it had been extended by, say, George W. Bush


    vapors is flatulence (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:37:01 PM EST
    not the cool Scarlett O' Hara phrase.

    The Bishops are political opponents of Obama and want to repeal the ACA.  It appears they thought they had the upper hand with religious freedom regarding birth control.


    your definition of "the vapors" (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    works for me in this context

    but do you really think that the bishops are, a priori, political opponents of Obama?

    maybe i give the bishops more credit than you do, but i don't think the bishops are necessarily a bunch of GOP crazies who are against the ADA because it's Obama's & because scuttling it will encourage Obama to take himself back to Kenya, where he can freely exercise his right to be a Muslim socialist

    i'm willing to believe that the bishops sincerely oppose one provision of the ACA as a matter of religious conscience - i do not think that the fight they're waging over contraception is purely instrumental, nor do i think that they should be imposing their religious battle on the secular body politic


    I unfortunately (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    must disagree.

    The Bishops want Obama out.  They are increasingly Republican.  They would want any Democrat out.


    A lot of the drama is politics, Anne (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    as you state.  In the past few decades, some of the newer American Bishops have veered to the right in the political realm as well, IMHO. Case in point: The new Archbishop of Philadelphia & former Archbishop of Denver is known as one of the more conservative of the conference...and, it should be noted, that his principal spokesman in Denver came from previous & one-time Republican Governor Bill Owens. That Archbishop Chaput publicly questioned the ability of Sen. John Kerry to take communion in 2004 during the campaign, and later wrote a more direct political opinion in the NYT. (After the latter, I called the CO Atty Gen's office & spoke to his Deputy, whom I knew in his previous environmental iteration, and mentioned the matter of tzx exemptions, etc. Subsequently, the Archbishop refined his comments with less direct references to the Democratic Party.)

    Yoiks, I almost say too much. The point: This struggle, as you surmise, has been escalating in recent years. A number of us Catholic women seek support of those paying attention...like yourselves.  Yet, realize that when dealing with the Roman Catholic Bishops in America there are more layers than an onion. And, it does make one weep.  Take it a step at a time.

    In my mind, this attempt to push in this area was aided & abetted by those with whom the Bishops had made some alliance in recent years: The Right.  It hasn't always been that way, not in Denver nor elsewhere.  In my mind also, I would strenuously argue that President Obama met this unusual challenge with a response that the Bishops will ultimately understand: In an emotional, destabilized, unpredictable situation--such as mixing religion & politics--he acted with dignity, diplomacy, and (ultimately) the power of the Presidency. The Bishops, I would warrant, understand that.


    The fight is still on (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:33:17 PM EST
    It would have occured over abortion or gay marriage anyway.

    And, it still continues over the compromise.  

    The compromise gives Obama a better position to defend.  


    respectfully, the fight (none / 0) (#101)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    would not have had the same impact, or needed "accommodation," if it had been waged over gay marriage

    that's because, for gay people, there is no federal law protecting equal or any access to the hundreds of individual federal benefits that heterosexual marriage confers

    there is, however, a body of federal law protecting a woman's right to control her own body, notwithstanding "accommodations" of those who refuse, on religious grounds, to accept the rulings of "secular humanist" courts & judges while continuing to own & operate secular institutions that receive federal funding

    but i do agree that Obama has a better position to defend with this "accommodation," even though i see the whole dust-up as being about things that are ultimately more important than Obama's re-election (which i support, but only in view of the GOP alternatives)


    They're moving his way because (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    he looks more like what they believe conservative policy should look like?

    I think so too, Anne.

    It looks like his bipartisanship with republicans is paying off, and so is his re-election strategy...

    On July 07 Doyle McManus published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Team Obama's victory plan, analyzing Senior White House Adviser (the "brains" behind the president's 2008 campaign) David Plouffe's comments at a breakfast Wednesday, July 6, 2011, organized by Bloomberg news.

    McManus reported in that article that Team Obama sees four reasons they expect to win the 2012 election, and Plouffe's first reason seems unbelievably disconnected from reality, unless we assume it is Obama's intention to enable republicans policies and turn the country over to the plutocrats:

    First, Plouffe suggested, Obama has an opportunity to improve his standing among independent voters -- many of whom deserted the Democrats in the 2010 midterm election -- by working with Republicans toward bipartisan deficit-reduction measures.

