Here is some background information distributed via the blogosphere:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/46483/franken-amendment-to-protect-victims-of-sexual-assault-passes

http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/477528-30-gop-senators-vote-defend-haliburton-gang-rape-case-4.html

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143164/30_gop_senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

Read how the left views this vile story of a woman offended overseas and her quest for her day in Court.  Then tune in next Friday afternoon for the REAL truth.  Joining me, will be the fabulous:

Michelle Moore

Blog: http://www.atraditionallifelived.com/

@Michelle_Moore on twitter; Smart Girl Politics Awesome and

Political Mommentary

Click on that and read about the dumbest Senator alive.

I was ready for the read, especially since it is positioned as head-to-head combat to Mr. E. Thomas McClanahan.  Mr. McClanahan is unabashedly Republican, but fair and logical in an even manner.  I looked forward to conflict.

Please do your homework by reading the entire perspective of Mr. Robinson’s here.

This thoughtless and ridiculous tirade, which should bolster our enigmatic fire to reposition not REDEFINE our party, can be used to our advantage if we seek to harness the anger.  Please come along as I point out the brazen idiocies which Mr. Robinson projects.

First,  Mr. Robinson seeks to use the defection of Senator Arlen Specter to assert the idea that Republicans are “as a whole” defecting.  He attempts to paint a canvas depicting the Spector-switch as a mirrored effect.  However, as he chronicles the very issue of Mr. Specter’s defection,  Mr. Robinson’s own words seem to reflect the very admission of the Senator: he has flip-flopped only as a way to save his own ass.  He would not win as a Republican, and since retaining power seems first in the mind of the Senator he condemns each Pennsylvania voter by dismissing what seems to be their wish (if you look at the poll numbers.)

I predict that Specter did himself no favors and will ultimately be defeated.  And, for any Democrats out there: We don’t want him.  No one has been crying the blues…. he has been off-message for some time, his voting record is not conservative and frankly; we don’t care.  No one is blogging it and no one is twittering about it.  It doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t speak to any grand exodus and it’s brings to light what the Beltway has to offer these days: putting oneself over their constituency.

If anything, since we Republicans don’t care, I assert that it speaks well of our value to what is right.  We don’t want people in our party to have an -R after their name jufor the sake of power.  We want our party to do the tough work it takes to create a system of INDEPENDENCE, not INTERDEPENDENCE.  And we’ll willingly take a backseat, if for awhile, because the Left’s glittering generalities of change lure the mass to their side for a time.  But, as with all shifting tides, though we will need to be prepared with a new agenda, we will be given an opportunity to fix this massive crevice which is splintering.   We are chiseling away at a tectonic plate.  It will open up and the issues will run forth like lava. 

As for the poll numbers, Republicans do seem to be turning away from the general label “Republican.”  Though, I assert, they don’t want to be “Democrat” either.  The one issue in which Mr. Robinson and I agree is that “Independent” is the growing sector.  I affirm that “Independent” doesn’t have one prevailing definition,  though more people want to be different, inventive, thoughtful.   From what I’m reading, the one theme which does ring true is  that Independents don’t really like either party infighting and backstabbing.  Where have you heard that from?  The President himself.

Which leads me further to the introduction of this article:

…can’t…define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn’t work and that the American people voted to change. ~POTUS

Mr. Robinson champions this particular thought.  I assume he sees it as a great big “sizzle” to the Right.  As if President Obama just licked his finger and then touched his rear and hissed, “ssszzzzzz” to the rabid media.  It is a real nice one-liner.  But, it spits in the face of, I don’t know, ASKING the right if they want to put forward an alternative – working in a bi-partisan fashion, even if we disagree in the end. Let’s just for a moment note that the agenda is filled with new government programs, the likes of which have never been seen by American government.  Therefore, how could they, in fact, be subject of the tired assertions of the last eight years?  What “O” does is assume that by numbers alone, he has what is the face of the general population.  I further predict that this game may well be Obama’s play with political fire.  The people do want us to work together, as ”O” previously said but no longer demonstrates.  It will be on him when inflation hits.  The supposed collaboration of ideas which Mr. Robinson requests will be left littered in the history of Mr. Obama entertaining celebrities and offering the White House lawn to political correctness.  If “O” wants some input, he’d put aside his duties as Hollywood concierge to the Lincoln bedroom and have some policy-makers come around with some economic models.

As an aside, Independents are not turning toward Obama as Robinson asserts.  Quite the opposite: From Rasmussen:

For most of 2006 and 2007, the number of unaffiliateds was at or above the 30% mark. However, during Election 2008, the number of unaffiliateds declined, primarily shifting to the Democratic column.
The Democrats now enjoy a 6.1 percentage point advantage over Republicans. During the first three months of 2009, the Democrats averaged a seven-point advantage.

