Elections 2014: Two Senate and One Governor Wannabes and Shouldn'tbes

by Sunnyjane

We're just three Tuesdays away from election day, and the Silly Season has morphed into the Pathetic Period.  The Silly Season officially began the day John Boehner's first tax-payer- financed lawyer bailed on him and the Big B decided it would be smart to hire the lawyer who lost Bob McDonnell's corruption case.  This circus stunt, of course, is merely a desperate ploy to earn votes for Republican Tea Party candidates on November 4.  Because, you know, those Benghazi/Obamacare/IRS thingies didn't work out too well.

The Pathetic Period took off when, in a debate with her Democratic opponent, one GOP candidate pivoted from a question she didn't want to answer and accused her challenger of suing a neighbor whose pet chickens had pooped in his yard. Pathetic.

One interesting bit to know while you're reading about a couple of the races for this mid-term election:  The Senate Conservatives Fund, which was set up by skanky old Jim DeMint before he skedaddled away to make his millions as president of The Heritage Foundation, is not having a very good year.  For some unfathomable reason, the SCF hired former Virginia attorney general and failed (thank God) gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli to be its new leader.  Of the six candidates the SCF shoved money at, three lost their primaries: T. W. Shannon (OK), Chris McDaniel (MS), and Milton Wolf (KS).  The other one, Rob Maness of Louisiana, is expected to lose to either Democrat Mary Landrieu or the other Republican candidate, Bill Cassidy. (Louisiana is a weird state; it will hold a jungle primary on November 4, and the top two candidates will be voted on in a runoff election on December 6.  Either way, Maness, a Palin endorsee, is gonna lose.  Heh.) So how's it going there for you, Cooch?

Since there are a gazillion House races and thirty-three Senate races, we'll only look at a couple of the more interesting ones.      

Deep in the Heart of Texas: Abbott v. Davis for Governor

Proving that you can shine shit for fun and profit.

The issue that got the attention of Democrats nationwide was Texas state senator Wendy Davis's noble filibuster effort to stop the legislature from passing a grossly restrictive abortion bill in 2013.  The bill passed anyhow, much to the delight of conservatives everywhere.  However, appeals have bounced around the Texas courts so many times since then that I'm not sure where it stands today; the latest decision on whether or not the restrictions on abortion clinics are too severe seems to change hourly.  But this is known: of the forty-four clinics currently operating, all but eight will have to close if the bill is upheld.

To Greg Abbott, forcing women who choose to obtain an abortion to drive 250 miles is merely a slight inconvenience, but a manageable one.  I guess it's according to how you define manageable.

Lest we be lulled into believing that shutting down women's clinics is all about being pro-life and, ahem, all concerned about the health and safety of female Texans, there's another side to this story: it's called PROFIT.  And who would profit from these restrictions?  None other than Gov. Rick Perry's sister, Milla Perry Jones, who is on the board of the doctors-owned Texas Ambulatory Surgical Center Society, which runs 420 clinics throughout Texas.  Since the need for abortions is not likely to go down, this little group could make tons of money, i.e., profit, by charging a higher fee than the shut-down clinics did.  See?  You knew it had to be about the money, didn't you?

On teh gays gettin' married, one of Abbott's arguments for banning such a thing is that it would reduce out-of-wedlock births.  (I thought that was contraception's job, but perhaps I'm wrong.)  Now I have no earthly idea what judge would accept that explanation as sound reasoning, but if it can be done, it will be done in Texas.

The current polls are inconclusive on this race, but most have Abbott leading by single digits.  It's extremely important that women and minorities vote on November 4.

The Bluegrass State:  McConnell v. Grimes for Senate
 

I'm not a scientist, but I'm right there with Paul Ryan when it comes to budgets!

It may well be called the bluegrass state, but politically it's redder than Rudolph's nose on Christmas Eve.  Despite the fact that Kentuckians detest Mitch McConnell, Democratic candidate Alison Grimes has an uphill battle on her hands.

