For decades one of the core principles of the Republican Party was that the government should be less involved in making decision for the populace. Unfortunately the actions of Republican legislators suggest that this meme only applies when Democrats are the ones making the rules.
If you are a woman and you would like to remove a collection of cells from your body the Republican Party feels they should have more control over your body than you do and have spent the past few years putting in rule after rule that puts politicians squarely between a woman and her doctor.
In North Carolina the government repeatedly blocked lawsuits against a massive energy company for damage to the environment and instead assessed a minor fine without ever requiring the company to fix the problems that were creating the environmental damage.
If you are gay the Republican Party has been shamed into reluctantly accepting you as citizens however they have altered state constitutions across the nation to ban same sex couples from being married.
Republicans in some Southern states are forcing students to learn creationism in science class even though there is no actual science involved.
But perhaps Republican's most duplicitous action so far was perpetrated in Tennessee where Republicans lied to and threatened Volkswagen employees regarding the potential results of their pending UAW vote.
Outside of the fact that these actions are the complete antithesis of what Republicans claim to support, Volkswagen actually would like the employees to have some form of representation to work with management. Given the results of the recent UAW vote, the Tennessee Volkswagen plant is now the only Volkswagen plant without a works council. According to a representative from the Volkswagen works council in Germany, the failure to form a representative body may cause the manufacturer to look to more union friendly location in the future.
One big question none of these politicians have ever answered is why they are so ardently against Volkswagen employees forming a union. The constitution allows for collective bargaining. The union voting was a democratic process. For the "buy American" crowd, the additional wages union employees make, helps keep more money in the US instead of letting it trickle down in Germany. Plus, Tennessee is already a right to work state which allows employees to opt out.
If Republicans were true to their word they would concede like former conservative hero turned union member Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher "It's an American worker's right to unionize" and that "the employees voted to have it that way and in America that's the way it is".
In the end getting the government out of your private life is just another false meme politicians sell to an under informed electorate to elicit hate and fear for political gain because even for the representatives of the "values voters" the ends justify the means regardless of how immoral their actions may be.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Political fiction is what really kills jobs
In politics the line between reality and fantasy is often hard to decipher. The recent ruling by a Nebraska court regarding the Keystone XL pipeline offers another example of this situation.
The ruling voided a law the Nebraska legislature had enacted that approved the pipeline. This means more legal action will soon follow and the decision on the pipeline will be delay by several months. This is also another occasion for conservatives to talk up the benefits of the project.
The first argument they make is that the Keystone pipeline creates jobs. Data shows that the construction will create thousands of temporary jobs but in the end the pipeline will only create35 long term jobs. It should be noted that during the debate over the 2009 stimulus package Republicans clearly were not in favor of creating what they called "menial and temporary" jobs.
The second claim they like to make is that the Keystone pipeline will reduce gas prices. Unfortunately even the company arguing for the project was only willing to say that the pipeline "could" reduce prices. The reality is that standard free market principles still apply. So while much of this oil will be sold outside of the US, the portion that does remain within our borders will be subject to global oil pricing. In order for the new pipeline to actually lower prices it would have to generate a significant additional supply which lowers the demand. Given that this project will only produce at maximum 830,000 barrels per day or less than 1% of the daily world total a noticeable drop seems unlikely.
Finally, they also claim that the Keystone pipeline will lead to energy independence for the US. Outside of the fact that much of this oil will not be used domestically the US is already on the way to energy independence thanks to lower usage rates and a boom in production for domestic energy sources. In fact under Barack Obama the US is on pace to produce record setting amounts of domestic crude.
Of course the Keystone pipeline isn't the only topic that conservatives debate from within their political bubble.
The head of the NRA stated, and many conservatives believe, that the president wants to take away your guns rights even though the only legislation he has signed regarding guns have expanded gun rights.
Even though the stock market hit record highs, companies are making record profits, the top 1% is taking home more money than ever, and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash Republican insist that Barack Obama is "anti business".
A majority of Republicans believe the president is not a US citizen. No amount of logic or documentation will convince them otherwise even though everyone in the know abandoned this conspiracy theory long ago.
Many conservatives believe that as president Barack Obama has raised taxes yet the actual data shows the US tax burden fell to its lowest point since 1958 under Obama.
