{{Facepalm}}

See update below.

How many readers out there are or were working mothers who put their kids in daycare after your maternity leave was up?  Keep your hands up while you read this.

I guess the guys on the Democratic side of the aisle just can’t wait to get the motherhood crap off their todo list.  Atrios links to a post at the Big Orange Satan about a pretty fricking thoughtless bill that not only manages to fall right into a trap that the Republicans have set but at the same time pisses off all the working mothers who have careers, probably a secondary planned effect.  From the BOS post, here is the description:

“A handful of House Democrats, encouraged by the recent bipartisan agreement that stay-at-home moms should be considered just as hard working as anyone in the workforce, will introduce legislation to apply that standard to mothers on welfare as well.Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required “work activity” that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.

The Woman’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.

The WORK Act won’t really give all women the same choices Ann Romney had. As she explained:

“No, I did not work. Mitt thought it was important for me to stay home with the children, and I was delighted.””

Under the WORK Act, however, mothers whose husbands don’t have profitable stock portfolios to support them, but who also think it’s important to “stay home with the children” and would be delighted to do so, would have to return to the work force when their child turns four. Still, such legislation would be a much-needed step in the right direction. And it’s one Mitt Romney should be first in line to support. After all, as his wife told us last week:

“This is obviously an awesome responsibility, to raise children. It’s, to me, the most important thing we can do. I will tell you that Mitt said to me, more times than you would imagine, “Ann, your job is more important than mine.” He was making money and doing the things, raising funds and investing and helping other companies, and he would come home and say, “Ann, your job is more important than mine.”

Ok, let’s break this down nice and slowly for the childless men out there:

1.) Mothers who also have careers, *and actually like them*, take only as much maternity leave as they can reasonably afford, because under the Family Leave Act such leave is unpaid and because some of them, such as scientists and other career professionals can’t afford to be away from their work for very long.  The right to work in whatever profession we wanted was a hard won thing for women.

2.) Now, we are offering to pay women who are on public assistance for up to four years to stay home with their kids like Ann Romney did. Somehow, we can not manage to find any women in the country who will go on record saying that their career is as important as motherhood to them or that daycare did not permanently stunt their children’s emotional development.  We also can’t find any mother on welfare who will say that she would rather go to work or get an education than collect a check that will keep her and her family in poverty indefinitely.

3.) For all of those mothers who have careers, and enjoy them, the price for going back to work has been to pay astronomical childcare costs.  If you don’t have kids, you don’t even want to know.  Yes, they do get to write some of that off on their taxes.  The problem is, the more professional you are and the more education you have, the higher your salary and therefore, the less you get back.  Maybe it’s not a problem in Kansas but there’s a reason why New Jersey taxpayers end up sending more money to Washington than they get back.  And it is really expensive to live here.  My former salary was equivalent to that of a PhD chemist and I live in a 25 year old townhouse and drive a second hand car.  Even on my nice salary, it was not a swank living here in the deepest, darkest suburbs of central New Jersey, which is considered part of the New York City metropolitan area.  Nope, it was not plush at all.  I am definitely in favor of high quality subsidized childcare for everyone.

4.) For women scientists who choose to take time off from their jobs to do an Ann Romney, well, their careers just might as well be over.  From the latest edition of American Scientist, we get the following study, When Scientists Choose Motherhood:

The usual explanations for the shortage of women focus squarely on sex discrimination at various life stages. As a result of such discrimination, the argument goes, girls and women drop out of math-based endeavors or change their focus. Some scholars have argued for the effects of early socialization practices that lead girls along a path that downplays math—pink versus blue attire for babies, Barbie dolls proclaiming “Math class is tough,” middle-school math teachers calling on boys more than girls, high-school girls urged to be cheerleaders or writers instead of scientists. Others invoke gender stereotypes—sets of shared cultural expectations that suggest, for instance, that females are not gifted in math or that the responsibility for raising children belongs primarily or solely to women. Still others look further down the pipeline, at disenfranchisement of women once they enter academic-science careers, focusing on claims of “chilly climate”; unequal pay and promotion; devaluing of women’s work styles and biased assessment of their efforts; and old-boys’ clubs that isolate women. Researchers have also studied the role of sex differences at the extreme right tail of the math distribution—more boys than girls demonstrate extremely high levels of math ability on standardized tests such as the SAT. Still others suggest that women simply prefer to use their math and science skills to be veterinarians and biologists, for example, rather than engineers and computer scientists, and that the difference in the numbers can be explained by this freely determined preference.