One reason Mitch wants to become Senate Majority Leader is so that he and his senate cronies can shut down the government again, because, you know, it was such a $25 Billion success the first time.  And as Michael Tomasky wrote just recently concerning the debate, Le Turtle has an astounding ability to lie, dissemble, and misrepresent himself to voters.   The entire debate between the incumbent and Grimes should have convinced his constituents that Mitch is full of crap and needs to be replaced.  Now I don't know whether McConnell is stupid or if he thinks Kentuckians are stupid, but his response to the question on Obamacare was the epitome of contempt.  He hates it, and taking a line from Ted Cruz, he'd rip it apart branch and root.  But, he'd let his citizens have their little website -- Kynect -- if they wanted to keep it.  Gee, thanks Uncle Mitch!  Idiot.

For her part, at least Alison Grimes stated that there was no way she would take affordable health care away from five hundred thousand Kentuckians who had it under Kynect. 

When Grimes refused to answer if she had voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012, GOPers pounced like vultures on two-week-old roadkill in August.  Even Chuck Todd, newly anointed anchor of Sunday morning's Meet My Good Republican Friends Meet the Press, asked if not responding to that question disqualifies her.  It makes one wonder where Chuck Todd was in 2012 when Mitt Romney refused to answer questions about what policies he would propose on various issues, oh, like the following:  refusing to answer questions on Richard Mourdock's belief that a baby conceived through rape was something God planned; or refusing fourteen times to respond to questions right after hurricane Sandy on whether he would still get rid of FEMA and turn disaster relief over to the states and private sector groups; and  his refusal to answer what tax loopholes he would close, what he would do about immigration reform, his stand on the NRA, etc.  You really wanna talk about disqualifying a candidate, Chuck?  You really wanna go there?

Some polls have Grimes up in this race.

The Motor City State: Land v. Peters for Senate

I don't always run for the U.S. Senate, but when I do, I blow $6 Million of the Kochs' money!

She wasn't anybody's first choice, and now we're seeing why, said an in-the-know GOPer of Terry Lynn Land's candidacy.  Land is running against Democrat Gary Peters in Michigan's race for the U.S. Senate seat of Democrat Carl Levin, who is retiring after this term.

By most accounts, Land is simply not ready for prime time.  She's uncomfortable campaigning, has been called the invisible candidate, and once said I can't do this! when being questioned by a group of reporters.

Things got so bad that in mid-August the Kochs pulled their $1.1 Million dollar ad blitz for her.  And just recently, the National Republican Senatorial Committee left her all-dressed-up-and-no-place-to-go by yanking back an $850,000 ad campaign.

Needless to say, Gary Peters is ahead in this race with a 42 - 33 lead.

End Note

And don't let any new ones in!

(We will continue to look at Senate and House races until Election Day)

+++

Please note that due to a glitch in the Matrix, the first version of this post and the comments disappeared. We apologize for any inconvenience! :-)

Female Republicans Wage Paycheck Fairness War on Their Own Gender

by Sunnyjane

Three-fourths of a penny for your thoughts.

On January 29, 2009, newly inaugurated President Barack Obama signed into law the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  Fast forward to 2012: When Mitt Romney was supposed to ensure that Obama became a one-term president, his campaign staff was asked if their candidate supported the Lily Ledbetter Act.  Now it's not as if these fools had been asked to find the length of the hypotenuse in a right triangle using the Pythagorean theorem.  It was a simple Yes or No question.  But, living up to very low expectations, a rather lengthy silence ensued before they finally responded, Um...we'll get back to you on that.  (Note: Romney refused throughout the campaign to answer that question, even after Ann assured the ladies at the Clint-Eastwood-infested convention that We love you women!)

It should come as no astounding revelation that Republican men in the House and Senate have historically voted against any legislation that would ensure income equality for women, regardless of how badly they need that particular demographic at election time.  But in the time-honored conservative manner of allowing the males to run the show, the female lawmakers (and I use that term loosely) have also refused to allow their own gender adequate protections to ensure that they receive equal pay for equal work.  'Tis a head-scratcher, but I assure you that the ladies have some excellent reasons.  Susan Collins believes that the Paycheck Fairness Act could impose a real burden on small businesses due to excessive litigation that might occur.  (Memo to Sen. Collins: There would be no litigation if small businesses were paying equal salaries for equal work.)  Never one to hide her ignorance by keeping her mouth tightly shut, good old North Carolina Rep. Virginia Jared-Loughner-was-a-liberal-communist Foxx thought the Act was a liberal plot to strengthen Democrats' accusations that Republicans are anti-women.  Well if the shoe fits, honey, just go on and hit yourself upside the head with it. (Memo to Rep. Foxx:  You're as stupid as the Wingnut from Wasilla.)  There are some folks who are hoping that Ms. Foxx will run against Kay Hagen for the Senate.  I hope so, too; it's the last we would see of Foxxy. 

