Beach Peanuts

Ideas, And Everything Else You Didn't Hear From Marco Rubio At CPAC 2013

If You Don't Like New Ideas, You're Going To Love Marco!

Ah yes, the brilliance! Nothing makes people who can't think for themselves and whose idea of good reading is "Thinking For Dummies" happier than listening to a guy like Marco Rubio, who doesn't make sense.

Anyone who came to CPAC 2013 looking for new ideas would leave disappointed, take it from Rubio. Only those with the blind devotion of lemmings could possibly fall for what the King Of The Grifters was selling there yesterday. Here are just a few of the highlights that I wanted to point out, with translation.

Apparently speaking of good, hard working people who pay their taxes and doing the right thing, only to fail at the hands of evil "Big Government," Rubio transitions to slackers and freeloaders:

"And now when the housing bubble came they were stuck with the bill up for bailing out the banks. For bailing out the people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford to pay. Everywhere they look."

Ah yes, that old myth. The housing bubble was created by all those people who ran out and signed on to mortgages they couldn't afford! Freeloaders! Never mind that those people lost everything, the banks were the real victims, who are moving on to their next bubble. Rubio knows this well. That's why he's secretly spending time courting those big Wall Street donors. Oddly enough, he didn't mention that in this speech.

"Unfortunately every country in the world have poor people but few have the kind of vibrant widespread middle class that America does."

Middle class? What middle class?

"A widespread middle class that everyone we have said should have any opportunity to be -- part of the middle class or even better. It sets us apart from the world."

Actually what sets what's left of our middle class apart from the rest of the world's is health care, for one thing. Ours can no longer get access to it. And opportunity? Hard to have such a thing when those "no taxes job creators" are hoarding profits rather than hiring, an education is out of reach, and when there's no chance of a decent wage and benefits even if you can find employment. Marco and his ilk have just about squeezed all they can from what used to be the middle class. Now they've had to move on to squeezing the wealthy by running for office and giving speeches at places like CPAC. And speaking of grifting:

"Basic trouble is they look to Washington DC..... Every week Washington's creating some sort of manmade crisis for them to worry about. And they look at the political process whether it's fair or not."

Now there Rubio is speaking a bit of truth. Who's creating all the man-made crisis? The Republican Party, that's who. Debt ceilings and fiscal cliffs and sequesters, oh my! And why would they do such a thing? Well, besides being willing to destroy the country because your party lost the last two elections, here's why. More grifting. Fair? No, but what better way to get revenge on those voters, am I right?

"People who disagree on all sorts of things in the real world work together all the time on things they do agree with.... 

Now in order to work together, there has to be mutual respect. That means I respect people who disagree with me on certain things but they have to respect me too."

Yes, nothing says "I respect your ideas" more than four years of obstruction, and threats to shut down the government unless you respect Marco Rubio and his party of "No."

Now here's my favorite part of his so-called "respect" argument:

"I respect people who disagree with me on certain things, but that means they have to respect me too. Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe that life, all human life, all life, all human life is worthy of protection in every stage of its development doesn’t make you a chauvinist. In fact, the people who are actually close minded in American politics are people who love to preach about the certainty of science in regard to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that life begins at conception."

First the obvious: No, Marco Rubio doesn't respect people who disagree with him. If he did, why follow that first sentence with "but?" And what a big "but" it is. Never mind that he's objecting to a straw man who calls him a "bigot" for being against same sex marriage at a convention which banned gay Republican groups from attending. Rubio "respects" others beliefs so much that he's trying to block access to birth control, and thinks only certain women should be protected from domestic violence. He voted against the Violence Against Women Act not once, but twice. He's basing legislation for everyone else to live by on his beliefs, and his belief that actual scientific evidence is nonsense, all at the same time. 

Nothing says "I respect you" like passing laws that make sure everyone else is forced to respect your views, and live by them, right Marco?

