Same Old Republican Losers; New Election

In the past few months, the Republican Party has made it clear as to where they stand when they run for the 2010 midterm elections.

Basically, from what I've read, the Republicans want to do what they have been doing before they lost power in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Simply, they want to continue preaching moral values, while getting caught with their own, and tout their neoconservative agenda, which also got us into trouble before with Iraq.

To put the cherry on top of this horrific tasting sundae, they seem to want to see 47 million people stay uninsured as well as suggest that hungry children is a good thing, along with possibly going to the old days of bringing back child labor.

There you go. In two paragraphs, you have seen a summary as to what the Republicans are standing for in the coming elections. But let's dig deeper and see more as to what I mean.

When it comes to the moral value contradictions within the GOP, it couldn't be more evident than the extramarital affairs both Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) had. In other terms, they cheated on their wives!

In the case of Governor Sanford, he didn't ever speak to loudly when it came to other people with similar sex scandals. However, he runs on that platform every single election, which makes him admitting this as a huge problem for him.

When it comes to South Carolinians, they are mostly religious voters-you know, the kind that frown upon that kind of piggy behavior the governor has demonstrated. Therefore, there will be many calls for him to resign as governor. It surely doesn't help his case that mostly everyone there hates him, either.

In addition, the governor could have some corruption added to the scandal. Basically, the scandal accuses Sanford of going to Argentina through the use of taxpayer money to have these affairs with some woman there. That is illegal and if there is more proof documented, he might be charged with some sort of corruption. The chance of that is up in the air at this point, but corruption might be involved.

In my opinion, that would still be bad for him, considering he was using tax dollars to take these trips, while many schools in his state are without functioning bathrooms. That would mean, Sanford is putting his personal immoral affair over the wellbeing of children. Talk about a scumbag.

In the case of Senator John Ensign, he is just an unethical sleazebag, who should also resign.

Unlike the governor, Ensign has been caught being the contradiction he is. During the time the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky surfaced, as well as the Larry Craig scandal, Ensign was right there calling for those two politicians to resign.

Yet, years later, he admits to this affair he had with someone on his staff and only came out with it because he wanted to frame the blame on the woman, who was going to go to the media. Otherwise, it would have been covered up. But, when the story did come out, he made it worse by changing his story to smear the woman involved with the affair, trying to make her a blackmailer.

In other words, Ensign is a hypocrite, just like his pal Sanford is. Both of them, in my opinion, should be on their way out of there.

But, that's not all. When it comes to the events going on in Iran, we have seen two neocon Senators, McCain and Graham come out and basically say Obama needs to get tougher on Iran.

However, the Senators would not elaborate as to what the hell they meant by that. Some, including me, would take that as even a possible threat to do what neocons want, which is to bomb them. Remember McCain's statement back during the campaign for president, when he turned that Beach Boys song into a song about bombing Iran? It makes you wonder if that is what McCain wants, along with Graham.

Obama has made his position quite clear on the matter. He does not want to get involved in the conflict, which is a smart strategy on his part so that diplomatic efforts could continue and so the world continues to turn against Iran and isolate the tyrant, that is Ahmadinejad.

Yet, the neocons want to continue to talk tough. Well good luck with that one. I hope you are ready for the consequences if you get what you want from this.

Then when it comes to the cherry on top, the Republicans seem to be on the immoral side of health care and our wellbeing of children. Health care and that scary comment made by a Missouri Republican Congresswoman are two examples.

On health care, the Republicans have criticized, criticized and criticized the Democratic plans on health care, which include the public option. While some of them are unsatisfactory for me, such as the single payer plans left wing commentator Ed Shultz of MSNBC wants, the right wing plan is absent.

The right wing plan is no plan. They Republicans don't want to do much of anything when it comes to health care, except to make the wallets of their buddies in the insurance lobby fatter.

One of their ideas is to provide more tax credits for coverage to places like Blue Cross and to provide incentives for insurance companies to do the right thing and not discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Yeah, ok. We have to incentivize people to do the right thing. What kind of crap is that?

While some left wing plans suck, the right wing plans are worse because they don't want to do anything to break the monopoly up that they want from the insurance lobby. It is just so they can continue taking their checks from them hacks.

Then, what is scarier even yet, we have some Republicans who are suggesting that child hunger is a good thing and that children should get jobs in order to pay for food.

That statement was made by State Representative Cynthia Davis of Missouri who said that child hunger is a good thing. That is what she said. I am not making this up.

Then she added that there are other ways than for the government to be feeding children who live in poverty-as in, get a job. That's right, get a job.

So, her basic attitude seems to suggest that she is for wanting to bring back child labor. She seems to suggest that we should be for child labor because that is how poor children should be able to feed themselves. After all, child hunger is a good motivator for them to get jobs.

That belief that Ms. Davis believes is just idiotic, cruel, and soulless. Yet, not one Republican has condemned this statement. Not one Republican. Not one single Republican. So, should we take that as if they all believe the same exact thing-as in make this their campaign pledge for every child who goes hungry every night to get a job, even if they can't take care of themselves yet?

I think most people would view that as extremely out of touch. That is how the Republicans get their butts kicked in 2010. With stances like that, they will never win an election against the Democrats. Not in a million years.

In addition, if they continue to tout moral values and neoconservative viewpoints, they can kiss themselves goodbye again in 2010. They have many Senate seats up again that they are vulnerable in, such as Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Kentucky. A way to lose them all and have a very slim majority in the Senate is to continue to tout rhetoric as to what you have just read about.

As of now, the Republicans are bankrupt of ideas and seem to continue to want to continue the same failed losing route that most Americans oppose. I say good luck to them because at this rate, they won't be winning elections anytime soon.