The Real Lesson of the Midterms?

midterms

After any election, the party that loses the most and the party that wins the most immediately start trying to spin the outcome to their best advantage. And it was no different this year.

While their losses weren’t nearly as massive as the media narrative would have you believe, Democratic spin has tended to exhibit a great deal of wishful thinking, even as it incorporates some valid observations.  They point out that the party in The White House always loses congressional seats during a midterm. That’s generally true, but the party does not always lose control of Congress.

They say that now Republicans will actually have to try to lead rather than throw spitballs, and their ineptitude will be exposed. Maybe so, but we’ve been down this road before; 20 years ago, the GOP enjoyed a considerably more dramatic sweep under Clinton. They used their new majority to indulge in petty persecution of the president, including impeaching him for lying about his sex life. If there was political fallout for their actions, the lessons were quickly forgotten.

Now there is another Republican majority in Congress that promises to indulge in more imaginatively silly wastes of time and money in childish pursuit of a venomous vendetta against President Obama. It’s almost certain that they’ll move to impeach him for… well, something. Or nothing. It really doesn’t seem to matter to them whether or not they have a reason. The word impeach no longer means “to investigate an official for misconduct”; it now means, “to use political clout to try to undo an election you didn’t like.”

Democrats also take comfort in the fact that while their candidates may have lost, their issues won; indeed, most of the Republicans who won were able to do so only because they disguised themselves as Democrats. And there’s a great deal of truth to that.  Republicans often win by assuming “liberal” stances on the stump. But that isn’t necessarily an indicator of how they’ll behave once they’re in office.

As for the notion that the public supports progressive values much more strongly than it supports “liberal” politicians, true enough. Progressive values usually win in most places, even if progressive (or the least non-progressive) candidates don’t. The history of the human race has shown a pretty steady march forward, even if the leaders in charge have taken two steps forward and one step back — or vice versa.

Electing a Republican isn’t necessarily a step backward, and electing a Democrat isn’t necessarily a step forward. But when you compare the two parties overall, you see that Republicans are far more likely to impede progress. They are far more likely (to name just one example) to subjugate scientific research to ideology. Accordingly, it appears that certain key posts relating to the environment are about to be filled by arrogantly ignorant climate science “skeptics” like James Inhofe and Ted Cruz.

The Republican spin, which has become the official spin, is that this election was a referendum on President Obama and/or his policies. Even Obama himself seems to believe that. Thus, Fox “News” and company would have you believe that the results were a huge slap in the face to the president. The election, they maintain, is a mandate to engage in further obstruction and extremism. Indeed, when President Obama suggested that he could work with the new Congress (a suggestion also made by Mitch McConnell despite his history of gridlock), he was met with derision and scorn by the punditocracy.

Thing is, Obama’s approval rating (around 40 percent) is considerably higher than that of Congress itself (around 20 percent). But wait. Maybe people just disapprove of Congress so strongly because it’s too librul, and things will change now that there are going to be more Republicans, and they’re going to be the head of both houses. Well, the problem there is that going into the election, Democrats in Congress had a higher approval (44 percent) than Republicans (40 percent) in some polls. In other words, the public elected the party it dislikes most to run the branch of government it’s most disgusted with. Kind of makes sense if you stare it cross-eyed long enough.

The logical conclusion here is that Republicans won because Democratic voters stayed at home. And this might be due in part to the same factor that Republican voters were so fired up: the propaganda campaign against President Obama. Right-wing fanatics, aided and abetted by the media, have convinced a large portion of the American public that a B-plus president is actually an FFF-minus-minus president. Consequently, Democratic candidates behaved as if he had leprosy, distancing themsleves from his achievements — which very well could be why their constituents were uninspired to show up at the polls.

The absurdity of the whole thing was succinctly highlighted by David Letterman:

Take a look at this: gas under $3 a gallon – under $3 a gallon. Unemployment under 6%, whoever thought? Stock market breaking records every day. No wonder the guy is so unpopular.

Polls indicate that some 63 percent of the American public believes that the country is headed in the wrong direction, while only 27 percent say it’s headed in the right direction. What would it take for people to think it’s moving in the right direction? Who knows? Few people seem interested in answering that question. They just know they’re supposed to hate Obama because they’ve been told to.

They rail about how he’s an embarrassment in foreign policy and he’s trashing the economy and “Obamacare” is an utter disaster. Even in the face of reports showing that unemployment has dropped below 6 percent for the first time since 2008, and millions have healthcare for the first time, and America’s image abroad has improved considerably since Obama took office. Hey, who needs facts when you have Fox?

Which leads us to what may be the real lesson of the midterms: perhaps Americans are currently living in a brainwashed dystopian dictatorship. But the dictator isn’t Barack Obama or anyone in Congress. It’s Rupert Murdoch et al.

 

26 thoughts on “The Real Lesson of the Midterms?

  1. POP,

    Unfortunately, I agree with much of what you say. Its obvious that American voters dislike and distrust Obama, because they have been repeatedly told so, and, with the expert lies and manipulations that Republicans are so well known for.