    And on July 27...

    At a press conference held by members of the House Out of Poverty Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the second most senior member of the U.S. House, was pointed in his criticism of the White House regarding jobs and cuts to Social Security the President put on the table last week.

    "We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States.  The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that," Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. "My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this," Conyers said strongly.

    July 2011? (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    That is a little dated.

    As most have noted, Obama pivoted sometime after the debt ceiling vote.

    And you have no evidence at all that Republicans like Obama because he is becoming more like Republicans.....Republicans are more crazy, so perhaps, the moderates are fleeing.  That explanation better fits reality.

    You keep citing one poll over-and-over again, and it proves absolutely nothing.

    And you keep citing over and over again the John Conyers quote.....Pretty stale.  


    His re-election strategy is current, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    is in effect, and is being implemented now, in this campaign year.

    The article is from last summer when that strategy was being planned out. That strategy is a continuation of all of his policies of the past three years.

    And the Conyers quote is a complaint from one of his party members about his batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans.

    But what does Conyers know? I guess it never occurred to him that Obama's batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans would result in 20% of republicans declaring to vote for him this early in the campaign, or he would have kept his big mouth shut instead of smearing his president with truth.

    Obama's the best, remember? An 11 dimensional genius...


    heh (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 07:52:58 PM EST
    your scrapping for bad news is becoming increasingly more desperate. and funny.

    In their race to generate hate (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    Some lost their minds.  Isn't that how it always goes though when your goal is hatred and hatred fuels you and drives you or your group?

    My neighbor across the street, they are what I remember Conservatives being.  My husband spoke to her last weekend for quite some time he said.  They seem to almost be in physical pain about what has happened to the Republican party and the landscape they find themselves in.  She told my husband that maybe she could talk to me about how she feels about all of this.  I like her, but I'll be God Damned if I want to talk to any of them about the state of things right now.

    A DARK HOUR OF THE SOUL IS WHAT THEY ALL NEED!  Dear God whoever you may be, don't let me get in the way of that!

    And really, for what did they give away all their (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    credibility? A couple of victories that they may have gotten anyway by sticking to the high road? I have to believe at least a small part of all of them likes the dirt and unreason they unleashed.

    A little bit of (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    reflection might help them too... ;-)

    I never remember Conservatives being (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    so hateful and hate filled as a whole.  Granted I'm not all that old, but I never remember a time like this.  A large section of us has become the Roman mob all over again.  They'll watch people be butchered right in front them, and they will cheer wildly and never notice that they will be next to be butchered for the pleasure of others.

    Yeah, I don't know (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    what that's all about, although I suspect it has a lot to do with that authoritarian mindset.

    They know something is wrong and they see that their world is crumbling, but they look at their so-called "leaders" like father figures who have always saved them from anything threatening them.

    They seem to be acting now like children whose fathers are beating them regularly, and they need someone to blame for the pain, but having always known nothing but taking their lead from their "leaders" they run back to the people beating them to tell them what to do and who to hate for the pain they are suffering.


    You know the GOP has gone completely (none / 0) (#9)
    by Farmboy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    koo-koo bananas when even Ronnie Raygun is too far left for them.

    The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be for any Republicans who still like Ike to form their own party, sue for the rights to the GOP name and brand, and leave the teahadists on their own.


    Eisenhower was good enough for Fonzie (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    "I like Ike.  My bike...likes Ike."  Poor Richie had to go work for that loser Adalai Stevenson, all because of some girl.  Democracy, I tell ya.  Ahem.

    And sweet Jesus (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    Open Republican primaries in Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee according to Kos.  If I lived in one of these states and had a great sitter for Josh, it would be an all day party for me.  And my friends and I would call everyone we knew to vote, drinking would be involved, lots of it probably because this IS a party and the most fun we can have in this economy toying with the bastards who are largely responsible.  We would have a wild wild day, and I would have shown up to the primary polling stations with the most enthusiastic voters.