Republicans also insist that government spending is out of control under Barack Obama even though once you account for inflation and population change federal expenditures have fallen more during his presidency than any other president over the past four decades.
The reality is that voters can chastise congress and the president for failing to accomplish anything but as our system is currently configured there is absolutely no reason for the politicians to change their tactics unless the electorate stops accepting fiction as fact.
The ruling voided a law the Nebraska legislature had enacted that approved the pipeline. This means more legal action will soon follow and the decision on the pipeline will be delay by several months. This is also another occasion for conservatives to talk up the benefits of the project.
The first argument they make is that the Keystone pipeline creates jobs. Data shows that the construction will create thousands of temporary jobs but in the end the pipeline will only create35 long term jobs. It should be noted that during the debate over the 2009 stimulus package Republicans clearly were not in favor of creating what they called "menial and temporary" jobs.
The second claim they like to make is that the Keystone pipeline will reduce gas prices. Unfortunately even the company arguing for the project was only willing to say that the pipeline "could" reduce prices. The reality is that standard free market principles still apply. So while much of this oil will be sold outside of the US, the portion that does remain within our borders will be subject to global oil pricing. In order for the new pipeline to actually lower prices it would have to generate a significant additional supply which lowers the demand. Given that this project will only produce at maximum 830,000 barrels per day or less than 1% of the daily world total a noticeable drop seems unlikely.
Finally, they also claim that the Keystone pipeline will lead to energy independence for the US. Outside of the fact that much of this oil will not be used domestically the US is already on the way to energy independence thanks to lower usage rates and a boom in production for domestic energy sources. In fact under Barack Obama the US is on pace to produce record setting amounts of domestic crude.
Of course the Keystone pipeline isn't the only topic that conservatives debate from within their political bubble.
The head of the NRA stated, and many conservatives believe, that the president wants to take away your guns rights even though the only legislation he has signed regarding guns have expanded gun rights.
Even though the stock market hit record highs, companies are making record profits, the top 1% is taking home more money than ever, and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash Republican insist that Barack Obama is "anti business".
A majority of Republicans believe the president is not a US citizen. No amount of logic or documentation will convince them otherwise even though everyone in the know abandoned this conspiracy theory long ago.
Many conservatives believe that as president Barack Obama has raised taxes yet the actual data shows the US tax burden fell to its lowest point since 1958 under Obama.
Republicans also insist that government spending is out of control under Barack Obama even though once you account for inflation and population change federal expenditures have fallen more during his presidency than any other president over the past four decades.
The reality is that voters can chastise congress and the president for failing to accomplish anything but as our system is currently configured there is absolutely no reason for the politicians to change their tactics unless the electorate stops accepting fiction as fact.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Minimum wage doesn't kill jobs - Politicians do.
This week the CBO released a report discussing the potential outcome of an increase in the federal minimum wage. While the proposal would pull nearly 1 million people out of poverty and increase wages for some 24 million American workers the only portion of the report Republicans would like to discuss is the possible 500,000 job losses.
Conservative voices like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin have suddenly found value in this CBO report which stands in stark contrast to their previous sentiment of this organization whose previous reports they said were just an "opinion", used "smoke and mirrors", and contained "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline".
Apparently to these conservatives the CBO is a deeply biased political organization except when their findings conform to Republican talking points.
Of course rather than have substantive discussions on how we can increase wages for millions of hard working Americans without losing jobs, both sides will cherry pick the data they want to accentuate and dismiss the rest. This sort of tribal nature of politics is partly to blame for the lack of action in Washington these days.
All politicians should support getting working class Americans a larger share of the profits they helped create. Data shows that unions are a more effective method of achieving this result than minimum wage however just last week in Tennessee we had Republican politicians completely misinforming their constituents in an attempt to use the power of government to pick the winners and losers.
The reason unions are better at getting more appropriate pay and benefits for American workers than minimum wage requirements is because such requirements are a one size fits all solution to a very complicated capitalist system. The union’s goals are to help increase profitability for their company so that they can get higher pay and greater benefits for their members while simultaneously increasing their membership. This requires both sides to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement.
As it is currently configured an increase in the minimum wage requires none of the analysis, discussions, or compromise that are at the core of a good union contract. Instead it will punish some companies that have low profit margins or are still pouring money back into the company to grow.
