Saturday, 8/3/13, Public Square

count on it

Advertisements

27 Comments

by | August 3, 2013 · 6:00 am

27 responses to “Saturday, 8/3/13, Public Square

  1. I know I sound like a broken record, but the header implies all women will vote the same way as a block, an implication that (as far as I am able to determine) has no basis in fact. If, in fact, the implication proves true, and in fact, the block votes against the GOP, then what appears is true. Until and unless this occurs, the statement made is no more than wishful thinking. The PTB in the Republican party know this, and (to put it bluntly) don’t really care, at least for the 2014 mid-terms, where the Gerrymandered districts combined with Senate seats in play are more important. And, in fact, these mid-terms are more important, for a plethora of reasons, including spending, health care, reproductive rights, etc.

    2016 presidential election may well be another matter, but that might not be all that important if the 2014 mid-terms fall the “right” way for the pachyderms. No matter what, control of the Congress remains more important than the White House, insofar as establishing and promoting an agenda are concerned. Then, as is patently obvious, there are the states, which will remain solidly “red” (at least in number, if not in percentage of total population) for at least another eight to ten years imho.

    • Great to “read” you, 6176! I’ve missed you ’round about these parts. 🙂

      You know I won’t quit and I care as much as the republicans don’t care.

      “…header implies all women will vote the same way as a block…”

      I don’t see what you see.

      Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter… are angry women who will vote for republicans so I don’t even think all angry women will vote the same way. I do know women voters outnumber men and for the past few elections overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic candidate for president.

      Wishful thinking isn’t all bad. I choose to participate in wishful thinking rather than giving up. I have a positive attitude and even when my preferred candidate doesn’t win I remain positive for the future.

      We shall see about control of Congress in a little over a year and I’ll not give up. I too know the odds favor republicans. I understand about gerrymandered districts and senate seats in play. I too understand how important the majority in Congress is to advancing an agenda. I haven’t seen republicans in charge advance anything at any level of government that advances our country and her citizens. I’m not the only woman, or person, who sees this. Just last week the U.S. House couldn’t even advance their own economic plan. When it came to real numbers even some republicans realized how ridiculous and unrealistic The Ryan Plan proves to be.

      • Bottom line – we don’t need ALL women to vote against Republicans – just the majority.

        And this is a goal that improving it’s odds with every passing day when Republican middle-aged white males open their big fat mouths because they seem to think God has put them in control of every woman’s body.

      • fnord – I still remember how Todd Tiarht got kicked to the curb……and what did it take to do that?

        Just the majority to vote for Moran…….and with the help of some Democrats and Independents that held their nose while registering as Republican so they could vote in the primary – that majority won – didn’t they?

        Hey – politics is a game – and one needs to know how to play it …

      • One last thought. Although republicans do have advantages going into 2014 mid terms they better hold on tight to each current voter (maybe they can come up with a way to prevent some of those old coots from dying) because they’re making few if any inroads in attracting additional or new voters. Even with gerrymandering, voter suppression tactics, the seats in play favoring them this particular election cycle, they’re doing little to ensure their party is viable into the future.

      • Yes, women voters outnumber male voters. My point, perhaps poorly made, is that so long as the population is distributed as it is, in order to effect real change and get the GOP nervous, ALL (or nearly all) women, across the entire country will need to vote the same way every time in every election. So long as the GOP has (unfortunately) the angry male vote well in hand, so long as more than a few women vote for its candidates, even if only 25%, then there will not be a change at the national level. This is clear from the 2012 election results being essentially ignored as the GOP looks forward to the 2014 mid-terms. There are some in the GOP who are concerned about 2016 and the Presidential election and the “gender gap”, but these folks are not given much credence (too much money flowing from the others, who are holding power due to the ability to generate large contributions) right now.

        The best hope, as I see it, for a return to sanity by the GOP is for there to be an intra-party civil war over the next few years resulting in humiliating defeats by the “chosen ones” at the state, as well as at the national house of representatives, levels. The seeds are being sown right now (the statements of Rand Paul come to mind), but I don’t know whether that civil war will come in time to affect the 2016 election, as I once thought it would. That civil war will be among the males in the GOP, and bluntly will not be a direct result of the vote of the female majority. Indeed, I suspect the one segment with the greatest impact on getting the civil war started will be Latino voters, especially if the gap in the 2016 election grows relative to the 2012 election. Absent that, I really see little hope for rational change in the GOP, so long as there is a realistic chance they can control the Congress, which as I see it will remain until after the 2020 Census. Even then, control of the states grows in importance given the proclivities of both parties (when in power) to protect their seats, a/k/a Gerrymandering, which likely will continue to be in favor of the GOP.

        Yes, there is a chance (but, I suggest a diminishing one) that the Dems will continue to hold the presidency in the 2016 election due to the gender gap. There is, I believe, a 50-50 chance the Dems lose the small Senate majority held in the 2014 election, which may also see a reduction in the House majority held by the GOP. This will result in a continuation of the bad behaviors we have seen over the recent past, one which may likely result in positive campaign fodder for the GOP in 2016.

