CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal perspective

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. P.J. O'Rourke

22 April 2010    

This edition is dedicated to Rachel Maddow, whose birthday was on the first of this month. However, she is definitely no fool. She is one of the most honest, thoughtful and intelligent commentators of TV news. One can see her on weekdays on MSNBC at 20:00 CST. You would be a fool to miss it.


Why the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy in the US Military Should be Discarded & Gays Should be Allowed to Serve Openly

"Don't ask, don't tell"- the official policy of the US armed forces in regards to homosexual conduct. Under this policy more than 13,000 troops have been discharged for being gay since 1993. The institution of such a policy supposedly would allow gays to serve in the military if they keep their nonheterosexual orientation a secret while simultaneously  their superiors were barred from asking about such matters. Violations of the latter aspect did not seem stop persecutions and harassment of suspected service men and women. The "don't ask" part did not seem to be interpreted by the chain of command in such a way as to prohibit the overt pursuit of the  13,000 plus troops who have been discharged for homosexual conduct done covertly. One would think that any investigations would be a violation on the part of military authorities. Otherwise, why ask the gay soldiers to lie, which is exactly what they did before the policy went into effect. The policy allegedly included "don't harass, don't pursue" and yet 13,000 service members were still discharged for homosexual conduct.

So what exactly did the policy change? The answer seems to be simply not asking the service member directly. Reading the e-mail and snail mail of suspected gays is not off limits. After all, when one joins the military, one surrenders all right to privacy. Regular probes of the internet for outing suspected gays was naturally not off limits. Once enough evidence is accumulated, it is only a matter of confronting the guilty and initiating discharge procedures. The outed gay service, member not being asked, is nevertheless still ejected from the military. Remember, they were not asked. Perhaps if those who are guilty of being gay are very convincing liars, they might be allowed to stay. After all, those references of being gay could also mean that one is quite happy to be serving ones country.

Rather dryly stated, the policy was mandated by Public Law 103-160 (10 U.S.C. statute 654) and has been in effect since 1993. This was supposed to be a compromise between President Clinton who favored the prohibition of gays serving openly in the military and those who oppose this policy change. This policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving his country in any of the United States armed forces,  because it allegedly "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

The policy was supposed to be for one to be mum on ones discriminating sexuality, to the extant of not telling others of ones sexuality. In return for this, it was policy that ones "superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation" ** Proven homosexual behavior while off duty is still grounds for dismissal. Ultimately, the decision is in the hands of ones superiors to define what is "credible and articulable" insofar as evidence is concerned and insofar as the policy of neither harassing nor pursuing, the rules be damned.

The arguments against changing the policy in favor of gays serving freely are simply bogus. To start with, this makes difficult maintenance of troop strength and unit cohesion, rather than the opposite, by virtue of the unit's loss of personnel in needed specialties. For example, consider the case of Lieutenant Dan Choi, one of 59 gay Arabic speakers who were kicked out of the military because of their gayness. Lt. Choi in particular, courageously admitted that he was gay. Also dismissed were 9 gay Farsi speakers. This loss of these personnel made more serious the lack of translators in those languages and therefore hampered the mission of our armed forces by making it more difficult winning over the very people to our side in which we are supposed to be fighting for. The loss of individuals with much needed specialties could be difficult to replace in short notice.  Furthermore, it would not pose any risk to the standards of "morale, good order and discipline" of any unit, contrary to that which has be codified in law.

Dr. Gregory M. Herek, an associate research psychologist, from the University of California at Davis, and a national authority on public attitudes concerning lesbians and gay men, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 1993, argued in favor of allowing gays to serve in the US military. As a representative of the American Psychological Association, he stated:

"My written testimony to the Committee summarizes the results of an extensive review of the relevant published research from the social and behavioral sciences. That review is lengthy. However, I can summarize its conclusions in a few words: The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters."