Marco Rubio respects others all right. Just as long as they're white males....I mean white male Republicans.......Or rather, white, male Republicans who believe exactly what Marco believes. Those of us who don't agree with his views don't vote for him, and when he wins in spite of that, we respect the decision in a fair election, because that's democracy. It's people like Rubio and the Republican Party who are trying to change the rules when the majority of the country no longer sees things their way.

"We don't need a new idea. There is an idea. The idea called America."

Who needs new ideas? There's no need for new ideas in Marco Rubio's version of America.

 

 

Let This Sink In For A Moment

(Photo: The White House)

On the same day when President Barack Obama unveiled the Rosa Parks statue in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., The Supreme Court heard arguments that could throw out the Voting Rights Act.

I write "could," when it looks more like "will."

If you didn't think Conservatives wanted to take the country backwards before now, you shouldn't have any questions after this comment made by Justice Antonin Scalia in court today on Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:

Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.” 

Let that sink in for a moment.

A shocking statement to be sure, but considering the source, it shouldn't be.

(See the transcript here, and for context, see a more detailed discussion here.)

 

Looks Like Rick Scott May Face A Republican Challenge In 2014 After All?

In spite of Rick Scott finally accepting Medicaid expansion in Florida, the Republican legislature has threatened not to implement it. If they don't, it may or may not matter as far as Scott's credibility with the Tea Party is concerned, but as of yesterday, it didn't look like they'll be so forgiving.

Today, State House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, said this to the National Review Online:

“Without the legislature passing the exchange and expanding, we don’t expand. It’s completely incumbent on the legislature.”

Also, word comes today that Weatherford will now be a featured speaker at CPAC 2013:

State House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, has been recognized by the American Conservative Union as one of nine young “rising elected leaders” nationwide who will have speaking slots at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March.]

[Weatherford was chosen along with eight other state legislators from around the nation who will appear at the same podium as top speakers including former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio at the Washington event.

Mitt Romney will end his post-election withdrawal from the public spotlight with a speaking spot.

Other speakers will include some of the most controversial figures from conservative politics—Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and former U.S. Rep. Allen West of Florida.

But who's not on the speaker's list this year?

Rick Scott.

I guess he's no longer crazy enough for prime time.

Now he may no longer be far enough to the right to avoid a Republican-Tea Party challenge in the 2014 election, something that no one was saying just weeks ago.

How times change when one is actually "forced" to do the right thing.

Yesterday after his Medicaid press conference, others were scrambling on Twitter to voice their opinions and possibly shore up Tea Party cred besides Weatherford. 

Pam Bondi said this:

Concerned about consequences of greater fed control over healthcare, a major expansion of govt. At least FL lawsuit gave each state a choice. 

Adam Putnam said this:

It’s extremely disappointing to learn that Florida may take on billions in additional costs to taxpayers by expanding Medicaid coverage.

The expansion of Medicaid in FL does not create jobs or strengthen our infrastructure. And it will cost Florida $5B over the next 10 years.

Both have been mentioned in the past as possible candidates "if" anyone were to challenge Scott, and now Weatherford is a new "rising star" in the conservative clown car?

My, my. Something tells me this could get ugly....

As Tea Party Lifeboat Commander, Rubio Chooses To Go Down With The Ship

A Tea Party By Any Other Name....Is Still The GOP

A common talking point whined by the Republican Party has always been that President Obama hasn't "reached across the aisle enough." This, to anyone paying attention, or conscious, is of course laughable. This president spent the better part of his first four years in office nearly bending over backwards to do just that, and took a fair amount of heat for it from progressives. Still, even they know that his actions were met by Republicans biting the hand that did so, accompanied by a firm "NO!" to every offer of compromise.

Among those who love to pretend that President Obama was an uncompromising partisan was none other than Florida's own version of Sarah Palin in a suit, but with a slightly better vocabulary, Marco Rubio.

Well, who do you suppose refused to attend President Obama's second inaugural?

