Politics Plus

Almost every week, Republicans join a competition to see who can say the most outlandish things, and in the process, they push the envelope on just how idiotic InsaniTEA can become.  I trust that you will believe it, when I tell you that last week was no exception.

Nicest woman on TV suggests we deny citizenship to blind people and people in wheelchairs.

Oh joy, the aforementioned bile-spewing hatemonger Ann Coulter has written another book, and that can only mean one thing: book tour.!!! The book is about immigration, and it will probably surprise no one that Coulter does not think much of that glorious American institution. We’re not going to give you the name of the book because if you buy it, we’ll have to shoot ourselves.

Coulter called in to Simon Conway’s talk radio show [hate monger delinked] in Iowa one day this week and curiously the conversation turned to the subject of Coulter’s unnamed book, citizenship requirements and naturalization ceremonies.

Cruella de Coulter told Conway that she disapproves of the exception to the English-language requirement for naturalized citizens for certain older people who have been legal residents for decades. If they don’t know English, she said they don’t “love this country.” Off with their heads, deport them. Something.

She also objects to making accommodations for citizenship applicants with disabilities. She is literally turning into a cartoon of herself. Her words:

“The INS has waived the English-language requirements for many immigrants, and it’s not just — that obviously goes to the heart of it, are you switching allegiance, do you love this country? — but beyond that, how about the wheelchair-only section? How about the section for the blind? Look, wish these people well, but we’re not running an international charity here,” she said.

Inserted from <Alternet>

I bet the thought of discrimination against disabled people had the Coultergeist’s Adam’s apple bobbing at record setting speed. This is only the fifth of five idiotic Republican moments from last week alone. Click through for the other four.

From my feline perspective, chickens and ChickenHawks are rather similar.  Both are birds.  Both have brains about the size of a pea.  And both are best when smothered in BBQ sauce.  So lets tuck our napkins under our chins and have a ChickenHawk BBQ.

As the GOP’s 2016 cast of men who would be president grows, so too do its ranks of chicken hawks—candidates who have never served in the military but are eager send American men and women into wars overseas. While it’s no surprise that these Republicans are feeding off each other in a feedback loop of one-upmanship, this latest round of boasting is not occurring in a vacuum. The U.S., as the world’s largest military force, faces many major challenges in the coming years —not just ISIS in the Middle East, but also China enlarging its maritime borders.

What follows are profiles of five candidates who are chicken hawks. None have served in the military but they all – unlike Obama – are willing to deploy ground troops overseas to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Other Republicans running similarly have puffed out their warmongering chests, such as Scott Walker saying that he would take on ISIS like he bullied Wisconsin’s public employee unions and Jeb Bush endorsing W’s invasion of Iraq. Lindsey Graham also is calling for 10,000 ground troops, but he served in the military. These five haven’t:  

1. Mark Rubio

On CNN’s The Lead last September, Rubio made it clear ground troops would “likely be needed” to “finish the job” on ISIS. He said, "The chances of local forces alone being able to defeat ISIL, or any group for that matter on the ground is dubious at best… It’s important for the President to be honest with the American people that at some point in the future, this might require some element of U.S. ground power in order to finish the job."

The Florida Senator quickly earned the respect of the hawkish wing of the foreign policy establishment, especially the neocons that got us into Iraq for spouting the right bellicose talking points. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to know that Iran – despite being a favorite punching bag of this same neocon set – is a mortal enemy of ISIS, not in alliance with it. As Think Progress noted:

Speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, Rubio told radio and TV host Sean Hannity that “if we wanted to defeat [ISIS] militarily,we could do it. [Obama] doesn’t want to upset Iran…”

There’s just one problem: Iran has been fighting ISIS just like the United States and has publicly urged America to take a larger role in the operation. Obama has even sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggesting anti-ISIS cooperation.

What’s scary is that for many foreign policy experts, he’s considered the intelligent one in Republican circles. Meanwhile, what he did during his Military age years (18-35)? Like the others on this list, Rubio spent his military-age years, well, running for President. He attended law school, interned for Florida U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, worked on the Dole-Kemp campaign and eventually got elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000, and rose to become Speaker of the Florida House.

The wars Rubio decided not to fight in include: Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, War in Afghanistan and Iraq War. The American troops killed in those conflicts totaled 7,041… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Alternet>

Now, I know you can’s have a real BBQ with just one chicken or just one ChickenHawk.  So click through for the other four.

I have to keep reminding myself that he’s not going to get the nomination, no matter how much I’d like to see him on in the White House.  But isn’t Bernie Sanderd doing a wonderful job of keeping middle class issues front and center?

Sen. Bernie Sanders laid into the Republicans and their calls to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security on Wolf Blitzer’s show this Thursday…

…Unlike the GOP, Sanders actually has a plan to keep it solvent that doesn’t involve asking Americans to work until they drop dead…

…Bernie Sanders wants wealthy to pay for Social Security expansion:

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

As long as he keeps this up, his campaign is worth supporting!  Thank you, Bernie!

Republicans know that, if the coming election is a fair one, they will lose.  That’s why they are doing everything they can to strip likely Democratic voters of their right to vote.  I’m pleased to see that Democrats are filing suits to prevent Republican attempts at election theft.

Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign.

The court fights began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination. Now, Democrats are attacking a host of measures, including voter identification requirements that they consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct.The effort, which is being led by a lawyer whose clients include Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, reflects an urgent practical need, Democrats say: to get litigation underway early enough so federal judges can be persuaded to intervene in states where Republicans control legislatures and governor’s offices. But Republicans dismiss it as little more than a publicity gambit to energize minority voters in support of Democratic candidates.

A similar lawsuit was begun last year in North Carolina. Other potential fronts in the pre-emptive legal offensive, Democrats say, could soon be opened in Georgia, Nevada and the increasingly critical presidential proving ground of Virginia.

Almost all of those states have growing African-American or Hispanic populations, groups crucial to Mr. Obama in 2012 but whose voting rights Democrats say could be impinged next year, damaging the party’s prospects…

Inserted from <NY Times>

I fully support these efforts.  Republicans want elections to become meaningless exercoses held for show only, because they get to decide who is allowed to vote.