Whining in the World of Republicans

Call up your WayBackMachine to the presidential race where John Kerry was a candidate. Although the US Navy decided that he indeed did earn a purple heart in Viet Nam, this did not deter the energy moguls in Texas from mounting, with mountains of money, a smear campaign against Kerry, saying that he did not deserve the medal. Some went so far as to say that he actually wounded himself in order to get a medal so that he could run for political office. The Republican Party fully endorsed this smear campaign and hammered  that "Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry" were trying to save the country from a venous liar who wanted the big enchilada: the Presidency.

The fact that the medal citations had been a matter of public record for decades did not deter the guys from continuing on with lies; and this tactic, of discrediting a veteran, was considered honorable and correct by the Republican voters and Party across the country. So when Harry Reid makes a comment about Romney's tax paying history, this same groups of people get in a hissy fit for saying things that are  pure opinion and have no basis in fact. This one is an easy fix: Romney simply needs to release tax records going back 10 or 15 years to show what an upstanding citizen he is and that he paid his full share of taxes. The fact that he attempted to prevent even one year of his taxes from becoming public knowledge, should be enough to give any thinking person pause. Why so reluctant to show your taxes for one year? What are you hiding by refusing to release past returns?

The Obamas are wealthy and have displayed no reluctance to make their affairs public. So why will etch-a-sketch Mitt not pony up? Makes a body think the guy is hiding something.

Forum of Idiocy

The name is German and simply means the politics of reality or the reality of politics; here we will address both concepts regarding the real agenda of the current crop of Conservative/Republican politicians, their funders and supporters and what is truly at stake for the American public.

To give an example: At a local political "forum" there were several candidates for the C/R senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl. Each was trying to outdo the others in how righteous he was and what needed to be done to get the country "back on track."

Now, you need to think about a candidate who puts a bible on the table in front of him and actually says that he will govern according to his Christian principles. Another, actually all, called for the abolition of the EPA with all environmental decisions left to individual states. The Department of Education was also to be abolished with only local schools setting individual standards for what the students could study and how they would be graded as to subject competency and performance.

Taxes were to be lowered for all rich people, governments cut still further, Medicare was to get the axe and of course, Obamacare is to be abolished with nothing, no programs at all, to replace it. There is to be a tall fence on the Mexican border to keep out illegals, voter fraud is to be pursued to the ends of the earth despite the fact that there was not a single candidate who could say that there had actually been any voter fraud in Arizona in recent memory.

Let's start with the bible routine. The Constitution specifically forbids any linking whatsoever between a church and the state. The reason for this is the experiences of several centuries in Europe where churches amassed enormous wealth, huge land holdings and were quite literally kingmakers. (Much like the huge evangelical churches of today.) Wary of the destructive model of a religion having power over or co-jurisdiction with the state as a political entity, the gentlemen who composed the constitution, based on secular humanist philosophy, knew exactly what they were about when they forbad the government being influenced by any religious body. For a candidate campaigning for public office to pledge to follow the tenets of any religion as a way of conducting his tasks as an elected representative is anti-Constitutional and as such, blatantly un-American.

To follow the tenets of a religion while legislating is a return to the old ways of government where only certain people could even hope to have a decent life. This is so in the caste system in India, in the Puritan colonies of colonial America and the southern States before and after the Civil War. And it is in danger of happening again if religion is allowed to trump reason, dogma is allowed to trump science, church based qualifications replace actual ability and a person's religion says where he or she may go to school, work and live.

More tomorrow on another of these geniuses at work.