The Slugfest: Hilary Rosen vs Ann Romney

If you haven’t heard of Democratic Strategist Hilary Rosen or the comments she made about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life, then you aren’t paying attention.  It has been all over the news lately.  Her words started off a virtual ‘fire-storm’ as the pundits would call it.  Everyone from the right and the left has scrambled to be heard on this issue.  And yet, the excessive heat hasn’t caused the nuclear core of political punditry to reach critical mass and melt a hole to the core of the earth. Shocking.

As soon as the words were uttered you would have thought Atlas faltered in his grip on our fragile planet. But then the day grew dark in natural order and the sun rose in the morning just as it always had.  But the indignation continued as Democrats distanced themselves from Ms. Rosen’s opinions while Republicans attributed them to the president and his staff.  And the flurry of angry rhetoric continued again through the night and into the next day and so on and so on, ad nauseum.

You may ask yourself what was in Hilary Rosen’s words that created such pandemonium that conservative mothers were shielding their children’s ears and shouting in disgust.  If you must know I’ll tell you.  But first, prepare yourself, send your children from the room for it’s too hideous to be allowed into the light of day, and because the quote follows these three periods…

“What you have,” she told Anderson Cooper on Wednesday night, “is Mitt Romney running around the country saying: ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’

“Guess what?” Rosen observed. “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

Crazy, Right?

Okay, okay, slow down a minute. Take a deep breath and hold it because I have a confession to make: I didn’t have the same visceral reaction as the rest of the country.  That’s right.  When I heard her comments I found myself nodding my head in agreement.  And for a while I couldn’t understand why.  It isn’t that I couldn’t foresee the Wrath of the Con brewing in the wings.  The minute her statement met the blogosphere I imagined Rush Limbaugh’s puffed up face and disconnected utterances, spewing more fury at the Democratic Party.  And though I recognized the blitzkrieg assembling on the right side of the aisle, I still didn’t understand why.  Was I missing something?  Surely I had to ponder this more with an honest eye on my own values and experiences as a woman who has both worked and been one of those stay-at-home moms.

Shouldn’t I be defending women who choose nobly to stay at home with their children and raise them with values that ensure their success in the world?  Of course I agree with women who make it their responsibility to raise their offspring rather than allowing society to instill their own sense of right and wrong.  And I do agree that being a mother is a difficult job.  Jubilant interaction with other adults and coworkers is instantly replaced by baby-talk and reading a whole math textbook in order to assist your child with his homework. (Damn you new math!  You’re destroying my aging brain cells and the faith my son once had in me!)  Stay-at-home moms give up a lot to be there for their children. 

As I’ve thought about this, and the more I’ve listened to what is being said in the media with regard to this matter, though, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not the one missing something, It’s everyone else.  You see, the reason I was silently agreeing with Ms. Rosen was because of the content of the discussion, not because I thought she, in any way, believed that stay-at-home moms have it easy.  What Ms. Rosen was saying was that there is a HUGE difference between moms who work and moms who don’t. 

A mom who works outside the home, in most cases, doesn’t have a choice.  It is a matter of feeding and clothing her children and providing health insurance for them that causes her to rise at 5:00am each morning to start her day.  After she has dressed and prepared to leave for work she gets her kids ready to start their day as well. 

She worries about her children as much as the mom who works inside the home.  But she has other things to add to her worries than her daily responsibilities at the office, store, gravel pit, etc… such as whether or not her children have made it home safely from school, or will she return to an empty house and wonder where her babies are.  From personal experience I can tell you that, while she is performing her duties at work and ensuring she’s doing so at a level at or above her male counterparts (so that she can maintain her worthiness status at her job), she’s also worried about whether her kids are finishing their homework and how it was reflecting on their grades.  Because, you see, working mothers care as much as stay-at-home mothers about how well their kids do in school.  But they usually stay up late helping their kids to succeed only to wake up early, early the next morning and start all over again.

