GOP Failure Watch Part III

The party of smaller government is (still) trying to get the government more involved in the lives of couples who want to divorce.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...gop_politicians_push_for_waiting_periods.html

...
Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry have signed a pledge from Family Leader, a Christian-right group, denouncing "quickie divorce" and urging couples to endure a "cooling off period."

The hope is that by making divorce a hassle, or forcing couples to really think about what divorce means, the government can encourage/make more couples give up on the idea and recommit themselves to marriage. This is, of course, not the government's job. ...
​

The Slate piece has a link to a more extensive Washington Post OpEd...

Yet the conservative push for “divorce reform” is finding sympathetic ears in statehouses, where Republican lawmakers have regularly introduced bills to restrict the practice. Their rationales range from the biblical (God bemoans divorce in Malachi 2:14-16) to the social (divorce reduces worker productivity) to the financial (two households are more expensive to maintain than one). Leading conservatives such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also argued that marriage is a solution to poverty.

The cause earned national support in 2011 when three Republican presidential candidates — Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Santorum — signed a pledge from the Family Leader, a conservative organization in Iowa, that urged “ ‘cooling-off’ periods” for people seeking what it called a “quickie divorce.” Last year, seven GOP lawmakers in Iowa introduced HF 338, which would have prohibited no-fault divorces for couples who have children under 18. Under the bill, parents could divorce only in cases of adultery, imprisonment due to a felony, abuse, abandonment or if the couple has been separated at least two years. The lead sponsor, Rep. Tedd Gassman, argued that this bill would “ensure that divorce is not the first option for married couples with children.”

While some studies show that children of divorced parents do experience worse life outcomes — including diminished math and social skills, a higher chance of dropping out of school, poorer health, and a greater likelihood of divorce themselves — Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld points out that there is no way to test definitively whether children of divorced parents were already more likely to experience such outcomes. And as Stephanie Coontz, a historian and the author of “Marriage, a History,” explains, what’s most critical is the high-conflict environment that kids grew up in before their parents separated.
​

And it's interesting that what ultimately dooms these bills will be Republican opposition.

The Family Research Council sees no contradiction in the state playing an active role in such private decisions. “As the grantor of both marriage licenses and divorce decrees, the state has already established the right to regulate the disbursement of each,” argues Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the council.

But if new divorce restrictions fail to pass, it may be for a self-interested reason: Republicans get divorces, too. Two of the five states with the highest percentages of divorced residents are red states. In Oklahoma, the state with the largest share of women who have been married three or more times, Republican lawmakers killed a 2010 bill making divorce more difficult to obtain. “How far do I want government to come into my home and your home about private personal matters?” asked GOP Rep. Leslie Osborn.

And if conservatives actually believe that divorcing couples might have a change of heart, there’s another solution besides longer waiting periods: remarriage. However, only about 6 percent of divorcees ultimately remarry each other. Reconciliation certainly happens; divorce doesn’t have to be forever. But it’s impossible to pass legislation that stops spouses from lying or cheating.
​

The article concludes with a list of various bills under consideration or recently passed in various states designed to make no-fault divorce much more difficult, if not to eliminate it all together.

 

Since there seems to be quite a bit of evidence that Republicans can't tell if they are gay or not, adulterers or not, etc etc, I'm not sure I want to count on them to be aware that they might need a quick divorce soon either...

 

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/no...sion-at-convention-b99246196z1-255113211.html

Notice to GOP: The fringe controls you now.

 

If only these 'Morans' would get a brain, eh?

 

Oh the irony!


I guess it is more difficult to cohabit with someone if you can't live with yourself..

 

I'm old enough to remember when the GOP used to campaign against Dems as being divorce lovers. The usual GOP schtick, like Presidents being responsible for stock prices, they would say it when it was convenient and the surface "evidence" supported the charge, but then would forget they ever mentioned such a thing when the time changes.