Historically, the American armed services have successfully integrated those who have been previously excluded from serving, such as African Americans and females. There is no evidence or reason to believe that the permitting homosexuals to serve would be any different. Foreign military forces have made such allowances without any disruption of "the high standards of morale, good order and discipline" of their forces. "Unit cohesion" remained intact and "the essence of military capability" has not been affected in those nations disallowing discrimination based on sexual orientation in their military. Therefore, no rational reason exists upon which to conclude that it would be any different in our military. All the right wing opposition has in their repertoire of arguments are ghost stories based on conjecture and assumptions. 

In 2008, Dr. Herek went on record of saying that "the assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one" and that "today, as then (1993), the real question is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. The social science data answered this question in the affirmative then, and do so even more clearly now. The concern of gays harassing nongays is a bogus argument and is insulting to the former. (It is rather curious that those who voice such concerns are not more concerned about men harassing women within the military.)  Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of antigay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy."

In 2006, the Zogby International poll taken of service members found that overall 73% of those polled stated that they were comfortable in the presence of homosexual personnel. More specifically, of those polled, 26% were in favor of permitting gays to serve in the military, while 37% were opposed and 37% expressed either no concern or were unsure. However, 66% of those polled, who had knowingly served with gays, stated that their presence had either no impact or a positive impact on their morale, while 64% stated the same also applied to the overall unit morale. The reality is within the foxhole, one is more concerned about his buddy watching his back than ones buddy's sexual orientation.

On the matter of polls, there were some taken among white soldiers pertaining the matter of racial desegregation within the military. The results not surprisingly showed strong opposition among the white soldiers. That was in 1947. But the military was not desegregated because of the polls that year, but rather because of an executive order issued by President Truman the following  year and the military just was forced to deal with it.

Ex-General Shalikashvili went on the record January 2007 stating the following- "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces...Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

Others who favor lifting the ban include Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. Even the ex Chief Colin Powell at least supports a review of the ban. On CNN's State of the Union broadcast on July 5, 2009, he said that the policy was "correct for the time" but that "sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." So what exactly is the problem?*
*As usual, a major source of background information is Wikipedia.


The Man Who Was Not There by Anon

Yesterday upon the stairs,

I met a man who was not there.

He was not there again today.

How I wish he go away.


Little Tyke, "T" Parties & These Tempestuous Times*

These are tempestuous times. Tea Parties, without any tea actually served, seems to spring up through out the country. But the reality seem to be that the "T" really stands for tempest as in "tempest in a 'T' party". These "T" Parties seem to bear the resemblance of unruly mobs. Signs held aloft are plentiful in these gatherings. President Obama is depicted as Adolph Hitler with the Hitler-like mustache added to the picture for effect. Another kind of sign quotes the President- "Yes we can." On the top is a picture of the President and below him is one of Hitler. The allusion to Hitler and fascism is obvious, notwithstanding the fact that Nazis considered Africans and those of African descent to be subhuman. Other signs have pictures of the President being portrayed as Batman's evil nemesis, the Joker. Swastikas along with hammers and sickles icons reflect confusion among the teabaggers between fascism and communism. Yet both are displayed on the signs. All of this in its totality reflects considerable hostility towards our President and liberalism, not just towards the harsh economic times. Furthermore, even though "T" Party goers deny any bigotry within their ranks, it does exist insofar as the examples of bigotry presented previously has been documented. Since bigotry is denied in spite of the evidence to the contrary, teabaggers are simply unable to repudiate what to them does not exist.

Seemingly allied with the "T" Party participants and often overlapping with them in membership, are the birthers and deathers. The birthers question President Obama being an American. In spite of all the evidence pointing to the President being born in Hawaii, these birthers insist that he was born in Kenya and thus is not qualified to be President.

The deathers express fears of the mythical death panels pushed by the Palins and Bachmans of the extreme right. Revved up by rhetorical falsehoods and propelled by fear of big government, a disconnect from reality exists among the "T" Party enthusiasts. For example they seem to fear government ran health care, yet overwhelmingly embrace medicare which is government ran health care. They oppose taxes, but still expect local government to do everything from maintaining law and order to filling potholes. On the national scene, the expectations range from providing a national defense to providing the safety net for themselves through Medicare and Social Security. Fear- of change; of the unrealized; of the unknown is stoked by the Palins and Bachmans of the right. Fear and lies is what the Palins and Bachmans peddle to the populous.

