This is why we can’t have nice things


Seriously guys, where’s your speech writers?  How about your office managers?  Wives?  Do you consult with anyone before you belt this nonsense out?

The Congressman that said pregnancies aren’t that common from rape as a justification for not providing protection rape, incest, and life of the mother in their latest neanderthal-esque attempt at controlling reproductive rights decided to raise money from his base by saying he won’t back down.

Then we have this gem rolling out today:

Texas Republican Congressman says…*sigh* that fetuses might be masturbating at 15 weeks, and therefore should be protected from abortion

I really, really wish I was making this stuff up.  I’m working on a piece that I feel strongly about, and these…*things* that slither into suits and call themselves representatives of the vox populi keep feeding me ammo.

I would prefer even to fail with honor than win by cheating


It’s a cheap shot today and return after a long absence.

The Primaries are going on today in Virginia.  So far it looks like a par for course run; the races that are close are going to be driven by the grassroots support that is drummed up during these off-season primaries while strong incumbents and those who are historied within the wall of their respective parties will clinch their nominations with little difficulty.  That doesn’t bother me.  Shenanigans bother me, and I’ve been listening to them for months.

The purpose of the Republican Primary was to ensure that there was ‘purity’ in the selection of the candidates that were chosen last month.  There was the need for this to be ‘honest’ and ‘clear of meddling’.  Rush Limbaugh refers to these yet to materialize, and oft worried about, efforts at tampering ‘Operation Chaos’.  The gist is simple: open primaries mean that Democrats can roll in to the polling station and supposedly pick the weaker of two candidates, effectively setting up their “strong” candidate with an easy win.  If the yarn sounds familiar, it was kicked around in 2008 when McCain was winning much to the chagrin of the Republican party.  It was rolled out again in 2012 when Mitt Romney was facing supposedly impossible odds against the titanic political powers of Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, and (seriously?) Rick Santorum.

Therein lies the problem.  Since the end of the Primary, and the wretched result that has me wincing each morning I have to listen to John Fredericks talk about the latest train wreck of a video someone has dug up on the Virginia Lieutenant Governor nominee E.W. Jackson, the discussion has shifted from the need for purity in the selection process to encouraging our team to go out and vote during the open primaries for the other side.  Granted, there are primaries today for Republican candidates, and to those I say go nuts, have a ball.  For the Democratic candidates and races I wonder where the wagging tail ends and the dog begins.

Now, I enjoy Mr. Fredericks’ show, and have so since I discovered it on a drive to work one morning last year, but I take pause with his notion that voting in the Democrats open primary is perfectly acceptable after our party went to such great lengths to prevent such actions.  It is, of course, his choice, and he chose to exercise that, and in no way am I saying it’s bad.  I’ve met Senator Northam, at the end of election night where I was working for the team that was trying to take his seat, and found him most agreeable, articulate, and, to borrow common vernacular, very real.  As Fredericks said, and so I shall reiterate, what you see from Northam is what you get.   No, I have no problem with his selection, but I’m saying the action of voting for a democrat after you’ve selected your Republican candidate feels…awkward.  It invites analysis by others, and recognition of the inherit weakness of the primary system; any Tom, Dick, or Harry can roll into a polling station and vote for a rep from their state or district.

After the utter, pardon the following, shitcan mess that was the Republican primary in May, why on earth would we advertise, nay, encourage our huddled masses, who were terrified of the bogeyman of cross-platform voters, to go out and do the very thing we decried as fouling the process?  It is hypocritical to demand a pure representation of a party, then to encourage our team to go out and muddy the waters for the other side.  There is no honor in it.

Stars out of the eyes, I understand that, mathematically, the Republican turnout for a Democratic primary is going to be low (maybe 0.25-0.5% of the Republican voting block, so 0.10-0.35% of the overall voting block for the district), but the notion is noxious to me.  If we are going to claim moral high ground it means constant diligence.  Moral strength comes from the ability to act consistently, and in the political world consistency, if measured in gold, would be worth the national debt and a few dollars more.  Lastly, if Mr. Fredericks is going to champion the notion of selecting a candidate based on his authenticity and amicable nature in working across the aisle, maybe closing a post out by talking about the unique opportunity to take Senator Northam’s seat in a special election should probably be saved for another day.  Especially when you are reminding folks that Northam’s vote, if taken, would tip the balance to 21-19 in favor of the Republicans who, at the moment have a very, very weak candidate running for the coveted tie-breaker known as, you guessed it, the Lt. Governor of Virginia.  I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you, Mr. Fredericks, to cover yourself; your machinations are showing.

