Why I Can't Vote Republican-Abortion

OK, look, I really try to stay out of the political fray because I suspect that engaging in online discussions rarely changes anybody's mind-most of the people reading you are either there because they are already of a similar mind or else they're just there to fight. Generally people get pissed off, somebody gets compared to Hitler, and the whole thing goes downhill. So...blech. (If you've already read my The 47% post or my Gay Marriage post, you can skip ahead to paragraph five, after the line break). I don't like confrontation, and unless I already know your position and know that you agree with me, I'd rather not let you in on mine lest you think I'm an idiot, or, worse yet, decide to spend the next hour telling me why I'm an idiot. But I have to do this. I never thought I would say this, but there are things going on in this election that I have literally been losing sleep over, and I feel like if I don't put this out there I will have failed in some way. I promise I will do my best to be thoughtful and respectful and reign in my snark, and I expect you to do the same.

This started because, to my surprise, I kept seeing my Facebook friends "liking" Mitt Romney. Well, not totally to my surprise-I knew there would be a few-but some of them were a surprise. If you came here from Facebook, I know you (at least a little), I like you, and we probably have a lot of shared experiences in one way or another, so how are we seeing this thing so differently? I want to ask "What are you thinking???" but that tone generally doesn't engender useful conversation, and I'm tired of all the comments (on both sides) along the lines of "If you support [the other guy] you're an idiot! Sorry if you don't like my opinions, but it's a free country and I can say all the vitriolic, non-constructive, name-calling things that I want to. Don't forget to go to the polls on Nov. 6th! (Unless you're voting for the other guy-LOL!) (Also, my football team RULES!!! And yours SUCKS!!!)" (That last part doesn't have anything to do with the other--I just think it's annoying).

So, I wanted to take the time to explain why I feel the way that I feel. I don't really expect to change anybody's mind, but if there's anybody out there who's still on the fence, or who isn't interested in voting for their own sake, I do hope that I can help convince you to vote on behalf of me, your fellow American. Even if I don't, even if you know right here and now that there is NO WAY that is going to happen, I hope you'll still read, so that you at least understand where I'm coming from. And I do hope you'll comment to explain your side of things or to ask me questions. I just ask that if you're going to comment, you read all the way through to the end before doing so and keep everything civil, relevant, and thoughtful.

I plan of voting Democratic this election cycle, not because I am stauchly pro-Democratic or because my family has always voted Democratic (honestly, I don't even know if my family ever voted). The fact of the matter is, I like Barack Obama, but more than that, I can't stomach the things that I keep hearing from the Republican party. According to GOP.com, the Republican party was all about things like abolition, free speach, and women's suffrage back in the day, and those are all things I can get behind. They say that, "With a core belief in the primacy of individuals, the Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights in opposition to a large, intrusive government." So, what happened?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning: This is loooong, but it's all really important to me, so if you're reading this, I really appreciate it. This is not a plea for you to vote for Obama, but, at the very least, it is a plea for you to please NOT vote for the men mentioned below. They are prepared to take away the existing rights, or, at the very least, limit health-care coverage, of literally every woman of child-bearing age in this country (by the way, according to my calculations*, that's approximately 95,000,000 women), and they are doing it carelessly, thoughtlessly, and based on information that is flat out wrong.

I can't think of anything more intrusive than a government telling you that you cannot marry the person of your choice or telling you that you must have a child against your wishes. I tackled the first one in a previous post; now let's talk about that second one.

I know that whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, your position is probably pretty well-ingrained, and I'm not likely to change your mind here. I think everyone should absolutely find a representative who supports her views and vote her conscience on this. My plea this election cycle is this: If you are going to vote to restrict someone else's choices based on your beliefs, at the very least, make sure that the person representing you knows why they are trying to do so and understands the facts relating to that decision.

I think by now, we've all heard about Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin's reprehensible "legitimate rape" comments. Just in case you haven't, here you go.