That's right, the GOP's pseudo "Great Right Hope," Sen. Tea Bag himself. Yes, Rubio chose to go home to Florida and pout instead. How potentially Presidential of him. Good grief, even Paul Ryan didn't skip it, and he's about as anti-Obama as it gets, not to mention a tough competitor for Rubio when it comes to the ability to talk rather than actually thinking. As much as it pains me to say it, it appears even he's smarter than Marco Rubio.

Ouch.

This brings me to another subject: The dying Tea Party. I wanted to write about this last week, but there was too much going on and not enough time to address it. 

It seems that it finally dawned on the South Florida Tea Party that, after losing elections, they're "doing it wrong." By "doing it wrong," they don't mean their policies. They mean their name:

Jolted by the re-election of President Barack Obama, the defeat of congressional tea party icon Allen West and the cracking of Republican anti-tax orthodoxy during the recent federal budget showdown, the tea party movement is trying to rebrand and repackage itself in South Florida.

The South Florida Tea Party — the group that helped Marco Rubio launch his Senate bid and that hosted Donald Trump during his last flirtation with a presidential run — is shedding the words “tea party” as it undergoes a name change.

“We felt for branding reasons that we wanted to differentiate ourselves from certain organizations that have the name ‘tea party’ and we can’t control,” said Everett Wilkinson, leader of the organization that will now be called the National Liberty Federation.

Yes, that will do it. Lose the "Tea" and replace it with "Liberty." No change in policy, just in branding. Apparently they feel this will not only change their image, but also allow them to distance themselves from the Republican Party. To which I say "Good luck with that."

Regardless Of Party Name, This Is How They See The Voters

Before we even get into their policy problems, let's focus on the window dressing. Changing the name of the party, or "branding" won't do the trick any more than it will throw daylight between the Tea.., I'm sorry, the "Liberty" Party and the Republican Party. The GOP is the poster boy for this method of "rebranding" in order to snow the voters.

See: Luntz, Frank, aka the "Word Doctor."

He's the one who advised the GOP to call "government spending" "waste" because that will anger voters more. Instead of "taxing the rich," he advised "take from the rich." He's also the one who came up with using the term "government takeover" to lure in unsuspecting voters and turn them into scared voters when it came to financial and health care reform. That certainly worked on those who became "Tea Party" members, didn't it? You know, as in "get the government out of my" - fill in the blank. I hate to inform the Teas, but by changing your brand from "Tea" to "Liberty" you have much more in common with the GOP than you think. But then that's the goal of the "Liberty" powers that be. Potential followers may want to make a note of this.

The Palm Beach County Tea Party is keeping its name but trying to overhaul its image. Its new leader, 34-year-old public relations specialist Michael Riordan, told activists last week they must re-evaluate their methods after losing the messaging battle to Obama and Democrats in November.

“They won. We lost. They have a message that appeals to the masses. We don’t. That must change,” Riordan said at a meeting of about 75 members, most of whom were old enough to be his parents.

The Palm Beach County Tea Party claims to be at odds with the now rebranded National Liberty Federation, and maybe so if at odds means only changing the message but not the name. Still, the goal appears the same. However, changing the message doesn't mean much if you live by the same policies.

The Palm Beach group wants to focus on "fiscal" issues in order to differentiate from the GOP. Well, they haven't been paying much attention to the recent debt ceiling and fiscal cliff fights. The Republican Party tried it their way in 2011 and nearly crashed the economy. They also crashed their popularity in the polls at the same time. Instead of learning from their mistakes, a majority of them were trying it again in spite of losing in the elections but even now they've shown sides of pulling back.