    I wish I lived in Vermont.  The best possible party will happen in Vermont.  Or Michigan....I'll take Michigan too for the biggest chance to phuck everyone up, as if they aren't already so phucked up they don't know if they are coming or going or gone.

    I'd love open primaries... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    in my state, as an independent I get no say in who either party nominates.  I'd show Ron Paul a little love for being right on some big sh*t.

    But people who play Machiavelli with their primary vote will lead to more primaries being closed instead of open...whatever floats your boat I guess, but I find "jam up the other party by voting for the biggest loser" a most unsavory and manipulative way to be a part of the voting process.  It's just not cool imo, further pollutes a polluted charade.


    How am I manipulative? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    It is an open invitation to all.  Just another exercise of democracy and all of its many many forms.

    You're voting for somebody... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    you despise.  

    Maybe it's me but I just think such Machiavellian strategies are indicative of so much that is wrong about how we elect our representation....and why we end up with such crap representation from both parties.  It's technically within the rules, yeah, but against the spirit of an open primary. Again, all imo.

    I think there is something to be said for winning the right way and losing the right way...a bunch of liberals pulling the lever for Santorum so Obama has a better chance is an example of trying to win the wrong way in my book.  My motto is vote for something, not against something or trying to rig something.


    I am voting in a fashion that allows (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    the person I want governing me to win.  That is democracy, not manipulation

    Spin it any old way... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    at the end of the day you're going in a voting booth and pulling a lever for Ricky F*ckin' Santorum, which he will then use to claim a mandate.  You're encouraging him.

    Like I said, party on pal but that ain't my kinda party.  I ain't never ever ever pullin' no levers marked Santorum.   The day I do is the day you have permission to shoot me.


    you are missing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    the point my friend.

    I get the strategy... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    I just don't agree with it...we gotta aim a little higher than the Rush Limbaugh '08 strategy, or I wonder why bother.

    You are willing to play all the margins (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    when you want to concerning certain issues, but not in open primaries?  That's not fair!  I know, the fair is in the fall.

    I only play angles... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    my conscience can handle...my conscience can't handle voting for Obama, nevermind Sh*ttylube.

    I mean some things are sacred! ;)


    on one hand I understand (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    Donalds point in another thread that meddling in the other parties primary is not, shall we say, optimal.

    that said.  if they dont like it, have closed primaries.  but then the yahoos wont elect Mitt.
    oh my goodness.


    But I like open primaries... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    why shouldn't a D or I who likes an R, or a R or I who likes a D, have a chance to have their voice heard?

    The Machavellian voting games are why states have closed primaries...it's like in kindergarten when one kid eats the crayons and they take the crayons away from the entire class.


    Okey, dokey (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    But, it isn't kindergarten. Machiavelli appraised his opposition well:  He might have been the forerunner of the caution "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.".

    Y'see, the nice-nice response is what Republicans have counted on from so many of us for years.  (And, if you are concerned about a candidate's purity, let me remind of R. Paul's lack of purity & empathy on the the domestic social security & Medicare issues...and his reportedly anti-choice position. Please consider this joshing jab :) ). MT's approach is fully within the law and fully within the loose ground rules of the political world.


    It's a reason to have a party :) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    It's a reason to have some fun after work one day.  Who knows what would come of it if anything?  I would have some fun with it though.

    Totally within the rules... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:41:32 PM EST
    just not cool.  Do unto others ya know?

    Here's an analogy...if you crash my party cuz ya like the tunes that's fine, grab a drink, wanna hit this?...but if you're crashing to lay an upper-decker in the bathroom that's just not cool. That's politics I guess...everything that's wrong with it.

    As to the jab, pure he ain't, scary at times, but there's at least a diamond or two in that rough.  Mitt and Rick just rough.  If NY had open primaries I'd vote for him, and consider it in the general. Foreign policy and drug war are a big deal to me, a positive vote on those issues is a nice option to have.  But alas they are closed, they got primary bouncers over here.  


    For me (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    If I'm playing the angles in such a way that power is kept out of Republican control, I am doing what I desperately need to do at this time.  I'm also doing what my children and grandchildren need.  I'm not crazy about Obama, but Mitt and Newt and Rick and even Ron Paul are too crazy to allow to run anything.