The biggest difference, however, between moms in the home and outside the home is the part where she is wondering if her paycheck will be enough to cover their expenses.  Equally concerning is the fear that she isn’t being paid the same as her male counterparts for performing the same tasks.  Is she devalued because she lacks the testosterone to grow a beard or a pair of huevos and instead grew children in her womb and made the more difficult choice of helping her husband to provide a decent life for them?  No wonder there are more women choosing contraceptives to control the timing of their first child in order to establish themselves financially. 

And now, the conservatives who are shouting from the rooftops about the value of women who stay at home with their children are also trying to cut off easier access to birth control through an employer’s insurance, as I’ve mentioned in previous blogs.  These same conservatives are voting against fair pay for women and easy access to the legal system in the event they are discriminated against due to the estrogen they excrete.  These types of legislation that effect working women much more than stay-at-home moms are being proposed by Republicans across this country and Mr. Romney has been either silent on these matters or vehemently opposed to the ones that adversely affect working women across the United States.  Has Ann Romney whispered into his ear for these women?  When I hear the comments coming from his lips I can honestly say that if she is, he isn’t listening.  Should I be surprised? Not at all. During this election cycle I have witnessed the laws enacted and the wars being waged in opposition to the strong opinions of the people who will be voting in November.  Will I be shocked if Mitt Romney doesn’t win the presidency?  In no way, shape or form.  But that’s Only My Opinion.

Weighing in on Trayvon and George

I’ve intentionally stayed far from the argument of who was right or who was wrong in the battle over Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.  That isn’t to say I haven’t voiced my opinion in the private confines of my own home, but I haven’t made any public attempt to weigh in on the discussion as there was so much to digest and I hope not to put my foot in my mouth when I’m posting on this blog.  I can honestly say I haven’t always been successful at straying from the foot ingesting processes, though.

What has swayed my decision to go public on this matter are the recent developments in this very controversial and explosive situation.  First there is the matter of media interest.  Of course the voracious hounds would have their say in what is transpiring daily.  Sensationalism is key to winning the ratings game.  But when I read that Fox News referred to a group of protestors – Neo Nazis calling themselves the National Socialist Movement – as a civil rights group patrolling Sanford, I was dumbfounded.  Since when have Neo Nazis been considered champions of civil rights?  So when George Zimmerman decided to give Sean Hannity, political pundit of the Fox News Channel, an exclusive interview, I began to shake my head.  Fox has already shown their bias where race and the circumstances of this case are concerned. It certainly doesn’t help him one bit.

Additionally, the idea that Zimmerman’s attorneys – the ones who have spent most of their time turning the discussion about this situation into a trial on the actions of Martin rather than centering the discourse around focusing on the facts – have decided to dump their client due to his erratic behavior makes me scratch my chin.  It appears that Zimmerman has set up an account through Paypal and Face Book to help pay for his defense, granted interviews without notifying or garnering approval from legal counsel as well as cutting off all contact with his attorneys.  This form of behavior is a sign that Zimmerman is not working on all cylinders. 

First off, let me say that I was born into privilege.  Not because of money as there was little of that when I was growing up, but because of the pasty color of my skin.  The opportunities for me were far greater than others of minority status, greater than those afforded others in this country such as Trayvon Martin.  When I was in high school, if I had been caught with an empty baggy I couldn’t have imagined the administration of my school questioning the residue of that baggy, let alone testing it for traces of marijuana as they did with Trayvon.  As an adult I have found that, if I fall and end up on welfare, those who sit in their towers to judge the underlings will say, “There, there, all will be fine…” If my skin were more of an olive hue or any number of shades darker, the discussion would be quite different.  In this day and age, as with the others before, I would be vilified and denigrated.  Why is that?