It is impossible for the gap to shrink without Independents. Additionally, with the help of these independents, the tide of dissatisfaction with the administration, though I readily admit it is at a snails pace, is also rising.  If the Republicans have “refugees” as Robinson asserts, the above proves that the Democrats are crossing the border as well, and they aren’t lining up to lift Obama’s approval numbers.

The one applause Robinson affords the right is in suggesting harmonybetween Republicans and the President on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Hey, Eugene, here’s a memo from Mommentator: That’s because your President has come to our side of the table and hasn’t done anything different that the oh, you know, past, dastardly administration.  You should be pissed off if you voted for change in Iraq from O.  His only change was to soften our methods of tackling terrorism on the front-end and chilling our CIA efforts.  And he did it for foul political purposes.  Noticing a pattern here?

The conclusion is that Robinson supports progressive policies and pretends to want vigorous debate.  Though, he clearly browbeats us as “bitter ideologues” when we assert an opinion, idea, alternative.  Just like his circular logic, Mr. Robinson plays at a policy of altruism: Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

The entire party, along withRobinson, urges the Right to use our principles, but do it in the, “context of today’s America, which is different from the America of 1998, or the America of 1889.”  Well, if it is, we, the Republic lovers, urge an effort to return to those times.  We reject the idea that change for the face of a “new America” is healthy.  

As I see it, Republicans will stand on principle, rising or falling with the ebb and flow of social awareness.  Every once in awhile, the altruistic thought of the left seems attractive. Republicans, more to the point, CONSERVATIVES, want to remain intact upon a tradition that produced this great nation.  It is the reason we are a case study in prosperity.  If we apply our values to today’s time we will only find that we have bastardized prosperity in the name of providing for those that, while our hearts tell us to love them, our SENSE tells us to offer tough love. 

That is why I offer Mommentary.  NOT commentary.  Mothers know it takes tough love to raise a well-mannered child.  And it takes tough love to stay on the path which has served America so well.

This approach is why the conservatives will regain our position, as we have before, to talk to issues rather than generalities.  But Robinson is right: We do need a boost. 

I’m not going to leave you hanging with criticism without a better method to contemplate. Remember, folks, conservatives won with Bush because we innovated new ways of getting our message out.  Likewise, the campaign of Mr. Obama.  If we  get to the substance of say; Health care, and reform it from the INSIDE, eliminating the cost from the inside, taking out the astronomical cost of caring for illegal aliens and restoring doctor/patient relationships without the outside influence of insurance and trial attorneys, we will have a recipe that far outpaces the easy road of “spend and depress” that is being offered by the Democrats.  We must come together on substance and get busy building a road to disseminate the plan.  We have too long been allowing our elected officials to lob one up at the 11th hour.  We need to make a plan addressing this issue and others, and reposition our message. 

Mr. Robinson, we are the party of value, and responsibility. We will not redefine for the sake of winning, as you wish and is the method of your party.  We will reposition our message.  And in doing so, we will march upon you.  You probably won’t even see it coming due to your singing, dancing and jesting as you thumb your nose at us.  It will make the victory sweet to see your face fall from this, your moment of thrill.  But, more so, the victory that is reforming and molding a better America.  You wish to know where you competition is?  You won’t know until it’s too late.

Republicans ONLY corner:  Wanna feel better?  After the Watergate scandal, Americans were fleeing from a party of divide.  According to Pew:

In 1977, more than half of the public (51%) identified themselves as Democrats, compared with barely one-in-five who called themselves Republicans (21%).

We all know what happened just three years later, right?

I find myself sitting quietly at my dining room table, squinting at news coverage thinking, “how the hell are these people going to say they did not know that we were practicing waterboarding as a technique to garner intelligence?”  I mean; I knew about it.  The administration had every kind of lawyer and constitutional aficionado releasing their findings on it.  President Bush said he condoned the use in a myriad or public settings.  Is anyone believing Nancy Pelosi’s insane rants that despite the fact that this middle-aged Mom from fly-over country KNEW about the controversy, somehow it escaped the understanding of the Democrat’s leading Senator?

In my line of work; mothering, there is a simple technique used the world over for helping children learn new knowledge. It’s called putting the information to verse. The ABC’s are a prime example. My personal favorite: the days of the week set to The Macarena.  In the following link, a clever podcaster has helped to bridge the gap of understanding.  I present:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJSXbA9j0Js&feature=player_embedded]

Maybe that will help.

