Skip to main content

The GOP State of the Union response is another fail

Following President Obama's State of the Union speech last night, the Republican Party called on Washington (state) Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers to respond. While I'll give the Washington Representative credit in that she didn't have a Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio type of laugh-out-loud moment during her rebuttal, the speech possessed more vagueness than a horoscope, which says, "Ask a Magic 8-ball or something."

Here's my impression of her speech:

"Whatever the president said tonight, which wasn't much, didn't touch on the issues affecting most Americans' lives. Not only that, but he provided a more gloomy view of this country's future with whatever words he spoke. I, as a representative of the Republican Party, would like to offer you a brighter vision of the future. See the brightness and feel the warmth of that sunshine. See the flowers bloom and witness your life improving as well. That's what the Republican Party wants - we want everyone to be happy, and that can't happen if the government is a part in our lives. We want for you to control your own lives, your own health care - unless you're a woman like me. So, come and smile with me and help us make that happen. Let's allow God into our lives, to help bring out that warm sunshine, and give him full control to improve the greatest nation on earth - the United States of America. God bless you all and God bless the United States of America!"

What I really found to be ironically humorous about Representative Rodgers' speech was when she differentiated the president's claim of an "income inequality gap" with an "opportunity inequality gap" and wanting to close that gap, which has widened under this administration.

The president has called on Congress to, time and time again, close the pay gap between men and women in this country. Women make roughly around $0.77 to the $1.00 that men make for equal work. The gap is widening between the top earners in this country and the middle- and lower-classes. The president has also touched on this, in wanting to increase taxes for the top earners, continue tax breaks for the other two groups, and increase the minimum wage (and education opportunities). With Congress being about as useful as a blow-up doll in a boxing match, these issues have seemingly gone untouched for quite some time. So what was Congresswoman Rodgers really talking about? 

Women are increasingly receiving more opportunities professionally, but still aren't being paid equally in terms of finances and with that, respect. The president has called on Congress to, along with providing them equal opportunities, provide women with equal pay and respect. 

The income inequality gap is at a level not seen since the Great Depression. With minimal help from Congress, the president has longed to close this very gap to better the U.S. economy and its future on the whole. 

While many Congressional Republicans have been quite supportive of defunding education in this country, the president has wanted to go the opposite direction. His reason? To provide greater (and with that, equal) opportunities for today's younger generations. 

The Affordable Care Act has closed the opportunity gap quite substantially. Before it, millions of people were turned away because of pre-existing conditions, but that's no longer the case. Now, every single American has a legitimate opportunity of attaining health coverage. 

Given all of that, I'm not fully understanding Ms. Rodgers' point regarding there not being an income inequality issue in this country, but an opportunity inequality one. The two are often times inter-linked. 

Lastly, I found it to be, yet again, ironically humorous that the GOP selected a woman to be the responder to President Obama's address. This is a party that has fought tooth-and-nail to strip women of their abortion rights, contraception coverage, resisted equal pay, and fought to make it more difficult for them to vote. Do they really think that by allowing a woman to speak on their behalf is going to persuade women voters to go with their party on election day? As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. In the Congresswoman's speech, she said, "Republicans believe health care choices should be yours, not the government's." Not long before that read this headline - "House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill." 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"