Frustrated Republicans vote against motherhood

[Ed Oscuro]

A vote to celebrate the role of mothers

one report on the matter

Interpretation? Filibustering to delay a vote on Iraq War spending and other things.

[Zebra Airforce]

Obviously, this was a principled stand against the floral-industrial complex.

[Ed Oscuro]

Even more bizarre:
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/a ... ryid=79533

[Zebra Airforce]

Just another example of how big of a joke our middle schools are.

[BulletMagnet]

Just another example of how big of a joke some administrators are.

Fixed. Also, working as a substitute teacher myself (mostly at the middle school level, incidentally), it is true that it's about as disposable a position as one can hold (though fortunately for me the districts I work in treat me decently for the most part).

Though my favorite moment came from the first article -

"The majority has taken, once again, their go-it-alone policy," Boehner lamented yesterday. "It's time for Democrats and Republicans to work together."

To induce this working together, Boehner decided to stop the House from working at all.

Yeah, now that your party's gotten a long-overdue rejection (and is about to get another one, heaven willing) it's time for the majority to start listening to the minority (which, conveniently, is now you)...apparently the six-plus years during which you (the majority) gave anyone remotely liberal the finger on pretty much every issue have been erased from history (in much the same manner as Bush v. Gore can never be used as a precedent for future cases). There really is not much that some of these types will refuse to say for the sake of their own convenience.

[Acid King]

Stupid fucking resolution that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place trumped by stupid fucking republicans that should never have been elected in the first place.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

Ed maybe you should consider making your own Pointless Politics Forum where people can endlessly debate such matters while convincing nobody but themselves.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed maybe you should consider making your own Pointless Politics Forum where people can endlessly debate such matters while convincing nobody but themselves.

I just get these links and spread 'em around, lol

Besides, I'm not one for politics 24/7, the news is bad enough

[greg]

You never know what sort of kaka-meme fine print they put into bills to weigh it down with pointless crap. I think a true Republican or Libertarian politician should vote no on the majority of bills anyway, since most of them are pointless and stupid just like so much of our government is pointless and stupid. Any "Mothers Day" bill in the legislature has me raising an eyebrow, and it sounds like it may be BS to me. Put some sweet sounding title on some ulterior motives to make it look like someone is an asshole for opposing it, even though it may increase spending on frivolous matters and put the budget deeper into the red. Government should stay out of family matters I think. I have no idea what this bill is, but I'd like to learn more about it. What was it supposed to be for, anyway?

BTW, since many here probably think I'm a retarded right-winger for saying all that, I'd like to clarify by pointing out that I've been unemployed for the past seven months and my wife just had our first baby this week, and we've been on Access and therefore do not have to pay anything for the OB visits, delivery, medications and hospitalization. That's probably the best Mothers Day gift the government can give anybody. That is government doing what it should as far as mothers go.

[BulletMagnet]

I think a true Republican or Libertarian politician should vote no on the majority of bills anyway, since most of them are pointless and stupid just like so much of our government is pointless and stupid.

Funny you should say that, since apparently it was a Republican who first proposed it...not to mention that support for the bill was unanimous on both sides until the Reps decided to "make a statement" (while still, somehow, "wanting their mothers to know that they've supported the goals of Mother's Day." O-kay...

In any event, to a point I agree with you, that even though the bill didn't seem to actually affect anything (else, as you point out, there would have likely been bellyaching from the very beginning), it shouldn't have been a priority considering the far more important things Congress ought to be doing...though even when the Dems do manage to sneak something past the Reps (who seem determined to get even less done than their opponents), the Prez will simply veto or signing statement it anyways. Maybe they figured they actually had a shot with something so fluffy, since providing health care for children apparently wasn't in the cards. Speaking of which...

...we've been on Access and therefore do not have to pay anything for the OB visits, delivery, medications and hospitalization. That's probably the best Mothers Day gift the government can give anybody. That is government doing what it should as far as mothers go.