Last June, Tennessee Congressman (yes, she insists on being addressed as congressman) Marsha Blackburn appeared on Meet the Press.   When asked about her vote against the Paycheck Fairness Act, she responded in word-salady language that women don't want equal pay laws, they just want to be recognized as having gotten the job because they were the most qualified.  Or something like that.  Of course, it never occurred to David Gregory -- or any of the other men on the roundtable -- to ask the Congressman a rather relevant question:  So, Congressman Blackburn, are you saying you would be perfectly satisfied if you were being paid $40,000 less than your male counterparts in the House of Representatives? This same question should be asked of every female who votes against paycheck equality.  The sound of silence would be deafening.

That was 2013.  What are Republican women doing now to advance the cause of equal pay for women?

Oh, Stop Your Silly Whinging, Ladies

Making twenty-three cents on a dollar less than a man might not seem like a big deal to Republican women, until they start realizing that over a forty-year career, they could be cheated out of almost half-a-million dollars.  That not only hurts their current quality of life, but it dramatically affects their Social Security and any pension fund plans they may have.  This sort of ignorant defiance is akin to purposely shooting yourself in the foot and claiming Stand Your Ground defense when asked why you did such a stupid thing.  (Think about it.)

According to one state representative, Minnesota women are whiners for wanting laws to protect them against income equality.  This whining absolutely disgusts Rep. Andrea Kieffer because -- wait for it -- ...these bills are putting us backwards in time. We are losing the respect that we so dearly want in the workplace by bringing up all these special bills for women.  

Uh huh.  Well, who would have ever guessed that a law requiring that women be paid the same salary as men for the same work would be putting them backwards in time and causing them to lose respect?  Whose respect might that be, Rep. Kieffer?  Yeah, that's what I thought -- the respect of the same men who advocate paying a woman less because, after all, she's just a woman.  Makes perfect sense.  New hash tag:  #Makes Perfect Sense if You're a Republican.

Dysfunction Junction Deep in the Heart of Texas
 

Q: How many Republican women in Texas does it take to change a light bulb?  A: None; they're too busy still making candles for the men folk.

Or so we've been led to understand.  The executive editor of Red State Women -- which has just started a PAC for Greg Abbott, by the way -- said recently that while Texas women certainly want and deserve equal pay, the Lily Ledbetter Act was not the answer to the situation.  But when asked by the interviewer what would resolve paycheck inequality, she was at a loss.  Thus, Ms. Cari Christman decided it was because women are too busy to worry about equal pay laws: If you look at it, women are… extremely busy, we lead busy lives.  And times are extremely busy. It’s just — it’s a busy cycle for women, and we’ve got a lot to juggle.  #Makes Perfect Sense if You're a Republican. 

Then cometh the executive director of the Texas Republican Party to chide women for trying to seek their silly little paycheck justice through the courts and simply become better negotiators.  #Makes Perfect Sense if You're a Republican.

Fortunately, Wendy Davis was having none of it, and snapped back at this lunacy, and pretty much told Greg Abbott to come out from behind the skirts of his staff and surrogates and speak for himself on the issue of paycheck equality.  It hasn't happened yet! 

End Note

  

White-Wing Roundup: A Review of The Last Week in June 2013

by Sunnyjane

Is it just me, or is global warming also responsible for the dramatic rise in stupidity and hatred in white right-wingers?  A fanciful question, of course, because I don't believe I've seen an overabundance of our darker-skinned brothers and sisters leaning that far to the right, but you get my drift.

This last week has provided a glut of post topics (all of which have been discussed at length both in the blogosphere and the mainstream media), but I thought it might be interesting to examine in one lump what might well be regarded as the Whackiest Week That Was in American history. 

