Did the GOP say less federal government?Leave a comment
December 19, 2012 by Jan Stone
Round the clock coverage attacking a President campaigning on, among other things, providing basic human rights like food and healthcare to those in need, clearly didn’t sit well with those who voted. But we respect the Republican’s right to its own narrative. That 1st Amendment is an awesome equalizer: the GOP may have used it better if they had listened to the many sides of the complex issues that brought Romney down. For example:
Hispanics: the GOP addresses this voting bloc solely as an issue about illegal immigration, still talking about fence-building and self-deportation. Those sound like top-heavy government interventions that Republicans consistently balk over.
Women: we are not a voting group basing decisions solely on “free” birth control. For a campaign based largely on less government, one has to ask why it’s necessary for government to intervene in my reproduction decisions. After all, if you can’t trust us with a choice, how can you trust us with a child?
The LGBT block: Again, how does the GOP square its insistence on less government with mandates like same-sex marriage being illegal? And, on the most basic human level, what does a country have to gain by using legislation to keep significant-other same-sex partners out of hospice and hospital rooms as their beloved lie dying?
African-Americans: given we have elected one as president for a 2nd term, the voting bloc doesn’t fit the GOP’s frightening stereotype. Yet the prejudice that has been a huge smudge on our country’s reputation for centuries came bubbling closer to the surface the moment our president took office the first time. And it won’t. go .away.
Nonetheless, Messrs. Romney and Perry speak of African-Americans solely as entitlement seekers to support basic human needs like employment, housing, health and food.
It’s time the Republican party and its contributors take their own inventory―nobody sounds more entitled than those who are above sharing tax returns, spending hundreds of millions on campaigns loaded with lies to scare those who don’t know better, work tirelessly to make voting more difficult in close-to-call states, and then whine about their loss like the poor losers we tell our children is beneath them.
We hope to use these pages to clarify the history and reality of many of these issues, which make the term “misrepresented” sound so insignificant.
Lastly, comments are screened. The ugly and rude rhetoric of the campaign has no room here. We elect to care, and we welcome the comments of others who do so as well. We all don’t have to agree; we all, however, do have to respect each other.