Perhaps what both sides should consider is a flexible minimum wage proposal - a system that uses the compensation for the members at the top of an organization to determine the minimum wage at the bottom. By tying the compensation of the management staff to that of the rest of the organization these companies could still pay their executives tens of millions of dollars each year however that level of compensation would trigger a minimum wage which would be significantly higher than that of a company that pays its top officials hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
With this sort of a system the smaller companies that can't afford to pay their employees above the current federal minimum wage could continue to keep wages low as long as they don't take massive salaries and benefits for themselves. After all, should a company with 30 employees, all making minimum wage, really have a CEO that is taking home millions in compensation?
Maybe a system like this could work or maybe it couldn't but when you have two parties that are more concerned about debunking the CBO and scoring political points than finding new ideas to solve age old issues, the electorate may be forced to make changes that we can all agree the politicians won't like.
Conservative voices like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin have suddenly found value in this CBO report which stands in stark contrast to their previous sentiment of this organization whose previous reports they said were just an "opinion", used "smoke and mirrors", and contained "budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline".
Apparently to these conservatives the CBO is a deeply biased political organization except when their findings conform to Republican talking points.
Of course rather than have substantive discussions on how we can increase wages for millions of hard working Americans without losing jobs, both sides will cherry pick the data they want to accentuate and dismiss the rest. This sort of tribal nature of politics is partly to blame for the lack of action in Washington these days.
All politicians should support getting working class Americans a larger share of the profits they helped create. Data shows that unions are a more effective method of achieving this result than minimum wage however just last week in Tennessee we had Republican politicians completely misinforming their constituents in an attempt to use the power of government to pick the winners and losers.
The reason unions are better at getting more appropriate pay and benefits for American workers than minimum wage requirements is because such requirements are a one size fits all solution to a very complicated capitalist system. The union’s goals are to help increase profitability for their company so that they can get higher pay and greater benefits for their members while simultaneously increasing their membership. This requires both sides to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement.
As it is currently configured an increase in the minimum wage requires none of the analysis, discussions, or compromise that are at the core of a good union contract. Instead it will punish some companies that have low profit margins or are still pouring money back into the company to grow.
Perhaps what both sides should consider is a flexible minimum wage proposal - a system that uses the compensation for the members at the top of an organization to determine the minimum wage at the bottom. By tying the compensation of the management staff to that of the rest of the organization these companies could still pay their executives tens of millions of dollars each year however that level of compensation would trigger a minimum wage which would be significantly higher than that of a company that pays its top officials hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
With this sort of a system the smaller companies that can't afford to pay their employees above the current federal minimum wage could continue to keep wages low as long as they don't take massive salaries and benefits for themselves. After all, should a company with 30 employees, all making minimum wage, really have a CEO that is taking home millions in compensation?
Maybe a system like this could work or maybe it couldn't but when you have two parties that are more concerned about debunking the CBO and scoring political points than finding new ideas to solve age old issues, the electorate may be forced to make changes that we can all agree the politicians won't like.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Rick Snyder is working to destroy public schools
In his most recent budget offering Rick Snyder has requested an increase in education spending for Michigan schools. For years Republicans have argued that spending more money on education is a bad idea, but this is an election year and polls show that the public supports more spending on education so rather than attempting to make a case to back up their core beliefs conservative media outlets are trying to convince everyone that the governor has actually been a big spending education advocate.
As a result of this debate you can find quotes from the Mark Schauer, the Democrat running for governor, claiming that under Rick Snyder Michigan is spending $1 billion less on education as well as the corresponding assertion from the governor’s office that under his watch spending has increased by $660 per pupil.
Both sides continue to use slanted math to posture for position in the governor's race but let's imagine for a minute that the citizens in Michigan are more interested in the money going towards education than which candidate can manipulate information better.
In that case it should be noted that since 2007 spending on education in Michigan has failed to keep pace with inflation to the tune of around $1.5 billion. Additionally in 2003 total per pupil revenue in Michigan was 7.8% higher than the national average while it had dropped to 2.9% below the national average by 2010.
Of course it is also true that less money is going is making its way to the classroom then before. According to an article by Julie Mack of Mlive "In today's dollars, the per-pupil foundation allowance was worth $8,170 in 2003-04, the report says. Under the governor's proposed budget, its $5,932 in 2013-14".