Fear and prejudice are the major motivating force behind these "T" party rallies as reflected by those in the crowds calling African American lawmakers niggers and in one instance, even spitting upon one. Hostility even was extended towards others, such as gays. Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a fagot. Such bigotry is not repudiated, but rather tolerated by ultra white "T" Party crowd.

Liberals in general are either considered socialists or fascists, which betrays the ignorance of the mob mentality prevalent in those crowds, for historically liberals and fascists  have nothing hostility and contempt for each other, as do socialist and fascists. Insofar as liberals and socialists are concerned, the former does not favor the nationalization of industry while the latter does. It is a "us"? vs. "them" mentality reflected rhetorically in the utterances of the "T" party leadership and in the mood of the "T" party crowds. Among them, paranoia reigns.

In spite of conservatives insisting that this was simply a rebellion against big government, there is more to the "T" party phenomenon than that. The typical extreme right wing rhetoric which defines a true American, is reflected by such "T" party speakers as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. They, those in attendance, are  addressed as the true Americans. These are your enemies. Liberals in general and the "liberal" media in particular are to be feared. "We need to take back our country" is often proclaimed in the rhetoric of the speakers at these rallies. Take it back from whom is the question. The answer is from those who are not true Americans. Do they mean take back the country from those  from those who believe if only laissez faire capitalism be permitted to flourish in our great nation, all would be well.

Take back the country from whom? From those who truly believe that health care should be a right and not a privilege? Do they, the teabaggers, believe that health care providers will faithfully insure the healthy among us until illness takes hold for some and renders for those impossible, but nevertheless all of us would be taken care of just the same.

Take back the country from whom? From environmentalists? Do they, the, teabaggers, believe that the quality of our water is okay; that we need not fear either petroleum tankers being ripped open after crashing into off shore rocks or from off shore oil drilling fiascoes, both of which ends up polluting our ocean shores; nor should we fear the industrial wastes dumped into our rivers rendering at least one river in the past a fire hazard or from minerals such as mercury getting into the food chain, which raises the question- are we getting enough mercury in our diet from the tuna we eat?

Take back the country from whom? From those who believe that the financial industry should be regulated? Do they, the teabaggers, believe that the credit card industry is to be trusted and that hiding terms in fine print that could trigger interest rate hikes are not a problem; Do they believe that the banking and the savings and loan industries need not be regulated, even if the greed of those in charge gets out of hand and results in such financial fiascoes such as the S & L meltdown in 1986 and the banking mortgage crisis in 2008?

Take back the country from whom? From those who believe the greed of those unelected in private industry should not be held in check by an institution more accountable, such as a elected representative government. Or should those in power be to be unrestrained to plunder and pillage our nation for their own benefit much to the detriment of the rest of us. Are we one nation and one community or is it simply everyone for themselves and may the strongest prevail?

The teabaggers want government out of their lives. Does this mean that they do not want the benefits of Medicare or Social Security? Does this mean that if they should fall ill, they do not have fear the burden of debt after their health insurance provider refuses to provide for them, even after decades of paying those premiums for their insurance? Does this mean they have no fear of losing their pensions for their retirements as a result of Wall Street greed sucking their savings from their pensions? Does this mean that they do not fear banking institutions failing and that they as taxpayers would have to pick up the tab of reimbursing the individual depositors for their losses? Do they believe that they should also pay for the pollution to our environment caused by big business whose only concern is for the corporate bottom line- corporate profits? Do they believe that they believe that big corporate entities will never push any concern for the well being of their employees in pursuit of those corporate profits? Do they believe that corporate crimes need not concern them as long as they are not affected? There by the grace of God, I am JUST thankful it is not me who is the one suffering. Is that what it comes to?