Now, maybe he did misspeak-I will give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that maybe he meant rape of the forceful, non-consensual kind, and not statutory rape, which could be consensual and not forceful. To be fair, I'm not sure how you briefly make that distinction without sounding like a jackass (I think maybe we should get rid of the term statutory rape altogether but that's a whole separate argument). Either way, his statement implies that if you are a victim of rape and you become pregnant it is somehow your fault. You failed as a woman to "shut that whole thing down." Also, does this imply that if you become pregnant you weren't actually raped? Wow, now you're a failure AND a liar. Wait, maybe you're only a failure OR a liar. Either way, way to handle your rape, loser. Besides, it's not like it's going to be an unexpected cost or burden to you; you might still be able to finish your education and afford to care for your new baby. If not, there's always welfare assistance, and I know most Republicans are big fans of that! Seriously, what happens in these scenarios? Does the law go after the rapist for child support? Maybe he gets your address so he can send you a check every month? Does he get visitation rights for the next 18 years? No, honestly, how does this go forward? Eve Ensler wrote an open letter to Akin that I think every politician should have to read.

Actually, let's go back to that statutory rape thing for a second. I think having terms like rape and statutory rape is where you end up with problems like the misunderstandings and hurt feelings brought about by Wisconsin Representative Roger Rivard's comments about girls who "rape so easy." He wasn't saying that some girls are easier to rape than others. Because that would have been insensitive. In response to a case regarding a 17-year old high school boy who was being charged with sexual assault for having sex with a 14-year old girl, he was just sharing a story about how his dad warned him that consensual sex with your girlfriend can turn into "rape" if the girl gets pregnant and doesn't want to take responsibility. *sigh* Look, again, I will go way, way out on a limb here and say that maybe Roger Rivard is not the creep that this statement makes him out to be. Roger Rivard could be a perfectly nice guy who just happens to have a dad that's kind of an inarticulate creep. Either way, the fact that he didn't have the good judgment not to share that story in public, makes me question his leadership and decision making skills.

Shortly after the Akin dust-up, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, was asked about his position  on abortion exceptions. He then proceeded to explain that, to a father, finding out that your little girl accidentally got herself knocked up without being married is the same as finding out that someone held her down and forced her to have sex with him. You can listen to the audio, but there's a lot of background noise, so I've gone through and done my best to provide an accurate transcript of the Q&A here:

Reporter: Hey, Tom...Tom? In light of Congressman Akin's comments is there any situation that you think a woman should have access to abortion?
Smith: My stance is on record and it's very simplistic. I'm pro-life, period. And what that congressman said, uh, I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that.
Reporter: So in cases of incest or rape?
Smith: No exceptions.
Reporter: How would you tell a daughter or granddaughter that, who, who, God forbid would be the victim of a rape to keep the child against her own will? Is that, is that something that you would...do you have a way to explain that?
Smith: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views, but, um...fortunately for me, I didn't have to...she chose the way I thought. Now don't get me wrong it wasn't rape.
Reporter: Similar how?
Smith: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.
Reporter: That's similar to rape?
Smith: No, no, no, but, uh...put yourself in a father's position, yes, I mean it is similar. [emphasis mine]

The conversation moves on to other issues before a reporter brings the conversation back around to Smith's previous comments.

Reporter: Can I just ask you to clarify one more time the question that [the other reporter] asked you? Did I just hear you say that having a child out of wedlock is analogous to rape?
Smith: No, I did not say that.
Reporter: You did say that.
Second Reporter: You did say it, sir.
(mumbly, panicky kerfuffle)
Smith: I said I went through a situation...
Reporter: With your daughter, with a daughter?
Smith: Yes, and it's very very difficult. But, do I condone rape? Absolutely not. But I propose life,  yes I do. I'm pro-life, period.
Reporter: So what is the similarity between those two, in other words? It's just that there's a decision involved?
Smith: A life. There's a life that needs protecting. Who's going to protect it? We have to. I mean that's...I believe life begins at conception. I'm not going to argue about the method of conception. It's life, and I'm pro-life. It's that simple.