We argue for the importance of another factor in women’s underrepresentation: the choice to become a mother. To place the role of this choice in context, we consider its impact on women’s careers relative to the impacts of other variables that may reduce women’s participation in the sciences. Our own findings as well as research by others show that the effect of children on women’s academic careers is so remarkable that it eclipses other factors in contributing to women’s underrepresentation in academic science.

Read it and weep.  Hard.

So, what is the end result of this WORK Act disaster?  Stupid lefties, feeling like poor mothers on welfare crave to stay home with their children instead of trying to get off of welfare have decided it is better to throw money at the problem to alleviate their guilt.  They reinforce the “politics of envy” that Republicans are going to roll out. Plus, there are better ways to spend that money so that women have a way out of poverty but lefties, I refuse to call them liberals anymore, do not want to think this problem through.  They’d just rather come off looking like heroes, defending motherhood, and probably leaving those women more dependent on guys.

Working women lose.  We have just reinforced the cultural notion that women’s primary responsibility is fulltime motherhood. If they’re really into their work AND families, there will be even less incentive for our culture to work out a way that helps them accomplish their professional goals by championing part time maternity leaves, state subsidized childcare, working from home, etc.  Instead of assuming that all women  of childbearing age will work at some point, and will need high quality childcare at an affordable price, and working on policies to achieve that goal, we will leave working women high and dry.  BUT, if they choose to take four years off to fulfill their natural desires to be mothers (gag me, you guys are starting to sound like Michelle Duggar), well, it’s ok if they sacrifice their career goals and future earning potential to do it.

They will also have to continue to pay through the nose for childcare that is sometimes hard to find and expensive as all get out.  This is the penalty that working mothers are going to be subject to because we are favoring stay-at-home motherhood in official legislation.  I will call it The Working Mothers’ Penalty.

It lets men off the hook.  Nowhere have I heard it suggested that we should make men accountable for their behavior at home and at work.  What if the father is the one who collects assistance and decides to stay home with the kid?  This is not as far fetched as it sounds.  I have known instances of mothers abandoning their infants and then the boyfriend/father assumes responsibility for raising them.  Are we going to protect that family unit or are we just going to assume that fathers on TANF really want a job?  We also aren’t holding men accountable for treating their female colleagues as second class citizens, slighting their skills, stealing their projects and sabotaging their productivity.  In fact, we are going to give them even more incentive to do so because we are buying into the Quiverful notion that all women just want to fulfill their obligations as full time mothers and are not pulling their full weight at work.

Oh, and did I mention that it relieves politicians of some of the responsibility to finally do something about the unemployment situation?  Instead of doing the heavy lifting of curbing Wall Street from encouraging companies to ship our jobs overseas or go “weightless”, they can just sign on to a bill that will encourage women to stay home.

Who wins?  Looks like Republicans and men have won this round and women have lost.  They’re going to play up this idea that we are going to pay poor people to be lazy and indolent while working people pay ever increasing amounts of their own paychecks to support them.  Nevermind that these women are not lazy or indolent, they’re just left with few options.  We buy into the notion that kids that go to daycare early are somehow cheated and have problems.  On the contrary, I have a 16 year old who went to daycare at 2 months and is smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor and can use the right silverware at dinners out. Not only that, but I nursed her for 2 years while I was still working. It can be done.  And we have given men more reasons to try to force professional women out of the workplace to capture the dwindling salaries that remain.

Just stop, lefties.  You are grasping at straws and right now, we don’t need any more of your “help”, thank you very much.  You are not thinking the consequences of your actions through and you are going to end up setting working women back even more effectively than the Republicans have so far.  In fact, you have no strategy, no comprehensive vision of how modern parenthood or the workplace should be structured to optimize the responsibilities for women and men of all income brackets, and no logical, rational, well-thought policies at all.  You are reacting, not planning and as a result, have just involuntarily mommy tracked a whole generation of women.