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

If time travel were possible, one could travel about 70 years into the past and meet Little Tyke shortly after her birth. The little lion cub's life was endangered by the fury of the little ones mother. It is a fury resembling that of the "T" Party teabaggers. This lioness had a history of destroying her offspring soon after each one was born. Enraged from having been taken from her home in the wild and tortured by her captors, she apparently discarded the normal instincts of motherhood and had become a "vicious, raging beast baring razor claws and glistening fangs".* But this cub was more lucky than the previous four newborn cubs had been born to the same mother.

Georges and Margaret Westbeau were standing outside of the cage, watching and waiting. Suddenly the little cub was thrown violently against the cage's bars. Georges managed to grab the little cub and while safely pulling the little one through the bars, he said "You poor little tyke". Hence thereafter she was known as Little Tyke. They took the little cub to the Hidden Valley Ranch, which is not far from Seattle. There Little Tyke begun to recover as she was bottled fed warm milk.

At the Hidden Valley Ranch, Little Tyke "joined the menagerie of other animals including horses, cattle, and chickens. Curious peacocks lined the housetop, kittens peered through a picket fence, and two terriers danced with joy for the new addition to the household."*

As the little tyke grew up to be a much bigger tyke, the little one befriended the other members of the ranch. Little Tyke was particularly fond of two kittens- Pinky and Imp, a fawn named Baby and a lamb named Becky. Becky, in particular, preferred Little Tyke's company over the other animals of the ranch. Often they were seen resting side by side.

Little Tyke would often licked the tiny chicks that inhabited the ranch. On one occasion, with a slurp of a tongue, a tiny chick ended up in the mouth of the lioness. Later when asked she had in her mouth, Little Tyke opened her mouth and the tiny chick jumped out unharmed, but naturally upset.

By this account, Little Tyke was very unusual. This was because she was a vegetarian, which was quite unnatural for a feline predator. After four years of trying, the Westbeaus could not convert Little Tyke into being carnivorous. Since she was thriving on a diet of milk, raw eggs and grains, they accepted her as she was.

The Puyallup Spring Fair IS an event held every April since 1926 in Puyallup, Washington. Since 1934 the Annual Puyallup Valley Daffodil Festival Parade has been a part these festivities, with the exception of 1942, 1943 and 1944. Its genesis was when a "Well known Tacoma photographer and first secretary of the founding group, Lee Merrill, suggested that the daffodil** blooms, which at that time were thrown away or used as fertilizer, be used instead as decoration for a Festival Parade.  Automobiles were decorated with daffodils, bicycles followed in like fashion and together paraded through our city and neighboring Valley towns. The presence of a mounted contingent of the finest riding horses in the area, prompted their appearance each year to follow. The idea grew and presently the Grand Floral Street Parade travels through four Pierce County communities on Parade Day- Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner and Orting, all of which is in Pierce County."***

It was the 16th Annual Parade in which Little Tyke was a participant. It was the parade held in Tacoma in which Little Tyke was the star attraction. This parade begun on South 17th Street and Broadway and finished on South 7th Street and Pacific Avenue. The Lions Club float featured Little Tyke and three children. After the parade was over, the Lions were awarded 1st place in the organizations and lodges category for their entry in the parade. This would be the only time Little Tyke would be a participant in that parade or any other parade as well.

While the parade was in progress, as a precaution, a sniper was on hand in the event that for some reason Little Tyke would unexpectedly charge into the crowd, thereby becoming a threat to the public safety. Needless to say, the talents of the sniper was never needed. Little Tyke never got off of the float for the duration of the parade, even though she had cause for doing so. As the parade progressed down the streets of Tacoma, the impact of the pellets propelled into Little Tyke, resulted in numerous ripples appearing, disappearing, reappearing all over her body with welts forming in those places. Little Tyke was a target of persons unknown with pellet guns. Needless to say, if Little Tyke had gotten off that float, she would have been killed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

