Romney, Rape and the Republicans

Hi all, sorry for my long absence. I have been busily posting political thoughts over on Facebook and getting into lots of conversations but have not gotten around to posting here for much too long.

But now that the race is near the end and there is a very real possibility that Romney might manage to win the presidency with his sudden turnaround to Mr. Moderate, I felt I needed to write more about what a Romney presidency would mean.

It seems Romney's plan all along was to veer hard right for the primaries and then, as one of his advisers memorably said, use the "Etch-a-Sketch" and get rid of all that in time for the fall campaign when moderates and independents become important in the race. At the time, the comment was seen as a gaffe, but it turns out that is exactly what he had in mind all along. And the Democrats didn't see it coming. No doubt that is one reason President Obama seemed so flummoxed in that first debate; he came prepared with all kinds of anti-far-right rhetoric and there was Romney, blithely making statements supporting moderate positions on subjects he had previously been "severely conservative."

Or at least, he made it seem that way. His dissembling was particularly noticeable in his claims about his stance on health care. Contraception? Oh, he's for it. All women should have access to contraception. But he, and unfortunately, President Obama, did not point out that the whole difference was the President's plan requires women's insurance to cover contraception and Romney's plan would not.

Pre-existing conditions? Oh, yes, a Romney plan would cover those. But of course he didn't say that his plan was simply a return to the current situation we already have - people who have already had insurance can continue being covered despite pre-existing conditions. It doesn't help anyone who hasn't been insured already, although the individual states could choose to cover them - again, no change from current policy. The pre-existing conditions lie was such a whopper his spokespeople had to explain it after the debate - when all the undecided voters had stopped paying attention.

So who is the real Mitt Romney? Apparently there isn't one. Mitt Romney is whoever he needs to be to get elected. The real question is, who are his masters? Who is he beholden to? It seems pretty obvious - The far right. Grover Norquist. The Tea Party. Right-wing evangelic Christians.

Heck, Grover Norquist himself said it doesn't really matter who is president as long as he signs the legislation that comes to his desk. And, if he wins, that person would be Romney.

"All we have to do is replace Obama. We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget... We just need a president to sign this stuff."

So whatever Mitt's real beliefs, if he has them, he will be kowtowing to the far right end of his party. He chose Paul Ryan as a running mate to do just that. Ryan's positions are what are "severely conservative." Ryan's proposed budget would change the tax structure, lowering the top bracket to 25% from 35%, as well as making Medicare into a voucher program and making Medicaid into a block grant program administered solely by the states.

Romney has distanced himself from the Ryan budget, coming out with his own budget. However, his budget includes a large increase in military spending, as well as lower taxes, which he said could be covered by getting rid of unidentified loopholes. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, in order for Romney's budget to work, it would require cuts in many programs that help the elderly, veterans, disabled people and poor children.

"For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs.  But if policy­makers repealed health reform (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and exempted Social Security from cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage to meet Romney’s overall spending cap and defense spending target, then they would have to cut non-defense programs other than Social Security by 22 percent in 2016 and 34 percent in 2022...  If they exempted Medicare from cuts for this period, the cuts in other programs would have to be even more dramatic — 32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022."

Then there is the "war on women." For some reason this year the Republicans have been very focused on rape. Legitimate rape, forcible rape, other kinds of rape. Many of these discussions about rape pertain to the issue of abortion and pregnancy that occurs as a result of rape. And in Pennsylvania, there is proposed legislation requiring mothers on welfare to prove they were raped before they would be allowed to collect additional funds to support a new baby.

So, why are Republicans so fixated on rape? Because in their eyes, if a woman is raped, it wasn't her fault she got pregnant. She didn't have sex in order to enjoy it, heaven forbid. It was forced on her - and it better have been done forcibly, because after all, "some girls rape easy."  If she just had sex voluntarily, out of desire, then she should reap what she sows, even if she was being responsible and using birth control that failed. She made her bed, let her lie in it. And of course the man had nothing to do with it, did he? No blame falls on him. It's all about controlling women.

Republican Richard Mourdock, who was recently criticized for his comments saying that pregnancy as a result of rape is something God intended, is just one of several Republicans, including Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, who don't believe in abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. But you know what? I don't really have a problem with that. If their belief is that life begins at conception, then an exception for rape or incest makes no sense at all. Either it's a life or it isn't. And if that's what you believe, fine - just don't impose that belief on everyone else.