        I’m not giving up, though, but to me the solution is greater than making a lot of noise about women being mad, which is what I see the current state of things to be. I see no real action resulting from this obvious truth, no substance, just form. I guess that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along, there’s a whole lot of smoke but not much fire when a close examination occurs.

      • You make a great deal of sense and I respect your conclusions. I know you pay attention and have always used history as a learning tool for advancement rather than simply continuing to live in it. But even someone as smart and well informed as you can be pleasantly surprised.

        Just what makes that little old ant
        Think he’ll move that rubber tree plant
        Anyone knows an ant, can’t
        Move a rubber tree plant

        But he’s got high hopes, he’s got high hopes
        Hes got high apple pie, in the sky hopes

        So any time you’re gettin low
        Stead of lettin go
        Just remember that ant
        Oops there goes another rubber tree plant

        ….

        🙂

      • fnord – I absolutely ADORE your optimism – but I do understand where 6176 is coming from….

        Unfortunately, 6176 is probably correct in his assessment for 2014 and 2016.

        BTW – when I read your last few paragraphs – my mind immediately jumped to the old ‘Laverne and Shirley’ television show.

        Remember how Shirley’s theme song was about that little ant?

        Did you know – the network HUB runs those old Laverne and Shirley shows.

        I still laugh…..

  2. While Republicans are rarely known for making a whole lot of sense, a tweet from House Speaker John Boehner yesterday really takes the cake. In an apparent attempt to claim that the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” will raise health care premiums for Ohioans by 41%, Boehner actually tweeted a link to a story that shows premiums will go down for most people in the state.

    http://www.forwardprogressives.com/boehner-tweets-link-showing-obamacare-works-after-voting-to-repeal-it-for-the-40th-time/

    • I have a theory…..there is a reason why men are born with their little brains at arm’s length and in directly in the middle – this is the one thing that they can find!

      Boehner is such a sad little angry man…….but – hey – the Tea Pots are the ones that created this mess…

      IF Boehner had showed a small smidget of leadership back during those debt ceiling fight and had told Tea Pots to sit down and shut up…..Boehner would not be the sad little angry man we see today..IMHO

      • I apologize NOW if I have offended any male from the PPP blog with my theory.

        I have been married for a long time to the same man – and I love him to death.

        But remember that old book – Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus?

        Well……..

        I’ve often told my better half that my uterus did not come equipped with GPS because he seems to never know where he put something – the last time he used it.

        Well……such is the never-ending story of this dance we call – Men and Women…

  3. When talking about an entire population group voting the same way – that has never been true.

    While I find many faults with these Fundy Christian Republicans – not all Christians fall into that category.

    I know of some folks who live their Christian faith – and should not be clumped together with those dog and pony Christians.

    Can’t the same be said about Muslims?

    There are some very nice Muslims – they work hard, pay taxes and contribute to our society. And then there are other Muslims – who are not nice.

    I don’t think there has ever been a time when a certain population has done the same thing in total – has there been?

    Even during the founding of our country – there were differences of opinion. And there was some fierce fighting…….

  4. I’m starting here, to amplify on some thoughts I have. Some of this is based upon what I learned from the Viet Nam War days, some later occurring.

    First, and given the current state of affairs the most important, where are the c4s?
    Second, how many new lobbyists are working on these issues?
    Third, what steps have been and are being taken to identify and cultivate large donors, including corporate donors?
    Fourth, what is being done at the state level to build effective organizations to defeat the “Tea Party” incumbents?
    Fifth, what is being done at the local level to identify, groom, and support candidates with enough gravitas to be elected?

    Without money, there is limited access to the public forum. While money is not speech, it buys the access so that speech has a chance to be heard. Unless effective methods are in place to raise the money, including (under current law) the use of 501(c)(4) organizations to provide anonymity, then there is no access, thereby stifling the “market place of ideas”. I don’t like this abuse of the law, but as long as it is permitted, it must be exploited.

    Without money, lobbyists cannot be hired. Without lobbyists, there is a greatly reduced chance of gaining access to the legislators, whether federal or state. In order to raise the money, donors must be identified and cultivated. This holds true for politics as it does for research, for politics as it does for a university’s endowment, for politics as it does for disaster relief. Cultivating potential donors is not pleasant work, as ego stroking (among other things) is involved.

    Without money, state organizations cannot be built, strengthened, or sustained. Without an effective state organization, there is no real opposition. Without opposition, those currently in power continue in power, and further consolidate their power.

    The least costly (perhaps only in dollar terms) is the process of identifying, grooming and supporting local candidates. The importance of this is so the individual may gain experience while building a recognizable name for future races.

    I’m not seeing a lot of this type activity right now. Perhaps it is occurring, and I’ve missed it, but I sense not a great amount of this is being done. While we may not like the system, learning and exploiting the system is necessary to success. Again, I just don’t see it happening.