Smith's spokeswoman later clarified that "the situation" wasn't with his daughter. No other details were given. So...Smith knows someone who once had a baby out of wedlock and that is as emotionally disturbing and frightening for him as if she'd been raped. Boy, that IS simple.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock would support a ban on abortions with exception for the life of the mother, but, like Smith, he believes that life begins at conception, "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." After a lot of backlash, he tried to backpedal by saying that he meant God intended the life, not the rape that caused it, and I believe him. I'm sure he never meant to say that God intends for anyone to be raped, but if you believe that God is responsible for all things, doesn't that include the rape? Why do you get to be the arbiter of what God intended and what he didn't? And if we, as a nation, have decided that God-intended rape is wrong, then how can we also say that the resulting pregnancy is right?

Joe Walsh, the Republican candidate for Illinois' 8th Congressional District, is also "pro-life without exception." After a recent debate with his Democratic challenger, Tammy Duckworth, he clarified his position by saying that "There's no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing. With advances in science and technology, health of the mother has been, has become a tool for abortions any time and for any reason."

Mr. Walsh, have you seriously never heard of a mother's life or health being negatively impacted by a pregnancy? About women dying or being unable to conceive again due to complications of pregnancy or birth? Ectopic pregnancies (pregnancies outside of the womb) still happen fairly regularly. If a baby starts to grow inside a fallopian tube and the mother doesn't miscarry naturally, the tube will eventually rupture. The baby can't survive, and the mother's health would be at risk as well. Removal of the embryo through induced miscarriage or through surgery would, technically, be an abortion. As I understand it, Akin would at least allow for that, but Joe Walsh wouldn't even make that exception. He is so pro-life that it is worth risking the mother's life to save the baby's life. Even when there is no way for the baby to survive.

Republicans keep talking about The Dignity and Sanctity of Human Life, but I don't think that they apply it evenly across the board. They are all about the sanctity and dignity of a human life when it is a clump of cells without a heartbeat, but that concern seems to disappear when they are considering the women who already exist as a fully-formed human being.

I realize that it is probably a pretty rare situation in which a doctor ever has to say to a woman, "There are complications, and I can save you or I can save the baby, but I may not be able to save you both. You need to make a choice." I can't imagine being in that position, and unless you've been there, neither can you. You also can't assume that the decision that a married woman with no other children would be the same as a mother of three whose husband has just died in combat or from an illness...or from anything. Both of those women might have an equal respect for human life, but a married woman with no other children might say, "Try to save the baby. My husband will take good care of him." The mother of three might say, "I have three other children and nobody else to take care of them. I need you to try to save me." Are you really going to tell me that she doesn't have the right to make that decision, the decision to save the mother of her children? Again, I realize that this is probably an extremely rare situation, but if it were you or someone you knew, would you care about the statistics?

Tennessee Republican Scott DesJarlais who identifies himself as Pro-Life, recorded himself "pushing a woman--a patient he'd been sleeping with while working as a physician--to have an abortion, in hopes of showing the recording to his wife and saving his marriage." I don't even know where to start with this guy. Clearly, there are several issues here, but I think Stephen Colbert said it best when he said, that the Congressman is "adamantly against abortion except when it endangers the political life of the father."

These are the men who, if elected, will be making policy for the women they represent and possibly influencing federal policy, thereby affecting all women. These are men who are either so delusional about their right to power over women or are so sure of their religiously-guided stances surrounding situations that they will NEVER have to deal with personally that they are willing to impose it on all the women they represent and possibly even those they don't.

I am begging the ladies of Missouri, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee, to please vote in this election. I can't imagine that these are really the guys that you want representing you. Even if you are a Republican, is party affiliation worth keeping someone like this in power? Do these men illustrate your party's platform of a non-intrusive government that's fighting for individual rights and the sanctity and dignity of human life? If so, then...I don't know what else I can say. Thanks for reading this far, I guess; and if you've read this far, then I hope you'll at least hear me out to the end.

