Scott Brown and Abortion Cartoon

It is interesting how often political party members get into a tizzy when one of their own doesn’t go along with the party line on every single issue.  Not that it ever was a secret but now it is out in the news that Scott Brown, the Republican who won Ted Kennedy’s Senatorial seat, is not a pro-life senator.  He believes the government should stay out of the debate (with the exception of late-term abortions) and shouldn’t provide federal funds to support it.

Are Republicans who looked at this guy as a savior now going to backtrack?  The problem Republicans are having is their small tent litmus test mentality that says you have to fit into every category to call yourself a Republican.  At least on the surface I like the fact that Brown is trying to open the doors of the tent a little wider.

Fiscally I lean to the right and socially to the left.  As I have said before I want the Conservatives to stay out of my pants and the liberals to stay out of my wallet.
or help share the post by clicking below…

Flatulence in Broadcasting

While this editorial cartoon resembles Rush Limbaugh it could stand for any fringe person who is given a pulpit to spew lies and hatred.  I must give credit to Jammer has written several interesting posts lately, the most recent title gave me the line of Flatulence in Broadcasting (a take off of Limbaugh’s Excellence in Broadcasting Network) which inspired this cartoon.  Notice the acronym is F.I.B.  Also interesting are Jammer’s posts on hatred and how the fringe becomes the mainstream.  The only real error that I saw in the last post is that he only focused on the right fringe, while the left is alive and well (they just don’t get as good of ratings).

One difference though is when Olbermann spews lies and rants, he is is percieved as representing the left but not the Democratic Party.  When Limbaugh does it, he is viewed as a party leader?   How did this happen?  Michael Steele and the moderates need to take back their party from the fringe elements.  The fringe represents a small portion of the party yet are getting all the press.

The problem is when a person on the fringe of your beliefs is given a microphone and allowed to talk.  Are YOU going to let that person talk for you?  Because if you do and say nothing when you disagree with thier words or actions, the fringe is percieved as the Mainstream.  When the first Tea Party rally happened in Cincinnati, there were a handful of people who held up nasty and sometimes racist signs about Obama.  Who do you think got the press?  And while there were some in the crowd who told them to take it down, there were others who chose to ignore it.

You have two choices in that case, either disassociate yourself from the group entirely or stand up when someone is misrepresenting your opinion.  If you don’t, their opinion becomes your opinion in the minds of others.  There are plenty of websites, that I no longer like to comment on anymore because the owners allow political bile to go beyond discourse.  I am all for freedom of speech but remember that YOU control your website.  You allow this to happen on a regular basis and their views will become the perception of your beliefs.

or help share the post by clicking below…

Bearman Cartoon: Sonia Sotomayor SCOTUS Nom

On this side of the pond, the Supreme Court of the United States is down a judge. When that happens, the President nominates a person to become the new Justice and Congress must approve the nominee. Of course depending on who is in power, the other side will never like the person (even if they do, they have to pound their fist so their constiuents will be proud).

So President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor and charges from the far right are already coming out that she is a racist because of a speech she gave and her part in a ruling. Now I personally don’t care where you come down on whether or not she is or not. But really? This is the best strategy of opposing her??

I hate the political pundits and talking heads on both sides. Used to watch ’em but now I can’t stomach it. But Rachel Maddow from MSNBC had an interesting point. (hat tip to Chris Johnson for the video of it I saw) She said,

The question is why do this? And that’s a calculation about political capital. If you think you spend political capital by attacking the judicial nominee, it doesn’t seem like much use to waste that capital on someone who everybody thinks is going to get confirmed anyway. If on the other hand you think that you build up your political capital…you increase your political power by attacking a nominee then it makes sense to come after a Sonia Sotomayor with both political barrels. And, then it makes sense to ask what kind of Republican party and what kind of Conservative Movement is this fight building?

Personally I think the Conservatives are focusing on the wrong thing. Their best strategy is summed up in my latest editorial cartoon. They should be telling Liberals that they are excited about the nominee and especially the fact that she is Roman Catholic in hopes that she will rule to overturn Roe vs Wade (ie abortion laws).   Then watch the far left stumble over themselves to make sure to find out where she stands on abortion.

Follow me via TWITTER updates. or you can…

…just Tweet this post (click the image)