Political history gap and the modern talking points


Originally written 04/11/2013, it’s been sitting on the back burner, and something I wanted to get off my chest.

Rand Paul recently visited the hallowed grounds of the largely black Howard University and delivered a speech that some would call foolish.  Others would call it ballsy, or ‘bold’ if you’re in polite company, and I tend to agree with them.

Since the monumental loss of the 2012 Presidential elections the Republican Party has been in, not quite a tailspin, but one of the four engines is out and numbers two and three aren’t looking too hot.  We have an internal war going on that should be internal, but is getting played out on every medium imaginable (be you blog, newspaper, website, television, or radio).  It’s not cloaks and daggers, but ad campaigns and public statements about how Tea Party X doesn’t agree with Congress member/ Senator/ Attorney General Y.  These sorts of condemnations use to be behind closed doors, where negotiations could be done, and grandstanding was reserved for both parties to bask in the credit of compromise and a job well done.

Those days are damn near dead.

While the efforts to re-brand the Grand Old Party go on, Rand Paul is marching to a tune of his own.  Speaking at Howard University he talked about issues that were both relevant to the audience but elucidated on the principles of the Republican mindset while doling out a bit of history.  The snagging point: That Democrats were responsible for the Jim Crow laws of the day, and, ultimately, responsible for the monumental disgraces of racism and segregation in America.

History, as it turns out, is not a monolithic collection of information, painstakingly gathered by individuals who have devoted decades to the logging of the actions by those who have come before us.  No, rather it is a whimsical land of talking points gathered and quantified by not what is right, but what is convenient.  Welcome to Politics 201.

The “Republicans are Racists bastards” dialogue comes from a key point in the party’s history.  A bleak and hideous time known as the Presidential election of 1964.  Ignoring the internal power struggle that was going on years before and the first real rise of the ‘Conservative’ movement in the United States (yes, the modern conservative movement is a little older than the tea party to the tune of a few decades), this campaign cycle saw the rise of Senator Barry Goldwater to the stage of Republican candidate for President.  Quick, go google “presidential election 1964” and look at the electoral college map, I’ll wait.  Once you’ve seen the monumental failure that 1964 was for the Republican party come on back, and we’ll continue.

Pretty rough ‘eh.

I’ll go into Goldwater down the road, but there are some specifics to the election of 1964 that need to be pointed out to flesh out the Democratic talking points.  Goldwater made a deal with the devil, lovingly referred to as the “Southern Strategy” where he would sally up next to the segregationists of the southern states, like George Wallace, in an attempt to free up some votes from those states, and, by their logic, win.  The result, as you saw above, was that Goldwater did two things: 1) he effectively turned off an entire nation to the Republican party, which suffered massive losses in both the Senate and House of Representatives  and 2) gave the loyal opposition a talking point that has lasted nearly five decades.

How does this all fit in to Senator Paul’s statement?  Republicans, going back to post-Civil War reconstruction through the mid 1960’s, were largely in favor of equal rights amendments.  Prior to 1964 the Republican party enjoyed roughly 30% of the black vote in America.  This would all change in 1964 when it dropped to a mere 2%, peeking under Bush in 2004 at 11%.

Republicans were identified as the party of Lincoln, fighters for strong moral values, and the American way of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, etc.  In that vein they have faltered, focusing more on screaming about regulation rather than small-business tax credits.  They haven’t addressed how General Electric and other mega-corporations can drop their cash in off-shore tax havens, but haven’t given a thought to creating business incentive zones in major metropolitan areas to encourage growth a new businesses in blighted areas.  The party, rather than standing on the principled idea of a representative republic, swings for big dollar corporations (least we forget the god awful Citizens United decision and subsequent abuse) and align themselves with a rogues gallery of religious leaders, social engineers, and, frankly, hideous people who appear to have agendas that appeared nowhere on the ticket of common sense, but have a seat at the table regardless.  The ‘Big Tent’ as it were, is big enough to fit in the beast we’ve become and we have to excuse some folks from the table and clean up a bit (okay, a lot) before we can begin to change the perception of an organization.

Senator Paul was right in stating that our history is different from what is said about us as a party, but there is validity to the talking points of today.  There were stronger representatives back then, with a greater sense of purpose not only to the constituents that voted them in, but to those who voted against them as well.  The talking points exist because our history, that noxious cloud from 1964, still looms over us, and until we exorcise our demons, and apply some good housekeeping, then we will suffer the slings and arrows of not an outrageous fortune but, rather, one all too well deserved.