Again, even the rape/incest exception is an example of the blame game against women - if the woman didn't mean to have sex, then it's OK to kill the fetus. Otherwise the woman should be forced to have that baby because again, she should reap what she sows.

Unfortunately, the idea of making the exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, is now being construed as a "moderate" position in the Republican party. As Gail Collins points out in today's New York Times,

" One of the truly disturbing parts of our current politics is that we have begun to identify people who want to impose their religious beliefs on millions of women who don’t share them as moderates as long as they’re O.K. with the rape exemption."

The real shame of the whole "pro-life" stance in the Republican party is that they only care about that baby before it's born - afterwards, that baby and its mom are on their own. Don't expect handouts from the government to support that kid! Oh, and if he turns out to be a criminal, they have no problem with the death penalty. This has never made any sense to me either.

If anyone thinks Romney doesn't endorse these antediluvian positions on women's right to choose, remember he said he would support amendments to the constitution proclaiming life begins at conception and that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also pledges to take away federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which provides needed health care to many low income women.

And if he has the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices - which is extremely likely - he will appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and who would be favorable to a constitutional amendment supporting marriage as being only between a man and a woman. According to his own website, "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito."

Then there's the whole issue of racism in the Republican camp. Every time I try to believe that racism isn't at the core of many Republicans' antipathy toward President Obama, another reminder smacks me in the face that yes, obviously, that is part of it. The coded and not-so-coded words (Sarah Palin, "shuck and jive"??? Really???) - Obama being hanged in effigy - and now, most recently, John Sununu, co-chair of Romney's campaign, accusing former Secretary of State Colin Powell of endorsing President Obama due to racism. Of course, he later backed off of his comments - but that is the Republican way: put it out there, send your signal, then say, "Oh, I didn't mean it like that."

Don't even get me started on climate change and the environment. Suffice it to say that Romney says he loves coal and would love to drill for oil and gas on public lands and in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and wants to gut environmental regulations.

So what is the upshot of all this? A Mitt Romney presidency would be bad for:

Women
The poor
Children
The middle class
The elderly
LGBT people
The environment

The only people it would be good for is the richest 1% of the population, and the military-industrial complex.

We are better than this. We must ensure that President Obama gets another four years to enact his policies.

Now we have the "storm of the century" bearing down on the eastern coast of the U.S. Let's hope it does not disrupt these elections. Voter turnout for President Obama's supporters is key. Let's make sure everyone gets to the polls and votes! This election could not be more important!

Is It Racism? Of Course It Is.

Ever since Joe Wilson’s outburst of “you lie!” during President Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress, various people have been weighing in on what it meant and more broadly, what the virulent protests against his plans for universal health care may mean.

Former President Jimmy Carter’s statements that much of this opposition, including Joe Wilson’s outburst, is fueled by racism, has ignited a discussion of the “elephant in the room” – that on top of being a tax-and-spend liberal in the eyes of the right wing, President Obama is a black man. Never mind that he is half white, if his skin color isn’t light, he’s considered black by a large portion of the population and as such, is subject to suspicion.

Maureen Dowd, in a recent op-ed piece, also raised this issue.

"I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

David Brooks, in a recent op-ed column, doesn't think opposition to Obama is about race. He talked about the role of populism in American politics: the innate enmity between the idea of a strong central government, led by an educated elite, and a decentralized, state-led government led by "the people." Jefferson personified the latter. He was inherently suspicious of government and didn’t like the idea of giving too much power to any central government. Hamilton, on the other hand, was a strong proponent of a central government.

"This populist tendency continued through the centuries. Sometimes it took right-wing forms, sometimes left-wing ones. Sometimes it was agrarian. Sometimes it was more union-oriented. Often it was extreme, conspiratorial and rude.

The populist tendency has always used the same sort of rhetoric: for the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the small towns and against the financial centers."

These factions have been warring ever since, taking various forms throughout history, from Father Coughlin and other opponents of FDR’s New Deal, to those who fought Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reforms.

Brooks pointed out how the white protesters were mingling with black people on the Mall in Washington last weekend so obviously they couldn’t be racists. Of course, we all know that is meaningless; many people can have subtle racist feelings and still say "some of their best friends are black," as the old saying goes.

However, the words on the signs we are seeing at the health care town halls and at the September 12 march on Washington are very telling. (This one is from a New Hampshire town hall meeting).Another favorite is "I want my country back." What is this supposed to mean? Back from whom? The Democrats? Or is it from that black man who somehow got elected President? And if they’re really so worried about losing their country, where were these people when George W. Bush was taking more and more federal power and wiretapping their internet and phone connections?