I cringed when I heard the statement by temporarily removed police chief, Bill Lee, saying that he wished Trayvon had continued on to his father’s home and not confronted Zimmerman.  He said the outcome would have been different.  And yet, all along I have thought, if only Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher and not followed Martin, the outcome would have been different.  Why was the onerous on Trayvon, a 17 year old kid, to make the right choice in this matter rather than the grown-up? He was being followed by a man, an adult with a gun, who had no reason to follow him.  He was probably tired of being labeled because of the color of his skin and tired of being afraid to walk in his own neighborhood because there was always the chance someone would mistake him for a thug because he was darker than you or I.

I think back to when I was his age.  I was a respected, yet feisty, high school student who wouldn’t have thought twice about confronting someone who threatened me or any of the others around me.  I had been known to do so on many occasions in my past.  Had I been followed by a George Zimmerman I would have been no different than Martin and would have turned around to ask him why.  In my circumstance, however, my skin would have been pale in the rain and encroaching dusk.  Zimmerman would have thought twice about raising the weapon to my chest or wrestling me to the ground.  As a matter of fact – I have no doubt – there wouldn’t have even been a conversation about whether or not he would have shot me because the fact remains, being that I’m not a person of color, he wouldn’t have even considered me a threat.  George Zimmerman would have never followed me through that complex because he wouldn’t have made the prejudgment that I was a threat to his community because I’m not black. 

As human beings we can’t help ourselves when we size up another person.  We learn from an early age to analyze any and all situations prior to jumping in, protecting ourselves from a nest of rattlesnakes if we’re not careful about what we do or where we leap.  On that fateful night in February, George Zimmerman sized up Trayvon Martin and made a grave error in his assessment.  His greatest mistake was in not leaving it alone and following the boy until one of them turned up dead.  And now he compounds his troubles by continuing to jump into the fray, or a nest of rattlers as I see it.  All who are involved in this matter should come clean and do the right thing.  All of the evidence should be honestly presented and allowed to be reviewed by an unbiased eye.  And then, whatever justice is necessary within the confines of current state and federal laws, should be administered fairly and expeditiously.  No more, no less.  Only then can this nation begin to move beyond this and have open and honest discussions about how we can change so that something like this doesn’t ever happen again.

Power to the Robe: Justices who Become Pundits over Healthcare Mandates

Listening to the arguments from Supreme Court Justices this week, regarding the States’ contention over a Healthcare Mandate, I find myself biting my tongue and fighting the urge to shout at the television screen or the article on the monitor of my computer. Why are Americans so limited in their memory of facts when it comes to politics?  Ugh!

I will state it again, I’m a moderate, but I find myself so angry about the loss of facts versus rhetoric when it comes to the conservative agenda. Shouldn’t we expect a shred of decorum as we listen to Senator Ron Johnson’s, pleas for a shred of freedom? All this pomp and circumstance over a mandate for Americans to purchase healthcare. Am I fooled by this attempt at righteous indignation? Not in the least.

Remember in my previous post, in some states members of the conservative party want to force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds before they are able to have an abortion, regardless of whether she wants one or her doctor feels it is medically necessary?  Is that not the government trying to take away not only every shred of freedom from a woman but also every shred of decency?  The laws springing up across our country in attempt to shame women into not requesting contraception from her employer’s healthcare provider are merely a sequel to the vaginal probing promised by republican governors in various red states. Arizona not only wants women to submit personal medical information to their employers about their non-contraceptive use of birth control but they also want women to pay a ‘processing fee’ in order to do so.  Where is the indignation there, Senator Johnson?

As Rachel Maddow so astutely reported on her April 26^th show, video evidence remains of members of the republican party touting the virtues of an individual mandate requiring ‘individuals’ instead of ‘corporations’ to provide their own health insurance. These conversations occurred in the early to mid 90s and Senator Chuck Grassley sponsored a health-care bill in 1993 and continued to extol the virtues of a mandate as late as 2009. Even Rick Santorum supported the mandate in 1994. And, not only was Mitt Romney the first American politician to frame a Universal Healthcare plan, he stated on more than one occasion that it was one that would work for the whole country. So is a universal healthcare plan good or bad for the country?