From Little Tyke to the "T" parties and the tempestuousness of today's political climate, one is left asking oneself, "What's it all about?" What are these teabaggers afraid of? Big Government? With all their fear of government ran health care with those mythical death panels, why do they ignore the real death panels who have habitually denied their clients health coverage because these individuals medical expenses have cut too deeply into the profits of the health insurance industry? All is needed is a pre-existing condition which naturally would not be covered or an omission from the medical history, such as acne, which might indicate deception on the part the client. Also consider the raising rates imposed upon their clientele within the range of 30% to 40%, therefore pricing millions out of the market and forcing them into the ranks of the uninsured. Is this really acceptable?*

The irony is if those teabaggers are healthy, they can afford the insurance and do not really need it, but if they they fall deathly ill and really need the coverage, they would have been denied. This is an undeniable fact. There but for the grace of God goes I. Of course there are Medicare and Medicaid, both which are ran by the government and are examples of socialized medicine. They oppose this socialized medicine for others, but as long as Medicare and Medicaid will be available along with Social Security in their years of retirement, all is well. Thus, it is Hands off of my Social Security and I got mine, let them get theirs (translation- their on their own).

For the uninsured, there is always charities one might say, except if such was enough to care for the uninsured, then why were tens of thousands of Americans dying and going bankrupt every year for the lack of health care coverage? Without the health care legislation recently passed, 45,000,000 Americans were without insurance, which imposes a burden impossible for the charity industry of our nation to take care of.

The bottom line for big business is profit. That is all that really matters. As for the well being of the public, as William H. Vanderbilt was reported to have said, "The public be damned."
Ironically, if any of the "T" Party crowd gets in the way of such a higher power of a secular kind's ability to profit, that teabagger will get crushed like one of Representative John Boehner's ants. Naturally, this will be done without malice. It is nothing personal- it is just business. Coverage from private health care insurance as practiced in the past is proof of this.

Another example of corporate indifference to the public is  the credit card providers, in which have in the past have increased insurance rates on their customers for nothing more than a late utility payment, even though payments to cover credit card debt had been always on time. Rates had always been raised on a whim by those of the credit industry upon their customers just because they could get away with it. As reforms have been imposed upon the health care providers, so has the same have been with the providers of credit from the Democrats congressional legislators without little, if any support from the not so Grand Old Party- the Republicans. The "T" Party crowd do not seem to appreciate this fact.

And should pay day loans institutions need not be regulated, therefore be allowed to charge up to 400% interests rates to their customers? For this, no legislation has passed to place a cap on those usurious rates.

The shenanigans of CEO's of the "to big to fail" financial institutions should be noted for as they drove their institutions into an abyss, they still expected to get their ten million dollar plus bonuses, barring any pressure from a Democratic controlled congress. As for the public, as taxpayers, they end up getting stuck with bill. This is not only in regards to the financial meltdown of 2008, but also the S & L crisis of the late 1980's. In both cases, Republican presidents resided in the White House for whom, along with their fellow GOP cohorts in  government, regulating businesses was anathematic. Never mind that the consequences of financial fiascoes would end up being a burden to the taxpayers, such as those of the "T" Party crowd. And this not only pertains to the bailout of 2009 resulting from Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the FDIC, which is a provider of deposit insurance that guarantees the safety of deposits in member banks, currently up to $250,000 for each depositor of the 7,895 financial institutions covered- another example of a service provided by the federal government for those of the ungrateful "T Party crowd", along with Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security.

Like Medicare, Social Security is also a federal government ran program, hence it is also socialism. For that reason the far right wing controlled congress wants abolish both through privatization. The ungrateful and selfish teabaggers fail to appreciate what the government does for them. For them, as stated before, it is hands off my Medicare and Social Security, brought to them by the Federal Government. One might very well ask, can those teabaggers spell S O C I A L I S M ? This is, as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC refers to, the "Something for nothing" crowd.  

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Something for nothing "T" Party crowd with their "Don't tread on me attitude", is in sharp contrast to the Hidden Valley Ranch where Little Tyke had resided. None of the animals there formed any "T" Parties. Little Tyke, in particular, in spite of reputation as a lioness, lived in harmony with her peers on the ranch and being a vegetarian, harmed none of them. The closest Little Tyke came to confronting any teabaggers was in the parade from persons unknown who shoot pellets at her as she rode along the parade route. She just took it without any attempt to retaliate. If only all humans could be just as civil.


