If Republicans are good at anything, it’s sticking to a theme.  If they’re good at two things, it’s speaking in code to a theme that they want to use to drum up support among their base while attempting to sound reasonable to the general public.  However, this coded language speaks to a dangerous element within the Republican base.

I’ve seen both racial insensitivity and gender discrimination first hand among those who will remain nameless within the local party in Illinois.  Gender insensitivity was much more widespread and blatant than racial insensitivity — mainly because the racial remarks are often coded.

We all heard Newt Gingrich call President Obama the “food stamp President.”  Gingrich is not talking about actual food stamps – the line is a code to racist elements within the Republican Party.  It’s a coded term because he can’t use the n-word.

However, a new code phrase is being thrown around by the religious right to question the President’s religious beliefs.  Not wanting to be associated with the “birther” element but wanting the support of those who question whether the President is a Christian, they have begun using the refrain that “you need to ask the President if he’s a Christian.”  It has been used extensively by Rick Santorum and now being picked up by Franklin Graham, son of Billy.  Santorum even went so far as to suggest that the President has a different “theology.”   Of course, Santorum and his supporters will claim that he used the phrase to refer to Obama’s political philosophy but the word “theology” was chosen for a reason.  Especially considering that Santorum went on to say that Obama does not hold the same values as good Christians.

The fact that Republicans need to speak in code to appeal to racist elements should tell you exactly how they intend to govern.  A scary thought.

When I was a committeeman in the Frankfort Township Republican Organization I noticed a few hugely hypocritical positions — the most significant is the large number of people on social security, medicare and SSDI.  They aren’t very educated and do not understand that these programs, which are vitally important — deal with exactly what they rail against.  Paul Krugman sums it up well:

And what these severe conservatives hate, above all, is reliance on government programs. Rick Santorum declares that President Obama is getting America hooked on “the narcotic of dependency.” Mr. Romney warns that government programs “foster passivity and sloth.” Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, requires that staffers read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” in which heroic capitalists struggle against the “moochers” trying to steal their totally deserved wealth, a struggle the heroes win by withdrawing their productive effort and giving interminable speeches.

Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?

The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

I have been present for idiot members of the Will Country Republican Central Committee to scream and yell about government staying out of their healthcare, and to stay out of their Medicare.  They aren’t informed enough to understand that Medicare is a single payer government run healthcare system.  If only we could actually educate our citizens.

While we all know that opposition to gay marriage is now limited not to bigots and self loathing individuals, there is an interesting person who is now lobbying for a same sex marriage bill in Maryland – former Vice President Dick Cheney

Since leaving the vice president’s office, Cheney has been increasingly vocal in his support for same-sex marriage, but the extent of his engagement on the issue was not previously well known.

It’s well known that Cheney’s support for gay marriage is due to his gay daughter.  However, it’s really sad that it takes a gay relative for some people to come around to same sex marriage.  I used to joke that I was in favor of same sex marriage because I supported treating gay people like human beings — but it’s less of a joke when it’s understood that real people are affected by these policies.

If you’re not terrified of Rick Santorum, you aren’t paying attention.

 I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

We have a few takeaways regarding a potential Santorum Presidency — you will not be able to use birth control or any time of contraceptive.  You should be regulated by the government and how you can have sex and who you should have it with.  You need to engage in sex only the way that Rick Santorum thinks you are supposed to.

That’s Santorum’s America.   It’s a scary place.

Now that the details of President Obama’s 2013 budget have been released, praise from forward thinking individuals and condemnation from the reactionaries has begun.  From the New York Times:

The president’s budget calls for long-term deficit reduction, but its immediate priority is to encourage the fledgling economic recovery. Instead of trying to stabilize the budget on the backs of the poor, it would raise taxes on the wealthy and on big banks and eliminate many corporate tax loopholes.

To put Americans back to work, it would invest $350 billion in constructing roads, rail lines and schools, and encourage manufacturing through tax incentives and research spending. It would maintain the Pell grant program for low-income college students and add new spending for teacher improvement and education reform.

