Karen's blog: "Karen's Blog"

What do the 17 faces above have in common... besides being unattractive, old white men?

They're all conservatives, of course. All Republicans, except for one. Can you name him?

That would be George Wallace (fifth from left), elected Alabama governor four times, and three-time Democratic presidential candidate. It's important to note that once upon a time greedy corporatists had the Republican Party pretty much all to themselves, while the Democratic Party actually contained within its "big tent" the "social" conservatives, mostly from the south. Wallace was one of those. Of all the figures above, he is the only one to ever regret and recant much of the conservative bile he spewed during his active political seasons. It seems even the staunchest of conservative Democrats can at last admit they were wrong.

Republicans? As they will tell you themselves, they are never wrong. But aha, that's their mastery of wordsmithing, phrase-turning and disinformation at work... where the truth is actually the opposite of what they say it is. The sad reality is that they are always wrong. They count on you having a very short memory about that.

The 17 figures above are among the titans of the conservative movement over the past century. Look at those faces. What do you see, aside from a gaggle of sour pusses? Here are some terms that variously apply and describe: corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, elitist, bigot, liar, zealot, crook, bully, thief, uncaring, humorless, short-sighted, mean-spirited, staid, stodgy, ruthless, stubborn, boor, irrational, out-of-touch, coward, thug, disloyal, unethical, alcoholic, drug-abuser, ego-maniac, criminal, dangerous, fascist, traitor, evil.

In the 1960s and 70s those ultra-conservative Democratic politicians, and their true believers, realized they were becoming more and more out of sync with their party and its traditional quest for progress, equality and opportunity for all Americans. You see, conservatives never, ever really want progress, equality and opportunity for all Americans... only for their, particular chosen group: affluent, white males. So en masse they began moving to the Republican Party, which was comparatively untainted by the labor movement, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, scientists, teachers, artists, musicians, non-conformists, environmentalists, women, and other rabble. Today there are very few real conservatives left in the Democratic Party. Surely one of the most conservative Democrats of the modern era was Bill Clinton. As president, he gave the conservatives much of what they wanted, and still they hated him.

Yet even with the influx of millions of former conservative Democrats, the Republican party...particularly following Watergate...seemed in disarray and entirely out of touch with the nation's direction; rapidly evolving progress in the fields of education, arts and sciences, civil rights, women's rights, environmental concerns, workplace safety, industrial and coporate regulations, and more.

But then a strange combination of events turned things around for the conservatives. The tumultuous 60s, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the continuing and seemingly never-ending Cold War, a misfiring economy, the rapid expansion and politicizing of evangelical Christian sects, combined with uninspired leadership at all levels of government culminated in a national crisis of confidence in the mid and late '70s. Democrat Jimmy Carter, certainly one of the most decent human beings to occupy the White House, inherited this malaise, but was unable to turn it around on the basis of his administration's philosophies: honesty, openness, rationality, and long-term planning.

 

By 1980 the voters had grown impatient with Carter, and turned their hopes, dreams and trust over to a Hollywood B-movie actor. Ronald Reagan had not even taken office before he betrayed that trust. But he got away with it, and he would set the stage for a hostile takeover of American government by the nastiest, most ruthless political animals the nation has ever known: the conservatives. 

 http://www.conservativemyths.com/

January 22, 1973 That was the day the Supreme Court of the United States, with a 7 to 2 decision, overturned a Texas law which prohibited abortion. "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual , married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." The Supreme Court rendered no opinion as to when life begins. The majority decision, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, said this: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary . . . is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Blackmun examined the U.S. Constitution to see if the Founding Fathers had intended to include prenatal life when they used the word "person" in the document. He concluded that nowhere in the document had he found "any possible pre-natal application." He declared, "The word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." I've been in many debates about abortion. They are always fraught with people's personal opinions about when life begins, and whether abortion is right or wrong. Let me make this perfectly clear: I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion is in that regard, and I will delete any comment made here that expresses that. When the Roe v. Wade decision was made, abortion was already legal in the state of Washington: " November 3, 1970 Voters Legalize Abortion Referendum 20, legalizing abortion, was approved by a margin of 56 percent (599,959 votes) to 44 percent (462,174 votes), with the strongest support coming from King County. The referendum amended a 1909 law that prohibited all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. The new law legalized abortions for women who were no more than four months pregnant, had lived in Washington for at least 90 days, and had the consent of a parent or guardian (for women under 18) or husband (for married women living with their husbands)." The law in Washington state has since been strengthened, by voter initiative, in case of an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade: Initiative 120 (Reproductive Privacy Act) was passed by a vote of the people in November 1991 and was subsequently adopted into the Revised Code of Washington, sections 9.02. The purpose of I-120 was to place the standards of the Supreme Court decision, Roe vs Wade, into state law, so that if Roe vs Wade was overturned, women in Washington would continue to have the same rights and protections. The essence of the Reproductive Privacy Act is section RCW 9.02.110 below which states, "The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health." Abortion will always be a legal option for women where I live. That's good. But I care about the rights of every woman in the United States, regardless of her location and economic status. Every woman should have the right to every possible choice. That's why I will never vote for a political candidate who is not pro-choice. That's why, for me, the most critical issue in electing a president, is whether they will select pro-choice appointees to the Supreme Court. Now let me reiterate. This is not an invitation to debate the morality of abortion, or for any comments on whether you think it's right or wrong. Because as far as I'm concerned, it's pretty simple. If you think something is wrong, don't do it. But keep your opinions off MY body! And out of my comment box! Have a nice day.