Don't Be Stupid

I'm tired.

I'm tired of ideologues who insist on absolutely no compromise when it comes to our President. They either have no idea how the world works, or they are so high and mighty/holier than thou, they could care less about reality. They are no better than Grover Norquist tax pledge signing Republicans. And I'm tired of hearing from fellow Democrats or liberals or progressives, PUMAs or whatever they want to call themselves, saying that they're soooo discouraged by President Obama that they're going to show him come November by staying home or refusing to vote for the President. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

They'd rather cut their ideological noses off their idiotic faces and let Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney win the election, than cast a vote for someone who's apparently been such a disappointment in their eyes. You know, because under a Republican president, we would have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell; because under a Republican president, we would have managed to pass the start of a universal health care system that previous presidents have tried and failed to enact over the last hundred years; because under a Republican president, we would have gotten a law in place protecting pay discrimination toward women in the workplace; because under a Republican president, we would still be in our 29 straight month of private sector job growth after shedding over 800,000 jobs a month by the end of the previous administration.

I could go on, but you get my point. Despite certain disappointments in an ideological fantasy world some of us would love to live in, the fact of the matter is that President Obama has been more successful in pushing a center/left agenda than any previous Democratic president.

I had been thinking about this for a while now and lo and behold, my co-blogger Jennifer, was on the same page and hit the nail on the head with a Facebook update today.

It's been a long time since I've invited people to unfriend me. But if you're a Democrat who would even consider not voting in the Presidential election because you're disappointed in Obama, then you're a disappointment to me and I don't want your energy around here. So, you can unfriend me. It's called time-management.

Unfortunately, someone didn't think her statement through and commented:

Don't forget the importance of listening to opposing/different opinions to avoid being in a self-reinforcing bubble.

Jennifer's response:

I reject the suggestion that I don't listen to opposing/different opinions. I reject the implication that I am in a bubble. Believe me, I hear/read opposing views as much or MORE than I hear agreement. What I clearly stated above is my refusal to make time in my life for people who won't vote for him because of a single issue. I didn't say they have to agree with him on everything. I didn't say that they have to agree with me. I said that anyone who won't vote for him because of an issue, or who would encourage others not to vote because of a single issue, are not worth my time. It has NOTHING to do with disagreement. It has to do with being so fucking stupid as to not vote at all. I really dislike the LEAP from me saying not voting is unacceptable to me saying disagreement is unacceptable. I mean I REALLY dislike that leap. So don't fucking go there with me. 

I have more respect for Republicans who actually believe Romney would be a better choice than I do for Democrats who DON'T FUCKING VOTE! It's about the vote, not the disagreement. GOT IT?! 

And furthermore, just because I don't agree with much of the dissent and disappointment and frustration does not mean I am oblivious, to it, naive to it, in denial of it. Guess what? I can actually disagree with people, too. Just because I am more supportive of Obama doesn't mean I haven't given a great deal of thought and research to each issue. Just because I disagree with the disappointed left doesn't mean I have blocked their reasoning from my life. Just because I filter how much I discuss it does not mean I filter their perspective. I just choose not to waste my time trying to convince Democrats the value of FUCKING VOTING! 

The leap you made is equivalent to people who say gay marriage will lead to man on dog sex. It's ridiculous and unfounded and fucking insulting.

I think Jennifer was insulted.

Let's not forget that a Romney presidency would pretty much destroy the Supreme Court as we know it. Currently, we have eight justices split evenly on the scales of justice with a ninth who straddles the balance point. A spine-shuddering thought like a President Romney might tilt the Supreme Court balance to the ultra-conservative side for the next forty years. Do we really want to add to a Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas style court?

Think about that before you decide to stay home on Election Day to make your fruitless point.

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 12, 2011

Women’s History Month & Fair Pay

Shameful GOP Voting - The Ledbetter Act

I missed this a couple of days ago and thank the Rude Pundit for reminding me.

On Tuesday, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named after a Goodyear tire factory supervisor who only after nearing retirement, found out she was paid less than men in her position. She filed a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In their infinite wisdom, the SCOTUS disregarded the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and ruled against Ledbetter citing that a statute of limitation, 180 days from the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her counterparts, had expired. In the Supreme Court's blind eyes of justice, she was 18½ years too late.

While congress attempted to pass a bill to overturn that decision, the George W. Bush White House opposed the bill and would have vetoed it. But the Obama White House thought otherwise and President Obama signed the bill into law on Thusday.

Equal work for equal pay, right? Well, at least some our Congressional Representatives still believe that to be the case. The Ledbetter Act past 250-177 in the House, and 61-36 in the Senate. Of those combined 316 yea votes, 97.5% came from Democrats. The Repubicans were of course looking out for the employer, afraid of lawsuits "decades" after the fact, even though the bill states that the statute of limitations is now 180 days from the last paycheck received, not the first. As Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski said, “If you don’t want to be sued, don’t discriminate.”

But what really galls me about the 213 combined votes against the bill is not the typical Republican thought of corporations first, although that's bad enough as it is. It's the fact that 16 female congresswomen voted against it. (There were no female senators that voted against it.)


House
Michele Bachmann, (Republican-Minnesota)
Judy Borg Biggert, (Republican-Illinois)
Marsha Blackburn, (Republican-Tennessee)
Mary Bono Mack, (Republican-California)
Shelley Moore Capito, (Republican-West Virginia)
Jo Ann Emerson, (Republican-Missouri)
Mary Fallin, (Republican-Oklahoma)
Virginia Foxx, (Republican-North Carolina)
Kay Granger, (Republican-Texas)
Lynn Jenkins, (Republican-Kansas)
Cynthia M. Lummis, (Republican-Wyoming)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, (Republican-Washington)
Candice Miller, (Republican-Michigan)
Sue Myrick, (Republican-North Carolina)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (Republican-Florida)
Jean Schmidt, (Republican-Ohio)
Virginia (Ginny) Brown-Waite, (Republican-Florida) DID NOT VOTE

Way to look out for equal rights, huh?

I respectfully submit that these women immediately put forth a bill that would cut their salaries by the same percentage that Lilly Ledbetter was shorted for her nineteen years of service to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. If they don't believe that Ledbetter should have been receiving equal pay for the same work her male colleagues were doing, then these female Republican representatives should get paid less for the same obstructionist work of their male Republican counterparts.