As for Bill Clinton, my respect for him and Hillary on the issue of welfare reform grows every day.  At least I now understand what they were trying to accomplish.   That’s one of the reasons why I voted for her, twice, in the 90′s.  I knew his wife had insights as a working mother that other first ladies didn’t.  Remember the fit the Republicans had about her support of childcare?  Now, I realize how badly we have been screwed by our own party.  Well, former party, in my case.  You guys need to get your shit together before I sign up again.

Update: The Germans are also dealing with the stay-at-home-mother subsidy and are having second thoughts:

“We have found that because of the parental leave payment more mothers are returning to work when the children reach 1 or 2,” says Katharina Wrohlich, a social policy researcher at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. “Now with this money, it will be a step backwards, because the incentive is being created for the woman to stay at home. So it is something of a zig-zag policy.”

She says the longer women chose to stay out of the labor force, the harder it is to get back in and the greater the risk of poverty. “We know that the shorter the interruption the better it is for the long-term wages, for the risk of unemployment and very importantly for pensions.”

German women already suffer the biggest gender pay gap in Europe and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently criticized the persistent income inequalities and singled out the lack of adequate childcare as a barrier to women earning more.

Furthermore, some experts warn that the children’s welfare is not necessarily best served by keeping mothers at home.

In particular children from immigrant backgrounds whose parents might not speak German fluently can be put at a disadvantage if they enter school at the age of 6 without kindergarten experience. And children of parents who are less educated also benefit far more from an early learning environment.

And why was the subsidy proposed in the first place?

The coalition government agreed to the measure under pressure from the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU). Critics say the subsidy simply panders to conservative voters who object to other government plans to extend childcare, regarding it as a threat to conventional family structures.

Gender roles in Germany can still be quite traditional, with the pejorative term “Rabbenmutter,” literally meaning “raven mothers” used by some to imply that woman who leave their children to work are selfish.

The previous Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen, a member of the CDU, had annoyed many in the CSU by pushing forward plans to significantly improve the supply of public childcare, as well as by providing generous subsidies for parental leave, or “Elterngeld,” in part to make it easier for mothers to return to work.

Critics have warned that the new childcare subsidy could be counter-productive, acting as a disincentive, particularly to low-paid women, to stay out of the workforce for longer.
Read the whole thing.  Germans tend to really do their homework in preparation for big decisions and this article is pretty specific about how a subsidy for stay at home moms will affect women and children especially of low income parents.   This is not rocket science, people.
About these ads

29 Responses

  1. okay, so what is the answer. The top of my list for simplifying the american employment problem is single payer healthcare/medicare for all. It would free up people to stop working and start again, become their own boss etc… without having to worry about they kids being covered. What a boon to small business start ups. What a boon to women and men wanting to take a year off to write while the baby spends it’s first year at home. So many possibilities.
    What else? Honestly, there must be some way in this country that we can figure out how to help each other with out screwing everyone else.

    • Not everyone should become their own boss. My industry is going to be hobbled and scientists perpetually poor if we don’t work with a bigger economy of scale.

      But you are asking the right questions. There are alternatives out there if we just stop long enough to think things through. And there are countries that do a much better job of taking care of parents *and* workers. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

  2. Ann Romney is NOT your average, middle-class wife and mom, thank you! And her slick passing off of her status as a stay-at-home mom on “that’s what Mitt wanted” is absurd. What I see here is a marriage of unequal partners. I would be embarrassed! She needs to own the responsibility for getting preggers five times and the fact that by so doing, (was that what SHE wanted?) she really painted herself into a corner, er, home. Sounds like Mitt dictated, and Ann obeyed. So where does HER happiness and fulfillment figure in? There seems to be a weird agenda in the Mormon church to have large families. Remember the fundamentalist Mormon sect whose leader is now in jail for impregnating a young girl? I am very uncomfortable with these large families and the Romney boys seem on the same path! So Mitt goes out and rapes and pillages in corporate takeovers, then comes home and purrs in Ann’s ear that HER job is the most important. Please. I think the worst thing that could happen to our country at this juncture would be for this mean-spirited, ruthless businessman who wants to keep his tax returns secret, to succeed at buying the presidency much as Rick Scott, our Medicrook governor, did here in Florida. A worse fate I can’t imagine for this troubled state!

    • At this point, it really doesn’t matter who takes the White House. Women are screwed with either one of them and neither is going to do anything to help middle class and working people as long as their Wall Street masters call the shots.

