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?

HOW COULD ANY WOMAN VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AFTER RUSH LIMBAUGH?

After what Rush Limbaugh said about the female law student who was arguing for full insurance coverage of contraceptives, how could any woman in the United States possibly vote for Republicans?

It is clear that Rush Limbaugh functions as mouthpiece and spokesman for many Republican legislators if not for the Republican Party itself.  When he calls Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut, Limbaugh shows not only how he feels about women who disagree with his positions, but he also exposes the disdain that some Republicans, especially some Republican men, have towards intelligent women.

CNBC'S LARRY KUDLOW EXHIBITS MEANNESS OF REPUBLICAN "VALUES"

I tune into CNBC to see how the markets are doing but I studiously avoid checking in anytime I know that "the great American patriot," Larry Kudlow, is on air.

Kudlow is insufferable in his defense of capitalism and its attendant "values." Keep government out of health care, job creation, stimulus, financial regulation, ad nauseam.

I can only imagine how Kudlow feels about Social Security Retirement Income. I bet that he still opposes having the government return salary deductions to Americans who are over 65. This guy would deny his own mother social security retirement checks if they have the U.S. Treasury's seal on them.

And don't even mention Medicare. Kudlow is surely against it. If he had his way, there would be no Medicare for seniors. Just let the free market take care of itself.

Kudlow hates the stimulus, hates the unions, hates the proposed Obama health-care overhaul. If Larry Kudlow represents true Republican values, how can any thinking and caring person ever vote Republican?

SOME REPUBLICANS EXCUSE ACT OF TERRORIST WHO CRASHED PLANE INTO IRS CENTER IN AUSTIN

How come Republican crazies have not denounced the IRS hater who crashed his single engine plane into IRS offices in Austin? Apparently to many Republican ideologues, the crasher does not qualify as a "terrorist" and his attempt to take lives of the IRS workers as "terrorism." Imagine if the perpetrator were a Muslim from the Middle East with a name like Omar or Muhammed!

Here is a story by the BBC on the crash.

BANKRUPT REPUBLICANS CALL OBAMA DEMOCRATS "SOCIALISTS"

Larry Kudlow, that Republican ideologue on CNBC, calls the Democratic budget and tax policy "socialistic." As the use of this term seems to date Kudlow back about 50 years, I would not think other Republicans would pick this up. Does anyone out there in Republican land really believe that universal health care is "socialistic?" Or that a progressive tax policy that increases income taxes on people who make over $250K indicative of an unfair "soak the rich?" Or how about establishing more regulation for banks and brokerage firms to prevent stuff like the Bernie Madoff scam?

But in today's Week in Review in The New York Times, Mark Leibovich writes:

"The early fiscal activism of President Obama has provided a heap of new fodder for anti-socialists, effectively turning a useful label meant to inspire fear into a we-told-you-so taunt. Last week’s blizzard of economic developments — the administration’s new budget, its partial takeover of another major bank — was fortuitous timing for CPAC, which ran from Thursday to Saturday, giving conservatives an opportunity to give full-throated voice to this re-fashioned refrain."

This is all too reminiscent of hearing people in Queens and Brooklyn some 50 years ago criticize FDR and the Democrats for their socialistic programs. Back then, providing social security retirement income was a radical communistic program for some Irish Catholics at St. Thomas parish who thought that Joe McCarthy was a Catholic saint and that there should be a law against Jews, Italians and Puerto Ricans moving in and "disrupting" Irish neighborhoods like Woodhaven.

Writes Leibovich:

"Of course, there is nothing remotely new about “socialism,” or the willingness of conservatives to hit the opposition over the head with the term, just as the name callers among the liberals have bludgeoned conservatives as “fascists,” “fundamentalists” and “plutocrats” and whatnot for decades.

"But the socialist bogey-mantra has made a full-scale return after a long stretch of relative dormancy. . . .

"“The right would use ‘socialist’ against Franklin Roosevelt all the time in the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a financial historian at Manhattan College in the Bronx. “To hear him referred to as Comrade Roosevelt during that period was not unusual.” But while socialism is being invoked repeatedly now, Mr. Geisst said, it is a less potent slam than it once was."

Calling Obama and Democrats "socialists" seems to highlight a lack of coherent and rational opposition in the Republicans these days. The Republican platform seems thin and weak. Other than tax cuts, what do Republicans stand for? They have no program for the forty million without health care, they have no program to restore the economy, they have no program for withdrawal from Iraq. So in the absence of any thought-out policies, Republicans fall back like children and start to call names.

Leibovich reports:

"“Americans are just genetically opposed to socialism,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group headed by Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader.

"Mr. Kibbe had just finished moderating a CPAC panel in a packed ballroom on Friday morning called “Bailing Out Big Business: Are We All Socialists Now?”

"After four speakers took turns whacking the S-beast, Mr. Kibbe ended the proceeding with a quick survey:

“If anyone here is not a socialist, raise your hand,” he said, before heading off to a reassuring mass of palms."

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.