So let's do that, shall we?

A Nation of Arrogant Squatters and Land Robbers

 

Oh aye, we are, you know.  Many of our lily-white-complexioned ancestors simply sailed west across the Atlantic and claimed the eastern part of this country for England.  Then they proceeded to push the Native Americans further west and began the methodical destruction of the abundant natural resources they discovered.  But that's another story altogether.

They came for various reasons:  the Puritans to avoid religious persecution, the Highland Scots of North Carolina to avoid English prosecution after the Jacobite Rising, and the Jamestown settlers so that three-hundred and fifty years later they could put up a theme park.  No, seriously.

And while life in the United States today is far from hunky-dory, immigrants still want to come.  Eleven million Latinos who are already here are working hard and becoming a vital part of our society without benefit of citizenship.  Thus, we need to reform our immigration laws.  Now.

The U. S. Senate passed -- by a wide margin  of 68/32 -- an immigration reform bill that will, among other things, provide a pathway to citizenship.  The House of Representatives, which has steadfastly refused to offer up a bill on immigration, now says, Huh uh, we're not gonna pass the Senate bill; we'll do our own bill!  And, of course, the House bill will not, according to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, provide a pathway to citizenship, but rather a pathway to legalization.  [Translation: We might let you work toward a green card.]    

While Michele Bachmann is under the deluded impression that the future of America looks like a white baby, the truth is we have become a glorious nation of multiple shades and hues that reflect the various nationalities in this country.  White people love to talk about minorities, when in fact, they are fast becoming the minority.  [Memo to Bachmann and her bigoted followers: Face it and get over it.]

Repeal of DOMA May Cause Right-Wing Hair Loss

 The New Yorker Cover, Moment of Joy,  by Jack Hunter

Clearly, eighty-three year old Pat Robertson is one of the most irritating, homophobic, racist, misogynistic Christians the citizens of this country have had to endure.  After the decision on DOMA was announced, he actually asked a guest about Justice Anthony Kennedy's staff: Let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy. Does he have some clerks that happen to be gays?  Kudos to the rather startled guest, who said he had no idea what sexual orientation the justice's clerks were.

But over in the land of Robertson's legislative kindred spirits there was much angst and dire warnings.  Louie Gohmert is ominously predicting that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will lead to bigamy and polygamy, while Michele Bachmann (yes, again) says that Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. In a later press conference, Bachmann called the Court's decision an affront to the Constitution...   Must we remind Ms. Bachmann one...more...time that this country is governed by the man-made laws of the Constitution of the United States, and not what she perceives as God's law?

Prop 8 Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier: We do! 

Surely Nancy Pelosi's Who cares? when asked what she thought of Bachmann's condemnation of the ruling on gay marriage has to rank right up there with President Obama's Please proceed, Governor during one of the 2012 debates with Mitt Romney.  Soooo satisfying.

The Unconscionable Death of the Voting Rights Act

Rep. John Lewis:  I didn’t think that when President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act that I would live to see five members of the United States Supreme Court undo what he did with those pens.

Chief Justice John Roberts successfully set the voting rights of minorities, the elderly, the poor, and the young back fifty years when he gutted Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  By ruling that the 1965 Voting Rights Act cannot be enforced unless Congress comes up with a new way of determining which states and localities require federal monitoring of elections, Roberts willfully gave GOP governors untethered license to do anything they damn well please to keep certain demographics in the country from voting.

The right to vote is the foundation of American democracy. In the 2012 election, that right was challenged in a way we have not seen since the civil rights and voting rights movements of the 1960s. Legislatures in primarily Republican-governed states decided that the freedom to vote must be restricted, and they erected unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to registration and voting.

There was nothing remotely covert about the Republicans' plans to repress citizens' ability to cast their votes on November 6.  From Pennsylvania, where the state's House Majority Leader told committee meeting attendees, Voter ID [laws], which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done!  to Florida where Gov. Rick Scott reduced early voting days from fourteen to eight, Republican plans to prevent people from voting were put into place.

It will happen again, and we'll get a good taste of it in 2014 because the GOP controlled House of Representatives will never pass effective legislation to prevent it from happening.

End Note