Tag Archives: abortion

A question for tonight’s VP debate

Posted on by
Reply

A question for tonight’s VP debate

 

I have no prediction about tonight’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and GOP nominee (and congressional nominee) Paul Ryan. I do have one question beforehand, and it’s whether Ryan will say anything that will shed light on Mitt Romney. Listened to closely, Ryan might say something–intentionally or otherwise–that will clarify Romney’s own positions, will widen the window onto a hypothetical Romney-Ryan administration.

 

Neo but not new

This comment should not be misconstrued to suggest that what Romney offers is entirely unclear. Broadly, Romney offers what the top echelon of the GOP always offers–reverse-Robin Hood at home, and contract-generating bloodthirsty incursions abroad. (If you think this summary sounds reductive or harsh, try to rebut it. Try to remember one time in the past two years that Romney has called for kindness and moderation abroad, has counseled restraint rather than intrusion, or has commended the president for boosting a more favorable view of America around the world.) The mere fact that the disgraced neo-cons and PNAC alumni left over from the Bush administration have gravitated to Romney should be clue enough.

For quick thumbnail illustration, try this short-short-short film, working title These Guys:

http://tinyurl.com/bmq6stf 

If you want more trillion-dollar wars and more trillion-dollar redistribution of wealth to Wall Street, less prosecution of mortgage fraud at home and less budgeting for embassy security abroad, Romney’s your man.

 

Talking tough is one thing, paying for embassy security another

Wars abroad, regression at home. End of story–except for the horrible specifics including cost, yet undisclosed by Romney; and except for the consequences.

But the clarity of the big picture does not illuminate the corner that is social policy. Ironically, even while Romney-Ryan social policy has been discussed and ventilated out of all proportion to what Romney and Ryan plan for this country and the globe, I for one have no prediction as to what Romney would actually do about abortion, if he made the White House.

This is not to be stubborn. I know that Romney has pandered to the right wing in every conceivable way, in every venue, on social matters. I also firmly believe that Romney’s flip-flopping on economic and fiscal matters will leave unaltered his bedrock rich-get-richer core. Thus the most recent flip-flop on abortion and birth control–Romney’s remarkable statement this week that he doesn’t know of any legislation (connected to him) that would change things–cannot be taken as an earnest of anything. It is certainly not a sign of true, bedrock moderation under all the foaming at the mouth. Someone whose bedrock is peaceable could not stomach all the blood-and-guts Romney has been spilling on the campaign trail, in either foreign policy or social policy.

That said, a prediction as to which way Romney would actually go on Roe v. Wade, in the Oval Office, is impossible. It all depends on what’s in it for him.

No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine Romney’s standing up to defend fundamentalist anti-abortionists, if doing so took political courage. Likewise, I cannot imagine Romney’s standing up to defend women, if it took political courage. When has he ever done either one, if–again–it took political courage to do so?

Here is the only way to project what a chief executive Romney would do. What’s in it for him? What is the over-all deal? What deal does the anti-abortion/pro-choice/fill-in-the-blank position seal? Or sweeten?

 

The Republican Party’s legitimate difficulties with Todd Akin, part 2

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican Party’s legitimate difficulties with Todd Akin, part 2

 

Akin with Jaco

What Todd Akin did, with his ill-timed comments, was to illuminate

1) the draconian hard-right stand against abortions. This is the no-exceptions position that would prevent terminating a pregnancy for an eleven-year-old girl sexually abused by her stepfather. (The medical case just referred to is not hypothetical. It occurred in Texas. It never became a dispute over abortion. )The no-exceptions position would compel a woman or girl to carry a fetus to term even if the fetus were anencephalic.

2) the superficiality of Republican establishment support of such positions.

 

Scott Brown, "pro-choice Republican"

Let’s put this simply: Most top GOPers do not support these positions. But while quietly opposing them, the top echelon of the Republican Party continues to entice the vote and the financial contributions of party faithful who hold them.

 

Carlson with dancing partner

I have written about the broader topic before, as in 2006 posts on Tucker Carlson of all people. Like Akin, whom he does not much otherwise resemble, Carlson came out with some inconveniently candid remarks at a particularly inopportune moment. Carlson, a Republican commentator who later appeared on Dancing with the Stars, voiced on television the key political fact that the Christian right tends to be used and abused by the power structure it keeps in office.