...you are aware that this is exactly the sort of provision that the party you affiliate yourself with calls "government excess" or "freeloading" and wants to reduce or eliminate? By their reckoning you're only jobless because you're not "capable enough" to remain employed (and thus deserve to sink to the bottom of society, while the "more capable" rise to the top and reap the benefits), and while (of course ::)) they feel the deepest sympathies for you and your family, they also feel (or are willing to say so) that your situation isn't anyone else's problem, and the government shouldn't be sticking its face into it. After all, that's Socialism!

I'm just not sure how you're able to reconcile your life experience with the political philosophy you follow...certain parts of it, at least.

[greg]

...you are aware that this is exactly the sort of provision that the party you affiliate yourself with calls "government excess" or "freeloading" and wants to reduce or eliminate? By their reckoning you're only jobless because you're not "capable enough" to remain employed (and thus deserve to sink to the bottom of society, while the "more capable" rise to the top and reap the benefits), and while (of course ::)) they feel the deepest sympathies for you and your family, they also feel (or are willing to say so) that your situation isn't anyone else's problem, and the government shouldn't be sticking its face into it. After all, that's Socialism!

I'm just not sure how you're able to reconcile your life experience with the political philosophy you follow...certain parts of it, at least.

No offense taken, and I hope you do not get offended at what I'm about to say. Whenever someone says they are a registered Republican, guys like you and others on this board are ready to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so to speak. Just because I'm a registered Republican does not make me buy what the pundits say hook line and sinker. I have quite a lot of gripes about Republicans and how stupid the elected officials are, as well as how Rush Limbaugh and others can be so cold towards people in my situation. Michael Savage is the worst of the bunch. For the record, I'm used to making at least $40k per year, but with the economy the way it is (plenty on both sides of the debate are to blame for the economic situation), I've been having a difficult time finding full-time employment and I'm working as a waiter to get some sort of income. And I'm also making an effort to get job training to make myself more marketable. Moreover, I already pay for health insurance, but since maternity isn't covered on my Blue Cross, and because of me getting downsized three times last year and having a difficult time getting re-employed, we qualified for Access. My hard-earned tax money goes into the system, so I have no qualms with accepting assistance when we desperately needed it. If we didn't get it, I'd still go through with it and just go into more debt regardless.

I think what most Republicans find fault with are those who basically make a lifestyle habit to remain on welfare instead of trying to better themselves. Republicans typically are not anti-welfare, but would rather promote welfare with accountability, by promoting conditions to welfare and preventing it from not being a lifestyle. Bill Clinton signed bills doing just exactly that when he was in office, so don't paint this as a one-sided philosophy. Again, no offense, but guys like you succumb to groupthink and stereotype Republicans as being unfair, heartless, and cruel. Thanks for being so unbiased.

I'm sick of right-wing pundits too. I once heard Rush paint those of us who have gone overseas to live and work as just tax dodgers. I certainly took personal offense to that. I'm really sick of Republicans, but I look at them as the lesser of two evils. As the South Park guys say, "We hate Conservatives, but we really fucking hate Liberals."

[BulletMagnet]

Again, no offense, but guys like you succumb to groupthink and stereotype Republicans as being unfair, heartless, and cruel.

If I came across that way it certainly wasn't my intention - if anything, a good chunk of the (overpaid and undercriticized) liberal elites (note: most liberals, and most conservatives for that matter, are not "elites," despite the prevailing definition) need to pound that thought into their heads (or have someone pound it for them), seeing as they're far too willing to make that generalization and offend/alienate a good portion of the population (most recently, there's the suggestion that Obama can't win because working-class whites are apparently still too Neanderthal to vote for a black man).

