Oophless Wonders

The Accidental Tactician, Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-11T17:54:00.000-07:00

The best thing Cindy Sheehan did was NOT planning ahead.

Can you imagine if Sheehan had announced weeks ago that she had planned to do this? Rove would have had more time to develop the strategy to bash Cindy. But instead they are scrambling. And as is so common with these morons lately, they are hanging themselves. So keep it up.

The other beautiful thing about this standoff is that you can be absolutely certain that George W. Bush will NEVER again be allowed to kick back at his ranch without a significant protest, for the rest of his Presidency.

This guy is an absolute miracle. He and his minions REALLY believe that Bush is entitled to a 5 week vacation in Crawford while his servicemen have begun the deadliest month for Americans of the war to date.

We love Cindy Sheehan. And Bill O'Reilly and Hannity and fat ass Limbaugh and the rest of them can keep hanging themselves by offending the MOTHER of a DEAD SERVICEMAN.

It won't be much longer now. The table is set.

Is Bush on the right track for once?

2005-08-08T21:07:00.000-07:00

You know, I have always agreed with President Bush on one point. When we send taxpayer dollars to foreign countries in need, there really does have to be effective oversight. After all, we've been down this road before in the 1980s and we can't let some two-bit dictatorship steal our money.

So as the headlines of starvation in Africa have centered on the small country of Niger over the past few days, I can't help but wonder: Who could we get to help us? We don't want to waste our money.

The UN has asked for $80 million of emergency assistance for Niger, to stop the immediate starvation. And so we should help, right? I mean, of course we should. But we need some assurances.

So I had this idea. If anyone reading this knows the President, maybe you could put a bug in his ear for me. We need to create a post called International Monetary Assessor For Efficient Resources, or "I. M. A. F-ER."

Of course we'll need the right guy to get on this Niger project, and we'll need him to be available quickly. I have a guy in mind. I am not sure of his name. But here's the general idea:

The man for this job should be familiar with the governmant officials in Niger. Now that narrows the field down pretty drastically. After all, most Americans don't even know where Niger is, much less the names of its leaders.

Further, the candidate for this important job should know personally, and be known personally, by Niger's leadership. Wow! Talk about narrowing the field. But, hey, George is right on this one. We can't throw our money away.

Not only should he be known by these leaders, but he should have their respect. Without this mandatory component, Niger's rulers are sure to mislead him. And in the end, the American people won't get the information we need.

The man for this job must not be afraid to speak truth to power. Niger's leaders will undoubtedly try to confuse him with distorted facts, so he must be strong-willed. Above all, he can not take their assertions at face value. He must come with some sense of intellectual curiosity.

He should be smart, and well-schooled in international affairs. Maybe some sort of dignitary, say, or how about a former ambassador? Too narrow, you say? Perhaps you're right. Who could we possibly expect to meet all of these criteria. Hmmm...

What's that you say?? Oh, you found someone? Well what's his name? You can't tell me his name??

All you can say is: "He's Valerie Wilson's husband?"

Oh well, back to square one.

How do you know when a conservative's run out of facts?

2005-08-03T16:26:00.000-07:00

When I speak to my conservative friends about politics, I have begun to notice a few hackneyed phrases that let you know they have nothing more to say, and they have no further curiosity on whatever particular issue is at hand.

At this point, one should tread lightly, declare victory (but never aloud) and just move on. You can continue to pepper your muse from LimbaughLand with facts, but they will keep cycling back to the Republican Cultcyclopedia of Cliches.

Here are a few I hear repeatedly. Feel free to write with more. I am happy to add to the list.

"What about Clinton?"
"Elections have consequences."
"There are weapons of mass destruction. They were moved to Syria."
"Saddam gassed his own people."
"If you had it your way, Sadaam Hussein would still be in power."
"Up or Down Vote"
"She was not covert, so shut up...it's over!"
"Is that what they told you on Moveon.org??!"
"Or is that what Michael Moore told you?"
"You sound like a typical socialist liberal."
"I don't have time to be looking all of this stuff up. I work for a living."
"We should just nuke them all."
"Gays want special rights."
"Clinton only got 43% of the vote." (This one has quieted quite a bit since Bush won with less than the majority of popular votes.)

to be continued...

