These are the traits I want my next president to have:
1. Pro-choice
Let me be clear here, because I'm not just talking about abortion. I'm talking about the freedom to choose contraception, abortion, but also the freedom to NOT choose those things. The next president should actively support a culture that allows a woman to become pregnant when she wishes, provides the healthcare necessary to ensure her and her child's health, and supports her afterwards with a minimum of six-months paid maternity leave and an assistant who comes in once a week to help the new mom with breastfeeding, making meals, doing laundry, and running other errands, so Mom can focus on her child. I'm also talking about the freedom to give birth outside of a hospital, without the threat of jail time or losing her child. Think I'm kidding? Check out this site (Advocates For Pregnant Women) which describes a hospital that obtained a court order to force a mother to have a c-section because the child was supposedly too large.
2. FairTax
The next president should focus on getting the FairTax passed. This tax will abolish the IRS, repeal all current taxes, and replace them with a 23% sales tax on all new goods and services. This will cause companies in the U.S. to have a 0% tax burden on exports - something no other country can compete with. It will give Americans 100% of their paychecks to spend as they please, allowing them the freedom to decide just how much in taxes they want to contribute to the U.S. government. It would cause Medicare and Social Security to be funded by every person who spends money in the U.S., including tourists. It expands the tax base to everyone, thus creating equality across the board. It also provides prebates - a monthly government check that covers the cost of taxes on necessities, like food and healthcare, while still allowing those who purchase more of those items than is necessary to contribute to those programs. This is just the start of the benefits the FairTax offers, with little to no reduction in current revenue levels. Want more information? Please check out FairTax.org.
3. Online K-12
The next president will recognize the value of online K-12. By supporting this service, billions of dollars could be saved by reducing wear and tear on current classrooms, requiring fewer teachers, and ensuring that kids get the tailored education they need at the pace they can best absorb it.
And those are just the direct benefits. Education is one of the three main causes of the housing crisis. By freeing good education from the boundaries of school districts, families will be able to choose the houses they can afford, instead of purchasing the largest house their income can buy because it's in the best neighborhood. For information on free, public online education in your state, you can visit K12.com.
This is just the beginning. I suspect this list will expand as I do further research into various other issues (immigration, military, etc.).
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Planned Parenthood Clinic Firebombed In Texas
Did you hear about this? Me neither: Planned Parenthood Clinic Firebombed, Right Wing Silent
Photo: Source http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism
I really don't care what wing your on, this kind of domestic terrorism is inexcusable. To repeat from the article, the clinic does NOT provide abortion services.
Echoes of George Tiller ring in my head. Disagreeing with a practice is fine, but it's my body and my uterus. There is no true freedom in a country when a woman does not have the right to control her own reproductive organs. I would never inflict on another woman the kind of pain one has to deal with when faced with a pregnancy that cannot be ended; and I would never inflict on a child the pain of being raised in such a situation. Adoption is of course an answer, but realistically, there are people who recognize that they are not strong enough to see their child carried to term and then handed off to a more capable set of parents. I'm not.
Further, how many anti-abortionists do you see rushing to adopt those children? How many anti-abortionists have directly saved a life by adopting the child of a woman who previously considered abortion? (This is assuming the woman was not coerced of course, since that can have just as much trauma as any other situation.)
Abortion prevents crime, by preventing the birth of children into poverty (see Freakonomics). Preventing crime and poverty should be at the top of any politician's list, especially if they are seeking re-election. To hear silence on this from all sides, even in light of the manufactured debt crisis, is to silently consent to this sort of domestic terrorism. Unless you're Muslim, feel free to destroy our country's businesses and social services branches, especially if they are controversial.
Photo: Source http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism
I really don't care what wing your on, this kind of domestic terrorism is inexcusable. To repeat from the article, the clinic does NOT provide abortion services.
Echoes of George Tiller ring in my head. Disagreeing with a practice is fine, but it's my body and my uterus. There is no true freedom in a country when a woman does not have the right to control her own reproductive organs. I would never inflict on another woman the kind of pain one has to deal with when faced with a pregnancy that cannot be ended; and I would never inflict on a child the pain of being raised in such a situation. Adoption is of course an answer, but realistically, there are people who recognize that they are not strong enough to see their child carried to term and then handed off to a more capable set of parents. I'm not.