I am aware that most who call themselves Republicans do not hold completely to the "official" party line - the same holds true for many Democrats (disclaimer: while I'm obviously liberal, I am not a Democrat). Frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way - better to think for oneself than just have the party tell you what to think. What baffles me is how, considering the above, anyone who isn't an upper-cruster can support Republican policy on most issues - granted, many of the "values" of the party (fiscal responsibility, accountability, morality, etc.) I have no problem with, but it's always seemed to me that those people actually running the show are only interested in the aforementioned to the point that it paints the other side as a bunch of immoral spendthrifts and gets them into office, where they can bellow about "small government" and "keeping the money you earn" in order to get away with enacting policies that overwhelmingly favor the rich and influential (i.e. those who got them elected) and ignore everyone else. Granted, as I said, I'm not a Dem, and that lot has plenty of skeletons in its own closet, but at least their supporters actually expect them to, after they pick the bones clean, at least throw said bone to the public once in awhile, as opposed to not only devouring the meat but claiming that if they gave you the leftovers it'd be a step towards Communism. As you said, even Clinton was for putting limits on "the welfare state" - so where are all of these people "making a lifestyle" out of it? That old saw should have died with Reagan.

I truly think that most conservatives are decent, generous people (heck, individuals' efforts from red states towards those affected by Katrina were as earnest as one could ask for, as one example) - however, I also believe that many of them have been double-crossed into throwing their support behind a bunch who's even less concerned with their interests than the opposition is with their supporters...and have been far more effectively convinced to completely dismiss anything the other side attempts to offer them, on fabricated "principle" rather than any practical reason. As you say, you're not pleased with the party's current leadership nor their mouthpieces in the media, and rightly so, considering that they've been doing all they can to make life more difficult for you and those like you ever since they took power - however, despite how eager the conservative leadership claims it is for "change" and "bipartisanship," when it comes to their actions (for instance, the positions McCain's taken up) I really don't see any indication that this is their true intention. They have absolutely thrived during the Bush years, unlike the rest of us, and are far more willing to fight tooth and nail for their further advancement than most of their followers are for even the basics that they take for granted.

Apologies for the rant, but it really does drive me nuts to hear of someone in your situation in this country (and even with your struggles, you're far from the worst off) saying that someone who wants to continue along the Bush path in almost every area is the "lesser evil" compared to the alternative. I don't support any candidate in particular, but in terms of the implications for anyone except the rich, McCain is clearly the worst option - and a lot of the people who would be most hurt by his presidency (and those whom he puts in other positions of responsibility) are the ones who will most fervently support him. As I said, it absolutely baffles me...hopefully you can see why.

And sorry for taking so long for thinking to say it, but congratulations on the new kid, and the best to you and your family from here on out.

[greg]

I'm not at all for going down the Bush path. He's a neo-con, and he's been even more disappointing in his second term than the first. If a Democrat gets elected, and with a Democratic congress, I really hope that they can put a stop to all this outsourcing. I really believe that there is the erosion of the middle class, and that there is a system of "two Americas" emerging. Oddly enough though, is that I see this polar system more evident in blue states like California. Just as you are a Liberal before being a Democrat, I am a Conservative before being a Republican. I really think McCain is a loser, and I really can't see him winning the election. The other two are fairly goofy, but I'd rather see Hilary get it before Obama.

One thing I do not like about Conservatives/Republicans is that they make a black and white issue out of everything. For any given crisis, I can see where both sides are at fault. But in the end, Pixel Outlaw is right and this is just another stupid political thread.

[Ed Oscuro]

You never know what sort of kaka-meme fine print they put into bills to weigh it down with pointless crap.

If that were actually the point of voting no (and if they hadn't changed their votes), then this would be fine.

Libertarians and social conservatives haven't been well-represented in the Republican party as of late, I'm afraid. The Democratic party often gets hit with a "crazy leftists" smear, but on the economy politicians feel the left-right angle is less evident and so there is more wiggle room. As a result, the most socially liberal (slightly to the left of Clinton) candidate is speaking against the fuel tax holiday plan.

The label "conservative" as a group noun is meaningless. As an adjective for a person's approach to a specific range of issues, it still has the same use it ever did.

[Neon]

Frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way - better to think for oneself than just have the party tell you what to think.

I kind of take issue with this, because I think it's possible to be a committed democrat or republican without being a mindless drone. I do despise it when people pick a position and then defend it at all costs, regardless of any kind of real truth (Demagoguery, I guess), but I think you can be firmly in the left or right-wing camps and still have a decent rationale for your positions.