Things haven’t changed much, in that respect, since 2006. Look at the party establishment’s reaction to Akin.

As everyone not living under a rock knows, Rep. Todd Akin (R), challenging Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in Missouri, gave a remarkable interview on August 19. Here is the video of the interview, on Fox.

Here is Akin, on abortion in cases of sexual assault:

“Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

There are two prongs to the difficulty Akin’s statements have caused the GOP. One is the false science, the other is the genuine belief. As I previously wrote, the genuine belief is what is giving the Republican Party so much heartburn.

But the GOP also has its vulnerabilities on the false science.

Rick Santorum

Again, I do not question Akin’s sincerity. But it is incumbent on rational people to correct errors of fact when they arise, especially when they are widely disseminated and when they support disastrous public policy. Remember Iraqi WMD?

CIA corrects previous intelligence reports on WMD

The mystery is not how Akin, or anyone, could form such a notion in the first place, that is, the notion that a raped woman’s body wards off pregnancy. As with other wishful beliefs, the wishful belief that a sexually assaulted woman has innate defenses against pregnancy is underpinned by a few grains of truth. Stress and anxiety can deter pregnancy, even in women who want to conceive and who are trying to become pregnant. (Hence the lucrative explosion in the reproduction industry of fertility clinics and the like.) Injury can interfere with becoming pregnant and can cause miscarriage. Each subsection of this unhappy topic has generated extensive medical scholarship.

On a more cheerful note, studies have shown that most rapists suffer some form of sexual dysfunction. (This is one reason why ‘castration’ does not work as a tool of public policy against sexual assault.)

The more puzzling question is not how Akin formed a wrong notion about conception in the first place but how he, or any literate person 65 years old, could have retained such a notion. Actually, that’s easy to answer: Like any fellow human being who adopts a wrong belief, Akin just never checked his in any meaningful way. He opposes terminating a pregnancy even in cases of rape. His position is obviously painful even for him. So he just adopted the version of science that gave him most comfort. And he never course-corrected, intellectually speaking, even when news reports brought evidence of thousands of Albanian women pregnant after the attacks on Kosovo.

How long did it take Congressman Akin to correct his previous mistake, once it was emphatically brought to his attention?  –About two days.

Here is Akin’s own statement on the interview from his web site, posted August 19, the day of the interview. Note that he does not clarify or retract the false science in his morning comments:

“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault.  In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.  Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue.  But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.”

 

Morgan puts up empty chair

A day later, Akin took a somewhat less firm line by failing to show up at CNN to be interviewed by host Piers Morgan. Morgan avenged himself by satirically positioning an empty chair on set, castigating Akin in absentia.

Eastwood talks to empty chair

By the way, Clint Eastwood may deserve everything he’s gotten in response to his bizarre performance at the Republican National Convention. No one seems to have noticed, however, that Eastwood’s empty-chair routine was surely Eastwood’s idea of a tit-for-tat on the Akin controversy. Now we know that Clint Eastwood, or someone in his household, watches Piers Morgan.

It’s a safe guess that Eastwood, like most top Republicans, was also chafing at hearing about Todd Akin.

Back to Akin–the following day, he issued his public apology on YouTube, including the statement, “The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy.”

Full text:

“Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault, and I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.”

Akin has also rightly observed that “the entire [Republican] establishment” turned on him.

Certainly a number of prominent GOP politicians and commentators have condemned Akin’s version of medical science. They’re not out of the woods yet, though. For one thing, that kind of rational criticism tends to be a bit of an uphill climb for them.

The Republican Party, after all, is still the major party dug in about, opposing science on,

  • climate change
  • greenhouse gases
  • tobacco use as a cause for cancer
  • environmental factors as causes for cancer and other diseases
  • occupational safety as a factor in health, e.g. in mining
  • the relationship between highway speed and highway fatalities
  • the relationship between driver age and highway safety
  • the connection between ‘fracking’ and earthquakes

Additionally the GOP has shown itself, shall we say, reluctant to leave intact any kind of regulation that science indicates would boost the safety of the water we drink, the air we breathe and the soil in which we grow food. Congressional Republicans, always fighting from the rear on issues of public safety and public health, even tried unsuccessfully to prevent public disclosure of unsafe consumer products, a reform pushed by the Obama administration.

For related reasons, the same faction is also fighting to the political death to prevent public disclosure of  abuses in the financial sector.