  3. I think I’ll just go ram my head into a wall.

    • Depressing, isn’t it? One party is full of raving maniacs who are wicked smart at winning, the other party is full of dupes.
      We’re fucked.

  4. TOTALLY off topic … But this dog thing is getting kind of funny:

    • Romney’s campaign is into QE. When there’s an understandable, human issue against him (‘war on women’, wet dog on car) they flood it out with nonsense.

      • I get that — What I don’t get, however is why this stuff is sticking this time around and not last time. Does THAT mean anything.

        • The eating dog thing was tried before? This is the first I’d heard of it.

          • No — it wasn’t tried before. But, the story was in the autobiography then. It didn’t just appear there. Look — I don’t think dumb stuff like this is worthy of a presidential campaign. But, I do think it shows that the dirt is flying this time around in a way that it didn’t 4 years ago. We’ll have to see what’s flying around in September & October.

        • Yes, it does. Romney isn’t McCain. You don’t make the millions that he did in the venture capital business without knowing how to play hardball. And the right wing blogosphere used the last four years to read Alinsky. Especially Rule #4. What I find interesting is that when the left hit back about the Hilary Rosen debacle, they did it by calling Ann Romney every despicable name in the book and riled up a lot of SAHMs – a real turn off to those in the middle. But when the right fought back after Axelrod implied that Romney was cruel to his dog, they did it with humor. No one on the right actually criticized Obama for eating dog meat in his youth, but the left itself was quick to point out that Obama had grown up in a different culture, i. e. not like other American kids. All the right had to do was scratch its chin and say “I see”. The whole dog recipe thing has been funny, and it has the middle laughing – and the message that Obama is “other” came from his own cheering squad. People are tired of “ugly” and we love to get a good laugh. This isn’t going to be 2008, the sequel. This is a whole new script.

          • The SAHMs better get over it if any of them ever expect to return to the job market again. Seriously, ellie. Don’t bring that shit around here about how put upon SAHMs are. Now is the time for them to stick up for their working mother counterparts or we’re all screwed.

          • My comment was about the political playing field changing.

            I managed to juggle motherhood and a career, and I’m glad that I had the opportunity to do that, but I don’t resent the woman who chose motherhood as their only work. Just what do you have against women who prefer to take care of their own children and can afford to choose to do so? Why do they need to stick up for you? You chose to have children and keep working at a career. Their decision didn’t keep you from doing that, and it didn’t cost you your job. What right do you have to force them into the workplace? Women who voluntarily leave the workplace to stay home with their children are well aware that they have put a limit on their ability to rise up the corporate ranks. It’s their choice to make. I never said that they were “put upon”. Just that people like you who don’t respect their right to make that choice are mostly on the left, and it doesn’t help get their vote to say that they owe you. Because they don’t.

          • No one is trying to force them into the workplace. But if they are on public assistance, we would actually be harming them to not encourage them to work.
            The reason it is time for SAHMs to stop looking down their haughty noses at working women is because women, in general, are about to take a giant step backwards and we need to stick together. Usually, in the mommy wars, it is the full time mothers who pull their sanctimonious crap on the rest of us and working mothers have to tap dance on eggshells to not offend them. THAT hurts working mothers because it reinforces the notion that motherhood is a woman’s primary role in life to the exclusion of all else. Then, when the SAHMs find themselves suddenly faced with the very real possibility of having to go to work, their opportunities are limited and they’re more likely to get a handout than a hand up.
            That’s why, elliesmom. It has always been about that. SAHMs do not ever stick up for us and we all suffer as a consequence.

          • RD – I’ve done both and none of us win.

            I know who you are talking about but the broad brush is a problem.

            People like me spend our free time teaching kids to read because the parents don’t have time. We are running Girl Scout meetings while the other parents work. We pick up other people’s sick kids at school because they can’t miss a meeting… rescue them when cars break down and pick up the couple extra things at the store.

            I don’t mind that, in fact, I completely understand how hard it is to work and raise a family and I understand the difficult sacrifices. I am HAPPY to help them because I remember how hard it was to balance the competing interests.

            It would piss me off to know they were making me out to be lazy and haughty for not working, as if I don’t contribute to anything worthwhile in the world and make other women suffer.