Ed - you view Obama as more to the left than Clinton? I thought that most couldn't find a substantive difference with their positions. It is interesting that he's been winning cities (traditionally liberal) and Clinton rural areas, but she tends to win the traditionally liberal states (California, Michigan) vs. Obama, who won most of the red ones. It also seems like Obama's voters (college students, higher-income folk) would be more conservative than lifelong liberals who have an economic stake in the outcome of the election. I dunno what to make of all that. I'm fairly liberal (I'm in college, hey!) and I've been flip-flopping between the two of them based on (perceived) electability alone.

It's Barry either way now, so the argument is moot. I expect Hilly will drop out after Oregon, or whenever he reaches the 'magic number'

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed - you view Obama as more to the left than Clinton?

That's the word on the street, or it was. I agree that there's very little to substantiate that supposed difference.

It is interesting that he's been winning cities (traditionally liberal) and Clinton rural areas, but she tends to win the traditionally liberal states (California, Michigan) vs. Obama, who won most of the red ones. It also seems like Obama's voters (college students, higher-income folk) would be more conservative

This is actually the complete reverse of my perception. Michigan is fairly conservative (as a whole, and ignoring the usual Detroit city/suburbs split), and most of Obama's supporters seem to be somewhat liberal to me (of course, judging from the news sites I read, the number of Obama supporters who are offensive loud morons far outstrips the number of like Clinton supporters, and it's only been getting worse). Some students will be conservative, and some will be liberal...eh, I'd assume them to be more liberal, Michael J. Fox aside.

It's Barry either way now, so the argument is moot.

True story, I was trying to remember what part of McCain's name sounded like "Barry." Not a dig, but the truth

The main things that set Obama apart from Clinton are...oh, heh, just look at the time.

It's rape o'clock!

Later.

[BulletMagnet]

Oddly enough though, is that I see this polar system more evident in blue states like California.

Out of curiosity, are you aware of any data that supports this? I'd be interested in seeing it. Offhand I might note that the two biggest "blue" states (CA and NY) are governed by Republicans, though neither of those two are particularly hard-line when it comes to their party affiliation...enough to be relatively popular with their constituents, anyways.

One thing I do not like about Conservatives/Republicans is that they make a black and white issue out of everything.

To an extent I agree with you, but at the same time I find the notion that both sides are always equally to blame for everything (or, alternately, that everyone's philosophy, no matter whose the evidence supports, deserves to be seen as equally legitimate) simply untrue. As just one example, when one side claims (with little or nothing to back it up) that "European-style health care" is an unmitigated disaster, while the other notes that they provide care at least as good as ours at about half the cost, sorry, but one side is right and the other is wrong, and when the former blocks any attempted progress toward the latter's system while accepting huge payoffs from for-profit health care interests, it's not the latter side's fault (disclaimer - I'm not saying any universal healthcare system is perfect, though I stand firm on the claim that they've been grossly misrepresented by most sources around here).

I kind of take issue with this, because I think it's possible to be a committed democrat or republican without being a mindless drone.

That's more or less what I said, though I phrased it a bit confusingly - most Dems and Reps don't agree 100 percent with their party's "official" line, but still agree enough to put themselves among their ranks. I'm just not one of 'em.

Ed - you view Obama as more to the left than Clinton? I thought that most couldn't find a substantive difference with their positions.

The difference isn't huge (lifetime "conservative" ratings found here rate them nearly identical on that front...of course, my favorite piece of data is "Maverick" McCain's 80+ rating), though on a handful of issues (most notably offhand, mandated health care) there are seemingly small but still notable differences. Of course, in my view neither goes far enough on most initiatives, but either is preferable to McCain's know-nothing continuation of the last administration's disaster.

[greg]

Ed - you view Obama as more to the left than Clinton?

Any Democrat who mentions about how our troops are killing innocent civilians has to be more left than Clinton. The military takes great pains to reduce civilian casualties with surgical strikes and technologically advanced weaponry, and we have people like Obama who make irresponsible comments about how our military just goes around murdering civilians as if it were the Rape of Nanking.