How do you, the Tea Party, think rebranding yourselves as "fiscally responsible" would work for you if you managed this time to crash the world economy? Closer to home, what would happen when that government you profess to hate were to shut down and your loyal followers stopped getting their Social Security checks in the mail, which also would ceased to operate? There's a good reason why they didn't vote for the Republican ticket in November. VP candidate Paul Ryan was dead set on killing not only Social Security, but Medicare. Sure, he tried his hand at rebranding too, not to mention projection. But voters recognized it wasn't President Obama who wanted to send them packing in front of a death panel. 

This brings me back to the Mr. Fiscal Responsibility of Tea Party-Liberty dreams, Marco Rubio, who also wanted to "strengthen" (wink, wink) Social Security and Medicare.......but only for his mom, as did Paul Ryan. He thinks if he says he's fiscally responsible enough times in a speech, no one will remember his little foreclosure problems. Perhaps they won't remember his credit card problem, and that to him fiscal responsibility really means let the Republican Party pick up the tab when he says "charge it!" To Rubio, it also means if you lose everything in, say, a hurricane named Sandy, YOU weren't being fiscally responsible in that you lived near the water. No aid for you! That's a tip that may come in handy in the future for Florida Tea Party-Liberty members. If and when Rubio says "no" to aid in the event that they're wiped out in the next hurricane here, you can probably count on him consoling you by reminding you that after all, you hate the government. Remember? What, you don't happen to have a spare roof in a warehouse somewhere like Tea Party King Rick Scott does? Pshaw! Not their problem.

So yes, rather than being in Washington D.C. for the second inauguration of President Obama, Marco Rubio was back here in Florida pouting and busily hating the government he loathes so much. Never mind that he's worked so hard to be a part of it.  

He couldn't be bothered to celebrate having a President who believes in equal rights no matter your color, gender, or who you love, that all Americans have the right to vote, that we as Americans should take care of each other regardless of our level of income, and that Americans, not corporations should choose our leaders.

He'll stick with the "rebranded" Tea-Liberty-Republican Party who hate the government, which itself has been rebranded by all of the above.

They call it "government." The rest of us call it "Democracy."

No thanks, Marco Rubio would prefer to go down with the ship.

Rubio Slams Powell's GOP "Intolerance" Comments, Citing His New Black Friend In The Senate

Rubio and New Friend Tim Scott: Tolerance For The Cause

During an interview on Meet The Press Sunday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called out the Republican Party for it's “dark vein of intolerance” towards minorities.

Powell pointed to former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s use of the “shuck and jive” phrase in reference to President Obama, calling it a “racial era slave term,” and took on Romney surrogate John Sununu for calling President Obama “lazy.”

“When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy,” Powell said. “He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy.”

“Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it,” he said.

Powell also called out to the “birther movement” as another example of Republican bigotry, asking “Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the party?”

Well, Marco Rubio will have none of that GOP intolerance talk from Powell! No sir. According to Rubio, the GOP does not look down on minorities, and he can prove it! 

"I disagree with General Powell’s assessment of the Republican Party today,” Rubio said. “The Republican Party is the party that [has] placed two Hispanics in the U.S. Senate, and we have an African-American senator in the United States Senate.”

See there? Three Senators representing two whole minorities! Take THAT Colin Powell. 

Isn't it just typical of Republicans to claim their "tolerance of minorities" by citing their black and Hispanic friends? 

Because with Rubio, the GOP and the Tea Party, it's never about the policies. It's really just about the label and the "messaging." If you're all for preventing the poor from getting access to health care or food stamps, or say keeping "illegals" in their place, the Republican Party will "tolerate" you no matter what color you are or where you came from.

Right Marco?

Happy New Year: The Cliff Diving Edition

Back after a vacation from politics and spending time with my family. Hope you all had a nice holiday and a Happy New Years.