The Skunk, the Jar & the Kind-hearted Woman

It was a quite sunny and rather warm day on that old Appalachian Trail as a wandering little skunk foraged for something to eat. Upon the trail, the little one discovered a jar. It was not just any jar, but rather one from which emerged the sweet fragrance of strawberries. The little skunk loved the taste of strawberrys, but was somewhat puzzled by the absence of any in the jar. Instead of strawberries, there was this strange concoction sticking to the bottom of jar which also possessed the exact color of strawberries, but did not look like strawberries. But the smell betrayed its nature and that was enough for that little skunk. Since it had the smell of strawberries and the right color as well, then it must be strawberries sticking to the bottom of that jar, the little one concluded. The little skunk just wanted to devour that  concoction that possessed the sweet scent of strawberries.

The little skunk proceeded to stick its little head into that jar and having managed to bring that ambrosia that smelled like  strawberries within the reach of his little tongue. The little one then proceeded to lick that sticky concoction and introduce that ambrosia to his taste buds. Those little buds then informed him that not only did that concoction possessed the scent of strawberries, it also tasted better than any strawberry the little one had ever had before. It was very sweet indeed. Having finished off that very sweet strawberry-like ambrosia, the little skunk discovered to his horror that he could not get his little head out of that jar. Try as he might, the little one could not extract his head from that jar.

At that time, a very important man came hiking down that trail. This was the governor of the state of South Carolina looking to rendezvous with his Argentine mistress. When he encountered that little skunk, he had no compassion for him whatsoever. It would have been understandable of he was afraid of being sprayed with that noxious odor that skunks have, but that was not the case at all. Helping the little one was not even considered. He just looked at that unfortunate little skunk and shrugged his shoulders. "Can't help you skunk. I'm too much in a hurry. There's a very important meeting I have to attend." Then he was gone.

Next came another very important man who was one of the Senators of South Carolina. He had even less compassion for the little skunk than the governor. He also gave no consideration to help. When he saw the little one, he just shook his head and declared," This must be your Waterloo. You're finished. Can't help you. Need to see that governor. I know he's somewhere on this here trail." Then he was gone.

The next person hiking down that trail was not a man of importance. It was not even a man. It was a woman- a charming brunette possessing a very sweet and kind-hearted temperament. When she saw the little skunk, it just broke her heart to see the little one's predicament. "Poor little skunk", says she. She briefly considered the risks, but the decided to help the little skunk anyway. Kneeling down, she gently caressed the little one to put him at ease while easing the jar gently off his head. Once unencumbered by the jar, the little skunk looked into the eyes of that nice woman, turned around and walked away. The little skunk understood the kind nature of this stranger who helped him in his time of need and therefore did not spray her. Instead, the little skunk sought out that governor who gave him no help and that Senator who gave him no help and sprayed them both. This  gave that nice woman an exclusive story on her MSNBC news show (the Rachel Maddow Show) about Governor Sanford and Senator Demint being a couple of stinkers. That is not quite the ending one would expect from a version of a "Good Samaritan" story, but then again, this really is not that story.


 David Vitter (Senator) vs. Stormy Daniels (Porn Star) & the perils of Larry Craig (ex-Senator)

Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana might have a primary challenger this year. Stormy Daniels, a porn star and a recent convert to the Republican Party, has just announced that she might run against the "ethically challenged" and allegedly hypercritical incumbent Senator, who is rumored to be married and yet had previously appeared on a Washington, D.C. clientele list.

When Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, a fellow member of the GOP, who was arrested for solicitation by a policeman, Senator Vitter asked him to resign. The arrest took place in a bathroom stall in the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport's men's room. The policeman who arrested Senator Craig was in a adjoining stall. At first Senator Craig pleaded guilty by signing a petition. Senator Craig got off with a fine. Later, he repudiated the plea. He also said he would not resign after at first saying he would. Senator Vitter was one of a chorus of GOP Senators calling for Idaho's Senator to step down. However, regarding the indiscretions of Senator Vitter, that GOP chorus seems to be out to lunch.