On August 21, Akin told Sean Hannity that Mitt Romney was exploiting the “legitimate rape” issue. Akin had a point. Akin’s gaffe highlights the contrast between the hard-nosed, practical, get-it-done business type Romney wishes to be thought, and the views Romney panders to among non-one-percenters he induces to vote for him.

Republican Party’s legitimate difficulty over Todd Akin

Posted on by
1

Republican Party’s legitimate difficulty over Todd Akin: Re-cap and overview, part 1

 

Returning to the topic of Rep. Todd Akin’s senate race in Missouri, the real sticking point for Republican Party movers and shakers is not Akin’s mistaken science, his comforting notion that a woman’s body will ward off pregnancy in a sexual assault. The real sticking point, for top Republicans including presidential nominee Mitt Romney, is Akin’s genuine belief that abortion is wrong in all cases.

Todd Akin

(Certainly, Akin’s belief appears to be genuine, and short of proclaiming self a mind reader, it can be taken to be sincere.)

The fact that I do not agree with this view is beside the point. The point is that many voters and contributors on whom the upper levels of the GOP depend to keep office do agree with it. The official Republican Party platform adopted at the 2012 Republican National Convention–along with threatening to cut the mortgage interest deduction–holds with this view.

Those religiously conservative voters who hold this view are the people being stiffed by the national GOP, up to and including Romney.

So much for lip service. The Republican candidate for office who most strongly comes out with the anti-abortion party line in 2012–openly, candidly, unequivocally–happens, by some fluke, to be exactly the candidate that almost every well-placed Republican operative tries to exile beyond the pale. Akin’s remarks highlighted a view that many Republicans–especially those in Washington–do not hold. Worse yet, Akin’s remarks interfered with top Republicans’ ongoing strategy of keeping that view quiet.

Akin, Ryan

The adverse reaction to Akin’s remarks by wounded important people in the wounded top echelons of the GOP was swift, widespread and unequivocal.

Let no one be accused of exaggerating the reaction. Quick recap:

The day of Akin’s interview, then-presumptive nominee Mitt Romney promptly, if tersely, distanced himself from Akin’s comments.

The similarity between Akin’s no-exceptions position and that of Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, coming swiftly to light, the Romney campaign seems to have decided that just rejecting Akin’s views was not going to be enough. The next day, Romney came out to condemn Akin’s words as “inexcusable.”

The next day, he went farther yet, expressing a public hope that the Missouri congressman would leave the race.

Mitt Romney

Romney, be it noted, was not exactly going out on a limb here, separated from the rest of the party establishment. Other nominees suggesting that Akin should drop out include Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, strongly challenged by Elizabeth Warren. (Brown faces the key difficulty that Warren would make a better senator.)

Elizabeth Warren

 

Reportedly joining in against Akin was incomprehensibly well-paid radio host Rush Limbaugh, though Limbaugh back-pedaled afterward. As the deadline for Akin to drop out without penalty approached its last hours, establishment pressure on Akin mounted.

The August 21 deadline, as we know, came and went with Akin remaining in the race on the eve of the RNC. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) joined the throng asking him not to. There aren’t many occasions when  Issa can chastise someone for ill-considered speech, but he stepped up to the plate this time. Must have been something of a shock to some of Issa’s supporters back home.

Coming to the convention, Romney seized air time in interviews to reiterate his opposition to Akin.

 

Matalin on air

Top GOP operative Mary Matalin went even farther. As previously written, Matalin said emphatically on air that the Republican Party will fund a write-in candidate against Akin in Missouri, if Akin stays in the race. As of last writing, Akin has not dropped out, though Matalin has not yet retracted her statement.

 

Rove at Republican National Convention 2012

Matalin’s king-of-the-hill moment didn’t last long. Funding a candidate to run against Akin was tumbled off by Karl Rove’s expressed desire to murder him. In a gathering for wealthy supporters and party strategists, Rove’s fancy turned to homicide. He later apologized to Akin. Rove was at the convention. Akin was not.

 

So much for pro-life.

It is fair to take Akin’s remarks to be sincere. It would be fair to accept Rove’s remarks as sincere.

And this, gentlemen and ladies, is what the Christian right gets from the national Republican party: It is okay for rightwing pro-lifers to show up and vote; it is okay for them to contribute money in small amounts; it is okay for them to keep Wall Streeters in power. Position to get money, money to get position, all fueled by some vague notion of status.

