Now while all of this is going on in the election, and the changes will become effective 1 Jan 2013, little do they realize that they step into a situation where no one has the ability to actually predict the changes coming, nor just how these newly elected Representatives and Senators are going to be slammed against a wall of absolutes they didn't really anticipate even though everyone with knowledge has already predicted.
We're talking about the tri-fecta, the perfect storm of budgetary responsibility, and a lack of the Republicans desire to act, the result of Republican negotiations on other situations such as the otherwise standard raising of the debt ceiling, allowing America to pay its already borrowed debt, and the failure of the Republicans to actually take part in President Obama's moment of extinguishing some 4 Trillion dollars of America's debt through long term planning and a combination of cuts in spending and increases in revenues.
The entire fiscal cliff stands before us because the Republicans would not allow, no, not now, not ever, the increase of revenues. Any increase of revenues must be spent in curtailing the debt through applications of the cuts in deficit spending.
So now we stand to end up with austerity measures, the size of which the average American cannot begin to comprehend even as the Republicans themselves cannot comprehend, having foisted this problem upon the American people without one iota of concern.
My problem isn't with which way the Presidency goes as pertains to this particular problem if my perception of the outcome of the election is correct, but rather whether such a man as Mitt Romney is capable of walking into office after the transfer of power at 12 PM on January 20th, 2013, can suddenly grasp that the job he has to attend to has nothing to do with his promises to the people of repealing Obamacare, and all of the other promises he cannot keep.
No, my concern is what does the man do when he realizes that the functions of the government of the people goes on regardless of whether he is aware or capable of actually implementing any of his plans when three massive programs have ended on January 1 and he's already 19 days behind the eight ball.
Now, of course, the Republicans will do their lame duck best to kick the can down the road as they have been so good at over the past 40 years or so, but it is conceivable that President Obama could really be a nasty player and veto any measures presented by the Republican held House, thus laying the problem on the table in front of Mitt Romney. This would, however, be a burnt ground policy of which President Obama would never stoop, particularly not with the harm it would cause the American people.
The reason I bring this up is that Mitt has not proven himself to be the leader of the Republican party, as evidenced in the past two days by Missouri Representative turned Senate candidate, Mr. Akin, who only two days ago was asked by the Republican party to step down from his leading attack on Senator Claire McCaskill's current seat due to giving Republican backroom policy away to the public.
And the reason I bring this up is that if the Republican party members don't recognize Mitt Romney as their erstwhile party leader, then who does recognize Mitt Romney as the Republican party leader, and just how much can he do on day one if he doesn't have all of his Republican ducks in a row?
After all, Mitt virtually commanded Todd Akin to step down from the race so that another, less verbal, candidate could be placed on the card, but alas, Mr. Akin, bless his heart, simply said no and refused to abdicate his now leading position. It is highly possible that he will continue to hold his lead and take Missouri's Democratically held Senatorship, undoubtedly bringing about a change in the majority of the Senate in his wake.
Now why was this a problem? No, not because Rep. Akin said what he said, because he's been saying the same thing for 35 years now, which is that rape isn't the problem that the rest of us perceive, but a problem with women who are obviously out about town looking for a good penis. No matter how you try to read around it, he has a problem with women who have been raped because he believes that they are looking for it.
This man is not by any means a strange anomaly as even after having said the term "legitimate rape" and then never having backed off of the statement as it stood, but he is simply one of some 122 House Representatives, including Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's anointed running mate, who have voted to keep federal funds from paying for any abortion, including cases of incest and/or rape.
Now in order to substantiate the importance of a case that still won't be paid for by federal funds, these people have defined levels of rape that are apparently somewhat acceptable to the entire Republican party. Legitimate rape, as far as I can tell, is a real rape, perhaps of your sister who was actually minding her own business and not dressed up in a manner that broadcast her intentions, or, in their minds, looking for "it", ends up getting raped. But then again, why was she out that night? What were HER motives? How dare she go out with a rape-able orifice at night, or even be alone in her apartment, or going to the corner drug store for medicine?
Somehow these people have tried for 45 years or more to negate rape as a crime against a woman and made the entire situation a woman's fault, apparently for simply existing. These are the same guys who, year after year, were able to get the law to look the other way as their own sons forced young girls and college co-eds to have sex with them and hid behind their names and their father's position.
And somehow this whole "old boy" network of protecting their sons became seated in the Republican definition of rape, thus protecting yet another generation or two or three from real consequences in having to admit guilt and paying for child support until adulthood.
No, see it is more simple to explain away the problem of randy young men by blaming it on women who really "want it" and yet, when they say no, are simply dick teasers and deserving of whatever they get, including a child and possibly any communicable disease the man may bare.
Now many may well say that I'm making this all up, that such happenstance does not occur, that small towns of yesteryear don't influence the politics of today, but I'm telling you that such is exactly the case and that any RAPE is exactly that, RAPE, and as such is a Legitimate rape, regardless of voodoo doctoring by idiots who believe that a human body knows something about distinguishing between a rapist's sperm and that of a caring lover.
For these same men, so absolute in their beliefs and their arguments, also tell us that women under "legitimate rape" assault have bodily functions that automatically negate the sperm of their assailant and therefore they cannot get pregnant.
Therefore any woman claiming the need for an abortion due to being raped is a liar and was out looking for "it" and became pregnant.
Now follow me here because this is important. By these people's statements there has never been a bastard child born to a woman raped "legitimately", and therefore any pregnancy involved with a claim of rape cannot be possible. Therefore no Federal funds may be used to provide an abortion for a woman so claiming rape because she really wanted it in the first place.
And this belief structure is the pre-eminent belief structure of the entire Republican Party that supports "no exceptions" abortion and thus forces woman forcibly raped to bare the child. How do I know? Because the entire Republican Party supports the "no exceptions" rule to the Federal prohibition of payment for an abortion, which has now been added as one of the planks of the Republican Party's Platform.
Paul Ryan is not only guilty of voting FOR this bill, but he is one of the 122 House Republican members who co-sponsored this bill and thereby admit to all of what I have outlined above. They apparently honestly believe that any woman claiming to have been raped is a woman of ill repute, as Rush Limbaugh cast Linda Fluke for desiring to have her birth control pills covered in her medical insurance. Just another whore as far as they are concerned.
The Republican Party apparently believes that any woman is either a whore, or capable of being a whore, or probably was a whore at some time in her past or most certainly will be a whore in the future.
Such ideas make me wonder how they distinguish between a woman of 81, beaten to death for her Social Security money and raped by some 19 year old thug, as a whore, and a poor, downtrodden lady who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As far as I can tell, they don't make the distinguishment at all. They simply cast all women in the same light and make assumptions that all women aren't worth the flesh that God gave them via Adam's rib, and therefore are all liars as Eve was.
Could God have gotten it so wrong as to make all women whores, or is it that all Adams are so stupid?
My vote is for the latter.