I must say I was not the least bit sad to say "Don't let the door hit you" to 2012 and the most worthless Congress in recent memory. (Oh, I'm sorry. I meant EVER.) Let's hope that 2013 brings an improvement. (Right. But I did say "hope.") While the Republican obstruction machine promises threatens to do even worse in the New Year, and I have confidence they mean it, we do have things to be thankful for. For instance, we gained some sane lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren and lost many a wingnut, including one of the biggest: Allen West, who predictably didn't go quietly. I assume he will continue howling at the moon on FOX-GOP-TV, perhaps with his own time slot, but at least we can turn him off knowing he can't actually vote on things anymore. 

I did not shed a tear when Republicans began whining their way back to Washington over the weekend, complaining that they had to actually govern lest we go over the fake fiscal cliff of their own creation. As they complained that they had to miss some of the holidays with their families, many more families were missing things like meals, health care, and shelter of their own thanks to those grumbling blowhards. Still, a few rushed back to happily vote against the poor and the middle class so that their overlords could recoup their investment in them (looking at you Marco Rubio) in spite of some who actually voted for the fiscal cliff fix. Not so shocking, considering that they're planning to make up for it by taking Americans and the economy hostage once again over the debt ceiling in a few short months. Because nothing says "fiscal conservative" like defining the term as not paying your bills at the expense of the poor, the elderly, and the nation's economy (again, looking at you and your little credit card and foreclosure problems there Sen. Rubio, among other things.) As I write, it isn't quite over yet. The Republicans in the House and their "leader" (wink, wink), John Boehner, the man who requested a super sized gavel he has yet to use if you don't count the photo op when he took over with it, have not yet voted. Will he use it now on the knuckles of the Senate as they hang onto that cliff by their fingers? Maybe, maybe not. Either way he'll probably still drop it on his own foot just to be consistent. Stay tuned...

So yes, 2013 will undoubtedly bring more of the same obstruction from the far right wingnut Tea Bag Republicans (because now there really is no other kind left) but we return more resolved than ever to fight back. The majority spoke again in 2012 and gave President Obama another four years in spite of the voter suppression tactics and big spending for $0 return thanks to con men like Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and The Dick Armey. They'll keep at it and we'll be on our toes. Florida Governor Voldemort has been busy continuing to build his State of Denial around his record (just because I've been silent the past week doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention) and the GOP case of Charlie Cristaphobia has nearly sent the Republicans completely around the bend, so it promises to be an amusing, but at the same time sobering New Year for Floridians.

For that reason alone, 2014 can't come soon enough when we finally say "Don't let the door hit ya'" to the worst governor in the history of governors ever recorded in the history of governing.

So as they say, strap yourselves in folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride....

The Romney-Ryan-Akin Platform for Women

 

Mack Cosponsored "Forcible Rape" Bill With Akin, Who He Now Criticizes

Warrior Against Women "Outraged and Offended" By His Own Beliefs

Unless you were under a rock this weekend, you probably heard about this comment on rape and abortions when a rape results in a pregnancy:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

The comment was made by Rep. Todd Akin (R-eality Deficient-MO), who seems to be under the impression that when a woman is raped, a magical thinking fairy waves a magic wand over said rape victim forming a special barrier around the egg preventing fertilization. (Yes, I know what you're thinking, but no: There's no such thing as birth control, nor logic in the Todd Akin world of magical thinking either. It's all in the wand.) Akin also implies that if that fairy were having an "off" day and this didn't work, the rapist should be punished, but not the child, so no abortion under any circumstances. I guess how this isn't punishment for a child knowing that but for a violent act, it might not exist, nor for the mother who never had a say in it either way, doesn't figure into the Akin equation.

Some Republicans are now urging Akin to drop out of his race for the Senate, a race he's now in danger of losing to Democrat Claire McCaskill, claiming they are appalled by his comments. Of course, they aren't appalled by his comments, a view many of them share. They're just appalled that he actually said them out loud. What worries them is that he'll lose. They want him out so they can find another Republican candidate to save them from that defeat.

Enter another dim bulb Republican sounding the blatant alarm of hypocrisy: Connie Mack IV.