I’m one of those who doesn’t like anything being forced on me. Vaginal probing or healthcare. At one time I worked for a company that required a large monthly payment, high deductibles and copays while covering very little of the services an everyday person would use such as well-baby checkups, immunizations, women’s healthcare, etc… I found it cheaper to go it alone. In the cost/benefit analysis I realized that paying directly to my doctor would cost me less immediately and in the long run, barring any tragic medical events. Under the current healthcare law there would be many who are offered healthcare that is substandard, such as the one I had been offered. Any employer should be embarrassed to even suggest it their employees.

Yet, although the healthcare mandate of the ‘Obamacare’ Bill has the provision requiring people to purchase healthcare it doesn’t have any teeth should an individual decide not to buy in. In other words: if you choose not to purchase healthcare there is no penalty. The Obama Administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that anyone choosing not to purchase their own healthcare would not be penalized in any way. This is not the case with Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan or his idea of the plan that would work for America.

This is what I feel the Justices on the Supreme Court are missing, or at least appear to be missing in there very dismissive discussions with the Solicitor General this week. I find it difficult to think that a Supreme Court Justice wouldn’t consider recusing themselves when they or their significant others are in bed with the very organizations that are lobbying against the matter they are hearing at that moment. And their comments are more than indicative of their reluctance to see this case with a blind eye to partisanship.

As they smugly banter about the idea of allowing people without health insurance to die rather than receive healthcare at an ER at the expense of the members of society who do have insurance, I wonder if they are intending to promote that idea and whether the callousness in their demeanor is sincere. I know how painful it is to watch children dying because the parents don’t have healthcare. When my daughter had her first heart transplant my husband was in the military. There were many others waiting for kidneys or livers who didn’t have the same luxury government provided healthcare. To see them wasting away while their parents attended fund raisers hundreds of miles from their child’s hospital bed was more than my heart could bear.  If Justice Scalia had any form of a heart beating inside the cavity beneath his head and neck, he wouldn’t be able to even suggest such a thing. And yet he did.

My faith in our justice system fades every day as I witness the politics that have poisoned our supposedly non-partisan court systems. Blindness to truth and legal merit makes our justices no more than prostitutes to the highest bidder. How can we ever take them seriously in circumstances that matter when we can’t even rely on them to make a legitimate decision in cases such as this? I can only sigh and hope this election year passes more expediently than it appears it will and that the masses in this country will begin to recognize a shill when they see one. And that is only my opinion.

Am I glad I’m a woman?

I just read a blog by John Scalzi called WHATEVER still running against the wind. For yesterday’s post he responded to a reader asking him why he enjoys being a man and what he envies about women. I was very impressed by his answer. Now, I have to say, he uses “language” that some may find offensive so if you go to his blog from this link, be prepared if you’re not used to cursing. What I enjoyed most was his answer.

When he responded he made it very clear that he is more than glad to be a man. His greatest reasoning behind comfort with his “manness” was that no one cares about his body or what he does to it. He makes the argument that being white, heterosexual male is one of the easiest jobs there are. He doesn’t have to work harder to be paid better, nobody cares how he dresses or how much clothing he has on his body and nobody cares about his sex life, how much he is having or how he responds to the consequences of his having had sex. Interesting concept. I hadn’t really thought in those terms.

As I’ve listened to the members of Congress carry on about women’s reproductive systems and whether or not women should be “having so much sex” that they need contraceptives, it didn’t occur to me to question their integrity with regard to their own sexual behavior. No matter what the situation, the onus always tends to fall on the shoulders of the female in the relationship to ensure an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur. 

Rick Santorum’s billionaire, Foster Friess, recently said that in his day women used aspirin as a contraceptive. They held it between their knees. At the time I wasn’t overly offended about his statement because, as a woman, I’ve grown accustomed to hearing men speak in this manner. If I hear that statement today, however, I would wonder why it wasn’t the man who was required to hold the aspirin between his knees. Why always the woman?