Obama, who won most of the red ones.

That's because it's a tried and true Democrat strategy to register as the opposite party and vote for the candidate who is least likely to win. Democrats have been doing this for decades, and Rush Limbaugh had the idea to turn the Democrats strategy against them. So far it's worked, AFAIK. He called it Operation somethingorother. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure this has been going on for at least a half a year now.

[BulletMagnet]

Any Democrat who mentions about how our troops are killing innocent civilians has to be more left than Clinton.

Do you have a link to the exact quote in question? I've heard of this before, but never actually read/seen it on video...offhand, I seriously doubt that any candidate, on either side, would be dumb enough to even sound like they're critical of U.S. soldiers (remember how well Kerry's "botched joke" went over?) - if anything, I'd figure that they might criticize the army's low-bar recruitment practices (the fact that they're far more welcoming of applicants with felonies now can't be helping), or the outsourcing of the army's duties to Blackwater and other contracting mercenaries (who won't/can't be held accountable for pretty much anything), but seriously, the whole "why do you hate our troops?" thing has been going on for so long now that I'm sure everyone's choosing their words very carefully.

That's because it's a tried and true Democrat strategy to register as the opposite party and vote for the candidate who is least likely to win.

I've heard of this happening, though at least in recent years most of this sort of thing (as you said) has been to the benefit of Republicans...again, do you have any sort of link (not trying to put you on the spot, I'm genuinely interested on where this sort of thing started)? The Dems obviously have plenty of sleaze in their history (their strategies in the South, before Nixon adopted it for his party, come most immediately to mind), but at least as far as recent elections are concerned it'll be tough for them to top the Karl Rove era.

[JoshF]

I love conservatives who find big brother unattractive until they slip him into their army boots. Then it gets pretty racy.

[The n00b]

I am really liking both candidates. It seems that Mccain is doing his best to break the neo-con stranglehold on the republican party while Obama is also trying to break this whole "lol conservatives" thing the demo party has had lately.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ed - you view Obama as more to the left than Clinton?

Any Democrat who mentions about how our troops are killing innocent civilians has to be more left than Clinton. The military takes great pains to reduce civilian casualties with surgical strikes and technologically advanced weaponry, and we have people like Obama who make irresponsible comments about how our military just goes around murdering civilians as if it were the Rape of Nanking.

This is the same guy who spouts off about how "all Americans are offended?"

It seems that Mccain is doing his best to break the neo-con stranglehold on the republican party [...]

Not precisely; my hope is that he'll just listen to more traditional conservatives instead of his friends Hagee and Robertson. One thing that sets him apart from Obama is that he hasn't been going out of his way to disown or turn away people; McCain is trying to get as much support as possible, and for whatever reason the media has given him the space to do that comfortably by not screaming about his Robertson/Hagee connections.

At this very moment, though, I bet you there's a fierce battle behind the scenes for his ear from both neocons and neo-Buckley types.

It might not be all bad for Obama, though. An interesting opinion piece out today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/weeki ... ib.html?hp

[greg]

Do you have a link to the exact quote in question? I've heard of this before, but never actually read/seen it on video...offhand, I seriously doubt that any candidate, on either side, would be dumb enough to even sound like they're critical of U.S. soldiers (remember how well Kerry's "botched joke" went over?)

I don't have the exact quote, but I caught it on the news a long while back, perhaps sometime last year or so. He basically made a slip about how American soldiers should be careful instead of carelessly killing innocent civilians. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's possible that he may have been referencing a specific incident and that the quote was taken out of context, but a slip like that gets the media out to crucify anybody --at least Fox News with Hannity. I'm really getting tired of Hannity and Colmes. It seems like both of them make talking points that are idiotic but it seems like they do it because it is expected of them.

I've heard of this happening, though at least in recent years most of this sort of thing (as you said) has been to the benefit of Republicans...again, do you have any sort of link (not trying to put you on the spot, I'm genuinely interested on where this sort of thing started)?

It was called Operation Chaos, and it was actually for Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary instead. I had it backwards. Link, yoink!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_L ... tion_Chaos