Conservative will be quick to point out that this fall in classroom spending is largely due to the increased spending on the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSER). However it should be noted that a large portion of the additional funds being allocated to the MPSER program come directly from employees. It certainly doesn't suggest education is a priority for the governor if the only way he can show an increase in education spending is by taking money out of the pockets of Michigan educators and putting it back on the balance sheet as “spending”.
Perhaps more concerning then the half truths and number manipulation coming from Lansing is the use of MPSER as a tool to undermine public schools. One of the biggest reasons the retirement fund for teachers is underfunded is due to the ratio of people currently contributing to the number of people drawing from the fund. Over the past decade the ratio dropped from around 2.5 employees per retiree to 1.23. Obviously less money going in and more money going out will have a negative impact on longevity of the retirement funds.
Some of this occurred because of loss of students due to the recession but the Michigan legislature compounded this problem by offering early retirement to cut cost. While this helped in the short term it increased the number of retirees drawing from MPSER, making the fund less solvent moving forward. To make matters worse Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans continue to move students out of the public school system and into Charter schools. Unlike public schools, enrolment in MPSER is optional for these new entities.
Rick Snyder will happily continue to talk about education spending and tout his record because he realizes the unwinnable situation he has set up for Michigan's public schools. He will claim public schools are inefficient and expensive and then offer Charter Schools as the solution.
Never mind that two decades worth of Charter Schools haven't proven to have better educational outcomes then public schools.
Never mind that many Charter Schools actually spend more than their public school counter parts.
Never mind that Charter Schools aren't subject to the same government regulation and oversight that are a burden on public schools.
Never mind that Charter Schools have more money going to administrator and less to educators than public schools.
Never mind that foreign investors make up and ever increasing portion of Charter School owners.
Never mind that Charter Schools offer less special education than public schools.
And never mind that Charter Schools end up being a way for politicians to reward big donors.
Regardless of all of these potential problem areas, Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans know that every school they deem failing will simply be converted to a Charter School which pulls more students out of public schools. This in turn mean less teachers contributing to the public retirement fund and with fewer teachers contributing it requires the state to kick in more. The perception then becomes that greedy teachers taking money out of the classroom and this means public schools are expensive and inefficient.
This is the self fulfilling prophecy that Republicans hope will be the undoing of public schools. The Republican solution to inefficient and expensive public schools makes public schools more inefficient and expensive requiring more of the Republican solution. It's a win - win for Republicans. They make public schools look bad while simultaneously putting more kids on the charter schools gravy train.
The question of money in education is important but when it comes to the Michigan governor’s race the better question should be what do we want our education system to look like in the future. Do we want schools that are subject to local checks and balances or a couple massive corporations that make their money based on quantity not quality? Because regardless of how much either candidate pledges to spend, their goals are profoundly different.
As a result of this debate you can find quotes from the Mark Schauer, the Democrat running for governor, claiming that under Rick Snyder Michigan is spending $1 billion less on education as well as the corresponding assertion from the governor’s office that under his watch spending has increased by $660 per pupil.
Both sides continue to use slanted math to posture for position in the governor's race but let's imagine for a minute that the citizens in Michigan are more interested in the money going towards education than which candidate can manipulate information better.
In that case it should be noted that since 2007 spending on education in Michigan has failed to keep pace with inflation to the tune of around $1.5 billion. Additionally in 2003 total per pupil revenue in Michigan was 7.8% higher than the national average while it had dropped to 2.9% below the national average by 2010.
Of course it is also true that less money is going is making its way to the classroom then before. According to an article by Julie Mack of Mlive "In today's dollars, the per-pupil foundation allowance was worth $8,170 in 2003-04, the report says. Under the governor's proposed budget, its $5,932 in 2013-14".
Conservative will be quick to point out that this fall in classroom spending is largely due to the increased spending on the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSER). However it should be noted that a large portion of the additional funds being allocated to the MPSER program come directly from employees. It certainly doesn't suggest education is a priority for the governor if the only way he can show an increase in education spending is by taking money out of the pockets of Michigan educators and putting it back on the balance sheet as “spending”.