    It’s Ironic that so many of the things that the President promised in the 2008 campaign, and which he has tried to, or succeeded in doing, are forgotten beneath the haze of lies and misinformation spread so effectively by PhDs in BS like Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and (for God’s sake) Ted Cruz! It doesn’t seem to matter that Obama succeeded in crafting a new Health Care law that is already providing much needed relief and affordable health care, or that he ended “Don’t ask Don’t tell,” attempted to close Guantanamo, seriously tried to end our military involvement in the Mideast, presided over the finally realized goal of killing Bin, Laden, accomplished the task of bringing back an economy that was on the brink of total collapse, attempted to extend unemployment benefits, helped countess Americans remain fed, clothed and under their own roofs, or even that he has succeeded in bringing a modicum of environmental legislation to fruition—I have no doubt that despite all of these accomplishments many people entered their polling booths under the illusion that the gridlock in Congress is a 50/50 proposition–even though Republicans tried blackmailing the government into yielding to their demands, and ruthlessly pulled strings to prevent the routine raising of the debt limit! Somehow, even though Obama’s economic policies would, of necessity, have been the same or similar, to the kinds of massive stimulus efforts and Tarp support, that ANY President faced with total economic collapse of America and the world’s economies, would have had to use, Voters seemed to remember none of these actions which Mr. Obama was brave enough to undertake. The reality is that many voters probably remembered all of the phony charges made against the President instead—charges which provided invaluable political theater, including self-righteous attacks from Republican Congressmen that desperately sought to discredit the President in the eyes of the public.

    To me its obvious that Obama has conducted one of the most thorough and fair legislative attempts, to break through the obstinate and personal enmity used by those seeking to benefit from dogmatic Obstruction. It’s just a testimate to the GOP that they accomplished such a victory, while causing perfectly sane voters to somehow remain blind in regards to the elephant in the room.

    If it’s true that voting for the policies supported by the president 97% of the time, indicates obstruction, then voting against those same policies 97% of the time, also represents blatant obstruction. When it comes to political spins and propaganda, the GOP is a party of geniuses, and they are experts in shaping opinions that benefit themselves. Democratic Senators should have had the gumption to stand by their convictions when openly supporting Obama. Republicans seem to be righteously stubborn when espousing support for their own base—despite of what reality may actually be. If they are obstructive or chauvinistic or opportunistic, they really don’t gives a damn–when a party repeatedly refuses to budge and inch from its own stupidity, voters seem impressed by ignoble honesty? As the President said to Democrats in Congress before voting on the ACA—“Remember what you came here for!” Perhaps even being dumb and greedy, is respected if those who exhibit these traits are not afraid to admit to them—even right before an election?

  2. But Fox News is NOT right wing. Geraldo Rivera is an apologist for homosexuals, so he is definitely not right wing. P.O.P., Christian commentators such as radio hostess Linda P. Harvey of Mission America say that Fox News is not a friend to Christians while she regards CNN as worse. People must discard the idea that Fox News is friendly to Christian views see these 2 columns by evangelical Christian journalist Peter J. LaBarbera where he tells truth that Fox News is not ally

    http://americansfortruth.com/2014/08/29/fox-news-cnn-espn-sponsor-recruit-at-biased-gay-journalists-nlgja-convention/

    http://americansfortruth.com/2013/08/16/americas-survival-special-report-documents-fox-news-growing-pro-homosexual-bias/#more-15275

    • If you think Fox is not right-wing, then you are VERY SERIOUSLY out of touch. Americans For Truth is a pig sty devoted to “exposing the homosexual agenda” via cherry-picking and general propaganda. (It says a lot about the group that it frames anti-gay bigotry in terms of “traditional morality”.) Even so, it acknowledges in the first paragraph of the first link you provide that Fox is a “conservative-leaning” network.

      You people are beyond disgusting, and I’m not going to waste a great deal of my time fooling with you. In particular, I’m not going to give you a platform for your hateful vendetta against a young murder victim, no matter how you may try to justify it.

      • P.O.P. it’s your site and if you don’t want me posting then it’s your right, I did not justify the murder-which is incidental-I think you mean justifying my truthful vendetta or what you call hateful vendetta. My main interest was to discuss who the victim was. If telling ugly truth about the murder victim being a child molester who molested 8 year old boys when he was 15 years old and got counseling (verified by court records) & a junky who associated with drug dealers and possibly a dealer/courier himself is ‘hateful vendetta’, then so it is but when you can’t rebut, you talk of how it’s disgusts you but don’t rebut it.

        But Fox News IMO is not right wing and it’s not Patrick J. Buchanan, Richard J. Santorum or Linda P. Harvey. I’m not right wing though I agree with Linda P. Harvey on most topics, I am neutral on abortion while she is pro-life. But P.O.P., my guess is that you have a different definition of what right wing is to what I have.

      • There is nothing to rebut. You’re just accusations about a dead man, mostly unsubstantiated, that are not relevant to anything.

  3. To say that someone is an “apologist for homo-sexuals,” requires the belief that there is something to apologize for to begin with!

    Current evidence tells us that there are numerous biological factors that determine sexual identity, so it’s like apologizing for people who are blond haired, tall, or who have dark skin. What concerns me are the people who blatantly hurt and insult others out of a sense of self-righteous pride.

    Next time you look in the mirror, you should apologize for your own insensitive biases! Spare me the endless repeating of things you have said or thought in the past–none of its true, or even anywhere near being the observations of an intelligent human being who actually has a heart!

  4. P.O.P., you are right that it’s not relevant to this topic so I will comment on that in my next paragraphs. It must be said that when I commented here, I did not discuss Methew until you raised him as I had said what I wanted to about him on other topics you have created on your site, but you raised it, I answered & what what you did was rerun Media Matters rubbish. You say it’s unsubstantiated but I substantiate what I learned by reading Book of Matt on Methew W. Shepard which Matt is truth while Shepard Foundation, Laramie Project and so on are propaganda. If repeating what I found after reading Book of Matt disgusts people, then so be it. I post what I believe happened-some of it is substantiated such as the witness testimony of the victim associating with the murderer and drug dealers, court documents (where victim was arrested for molesting 8 year old boys when he was 15 but got counseling by juvenline court) while some of what I said is speculation such as was the victim a drug dealer in addition to being a junky who associated with them? I don’t know all the answers but I say what I believe.