I also thoroughly enjoyed the post from SMART GIRL POLITICS, which called out the dastardly Keith Olberman.  Please read here. 

Here’s the skinny: The Bush Administration operated on their own understanding of the issue which was that it wasn’t torturous, in that we prepare OUR OWN TROOPS by doing it to them in case of their capture.  If you want to outlaw it President Obama, go right ahead.  But you are playing with fire if you want to make it a political issue.  Don’t you have some economic models to be researching?  I certainly have a few ideas I’d like to send over for your review.

So it is with the speech which President Obama gave yesterday in France.  Political pundits are decrying the President as pandering to the Europeans and accuse the President of being on the proverbial campaign trail oversees.  Here is what the President said:

“In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Clearly, there is a problem with the quote. However, Conservative pundits are focusing on the second sentence in the quote: “that America has been arrogant, dismissive and derisive.  Personally, I think it’s possible that maybe we have been, and I’d even argue that there are times where appropriate as a sovereign state.  But, untouched by the conservative pundits, the real problem is with the first part of the quote.  “We have failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world?”  COME ON MR. PRESIDENT!  Europe doesn’t lead on anything except perhaps implementing systems for inflation and expensive regulations for climate change which aren’t returning results.  You can’t just out and out lie!  Europe wants the United States domination of the economic markets to end, and they will not be happy or discontinue the rhetoric until it is so.  In such a state, the leader should say, “In America, there has been a failure to continue dialog when we have fundamentally disagreed.”  That might be a bit more truthful.

NOW, also neglected by conservative pundits is the exact mirror opposite of the above quote, which followed the above quote:

 “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common.”

 Isn’t that exactly true and well stated?  Shouldn’t the President receive some credit for the truth in which he speaks, not just the criticism of possibly anti-American sentiment in the first quote?  The President’s speechwriter has used a tactic to try to build consensus by contrasting the attitudes and sentiments of each country.  Perhaps he goes too far in characterizing Europe as being a model and leader.  However, isn’t he really just giving a compliment so that they can swallow the criticism?  I would argue that this tactic is pretty natural.   

It’s time to criticize folks.  It’s time to stand up.  But, we lose all credibility when we focus on the ammo you want to use and disregard the facts.  My focus is to look at the problems with the administration once they actually make them.  I do not Hannitize the situation by predicting a Socialistic state with  tens of thousands of folks in soup kitchen lines. Though, I am watching closely for government too big, too invasive.

I suppose in some ways, it makes me behind the “news.”  But then, aren’t we really just rewarding extremism by reading and clinging to pundits which are comfortable being wrong as much as being right? Because being the first means that you just throw out vast predictions which may or may not come true.  It makes for sensational TV, but it’s wrecking our ability to harmonize and succeed.

As you will remember from the election, one of many talking points is the idea that the next president will inevitably change the course of American policy simply through the appointment of new Justices on the Supreme Court.  It is an important voting issue, to be sure.  However, each political season, it becomes especially pressing as pundits decry the certainty that this, this is the four years where this justice, or perhaps that justice, will retire (or some other such calamity may occur) which will leave an open seat on the bench.

While etiquette usually allows for speculation, Senator Bunning took it to a new level.  While no television or news cameras were around to catch the flub, it seems that someone in the audience took offense.  The basics are that Senator Bunning was discussing liberal Justice Ginsburg in the context of her recent diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.  He noted that Justice Ginsburg had an aggressive form of cancer and predicted her ultimate demise within 9 months.  Thereby, coming to the conclusion that we would surely be coming head to head with a political controversy over a new appointment.

Sensitivity certainly was not used in the issue.  It is perfectly acceptable to talk about the possibility that “for health reasons” there may be a justice leaving the Supreme Court, and thereby a new vigilance should be exercised by concerned conservatives.  However, using the platform as a way to predict an ultimate time period or to even insinuate that Justice Ginsburg is facing her death, is completely irresponsible.

So, by my count, someone in the audience didn’t like it.  Political Mommentary doesn’t like it.  Well, we aren’t the only ones.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA1thhTs2ck]

While I dismiss Senator Bunning and his comments, I would like to point out that only a party which truly wants to bring some decent proposals to the American Public will censure their own.  We are not here to stand by every Republican and their mistakes.  In fact, it goes to note that the Senator himself has not gone on to spin the truth or create a diversion.  He has offered his apology and seems to understand that he made a grave mistake.  However, as the party of responsibility, he should realize that although he is sorry, there is a consequence to every action.  And in my opinion, the people of Kentucky should be accepting applications.