Rick Santorum (US Republican presidential candidate) trying to bring Jesus into the government

States Rights!!!*







*but only when I disagree with the federal law. When I disagree with state laws, then fuck states rights!

 

1) What constitutes a legal health insurance policy is a legitimate question.
2) States have a right to establish rules for businesses and other organizations operating within the state.
3) Employers have the right to comply with state law and do business in the state, not do business in the state, lobby for exception, or in some cases self-insure - meaning they don't buy a legal health insurance policy.
4) Does the authority to mandate transfer to the federal government in terms of an involuntary mandate under the interstate commerce clause?
5) Do states have the authority to regulate self-insurance, and to what degree?
6) Is self-insurance interstate commerce applicable to the Federal government?

Just a few points (and I am not doing the issue its full justice) that perhaps should have been debated thoroughly prior to passage of Obama's plan, and debated prior to his "compromise". But most disturbing is the pretense that it is all about conservatives trying to control women - this is a complex issue deserving of honest dialog rather than demagoguery.

 

You just cant accept the fact that is was debated for 14 months in five different committees with numerous Republican amendments and proposals included in the final version and Republicans leaders stating throughout the discussion that their intent was to block it.....period.....end of discussion.

I provided numerous examples of new laws in states across the country where the party of "small government" has imposed new govt mandates requiring new procedures for women, imposed new govt regulations that would effectively close clinics they dont like, impose new govt regulations that would allow private employers to exclude legal medical services for women.... significantly more restrictions on women imposed last year than the previous 25 years.



Demogoguery is suggesting this is manufactured by the media and Democrats.

 

It's not about conservatives trying to control women, it's about a subset of conservatives not giving a fuck about women's issues because fuck women. Amiright? Yeeeeeaaaah. Buncha sluts need to keep their legs closed if they don't want to worry about getting knocked up. Occasionally, one of these folks accidentally expresses this opinion out loud (or refuses to repudiate said opinion for fear of angering the base *ahem* Santorum *ahem* Romney), but usually, they know better.

 

Interestingly, this graph also represents usage in mainstream media of the word "transvaginal."

Probably not coincidental.

 

I would say the majority of conservatives don't care what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms - they just don't want to pay for it directly or indirectly.

 

i don't think conservatives are of one mind about this latest ultra-right lunacy. i would think there might be some puritanical fringe that gets all hepped up about the issue. santorum, as would be consistent for a frothy mixture, clearly wants to position himself as the american salafi candidate for the neo-fascism plus jesus set--but that set is nothing like mainstream anything.

 

Here is another theory.

1980- Reagan got 46% of the female vote.
1984 - Reagan got 56%
1988 - Bush got 50%
1992 - Clinton got 45% ( Bush got 37%, and Perot got { corrected}17%)
1996 - Clinton got 54%
2000 - Bush got 43%
2004 - Bush got 48%
2008 - Obama got 56%

The pattern tells us that unless Obama improves his percentage of the female vote, odds are he will not be re-elected. 56% is a pretty high standard set for a first term. Obama needs to promote the message that Republican are waging a war against women to motivate them to vote and to get more of them to vote for him. It is not going to work. He needs to focus on his real performance - women are not that gullible.

If any of you want to pretend strategists have not looked at this, don't respond with how I am unrealistic or whatever. The response is meaningless, save it for someone who cares.
--- merged: Mar 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM ---

My goodness, we almost agree! Assuming I understand what I read.

 

huh. i think that your assessment is kinda arbitrary, ace dear. but there is, clearly, a fight going on to marginalize the ultra right. it happens that at the moment limbaugh is the target walking point. so far he's been ditched by most of his advertisers and there's more to come. and then axelrod is using romney's inability to move away from the ultra-right for ethical reasons against him. have a look:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/david-axelrod-mitt-romney-rush-limbaugh_n_1326916.html

 

The majority pay for and use birth control by choice - I also think (don't know) the majority would not get or have ever had an abortion and are against it (even if they support it being legal). Responsible people find supporting irresponsible people distasteful.

If a person can't get free/low cost birth control, they have not put any effort into it.
--- merged: Mar 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM ---

Depends on how we define "manufactured". If a strategist suggests and Obama acts on placing excessive emphasis on an immaterial issue that exists and we call that "manufactured", yes. Otherwise, probably, no - depending on your definition.

 

Often write about effectively addressing problems, I read the article you cited and found this:

I have argued that contraception is readily available at low or no costs, the article points to another problem that to me suggests the issue of education is more important than the issue of affordability and availability. The article does not change my view, it actually reinforces what I already believe. {added}Also, conservatives are not against sex education.

The question of measures that would make contraception less available and less affordable is different. The point in question is Obama's quest to make contraception "free" to women or to make others pay for it.

 

Obama isn't making birth control free for everyone. He's making it so that birth control has to be covered by insurance. These two things are not the same.

The idea that conservatives aren't against sex education is ridiculous, unless you count "just say no" as a valid curriculum plan.

 

Yeah, see but the problem is all the people I know who are staunch republicans think that they are reporting real news and are to be believed at all times. Not only that, but they believe that all other news organizations are left wing mouthpieces and are not to be trusted. To verify this, I could show you the countless email forwards I get from my dad (ugh). Most of them start with "As reported on The O'Reilley Factor..." or "Heard this today on Fox & Friends..."

Same thing happens with 20 something people who believe that The Daily Show is news (personally, I take Stewart with less salt than the Fox News crew myself). The difference is, my dad and his geriatric tea party crowd vote (early and often) and the Daily Show followers, for the most part, don't.

 

Welcome to the year of not knowing better then, I guess.

Averaging out your numbers we arrive at a figure of 49.75%. That sounds about right. This is no indication that Obama is either in trouble with the female vote or that a second term will yield him less than what he enjoyed in his first go around.

Reagan got a higher percentage of the female vote in his second term, as did Clinton and Bush Jr. Where do you see a pattern that tells us Obama will not far better in his second term and how does this support your claim that Obama is in jeopardy?

I don't think Obama needs to promote the message as Republicans are doing quite an effective job of it all on their own.