Men, you have a say in this too. Is this how you want the women in your lives treated. If your daughter came to you one day, crying, telling you that she had been raped and that, on top of having been physically violated, emotionally scarred, possibly infected with HIV or some other sexually-transmitted disease, was also scared that she might be pregnant, who would you want making the decisions about what to do next? Do you want the Todd Akins of the world telling her that if she's a real woman she will just "shut that whole thing down" and she won't have anything to worry about?

What if your wife came home and said she had been raped. Would you both be looking forward to the baby that might be growing in her belly right now (squee!)? Do you want the Richard Mourdocks and Tom Smiths out there telling her (and you) what a miracle this is and how blessed she should feel to be carrying and then giving birth to her rapist's child? I'm not saying that every woman would opt for abortion in these situations-I understand that some women might choose to keep a baby in these circumstances, but shouldn't they be the ones who get to make that choice?

I know that adoption is always a possibility too, and one that Republicans are pushing for, but, again, that forces a woman to carry a baby that she may not want to carry and then leaves her to deal with the emotional aftermath of having given up her child. No matter how sound the reasoning behind it, no matter how sure you are that it's the best, least-worst decision, I'm sure that leaves a mark on your heart. I read a book a few years ago called The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade, and if you think giving up a child is no big deal, I would encourage you to read this book.

What if your sister called you, excited because she thought she might be pregnant and a couple weeks later called to say that it's a tubal pregnancy. The baby implanted in the fallopian tube and unless she miscarries naturally, it might burst her tube. Aside from any pain this may cause it may also reduce her chances of getting pregnant in the future. She's disappointed and scared and wants to have the developing fetus removed. Do you want Joe Walsh telling her that A) She's crazy-these types of things don't happen, B) she should stop trying to use the "health of the mother" excuse as a "tool" to get an abortion, and C) She can't. She's just going to have to wait and hope that she miscarries naturally. If that doesn't happen, then she'll just have to wait until the baby gets big enough to rupture her fallopian tube and once it finally dies, then a doctor can go in and scrape out the necrotic tissue. I'm sure Mr. Walsh will keep his fingers crossed for you that sepsis hasn't set in by then and that that ruptured fallopian tube doesn't make it harder for her to conceive next time! Even if Republicans don't succeed in banning abortion, they will try to exclude funding for health-care which provides abortion services. Technically, this would fall into that category. So, ha! Even if you do manage to get your "medically necessary" abortion, you're still going to have to pay for it yourself.

Look, I've never had to make a decision regarding abortion, but I'd like to know that in the future, if I ever find myself in a situation where my pregnancy might kill me (physically or spiritually), I would have the right to decide what to do about it, and I would hope that all the other women in my life would have the same choice.

*I made my calculations based on information from the 2010 U.S. Census using number from the Resident Population by Sex and Age table and included females in age categories "10 to 14 years" through "50 to 54 years". Even if you moved the lower and upper age brackets to just include women between ages 15 to 49, you would still be talking about almost 74,000,000 women.

Why I Can't Vote Republican-Gay Marriage

(If you've already read my The 47% post, you can skip ahead to paragraph four (after the line break)-you've already seen these first three paragraphs). Generally speaking, engaging in political discussion or listening to others engage in political discussion makes me want to shove a pencil in my eye and swirl it around. I don't like confrontation, and unless I already know your position and know that you agree with me, I'd rather not let you in on mine lest you think I'm an idiot, or, worse yet, decide to spend the next hour telling me why I'm an idiot. But I have to do this. I never thought I would say this, but there are things going on in this election that I have literally been losing sleep over, and I feel like if I don't put this out there I will have failed in some way. I promise I will do my best to be thoughtful and respectful and rein in my snark, and I expect you to do the same.