And with the continued argument over whether or not an insurance company should be compelled to provide contraceptives for women without a co-pay I haven’t hesitated to think about the question as to why they shouldn’t, since they provide Viagra and Cialis free of charge. If it is proper for men to have a pill provided for them so that they can have hours of sex, why is it wrong to provide women the antidote to becoming pregnant?

In Arizona they have proposed a new law that Governor Jan Brewer intends to sign allowing employers to require a note from the woman’s doctor or an explanation from the woman as to why she needs to have contraceptives provided to her by their insurance company. Have you ever heard of a man having to explain anything of this nature to his employer?  This whole ridiculous matter has gone too far.

Several months ago I tried an experiment. I had been posting on comment boards under the name Bobbi with a female avatar. Whenever I posted in this manner my comments were met with vile, and at times vulgar, replies from men and women. The comments were unimaginably disrespectful and demeaning to me as a woman from both sexes who replied. After several weeks I began posting comments as Bob and changed the avatar to a neutral one. Suddenly I was brilliant. I still had angry posts from other men and some women but they were much more respectful than what I had received in the past. It wasn’t that I changed the way I posted or the words I would use. All remained the same and yet I was more respected by others, especially those who agreed with me. I have to say I haven’t returned to the female avatar.

From time to time I’ll have a person who vehemently disagrees with me, go to my profile and see that I am a woman after all. Strangely enough, they are taken aback that they’ve been arguing with a woman as if she was a man. I’m surprised at their sudden respect they hadn’t shown when I was overtly female or covertly neuter, assumed to be male. It proved to me that there are instant assumptions made when a person sees who is posting, their particular gender, rather than what is being said. Once the man is sure he’s met his match in another Alpha-male he gives the respect that is deserved while finding a way to sink their teeth into the jugular. And, even after they have learned I’m not the Alpha-male, the respect of a warrior in battle remains once they learn they were bested by a ‘girl’. I can only laugh.

Regardless of the lack of respect I receive as being a member of the ‘weaker sex,’ I am a woman and I enjoy being a woman. I’m tired of men being concerned about what I do with my body and I’m tired of my opinion being minimized because I don’t have as much testosterone as they. Yet, I enjoy being capable of thinking like a man while still enjoying the perks I’ve had in my life, of the ability to carry a baby inside of me. I also enjoy the good fight to try and bring a greater awareness to those who are still hung up on women asking for permission to use their bodies as it was meant to be used, and for the ability drop the aspirin from between our knees and tell the man it’s his turn.

Government Mandated Healthcare for Women

As the Republican Primaries reach a furious pitch, we see more mud being tossed in the wind and even at the proverbial ‘wall’ these days.  The idea that candidates would toss out subjects that are near and dear to hearts of the voters is not only typical, it is to be expected.  Thusly, there were no surprises when Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, decided to highly politicize the matter of the Obama Administration mandating that religious organizations, such as Catholic Hospitals and Universities, provide free contraception to include the ‘Morning After Pill.’  When I read that this was the case a red flag instantly went up. 

There is, and has always been, the idea that government is not allowed to infringe upon a religious organization’s right to practice their belief.  When it comes to Catholicism it is widely understood that they believe that birth control interferes with God’s plan of procreation.  To some it is considered murder to interfere with the potential life that could be generated by a sexual act.  According to Wikipedia, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative.”  This order precludes any form of sex act that does not lead to the joining of an ovum to sperm.

With the federal government issuing an order requiring Catholic institutions that provide insurance to their employees to include contraception, they have thrown down the gauntlet.  There is a small matter of religious freedom that is a material part of the First Amendment of our Constitution.  So how is it that they are able to circumvent that clear order to do no harm where our religious institutions are concerned?  I may be wrong but I believe this is their reasoning...

