February 22, 2012

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?

February 22, 2012

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?

February 21, 2012

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.

February 21, 2012

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

http://teapartyforobama.com/

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?

February 19, 2012

"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.

February 15, 2012

Interesting theory

however, unless everybody falls into line and rallies around Jeb (who's seen as more of part of the GOP "establishment&quot , 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&quot 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&quot 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.

February 14, 2012

My feelings exactly

I REALLY hope that SCOTUS doesn't ruin this chance at progress. The way I see it there are 3 different outcomes:

1. Ideal: SCOTUS votes to preserve PPACA with mandate.

2. Less Ideal: SCOTUS strikes down mandate but preserves integrity of PPACA. This will require some adjustments likely but with President Obama re-elected and a Democratic Congress, I'm sure that some palatable solution will be found.

3. Awful: SCOTUS strikes down mandate and the rest of PPACA along with it.

Based on the outcomes of various court cases to date, my guess is that #1 and #2 are the most likely potential outcomes with #3 being very unlikely as only one(?) court has struck down PPACA in its entirety and I don't see how striking down the mandate would necessitate sinking the entire law with it.

February 14, 2012

I was listening to a radio show this afternoon (Michael Smerconish) regarding Michigan primaries

and he was discussing polls showing Santorum doing well in Michigan (which we already know) but he was discussing the internals of the poll that show that Santorum is benefiting from the open primary process and because he is drawing some support from Independents, which is surprising, but also from.......DEMOCRATS? Please somebody, tell me that this has to be because some Democrats are staging their own version of Limbaugh's 2008 "Operation Chaos".


Is Santorum a potentially stronger candidate than Romney or he just enjoying some good poll numbers because of Newt's collapse and it's his "turn to surge"? He would be too far out of the mainstream to win in a GE, wouldn't he?

I'm especially interested in hearing from any Michigan DUers about this.

February 13, 2012

Well OTOH

Republicans generally don't believe that government can do anything good----but, strangely, still want to run (control) it and a lot of people don't seem to have noticed the discrepancy.........yet.


It seems that public office- keeping our local, state, and federal government operating like it's supposed to- is the only job I know of where it's considered o.k. to NOT do your job for your employers (i.e. voters). We all know what would happen if the rest of us showed up to our jobs and refused to work..................

February 13, 2012

I like Tony's singing

but he's wrong here IMHO. There is no connection between drugs being illegal and what happened to any of the people he mentioned here (as some have already pointed out).

There are some good arguments to be made that some drugs (i.e. pot) that pose less risk to people and have less potential of severe negative consequences should be legalized but there are a lot of other, more harmful drugs (i.e. Meth, Coke) that should NEVER be legalized. That being said, I definitely think that we need to change our focus on drugs from punishment to prevention/treatment and focus more time, energy, and resources on community programs than on incarceration.