This started because, to my surprise, I kept seeing my Facebook friends "liking" Mitt Romney. Well, not totally to my surprise-I knew there would be a few-but some of them were a surprise. If you came here from Facebook, I know you (at least a little), I like you, and we probably have a lot of shared experiences in one way or another, so how are we seeing this thing so differently? I want to ask "What are you thinking???" but that tone generally doesn't engender useful conversation, and I'm tired of all the comments (on both sides) along the lines of "If you support [the other guy] you're an idiot! Sorry if you don't like my opinions, but it's a free country and I can say all the vitriolic, non-constructive, name-calling things that I want to. Don't forget to go to the polls on Nov. 6th! (Unless you're voting for the other guy-LOL!) (Also, my football team RULES!!! And yours SUCKS!!!)" (That last part doesn't have anything to do with the other--I just think it's annoying).

So, I wanted to take the time to explain why I feel the way that I feel. I don't really expect to change anybody's mind, but if there's anybody out there who's still on the fence, or who isn't interested in voting for their own sake, I do hope that I can help convince you to vote on behalf of me, your fellow American. Even if I don't, even if you know right here and now that there is NO WAY that is going to happen, I hope you'll still read, so that you at least understand where I'm coming from. And I do hope you'll comment to explain your side of things or to ask me questions. I just ask that if you're going to comment, you read all the way through to the end before doing so and keep everything civil, relevant, and thoughtful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I plan on voting Democrat this election cycle, not because I am staunchly pro-Democrat or because my family has always voted Democrat (honestly, I don't even know if my family ever voted). The fact of the matter is, I like Barack Obama, but more than that, I can't stomach the things that I keep hearing from the Republican party. According to GOP.com, the Republican party was all about things like abolition, free speech, and women's suffrage back in the day, and those are all things I can get behind. They say that, "With a core belief in the primacy of individuals, the Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights in opposition to a large, intrusive government." So, what happened?

I can't think of anything more intrusive than a government telling you that you cannot marry the person of your choice or telling you that you must have a child against your wishes. I'm going to tackle that first one here and the second one in a separate post.

There has been a lot of headway made toward marriage equality; I'm happy to see that, but there are a lot of people who are going to continue to fight hard to keep gay people from having the same rights, under the law, that straight people have, and I just don't get it.

In terms of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, isn't being able to commit yourself to the person you love one of the biggest pieces of that pursuit? The Renewing American Values section of the Republican Platform opens by saying that Republicans are "the party of independent individuals and the institutions they create...to advance their ideals and make real their dreams." Unless you happen to be gay and your dream is to raise a family with the person that you love. The very first item listed as a goal for Renewing American Values is "Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage". It states:

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

OK, let's take this apart. First of all, I don't know what proof they're citing--there are no references given. They just say that "Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, [etc.]..." More likely than what? I assume they mean than children raised by same-sex couples, but I doubt that the "experience and endless social science studies" that they reference have been comparing children from traditional intact families with children from same-sex intact families.

Secondly, "[t]he success of marriage directly impacts the econimic well-being of individuals." I agree. When there is only one parent in a house, straight or gay, there is often more financial hardship which often means less opportunity for parents to be involved with school and extracurricular activities and more opportunity for the child to be left unsupervised.

Next, "[t]the lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. OK...I don't even know what that means, but gay people are trying to form families, families that would be made up of two loving parents. Medical complications aside, any straight couple can get together and have a baby. There doesn't have to be any commitment there at all. A gay couple is going to have to work hard and spend a lot of money to make that happen either through surrogacy or adoption. Any child raised by a gay couple is going to be a child that was expected, wanted, and planned for, which is more than can be said for a lot of other children.