My feeling is they didn’t care or notice as much because despite being descended from a long line of East Coast rich elites from Connecticut, George W. Bush, with his ordinary name, broad Texas accent and everyday way of speaking, sounded like “one of them.”

Barack Obama, with his exotic name and background, his ability to sound intelligent and educated when he speaks, and yes, his dark skin, does not seem like "one of them," despite the fact he came from much more humble beginnings than Bush.

This perception of him as "the other" has to have an effect on their level of anger and yes, fear. And part of that fear has to be that he is an African-American. He’s not the same color as they are. You don’t see black faces at these protests. The continual claims that Obama is a Muslim, that he wasn’t born in this country despite all the evidence that he was, are evidence of this. When people protested against FDR, LBJ or Clinton, this aspect was not part of the conversation.

There is also the fact that death threats against this President are 400% higher than for the previous president.

Does David Brooks really think that this would be the case if President Obama were white? And would people really be bringing guns to town halls if he were white? I’m not sure that they would.

Some of the people at these protests would deny emphatically that they are racist. They would vehemently assert, as Joe Wilson’s son did about his father that they "don’t have a racist bone" in their bodies. But racism is not always overt, even to those who harbor the feeling. It can be subconscious, it can be a result of cultural background, of things they heard when they were young and forgot about. It’s easy to subvert a racist feeling into a policy disagreement.

But to me the proof is the level of anger out there is way out of proportion to the issue at hand – health care. I mean, come on. We’re talking about a system to take care of people’s health. And Obama isn't even proposing a particularly radical change in our health care policies - no universal single-payer health plan in sight. This is not something that should inspire such fear and hatred. No, there has to be something more to it. And that something has to do with racism.

Of course, Democrats and supporters of Barack Obama aren’t allowed to say this. "Oh, they’re playing the race card," Obama’s opponents say if the suggestion is made that some of the opposition has to do with the color of his skin. "As soon as someone disagrees with him you call them a racist." (Of course they ignore the fact that George W. Bush's proponents immediately accused anyone who disagreed with them of not being patriotic!)

And President Obama knows this; he has been making the rounds on talk shows to support his universal health care plan, but of course has been asked about Jimmy Carter’s statements on racism. He has tried to defuse the importance of this issue in order not to add fuel to the fire.

But he knows it’s true. And so do we. To pretend that racism is not part of the opposition we are seeing out there is naïve at best and dangerous at worst.

Time will tell what President Obama will accomplish. Like most presidents he will probably be remembered for some important successes and some obvious failures. And that is how he should be remembered, and not for his race.

But we also must give him credit for the courage it took to run for President and become the first African-American President of the United States. He had to know there would be many who would oppose him simply for his race, and that he would be putting himself and his family in danger. But someone had to be first. And he has taken that step and that chance.

The vicious hate groups and right wing fringe that oppose him, and would oppose any African-American president, are a small segment of the overall population. But that doesn’t mean the racism does not exist in those who are most filled with hate and thus the most dangerous.

The vast majority of the country really doesn’t care whether Obama is black or white and does just agree or disagree with his policies. As time goes on, more and more of the country will be like them, and the idea of an African-American man (or woman) being president will be second nature and no longer an issue.

But it took one man, Barack Obama, to take the chance to be first. Let’s hope the Secret Service can keep him safe for his entire Presidency.

An Unnecessary Distraction

The Democrats, as usual, are coming across like a bunch of quarreling children; or possibly people with a bad case of multiple personality disorder.

Harry Reid has been fighting the appointment of Burris because of the "taint" that his appointment to the Senate has by being made by not-yet-indicted Governor Blagojevich; while others have been questioning whether he has the legal right to do so. And now, Dianne Feinstein has said Burris should be seated. (And let's be honest, she is probably right).

In the meantime, on a separate issue, Feinstein had gotten into a snit about President-Elect Obama's appointment of Leon Panetta as head of the CIA because she hadn't been consulted about it - and VP-elect Biden agreed with her that it was "a mistake"!

Now, she says she approves of the appointment - but only after Obama apologized to her.

Democrats need to act like the Republicans have acted over the past 8 years. In unison. It wasn't until about a year ago that cracks in the GOP solidarity started really breaking open, when GOP members realized that aligning with Bush wasn't helping their own political chances. Until then, they were all for one and one for all. It's a lesson the Democrats need to learn.