Now with the GOP Senatorial primary contest seems to be to be heating up with a recent convert to the GOP party entering the race. Stormy Daniels was inspired by the news that the RNC had paid out $2,000 for the expenses for of the Young Eagles, which is a Republican program set up to recruit under 45 year old donors to the cause of the GOP.* Ms Daniels, a libertarian, was impressed by what seemed to be the RNC support of the sex industry. The apparent GOP support for Senator Vitter, in spite of a little sexual indiscretion on his part, might have contributed to this impression. 

If elected, it is said that Ms Daniels will likely retire from the adult industry and enter the political industry. Senator Vitter claims that this a Democratic conspiracy against him. The state Democratic Party spokesman responded by saying that "this is just a matter of someone who buys sex running against someone who sells sex". Could Ms Daniels entry bring this primary contest to a boil?

Would Senator Vitter consider leaving his wife for Ms Daniels if he wins? Can Ms Daniels bring herself to quit her previous employment if she wins or would she only be performing for an exclusive GOP clientele? Is ex-Senator Craig still looking for love in airport men's rooms or will he finally conclude that he is simply just looking for love in all the wrong places? These questions and others will be answered tomorrow in As the Political World Churns.

*To be fair, the person who authorized this expenditure was terminated from her job.


Postscripts

To Representative Michelle Bachman of Minnesota,

Recently you have criticized President Obama for declaring that he would not use nuclear weapons against other nations who have signed the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, in response to a biological, chemical or cyber attacks?  Are you joking? You want to nuke another country for hacking into our computer systems? What would you favor if they merely spat at us?

To Senator John McCain of Arizona

You told Newsweek that you never called yourself a Maverick? Is this the new McCain?- one with no guts. Whatever happened to the old McCain?- the one who had the guts to speak out when necessary in what you believe in. Are you not the one who wrote The Education of a Maverick? Was that not your autobiography? And in 2004, even though you supported President George W. Bush, you stilled called upon him to denounce the smear campaign against Senator John Kerry in which questioned his war record and patriotism. Whatever happened to the old McCain?

To Michelle Bachman again,

You had said that there is no record of anyone in the tea party (aka teabagger party) had spat at anyone. You also stated that the "n" word has not been used against any black congressman. A video has proven the former by showing Representative Emmanuel Cleaver of Missouri being spat upon by some teabagger and the latter is been proven by a voice message on Representative John Lewis' answering machine. Michelle, you are either lying, ignorant or stupid. Which is it?


To Rush Limbaugh,
Senator Patrick Moynihan once said that
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Apparently you, Rush, believe that you are entitled to both. Correct me if I'm wrong but did I hear you blame the United Mine Workers Union for Massey Mine Disaster since this Union failed to stand up for its own members. Rush, those miners were not unionized. Its CEO, Don Blankenship, is a notorious union buster with a callous disregard for the safety of his employees. The bottom line for him and his kind are profits. Maximize production and minimize costs which eat into those precious profits. Who is to blame, Rush? It's the management, moron.


To  Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma,
Sen. Tom Coburn, as staunch conservative from Oklahoma, you did what seems almost unthinkable in this polarized political climate: Defending your
Democratic colleagues from critics at Fox News.

At a town hall meeting, you corrected a woman who thought that "they can put us in prison" for not obtaining health insurance under the health care reform bill. "The intention is not to put anybody in jail. That makes for good TV news on Fox but that isn't the intention."

You then defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the architect of the House version of the health care legislation that you vigorously opposed. "I'm 180 degrees in opposition to the speaker -- she's a nice lady." When  crowd responded unfavorably to this remark, you asked them in a challenging manner, "how many of you all have met her?"

"Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they're not a good person." After discussing your own experience of being vilified, you asked the crowd not to  "catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody's no good." Kudos to you, Senator Coburn, for doing the politically  unthinkable.


GLYNN BRAMAN

Make a Free Website with Yola.