Perhaps more concerning then the half truths and number manipulation coming from Lansing is the use of MPSER as a tool to undermine public schools. One of the biggest reasons the retirement fund for teachers is underfunded is due to the ratio of people currently contributing to the number of people drawing from the fund. Over the past decade the ratio dropped from around 2.5 employees per retiree to 1.23. Obviously less money going in and more money going out will have a negative impact on longevity of the retirement funds.
Some of this occurred because of loss of students due to the recession but the Michigan legislature compounded this problem by offering early retirement to cut cost. While this helped in the short term it increased the number of retirees drawing from MPSER, making the fund less solvent moving forward. To make matters worse Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans continue to move students out of the public school system and into Charter schools. Unlike public schools, enrolment in MPSER is optional for these new entities.
Rick Snyder will happily continue to talk about education spending and tout his record because he realizes the unwinnable situation he has set up for Michigan's public schools. He will claim public schools are inefficient and expensive and then offer Charter Schools as the solution.
Never mind that two decades worth of Charter Schools haven't proven to have better educational outcomes then public schools.
Never mind that many Charter Schools actually spend more than their public school counter parts.
Never mind that Charter Schools aren't subject to the same government regulation and oversight that are a burden on public schools.
Never mind that Charter Schools have more money going to administrator and less to educators than public schools.
Never mind that foreign investors make up and ever increasing portion of Charter School owners.
Never mind that Charter Schools offer less special education than public schools.
And never mind that Charter Schools end up being a way for politicians to reward big donors.
Regardless of all of these potential problem areas, Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans know that every school they deem failing will simply be converted to a Charter School which pulls more students out of public schools. This in turn mean less teachers contributing to the public retirement fund and with fewer teachers contributing it requires the state to kick in more. The perception then becomes that greedy teachers taking money out of the classroom and this means public schools are expensive and inefficient.
This is the self fulfilling prophecy that Republicans hope will be the undoing of public schools. The Republican solution to inefficient and expensive public schools makes public schools more inefficient and expensive requiring more of the Republican solution. It's a win - win for Republicans. They make public schools look bad while simultaneously putting more kids on the charter schools gravy train.
The question of money in education is important but when it comes to the Michigan governor’s race the better question should be what do we want our education system to look like in the future. Do we want schools that are subject to local checks and balances or a couple massive corporations that make their money based on quantity not quality? Because regardless of how much either candidate pledges to spend, their goals are profoundly different.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Republican rebranding a massive failure
After the worse than expected results of the last elections the Republican National Committee did an autopsy to find out where they were failing. While the answers to these questions were anything but surprising, the RNC have been working to rebrand the Republican Party as a kinder more inclusive organization.
The report suggested that their rebranding efforts need to focus on finding ways to connect with young voters, women, and minorities. The degree of success they have had is certainly debatable however RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is sticking to the rebranding strategy and has used stature as head of the image reclamation project to castigate MSNBC when their twitter account painted Republicans as being against interracial marriage.
Based on this comment and what Mr. Priebus suggests is a systemic issue at the network, the RNC banned all staff from appearing on MSNBC and asked "Republican surrogates and officials" to do the same.
Not too long ago a member of Duck Dynasty made some disparaging remarks that resulted in his suspension from the show by A&E. The outcry from the right was immediate. Conservative luminaries such as Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal suggested free speech was under attack while Fox News claimed in a headline "A&E declares war on 'Duck Dynasty's' Christian values".
Fast forward a few months and apparently free speech only applies to those with conservative values. The Fox News headline now reads "Reince Priebus stands up to MSNBC's offensive tweet".
Of course the reality is that all American's are free to express the opinions whenever and where ever they want and organizations like the RNC and A&E are free to respond however they see fit.
Having said that the problem that Republicans face runs deeper than how a biased news organization perceives their party. For example, only 40% of Mississippi Republicans believe interracial marriage should be legal. Reince Priebus can be offended all he wants but perhaps rather than going after MSNBC for furthering a stereotype the RNC would be better off informing their own party on how antiquated these views are and that they will not be tolerated.
The real problem here is that Republicans were so desperate to win elections they allowed fringe elements of the Republican party a voice because they needed voter enthusiasm to combat a shrinking base. Unfortunately by doing this they enfranchised a group of bigots who believe their beliefs have been validated.
