HOW CAN ANY WOMAN IN THE U.S. VOTE REPUBLICAN?

How could any woman in the U.S. vote for someone like Republican Todd Akin, running for U.S. Senate in Missouri?

First, he defines some rapes as "legitimate," casting doubt on all other violent assaults on women which are not "legitimate."

Then, a few days ago, he says that his female opponent, Claire McCaskill, has not acted 'ladylike."

Here's a report by Karen McVeigh in The Guardian online.  Writes McVeigh:

"The furore caused by Akin's now infamous and much-criticised "legitimate rape" comments – suggesting that victims of rape can "shut down' potential pregnancies – shows little sign of abating. Despite signs of a U-turn from the Republican party who abandoned him over the comments, Akin, who believes abortion should be banned even in cases of rape, has become associated with bad science and an anti-woman agenda.

Akin did nothing to overcome that perception on Thursday, when he said that his Democratic opponent Claire McCaskill had not acted "ladylike" during a recent debate. Patty Murray, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, described the remark as "demeaning to women and offensive to all".

Let me ask the question again, but this time extend it to all Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney.  How could any woman in the U.S. vote for any Republican candidate anywhere in the country?

MITT ROMNEY WOULD BE A DISASTER

Imagine the disaster if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election.  Mitt promises to visit Israel as his first country, he promises to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), he promises to treat Russia as an enemy.

I wonder how anyone can support these outrageous and dangerous proposals?  How can anyone be a Republican?  How can anyone with a grain of sympathy for those who have no health insurance want to take away a plan that tries to make health care an inviolable right?

OBAMA: CONDEMN BAHRAIN 'S CRACK-DOWN ON MEDICAL DOCTORS HELPING WOUNDED PROTESTERS

I want Pres. Obama to: 1) condemn government violence against doctors in Bahrain; 2) stop mass deportation of Latino undocumented immigrants; 3) end drone attacks against Pakistani villages in Waziristan that kill innocent civilians; 4) fight Republican attempts to destroy Social Security and Medicare under guise of reducing debt.

REPUBLICANS SUPPORT TORTURE FOR TERRORISM SUSPECTS

Republicans are claiming that the Obama administration was wrong to read the Christmas bomber his Miranda rights and was wrong to grant him civilian counsel.

Anne E. Kornblut reports the story in today's The Washington Post web site:

"Republicans have accused the Obama administration of treating him too lightly and failing to make the most of his arrest, first by reading him his rights and then granting him civilian legal counsel. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) devoted last week's radio response to the subject, saying the White House has a "blind spot" when it comes to terrorism -- and alleging that investigators had spent less than an hour questioning Abdulmutallab. In a follow-up statement Wednesday, Collins added that reports of a plea deal is in the works suggests the Obama administration is granting him a "measure of leniency.""

But when the Republicans say Obama is too soft on terrorism suspects, what they really want is resumption and reinstatement of the the hated Bush regimen of "harsh interrogation techniques" (a/k/a torture). For Republicans, equal protection and due process have no application to those accused of terrorism. It seems that Republicans would gut the Constitution in dealing with suspects having Islamic names.

I am proud that the U.S. government under Obama did not cave to these Republican extremist views.

REPUBLICANS TRY TO DEFEAT OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN GRANTING COVERAGE TO ALL AMERICANS

The Republicans seem like they are going all out to defeat Obama's reform of health care. They want to delay, amend, discuss, procrastinate, all with the aim of killing the first serious attempt to extend health care coverage to everyone, including the 40+ million Americans without any health insurance.

Think Progress reports today in a story written by Ben Ambruster that the Huffington Post obtained a secret memo put out by the Republican National Committee:

"After following GOP pollster Frank Luntz’s advice to demonize President Obama’s health care plan by distorting it, many conservatives have recently embraced a new obstructionist tactic: delay any reform measure going through Congress for as long as possible. The Republican National Committee is giving the strategy its official stamp of approval. In a 12-page memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the RNC urges Republicans to “engage in every activity we can to slow down” health care reform:

"In particular, the 12-page memo makes the case that it is a Republican priority to slow down the consideration of health care reform before it can become codified.