    But to this topic you wrote about since you want it to be relevant. P.O.P., I’m not Republican and I’m not Democrat. I didn’t vote in this election and I think both the Democrat and Republican parties are rubbish. I agree with President Obama on some topics but not all. As I said, I’m neutral on abortion. I opposed the 2003 Iraq War. I do not believe Fox News is right wing because it’s not Mission America, it’s not Patrick J. Buchanan. Fox News is Republican and you would be right in saying it’s Republican, but it’s not Christian right wing and I’m not a Christian.

    P.O.P., you know that I do not have Cable TV and I don’t watch Fox News or CNN very much unless I’m vacationing. Fox News is mostly Republican but while Republicans and Democrats differ, Republican is a political party as is the Democratic Party. There are many pro-choice Republicans on the abortion topic. Since Fox News from the few times I watch the show has people such as Geraldo Rivera, John F. Stossell & others with their Libertarian ideas commenting, that is NOT right wing. Yes, there are Libertarian Republicans but there is NO such thing as a Libertarian Right Winger. If you’re going to say that William J. O’Reilly is a right winger, then that is wrong. Though I don’t know if Mr. O’Reilly has modified his views as I almost never watch him (again I rarely watch Fox News and CNN), William J. O’Reilly calls himself a Libertarian. If you were to ask Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey or Peter J. LaBarbera if Fox News is right wing, they would say it’s Republican but not Right Wing. Both Peter J. LaBarbera and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey have critiqued who they call Republicans in Name Only (RINO) and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey has in past said that the Republican Party has become the meaningless party. Anyhow P.O.P., it is your site and if you don’t want me commenting on your topics anymore, then it’s your right. But I say what I believe whether others like it or not.

  5. Peter W. Johnson-I define right wing by ideas people have which mainly agree with Christian ideas on the topics such as being against homosexual & lesbian activities, pro-life on abortion & opposing special rights based on race/ethnicity. Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey and Presidential candidate Richard J. Santorum would meet the definition of Right Wing as they are consistent in their Christian beliefs and do not give them up for votes. Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan has said that he can never be President as he stays with his beliefs. Some people have called me right wing (though I’m not Christian) because I am against homosexuality and I’m against transexuality.

    Peter W. Johnson, the problem I have with comments such as Fox News is right wing, is that it goes with the belief Republican is Right Wing. Now P.O.P. is right when he says Fox News is Republican & he would be right if he said that CNN and the other networks are mostly Democrat. Republicans are more likely to have people like R.J. Santorum, Patrick J. Buchanan & Linda P. Harvey and those 3 you can call Republican Christian Right. But there are many Republicans who are left wing because they’re Libertarian. Fox News has many Republican Libertarians, so it’s definitely not Right Wing-though P.O.P. definition is different. Rest of my post Peter W. Johnson is copy/paste as it repeats but answers what you ask.

    I’m not Republican and I’m not Democrat. I didn’t vote in this election and I think both the Democrat and Republican parties are rubbish. I agree with President Obama on some topics but not all. As I said, I’m neutral on abortion. I opposed the 2003 Iraq War. I do not believe Fox News is right wing because it’s not Mission America, it’s not Patrick J. Buchanan. Fox News is Republican and you would be right in saying it’s Republican, but it’s not Christian right wing and I’m not a Christian.

    P.O.P., you know that I do not have Cable TV and I don’t watch Fox News or CNN very much unless I’m vacationing. Fox News is mostly Republican but while Republicans and Democrats differ, Republican is a political party as is the Democratic Party. There are many pro-choice Republicans on the abortion topic. Since Fox News from the few times I watch the show has people such as Geraldo Rivera, John F. Stossell & others with their Libertarian ideas commenting, that is NOT right wing. Yes, there are Libertarian Republicans but there is NO such thing as a Libertarian Right Winger. If you’re going to say that William J. O’Reilly is a right winger, then that is wrong. Though I don’t know if Mr. O’Reilly has modified his views as I almost never watch him (again I rarely watch Fox News and CNN), William J. O’Reilly calls himself a Libertarian. If you were to ask Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey or Peter J. LaBarbera if Fox News is right wing, they would say it’s Republican but not Right Wing. Both Peter J. LaBarbera and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey have critiqued who they call Republicans in Name Only (RINO) and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey has in past said that the Republican Party has become the meaningless party.

    • Abner,
      From your statements you reveal that you personally don’t go along with much of what conservatives, liberals, Democrats, or Republicans say—just because you do not accept the whole enchilada from either side. But whether or not Fox News is a right wing organization, has nothing to do with your own beliefs, or even if those personal beliefs are not completely in line with ALL right wing beliefs, and sentiments! I also don’t always agree with other Democrats on every last issue, but I am a Liberal Democrat because I accept and agree with the vast majority of liberal ideology. Similarly, when you come across as believing that those who do valid research about homosexuality, are merely (homosexual apologists?), you are revealing a very right wing and narrow minded set of beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are religious or if you merely accept the opinions of religious bigots—by accepting this argument, you are in agreement with a continuing thread of religious and/or conservative right wing thought.

      Likewise the fact that many conservatives align with libertarian ideas, which they imply makes them above the fray, misses the point that Libertarians believe in as little government as possible. A libertarian may not be religious, but as far as economics go, he or she is very likely to espouse complete and unrestrained capitalism, and thus a distrust and dislike for the government–another point that Tea Partiers and fiscally conservatives Republicans have harped on for ages.