Further, how many anti-abortionists do you see rushing to adopt those children? How many anti-abortionists have directly saved a life by adopting the child of a woman who previously considered abortion? (This is assuming the woman was not coerced of course, since that can have just as much trauma as any other situation.)
Abortion prevents crime, by preventing the birth of children into poverty (see Freakonomics). Preventing crime and poverty should be at the top of any politician's list, especially if they are seeking re-election. To hear silence on this from all sides, even in light of the manufactured debt crisis, is to silently consent to this sort of domestic terrorism. Unless you're Muslim, feel free to destroy our country's businesses and social services branches, especially if they are controversial.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
More Evidence The Republicans Aren't Helping
UPDATE: Sarah Palin has announced that her daughter-in-law became pregnant before marriage. Considering Bristol's already had her first grandchild, I wonder how secure Palin's opinion of abstinence-only is? Sarah Palin To Be A Grandmother Again
Apparently Governor Rick Perry has a bit of a learning disability: Why Are Texas Teens Getting Pregnant
In 2007, the article states, Texas had the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Right after Perry instituted abstinence-only programs for sexual education. Deciding that wasn't good enough, the program continued, and in 2009, 94% of schools had no sex ed beyond abstinence-only.
Now, the pregnancy rate is 50% higher than the national average, and Texas also leads the country in REPEAT teen pregnancies.
I was going to post yesterday about this article (Birth Control Coverage Under Obamacare), but it seems my procrastination paid off this time, as both of these articles address the same thing.
Kids will make smart choices if you give them the tools to. At our cores we are the same animals with the same instincts as those we keep as pets, so we know we are fighting a losing battle when we tell kids not to have sex. Instead of telling them not to, and then pretending not to hear any other possible conversation, is no better than a teenager who wants to explore her sexuality safely but can't because she has no information. Kids need more information, not less.
I'm also a staunch believer that our school's sex ed fails because it fails to address sexuality. We teach biology fine. All things being equal, penis + vagina = baby. But how does penis + vagina = love? Or = pleasure? Or even = orgasm? My parents didn't have that convo with me. Did yours?
We have enough data on programs and services to be able to judge whether or not they are working. Once pollsters have had a chance to question Texans teens on WHY they are having unprotected sex and having children too soon, I suspect most abstinence-only programs will be on their way out.
Unless, of course, as a country we keep electing politicians who prefer holding their hands over their ears and ignoring all evidence that proves that what they are doing isn't working.
Apparently Governor Rick Perry has a bit of a learning disability: Why Are Texas Teens Getting Pregnant
In 2007, the article states, Texas had the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Right after Perry instituted abstinence-only programs for sexual education. Deciding that wasn't good enough, the program continued, and in 2009, 94% of schools had no sex ed beyond abstinence-only.
Now, the pregnancy rate is 50% higher than the national average, and Texas also leads the country in REPEAT teen pregnancies.
I was going to post yesterday about this article (Birth Control Coverage Under Obamacare), but it seems my procrastination paid off this time, as both of these articles address the same thing.
Kids will make smart choices if you give them the tools to. At our cores we are the same animals with the same instincts as those we keep as pets, so we know we are fighting a losing battle when we tell kids not to have sex. Instead of telling them not to, and then pretending not to hear any other possible conversation, is no better than a teenager who wants to explore her sexuality safely but can't because she has no information. Kids need more information, not less.
I'm also a staunch believer that our school's sex ed fails because it fails to address sexuality. We teach biology fine. All things being equal, penis + vagina = baby. But how does penis + vagina = love? Or = pleasure? Or even = orgasm? My parents didn't have that convo with me. Did yours?
We have enough data on programs and services to be able to judge whether or not they are working. Once pollsters have had a chance to question Texans teens on WHY they are having unprotected sex and having children too soon, I suspect most abstinence-only programs will be on their way out.
Unless, of course, as a country we keep electing politicians who prefer holding their hands over their ears and ignoring all evidence that proves that what they are doing isn't working.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Beautiful Evidence of Anti-Abortion Hypocrisy
Even though I'm not even thirty, I still sometimes worry about my blood pressure.
Today is just such a day. You can't get much clearer evidence of hypocrisy than this:
http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice
Rick Santorum. A man so vile that the gay community felt compelled to name a certain sexual. . . shall we say substance?. . . after him. A man who has heartlessly argued again and again that abortion is wrong under all circumstances. . .