President-Elect Obama is more open to other people's ideas than most presidents we've had, so it's not as if he won't be consulting with other Democrats throughout his tenure as President. And right now, in the very beginning before he's even officially President, if he occasionally overlooks some political protocol and doesn't consult with someone in the Senate before doing something, he should not be publicly criticized by his own team. This is madness.

As for Burris, seat the man already! We do not need these distractions. The country is going down the tubes! This just doesn't matter!

The Democrats are letting this story completely take over the airwaves and distract everyone from the fact that President-Elect Obama is having a very orderly transition and is already working on the economic disaster in which we find ourselves. Today he had a very bipartisan and statesmanlike meeting with all of the living former presidents, and I'd much rather the press be focusing on this story than Burris.

And now the news media are playing up the denial of Mr. Burris as racism! To say nothing of Bobby Rush (D-IL), whose accusations of racism were even more inflammatory. Of all the ridiculous things to be talking about, this takes the cake. Obviously racism has nothing to do with the situation but who needs this kind of notoriety? Certainly not the Democrats!

The Democrats need to seat Burris, and NOW. Get the conversation off of this harmless man, who apparently did not pay Blago for his Senate appointment, and get on with business.

Burris is a Democrat. It's not as if he's going to tip the scales in the Senate toward the GOP. He is only filling out Obama's term, which ends in 2010. True, it would be good if the person filling the seat is re-elected in 2010, but let's not worry about that right now. The Democrats must learn to move on! They have much more important things to be worrying about - like passing President-Elect Obama's stimulus package! Because if the economy is still in the toilet in 2010, NO Democrats are going to elected at that mid-term election!

End of rant.

The Real Terrorists

Yes, as cartoonist Walt Kelly famously said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." It isn't those scary "Arabs" or those much-maligned "Islamist terrorists" who are to be feared. It is the home-grown hate groups that exist right here in the United States, who have no connection to these other groups.

What am I referring to? This: Obama Has More Threats Than Other Presidents-Elect.

According to the AP,

"Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before."

According to the article, there have been more threatening writings (both on-line and off) and other activities than have been seen for any other president-elect. Strangely, the Secret Service is cautioning the public not to assume these threats are "due to racism." Hmmmm. So what else is it based on when there are signs in Idaho talking about a "free public hanging," in reference to President-Elect Obama, a rise in racially-motivated graffiti, and worst of all, a rise of +2,000 members in a white-supremacist group the day after the election?

Thankfully, the investigations into the Obama-related threats so far have turned up no truly credible plots. But we must keep a close eye on these groups that threaten the future of our country, and the benighted bigots out there who just can't deal with the idea of a President who is a different race from themselves.

Most people who opposed President-Elect Obama have accepted the outcome of the election and are moving on. They acknowledge that he won and support him. Many even cheered his election as a step forward for America, even if they voted for John McCain.

It is those who refuse to accept this step forward and threaten the new President who are bent on destroying this country. They must be stopped before they do any harm -- they are the real terrorists we have to watch out for.

Aftermath

The cheers are already dying down and the business of transition has begun. President-Elect Barack Obama (I love the sound of that), being his usual measured and organized self, is already well along in planning his transition team. He will be ready to be president on Day One, as Hillary Clinton liked to say. And even sooner, the way things are going.

But for now, I am not yet ready to give up the jubilation that accompanied his amazing victory and I am still thinking about what it means for us as a country.

In Gail Collins' Op-Ed piece this week in the New York Times she reflected on the euphoria that accompanied Tuesday's election results. She ended her column with the following thoughts about her (and my) generation, the Baby Boomers:

"Finally, on behalf of the baby-boom generation, I would like to hear a little round of applause before we cede the stage to the people who were too young to go to Woodstock and would appreciate not having to listen to the stories about it anymore. It looks as though we will be represented in history by only two presidents, one of whom is George W. Bush. Bummer.

The boomers didn’t win any wars and that business about being self-involved was not entirely unfounded. On the other hand, they made the nation get serious about the idea of everybody being created equal. And now American children are going to grow up unaware that there’s anything novel in an African-American president or a woman running for the White House.

We’ll settle for that."

My first thought was that actually, Obama IS a Baby Boomer. Born in 1961, he's at the tail-end of my generation, since the definition of the Boomer designation is to be born between 1946 and 1964. However, since Obama does not identify with the Baby Boomer generation, and so many members of younger generations claim him as their own, I'll let that go.

But Collins' column made me start thinking about the long road we have traveled to reach this place and time. We sometimes forget that so many things were accomplished by previous generations, and it is because of them that this country was able to put aside the past and elect Barack Obama.

Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This applies to the progress this country has made in the last 50 years.

Just a few of our giants - there were so many more - included President Truman, who integrated the armed forces; President Eisenhower, who enforced the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling; Martin Luther King, who inspired a whole generation of young activists to march and work for racial equality; John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy who promoted civil rights; Lyndon Johnson, who followed through and passed the Civil Rights Act; Nelson Mandela and his fight against apartheid; the folk singers of the 1950's and 1960's (The Weavers; Peter, Paul and Mary; Bob Dylan; Phil Ochs - and many more) who used music to change minds; writers such as James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, John Howard Griffin, and others, who explored the experience of being black in America; and of course, movies and television programs that exposed attitudes and changed perceptions.

In the 1960s we finally had television programs with African-American actors in them in lead roles, such as "I Spy" with Bill Cosby, "Julia," with Diahann Carroll, and Star Trek, which creator Gene Roddenberry ensured would depict an idealistic future where everyone was equal. African-American actress Nichelle Nichols had a lead role as the Communications Officer on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Television continued to play a key role in changing attitudes. When "24" came on the air in November, 2001 with an African-American, Dennis Haysbert, as President David Palmer, I think a lot of people looked at his calm demeanor, his wisdom and integrity and said "I wish THAT guy was President NOW!"

The feminist movement was happening at the same time, breaking down barriers for women as well. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and others inspired women to continue the work toward equality that had begun back in the late 1800s with the women's suffrage movement. In politics we had Bela Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, Margaret Chase Smith, Geraldine Ferraro. In television, The Mary Tyler Moore Show showcased a single, successful career woman, followed by many other role models.

In 1972, Title IX was passed, making it the law of the land that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." This changed the face of many educational institutions, especially in the area of sports participation, which helped women gain confidence and leadership abilities.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president took women one step closer to true equality. It also revealed that deep-seated sexism is still rampant. However, the next generation will rise above that and Hillary has broken the ice for the next woman presidential candidate - or perhaps she will still be back herself.

There has been progress in gay rights as well. The Stonewall riots really kicked off the modern movement for gay rights, in 1969. Since then, there have been many steps forward for gay rights, and there has been more openness about sexual orientation both in the community and in the media. The culture is finally changing, and many states have domestic partnerships, civil unions, and finally, marriage.

But there seems to be a tendency for there to be a step back taken for every step forward.

When he was campaigning for President in 1992, Bill Clinton promised to allow anyone, no matter their sexual orientation, to serve openly in the military - and then after he was elected he compromised with the infamous "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

And when the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage earlier this year and affirmed a right to marry for same-sex couples, the issue was immediately brought to the voters in Tuesday's election, with Proposition 8, which proposed to take that right away through a constitutional amendment.

Sadly, Proposition 8 and several other similar ballot measures in other states passed on Tuesday. In California, two lawsuits have already been filed to challenge the decision. Let's hope they prevail.

We still have a long way to go in terms of equality - for African-Americans, for women, and for the gay/lesbian/transgender community. Bigotry and hate are still out there, and we must be ever-vigilant against them.

But the election of Barack Obama has shown that we as a country can overcome hate, prejudice and bigotry and, as Martin Luther King said, judge others not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." And let's add to that, "not by their gender, not by their sexual orientation." Then and only then will this country be a country where everyone truly has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But electing Barack Obama has been an important step in the right direction.

Distractions from the Issues

The most recent brouhaha in the Democratic primary race, following the Geraldine Ferraro debacle, is the firestorm caused by the speech by Barack Obama's former minister and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama has denounced the Reverend's opinions. You can read his words here in the Huffington Post.

I don't think he could be any more clear than this about how he feels about the opinions of Rev. Wright:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree [with] and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

My question is, isn't it convenient that this controversy erupted right after the firestorm caused by Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama's candidacy? I suspect the Clintons had something to do with this, especially since this controversy isn't even new. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is wondering about this. (UPDATE: Of course, it could be the Right that is behind this latest ploy, as Kristen suggests on MOMocrats.)

I am tired of this petty squabbling. I would like to see some substantive discussion of the major issues that are confronting our country, and not endless media attention on the infighting in our party.

I hope both candidates realize the harm this can do to the party and step away from this precipice before it is too late. Reportedly, Obama and Clinton have agreed to try to stick to the issues and not get caught up in these personal attacks. Let's hope they are able to keep that promise in the weeks to come.