You would think that both sides would be able to get behind the main points of the budget.  Many federal agencies had their budgets decreased.  However, unavoidable and necessary infrastructure projects are being funded.  This has the dual benefit of creation jobs and updating our nation’s old roads, bridges and other transportation lines.

The NYT sums it up well:

If Congress were not dysfunctional — if it cared more about economic stabilization than scoring political points — it would sign on to a budget like this. As it is, the proposal will go nowhere, largely because of the Republican refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy and to spend money on vital programs.

This is a good budget.  If Republicans care about jobs and the future, they will pass the budget.

Over at CapitolFax, there was some discussion over the residency status of Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).  After redistricting, his district was essentially drawn out.  His residence in Manteno was drawn in to the 2nd Congressional, which is heavily Democratic and represented by Jesse Jackson Jr.  Looking for a more friendly district, Kinzinger chose instead to challenge current Rep. Don Manzullo in the 16th.

I was a volunteer for Kinzinger before I left the Republican Party.  I was an early supporter, and had a lot of early time to get to know him.  There was some discussion over his residency, so I posted this in the comments section at CapitolFax:

Kinzinger doesn’t have much of a residence at all in Illinois. He maintained a small apartment in Manteno that was virtually non-lived in.

A little bit later, I received a Facebook message:

I’m not sure if someone is attempting to impersonate Adam or if it was really him.  Whoever it is blocked me soon after.

I can’t even say if he ever really lived in his apartment (I doubt it) but when I was volunteering for him, I got the strong impression that he was temporary until he could get to Washington DC.   Either way, whether he actually lived in that apartment is irrelevant because that was what he listed as his “residence.”  You don’t need to live full time there to be eligible to run — most members of Congress spend most of their time in DC anyway.  It really doesn’t matter.

However, if it is Adam, it shows a clear fear about the coming election — he is scared.  To be concerned about such a trivial matter illustrates that fear.  The message also shows a clear ignorance of simple grammar and sentence structure, but that doesn’t surprise me.  When I was an early volunteer, Kinzinger rarely had a decent grasp of issues and had to have his hand held about anything when it came to policy.  Early on, it was clear that the guy knew very little about the economy.

He’s a perfect example of the reason why I left the party — not well versed in issues, just a good looking guy with a good story about serving in the Air Force.  After his service overseas, he needed something to do, so he ran for Congress.  That’s not an uncommon thing throughout our history.

However, if that is indeed Adam — a sitting United States Congressman — he’s showing a strong fear about losing.  With the economic record of the Republican Party, that’s not an unfounded fear.

From Reuters:

Jim Towey, president of Ave Maria University in Florida, who also served in the administration of President George W. Bush, said on Tuesday he would fight the provision using “all lawful means at our disposal.”

“Our non-Catholic employees and students understand fully that the University must adhere to Catholic teaching and they do not expect us to provide such services,” he said in a statement.

This is what the religious right has become in our country — using every means within their disposal to make sure that birth control is not included in their healthcare coverage for women.  Whether the Catholic Church believes that they will be responsible for the effects of keeping birth control from it’s employees remains to be seen.

Keep in mind that it was not that long ago that in some states birth control was completely illegal.  Below the surface of this fight is the idea that many in the religious right would like to make sure all women have no access to birth control.

Looks like equal rights may soon be coming to California.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 – a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage – was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

If we’re really going to solve problems in this country, there is a necessary first step:  tearing down allegiances to ideological labels.   Forget about whether policy proposals fit within whatever bumper sticker slogans that people have been brainwashed into believing.  Start asking one question — does the proposed solution solve recognized problems in the most effective way possible?

That’s pretty much the opposite of the way people look at politics.  Bumper sticker slogans run our politics.  The extreme conservatives will scream and yell that “government is always evil” despite obvious proof to the contrary. Extreme liberals will refuse to let the private sector work because it does not fit the mantra that “business is evil.”  The truth of course, is that there are problems that only the government can fix.  In that case, we should allow the government to do its job.  In other cases, the private sector businesses can more effectively executive solutions to national problems, and in those cases we need to let the private sector do it’s job.