    I know you like Ron Paul, but I think his foreign policy is insane as well as NO REGULATIONS.  And the Republican party needs to address its current insanity.  The whole party must be sidelined until they are no longer willing to blow up the whole world and my life just to be the anti-Obama and suffering from oppositional defiant disorder.


    The way I look at it... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:47:45 PM EST
    all the really crazy Ron Paul sh*t will never get through Congress...if the drug war got scaled back, and we brought more troops and drones home, we're ahead in the game.  Maybe push Brand D that way so we have some good reasons to vote for them.

    the problem is (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    the parts that WOULD get through are all the worst slashing and burning of the social safety net.  at least through this congress.  they would love that.

    about closed primaries.  you know, you could make the argument that if the primary is open Tracy and I have every right to vote for the person we want to win.  IMO its as valid a choice as anyone elses even if the reason we want them to win may be different from the reason someone else has.


    The Orange Satan is running with this too :) (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    And they should.  The Republican party is responsible for how insane they have made their base.  Now they want to marginalize the crazy by having an open primary because they can't get Mitt Romney through in closed primaries.  

    You are free to have a Ron Paul party.


    indeed (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    Rush tried and failed to influence the dem primary in 08.

    I think we should show him how we do it downtown.


    And Mitt Romney says he WILL BE HAVING (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    A SEVERELY VICTORIOUS MICHIGAN PRIMARY.  Well not if a bunch of people throw parties like I would complete with designated van drivers.  I think it is time to revitalize the Gingrich candidate.

    tell you one thing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    with him outspending Rick 29 - 1 (that is now, it may be 50 - 1 by the primary) if he does not win its over for him.

    no idea what happens next but its over for him.
    then we can see some real "pin the tail on the Jacka$$" or whatever the local republicans accused me of since I have always said I didnt believe Mitt would be it.

    funny thing.  some of my less insane relatives lately have been watching some of my more insane relatives and it seems to me they are thinking "these people are nuts".  I can see it in their faces when they say things like "I cant believe someone hasnt killed the sumb!tch by now"  

    yes I have actually heard that.  recently.  and I found the visible cringing among the former Obama haters most gratifying.


    If you've opened the primary (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    you have diminished what a dollar aimed at the Republican base can do.  If you throw the Democrats in there who knows what you get for any money that you spend.  Are they going to spend some of it coming after my vote in the Republican primary now?  What does that do to the Republican base if you start trying to buy my vote?  Who knows?

    and the hilarious part (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    of Operation Hilarity is that most of these changes were made in an effort to help Romney who was always seen as having problems with the base.  

    with Kos pushing this I think there could be a real effect.  and he is right.  with the thin margins of some of these contests it might not even be that hard.


    Thin margins NO KIDDING (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:53:24 PM EST
    some of the margins are paper thin.

    one other thing (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    I think we have reached the point where the money is providing diminishing returns.  everyone knows how the system works now.  they have seen it in state after state.  
    to the extent we pray we should be praying for Rick in MI.  or Newt.  or both.

    Don't spread the diminishing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:27:59 PM EST
    returns theory yet. Let Mitt spread the cash in Michigan the way he did in Florida. Michigan deserves some of that free flowing cash too. And with recent polls showing Mitt getting beaten in both Michigan and Ohio. the only way he knows to stop the bleeding is to spend spend spend.

    Ricky scares me though (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    He has enough of populist sounding rhetoric to appeal to lower income folks in the Rust Belt.

    And his head-to-head polling vis-a-vis Obama is not all that bad, similar to Romney.

    Romney won't be able to say anything coherent duing a General Election Campaign because he would contradict himself on anything he says.

    If the economy does not continue to improve, Ricky could have a shot in the general.

    Think you can give us a Harry Reid style guarantee that Ricky would lose in the General?  That seems most likely, but not totally a sure thing.


    honestly (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    I wouldnt worry much.  I was reading yesterday about the reams of oppo research they have on Santorum from his last Senate run that was never used.

    trust me.  there is plenty of crazy out there to disqualify Ricky.  unfortunately I think we will probably see most of it before the MI primary.  I am just hoping that the MI voters will be so turned off by  Romneys carpet bombing that they will just ignore it.