          • Who says we think SAHMs are lazy? I don’t have any problem with what they have chosen to do and I know that they’re busy in schools and hogging the road with their honking SUVs chaufeuring kids around. But there’s two things that do bother me:
            1.) they tend to be self-righteous and superior. Don’t tell me they don’t act like this because I’ve seen and heard it in action. Working mothers and their poor neglected children are looked down upon as being not adequate. They get second class services at school as well. I struggled on the board of ed to get a better after school program for our kids at one school because the SAHM moms had booked the gymnasium for activities that only they could transport their kids to and from after school leaving the after school kids whose mothers worked shoved into a small multimedia room all afternoon. And the district administration was unsympathetic to working moms and their kids who ponied up hundreds of dollars a month to jam their kids in a multipurpose room where they couldn’t run around and have fun. So, you know, I’ve been there.
            2.) *I* used to pick my kid up when she was sick. I attended track meets for my older daughter and picked her and her friend up after school every day they had practice. I saved up my vacation and sick days so I would be able to do this. I also chaperoned school trips and overnights, again using my vacation days. And I volunteered for Victorian Day at school, science fairs and numerous other activities. Whenever there was a permission slip that had a volunteer request on it, I signed up for it. And so did many working mothers I know. My colleague in the office next to mine was always busy at her kid’s school. She also had more vacation days than I did. She was also a girl scout troop leader. In fact, I have known *several* working mothers who were also girl scout troop leaders. One was a patent attorney. But yeah, that’s what we did. Working fathers too. So, I don’t know where SAHMs get the idea that working mothers are slackers at school. Next time you go to a chaperoned event, try to find out how many of those mothers took the day off.

  5. Re the German ‘Betreuungsgeld’, yesterday Der Spiegel had an article headlined ‘Stoppt den Herdprämien-Unsinn!’ (Stop the stove prize madness!) linking to a photoessay with 18 women speaking out about the ‘prize’.

    Unfortunately this particular photoessay is only in German but for anyone interested (like … I don’t know … a mom who is about to send her kid to that foreign country? ;) ) I can recommend their International site which also shows often very illuminating photoessays in English in which you can actually learn a lot – mostly about art and society – in a very short time.

    • Thanks for that link. Google Chrome translates german to english automatically. The nitwits who are falling all over each other to support the WORK bill should take a look at it.
      Sometimes, I’m shocked that the Democrats think of themselves as the “smart” ones.

      • Yeah, Dems are sooo smart they managed to blow what should have been two terms or more in the White House and majorities in the House and Senate in two years.

  6. I just don’t view the WORK bill as something intended to pass, but rather, as a supreme trolling of the hard right wing of American politics who’ve worked hard to disenfranchise working poor mothers but are more than willing to raise a shrine to wealthy women who don’t need to fret about how their children will eat today. And it does that. It shines a very bright light on the double standard employed by our conservative brethren who’ve cried out long and loud about the abuse the Welfare Queen (virtually non existent by the way) places on society. Other than that, I’m with you in regards to Maternity/Paternity leave and a greater focus on child care assistance. Neither of which, by the way, are possible with this republican controlled congress.

    • With countries like Germany seriously considering doing exactly what the WORK bill recommends, I think this is dangerous territory for Democrats to stumble into in an election year when Republicans are trying to demotivate Democratic voters. Plus, it gives conservative evangelical voters just the crack they need to promote their traditional role for women. The WORK bill may get transformed in ways that Democrats had not anticipated.
      It’s a bad, bad idea and Democrats shouldn’t be trolling.
      Nevertheless, the Democrats are finished as a party. They’re hollowed out, visionless and have not evolved or developed policies that would lead us in the 21st century. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am. The last four years have been a catastrophe and now it looks like there is no getting around forming a new party. This one is dead.

      • Well, I disagree that they shouldn’t be trolling. This republican party, the modern GoP, has earned all the mockery they get. As for this bill, it will never get out of committee in this congress. Regardless of your disdain for the democratic party (and I share a great deal of that, spinelessness is not an asset), there still remain far more reasonable democrats than there are reasonable republicans. And my observations over the last 40 years or so, as I’ve watched with horror the decline of my nation, point my ire directly at the messaging machine. The propaganda, since Reagan, has strongly favored conservative policy, often without any historical foundation in effectiveness. It is this deeply embedded and extremely well funded propaganda machine that allows these conservative cretins to maintain both power and policy. And just by being able to shape the discussion, they have been able to turn the democratic party into zombified shell of what it once was. We desperately do need a viable 3rd party. But even more than that, we need a media dedicated to honesty and integrity.