And finally, "we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage." What was that thing the Republicans said earlier about being "at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights" and non-intrusive government? Oh yeah, I guess they just meant for straight individuals. Look, I'm all for strengthening the union of marriage--a broken home is a broken home, and it stinks no matter who your parents are. There's nothing worse than feeling like you weren't worth sticking around for. Divorce rates amongst one-man, one-woman marriages are already high enough in this country; I don't think a lack of focus on male/female match-ups has been the problem. In fact, I think it has probably forced a lot of people into marriages that they knew were right for society but wrong for them as individuals. How does stigmatizing a homosexual into a heterosexual marriage make that marriage more likely to work?

When it comes to having your chioce of life partner recognized under the law, shouldn't every couple have equal rights in this regard? I think so. Does that mean that every church should be forced to recognize those marriages? Absolutely not. What the church recognizes as a marriage and what the law recognizes as a marriage are two separate things. How two people pay taxes, are covered under insurance, and make decisions for each other regarding medical care and end-of-life decisions should have no bearing on any church's view of their relationship. If that were the case, how would ANY unions outside of a church be considered valid by the governent? Wouldn't ALL marriages need to be sanctioned by a church. The IRS doesn't care whether two people filing jointly were married by the Justice of the Peace or the Pope, and when it comes to making medical or end-of-life decisions for someone you love would having opposing genitalia make you a better judge of what would be better for that person?

Before you go, I'd like to ask you if you know any gay people. If you answered no, I'd like to rephrase my question. If you did know any gay people, would they tell you? I'm not talking about in the workplace or casual acquaintances, but I mean people you know and love, your nephew, your daughter, your brother-in-law, your great-aunt Margaret and her "friend" that have been living together for the last 50 years and helped raise you and all of your cousins. Would you tell any of these people that you don't think they are worthy of as much happiness as you because of who they love?

Why I Can't Vote Republican-The 47%

(If you came here from Facebook, you can skip ahead to the next paragraph-you've already seen this one). Generally speaking, engaging in political discussion or listening to others engage in political discussion makes me want to shove a pencil in my eye and swirl it around. I don't like confrontation, and unless I already know your position and know that you agree with me, I'd rather not let you in on mine lest you think I'm an idiot, or, worse yet, decide to spend the next hour telling me why I'm an idiot. But I have to do this. There are things going on in this election that I have literally been losing sleep over, and I feel like if I don't put this out there I will have failed in some way. I promise I will do my best to be thoughtful and respectful and rein in my snark, and I expect you to do the same. I'm going to ease into this and not open with my abortion or religion posts...mainly because I am still working on those. Plus, I'm not gonna lie, I'm a little scared about those. So, let's all see how this goes; if I'm not huddled up in a corner at the end of it all, I'll be back with more in a few days.

This started because, to my surprise, I kept seeing my Facebook friends "liking" Mitt Romney. Well, not totally to my surprise-I knew there would be a few-but some of them were a surprise. If you came here from Facebook, I know you (at least a little), I like you, and we probably have a lot of shared experiences in one way or another, so how are we seeing this thing so differently? I want to ask "What are you thinking???" but that tone generally doesn't engender useful conversation, and I'm tired of all the political posts that are popping up everywhere, mostly to the tune of "If you support [the other guy] you're an idiot! Sorry if you don't like my opinions, but it's a free country and I can say all the vitriolic, non-constructive, name-calling things that I want to. Don't forget to go to the polls on Nov. 6th! (Unless you're voting for the other guy-LOL!) Also, my football team RULES!!!"

So, I wanted to take the time to explain why I feel the way that I feel. I don't really expect to change anybody's mind, but if there's anybody out there who's still on the fence, or who isn't interested in voting for their own sake, I do hope that I can help convince you to vote on behalf of me, your fellow American. Even if I don't, even if you know right here and now that there is NO WAY that is going to happen, I hope you'll still read, so that you at least understand where I'm coming from. And I do hope you'll comment to explain your side of things or to ask me questions. I just ask that if you're going to comment, you read all the way through to the end before doing so and keep everything civil, relevant, and thoughtful.