    I think thats possible.

    but I agree.  I think he is at least as much of a threat as Romney.  always have.  but then I never saw Mitt as much of a threat either.


    and the whole (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    "pregnancy is not a disease" thing from the bishops makes me sick, arguing that it's not preventative care.

    Pregnancy takes a huge toll on the body, and it has far greater long-term implications than most sicknesses, both in the physical and mental sense.  Not to mention, for some women contraception has nothing to do with pregnancy but is taken for other health-related issues.

    And given that pregnancy-related deaths are on the rise in the US - pregnancy absolutely IS a physical disease for women, it's just one that we sometimes choose to deal with because we want kids.


    which is why (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    insurance companies are totally on board with providing birth control.  its far cheaper in the long run than either pregnancy or abortion.

    the logic (so called) escapes me.  they dont like abortion.  right?  they spend millions caring for the needy and they dont realize that more unwanted children is not what the world needs?



    yea (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    and on the mental level, my sister and I did an 18 hour baby-sitting session for my 2 month old nephew (it was their wedding anniversary).  Our conclusion - how the hell do single mothers do it?  It took two of us just to babysit overnight.

    I can't imagine doing that every day alone.


    I was very very organized (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    That was key, and no moments for blogging or such things.  An hour in the bathtub was priceless.  Every waking moment had a task that needed done or the ship would not sail smoothly.  Sometimes I did secretly cry myself to sleep though.  I was more emotionally exhausted than physically exhausted I think.  And my mom died when I was seven so I didn't have that mom person who understood and would give me a sanity vacation now and then.

    It had a few pluses though.  I had no room in my life for dead weight, and that went right on down to loser boyfriends too :)  There just wasn't the time and/or the energy.  Men took a look at my life, and if they weren't in it to win it themselves I made them tired and nervous just watching.


    MT, when I read your posts (none / 0) (#86)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    I always think you must be a truly amazing person in real life!

    I don't think my kids are very aware of that today (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    The only thing we know for certain now is that we will be moving sometime in the near future.  I'm doing my best to prepare.  My husband's career manager says that the higher ups have changed the focus and goals of troop deployments eight times in the past two months now though.  We still don't know where we are going but our daughter was upset today about us going as was Josh.  The uncertainty leaves them with no positives or possibilities to focus on other than we will be leaving soon ;(  She will be staying here with her new family, but obviously upset about losing the closeness of her parents and brother.

    you remind us (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    that for every person in uniform there is also a family "serving the country".

    Thankfully, otherwise we'd leave the little rotters in the gutter!

    Did you hear the comment (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    from Ricky's billionaire--that women should use aspirin held between their knees as contraception?

    Are these people for real, or real people?


    I did (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    and sadly I think they are.  but fortunately still a minority.

    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    Did they also suggest screwing standing up, or jumping up and down afterwards?

    Old-time birth control. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    I'm waiting for Santorum to recommend the medieval process of the male partner immersing his testis in boiling water for a few minutes--it is not so popular anymore, but we seem to have regressed enough to give it another try.  Women should advocate for this technique.  That should close the deal on the discussion.

    or boiling oil (none / 0) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    might as well go full medieval

    read it and weep (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    oh jeez (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:42:19 PM EST
    I don't know what's worse, the over-moralizing, or the complete lack of recognition that married women may also not want to be constantly pregnant.

    ""I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated ..., particularly among the young and it has I think we've seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country.""

    News flash, not all of us plan on having 20 kids just because we get married.  I'm not even gonna get into the other stuff.


    just dont mess (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    with the Viagra provision.  this is amurka.  some things are sacred.

    Depends (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34:51 PM EST
    on the oppo research because over the years I've seen a lot of things that were supposed to knock off a candidate and they didn't.

    Vermont? Why in VT? (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    Hate to tell you this, but VT voters don't look fondly on playing tricks with elections, if that's what you're suggesting.

    And FWIW, we don't have open primaries per se, we just don't register or identify voters by party.  You go to vote in a primary, they hand you three or four or more ballots, one for each party.  You fill one of them out and stick it in the ballot box and toss the others.

    I'm splitting hairs here, but there's in my mind a big difference in spirit between Democrats being allowed to vote in Republican primaries and voters having zero party identification to begin with.