Then independents, meaning closet Republicans, say both parties are the same, even though Democrats don't campaign against Republicans by taking cheap shots on their state's divorce rates, and Dems don't credit Obama for the stock rally, the way that Republicans credited Reagan for the 1980s stock rally.

That is how things go. I used to call myself an independent but I changed when I realized what that label means.

 

This chart is kinda interesting. Note that as Obama leaves office, the annual federal deficit is projected to be lower as a percent of GPD than during any of the Reagan years.

 

Women problem? What women problem?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...less-than-men-so-they-can-find-good-husbands/

 

Good Lord. But for the grace of God... I pissed on the Alamo in September, 1994. Is there a statue of limitations for pissing on the Alamo? I bet not.

http://gawker.com/man-sentenced-to-18-months-in-state-prison-for-peeing-o-1563370173

 

My best urination was upon the Pantheon in Rome.

 

Thus shares the guy who started the "name your fart after a movie" thread...



{back of the campus police station on my college campus, whereupon I signed my name, John Hancock's, and maybe six or seven other signatories of the Declaration of Independence whose names* I could recall with my BAC pretty much as high as it's ever been}








{*I seem to recall thinking myself quite clever for signing William Whipple as "Bill Whippppppppppple," though had I been caught doing so under Texas law, it might've been punishable not as a public urination, but as a public wank.}

 

The guy holding the exclamation point is interesting. First, he's black, and of all the right wing causes for African Americans to support, you'd think secession would be about the last. Second, he's looking off to the side there...wonder what he's looking at?

 

As somebody else mentioned before (superdave maybe?) if you are poor and vote GOP you are a special kind of stupid...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/15/3426716/oklahoma-ban-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/

 

What was it Johnny Speight said about his dad who was a tory and poor? That he once boasted about having to borrow a pair of shoes to walk 14 miles to vote tory...

 

Rich guy - You will be better off if I pay you less and work you longer
Poor guy - I will?
Rich guy - Yep
Poor guy - Well, OK then

 

Interesting find:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/29/working-class-voters-america-republican

 

Nope. What I've said about these red state legislatures voting against the poor is that it's a sort of modern day economic Jim Crow. The legislatures vote the interests of their constituents, and with so many majority-minority districts that means that you get this war on the poor in poor red states.

 

Considering how much more religious these red states are, isnt it very likely a big portion of their vote is based on stuff like not voting for the party of baby killers? Or the party that wont come after their guns? (this is not how I see democrats, but im sure its how most of them see them). Maybe economic policy isnt the only thing these people base votes on?

Nah, its easier and makes me feel better about myself to just call them stupid.

 

Yeah of course. That is where the GOP pretends to care about babies and guns so as to get the votes so that it can do what it cares about - lower taxes.

They vote GOP to get anti-abortion legislation that never happens at the national level, to protect a right to own guns that the Dems will not take away, and to get economic policies that help wealthy blue staters like me and hurt poor red staters.

I wouldn't call that stupid, exactly. More like ... peculiar.

 

Lets call them faithful believers then.

I don't feel better about myself, I know who I am and what I value. However I'm puzzled when I look at facts and evidence and see people ignore them and use conviction, fear and missinformation to make their decisions. For lack of time and better words, stupid is an easy way to label them. Moran is another possible term.

But lets discuss Benghazi or how the ACA is a big failure.

 

Then again, maybe I was too nice. Bill O'Reilly interviewing a college basketball coach yesterday -

See now that is stupid. Abjectly stupid. You can find silly things on MSNBC and on other liberal shows, to be sure, but it's hard to compare with that for stupid.

 

Wrong thread maybe?

 

Dunno, the topic is whether GOP voters are stupid, so Bill O'Reilly would seem relevant.

 

It's possible that at least some potential or actual GOP failures are related to Fox News actively making their viewers stupid. There's bound to be some overlap.

 

There you go, being all condescending again. Do you feel better about yourself now?