SCANDAL! SCANDAL! Scandal? Republicans, again, using the throw the spaghetti on the wall and see if something sticks.

This week, it seems that the most important news in this country is the Obama administration's evil and illegal scandals and cover ups! OH...MY...GOD...teabaggers and republicons are worse than high school gossip and soap operas...white trash soap operas....so, I will try to muddle through this slimy stinky pile of crap that the right have been falling on their fainting couches over.

First: Benghazi. I haven't understood this yet...it seems that the republicons were mortified that 4 embassy staff, including an ambassador were killed and President Obama did absolutely NOTHING, but wait...no, its not about the men dying, its because Obama tried to cover it up and downplay the terrorist act during the election...but wait, President Obama called it an "act of terror" the day after the attack...so its because he didn't use the term, "terrorism"...huh? Confused yet?

This basically began as a campaign to slam Susan Rice so she would not be able to accept the Secretary of State position. Ms. Rice did make the talking head circles after the attack with prepared statements from the CIA which did downplay it being a terrorist attack, but the reasoning behind it was they hadn't investigated it enough to be sure it was a terrorist attack. But you can't go on TV and say, "we haven't had the time to investigate the reasons for the attack" cuz then the talking points would be "OBAMA'S NOT INVESTIGATING QUICK ENOUGH, BENGHAZI'S ON THE BACK BURNER"...or something worse. But then it was Hillary's fault, she hid from the patriotic teabaggers by giving herself a concussion, but even with a concussion, she made more sense than Rand Paul. So, we have Boehner complaining about emails he didn't see because when the White House invited him to see the emails, he refused...and then we have a star witness in Mr. Hicks...who isn't so much of a witness after all, then we have the "EMAIL Scandal"  which ends up only being a scandal because Faux News and the Daily Standard made up what was in the emails and now we have all of the emails and no "there" there, in fact the White House wasn't even involved...but WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

So, onto the next spaghetti plate...er...scandal: the IRS auditing right wing tax shelters...oh, sorry, non-profits. First, that's what I thought was one of IRS's responsibilities--to audit/approve non-profit applications. Well, silly me..BUTBUTBUT the IRS did a much larger investigation in right wing applications! That's wrong! Really? Let's remember that since 2010, there has been a major upswing in batshit crazy right wing groups(with the Citizen's United decision) and that many of them have no problem bragging, in print or on TV about how much they've raised for political purposes rather than social welfare. So again, more hearings, more spells on the fainting couch, more turtle hysterics, only to discover that this, again, doesn't lead to the White House. It was handled poorly(although didn't effect any of the high rollers in the non-profit campaign financing shills such as Crossroads or Americans for Prosperity), shouldn't have been done that way, but with no White House demands...OK, so that's done....
And there goes the plate of salad! The DOJ subpoenas phone records of AP reporters!!!! What happened to the Fourth Estate?!?!??! Freedom of the Press???? Freedom of Speech!!!! It died with the Patriot Act. Now, to be technical, there was no wrongdoing. The DOJ followed the letter of the law and did it under the guise of "national security" and received the records for phone numbers, there are no recorded conversations, just phone records--and there had been a bill, called the Shield Law, which would have stopped this, but the republicons voted it down...and now they blame Obama? Well of course! And, still this only goes to the Dept. of Justice, not the White House. Too bad, you lose again teabaggers...
OK so now goes the dessert(I'd never throw the dessert) splaying across the wall...today, the newest scandal? President Obama had a Military escort hold his umbrella!!!!! NO President has ever done that in the past!!! Except for Reagan, BushI, BushII....oops, you the cons lose again.
There very real wrongdoings, in my opinion, with the Obama Administration, one of which is the treatment of whistle blowers, the cons won't bring this up because its something cons approve.
So, after all of the screaming, fainting, crying, and yelling, Congress has just wasted their time and our money...and actual problems? Nope, not even touched.

Presenting Willard "Mitt" Romney--the Human Windsock

First, where did "Mitt" come from? Is it a family nickname? Why Mitt? Its not a shortened version of his real name, not a nickname for some physical reason(i.e., I'm a redhead, I've been called "Red", not much cuz I hated it, but I have), can't see him playing baseball(baseball "mitt"--yes, I'm really stretching with that one)...strange..anyway enough random musings.....
Willard is not what you'd call...umm....stalwart. In fact, he changes his opinions/views more often than most people change their underwear(and I'm not talking about magic underwear either!). Need examples? I thought you'd never ask:

Immigration

• 2006:  Willard supported a plan that would help undocumented workers legal status and, in some cases, a path to citizenship. 
• 2007:  Nope, no citizenship, secure the border, employment verification(this was before the 2008 run)
• 2012:  Make it so miserable that they "self deport"....

Bush's Tax Cuts

• 2003:  he refused to take a position
• 2007:  He supported them(again, this was before the 2008 run)

Reagan fan?

• 1994:  when running against Ted Kennedy for Senate, he stated that he was an independent during the Reagan years, and he's, "not trying to return to Reagan-Bush" politics.
• 2005:  "Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes"

Gun Control

• 1994 -- He was for gun control and supported banning assault weapons and the Brady Bill.
• 2007? He joined NRA and wanted their endorsement.

Does he own guns?

• 1/10/07: "I have a gun of my own and I go hunting"
• 1/14/07: When asked if he owned a gun, he said no, but his son Josh did and they would use his.
• In 36 hours, Willard changed his mind about the "mandate" decision from...4 days and FLIP FLOP(aka-lying).