Connie Mack joins a growing list of Republicans who have condemning Rep. Todd Akin's rape comments, which may have ended Akin's U.S. Senate campaign in Missouri.

But Mack adds that the remarks are as "just as outrageous and offensive" to those by Vice President Joe Biden, who last week before a crowd filled with African Americans said Republicans seeking to deregulate Wall Street would put people back in chains.

"Like Joe Biden's comments last week, I find Todd Akin's comments made Sunday to be just as outrageous and offensive," Mack said. "Such insulting and offensive remarks from Joe Biden and Todd Akin have no place in our political discourse."

Putting aside the fact that in the ever "brilliant" mind of Mini-Mack, Democrats wanting rules not allowing banks to screw everyone over is just the same as forcing a woman to give birth to a child when she is raped in the event that Akin's rape theory shouldn't pan out, Mack himself has a bit of a hypocrisy problem in common with Akin. Actually more than that.

You see, Mack cosponsored a bill along with Akin, GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan, and a long list of Republicans back in 2011 called the Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion bill which passed in the Republican controlled House. The bill prohibited any federal funds, including funds within the budget of the District of Columbia, from being used for the purpose of providing abortions, except in the following cases: Rape; Incest; or the life of the woman is at risk. A version of that bill contained the language "forcible rape" to parse what constituted a rape in the first place, as if there were any other kind. In other words, a "legitimate rape" as Akin used in his comments which now so offend Connie Mack and his fellow hypocrites in the GOP.

Mack appartently thinks voters are stupid and as air-headed as he is.

And that wasn't the only anti-abortion legislation he voted for in the last few years. (At least when he bothered to show up for a vote in the first place.)

Here's a list of the rest:

To Amend Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to Prohibit Abortion Coverage

Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

Prohibiting Use of Federal Funds For Planned Parenthood

Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services

Substitute Health Care and Insurance Law Amendments

Abortion Pain Bill

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (S 403)

Foreign Operations and Export Finance Appropriation Act

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act  (HR 748)

Not that he didn't vote "no" on any abortion legislation. He did.

Mack voted against the Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment. It would have lifted the ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. Yes, Mack made sure even women in the military were covered.

So while Mack, Paul Ryan, and their fellow Republicans may want to run from Todd Akin and his magically idiotic wing nut beliefs, they can't hide from him, nor the Congressional record.

They share the same beliefs as Akin. They're just calling him out because he gave voice to their War On Women for all to hear. The only bigger offense is he may cost them a seat in the Senate.

You're welcome ladies.

Cliff Stearns: Women "Making An Abortion" Based On Gender Is Criminal

Cliff Stearns (R-FL), birther, Planned Parenthood defunder, and women's health ignoramus is back at it again, and by "it" I mean the War On Women that Republicans most definitely aren't orchestrating. (Really, just ask them! Because they have actual, real live women in the Republican Party who made an entire video that you can watch and then say "Ayup, those are women!" What more proof do you need? "War On Women...well they never....!" And by never, they mean never vote in the best interests of women.)

Stearns had a little chat with Chris Matthews this afternoon and he was actually able to squeeze a word in edgewise. Unfortunately one of those words was "abortion" and while he didn't seem to have a firm grasp of the facts, he did a great job of reinforcing that "non-existent" War On Women. (Sorry ladies of the GOP. Back to the storyboard!)

The subject was the failed Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, that would send doctors to prison should they knowingly perform an abortion based on gender or race. Florida tried and failed to pass a similar bill earlier this year. I suppose you could say these bills are the "Sharia" of abortion laws, in that race and gender based abortions are pretty much unheard of, but the Right insists they exist and must be stopped at all costs.

Matthews tried to ask Stearns if he thought women should face criminal charges for having an abortion as well as the doctor. Stearns must have had the War On Women fairy sitting on his shoulder, because the "devil" in him really, really seemed to want to say "YES! Lock her up! Do it now!" He tried to resist, but in the end he just couldn't help himself:

"Should there be a law preventing a women making an an abortion based on sex selection to eliminate female embryos....I think so. You are killing an embryo and in some cases you are killing an embryo that is four or five months into gestation."