    The above are examples of the substance, the fire, I mentioned earlier. There’s a lot of form (or smoke) in the opinion polls, expressions of ideas as set forth in the header, and talking heads on msnbc (as an example). The latter will do little good without the former.

    • It does take ALOT of money……

      Exhibit #1 – Tea Party

      Where would the Tea Pots be without the Koch Brothers and their unlimited well of cash?

    • You’re probably accurate once again. I haven’t seen much (at least not nearly enough) activity either. When it comes to money it’s hard to beat the Kochs who have been quite successful in buying republicans as their tools.

      I read where Lindsay Graham had drawn a primary opponent. I heard she is a tea-party favorite and a nutjob crazy along the lines of Ted Cruz of “shut down the government” fame, Rand Paul, Tim Huelskamp, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how the republicans can come up with even worse than they currently have. Worst part is the crazier the candidate the more appeal they seem to have with their republican constituency.

  5. Here is the woman trying to put Mitch McConnell out to pasture…

    Be sure to read the part where this woman used the analogy of McConnell being a Chippendale dancer..

    Ewwww……now that is a mental picture I could have done without…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/03/alison-lundergan-grimes-abortion-positions_n_3698539.html#comments

  6. Is it fair for any employer to mandate where an employee attends church?

    BTW – when will Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins and these other Far Right Wingers be demonizing any employer that insists on their employee being a member of a certain church?

    I guess – just the fact this man and his family were willing to go to two different churches at the same time – was NOT enough to prove he was ‘one of the good Christians?’

    It’s is stories like this that make me highly cynical of churches and their church schools.

    BTW – am I surprised it was a Baptist school?

    Not in the least – I’ve seen up close and personal how these Baptists treat fellow Christians. It is downright evil…

    http://t.foxsports.msn.com/high-school-ad-loses-job-over-church-affiliation

    • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

      If he had wanted to continue in this position but not attend the church he had every legal right to do just that. They didn’t put this ‘requirement’ in his contract and he wasn’t terminated but instead voluntarily resigned so I don’t think the law was violated.

      • Since this man voluntarily resigned – then that let this church school off the hook?

        My original question still needs to be answered – is it okay for any employer to mandate any employee to attend a certain church?

        There is a Civil Rights Law – but what good is that law if the offending employer gets off the hook because their employee chooses to resign and not stand up and fight?

      • The church stopped short of ‘mandate.’ If the man had simply attended the church of his choice it would have depended on whether or not the church did anything in retaliation. As it is we’ll never know if they would have kept someone who didn’t follow what the coach said was a condition. Where is the “other side of the story?”

      • That’s because when he became AD at EMCA in June 2012, they told him that the promotion not only meant more work, but also joining the school’s Baptist church.

        Sorry to be such a pain – but this church school did mandate joining a certain church as condition of employment.

        Again – I ask – why is this tolerated ?

        I don’t see any of these Fundy Christian Conservatives getting their panties in a twist over this.

        Imagine if this was a Muslim school that said the EXACT same words to their employee?

        Can you imagine the Hell that would break loose on the Far Right Media?

      • Phillips says that EMCA officials told him that the AD position must be a member of East Memorial Baptist Church — a claim the school’s headmaster Bryan Easley confirmed to the Advertiser in an email.
        =======

        The other side of the story is right here…..the school’s headmaster confirmed what this employee said is true.

        Again – I ask – why is this tolerated – just because it is a Baptist School – so that makes it okay?

        I asked above – what if this had been a Muslim school – or Jewish school – can you imagine the Holy Hell that would be raised by the Far Right Wingers?

        If I had been this man – I would have told them to shove their damn church up their damn butts……and then sue them for everything they’ve got.

        Bottom line – it is just further proof that Baptists are notorious for not even getting along with EACH other…….

        I know that from personal experience……which is why I do not attend any church to this day.

        My experience with these pious, santimonius hypocrite church people made me to lose my faith in CHURCHES – but not my faith in God.

        But….I also no longer believe in the Baptists’ version of God – some Supreme Being sitting on a gold throne somewhere in the Heavens just waiting for me to step over that forbidden line…..while the preacher and his church buddies can screw everything that is not nailed now – including young children.

        But – hey – that’s just me…

      • I totally agree it’s not only not fair, but would be illegal if it could be proven. They stopped short of putting it in writing in the contract and since he quit before there was some form of retaliation from the employer there is nothing beyond his word. Only one side of the story may be all it takes for a Florida jury to say a man who murdered an unarmed teenager is “not guilty,” but it wouldn’t win an employment law case.

      • Ah hah! Good catch! I responded before your comment about the email. He does have legal recourse. Employment law cases are very difficult to prove, very costly to pursue and sometimes all the employee ends up with is a job they don’t want with the problems hidden a bit better.

  7. 60 sane senators. A sane majority in the House (and leadership who will that majority vote). It won’t be Utopia, but it may mean less death.