Climate Change

• 2003: Williard believed that the scientists had it right, that we needed to do something so as to keep the earth "safe"(my word, not his)
• 2007: Guess what? He said in 2007 that the "scientists hadn't completely resolved".

DADT

• 1994: Agreed with the policy as being the first step to gays and lesbians to openly defend their country
• 2007: Thought it was a "silly catch phrase", but the policy is fine the way it is and nothing has to be changed.

Gay Marriage

• 2002: Did not support DOMA or a constitutional amendment 
• 2008: Supported a gay marriage ban referendum in Massachusetts(even tho he also was the governor when MA legalized gay marriage).

Embryonic Stem cell research

• 2002:  Supported stem cell research while running for governor
• 2006:  Vowed to press for legislation to criminalize stem cell research.

Pro Choice? Anti Abortion? Depends on the year.

• 1994:  Romney stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy, due to a relative dying from an illegal abortion.
• 1999:  When he went to Utah, this changed to "I refuse to accept either label" 
• 2002:  SPLASH! Running for Governor, he's back to supporting a woman's right to choose again.
• 2007:  SPLISH!  Now running for pres(1st time) and he's against abortion AGAIN.

Last but not even close to least-Obamney Care...AKA the state(MA) vs Federal Affordable Care Act(all in less the 2 days)

• Its a tax, (when the decision came down and on the campaign trail)
• It's not a tax, (when his communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom said it was a penalty on TV)
• It is a tax, (when WSJ editorialized on Willard throwing the RNC under the bus), but it was a penalty when he did it, and...
• Although he sides with the minority, he agrees with the majority of the court? Huh????

So, that's some of "cheek turning"...or whiplash of views/opinions that Willard has stated. Me? I'm just very dizzy just trying to type all of this! 
Happy weekend and remember, the reason we have weekends/days off is because of unions, not because of people like Willard "Mitt" Romney.

Walker's Lies to the governor's mansion

So, the aftermath of Scott Walker's win is what? That Wisconsin citizens are just fine with no collective bargaining? That Wisconsin citizens think that its just fine to cut public education? To sell public lands/utilities? No, I don't think so....
First why did Walker win? Obviously, he doesn't care about the Wisconsin people, How did Walker win? Well, that's a bit more interesting....
First, Walker outspent Tom Barrett 8:1...and that don't count a bunch of other money that was in the shadows...like the money that had people wearing signs( signs saying that Barrett was a baby killer/immoral/approved of gay marriage, you know, those so-called values that the right scares people with), Walker minions would pay $100 per sign to have home owners put them in their yard(Barrett signs didn't come with that dividend), and then there were the commercials....NRA sponsored an ad stating that Barrett wanted to take away hunters' rifles(specially deer rifles--BIG FAT LIE), other ads about Barrett hating babies and loving gays...
Yes, money made a difference, but there were some other issues as well:

• Walker lied about his "gain" of thousands of jobs since he took over when the truth is that Wisconsin is 51st in job recovery in the nation(and has lost over 10,000 jobs). Although Tom Barrett and his staff came out and said it was a lie(well, he prolly used the old, "misspoke" quote), Walker was not challenged by the main stream media. 
• Many people thought that Walker didn't deserve to be recalled because, as far as they knew, he hadn't done anything wrong, of a criminal nature and were somewhat worried that recall elections could become...umm...trendy. If someone didn't like what happened at the real election, they'd just come up with millions of $$ and fight it. OK, that's a bit of sarcasm, but I just couldn't help myself. Of course, the average Wisconsin voter hadn't been following the "John Doe" state and federal investigation. They might just end up with dingbat Kleefish as governor.
• Because of the "new" voter laws(that Walker and the republicons rammed thru), students did not vote in the same amount as is usual(and you know those kiddies...they vote liberal more than not). The new law states that you must live in your residence for 28 days, rather than the 10 previously. Five of the largest universities dismissed classes 10-21 days before the recall which left many of them disenfranchised(couldn't vote). Marquette University did make arrangements that students could come back and vote and they had a very good turnout, but in reality, if that's a 2-3 hour drive for someone just to vote and then turn around and go home? How many people are going to be able to do that? Another interesting fact: the Walker campaign stalled the recall process by three weeks back in January when they said they were trying to decide if or when they would challenge the signatures--just enough time to screw those students....hmm......

Also, many voters, when asked, said they made their mind up in May...and at that time, the Dems were still in the primary stage.  I'm conflicted about this. Part of me feels that its important to allow the voters to choose their candidate...OTOH, we also knew that there were dirty tricks on the other side--the right had "fake" dems running in primaries(for state general assembly), we knew that time was short...couldn't we just have the state dem association...just this once(or for this type of craziness) get all the candidates together and choose one?!?!?!? Republicons do it often enough, sometimes we need to just act together, instead of acting like cats chasing some shiny feathery thing. 
So, how much effect will the recall election have on November, probably not much. This election did show us how votes can be bought...thank you SCOUTUS and Citizens United--but considering how much money was spent, Barrett wasn't beat by that much(considering he only had about 13-15% of the money in the race, he should have only received 13-15% of the vote) Racine flipped red to blue(yes, I know there is a recount going on) and Obama won the "exit polls" over Romney 5:1 and, in California, Orly Taints only received 3% of votes in her bid for U. S. Senator. What does that mean? That there are only 113,000 crazy bigots in California!