HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Mara
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 18,883

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

The media has been saying he might lose Pennsylvania ever since 2008

Apparently, 4 years later, nothing has changed even though he won Pennsylvania decisively in 2008.
I'm waiting for them to start questioning whether or not he will able to "close the deal" this year.

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 26, 2012, 05:34 PM (1 replies)


I'm sure the DNC is aware of the situation. I would hope that they (and the Obama campaign) are doing something to counteract these laws. I think that DOJ has gone after some voter id laws already in some states if I'm not mistaken. Our challenge this year is not only GOTV but also making sure that when people go to the polls, they are ABLE to vote as well. I personally think that our electoral system is in need of some major reforms, particularly when it comes to ensuring voter participation and the right of every citizen of eligible age to cast their vote.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 26, 2012, 12:54 PM (0 replies)

How awful

Of course, President Obama is not mandating College nor is Michelle taking away anybody's sweets. I guess that whenever a Democrat proposes something that they think is a "good idea" and something that might benefit people in this country, the right-wing Republican Tea Party automatically assumes that it is part of some horrible "anti-freedom" anti-working people plot that is being forced upon them.

Sometimes I wish people like Santorum would just find themselves a nice little remote island somewhere in the world to take themselves to so that they could live out their own ideological fantasies and give the rest of civilization a chance of survival/progress.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 26, 2012, 10:10 AM (2 replies)

"an economy to support prices that high."

In a few years MAYBE, as long as we don't keep (re-)electing Republicans but where exactly are all the jobs that would help support those kind of higher prices? Wouldn't it make more sense for prices to skyrocket WHEN that actually happens? I know that they're "speculating" but still................

Hey, come to think of it, if speculators believe that the economy is going to come roaring back to support prices like what they're talking about, then how can Republicans claim Obama's policies are a failure (or that they're not "good enough"?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:18 PM (1 replies)

Thoughts on a Romney/Santorum ticket

Romney presents a "moderate" face for the indies and Santorum fires up the whackos. Not saying that they would win but it seems to me that, to even have a chance in November, Romney has to hold on to the conservative "base" somehow and will (likely) have to nominate somebody who can appeal to the teabaggers, fundies, etc. anyway. Given that Santorum has some momentum and can hold the teabaggers and Romney has the financial resources, what better way for the GOP to end their self-destructive primary the field for Mitt than to take Santorum out of the running and offer him the VP slot (assuming Santorum would accept)? Does anybody wonder if this is being considered? Would this even be a viable option for them? Would such a ticket pose a threat to Obama/Biden in November?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Feb 22, 2012, 03:19 PM (12 replies)

About this vaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia

I was listening to the Diane Rehm show this morning and there was a representative, presumably of one of a number of anti-abortion organizations, supporting the mandatory ultrasound bill (of course) and arguing that, since Planned Parenthood of Virginia already requires ultrasounds to be performed prior to performing an abortion, she didn't understand what all of the ruckus was about. Another woman on the program, speaking from the "pro-choice" side, was saying that abortion providers are encouraged(?) to perform ultrasounds prior to an abortion but that it isn't always done. Wouldn't doing an ultrasound be necessary part of providing abortion services? Is what Virginia proposing something new and extraordinary? Is it that Virginia is trying to make it mandatory for women to VIEW the ultrasound?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Feb 22, 2012, 02:18 PM (27 replies)

The saving grace this time (unlike in 2003)

is that, after nearly 11 years and two extended military campaigns, most people are pretty worn out with war and refocusing on domestic matters as the economy has gotten worse. The hawks are still out there preaching but they're mostly preaching to their choir. War with Iran is going to be MUCH harder for them to "sell" than the Iraq war and even harder with them out of the WH, which is another reason why Obama needs a second term. Any of these other guys get in, war with Iran will be ON before they've even unpacked their toothbrush. Unlike with Iraq, attacking Iran would be like striking a hornet nest with a club and we could have a serious war on our hands that could potentially suck in other countries and regime change would be nearly impossible. The idea that Iraq was ever such a dangerous threat seems even more laughable when talking about taking on Iran.