      I have a relative who calls herself a born again Christian, yet does not align with much of the theological and ideological beliefs of her fellow parishioners. However this person views the narrow views of many on the religious right as merely being peripheral wedge issues which are often willfully exploited by conservative Republicans in order to gain political power. So, whether you or I may have some differences with many ideological groups, our specific personal beliefs are irrelevant when defining Fox news as clearly being a right wing group. If you don’t think so, please provide some instances where those on fox news willfully express allegiance with anything the President or the Democratic party believes in. The few exceptions are about things like disagreeing with the common hysteria that the Ebola virus is surely going to kill us all—(a fox journalist recently had the integrity to actually admit this), or that, the President is correct to use drone technology to destroy terrorist threats. As far as the ethical values expressed by the right wing, or thier commonly shared opinions about economic policies, there is very little common ground between liberals on the left wing, and Republicans on the right. Unfortunately, if it looks like a right winger, sounds like a right-winger, or hates the President as much as a right winger does, chances are that such a person IS A RIGHT WINGER.!! You may not be able to judge a book by its cover, but once you have read the first chapter, you know pretty well what much what the rest of that book is about!

      About Matthew’s father—a common defense you use to rationalize your beliefs is that you do not know what was in the heart of his killers–how about extending that idea towards the graving parents who had to face the brutality of their own sons death? The self-righteous opinions you have about this case, are not excuses to invade and harass Matthew’s parents. You don’t know what was in Matthew’s heart or in theirs, so don’t act like judge jury and executioner, just because you dislike the way someone else lived their life!

  6. Peter W. Johnson, on economics, I support high income taxes for the rich & if I had it my way people such as Donald J. Trump would pay 50% of his income to taxes because we need taxes to support things such as good quality public schools (which are neutral on topics such as abortion & homosexuality and doesn’t push ideologies), roads, environmental programs & welfare to a woman with 4 kids. So you see on some topics I do agree with President Obama.

    Social Security must only be for people who need this. Millionaires should not be allowed to get Social Security in most cases Social Security for people who need this $. My view with changing Social Security laws is that Social Security, Unemployment Benefits for millionaires is welfare to the rich. We need public schools for education though public schools must stay out of politics and be neutral. Social Security, welfare and unemployment benefits must be for people who need the $ and most rich people don’t need that $ to live unless they’ve had major finance losses which made them poor such as medical bills caused by deadly disease (not elective surgery) or bankruptcy from a catastrophe such as a tornado, hurricane, forest fires, etc. where they lost all. Yes, the law allows rich people to get Social Security, but law needs to be changed. People who are rich must not be allowed to get Social Security unless they can justify why they need the $, such as if they have many kids to support, have gotten into $ problems, etc.

    As you know Peter W. Johnson, most people who are right wing would differ with me on this as right wingers would differ on my neutral view on abortion. I’m pro-abortion in some cases such as if it can be predicted an unborn baby will be deformed, transexual or gay-then go ahead and abort them. But I understand view of pro-lifers regarding abortion as murder. While I’m neutral on abortion, in justness to pro-lifers they believe abortion is killing a baby. If they decided to make abortion illegal, then I would not care 1 way or another.

    As you see Peter W. Johnson, I don’t see economics as a right wing topic. If a person is an apologist for homosexuality and transexuality, then they are not right wing. Libertarian is NOT right wing. I am not a Christian but I agree with Christians is on the dangers of gay/lesbian agenda and there are many non-Christians and even some atheists who agree with Evangelical Christians. Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Yes, it’s a proven fact that childhood sex abuse is a major cause of homosexual/lesbian conduct in adulthood. Anybody who denies the link is dishonest, delusional or both. Any conduct can be learned and this includes sexual conduct. There are homosexuals and lesbians who say that childhood sex abuse (especially those who are victims of a gay priest) are reasons why they think they do same sex behaviors in adulthood. Had they not been repeatedly molested, would they have turned out straight instead of gay or lesbian?

    Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay, lesbian or a sympathizer. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher. Since homosexuals and lesbians (transexuals) often suffered childhood sex abuse, it’s no surprise that homosexuals and lesbians think childhood sexual abuse is OK when it’s homosexual activities.

    Main ideas of science and math are always the same (such as freezing temperature is 32 Degrees Fahrenheit, 2+2=4) and with main ideas of science, unless new information is found which changes prior conclusion (such as in 1950s when they found a whale is a mammal not a fish as scientists first thought), the main ideas of science stay the same.

    I do not believe mainstream science/psychology in the 1960s to early 70s discovered anything new to change conclusions on homosexuality when they removed homosexuality from DSM in 1973. They have as said since 1973 become ideological on gay/lesbian topic. It’s not a conspiracy but it’s ideology. I don’t deny possibility homosexuality could be genetic or inborn for some but that is unproven. Even if it’s true that homosexuality is inborn for some people, homosexual/lesbian conduct would still be bad for health.

      • David, I saw the video and I actually don’t care about the homosexual marriage topic because that is minor and we have lost the war on homosexuality because when columns are written on gay marriage rather than the dangers of homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct, then we have lost. In 1972, 1982 and 1992, we would be mainly talking about why homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct is bad for health. But since the late 1990s, the discussion has been mostly about homosexual marriage (which the law already allows) & only here and there the harms of homosexual/lesbian conduct.

        I like what Peter J. LaBarbera and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey both say, but both have given too much talk to homosexual marriage topic. When people including Christians see nothing wrong with homosexual/lesbian sexual conduct, then it’s no surprise they accept homosexual marriage, and homosexual marriage has become land’s law. We need to keep talks limited to harms of homosexual/lesbian conduct as no matter what politically safe psychologists, celebrities or any1 says, homosexual/lesbian conduct is bad for health.Even if orientation doesn’t change, it’s best for gays/lesbians to be celibate just as it’s best for a person with tobacco orientation not to smoke. If homosexuality is inborn as some scientists believe, then it would be a birth defect.

        Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons a man has sex with a woman and fathers children with her. Yet sometimes have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.

        Homosexual/lesbian conduct needs to be marginalized such as smoking/tobacco use is. I know my view offends homosexuals, but most smokers do not get offended by negative views of tobacco use. So homosexuals/lesbians have to hear others give negative views of their sex lives, because there is something wrong with this just as there’s something wrong with smoking.

        Repair therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight must be available just as repair therapy must be available for a drug junky who wants to become clean. For a therapy to have best chance of success, the patient has to want it for themselves. If a person goes into therapy because he or she is pressured by peers into this, they are usu. not going to last long because they don’t sincerely want it. If a kid is a junky and he or she doesn’t want therapy to quit drugs, then it’s usu. going to fail because they don’t want it. You can not force a person into therapy minus a court order and even if you do, if they don’t sincerely want it, it’s usu. will fail. While repair therapy to treat gayism, lesbianism often fails, using what you ask, we also should not have repair therapy to treat smoking, drug junkyism, etc. because that often fails. Minors can not be forced into therapy against will-minus a court order such as requiring medicines for a minor who does not want medicines.

        Yes, it should also be the right of homosexuals and lesbians not to go into repair therapy just as I support right of tobacco users not to have repair therapy to quit smoking and I support right of any lucid person to refuse medical care such as if a lucid person’s a heart attack victim and does not want open heart surgery, then it should be their right to refuse this. Yes, proof burden is on repair therapists, but if you aren’t going to have repair therapy for homsexuality/lesbianism, then you may as well not have repair therapy for drug junkyism or drunkardism, because such therapy often fails and high relapses. Is it possible for a homosexual or lesbian to change sexual behavior and sexual orientation to heterosexuality? There are gays and lesbians who sincerely believe they changed to heterosexuality and without contrary proof only they know.

        There is something wrong with a man thinking he is a woman or a woman thinking she is a man. It is mutilation with dangerous hormones. Most transexuals were sexually abused in childhood which messed up their minds and transexuals sexually abuse children. Transexuals are mutilated gays and lesbians. I don’t care what others say but mutilating a man or woman to make them fake members of opposite sex is gay/lesbian. And gay/lesbian groups are apologists for Transexuals which is why the word T is there. They must abolish this surgical mutilation.

        All transexuals are homosexual/lesbian as the act of mutilating to become false opposite sex is itself an act of homosexuality/lesbianism-sad maiming and make this illegal. Finally, sex change maimings which is mutilating some1 to make them fake members of opposite sex is comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body. Most feminists are not speaking against this. 1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation that happened to Chastity Sun Bono as feminists have spoken against Female Genital Mutilation which happens in some nations. Transexuals are mutilations which no Dr. should take part in, yet most feminists are not condemning this female genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity S. Bono where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and her genitals mutilated.

      • I suspect you are being unnecessarily critical of the dangers of homosexual or lesbian sex. After all, even heterosexual sex carries dangers.

      • Commenters like Abner, base their beliefs on a host of faulty statistics, flawed studies, and the opinions of religious zealots. In reality we know that homosexuals are no more, or less sick, than straight people, and just as capable of expressing love while raising children.

        Contrary to those who prefer to deny all the research which affirms these facts, Psychologists and Psychiatrists, do not depend on some far fetched conspiracy which involves ulterior motives on the part of social scientists, and on the part of those who amass crime statistics. Any of us can claim the same kind of backwards things about any issue we abhor or cannot tolerate. There’s only one problem with that—there is absolutely no reason for social scientists to perpetuate such an ignorant a strange conspiracy? No matter what unreliable “experts” may say, or what kinds of faulty mythologies social scientists are accused of using to justify their bias—Money ?—political power? Where is the proof of that? Could it instead be, that their life’s work involves the accumulation of knowledge used in order to dispel prior ignorance and socially unfounded myths, and, to shed light on what has previously been considered evil, immoral, or perverse? If you ask me, homophobic, religiously motivated people who cherish thousands of years of condemnations written into their Holy Books, are more sick than any gay person! For religious zealots the conspiracy is about denying solid evidence and social enlightenment, primarily because it challenges their own narrow religious beliefs and preferred prejudices. The truth is that they are perfectly welcome to hold those beliefs and to teach them to their children it they desire. However, science seeks to look beyond assumed prejudice and unwarranted accusations, and seeks to find the truth! Their reward is to accumulate actual knowledge, and not to perpetuate such religious prejudice or myths. Gay haters are not really asked to change their orientations or to change their biases, so what are they really afraid of?— Obviously threats to their own religious dogma and their own need to be comforted by ignorance and Zealotry!

        Too bad when they try to assure that their bigoted attitudes prevail, they care nothing about bearing false witness against their neighbors, or about judging others and opposing proven facts just to avoid shedding light on thousands of years of prejudice and persecution—particularly against gay people, and not against their own unsupported beliefs.

      • David,

        If you’re comment is really meant for me, the answer is no. But Its not something that one needs to “BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE—I KNOW that such an absurd conspiracy in fact does not exist!

  7. Abner,

    Thanks for all the specific info about your beliefs, but the statement you made about Fox News, not being right wing, is the real question here. and not whether yours or my own political and philosophical views are diverse. Many of the things you dislike and some of the things you agree with Fox News about, are championed and disseminated by this very biased News Station. There too you can find a few people who differ about certain issues, but the overall, tone and mind-set of Fox News, is completely right wing.

    As for some of your views about homosexuality—you already know exactly how I feel about it, and in fact, we wrote over and over about this topic while almost completely dominating the responses on another forum which clearly was intended to examine many conservative beliefs including right-wing religious views about homosexuality!