So when Coke aired a super bowl advertisement that had "American the Beautiful" sung in multiple languages, conservative sites like Breitbart.com felt compelled to convince readers that such an act is un-American or as former Representative Allen West said about the ad - "This was a truly disturbing commercial for me". What was the RNC response to this?
Donald Trump made being a birther one of the main tenants of his short presidential bid playing to the Majority of Republicans who believe President Obama was born outside of the US. John McCain had the intestinal fortitude to tell his supporters that Barack Obama "is a decent family man - citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with". The RNC on the other hand was leading from behind on this issue stating "Trump and the candidates can talk about it all they want".
Multiple Republican candidates made ill informed statements about reproduction such as Todd Akin's comment on "legitimate rape", Joe Walsh denying abortions could ever save the life of the mother, and Richard Murdock who believes a baby conceived during rape is a "gift from God".
Representative Vance McAllister invited a member of the 'Duck Dynasty' clan to the State of the Union because he wanted to bring "some diversity to our nation's capitol." Yes, in a party that is represented by rich white guys, being a rich white guy with a beard apparently now represents diversity.
Reince Priebus can cut off contact with liberal media outlets to protest claims that he feels are unjust however if he is truly dedicated to reestablishing the Republican Party he could start by looking in the mirror first because as these examples show there is nothing the liberal media can say that will make Republicans look worse than their own actions do.
The report suggested that their rebranding efforts need to focus on finding ways to connect with young voters, women, and minorities. The degree of success they have had is certainly debatable however RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is sticking to the rebranding strategy and has used stature as head of the image reclamation project to castigate MSNBC when their twitter account painted Republicans as being against interracial marriage.
Based on this comment and what Mr. Priebus suggests is a systemic issue at the network, the RNC banned all staff from appearing on MSNBC and asked "Republican surrogates and officials" to do the same.
Not too long ago a member of Duck Dynasty made some disparaging remarks that resulted in his suspension from the show by A&E. The outcry from the right was immediate. Conservative luminaries such as Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal suggested free speech was under attack while Fox News claimed in a headline "A&E declares war on 'Duck Dynasty's' Christian values".
Fast forward a few months and apparently free speech only applies to those with conservative values. The Fox News headline now reads "Reince Priebus stands up to MSNBC's offensive tweet".
Of course the reality is that all American's are free to express the opinions whenever and where ever they want and organizations like the RNC and A&E are free to respond however they see fit.
Having said that the problem that Republicans face runs deeper than how a biased news organization perceives their party. For example, only 40% of Mississippi Republicans believe interracial marriage should be legal. Reince Priebus can be offended all he wants but perhaps rather than going after MSNBC for furthering a stereotype the RNC would be better off informing their own party on how antiquated these views are and that they will not be tolerated.
The real problem here is that Republicans were so desperate to win elections they allowed fringe elements of the Republican party a voice because they needed voter enthusiasm to combat a shrinking base. Unfortunately by doing this they enfranchised a group of bigots who believe their beliefs have been validated.
So when Coke aired a super bowl advertisement that had "American the Beautiful" sung in multiple languages, conservative sites like Breitbart.com felt compelled to convince readers that such an act is un-American or as former Representative Allen West said about the ad - "This was a truly disturbing commercial for me". What was the RNC response to this?
Donald Trump made being a birther one of the main tenants of his short presidential bid playing to the Majority of Republicans who believe President Obama was born outside of the US. John McCain had the intestinal fortitude to tell his supporters that Barack Obama "is a decent family man - citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with". The RNC on the other hand was leading from behind on this issue stating "Trump and the candidates can talk about it all they want".
Multiple Republican candidates made ill informed statements about reproduction such as Todd Akin's comment on "legitimate rape", Joe Walsh denying abortions could ever save the life of the mother, and Richard Murdock who believes a baby conceived during rape is a "gift from God".
Representative Vance McAllister invited a member of the 'Duck Dynasty' clan to the State of the Union because he wanted to bring "some diversity to our nation's capitol." Yes, in a party that is represented by rich white guys, being a rich white guy with a beard apparently now represents diversity.
Reince Priebus can cut off contact with liberal media outlets to protest claims that he feels are unjust however if he is truly dedicated to reestablishing the Republican Party he could start by looking in the mirror first because as these examples show there is nothing the liberal media can say that will make Republicans look worse than their own actions do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
