Category Archives: Poltics

On Sunday Republican Congressman Akin who is running to win a Senate Seat from incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri said of pregnancy caused by rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down… But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

It is precisely comments like this and the crazy culture that is not only endorsed but often applauded by Republican leaders that leaves me wondering 1) How does this party expect to be more than a regional player moving forward 2) Why is this an issue? The comments come across tone deaf and misogynistic at the least and frightfully fanatical; something one might hear in a theocracy rather than a democracy based on individual liberties and separation of church and state.

It isn’t enough for Republicans to distance themselves.

Normally I overlook these stories but this illustrates the concerns I raised in my post on Saturday, Does Romney’s selection of Ryan signal a change.  We need more political choices – not fewer; that requires the Republican Party to grow up and develop a strong wing that is socially progressive. Reactive political posturing from Republicans trying to distance themselves from Akin’s comments isn’t enough.

My dislike for Governor Mitt Romney is more than obvious to anyone who visits my blog. Having said that, Romney’s selection for his Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is a logical choice and a decision he made which I can respect; unlike McCain’s selection four years ago.

I fundamentally disagree with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for reasons pertaining to economics and social issues, and I will be using my blog as a platform to express my disagreements in the months to come.

However, when I was younger my mother made us point out positives in any situation and while I loathed this as a kid, I appreciate the lessons it taught me. In honor of Mom, here are a few positives I have gleaned.

– For the first time in a very long time neither of the two candidates appear to be either from the South nor do they appear to be loved by Christian Conservatives. Could this be a sign that the conservative South and right wing religious wackos are losing their influence in the party – I hope so.

– Both are articulate and intelligent men well educated and not prone to saying things like nucular (or however that was suppose to be spelled).

– Romney and Ryan will (hopefully) give voice to the ever quiet conservatives who see politics outside the lens of religion; meaning issues like birth control need not be a leading topic in the campaign.

I would like to see more political choice in this country – not less. To do that the Republican Party needs to build a bigger tent (to borrow a common political metaphor here in the US). The Republican Party needs to have a strong wing that is socially progressive; similar to many of the former Republicans from the Northeast like Chafee & Snowe. It makes no sense to me that the Republican Party is so beholden to religion and legislating “their” morality.

As a gay adult I am infuriated by the way the Republican party speaks to me or in the case of my current US Senator (Scott Brown) — won’t speak to me. I have no interest in seeing the current Republican Party succeed, but I do hope that this frightening party can untie itself from the religious zealots and conspiracy quacks who currently rule the roost.

Is this the ticket that will signify a change so one need not be a Baptist from the South who questions evolution to get atop the ticket? I hope so.

The Economist was extremely unforgiving of Mitt Romney’s gaffes on his most recent trip abroad and the first as the presumptive Republican Presidential candidate.  No doubt this was intended to give Romney credibility with regards to foreign affairs (something generally very important to the Republican Party), but Romney’s trip was more like a string of blunders that were embarrassing. Is he really this ill prepared?  I’ve included an excerpt from the post on The Economist.

“After spending several days getting flayed by the British press handling of the Olympic games, he moved on to Israel, where his campaign promptly involved itself in a diplomatic scandal (this time with actual consequences) over whether it had said that Mr Romney would back a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran. 

Mr Romney went on to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, a position no American administration has ever taken because discussions over the final status of the city are the most explosive subject in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Then this morning, at a fund-raising breakfast largely populated by ultra-rich Jewish Americans, Mr Romney managed to suggest that Palestinians are poor because their culture is inferior to that of Jews.”

Read the entire article in the Economist, Mitt Romney abroad: Like Bush, but without the cosmopolitan flair.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Credit: Lam Thuy Vo/NPR

Whenever I watch or read the news the topic most discussed is always either the US or global economy (esp. with regards to Europe).

I’m not an economist and after a certain point I start to tune out all this out, but I do love pictures and charts so I found this interesting.  The graphic below details how Americans spent their money last quarter.

If this was a personal consumption chart I think I’d need a separate breakout for Ptown and for wine. What category (ies) would you need added?

Want to read more? Check out the article on NPR here.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory. Now look … You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”   — Elizabeth Warren

Warren’s comments will undoubtably rile those from the Right who believe this country is a wonderful place, but find her logic and comments flawed.  I understand this perspective; coming from a conservative family but I disagree and wholeheartedly agree with Elizabeth Warren.

Thanks David over at WGB

“The Defense of Marriage Act is a discriminatory and unconstitutional law that harms thousands of families in Massachusetts and takes away our state’s right to extend marriage equality to all couples. It is our firm conviction that in order to truly achieve marriage equality all couples must enjoy the same rights and protection under both state and federal law.”

“If the Supreme Court chooses to examine this case, we will look forward to once again making clear that DOMA and its pervasive discrimination is unconstitutional and should be ended.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley comments yesterday when she petitioned the US Supreme Court to strike part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  You can read more here.