    I am not going to continue that conversation here, since the actual topic of the POPs post is about what the mid-term elections were politically about.

    I also do not want to see block sections pasted from your previous comments, which only repeat your previous answers and therefore are really just wasting space intended for discussing the real issues brought up by the POP’s post!

    The only thing I’ll say about that previously explored topic, is that your views are brutal,
    insensitive, and rife with mythological and stereotypical misinformation. And, the fact that you harassed one of Matthew’s parents in that way is detestable!

    You are completely wrong about gays my friend, and I only hope that someday you wake up to the real facts about them. Until then, as far as I’m concerned this barely relevant topic is not at all suitable for this forum, and, that’s the last thing I’ll say about it!

    • Peter W. Johnson, I don’t watch Fox News or CNN that much anymore unless out of town such as in hotel-in fact I don’t watch new TV except for news on Spain TV channel RTVE on Internet (I am proficient in Spanish) & ocassionally PBS Nature shows here and there. I like old TV shows such as Bewitched (seen almost all the episodes incl. all episodes from the short lived 1978 Tabitha), I dream of Jeannie (seen almost all episodes including 1985 TV movie I dream of Jeannie 15 years later & 1991 I still dream of Jeannie), Partridge Family, Twilight Zone, Hitchcock Presents & hour, Flipper, Partridge Family, Rin Tin Tin & Lassie. I also like watching Incredible Hulk (1978-1982) and have seen all the episodes including the 3 made for TV movies. Cable TV is greed.

      Peter W. Johnson-I define right wing by ideas people have which mainly agree with Christian ideas on the topics such as being against homosexual & lesbian activities, pro-life on abortion & opposing special rights based on race/ethnicity. Fox News is Republican but Fox News has people such as Geraldo Rivera, John F. Stossell & others with their Libertarian ideas commenting, that is NOT right wing. NO such thing as a Libertarian Right Winger. If you’re going to say that William J. O’Reilly is a right winger, then that is wrong. Though I don’t know if Mr. O’Reilly has modified his views as I almost never watch him (again I rarely watch Fox News and CNN), William J. O’Reilly calls himself a Libertarian.

      Fox News has many Republican Libertarians, so it’s definitely not Right Wing If you were to ask Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey or Peter J. LaBarbera if Fox News is right wing, they would say it’s Republican but not Right Wing. Both Peter J. LaBarbera and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey have critiqued who they call Republicans in Name Only (RINO) and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey has in past said that the Republican Party has become the meaningless party.

  8. But here is more news for you and it’s the case in 2013 of Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt-Florida lesbian who sexually abused a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom and how gay lesbian groups reacted. Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt (formerly Tiffany Camille Edwards) and Shepard Foundation JC Marsden-no surprise that Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation’s Jason Christopher Marsden and Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with that lesbian committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl.

    Yes, Judy L. Shepard does exploit her son for $. Judy L. Shepard sees nothing wrong with her son molesting 8 year old boys and Judy L. Shepard earns anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 per speech. Judy L. Shepard’s interest is to profit from her son’s 1998 killing. The Shepard Foundation is a propaganda group whose main interest is to push an agenda and to make money. Laramie Project’s interest is to make $.

    Let’s look @ what we do know about Methew W. Shepard. No matter why the murder happened, the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish. There are many witnesses-Doc O’ Connor’s ex girlfriend, Elaine Baker (bartender), M.K. Rohrbacher (drug dealer), Tristan (Ted) Henson (Methew W. Shepard’s former lover) & others who saw them together.

    Even if 1 believes the murder was motivated by hatred of homosexuals, it is truth that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard knew eachother though A.J. McKinney denies it. There are too many witnesses who saw both men together. Of course the witnesses can only say they saw them together and can not know it all.

    Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. Methew W. Shepard went into bars where drugs were sold and he did associate with drug dealers-we know that he went to bars named Tornado, Ranger, Library & other bars in Wyoming and Colorado where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard’s friend Tina LaBrie expressing concerns about Methew W. Shepard’s drug and $ problems. We know that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine).

    Methew W. Shepard’s a junky (proven fact), drunkard and had money problems. Sheriff O’Malley has said that if Methew W. Shepard sold drugs, the cops would have known which is dishonest-Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. R.J. DeBree know cops don’t always catch all the criminals and that many drug dealers escape detection. Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree have arrested drug dealers and they know how it’s the family and friends who get surprised after they learn some1 they know is a drug dealer.

    Sheriff David S. O’Malley and Sgt. Robert J. DeBree know that it’s unlikely MW. Shepard told his friends and family that he was a drug dealer, and even if Methew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling.

    Now was Methew W. Shepard’s assocation with drug dealers and going into bars where drugs were sold more than buying drugs ? Was Methew W. Shepard a drug dealer or a drug courier? Stephen Jimenez thinks so and he believes it was the Denver circle. The journalists who critique Stephen Jimenez can not prove or disprove Stephen Jimenez’s conclusion.

    No, Stephen Jimenez does not know it all but his conclusions are sincere and honest. While homosexual groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated and possibly not a hate crime, that is incidental-main reason homosexual groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. You don’t always know the secrets friends and family have. If a person is a drug dealer, then they are usually not going to tell their friends and family that they do this.

    Even if Metthew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly truth about him, as they had tried to hide the fact that Methew Wayne Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for it. Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.

  9. One significant problem with your argument, predominantly summed up in your statement, “They just know they’re supposed to hate Obama because they’ve been told to.” Who told them to? I love the power liberals ascribe to Fox News. Innumerable news outlets report every story imaginable from a left-of-center spin. Look up the data on the voting patterns of journalists, it is undeniably liberal. There are plenty of “news” outlets – if we are going to play the quotation marks game- that encourage people to adore our President. And yet somehow this midterm result is about Fox News convincing people to hate the president? I am afraid your analysis is tremendously lacking in logic.

    • Who told them to? Are you serious? Have you ever actually listened to Fox? Or Rush? Or Beck? Or…. well, I could list names all day. And if you think I’m ascribing too much power to them, then you’re drastically underestimating the influence they have over a large number of gullible fans. The myth of the “liberal media” is a deeply ingrained one that I’ll be addressing in more detail on this site in the future. One of the favorite arguments is that the media must be “liberal” because most journalists vote Democratic. Aside from the false assumption that Democratic equals “liberal”, there is the more pertinent false assumption that journalists have the final say about what gets reported and how. In any case even if it were true that many or even most news outlets were reporting from a left-of-center position and “encouraging people to adore the president” (really??) that would be vastly different from the constant over-the-top volcano of delusional hate and fear spewing out of Fox and company. Furthermore, Fox is the most popular network by far, the default mode in bars, airports and health clubs everywhere. It’s virtually inescapable. And while all networks may have their biases and faults, with Fox the ideology comes first rather than the information. No other network so systematically lies, distorts and incites. No other network blatantly packages propaganda as news. Not in this country at least.

      • P.O.P., while again you’re right in saying that Fox News is Republican, it is not by any means Right Wing. Yes, Fox News (though I don’t have Cable and thus don’t usually watch Fox or CNN) is less hostile and @ times even friendly to people like Patrick J. Buchanan as guests on their show and they’ve had people with Judeo-Christian views while CNN would be more hostile to a Patrick J. Buchanan.

        But it must again be said P.O.P. that while Fox News has a Republican bias, it would be dishonest to say Fox News is a Christian Right TV network and Fox News is not comparable to radio hostess Linda P. Harvey of Mission America because if Fox News were a Christian station, then people like Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey would get prime hours. Mr. William J. O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly (Megyn Marie Brunt) often do not give views which Christians support. Yes, they’re hostile to President Obama and they’re hostile to Democrats, but Fox News is not right wing because Fox News hosts are often Libertarians and they’re apologists for homosexuals.

        The rest is copy&paste, but needs to be said again. Fox News has people such as Geraldo Rivera, John F. Stossell & others with their Libertarian ideas commenting, that is NOT right wing. NO such thing as a Libertarian Right Winger. If you’re going to say that William J. O’Reilly is a right winger, then that is wrong. Though I don’t know if Mr. O’Reilly has modified his views as I almost never watch him (again I rarely watch Fox News and CNN), William J. O’Reilly calls himself a Libertarian.

        Fox News has many Republican Libertarians, so it’s definitely not Right Wing If you were to ask Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey or Peter J. LaBarbera if Fox News is right wing, they would say it’s Republican but not Right Wing. Both Peter J. LaBarbera and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey have critiqued who they call Republicans in Name Only (RINO) and Mission America’s Linda P. Harvey has in past said that the Republican Party has become the meaningless party.

  10. Todd,

    If one looks at all the myths and scandals that are discredited on fact checking sites, its for sure that the vast number of them are spread by Republicans–especially those that outlandishly slander the Presidents character.

    If one wants to ignore the forest for the trees, one can always claim that any news story that offers positive portrayals of Democrats, Republicans, libertarian, Socialist, Communists, or what have you, is just one more form of brainwashing the public. But as far as which groups among all those that exert influence on individuals in order to manipulate public perceptions, Fox news is one of the most blatantly dishonest and spin-tastic of any. ONe might as well ask, “Who made Germans hate Jews in Nazi Germany.” The fact is that often political and other kinds of lies are used by groups which base their game on unreal, inaccurate or outright distortions of reality. If you are going to ask if I believe Fox News is on par with Hitler—as far as spreading outrageous bunk which is used to influence the public I would have to say YES! Rush and Rove, and Ted Cruz etc. may feel morally bound not to send other americans to concentration camps, or not to outright threaten or torture them, but as far as their ability to twist and spin information–they are right on par with Hitler! Sorry if that represents bias, but I happen to think it’s the unfortunate truth.

    During the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial campaign, I witnessed one of the most blatant and ill willed propaganda assaults ever disseminated through political ads, that I ever thought was even possible! Democrat Al Franken, was portrayed as a woman hating, sexually perverse, power tripping Nazi, without hesitation, by “non-profit” political groups that Republican, Norm Coleman was legally allowed to distance himself from. Franken’s words were blatantly and shamelessly taken out of context, and in ways that would have made Hitler proud. He was portrayed as someone who hated women—and get this—someone who couldn’t wait to make rape and incest LEGAL? A film in which he appeared to be raving like a lunatic, was eventually matched to its real soundtrack, and the truth was revealed—the public could see that he was really just satirizing former Minnesota Congressman Wellstone’s father and the way he ran along besides his son during track and field competitions while urging him onward in a zealous way.

    You might say that anyone who can think would not have been affected by such tripe, but during the campaign, several letters were sent to local opinion pages, expressing the fear that Franken would lead Minnesota to a new “Sodom and Gomorrah” and that he would help make Rape and incest legal? This was an all the more an obscene mischaracterization since Franken is actually an ardent supporter of women’s rights, an advocate of preventing sexual violence, and who favored anti-domestic abuse laws!

    The point is, that any group clever enough to tell a big lie, and repeat it long enough, is going to make other people believe it. The extremely close race in Minnesota that year, was, I believe, won by Franken after two extremely close recounts. He won very narrowly by only about 200 votes! So, in contests that take place in swing states, which are decided by very closely contested vote counts, lies can, and do, often make all the difference!

    I know the President mislead the public when claiming that anyone who wanted to keep their current health care plan, could do so. But after reading sites like FactCheck.org. and politifact, it’s painfully obvious that the GOP (with the aid of Fox News) is really a world class group of liars. Those of us who frequently visited fact checking sites, knew that Obama’s false promise about the ACA, had always been considered as being untrue. However, I wish I could truthfully say that all political deceptions are relative and that both sides are the equal cause of such lies, but that just isn’t true–at least not in regards to our socialist, Nazi, atheist, white hating, anti-colonial, Kenyan born President, (add what you want)! But, Its amazing how many people believe those lies, and how many of them were likely persuaded to vote against their own interests, after being exposed to the incredible amount of foreboding propaganda spread by the right. This mid-term was another example of voters being manipulated and persuaded to vote against their own interests (such as rejecting and fearing the ACA)–which is the only chance that millions of real live people, will have, to take care of their health, and/or the health of their loved ones. This has become more than just left versus right—it’s become a game of blatant deception and illusion, which many on the right haven’t got the slightest objection for using—as long as the ends justify the means!

  11. Returning to this forum now, in February of 2015, I feel compelled to say that the GOP has not waited long to deliver the obstruction and lie preferring agenda, they have used for the last eight years against the President. John Boehner has introduced several efforts to sue the President for overreach of executive power even though he has issued less executive orders than many other presidents. And even though he has used his veto much less often than most predecessors, he is actively being vilified for being a tyrant who dares attempt to protect immigrant families from being fractured and deported, and tries instead to allow them access to an honest and attainable path to citizenship. When his “tyrannical” efforts to do this, seem to be too close to representing virtuous actions, he is rapidly condemned by claims that he only wants to unfairly influence the electorate, by providing more latino votes in support of democrats? But, could it be that sometimes even a “tyrant,” like Obama might actually be genuinely concerned about humanistic issues— regardless of who is elected to Congress, or who becomes the next President–certainly not where Republicans are concerned!–they have obviously missed that bus leading to sanity long ago. And if that weren’t enough, recently Boehner and other Republicans have proposed to shutdown The Department of Homeland Security, by denying its funding!

    Once again, as mentioned by the POP, voters tended to stay home during the mid-terms—particularly those who would most likely vote for Democrats. And even though less than 37% of registered voters actually went to the polls, many more of those who voted were older, and conservative white citizens, tending to vote conservatively. Then there is the fact that about half of our States are now controlled by Republicans, who have a monopolistic lock on their legislatures–many of which are also presided over by Republican Governors!

    Add to all that, the fact that after the Supreme Court’s latest blow to voting rights laws, many States immediately reinstated harsh voter ID laws designed to solve a non-existent problem in a decidedly conservative and Republican way. Their lock on so many State governments has also enabled them to draft ridiculously skewed boundaries defining voting districts that will probably ensure Republican dominance in most of their States and federal elections for quite some time, even if a smaller number of popular votes are actually cast by Republicans?

    Of course When Democrats are in power, they also may make good use of gerrymandering to advance their agendas, but seldom in such a blatant and arbitrary way.

    what really irks me about the GOP’s latest foul antics are that, even though from the beginning, every member of Congress (including its Republicans), and also any ordinary citizens who bothered to inquire about the operational rules of the ACA, have always been completely aware of the fact that if the States failed to establish their own health care exchanges, the Federal government would then be required to step in and set up a federal insurance exchanges. But despite the fact that Democrats have never hidden, and have in fact openly conveyed this option, the Supreme Court will soon decide a case that threatens to kill the ACA, with a sucker punch enabled primarily by the semantic vagueness of only one word–“State.”

    The plaintiff bringing the case to the SCOTUS, is perfectly aware that it the five conservative judges on the court decide in his favor, six million of those ensured through federal exchanges, will be forced to lose their insurance and basically kicked back onto the streets to fend for themselves–thus continuing to leave local emergency rooms responsible for picking up the tab–once again costing clinics and hospitals more, and driving up health cares cost for all of us!

    Perhaps the SCOTUS should also uphold a similar contention about the rights of American women, because the Declaration of Independence only states that all MEN are created equal–obviously meaning that civil rights for women are not necessary or needed–or at least, are worthy of legal limbo due to the supposed ambiguity of one word!

    As the POP said, all politicians lie, but engaging in an outright war against the truth is not the same as occasionally engaging in misinformation and spin. And what is so puzzling to me is that, although most of us have been raised to respect the virtue of honesty, and to be espeically distrustful of dishonest salesmen, and, dishonest politicians, we seem perfectly willing to quickly look the other way, and jump on a bandwagon of campaign lies and misinformation in response to any side that offers the most believable but reprehensible lies? Hint, that function is being completely provided for by today’s GOP!

    If the SCOTUS is willing to nullify the basis for a health care law which is now showing definite and positive results, and which brings affordable health care within the reach of those who otherwise, could not have it, then personally, I must say that the time is right for all of us to start peaceful protesting, or even rioting, if we are kept from fully exercising our first Amendment rights.

    You’ve got to hand it to a group of politicians so adept at creating fear, and of circulating false but attractive partisan lies about their opponents, that they can actually convince many voters to vote against their own self interests! Yes, it’s also largely the fault of alienated voters who fail to turn up at the polls, but it is also largely the fault of a Republican party which regularly spreads lies, and has declared war on the truth.

    I would gladly believe any conservative commenter who could convince me otherwise, but I know from experience that, that possibility is very unlikely to happen. We can only judge people for what they actually do, and what the GOP actually does, amounts to nothing more than lies and deliberate attempts deceive the public, by continually spreading deceptive practices that are absolutely no good! Next they will try to convince us that they are actually the saviors of the middle class–but wait! Aren’t they already busy lying about that too?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s