"“The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality,” the memo affirmatively declares."

The Republicans hated Social Security Retirement Income when that was passed in 1936; they hated Medicare in 1966; now they hate extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured. The Republicans call it "socialized medicine" when we Democrats insist that everyone has a right to full and competent health care. They would rather keep the 40+ million Americans without health insurance than have the country commit to make sure that everyone is insured.

REPUBLICANS MOCK OBAMA FOR NOT BOMBING NORTH KOREA

Are all Republicans as mean as they sound? Are they all war mongers? Sometimes it appears that way. Consider the response of Newt Gingrich to Pres. Barack Obama's call for nuclear disarmament - he says it is naive and is making America "less safe," repeating a Cheney line. And John Bolton and Richard Perle also weigh in, criticizing Obama. But remember who these guys are - two of the biggest proponents of attacking Iran and bombing North Korea. Imagine the world with Gingrich, Bolton and Perle in charge.

Politico writers Jonathan Martin and David S. Cloud report on Republican reaction to Obama's proposals:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he would have attempted to knock out the missile. And Richard Perle, a former Reagan official who was a leading proponent of the Iraq war, mocked Obama for recently trumpeting the prospect for renewing an arms agreement with Russia, saying the president was practicing diplomacy that is utterly irrelevant.

"“Can anyone imagine a Russian nuclear attack on the United States?” said Perle, who said Obama should worry instead about terrorists getting a mass-destruction weapon, possibly with the aid of Iran.

"“Especially in light of the North Korean launch, I thought his speech was otherworldly," said John Bolton, the conservative former Ambassador to the United Nations under President Bush. "What is he saying about the real, concrete threat from proliferant states like North Korea and Iran? We'll take you to the Security Council. Say, there's a threat! That has had no practical impact on either Pyongyang or Tehran before and will not in the future.""

INCONSISTENT RABID NEO-CONS NOW DEMAND GOVERNMENT BAILOUT

The say that truth is stranger than fiction. Here's the latest example. All those Republicans who for years have been saying that government can't be trusted, that America is the home of free and unfettered capitalism, that the markets are best left free and unrestricted, . . . these very same people now are crying for government intervention in the credit and equity markets.

Take Larry Kudlow, the host of CNBC's Kudlow and Company. This guy has been a Republican and neo-con shill for the last 30 years. He calls himself a true believer in American capitalism and free markets. He says he is a "great American patriot." He decries government intervention in, say, rescuing those people who face imminent foreclosures on the basis that the marketplace punishes those who overreach or misuse credit. He believes in deregulation and cutting of taxes.

Yet this same Larry Kudlow has been in the forefront of those who say that the Fed and the Treasury need to help out the big banks and brokerages. What then do we see here? Kudlow is all for government regulation and intervention when his livelihood is at stake, but against it when the little guy but not himself is at risk.

You couldn't make his stuff up. One of the most vociferous mouths against government intervention in the "free markets" suddenly has a conversion and becomes a most vocal proponent of using taxpayer funds to take a stake in the biggest banks and brokers. Kudlow, the great American patriot in favor of unrestricted capitalism, now supports Bush's socialistic move to have the U.S. government own a piece of private businesses.

And Kudlow is not the only one. How about Joe Kernen, one of the hosts of Squawk on the Street on CNBC? Kernen was always against government regulation of any kind. I assume he meant he was against stuff like SEC regulation of the markets. Well Kernen got his wish. The SEC decided not to regulate collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and other made-up securities. Because of this deregulation, we are now in the mess we find ourselves. Yet Kernen, like Kudlow, now calls for government intervention.

You think these guys would recognize the illogical and contradictory positions they now take, vis-a-vis their former government-keep-away meme. Sorry to say, they don't and they refuse to concede the ridiculousness of their positions.

REPUBLICAN "VALUES" ARE MEAN, SELFISH, VINDICTIVE

BBC Radio had a report today from St. Paul and the Republican Convention. The BBC reporter was asking delegates why they are in fact Republicans. Most of them answered that it was the values of the party, such as family values, including marriage, anti-abortion, one man, one woman, and the sort. But there were other "values" as well: a strong military, self reliance, low taxes. Unspoken were still others : anti-immigrant, anti-Social Security, anti-government.

