Changes the Republican Party Must Make Part 1: Abortion

   Not long ago I was helping a friend campaign for a county row office and I had the chance to observe first hand the strangest of things; the single-mindedness of the one issue voter. I cannot tell you how many people asked this exact question "what is your stance on abortion?" but suffice to say it was a rather embarrassing number.

   I found it embarrassing because I consider myself to be a conservative republican. Strangely, these people asking that question of somebody running for a county row office, probably consider themselves the same. Therein lies the embarrassment. People like me will get lumped in with people like them.

   You see, I know that a county row officer has absolutely zero say in the abortion debate, The simple fact is, nobody other than the Supreme Court does. So why was it such an issue for them? I couldn't say even though many of those that asked are in fact pals of mine. The sad reality is that they happen to be single issue voters and frankly I wish all single issue voters would just stay home on election day regardless of what their issue is. They are a menace and an relentless boat anchor dragging down whichever party they attach themselves to. 

   I am not denigrating the beliefs of the pro life movement as I happen to agree with them with a scant few exceptions. The simple fact is that no sane person can honestly say they are pro abortion period. But alas, this isn't the black and white issue both sides would like to present it as. Like life, it is filled with grey areas. The exceptions I have to my anti-abortion stance are in the instance of rape or incest. I cannot fathom that anybody has the right to tell the victim of such horrendous crimes that their suffering must be prolonged and that they must actually give birth to a permanent reminder of their darkest moments. Is it the baby's fault? No, it sure isn't but to every rule there must be at least one exception and in this instance there must be at least two.

I now offer an example of pandering to one side of the movement that was definitely a contributing factor to Romney losing. A major douche by the name of Akin actually said that women have a natural defense against getting pregnant in the instance of legitimate rape. I've heard every explanation as to "what he actually meant" and none of them are true. It was a declarative statement designed to elicit a  positive response from the pro life voters. Some of whom may actually believe such utter nonsense. What that horse's ass didn't count on was people being able to see the other side of the statement which was essentially that any woman that got pregnant from being raped must have secretly wanted/enjoyed it and thus became pregnant. It was a terminally stupid thing to say and in fact undermines the very people he was trying to court.

If Conservative Republicans want to change Roe v. Wade and actually have some impact in saving babies, they need to pick the battles to fight and concede those that cannot be won. It isn't rocket science. It will appeal to the vast majority which would demand a new look at the supreme court case. Simply, fight to ban all late term abortions. Fight to make adopting an American baby simpler and cheaper than going out of the country. Fight to make abortion for teens the same as any other medical procedure meaning they must have parental consent for the procedure. Bring into the fight  that women's birth control is now covered by Obamacare and there really isn't any legitimate reason for getting an abortion. I think if you screwed up (pun intended) and got knocked up, you should take responsibility. Besides, who knows, maybe the child you may have can grow up to be the one that cures cancer or invents a tachyon drive.  Before anybody points it out, yes I know that birth control isn't 100% effective. To you I say that abstinence is in fact the only 100% effective form of birth control but we don't want to teach that do we?

Once we can get the douchenozzle politicians to quit pandering to special interest groups I think our elections will start to straighten themselves out. The next part of this series is coming soon. Stay tuned.

More Obamacare with a dash of Arlen Spector for taste

If Obamacare is so simple and only focused on a few things, why is the proposal 1,100 pages?
Seems like a lot of paper for a bill that is, as Pres. Obama says, going to provide for 1. Insurance cos. have to cover pre-existing conditions 2. they can't cancel you, and 3. Well, 3 varies depending on what day of the week it is and who he is addressing.

I have to wonder why that is. Seems to me you could pretty much cover that with a couple pages. Where is the transparency he promised? Why aren't they spelling out the exact specifics? The short answer they give is that they haven't hammered them all out yet. The true answer is they won't do that until it is too late.

Should we expect any different? Apparently not when newly minted but always was democrat, Arlen Spector says things like "These protesters at the town hall meeting aren't representative of all Americans". Arlen, we've been pals for years and that has got to be the dumbest thing that you've ever said. With 81-82% of Americans totally against Obama's plan, I'd say the protesters couldn't be more representative of John Q. I love that the left's wildest moonbats (read Pelosi and Reid) will stop at nothing until they pass this turd. They will be doing for the Republicans what George W. Bush did for the Democrats. If it weren't for the trillion dollars worth of damage it will do, I'd help them advance this idiocy!!! We'd probably get about 80 seats in the Senate!!!!!!!!!