Unless his own wife's life is at stake. Then it's okay. Even if you have to authorize a "horrific" so-called partial-birth abortion.
How can you get much clearer? America, where are your women? Where is the outrage? What the hell? How many more times must the GOP tell you that they don't care about you before you begin to believe them? If you are poor, the GOP thinks you didn't work hard enough. If you are a woman, the GOP thinks your role is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. If you are black, then you should be out in the fields picking cotton or playing football. If you're Latino, back to the strawberry fields. And if you're Native American. You get the worst of it all: you get forgotten.
Here are some stories from abortion clinic workers and others about women who were clearly anti-abortion, yet were getting abortions: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Protect our own. Loyalty at any cost. When will Americans stop being loyal to a party that has proven regularly, nearly constantly, that they have no care for the common person?
When I can come up with a reasonable alternative to suggest to you, I will. Until then, who knows? Maybe I'll run for office.
Today is just such a day. You can't get much clearer evidence of hypocrisy than this:
http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice
Rick Santorum. A man so vile that the gay community felt compelled to name a certain sexual. . . shall we say substance?. . . after him. A man who has heartlessly argued again and again that abortion is wrong under all circumstances. . .
Unless his own wife's life is at stake. Then it's okay. Even if you have to authorize a "horrific" so-called partial-birth abortion.
How can you get much clearer? America, where are your women? Where is the outrage? What the hell? How many more times must the GOP tell you that they don't care about you before you begin to believe them? If you are poor, the GOP thinks you didn't work hard enough. If you are a woman, the GOP thinks your role is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. If you are black, then you should be out in the fields picking cotton or playing football. If you're Latino, back to the strawberry fields. And if you're Native American. You get the worst of it all: you get forgotten.
Here are some stories from abortion clinic workers and others about women who were clearly anti-abortion, yet were getting abortions: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Protect our own. Loyalty at any cost. When will Americans stop being loyal to a party that has proven regularly, nearly constantly, that they have no care for the common person?
When I can come up with a reasonable alternative to suggest to you, I will. Until then, who knows? Maybe I'll run for office.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Why Do Americans Continue to Give Obama a Pass? Because It's Not His Fault
From the fine folks at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/06/why-do-americans-continue-to-give-obama-pass/
I want to take a close look at this article and break it apart piece by piece, so that I can ask the questions that Liz Peek doesn't bother to address, but instead lays squarely on Obama's shoulders without any consideration for the actions of others.
Ms. Peek begins by citing a list of failures, from "pitiful job creation" to "paralysis on immigration" to what she considers a "world-view patently at odds with mainstream."
Okay, let's start by taking a look at some of those "mainstream" views. A recent ABC poll showed that 8 out of 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use, and around half believe it should be legalized in a more general context (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503). This Kansas branch of NBC cites a 60% approval rating for medical marijuana -- a state that can hardly be called the bastion of liberal politics (http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Poll-60-percent-of-Americans-support-medical/c1R1odu6dUeP-5rnH0VBeA.cspx). Even the website on which Ms. Peek's article appears quotes a "slim majority of Republicans" (53%) favor legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/04/21/medical-marijuana-support-grows-polls/).
Yet Republicans have consistently come down against any efforts to legalize medical marijuana -- in spite of their other constant call to arms, the restriction of "big government." Excuse me, Ms. Peek, but if the government is telling me what medication I can and cannot use for my illness, how is that supporting a small government? (http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/c144dca4-409c-11e0-b58f-001cc4c03286.html, and http://newmexicoindependent.com/69054/republican-bill-would-end-medical-marijuana-program, and I'm sure there are others)
Obama has not come out against medical marijuana. He publically stated he would withdraw federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and caregivers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html). He supports the use of marijuana as a medical treatment for glaucoma and cancer, and he explicitly states that he would like to see federal law change so he does not have to punish doctors for providing prescriptions for medical marijuana (http://granitestaters.com/candidates/video_obama_02.html).
Read that again, Ms. Peek. Obama wants to change federal legislation so the government will not interfere with a doctor's recommended medical treatment. President Obama wants the government out of medical marijuana. If I didn't know better, I might think he was a Republican, and one who is a bit more in touch with "mainstream views" than you suggested. Hypothetically speaking, if Obama was to introduce legislation that would make medical marijuana legal federally, would the Republicans bow to what the "mainstream" is asking for?
Perhaps medical marijuana is just a fluke. Let's look at gay marriage shall we? Is Obama out of touch with people on this issue?
According a Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage. In a breakdown of the poll, all self-identified groups of people saw an increase of approval between 2010 and 2011 except for one group - Republicans. With 70% of those aged 18-34 supporting gay marriage, the future does not look bright for discrimination (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx). In the interests of "balance", I looked up how many people oppose gay marriage? The (considerably right-wing) articles that came up saying the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage were older than 2009; the first listing an article from 2004.
Oh, and before I turn to look at Obama's stance on gay marriage, I wanted to remind Ms. Peek that we are discussing government laws that restrict a person's ability to marry the adult of their choosing. That's right, big government is in your bedroom, telling you whom you can and cannot sleep with, create a family with, receive social and legal benefits from, and so on. The Republicans are opposing legislation that gets the government OUT of one of the biggest decisions I could make in my life. And the Republicans are opposed to the government telling me what I can and cannot do, right?
Right?
In February 2011, Obama announced he would no longer "oppose legal challenges to DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)" (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/23/nation/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110224). While largely a symbolic act, it had the effect of forcing Congress to hire its own lawyers if they wished to defend DOMA. Congress - of which the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Neat trick, Obama. You know you can't get the legislation passed yet, so you're forcing the Republicans to legally defend an Act which goes against the wishes of the majority of the American people. Brilliant!
I will concede that Obama originally came out as against the recognition of legal gay marriage, softening his stance by recommending civil unions that would enjoy the same benefits. I found it a little odd listening to the echoes of segregation coming out of a black man's mouth, but stranger things have happened. However, he has recently taken gradual steps that suggest maybe he's coming out of the discrimination closet, so to speak, as pointed out by this Fox News post (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/obama-suggests-stance-gay-marriage-evolve/).
Oddly enough, as of the writing of this posting, you are slightly correct, Ms. Peek, in that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream view. But perhaps you meant is that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage? Sorry, I can't give you that part. Half credit.
In some cases, Republicans are actually more in touch with the American mainstream than President Obama. Former RNC chairmen Ken Mehlman announced not only that he supports gay marriage, but that he is gay himself (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/08/former-rnc-chairman-is-gay-will-support-gay-marriage.html). GOP Senator Allan Kittleman (R-Howard) of Maryland is a long-time supporter who cites his passionate belief in equal rights as the motivator for his support (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/02/gop_senator_announces_support.html). My favorite: A former Iowan Republican state senator announced that he was forming a group called Republicans For Freedom, a group for gay-marriage supporters in the Republican Party. His justification? The small government argument. A true Republican! (http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Ex-GOP-senator-to-announce-pro-gay-marriage-group-1402696.php)
I've looked at these two issues with how Obama relates to "mainstream" American views. Here's a few more, a little less in-depth:
Abortion:
A recent Gallup poll revealed that the majority of Americans oppose abortion morally and support some legal restrictions for it (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx). Obama himself voted against legislation banning partial birth abortion, but has supported states' rights to restrict late-term partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm).
Grade: Full credit, but with a caveat. The Gallup poll noted that the pro-life/pro-choice boundaries were drawn along age lines, not gender lines, suggesting the possibility that what could be considered "mainstream" views may shift in the coming decades. If so, Obama is a visionary, or "on the side of history." If not, then yes, full credit for Obama being "out of touch."
Immigration:
Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the top priority regarding immigration should be the active pursuit of visa violations, followed by increasing security forces on the border at 61% (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0712/Americans-top-priority-on-illegal-immigration-visa-violators).
Obama has consistently supported amnesty, while generally 2/3s of Americans oppose it (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls/oppose-amnesty.html). On the other hand, Obama did support legislation making it easier to verify the citizenship status of employees, which increased the prosecution of employers of illegal aliens (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/obama-immigration.html), a position supported by 71% of Americans (http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml).
Grade: Incomplete - Immigration is a very complicated topic, so in some ways Obama agrees with mainstream and in other ways he doesn't. His policies also have shifted over time, making it more difficult to grade. My opinion is also that current events suggest that immigration is a bit lower on the priority list due to the laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, so the diversion here between Obama's views and the "mainstream" is less of a flashpoint than it was in the 2008 election.
This is not a complete list. I'll probably do another short blog comparing Obama's view on taxes with "mainstream," specifically the "Taxes On The Rich" so oft-quoted by the media, to further flesh out Ms. Peek's point on Obama being out of touch with mainstream views.
I also intend to further delve in to her article. Why hers? Because she either lightly touches directly, or suggests indirectly, nearly every single controversial issue that Obama and the Republicans disagree, while simultaneously employing logic that considers half the issue at best. I intend in further blogs to show that Ms. Peek has failed to go beyond the very surface of the issues, and missed the critical answer to the question she posed: The reason why Americans are going easy on Obama is because they knew he has a psychotic Republican party to deal with. The Republicans have made it so difficult that Obama would find a fight in trying to buy a box of facial tissue for the Men's bathroom. Americans know this, they can see it, so they understand that ANY victory Obama gets is miraculous. And he's gotten some rather important ones.
Anyway, I'll adress this and more later. For now, I'm going to go smoke a bowl and kiss my wife. ;)
I want to take a close look at this article and break it apart piece by piece, so that I can ask the questions that Liz Peek doesn't bother to address, but instead lays squarely on Obama's shoulders without any consideration for the actions of others.
Ms. Peek begins by citing a list of failures, from "pitiful job creation" to "paralysis on immigration" to what she considers a "world-view patently at odds with mainstream."
Okay, let's start by taking a look at some of those "mainstream" views. A recent ABC poll showed that 8 out of 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use, and around half believe it should be legalized in a more general context (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503). This Kansas branch of NBC cites a 60% approval rating for medical marijuana -- a state that can hardly be called the bastion of liberal politics (http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Poll-60-percent-of-Americans-support-medical/c1R1odu6dUeP-5rnH0VBeA.cspx). Even the website on which Ms. Peek's article appears quotes a "slim majority of Republicans" (53%) favor legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/04/21/medical-marijuana-support-grows-polls/).
Yet Republicans have consistently come down against any efforts to legalize medical marijuana -- in spite of their other constant call to arms, the restriction of "big government." Excuse me, Ms. Peek, but if the government is telling me what medication I can and cannot use for my illness, how is that supporting a small government? (http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/c144dca4-409c-11e0-b58f-001cc4c03286.html, and http://newmexicoindependent.com/69054/republican-bill-would-end-medical-marijuana-program, and I'm sure there are others)
Obama has not come out against medical marijuana. He publically stated he would withdraw federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and caregivers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html). He supports the use of marijuana as a medical treatment for glaucoma and cancer, and he explicitly states that he would like to see federal law change so he does not have to punish doctors for providing prescriptions for medical marijuana (http://granitestaters.com/candidates/video_obama_02.html).
Read that again, Ms. Peek. Obama wants to change federal legislation so the government will not interfere with a doctor's recommended medical treatment. President Obama wants the government out of medical marijuana. If I didn't know better, I might think he was a Republican, and one who is a bit more in touch with "mainstream views" than you suggested. Hypothetically speaking, if Obama was to introduce legislation that would make medical marijuana legal federally, would the Republicans bow to what the "mainstream" is asking for?
Perhaps medical marijuana is just a fluke. Let's look at gay marriage shall we? Is Obama out of touch with people on this issue?
According a Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage. In a breakdown of the poll, all self-identified groups of people saw an increase of approval between 2010 and 2011 except for one group - Republicans. With 70% of those aged 18-34 supporting gay marriage, the future does not look bright for discrimination (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx). In the interests of "balance", I looked up how many people oppose gay marriage? The (considerably right-wing) articles that came up saying the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage were older than 2009; the first listing an article from 2004.
Oh, and before I turn to look at Obama's stance on gay marriage, I wanted to remind Ms. Peek that we are discussing government laws that restrict a person's ability to marry the adult of their choosing. That's right, big government is in your bedroom, telling you whom you can and cannot sleep with, create a family with, receive social and legal benefits from, and so on. The Republicans are opposing legislation that gets the government OUT of one of the biggest decisions I could make in my life. And the Republicans are opposed to the government telling me what I can and cannot do, right?
Right?
In February 2011, Obama announced he would no longer "oppose legal challenges to DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)" (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/23/nation/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110224). While largely a symbolic act, it had the effect of forcing Congress to hire its own lawyers if they wished to defend DOMA. Congress - of which the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Neat trick, Obama. You know you can't get the legislation passed yet, so you're forcing the Republicans to legally defend an Act which goes against the wishes of the majority of the American people. Brilliant!
I will concede that Obama originally came out as against the recognition of legal gay marriage, softening his stance by recommending civil unions that would enjoy the same benefits. I found it a little odd listening to the echoes of segregation coming out of a black man's mouth, but stranger things have happened. However, he has recently taken gradual steps that suggest maybe he's coming out of the discrimination closet, so to speak, as pointed out by this Fox News post (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/obama-suggests-stance-gay-marriage-evolve/).
Oddly enough, as of the writing of this posting, you are slightly correct, Ms. Peek, in that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream view. But perhaps you meant is that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage? Sorry, I can't give you that part. Half credit.
In some cases, Republicans are actually more in touch with the American mainstream than President Obama. Former RNC chairmen Ken Mehlman announced not only that he supports gay marriage, but that he is gay himself (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/08/former-rnc-chairman-is-gay-will-support-gay-marriage.html). GOP Senator Allan Kittleman (R-Howard) of Maryland is a long-time supporter who cites his passionate belief in equal rights as the motivator for his support (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/02/gop_senator_announces_support.html). My favorite: A former Iowan Republican state senator announced that he was forming a group called Republicans For Freedom, a group for gay-marriage supporters in the Republican Party. His justification? The small government argument. A true Republican! (http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Ex-GOP-senator-to-announce-pro-gay-marriage-group-1402696.php)
I've looked at these two issues with how Obama relates to "mainstream" American views. Here's a few more, a little less in-depth:
Abortion:
A recent Gallup poll revealed that the majority of Americans oppose abortion morally and support some legal restrictions for it (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx). Obama himself voted against legislation banning partial birth abortion, but has supported states' rights to restrict late-term partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm).
Grade: Full credit, but with a caveat. The Gallup poll noted that the pro-life/pro-choice boundaries were drawn along age lines, not gender lines, suggesting the possibility that what could be considered "mainstream" views may shift in the coming decades. If so, Obama is a visionary, or "on the side of history." If not, then yes, full credit for Obama being "out of touch."
Immigration:
Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the top priority regarding immigration should be the active pursuit of visa violations, followed by increasing security forces on the border at 61% (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0712/Americans-top-priority-on-illegal-immigration-visa-violators).
Obama has consistently supported amnesty, while generally 2/3s of Americans oppose it (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls/oppose-amnesty.html). On the other hand, Obama did support legislation making it easier to verify the citizenship status of employees, which increased the prosecution of employers of illegal aliens (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/obama-immigration.html), a position supported by 71% of Americans (http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml).
Grade: Incomplete - Immigration is a very complicated topic, so in some ways Obama agrees with mainstream and in other ways he doesn't. His policies also have shifted over time, making it more difficult to grade. My opinion is also that current events suggest that immigration is a bit lower on the priority list due to the laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, so the diversion here between Obama's views and the "mainstream" is less of a flashpoint than it was in the 2008 election.
This is not a complete list. I'll probably do another short blog comparing Obama's view on taxes with "mainstream," specifically the "Taxes On The Rich" so oft-quoted by the media, to further flesh out Ms. Peek's point on Obama being out of touch with mainstream views.
I also intend to further delve in to her article. Why hers? Because she either lightly touches directly, or suggests indirectly, nearly every single controversial issue that Obama and the Republicans disagree, while simultaneously employing logic that considers half the issue at best. I intend in further blogs to show that Ms. Peek has failed to go beyond the very surface of the issues, and missed the critical answer to the question she posed: The reason why Americans are going easy on Obama is because they knew he has a psychotic Republican party to deal with. The Republicans have made it so difficult that Obama would find a fight in trying to buy a box of facial tissue for the Men's bathroom. Americans know this, they can see it, so they understand that ANY victory Obama gets is miraculous. And he's gotten some rather important ones.
Anyway, I'll adress this and more later. For now, I'm going to go smoke a bowl and kiss my wife. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)