But when one politician gets so out of line as to state openly the party’s no-exceptions position on abortion–makes clear that yes, that’s what the party stands for–the full weight of the party comes down on him.

Mary Matalin says GOP will fund a write-in against Todd Akin in Missouri

Posted on by
2

Election 2012: Mary Matalin says GOP will fund a write-in against Todd Akin in Missouri

Admittedly this is the kind of thing that could change in another hour. As of now, however, GOP top strategist Mary Matalin is saying something pretty crisp about Rep. Todd Akin’s senate race. After dismissing Akin’s chances of getting funding from the Republican party, Matalin went on to say, flatly, “Wagner’s going to be our candidate.”

 

Matalin and Carville

The reference is to Ann Wagner, the Missouri GOP chair now running for Akin’s House seat.

Wagner

 

Speaking in ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos panel discussion, Matalin went on to say “We have the money to do it”–i.e. fund a statewide write-in campaign for the U.S. Senate–and added that they’ve done it before. Presumably that last refers to Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Matalin–New Orleans resident, wife of Dem strategist James Carville, and former diehard George W. Bush operative–is one of the nation’s most prominent pro-right discoursers on party politics and party policy.

The odds on a win for the hypothetical Wagner write-in in Missouri would be hard to calculate; in all likelihood the party would be counting on Akin to drop out, maybe at the last minute, in the face of a well-funded and serious write-in campaign from his own party.

 

Akin

The clear take-away from this Sunday morning’s talk shows confirms that the GOP establishment is indeed against Akin, as he says. Mitt Romney spent a few minutes of his lengthy one-on-one with Chris Wallace at Fox distancing himself from Akin, again, and calling attention to the fact that he is doing so. Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist came out in favor of President Obama. Even Gov. Bob ‘vaginal probe’ McDonnell of Virginia mealy-mouthed around the rape-exception issue, saying, “The [national GOP] party didn’t make any judgment on that.”

With even fellow frothers like McDonnell bailing on him, Akin does indeed seem to face a tough rowing job. He is not completely alone, of course. Mike Huckabee is supporting him, front-pew, as are a number of Christian right organizations.

Outgoing Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, on CNN with Candy Crowley, broadened the discussion a bit. Hutchison said firmly–speaking about abortion–that “We shouldn’t put a party around an issue that’s so personal, and also religion-based.”

Hutchison, like all the GOP and pro-GOP voices on the air waves, went on to use the line that ‘the economy’–‘jobs’–should be the issue in the election.

Mitt Romney

You know the GOP is hurting in an election when it starts talking about jobs, the domestic economy, or hardships faced by ordinary people. It’s really hurting when it tries to switch the discussion to those topics, in preference to others.

 

To be continued

Transcript excerpt from panel yesterday: Tucker Carlson on GOP and evangelicals

Posted on by
Reply

Transcript excerpt from panel yesterday, Tucker Carlson on GOP and evangelicals

 

Carlson on air

From the transcripts:

Copyright 2006 National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
All Rights Reserved
NBC News Transcripts

SHOW: The Chris Matthews Show Various Times NBC

October 8, 2006 Sunday

LENGTH: 3972 words

HEADLINE: Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Andrew Sullivan of The New Republic and MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell and Tucker Carlson discuss Foley scandal, war on Iraq, woman like Hillary Clinton as American president and their scoops and predictions

ANCHORS: CHRIS MATTHEWS

REPORTERS: TUCKER CARLSON, NORAH O’DONNELL

BODY: . . . [discussion of the Mark Foley scandal with high school pages]

Mr. SULLIVAN: This–and I think Norah’s right. The real theme here is abuse of power, and so it ties in with corruption, the pork, the abuse of our troops in Iraq who have not been given the support they need or even a war plan to succeed.

MATTHEWS: OK, so everyone agrees here that this story, emblematic of whatever…

Mr. SULLIVAN: Just emblematic of abuse.

CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in… [emphasis added]

MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?

CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they’re beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don’t share their values.

MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?

CARLSON: That’s exactly right. It’s pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out. (Unintelligible).

MATTHEWS: OK. Where are you…

Mr. SULLIVAN: The right is right to be mad about this. They have been duped by these people, and now they’re venting and they have every right to vent.

 

[further discussion on other issues]

 

Tucker Carlson says it aloud: The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals

Posted on by
1

Tucker Carlson says it aloud. The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals.

Tucker Carlson

The Sunday morning talk shows today, October 8, 2006, included some refreshingly frank or realistic discourse, for a rarity.

Probably most attention tomorrow will be devoted to Bob Woodward narrating how Vice President Cheney used the bullshit word and hung up on him. Possibly some attention will go to the congressional tin ear from Illinois, GOP Congressman Ray LaHood, talking about the Foley scandal: “The real disservice was done to the speaker.”

 

Mark Foley

But for my money, the real jaw dropper this morning was Tucker Carlson finally saying publicly what millions of us have known for years: “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals.”



Carlson opening up on air

The commentary centered around the Mark Foley scandal and attendant ironies–that a member of Congress who for years ostentatiously paraded his concern for children and for youth has solicited, also for years, the sexual attentions of teenagers, and not just any teenagers, but teenaged pages specifically under the protection of Congress. Furthermore, all signs indicate that the entire top GOP leadership of Congress, even while campaigning aggressively in some bogus morality posture, either covered up for Foley or at best deliberately avoided knowing enough of his activities to do anything about them.

 

To call this hypocrisy is just an insult to hypocrites.

 

As I have said before, this is not hypocrisy. It is deliberate imposture. It is analogous to the current White House policy of pouring gasoline on the flames in geopolitics, under the guise of fighting terrorism, when as it well knows, its policies ignite terrorism, from which it profits. In the ratios of the Miller Analogy Test, Mark Foley is to protecting children what George W. Bush is to protecting Americans. If they really wanted less terrorism, they would eliminate cluster bombs and land mines.

 

But of all the commentators on all three major television networks, none to my knowledge has made the basic connection, until today. Carlson made the basic, direct statement that for years has needed making. “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued under questioning. When asked, “How do you know?” in response to his initial claim about the GOP, he gave the unequivocal answer: “Because I see them.” As Carlson said, he works with them, meaning members of the power elite or the opinion makers. He has moved among them for years. “They live on my street.”

Following up the statements that “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals,” and “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued, “and everybody knows that. The evangelicals are beginning to figure it out.”

 

What came home for this viewer is that on a more modest scale I have seen the same thing. Certainly not all Republican women, or all women who sometimes vote Republican, feel the same way on social issues. And some of the most rock-ribbed longtime Republican women voters, at least those of my acquaintance, who also tend to be economically well off or affluent, are exactly the individuals most dismissive of the party line on social issues. They let the men talk, but if a woman or girl they care about or to whom they are related wants an abortion, they are highly unlikely to let the men stand in the way. Or even to let the men know, if that’s the way to play it.

As for the public pronouncements of their party, and the most prominent of their professional religious spokesmen, they roll their eyes. I have seen them do it. You do not get more eye-rolling about the Reverend Mr. Pat Robertson or about the unreverend Ralph Reed anywhere than in the nearest lunch of Republican women at the local country club, and the only people who seem not to know it are the people whose faithful votes keep the corporate hogs in office. So the GOP agenda accomplishes its real objectives such as keeping plaintiffs out of court, letting insurance companies off the hook on large claims, raiding or undermining pension funds, bailing out the top management of mismanaged industries, and preventing any progressive taxation whatever for billionaires.

Meanwhile, the rare genuine voter of rightwing conscience who gets into office, like GOP Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, could not be more sidelined if he were a high schooler trying to play in the NFL. I have said it before. The only real purpose regarding abortion for this administration is to splinter what would otherwise have been moral opposition to its policies, domestic and foreign.

Ron Paul

There could have been a clue to the nature of the faith typically espoused by the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. One clue could have been Cheney, come to think of it. But the broad clue could have been the policies of this White House and of the top crust of this administration. Look at current policies and practices and try to find the gospels in there anywhere. Try to find the New Testament in a takeover attempt on a historic scale, in careers of relentless self advancement and relentless exploitation of others, lying, bullying, bragging, whining, bribery and corruption. A little reading, the merest reminder or thought of comparative religion, would have gotten the idea across.

Instead, ironically, it took a Mark Foley to clarify the disconnect.

If this had happened on stage or in film, in the words of Shakespeare, it would be condemned as most improbable fiction.

 

Note: The post above was re-posted after being deleted by the system.

Update on Mark Foley, hobnobbing with Grover Norquist at the 2012 Republican convention, here.

Foley, Norquist at convention