What if it happened on Clinton's watch?

2005-08-02T08:58:00.000-07:00

What would the blood-thirsty maniacs on the Right do with the items on this list, all having occurred on Bush's watch.

21 US Marines die within two days in a foreign war, where the leader has long been deposed and there is no organized opposition. (Added 8/3/05)
A prostitute made it into the press corps, and repeatedly lobbed softball questions to the President, even criticizing the opposition party in the context of the question.
A member of Bill Clinton's staff revealed the identity of a CIA Operative on Weapons of Mass Destruction in an effort to discredit a critic, the spouse of said operative.
A Boy Scout jamboree is marred by illness and death after the attendees wait in sweltering heat for the President's delayed arrival. (Important to note that I do not blame Bush for this. But the cultists on the Right would absolutely find a way to blame Clinton ala the runway haircut.)
A Presidential appontment made it through committee with a No-Recommendation vote, which requires at lease one vote from each Party, and then the President shoved him into his post anyway.
At a Democratic fundraiser, the President entertained such high-ticket contributors as Porn Star Mary Carey.
The President makes a case for war that turns out to be completely innacurate at best, and purposefully deceptive at worst. (Think Clinton would have avoided impeachment on this one?)
He claimed to be a Conservative Christian determined to illegalize abortion, but never proposes a Consitutional Ban on Abortion.
The President took 50 vacations by his 5th year in office.
Just before the World Trade Center was hit, the President was handed a Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." This briefing states, in part, that the FBI has noticed: "...patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
The President asserts that he would catch our largest sworn enemy, Usama Bin Laden, "Dead or Alive." Then, not able to do so, he declares: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."

...to be continued

Ohio Congressional election tomorrow, does it matter?

2005-08-01T09:11:00.000-07:00

On August 2, there will be an election that the Democrats can't lose. Paul Hackett can lose, but the Democrats can't.

Paul Hackett is an Iraq War veteran who, within weeks of his return to his home in Ohio, decided to run for US Congress. He is not well-known and he is not expected to win this race in Ohio's ultra-conservative 2nd district.

If he were to win, Democrat Paul Hackett would become the only veteran of the current Iraq War to serve in Congress. Although he is a longshot, if he does in fact pull it off, it spells BIG problems for the Republicans next year.

There is a groundswell around this guy. He wiped the floor with Republican Jean Schmidt in their last debate. Nonetheless, Schmidt is a pro-war, pro-business "Christian" Conservative who fits in nicely with the demographic of Ohio's 2nd District.

Schmidt's first listed personal endorsement on her website is that of Jana Morford Widmeyer, Chairman of the "Right to Life PAC." She follows that with folks from the NRA, a Church Pastor, and the president of the "Life Issues Institute & International Right to Life Federation" etc.

A cursory glance at www.hackettforcongress.com reveals "PAUL ON THE ISSUES" at the top of Hackett's front page, where one would expect it . At www.JeanSchmidt.com, we have another story altogether. On the top page, the word "issues" isn't mentioned once. There are no direct links to any of Mrs. Schmidt's stances whatsoever. (see www.JeanSchmidt.com if you must)!

I did a little bit of digging and did find some Bills that Mrs. Schmidt offered during her time in the State Assembly. She succesfully pulled funds from Planned Parenthood, while having the State earmark funds directly to that proven winner, "Abstinence Only" education. She has introduced many bills to reduce restrictions on business. Take her HB128, which passed the Ohio Legislature. What would the State do without this brave new law that: "eliminates the bond requirement for cigarette dealers...". Wow, what a leader!

She also has her "Accomplishments" page, where she proudly displays her e-certificate as the 17th member in the ever-prestigious and benevolent "Pro-Life Pushy Broads Society." Try Googling that one. From what I can tell, it exists in name only.

So with Schmidt, we see more of the same. And she probably thought she had her ticket punched when Bush nominated Rob Portman US Trade Rep. In fact, Bush nominated Portman, in part, because he felt that this District was safe for Republicans. And he was right. It WAS safe. But it may not be anymore.

Watch this race. If Hackett pulls off the upset, the Republican's are going to suffer some major blows next year. Mark my words. But if Schmidt wins, the Democarats haven't lost a thing.

Are Republicans patriots?

2005-07-08T08:03:00.000-07:00

OK get some popcorn because this is gonna be a good one!

Yesterday on Fox News Channel I heard an author talking about the wretched anti-American liberals. He went on and on about how the left hates America, is undermining the troops, and should generally shut up about Bush.

Interestingly, this author used Google to "prove" his point. He claimed that if you search "Adolf Hitler" and "George W. Bush" you would get 400some thousand hits. Well, that's a lie anyway, and a stupid, little lie, but you can do the search yourself. It turns up 232,000. Anyway, this guy fails to mention that the first hit you get is for Time Magazine and that's because Bush was named Man of the Year, and Hitler comes up on their timeline. And there are also links on the first search page that wish to DEBUNK any copmparisons of Hitler to Bush.

Many conservatives like to compare Bush to Winston Churchill. OK, let's search "Winston Churchill" and "George W. Bush." Ahhh, what do you know? 237,000 hits. This author (whose name has been pruposefully left from my piece here) must really think his intended viewer is stupid, and/or too lazy to confirm these things. Google. Really!?

Well, I can use Google with the best of them. So I fired up the old computer and pulled myself a few quotations from conservative Republican blowhards and elected politicians regarding another war -- Kosovo.

Of course, these quotes were about a war that was managed just a little differently. In fact, if you don't try hard, you may even forget that we were involved in Kosovo. Casualties were next to none. NATO countries participated. Yes, even France butted in (though they were generally a pain in the ass). By any measure, Kosovo was handled well and we got out of there quickly. YES, nitpickers on the right, there are still servicemen in Kosovo...we get it... but they aren't having their arms and legs blown off daily. And kids don't run away from recruiters because they are afraid they will be sent to Kosovo. Promise these kids they'd be sent to Kosovo, and not Iraq, and our military would never miss another recruitment goal.

As a lead in to this parade of quotations, I pulled up a random blogger's rants on the current critics of this Iraq War. He writes, in a lengthy tirade titled, "Message to Those Who Hate America":

"I wonder if this bunch of big mouthed idiots who criticize America and President Bush for bringing change and democracy to Iraq, can count the number of democracies in the Islamic countries on one hand, assuming their hand has not been chopped off for minor shoplifting as the Muslims do to people."

Now you may think that nobody reads this guy's blog, but you'd be wrong. You'd be thinking of MY blog. This blog was written by a preacher named John Lee Clary, and the counter on this particular page of his site is rapidly nearing 200,000. If you want to see for yourself, just do a Google search on: "Boot in your ass" "rags on their heads."

So what did these President-loving, non-critical, SuperPatiorots on the right have to say about President Clinton's participation in the NATO strikes on Kosovo to end genocide. Well, let's find out:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX, 6/99, two months into Kosovo Conflict)

"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN, New York Times, 5/4/99)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, for then-candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (For anyone not keeping score, Serbs were the "Nazis" of Kosovo)

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (In fairness, Buchanan doesn't support this war either)

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."
-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

If we criticize the President, do the terrorists win?

2005-07-07T17:33:00.000-07:00

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt -- May 7, 1918

This is what Theodore Roosevelt wrote during World War I. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican President, had already served his term and was in private life.

He made these comments during a war that was much more dangerous for American soldiers than is the current Iraq war.

Of course, the idea that quelling our freedom of speech helps our cause of "spreading freedom" or reducing terrorism is so patently false and inside-out, that it shouldn't have to be addressed at all. But the sad fact is that the cult leaders on Fox and on the radio airwaves have planted this seed so deeply in our brothers and sisters, that you will find yourself defending this concept over the coming weeks and months.

Thought the quote might be helpful.

Windmill Ugly....Oil Refinery Beautiful?

2005-06-29T10:11:00.000-07:00

An Energy Bill passed the Senate recently.

The Bill that was offered initially differed from what they ended up with, largely through amendments that help campaign contributors, and do little to alleviate gas prices or to help the environment.

It was no accident that during this debate, we again turned our attention to Global Warming, and our oil-loving Conservative counterparts poo-pooed science as usual. It seems generous to call this position "conservative." After all, the conservative approach should be to side with caution, reduce harmful emissions, and check the results.

A few weeks ago, as our Senators smugly "debated" our nation's energy policy, I caught an hour of Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander. He stood on the Senate floor and made the following arguments:

1) All language regarding windmills, and construction thereof, should be removed from the Energy Bill.

2) Windmills are ugly. He claimed that they are as tall as three football fields. (I am not kidding. He actually said that windmills stand basically as tall as the Empire State Building.)

3) If we strived to derive 10% of our Nation's Energy from renewable resources**, then we will pollute our country with these Empire State Building-sized windmills in the GRAND CANYON.

These are the illustrations he used. And the thought occurred to me...how pretty oil refineries must be! I don't have much experience with refineries, but since oil has caused our nation so much grief, pollution, and war, surely its chief asset must be the beauty of its refineries. Indeed sir, windmills in the Grand Canyon??? Why, thank you for warning us, Senator! You clearly have America's best interest at heart. And may we one day place Refineries in the Grand Canyon. Oh, what a happy day this would be!

We have to get it straight in America. We are not going to fix the problems of the status quo, with status quo. The move to renewable resources will happen, it's just a question of time. But as long as arguments are being made that windmills are too ugly, or an electric car is not fast enough, we are doomed.

Now that John Ashcroft isn't using his $8,000 drapery to cover the breast of justice, perhaps we can borrow it to cover those ugly windmills in the Grand Canyon.

Is There Anything New for President Bush to say...

2005-06-28T19:40:00.000-07:00

...Look, there will be much written in the coming days on tonight's speech.

Here is what we need to remember.

There is nothing worse than being a patriotic American sent to fight for a lie.

I can explain this a million different ways.

Those who pay attention, already know the details.

Those who don't pay attention, do not care about the details.

This July 4 weekend, remember that 99.9% of our soldiers are doing the unthinkably impossible. And they are standing in the midst of this nightmare, and they follow protocols, keep their manners and carry on in an honorable way.

They have enemies in Iraq. And many of them feel they have no friends at home.

Pray for them and, if you are inclined, send something to them this Weekend. Kerry and I will. There are many websites that can direct you.

www.booksforsoldiers.com

http://www.heromiles.org/

Who is Karl Rove talking about???

2005-06-25T11:08:00.000-07:00

``Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.''... ``[Conservatives] saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.'' --Karl Rove

I have a lot of conservative friends. I don't know a single one that "prepared for war," unless preparing for war means watching more Fox News Channel, listening to more Rush Limbaugh, hanging a flag (maybe), and paying less taxes.

Let me tell you a story about one of my liberal friends. He is a 38 year-old U.S. Citizen of Arab descent. He has a masters degree, and works for a Defense Contractor. His months after 9/11 were spent ostracized by friends, co-workers, and assorted strangers. They shamed this American, removing him from a commercial airplane on Thanksgiving Wednesday, as he tried to make his way to Virginia to celebrate the Holiday with his family.

In 2004, he campaigned for Governor Howard Dean during the Democratic primaries. He even took time off from his job to travel out-of-State for the Dean campaign.

Today, this friend is in Iraq. He has volunteered to help the USA make reconstruction a reality, or even a possibility. As an expert Arabic translator with an advanced degree, he is that rare category of person we need desperately if we are to have any remote hope of completing the mission successfully. He left in April, with full knowledge that he would become "public enemy number 1" for the insurgents in Iraq. He is an Arab/Muslim helping the US effort ~ and that places the bull's-eye squarely on his chest.

While my conservative friends continue to "prepare for war," my liberal friend, whom I have known for half my life, serves in a real war. He has never supported this war idealogically. But he supports the USA with his body...with his life. He may very well return in one of those coffins that will never be seen on television, and he does it for Karl Rove's Country.

Karl Rove, you didn't offend me. You offended my friend. But if my friend heard your comments, he would just stiffen his lip, and go about his business. He knows, as do I, that in your America, you can't be a liberal. You can't be an Arab. And you certainly can't be a Muslim. But even being all three, my friend and I both know that you, Karl Rove, will still welcome him....to go to your Iraq.

Is Being Christian a Choice?

2005-06-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

Whenever equal rights for gays comes up, many liberals invoke the "Gays are the new Blacks" approach, and point to the Civil Rights Movement as a template for what's happening now. For many reasons, the two are not the same, unless one wishes to take the argument to a very simple form (and lose I might add).

But a far dumber argument is the Conservative Christian credo that being gay is a choice. As a result, we have seen a spike in progressive research to prove that being Gay is genetic. This research is pointless to the current conversation in America, because Conservatives will not believe any scientific finding (on any subject) unless it agrees with them. To anyone who can fairly weigh the supposed choice of being gay or being straight in America, no science is necessary to understand that the origins of "gayness" are not in the realm of free will.

Many people on both sides feel that if their particular view on this "Choice" vs. "Genetics" argument were vindicated with research, then the other side would crumble. But I have to tell you, this is the most absurd train of thought, for either a Conservative fundamentalist, or for the secular liberal.

Let's take the concept that being gay is hardwired into the brain at birth as fact for the moment. In this case, you could replace the word gay with the word "black" and then use this as a meter for polite behavior and law. But I offer a better argument than this, and one I want you all to use the next time you discuss this issue with your Fundie friends and family.

Let's GIVE THEM that being gay is a choice. Let's just assume, when discussing this issue, that a person reaches a certain age and decides that the gay lifestyle will somehow be more advantageous than the straight lifestyle. Shut your brain down when it tries to leap out of your skull at the absurdity of this view. Just offer this question...."Is Being Christian A CHOICE?"

The answer to this question is obvious. And since partaking in any organized religion is a matter of choice, then we can follow with these questions: Should Christians have the same protection as non-Christians in hiring and firing practices? Should Christians have equal protection under US Contract Laws (i.e. marriage laws)? Should Christians have equal rights in all national laws, and be protected under the US Constitution from discrimination????????

And being Christian is a choice, correct??? And being gay is a choice, correct??? And you can be Christian and an American, correct???? And you can be gay and an American, correct?????

Oophless wonders........

Do Republicans Secretly Like Abortion???

2005-06-09T10:24:00.000-07:00

I tried and I tried. I begged my Republican friends to consider John Kerry in 2004.

All of the facts in the world couldn't get them off George W. Bush.

But when it really comes down to it, abortion is the ONLY reason that the Fundies won't any time soon consider John Kerry or anyone else from the Democratic Party for president. This is really the only issue that drives them. They may talk about security, or guns, or a nativity scene removal from Beaver County.

But those other issues don't make a vote for a Democrat an impossibility. Abortion is the iron wall. The Democratic candidate could be as anti-abortion as Harry Reed, or as pro-choice as Barbara Boxer. It simply doesn't matter. No Democrat can earn a Fundie vote as long as the party is aligned with abortion rights.

So my question is simple. Why would the Republicans, who clearly enjoy their current power, move seriously to end abortion? Can you imagine the ramifications? For starters, they lose their "line-in-the-sand" issue with voters. Secondly, abortion is a fact. It will never end. The only question of course, is its legality. And making it illegal just makes it a fact with additional victims. Would their be a pro-choice backlash? You better believe it.

I began to think that Republicans secretly wanted to keep abortions legal when Bush was elected the first time. And so I began to follow what he did (or did not do) ~ substantively ~ to end the practice. Needless to say, there wan't much to follow. With the exception of the silly political softball tossed in the name of ending the rarest of practices, the late-term abortion, the rhetoric is the thing.

Then the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages was sent to the Senate. Immediately, my mind scrambled. If there are murders of fetus's happening every day in America, how could this Conservative Christian president place Gay Marriage as a scourge that deserved a Constiutional ban BEFORE baby murder. Well this is quite a concept, isn't it? Gays shouldn't marry, and they are the only couples that are no threat to abort pregnancies. Not only that, but preventing these unions is worthy of amending the US Consitution. But abortion, evidently, is not. Hmmmm.

Now I posed this to many of my conservative friends. Why not push for your president to introduce a contitutional amendment to ban baby murder? Several times, I received the response: "He doesn't have the votes." OK. Nevermind that he also didn't have the votes to ban Gay Marriage consitutionally, but should the prevention of baby murder really be a matter of vote counting? Or should it not get an "up or down vote?" Up or Down....Up or Down....Up or Down....

.....Oophless Wonders