Catholic Church hospitals and universities, as well as those run by others with religious affiliations, don’t only hire employees of their faith but those of varying faiths as well as those of no faith.  Although the 1^st Amendment prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion, it  also includes any law that requires the establishment of a religion.  It has been interpreted that the 1^st Amendment establishes that a US citizen has freedom of and from religion.  The portion of the clause with respect to barring the establishment of a religion, however, speaks to the government favoring any particular religion, not giving those who have no religion any freedoms in that respect. 

How does that apply, then, to this matter in particular?  Well, if a person who is employed by a Catholic Church Hospital or University is precluded from acquiring contraception under their employer-sponsored healthcare plan, and within their own religious beliefs they are capable of utilizing such contraception, then the Catholic Church is infringing upon their religious rights.  Not buying it?  Well, let’s put it another way.

Under the healthcare bill that was passed by the Obama Administration, and is currently being incrementally instituted, all employer-sponsored healthcare plans must include free contraception and women’s healthcare.  When a church becomes an employer and, as part of their employee benefits, elects to provide healthcare to their employees they are required to follow current federal and local healthcare laws.  Is it legal?  Yes.  Is it moral?  Hmmm, hard to say.

Regardless of my opinion on their beliefs with respect to contraception, I find it difficult to get beyond the idea of forcing them to provide a service they consider to be equivalent to murder.  Yes, women do deserve to have their healthcare needs met.  We deserve to have trust in our doctor that he will do what is best, including providing contraception we may need under any type of circumstance. 

Additionally, there are some in our society whose lives would be jeopardized by pregnancy.  These women should avoid such a situation if they want to continue to survive.  To deny contraception to those segments of our population is, in fact, playing God as you are forcing that woman to choose between her life and remaining celibate.  I can tell you that celibacy does not go over too well in any marriage situation and is thus a difficult position to take.   

So, in my opinion, should there be a government mandate that all employers providing healthcare include free contraception?  Well, I can tell you that this is truly a hard one to fall on either side of the argument.  And yet, I note that Catholic Churches have the option of choosing to not provide benefits to any of their employees and elect to pay into a fund that provides tax breaks for those without employer sponsored health insurance.  If their religious beliefs overrule their good money-sense then there is an option that should satisfy everyone. 

Therefore, I say… yes.  It is a cautious vote in the affirmative, however, but it is, nonetheless, a vote in favor of requiring even the Catholic Church to provide free contraception to all or pay the government to assist women in providing their own health services that include such a provision.

Will Radicalization Split The Republican Party?

Can the Republican Party survive the division within their own ranks?  I’ve been wondering this for quite some time now.

As I’ve watched the recent debates and studied the laws (and the lack there of) coming out of our current Republican controlled Congress – as well as the ensuing rhetoric – I can’t help but wonder why the Republicans are moving so far to the right. 

I know all too well about the Tea Party movement that created an acute awareness of our burgeoning national debt.  And I agree that the Tea Party was the catalyst of the ultra-conservative shift to the lunatic fringe by many members of the aforementioned party.  But what most people are forgetting about is that there are still a number of conservatives who don’t buy into the radical rhetoric of the new far-right.

These ‘left-behinders’ are still conservative in all their rights.  They still believe in the core foundations of the Republican Party.  But I have noticed that they are in a conundrum.  They disagree with much of what the Democratic Party holds dear but they also disagree with the severe turn in their own party’s objectives and priorities.

At one time the Republican Party was revered for its fiscal and moral conscientiousness.  Many turned to them to be the adults in the room.  But lately, there has been a new voice rising out of the party that embodies name-calling, irresponsible decision-making and divisiveness.  I have noticed a new normal in the party that projects their failings onto the opposition.   They seem to have the ideology of ‘If we accuse them of doing this first then it will look silly of them to accuse us, won’t it?’  Well, those who are paying attention aren’t falling for it.