People no longer trust our government officials because they understand that members of Congress are in office for personal gain and the promotion of special interests rather than doing what is right for the middle class of this country.  The Gallup approval rate for Congress is 11%.   Every member of Congress should feel like a failure because of that number.  It’s not to say that every member of Congress is bad — merely that the refusal of the two parties to work together is causing the reputation of the institution to fall into the toilet.

The Chicago Tribune has an editorial this morning that hits the nail on the head about technological progress and job creation:  let innovation lead the way to job creation.

The U.S. needs all the jobs it can get, and we’re all for employers bringing factory work back here fromChina and other foreign locales. We support American manufacturing — period.

But the nation is not going to see the return of loads of jobs that have been lost to outsourcing. The U.S. will prosper by creating jobs, as reflected in Friday’s upbeat national employment report. The economy added 243,000 jobs in January across most sectors of the economy, far more than experts had predicted. To keep the momentum going, the U.S. needs to encourage cutting-edge sectors where this nation holds a competitive advantage.

We know that is a lesson from Econ 101. But we think a reminder is necessary because politicians of all stripes are joining in the clamor to “bring back” American jobs. That includes conservatives such as U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Ill., who told the Tribune editorial board last week that he’s “very optimistic about a lot of jobs coming back.” President Barack Obama sounded the same note in his State of the Union address, calling on employers to “ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country.”

The Trib rightly asserts that manufacturing jobs are extremely important, but it also recognizes that many of those jobs may never come back.  In some cases, it’s for the best.  Many of those jobs have been surpassed by modern technology.

However, for the middle class, there will always be opportunity for job creation — the old maxim that “if a machine takes your job, get a job making the machines.”  While that is an oversimplification, the baseline sentiment is right on.  This country needs to move forward with technological innovation with an eye toward intelligent job creation.

A lot has been said about the various Romney gaffes over the campaign.  While some liberals are screaming that Romney is a tool of the rich, and some conservatives are screaming that he’s getting a bad rap. both are missing the point.  The point isn’t whether Romney’s gaffes make him indifferent to the needs of the middle class or not.  We can study his policies to determine that.

Gaffes like “I’m not concerned about the poor” show little about his policies.  It does illustrate, however, extremely poor judgement.  Romney’s campaign has been filled with gaffe after gaffe — an alarming number more than others who have had gaffe issues, like Vice President Biden.  Romney has had more significant and damaging gaffes than any campaign in modern history.

Mitt Romney constantly has verbal gaffes and says things in a way he doesn’t mean.  He has a complete and total inability to make this thoughts form coherent words when he is speaking.  If he were President, it would only be a matter of time before he committed one of those serious gaffes in front of a world leader when it matters most.

Ezra Klein re-posted a great graph on the actual services that Planned Parenthood provides.  If you think Planned Parenthood is an abortion facility, I suggest you educate yourself on the facts.

The blatant insider trading among members of Congress needs to end.  From the Washington Post:

It is bad practice for members of Congress to own and trade in individual stocks. That is particularly true in areas of their direct involvement, such as defense stocks for members of the Armed Services committees. President Obama, in applauding the Senate vote, argued for “prohibiting elected officials from owning stocks in industries they impact.” But given lawmakers’ broad portfolios, the better approach would be for lawmakers to divest individual stock holdings in favor of mutual funds or to put their investments into a blind trust. An amendment to this effect, sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) failed decisively, but lawmakers ought to consider the unattractive optics of owning individual stocks.

An oldie but a goodie from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.⁵ Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Amen,

While I was an elected Republican committeeman, I never self identified as a conservative, although I never would have expressed these sentiments in public even though I certainly have had an inkling of this for a long time.

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.

Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study’s lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.

Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature “structure and order” that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. “Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice,” he added.

Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.

“Reality is complicated and messy,” he told The Huffington Post in an email. “Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies.”