    The Republicans formed (none / 0) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 10:17:19 AM EST
     circular firing squad last year, or perhaps in 2008, with the elevation of quitter-cum-VP candidate Palin.  

    the shots just keep a'comin'!  I used to wonder what would happen if the idiots on the far right of the republican party came out in droves, and that's what we've seen for the past 3 years.  A serious mess.

    I'm so used to the democrats making these mistakes, it's nice to see teh stupid on the other side.

    Is there something about wanting to be a petty tyrant that leads one to the right wing of the Republican party?

    make Obama contradict this "pledge" (none / 0) (#22)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    If there is a second Obama term, the only way to lower the deficit is to raise taxes on people earning less than 250000 as well as the rich.  Otherwise you can't raise enough revenue.  If the GOP can get Obama to say "read my lips--no new taxes on those earning less than 250000" then how will Obama raise money to expand big government and pay the cost overruns of the health plan, much less decrease the astronomical deficit.
    Except for picking judges, it isn't much fun being a Democratic president if you don't have money to spend.

    End the wars (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 12:16:53 PM EST
    bring the troops and the navy home. Drydock the ships, and cut the pentagon budget in half. Or more.

    U.S. War Spending Now Exceeds That Of All States


    and today (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    they are having a hearing on womens health.  

    with no women.

    Two female Democrats walked out of a House oversight committee hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule Thursday morning, accusing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of manipulating committee rules to block female witnesses from testifying.
    "What I want to know is, where are the women?" asked Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) before walking out. "

    Wonder where that will play on the evening news? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    The "politics" of contraception!  Even putting on my Crazy Hat, I cannot conjure up what these Republicans are thinking...in fact, it more than ever seems that the question "Have they totally taken leave of their senses" is now it's own answer.

    it is truly (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    baffling isnt it?  either they are playing some extreme 11 dimensional chess, or they have a plan to stop all women from voting in the fall, or they have completely lost touch with reality.

    possibly all of the above.


    They can't help themsvles (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    It is like the Schiavo case.

    They (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    are in such a bubble you just can't believe. I have talked to some of these people that reside around where I live. They truly don't watch anything that isn't already "approved" by GOP central furthering the craziness.

    AND (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    the Oklahoma senate passes the "Life Begins At Erection" bill.

    OK Senate Passes Personhood Act


    if life begins (none / 0) (#50)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    at erection, then what does the Catholic Church have to say about Viagra? after all, if the Pill violates God's almighty will for a woman, then doesn't Viagra use violate God's decree that a man's rusty tool shall be taken out of service?

    If life begins at erection... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    send my arse to The Hague cuz I got more bodies on me than Stalin.

    heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:04:07 PM EST
    dont get me started.  and dude I am 60

    Sh*t brother... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    thats Native American level genocide!

    i would expect no less of you, kdog ; ) (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    btw (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    Virginia is about to do the same thing and Bob McDonnell has said he will gladly sign it.

    and btw#2 he is on the very short list for Ronmeys (or whoevers) shortlist for VP.

    I like this extremely sensitive quote from the bills chief sponsor:

    In fact, the mandate is classic sumptuary legislation, prohibiting personal spending choices which offend the moral or religious beliefs of Congress. Thus, the Government's individual mandate is not a regulation of commerce; it is a compelled societal duty. Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.

    anyone besides me think what he really needs is a better understanding of what its like to be raped?


    Actually no. (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:20:19 PM EST
    They struck down the erection part. LOL...cuz Gawd forbid you prevent those good Christians from spilling their seed.

    And they also have a little clause which says:

    "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care."..

    I interpret this part to basically nullify the "law" and turn it into what it is, posturing and grandstanding.

    Cuz, for instance, oops, Plan B is just another form of accidentally not following prenatal care guidelines.....etc, etc.


    I think the erection part (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    was put there by a Democrat to show how rediculous and hypocritical the bill was.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    xactly so (none / 0) (#91)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    Johnson, whose amendment was tabled, said she is sick of legislation that pries into the private lives of women with no mention of the men who are co-actors in the process of conception.

    Link Error (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    "the OMB director gaffed"