I’ve watched over the past year as accusers of presidential candidates – paid-off victims of sexual harassment, abuse and lurid affairs – have become vilified by the party that they report to still endorse.  There are those who were critical of Clinton during the scandal with Monica Lewinsky, (including myself) however, the Clinton Administration and all others involved in his reelection campaign, never diminished or abused Ms. Lewinsky in the way Herman Cain’s alleged victims have been.  For that I have to respect the former president.  It doesn’t let him off the hook for his indiscretions in office, though.

And yet, with another scandal looming, we have apologists standing at the caution tape, ready to viciously decimate his former spouse for telling her side of the story.  Additionally, Newt Gingrich’s recent comments in the South Carolina debates show nothing but disdain for people of color and the poor, painting them all as lazy and unwilling to work for their sustenance. 

What was more appalling than his words were the cheers and the standing ovation he received from the audience in attendance.  They, meaning Gingrich and the audience, had disregarded the fact that only 29% of food stamp recipients are black.  Why didn’t he tell whites that they should prefer jobs or food stamps also?  Do we really need to ask?

Additionally, if you take a close look at Mitt Romney, you will see a man who has gone from a moderate position to one who protects companies whose fortunes are won at the expense of the laborer, numbers of people being disenfranchised and sent to the unemployment lines so that his corporate-raiding company – Bain Capital – can shift profits to the Cayman Islands to effectuate tax evasion while amassing billions. 

It is mind-numbing to think that Mr. Romney has an economic plan that would give even more tax-breaks to companies like Bain, as well as their benefactors – such as himself.  Tax breaks for the rich while increasing taxes on the ones who can least afford to pay more – that is anyone making $40,000 a year or less – is not a plan in which I can imagine any truly fiscally responsible conservatives emphatically embracing.

Even more radical shifts have occurred within the party on a more local level.  State government interference in elections in Michigan with the assistance of a new Emergency Manager Law has allowed the Republican Governor to throw out the results of any city elections if they don’t like the outcome and replace the elected officials with a dictatorial and appointed (not elected) representation.

The shift to change elections laws under the unproven guise that there was previous election fraud, has been under close scrutiny and many states have repealed these republican-endorsed changes.  Ohio and Maine are the first states to come to mind in circumstances such as these.

Then there’s the driving push to desecrate Collective Bargaining Laws in many of these individual states.  Most people who’ve been keeping an eye on this matter need only google Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker or Ohio Governor, John Kasich.  

In watching this I tend to think of my friends who are staunch republicans in the traditional sense of the word.  I was shocked last year when I found out that a close friend who is one that falls within that conservative group had voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections.  Both my husband and I were floored.  Now, my husband once was a died-in-the-wool-Republican.  But, after what he has witnessed over the past decade, his mind has shifted to the more moderate position of an unaffiliated voter.  But many of our friends haven’t made that move.  And yet I see their feet becoming restless and I wonder how long it will take before they do. 

There are still a number of conservatives out there who don’t cheer allowing a person without health insurance to die, don’t enjoy listening to candidates insulting the poor by ignoring our child labor laws so that they can put their children to work, and haven’t blamed the black community for the number of people on government assistance.  There are actually some who abhor this type of behavior as much as the rest of us.

The inordinate number of signatures repealing Republican Governors and Republican-legislated laws, shows a discontent unlike any this country has seen since the Civil War.  What is more shocking is the number of Republicans who have also called on their party’s legislatures to knock it off or face retribution.  And these people still consider themselves republicans.  But their horror at the insensitivity and radicalization of the new Republican Party has echoed that of the rest of us; moderates and liberals alike.

I can’t help but foresee that the Republican Party has no other recourse but to separate into the more reasonable and moderate faction while leaving the radically divisive members to their own mechanisms.  In doing so, I anticipate an exodus of the surrounding disenfranchised voters who have thusly voted democrat out of necessity and even have changed their political status to ‘unaffiliated;’ resulting in a return to the party of responsibility for these wandering, homeless conservatives.  I may be wrong but, then again, it’s only my opinion.