OK, so by now most of us have heard about Mitt Romney's infamous 47% comment, about how 47% of the population doesn't pay income taxes, they are a bunch of moochers, and it's not his job to care about them. There are a couple things about this that have upset people. First, that not paying income tax automatically makes you a freeloading moocher, and, second, that it's not Mitt Romney's job to care about these people.

I found the video, including all the bits we haven't been seeing in the media, and, as I suspected might be the case, Romney doesn't actually seem to be saying that it's not his job to care about these people, period, just that it's not his job to care about wooing them in this election cycle because they have all already made up their minds and are not likely to change. At first this made me feel a little better. At least he's not saying that, as President, it wouldn't be his job to care for these people who make up nearly half of the country...but then I thought about it some more and it still pissed me off. So, before we go any further, here is the clip, in its unedited version (unedited clip...is that an oxymoron? Well, you all know what I mean). I'll reprint the text below to make it easier to reference.
 

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

OK, fine, I get that you have to pick your battles, and I'm sure he's right that there is a certain segment of the population that wouldn't vote for him "no matter what." I am going to vote for Obama, but it has nothing to do with my feeling that I'm entitled to basic survival necessities like food or medical care. It's because, after some thoughtful consideration, which apparently Mitt believes only Independents to be capable of, I absolutely cannot support certain things that the Republican party stands for. So, way to reach out to any Democrats who may be disenchanted with their party and looking to make a change, Mitt.

But let's get to the real issue here. As an American, is it really that audacious to think that you have a right to food, housing, and medical care. I'm not saying that everybody should just get these things for free (and maybe that's where this whole argument falls apart, maybe it's a problem of sematics-so let me clarify. If you have never had a job, never intend to have a job, are not independently wealthy, and honestly believe that there should be no expectation for you to work for your food or your housing, that the government should just give these things to you for free, then yes, I agree with Mitt on this one; but, honestly, I think the people who make up that segment of the population are pretty rare, definitely not 47% of the population), but if you lose your job, if you are laid up with an illness or an injury, are you just expected to get out of the way and die if you can't afford food or medical care or shelter? What was it that Ebenezer Scrooge said about decreasing the surplus population? Oh yeah, basically, that they should just die already.

If this is how Romney really feels about all the people that don't pay income taxes (that they're useless drains on society, not that they should just die already, that's just hyperbole...I hope), then I have to take issue because I know a lot of those people, and I bet you do too.

Since news of this 47% statement came out, there's been a lot of talk about whether or not the number is accurate, and, if so, just who is this 47% exactly? To the first point, everyone seems to agree that the number itself is about right, but according to the Tax Policy Center, that includes people who pay income taxes but then end up getting a tax refund, not just people who never pay any income taxes. So if you've ever gotten a tax refund (woo-hoo!), you might just be one of the loser government dependents that Romney doesn't want to waste his time on (oh. Boooo!).

Who else are we talking about? Well, largely the elderly (who often don't make enough to have to pay income taxes) and the working poor (who are employed and pay payroll taxes, which fund Medicare and Social Security, but also don't make enough to have to pay income taxes). Let's talk about some of these folks, shall we?

My in-laws had thirteen children. I know at one point my mother-in-law worked in the commissary; beyond that I don't know what she did, but I know she worked all her life to put food on the table for her family. She is Catholic and believes with all her heart that her sole purpose as a woman on this earth was to bear children. That's something I know the Republican party can get behind. My father-in-law retired from the Air Force as a Staff Sergeant after serving in Korea and Viet Nam. Despite the fact that they both worked full time, they had to rely on welfare to get by for a good portion of their lives-with thirteen kids, how could you not? I don't know how my in-laws felt about their entitlement to food, but I'm pretty sure that they felt like their kids were entitled to it. My father-in-law has passed away, and my mother-in-law now lives on Social Security and I doubt she makes enough to have to pay any income tax. I'm pretty sure that she is going to vote Republican, even though she clearly falls into that category of folks that Mitt Romney considers to be nothing but a parasitic drain on our society.

Oh, and all those welfare kids that my in-laws had? They all graduated high school (that was my mother-in-law's other stated mission in life), most, if not all of them, went to college (come on, there were thirteen! I don't know everyone's history). Four of them served in the military, and out of thirteen, I can tell you with certainty that at least ten of the thirteen are either a small-business owner, gainfully employed, or retired-the other three I'm honestly not sure about-two have medical issues, and I've never met the other one. I don't know how Mitt would look at this, but I think he'd be pretty proud of all of these people that were dependent upon the government for most or all of their childhoods. Looking at it from a business standpoint, I think they were a pretty good investment.

My grandfather is almost 96-years-old, and he worked all his life as a carpenter until he retired at 65. He helped build Tripler Army Medical Center and the Air Force Academy Chapel among other things. He and my grandmother have lived in the house that he built for almost 60 years. They don't have any debt, but they do rely on their Social Security and his carpenter's pension as well as Medicare to get by. They also don't make enough money to have to pay income taxes. Due to medical reasons, my grandpa had to move into a care facility last year, but thankfully Medicare is covering these costs. I don't think either of them will be voting in this election, but if they did, I can tell you that my Grandpa, for damn sure, would NOT be voting for Obama despite the fact that he and my grandma both have shelter, are able to receive necessary medical care, and they can still afford to feed themselves thanks, in part, to the tax-free money they receive from the government.

What about the military? They tend to provide a fairly strong Republican base, but apparently they are also providing a growing Independent base-seems like this might be exactly the group that Romney would like to talk to. Although...they actually ARE entitled to housing (or a housing allowance) and health care under our current system. To some extent, I guess you could say they are entitled to food too. Along with a Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), they receive commissary privileges which often allow them to pay lower prices for food than they would find on the economy without paying sales tax. Seems like they might actually be the epitome of this 47 percent who are dependent upon government, who believe they are entitled to health care, food, and housing, who often ARE actual victims-victims of sniper attacks, suicide bombers, IEDs-not to mention recipients of tax-free pay for working in a combat zone. Are they the ones whom Mitt Romny will never be able to convince to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives"? When are they going to quit acting like victims (I mean, how much medical care do you need when you get your leg blown off? You've got another one. Oh, you don't? And exactly how much disability pay are you going to expect for that?)

The reason people are going to vote for Obama "no matter what" is because Romney keeps saying crap like this. I understand that he didn't mean to indicate that it wasn't his job to care about these people, but that's exactly what he did, and the fact that he doesn't seem to realize it or doesn't seem to think that he's off base is what makes people like me not want to vote for him. The fact of the matter is, that if he is elected President, it will be his job to care about all his citizens, not just the ones who voted for him.

Are there people who take advantage of systems like disability, food assistance, worker's comp., etc.? Of course there are, and there always will be. But, generally speaking, the people who genuinely need the help the worst are the people who really are often reluctant to take it. Most people I know would rather earn what they get, but if they find themselves in a place where they need help, they are grateful to have it.

Are there systems in place that are inefficient, ineffective, or redundant? I'm sure there are, I'm sure there are changes and cuts that need to be made to the system, but the way to get it done is not by insulting the half of the country that relies on those systems and then asking them to vote for you (or not asking them to vote for you, as the case may be).

Ooh! You know who else doesn't pay income taxes? The super wealthy. Ouch. I wonder if Romney told all of them what layabouts he thought they were as they were writing checks to fund his campaign and he was promising to keep their tax cuts in place.

So, what do you think? Just for the record, this one speech is not the reason I'm not voting for Romney, but it gives me an insight to his and, I believe, a lot of other Republicans' psyches, and the lack of compassion and consideration with which they are willing to make their decisions. I have other posts planned for the topics which are the reasons, and I hope you'll join me for those too.

For a girl who doesn't like talking politics, how's that for jumping feet first into the fire? And this was the light-hearted, easy post.