I think that neither the will nor the way currently exists for anybody to attack Iran, at least not in this country and hopefully Israel doesn't decide to pull anything reckless either.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 21, 2012, 12:50 PM (0 replies)

Interesting (in a bizarre way) website I heard about from Addicting Info: "Tea Party for Obama"


Here is the post from Addicting Info: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/16/the-tea-party-for-obama/

Is this for real? It almost seems like some kind of joke that somebody who works for the Onion cooked up. Thoughts? Opinions? Anybody actually know anything about this group?

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Feb 20, 2012, 08:33 PM (2 replies)

"The Republican American Population Explosion Act"

Since the Republicans have now finally tipped their hands and are now actively speaking out against birth control and pretty much all manner of family planning and individual reproductive freedom, the Republicans had better get busy coming up plan for the inevitable population explosion in this country if they manage to succeed in their efforts to dissuade and/or limit the use of modern family planning practices, as well as figuring out the means to provide intensive medical services to manage the inevitable rise of pregnancy-related complications, children with serious medical concerns, and foster care resources for unwanted children, especially those conceived under non-consensual situations.

They might want to ask themselves whether or not they believe our country even has necessary resources and capacity to absorb such a massive population explosion such as that which is likely to result from decreased family planning practices? They no doubt love being able to take advantage of China's "business climate" and horrible human rights record to inflate the already obscene profits of their corporate constituency but they claim to be offended by its horrendous family planning practices that relies on forcibly limiting the numbers of girls born via sex-selection/abortion. The Republicans surely do not want us to have to (likely) resort to extraordinary family planning practices like China someday, do they? Will there be enough housing, employment, and other resources to support an even larger population in this country, particularly given that resources are already painfully limited for a lot of people in this country, not to mention the Republican assault on the safety net and the economy?

No matter what the Republicans think, the lack of access to modern-day birth control and family planning services is not going to dramatically change their sexual habits. Most adults I know are NOT going to be adopting the "aspirin method" nor are most people (not otherwise inclined) going to be turning to a member of the same sex for pleasure w/o pregnancy, which, of course, we know that most Republicans don't (publicly) approve of either.

I'm pretty certain that most Republicans- most of whom have surely utilized modern day family planning practices at one point or another based on the "non-Duggar family size" of their families- have seized on this as an issue as a means to "excite" their base (in a non-sexual way, of course) and hopefully (for them) drive a wedge between President Obama and some of his more religious supporters but, at the end of the day, there are people within their ranks whom are actually going to turn this kind of language into legislation or they're going to be expected to actually DO something about it and then where will they be?

It seems to me that Republicans seem to spend so much time focusing on getting and keeping power that they pay almost no attention whatsoever to what they actually DO once they have it and/or the ramifications of the policies that they will be expected by their base to actually implement. This particular situation is no exception. They have absolutely no idea IMHO the kind of negative consequences that might result from actually preventing/limiting access to family planning and birth control but, of course, the really sad thing is that they wouldn't be willing to do anything meaningful about them anyway.

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Feb 19, 2012, 04:50 PM (7 replies)

Interesting theory

however, unless everybody falls into line and rallies around Jeb (who's seen as more of part of the GOP "establishment", the "base" might end up feeling like they were cut out of the process and didn't get the nominee they wanted and split and run a 3rd party candidate and/or refuse to vote. Plus, no matter how Sarah Palin spins things, I can't honestly see them winning a "perception war" with a brokered (can't spell "brokered" without "broke" convention. I mean, if there IS a brokered convention and Jeb or somebody else magically becomes the nominee, then the corporate media won't be able to report on the nominee without mentioning that they became the nominee because of a brokered convention. People will (likely & rightly) perceive the GOP as too disorganized and unable to "get it together" to select their own nominee during the conventional process at the RNC, especially compared to the Democratic unity the presently exists around President Obama and will be even more evident during the DNC. Democrats could also run a few ads highlighting this as well. Even Obama could bring it up during the debates (i.e. "Why would the American people want to put a party fully in charge of the country when they can't even nominate a candidate the normal way?" "Brokered=Broken" The Clinton-Obama contest was rough in 2008 but Hillary didn't take it to the convention and people clearly wanted one or the other, so it wasn't like the DNC would have had to come up with a brand new candidate like the GOP might. Right now, none of the four GOP candidates seem to be running away with the nomination, not even Romney, who has always been considered the "frontrunner". I would also add that, after fawning over a "broke(red)" Republican candidate for a few days (or weeks), stuff will eventually come out about that candidate who will have less time to counter it effectively.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:34 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »