House of Eratosthenes

If we had listened to this crowd Charlie Crist would have been Barack Obama’s Goto republican in the senate. The “goto” Republican on every MSM TV show when they needed to paint the party as the problem in DC, he would have been the Arlen Specter of the south, the “goto” republican who could be counted on to appear on any network to hit the party until Pat Toomey beat him.

If you want to know why we need to primary guys like this, even if it occasionally costs us a seat, this is it.

As for Crist himself. Democrats backed him over their own candidate in a last ditch bid to stop Marco Rubio and like the useful idiot he is, Charlie is paying them back in the only coin he has left. He will get one more round on the Morning Talk shows before he fades, only to be pulled out when they need an “ex-republican” on a panel with an occasional appearance on liberal talk radio.

I’m wondering: What’s the most extremist Republican position anybody could name? Crist calls out the Akin amendment, saying “look no further.” Well, it turns out there is actually more than one view on that.

So Republicans are the extremists on abortion? Not so fast.

If you’re like most Americans, you believe that abortion is morally wrong. You oppose abortion on demand. You think abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances. Even then you favor restrictions on its use, including 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent in the case of a minor, and requiring a married woman to notify her husband before she gets an abortion. You want late-term abortions to be prohibited, and you reject using public funds to pay for any abortions. (These are all majority opinions, reflected in numerous polls. A broad compilation of decades of polling data, “Attitudes About Abortion,” is updated regularly by Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute.)

Does the Democratic Party uphold these mainstream positions? On the contrary: It rejects every one of them.

Though one-third of Democrats identify themselves as pro-life, the Democratic Party platform is strident in its defense of abortion on demand. The party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade,” the platform avows, and abortion must be made available “regardless of ability to pay” — that is, at public expense. The 2012 platform, in language recycled from 2008, vows to “oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine” the availability of abortion. While solid majorities of Democrats back some limitations on abortion — 59 percent would ban partial-birth abortions, for example, and 60 percent endorse a mandatory waiting period — the official position of their party is that even common-sense restrictions are unthinkable.

In both cases, it’s just a situation of a political party doing what political parties do, crystallizing the existing bias into something more brittle and uncompromising. In both cases. So Crist’s argument is phony. And that’s the only one he’s offering, since he says “look no further.” As for the plus side of supporting President Obama, the word “invest” is sprinkled throughout, well, liberally. Everyone with a brain knows what that means: The taxpayers pay for something, against their will, and a politician takes a bow for whatever the money buys as if it was his blood, sweat and tears making the money that paid for it.

Crist is a flim-flam man. Which is his rep; but this is something good to keep in mind next time someone proposes sweeping aside an “extreme” candidate in favor of another who has “mainstream/crossover appeal.” Republicans need guys like this, like a hole in the head.

“The party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade,” the platform avows…”

And that includes the Rv.W interpretation that privacy in ones papers, person, etc. has been “interpreted” to include personal medical privacy as well…RIGHT?
And now that the “tax” status of “what’s actually IN it…”so-called “Obama” (type) “Care” has rendered implimentation in its current avitar unconstitutional, there’s no need to further consider approved appointees for the “health squad”, nor
YET ANOTHER “reasonable adjustment” to my “fair share” of taxes, or “insurance” of consequences of others “lifestyle choices rights” RIGHT?

Because folks who “register” themselves as Democrat are aaaaallll about actual Democracy, good sportsmanship in the face of defeat, living within their means, and comprehend what Republic means, RIGHT?

There’s no interpretation “disparate impact” to be found in R v. W , “Obama” care, “access”, pre-existing “conditions” or ANY reinterpretation of Title IX, …RIGHT?

The college “students”, with “choose” to maintain TWO available “primary residence” addresses, and “choose” to maintain “insured children” status til’ 26, are subject to the same “sufferage” rules (including entering into contracts, and voting) concerning who holds, or assigns, dominion over their “well being”….RIGHT?

“Manditory Registration” of 18 year old males (except otherwise illegal aliens of course), now moves to 26…RIGHT? Heaven forbid that some sort of “reasonable restrictions”or Felonious “penalty”, including exclusion from “free wellness”, tax “return”, professional/vehicle/passport/gun/welfare/protest “licence”, rear it’s ugly head.

How’s that “Hope and Change” thing workin’ out for ya’…um,…”kids”?
- CaptDMO | 08/31/2012 @ 08:43

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Why We Need to Primary Guys Like This…”Sunday, August 26th, 2012

“Why We Need to Primary Guys Like This…”
Sunday, August 26th, 2012