It was nice to see Matthews dig in and not let up on Stearns. For all his whining "I get to answer the question how I want" Stearns had backed himself into a corner. Yes, his views are extreme, not in the mainstream and yes, on the crazy side. Stearns almost seemed to recognize it too, but in the end he knew he owned it.

Like they always say, just recognizing that you have the crazy a problem is always the first step. 

 

Ann Romney "Chose" Because She Could Afford To

Last week the entire news cycle was hijacked over the faux outrage from a single remark made by political strategist Hilary Rosen, a Democrat who does NOT work for the Obama Administration. Rosen said: Ann Romney might not be the most qualified expert on women’s economic woes because she’s “never worked a day in her life.” What Ms. Rosen meant by her comment was that Romney was able to choose to stay at home and raise her children because of her wealth, meaning she never had to face the economical consequences of giving up an income in favor of full time motherhood like the majority of American women do.

Never mind the context of what Rosen said. The Republicans and the Romney campaign seized on the opportunity to make this into an issue of phony outrage about whether or not raising one's children constitutes "work" or not. In fact, Ann Romney started a Twitter account in order to take advantage of the situation with this Tweet:

The Key Word Here: "Choice"

With that, the Republican noise machine was up and running and the remainder of the week was spent on a fake war over "working moms" vs. "stay at home moms" and whether full time child care and mothering is considered work or not.

In fact the hopeful "First Lady To Be" (gulp) was so confidant with that ginned up outrage that she took another opportunity to beat a dead horse at an NRA Convention on Friday. (Pardon the equestrian pun there Ann, but you kind of stepped in this one yourself.) She strutted onstage to once again say what important work motherhood is, while also celebrating gun ownership just before turning the podium over to her husband. (See video here.) No doubt her comment on "the shot heard round the world" was meant to serve a two-fold purpose in her mind on guns and motherhood. "Boom."

Boom, indeed.

This morning, thanks to MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes, the Romney talking points that "all moms are working moms" don't exactly hold up with his views.

Yes, once again today's Mitt Romney would have a bone to pick with a past Mitt Romney, in this case the Mitt Romney of January 2012, to be exact. Hayes found a video where earlier this year Romney had a different view of the given "value" of stay at home moms vs. working moms, and the original argument of the economical factors of those choices was brought right back into focus:

But video from earlier this year, aired today on Up w/ Chris Hayes, shows Romney campaigning on the proposition that meaningful welfare reform should require parents with children to get out of the home and into the workforce. Responding to a question at a town hall event in Manchester, New Hampshire on January 4th, Romney described his position on work requirements for welfare recipients as governor of Massachusetts.

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that's heartless,' and I said ‘No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

That position has been conservative orthodoxy for years. Republicans have railed against the “culture of dependency” created by welfare programs, campaigning aggressively for policies that would force welfare recipients off the roles and “back into the workforce.”

Exactly. Not only do Republicans and Conservatives have a problem with that so called "culture of dependency," they also have a problem with the word "choice." Whether you're talking as Sarah Palin did about her "choice" to have a child who she knew would be born with Down's Syndrome as opposed to the abortion she briefly considered having, or if you're Ann Romney, who made the "choice" to be a stay at home mom, a choice that few women can afford to make: It's a CHOICE.

Romney is the wife of a billionaire who made his living buying out businesses, gutting them, and putting countless working moms and dads out of work at a profit, so that she could afford that very choice in the first place.

Once again the Conservatives wear their hypocrisy not on their sleeves, but in their pockets, contained in their wallets.

Be it abortion, health care, or being a stay at home mom. "Choices," and their value, not to mention the "dignity" involved, are only for those who can afford to make them.

This, I believe, was the point all along.