        • >>there still remain far more reasonable democrats than there are reasonable republicans

          Really?? Prove it. I’ve seen very little evidence that the so-called reasonable Democrats actually exist anymore. Instead, I’ve seen unreasonable Democrat purging the party of more liberal, reasonable representatives. I’ve seen Bart Stupak, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson hold a gun to everyone else’s heads and watched all of the “reasonable” Democrats fold.

          >>The propaganda, since Reagan, has strongly favored conservative policy, often without any historical foundation in effectiveness.

          And what liberal policies have Democrats conceived? What is their worldview? How do the constituent pieces of that worldview relate to one another? How do they plan to achieve their goals? The last time I heard a definite worldview and a coherent set of policies, it was from Hillary Clinton. Since then, nada.

          >>But even more than that, we need a media dedicated to honesty and integrity.

          And when Democrats had the house and the senate and a filibuster proof majority, what steps did they take to make sure their message would be carried by the media? Did they do anything to ensure the fairness doctrine would be reinstated? Have they done anything to make sure the internet is free from politically motivated interference? Did they strengthen the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, allocate more funding, insist on appointing commissioners with more integrity and independence? How about the radio spectrum that was auctioned off. Did they make sure that non-corporate entities would have a first crack at it? Have they done anything to make sure that telecomms would invest in their wifi infrastructure or did they cut a deal with them to allow those telecomms the right to configure wifi to suit their own interests with excessive rates and tiered access?

          Well?

          The Democrats have been AWFUL. Beyond awful because they portray themselves as the only viable alternative to the crazy Republicans. And voters buy into that and get nothing in return. For women, it’s been a step backwards and *still* the Democrats continue to recruit anti-choice candidates to run for congressional districts. It’s disgusting and if women don’t walk away from this party right now and insist on some major changes before the election, it’s only going to get worse for us.

          No, no, don’t even try to defend them. They’re indefensible. It just comes off sounding like pathetic excuses.

          • ConservaDems make me want to puke also. In the Senate, it was the Blue Dog ConservaDems who made sure the short lived filibuster proof majority that the Dems had at the time got next to nothing done. I’m not disagreeing with you. Lieberman is a disgusting human being.

            Also, please, don’t accuse me of defending the actions of the democratic party in Washington. I’m not. And I’m not sure how saying that reasonable democrats outnumber reasonable republicans translates into defending the spineless supplication of the Democratic party in general.

            I would love to see a viable 3rd party. We desperately need one.

            But with Sunday talk shows parading a never ending stream of conservative pundits in front of America for decades, it has had the expected effect of dragging the conversation of all parties to the right.

            Neither James Carville nor Karl Rove should ever be considered policy experts, yet both these idiots (and many other political pundits just like them) are constantly brought in front of the camera to discuss policy as if they were. And the vast majority of America isn’t even aware that they’ve been lied to and manipulated for so goddamned long.

          • ” I’ve seen Bart Stupak, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson hold a gun to everyone else’s heads and watched all of the “reasonable” Democrats fold.”

            Stupak didn’t have the only gun on Obamacare, till Coakley lost. The Dims were going to pass it anyway, but her vote would have kept Stupak out of it.

          • The ACA falls well short of being anywhere near good but I was specifically referring to the abortion coverage issues and Lieberman’s tap dancing around other elements. The conservatives and the insurance industry got far more than they should have. If the final bill is what they intended to pass from the start, then there are no reasonable Democrats in Congress.

        • Dan, I agree with most of what you’re saying here. Yay Congressional trolling!

          But I wonder if a preposiional phrase got lost when you say, ” there still remain far more reasonable democrats than there are reasonable republicans.” Shouldn’t that sentence include something like, “Among voters” or “among registered voters” or “among legislators” or “among House members”, etc.

  7. One more the Democrats don’t do: Destroy the caucus system and create a National Primary. Whining about the cost of an election is crazy. The cost of an election is the cost of Democracy. Suck. It. Up.

    Until the caucus system is gone and there is a National Primary day, I’m a member of no party.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers

%d bloggers like this: