Majority thinks the GOP are too extreme

I’m of the Nate Silver school of polling, which is you can only work with the data generated, so unless I’m going to gather all data myself then I’m going to have to deal with a certain amount of bias and flaws in the methodologies. That being said: THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK THE GOP IS TOO EXTREME!

I’ve been saying this for a while to a conservative friend of mine, so I’m very excited that it has been backed up. I essentially tell her every time we speak she should be more critical of her own party than the Democrats because they represent her. However, whenever I point out how extreme they are that they contradict themselves and are opposed to some of her beliefs.

Anyway, the CNN/ORC International poll has some interesting results:

• The GOP should give up more than the Democrats in any bipartisan solution to the country’s problem.
• A slight majority (53%) believe the GOP’s policies and views are too extreme.
• Less than a third trust the congressional Republicans more than President Obama to deal with the major issues.
• Finally, most people think it is a good thing the GOP control the House because they are resistant to unchecked Dem power.

I think it is notable that when you look at the actual poll report you see the divisions. So for President Obama’s approval rating for November 52% approve, 43% disapprove, and 4% No opinion, but the breakdown of that shows that those who disagree most like disagree at a high rate (34%) and is consistent over time. This could mean that people who disapprove of President Obama’s performance will disapprove no matter what, which brings me to the question of extremes in political parties. 43% of people believe the Republican Party is generally mainstream and 37% believe the Democrats are too extreme. My hypothesis is these are the same people. That final bullet does make me wonder how informed the subjects were because this is gridlock.

The poll, which came out on Thursday came less than two weeks before the county faces automatic tax increases for almost everyone if the government can’t get their shit together, but don’t worry we’re going to screw old people and poor no matter what. The pool was conducted December 17-18 with 620 adults nationwide via telephone. I skimmed the methods section, and it looks like every other phone survey with pros and cons.

The whole poll is worth a read, especially for those traveling to see family in the next few weeks.

Ohio and Right to Work Part II

The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Robert Schoenberger and Alison Grant had a piece Thursday morning on what Right to Work might look like in Ohio. They posit that there would be an ugly public fight despite the best attempts by the legislature to get a bill through. So why?

Well, Ohio is awesome. Ok, fine, we’ll use facts. In Michigan, the legislature attached an appropriations bill to the measure making it difficult for ballot repeal (not that ballot repeal matters in Michigan after all legislation repealed in November was rushed through the Lame Duck session as well). Michigan law prevents recall votes on spending because it would destroy the state’s ability to pay bills.

In Ohio, we like chaos. In 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the gerrymandering could be challenged by voters, spending provisions be damned. The court ruled that the spending provision was separate, and the voters could challenge the non-spending provisions.

If Republicans try to push right to work through in Ohio things could get ugly and fast. Naturally, right to work would bring the Ohio unions out, backing the recall efforts. Essentially, it would be SB5/Issue 2 Part II, and Ohio Republicans and their business allies don’t want that. Gov. John Kasich was left pretty roughed up after the political thrashing organized labor in Ohio gave him. They all seem a little put off coming at unions again. What, you mad?

Ohio danced the right to work dance once before in 1958, but the defeat resulted in a long memory. It was an ugly and high profile fight the first time.

Gov. Kasich has alluded to other priorities other than right to work (the Plain Dealer article claims he made a direct statement to this effect, but I’m not familiar with one.). Kasich is finally seeing a recovering in his popularity after the fight with the union…it still isn’t good.

So everyone is well aware that right to work will not end well for conservatives in Ohio. Well, everyone except Ohioans for Workplace Freedom. As previously mentioned they are gathering signatures. These are the same people who tried to repeal Obamacare in Ohio. Ohio voters approved the issues by a 2 to 1 margin (which makes me weep for the masses), but the US Supreme Court upheld the mandate so it doesn’t matter. This group is very optimistic. They need 385,000 signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment, but so far have less than 100,000. They are trying to raise money, but the businesses and politicians have been less generous than they were with Issue 2…someone’s learning. However, if right to work does should its face in Ohio then we can expect to see big contributions from anti-labor groups again.

Ohioans for Workplace Freedom is splitting hairs claiming right to work doesn’t impact unions just that they want more options. LIES! We all know right to work undercuts unions, and anyone who doesn’t is a liar or an idiot. No one has to join a union, and I get tired of saying that over and over, you do however have to pay dues if you benefit from a union negotiated contract. Right to work allows people to benefit from the union without paying into it. We also know right to work states have more workplace injuries and deaths than non-right to work states. There is also no evidence that right to work states attract businesses. Seriously, none at all.

Now, close your eyes and think of your favorite teamster raising his or her arms and saying “come at me bro.” Mine has a mustache. Right to work won’t come up right now because Kasich is still licking his wounds, as he should be. Also because he doesn’t want to be a one term governor, and taking on labor in Ohio would mean being a one term governor. His popularity is only now coming back almost a year later. He pulls out right to work by the time that shit show is over he’ll be running for reelection. If we vote him out, and I hope we do, then we might see a conservative legislature and governor pulling a Michigan, but that would be assuming Dems don’t take control of the legislature after the last few shitshows. We are going to see right to work in Ohio at some point, but I don’t expect to see it for at least another year, or maybe another governor’s term.

US Military is ready to lift its ban on abortion coverage for servicewomen

So by now I hope everyone has heard the that US military is lifting its on abortion for service women in the case of rape or incest.

On December 19, 2012, a press release came out stating that the US Senate and House of Representatives have advanced a reconciled version of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); it includes a provision lifting restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion care services in the case of rape and incest for servicewomen and military family members. This provision was introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).

Earlier this month the Senate passed a version of NDAA 98-0 with the Shaheen Amendment, but the House version had strict prohibitions on abortion coverage for service women. It only allows it when a woman’s life was at risk, which is surprising to me. Ryan still votes in the House so I’m surprised there wasn’t a let women die amendment. Both chambers need to vote on it before it is sent to the President.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights said:
“Today is a huge step in the right direction in ensuring that servicewomen and military families are guaranteed the same reproductive rights as any other American. All women have a right to a full range of reproductive healthcare coverage—including abortion care in the case of rape or incest.

“We comment the Congress for finally moving to reverse this callous policy and end this blatant discrimination against America’s brave servicewomen that has prevailed for more than three decades. “

So servicewomen could have abortions before, but they had to pay out of pocket so this is a great improvement.

Michigan woman's depiction of representation will make you pull your hair out.

In case the world doesn't end, I wanted to give you a reason to think it should...

Emily Magner accompanied a small group of social work students to speak to their representatives about HB 5711, which was the anti-women/anti-women’s health bill that was pushed through the Michigan legislature’s lame duck session last week.

Naturally, they studied the 60+ page bill and found the following:

• It would regulate women’s health centers out of existence;
• Limit abortion access for women in rural areas;
• Prevent private insurance companies from covering any abortion services;
• Give a tax credit for fetuses, but not children; and
• It would allow medical providers to deny any health service they deem objectionable.

The students concluded the bill was harmful to Michigan women, families, and their communities.

They began their day on the hill with a visit to Senator Howard Walker. I’ll let her say it:

“Our first visit was with Senator Howard Walker. We started our meeting wholeheartedly thanking him for taking the time to meet with us. I talked about the importance of hearing both sides to an issue. I talked about ethical obligations—I believe social workers and politicians have something in common.

“What a mental health professional says to a client has a different weight to it than if a friend or family member were to say something to them. The same goes for a politician. When a politician speaks, they speak for everyone in their district.

“I told Howard that as social workers, in order to preserve the integrity of our profession we follow the National Association of Social Workers code of ethics. This code tells us in order to help our clients achieve self-determination we must leave our personal opinions at the door.

“Howard Walker looked at us blankly. He glanced at his watch. He fussed with his phone.

“We went on to talk specifically about how this bill will harm Michigan women, disproportionately women living in rural areas like ours. After we brought up a few of these points he put up his hands and said that he couldn’t really speak to those topics…he had not read the bill.

“In front of him was a one paragraph synopsis I assume was from the Right to Life special interest organization who drafted the bill.

“Howard Walker had not even bothered to read it.

“We spoke with him for 20 minutes, the whole time he was dismissive, misinformed, and rude. When his handler told him, ‘5 more minutes,’ I told him that I would never has him to change his beliefs on abortion, I would protect his right to believe whatever he wanted, but I did want him to consider the harmful implications that this legislation would have on women and consider his ethical obligation to his field to leave his personal views at the door.

“Before I could finish my sentence, he waved his hand dismissively and interrupted, “THIS ISN’T ABOUT WOMEN! THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING FETUSES!”

“We were all silent. Shocked.

“I calmly put my palm down on the table, spoke gently, looked him straight in the eye and said, ‘Howard, you do know where babies come from don’t you?’

“I want on. ‘Do not try to tell me that this isn’t’ about women, about families, about communities, and yes, about me, a woman. A woman you represent.’”

Magner is correct in her disgust here. Not only did her representative completely dismiss her, he had the gall not even to be informed on the bills he is voting on. This bill is dangerous for women, and he couldn’t be bothered to read it.

After this gem of an experience the students went to see State Representative Wayne Schmidt. They were able to get an appointment with him after three weeks of trying.  Again, her words:

“Right off the bat, as we sat down, Wayne told us that he did not want to talk about HB 5711. He told us it wasn’t going to come up in lame duck. ‘It’s a bad bill. It is not going to be voted on.’

“Wait—a bad bill? He voted for it! We were stunned.

“The man representing us gave his vote for HB 5711 and then openly admitted to our faces that he believed it to be a bad bill! He even went so far as to point out different aspects of the bill he disagreed with-such as the one million dollars of insurance a doctor would be required to purchase in order to provide Emergency Contraception to a patient, yet Wayne voted yes!

“I had to ask the question, ‘Why?’

“He told us that it was ‘just politics.’ He said that he needs the Right to Life endorsement, so he voted for it.

“Again, we were shocked. Absolutely floored.

“He admitted to five of his constituents’ faces that he supported a bill that he knew to be wrong because he needed a special interest’s endorsement.

“This is criminal."

Magner assured Schmidt he would never get her vote and that good politicians don’t need special interest endorsements. Obviously, Magner does not feel represented between elected officials/men voting their religion or their funders. She did all this only to find out her leaders do not care. Magner has decided to push for qualified women to run for office. Here’s hoping she is successful.