Speaking of immigration policy, the Republican Platform includes items like being against states granting undocumented workers a drivers license. Also included a provision against amnesty, a wish for more speedy and effective deportations and a English-as-the-official-language plank.

All in all, the "values' enunciated by the Republicans are not my values. That's why I am a Democrat.

Republicans like to make much about family values but then these turn out to be discrimination against those who have non-traditional families. They talk about the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, but yet have no qualms dropping bombs on the "enemy" that kill hundreds of children. They believe the family is sacred yet they are quick to deport the father of an immigrant family because he came here looking for a better life for his family, thus breaking up that family and separating parents from children.

Republicans believe in dismantling Social Security Retirement Income program because they say each person should be in charge of his own retirement savings. But what happens to the people who wind up without any personal savings? No answer from Republican values for this one.

Republicans say there is too much government, yet there are intractable problems of society that only government can handle. Like helping people caught in a natural disaster such as a hurricane. Or regulating food safety. Or building infrastructure. Or providing retirement income based on a person's working history and contributions.

No, Republican "values" are not my values. Rather they reflect who Republicans are and what they stand for: extremist views, mean, vindictive, petty and militaristic.

POLL FINDS 63% REPUBLICAN VOTERS APPROVE GEORGE BUSH'S PRESIDENCY

Yesterday's The New York Times carried the a report written by Jackie Calmes and Megan Thee on the results of the latest NYTimes/CBS poll.

Democrats should focus on the poll's results because they clearly show that many if not most Republicans are extremists in their views towards the most important questions facing the electorate.

For example, 79% of Republican convention delegates approve of the way that George W. handles his job as president. But how about Republican voters? Some 63% approve George Bush. I find this amazing and at the same time troubling. How could anyone approve Bush or his management of the White House? This means that most Republicans approve George Bush's use of waterboarding and torture, his predilection for extraordinary rendition, his denial of Constitutional rights, his locking up prisoners without trial or charge, without benefit of counsel, without access to the federal courts. And how about Bush's sexing up the evidence to justify the War in Iraq? How can anyone, even a Republican, approve these un-American ways, practices and values?

Yet these same Republicans are nothing if not consistent. As to the war in Iraq, 70% of Republican voters approve taking military action in Iraq. Republican delegates approve 80%. Do these guys every read the papers? Do they really believe the Bush bull that Iraq is and was the center of the "war on terror?" Even though Saddam had nothing to do with bin Laden and even though Saddam was more secularist than Islamist, people like Dick Cheney still try to claim a connection. Like Dick Cheney, these Republicans must get all their news from FOX. Together with their energy mantra, Drill, drill, drill," they also seem to shout, like John McCain, their militaristic "Bomb, bomb, bomb," in response to the world's problems.

ATTACK SARAH PALIN AS ANOTHER MEAN REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST

This is my third post today on Sarah Palin. But I want to bring to your attention a perceptive blog by George Lakoff on The Huffington Post today.

Lakoff believes that Democrats misunderstand the whole electoral process when they stress issues and world realities. The election is not about objective realities but about voters' perceptions of code words. In other words, the Democrats must frame the issues in terms of voters' perceptions.

Writes Lakoff:

"Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview."

So it is not about Palin's supposed lack of experience or knowledge of foreign affairs, but about how voters perceive her. Lakoff believes that it is important for Democrats to correctly and accurately frame Palin as just another Republican extremist meany. Palin is just another Bush/Cheney clone who thinks everything can be solved at the barrel of a gun. Someone who wants to privatise Social Security because she chooses not to see people in need who need Social Security retirement income to just get by. Someone who thinks that the hospital emergency room is the answer to people who cannot afford health insurance.

Palin is a Republican mean extremist who would gladly deprive people of food stamps at the same time she gives upper incomes a tax break. Someone in the mold of Bush/Cheney who thinks that campaigners for civil rights are just uncivil troublemakers. Or like Phil Graham, McCain's economic advisor, who thinks those who complain about the economy and the housing crisis are whiners.

Talk about mean and extremist. Can anyone better fit the description than Sarah Palin?