I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.
Michelangelo
President Teleprompter
 |
| Photo By/Courtesy of KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS |
Will I name the first woman this year to my tongue-in-cheek Jackass of the Year award for particularly boorish Democrat behavior? We already have Hilary Rosen (who slammed Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home Mom) and Martha Johnson (the former GSA manager during the Las Vegas junket scandal); so far on the male side we have Bill DeWeeze (Pennsylvania's answer to William Jefferson), fast food business censors Mayors Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino, and Alan Grayson (a past winner/loser whom just can't seem to help himself, comparing a former President to an STD).
Barbara Boxer--or should I say, Senator Barbara Boxer (after all, she worked so hard to earn that title)--has earned a second nomination during the life of this blog for trying to politically exploit the Akin kerfuffle in terms of hyping this trumped-on 'war on women' (keep in mind Akin is married and has two daughters):
There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan — if they are elected — would become its top generals. Where’s the outrage by Mitt Romney? There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding. Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives; I don’t know what it is.[Let me note for the record that the GOP threw everything but the kitchen sink at Akin trying to push him to withdraw, including personal contacts from Romney and Ryan, pressure from former Missouri US Senators, the Senate Minority Leader and the GOP Senate campaign chair, withdrawal of campaign funds, etc. Even comedian/late night show host Jay Leno has joked about the GOP breaking Olympic gold medal sprinter Bolt's records in running away from Akin.]
I have to honestly say when someone says the word 'dingbat' to me, Barbara Boxer comes to mind: she overreacts to imagined slights in cartoonish ways. (How could someone in Congress for years take personally basic military protocol and courtesy, i.e., 'sir', 'ma'am', 'mister'?)
This whole kerfuffle involves Akin expressing a controversial opinion that a woman's body has a physiological response to forcible rape that works to prevent pregnancy in most cases. It turns out that this myth had been widely held in past centuries, and today's scientific consensus is that the frequency of pregnancy from forcible rape is no different than that of consensual sexual intercourse.
I am pro-life and have never once believed that the physiology of sex changed because of incidental aspects of sexual intercourse. I am concerned about people spreading irresponsible myths because I don't want rapists rationalizing their actions, falsely believing that their victims aren't going to get pregnant anyway.
I don't know the specific circumstances of the Akin incident, but I have a good idea from context. I believe that he was using "legitimate rape" as a poorly constructed alternative to "forcible rape" (e.g., versus consensual sex where the young woman is a minor). Why did he say this? In essence, he was trying to mitigate a pro-abortion choice argument based on certain commonly-acknowledged exceptions.
Pro-life advocates realize that most pro-abortion choice advocates, unable to morally justify the preponderance of elective abortions, will try counterattack on the more sympathetic exceptions of rape and the mother's life. The argument's intent is undermine the pro-life position that human life begins at conception based on a slippery slope argument focusing on exceptions. (This is like the old proposal: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"; "Yes"; "For $10?'; "No, who do you think I am?";"We've already determined what you are; we're just dickering over the price".)
There are a number of fuzzy statistics on rape (including unreported cases). What we do know is many victims cannot get pregnant for natural reasons (post-menopausal, sterile, etc.); woman are fertile just a few days a month (assuming rape is a randomly occurring event...), and many women at the time of assault are on birth control or have had tubal ligation or other medical procedure. No doubt some rapists are sterile, have had vasectomies or use condoms.
But whatever numbers you do use (and pregnancies from exceptional circumstances constitute a negligible percentage of the 1.5 million babies aborted every year from consensual sex by equally responsible partners), we pro-life advocates reject that the preborn child loses her unalienable right to life because of the sins of her father, a point libertarian Judge Napolitano forcefully makes in his recent Akin topic op-ed.
I knew that Ron Paul and a few other libertarians also share my pro-life perspective; Doris Goodman writes a good summary of the pro-life libertarian case here. Even the big-L libertarians acknowledge nearly half their members are pro-life.
Most of us acknowledge that mothers have responsibilities to their preborn children, e.g., dietary restrictions, including abstention from alcoholic beverages. We pro-life libertarians aren't suggesting that the government micromanages the private lives of pregnant women. Aggression against the preborn child is fundamentally unacceptable; we certainly don't think that an act of aggression should be protected or subsidized by the state. As a practical matter at the local/state level where police powers are exercised, it is difficult to enforce relevant laws, particularly at early stages of pregnancy, and my understanding is that prosecutors normally have discretion under extenuating circumstances, such as forcible rape and the mother's life. (Most pro-life advocates focus on prosecution of the supplier side, e.g., abortion mills.)
Going back to the sheer arrogance of Ms. Boxer in trying to stereotype pro-life advocates, whom in some recent surveys like Gallup have reached plurality or majority status is absolutely unconscionable (in fact, many leaders in the pro-life movement are women): utterly shameful! Akin's supposed crime was getting an item wrong on a biology exam; Claire McCaskill has gotten a grade of ZERO on her practical economics exam.
As to the uncouth smear about Republicans not loving their moms, wives, or daughters if they don't agree with Ms. Boxer's ideological agenda (and the "first wives" jab at presumably hypocritical remarried Republicans: note that Romney and Ryan are happily married to their original spouses): is there any wonder about why she hasn't advanced in her Senate career?
Political Potpourri
- Mitt Romney Will Not Reappoint Bernanke: Thumbs WAY UP! One of the criticisms I've been making of Romney is that he has not been adequately defining himself against Obama. Since Obama reappointed Bernanke, this is a clear distinction. Romney had already warned the Fed about trying to print money to influence the election. (I've seen published hints the Fed is planning some sort of action anyway to deal with troubling signals, including rising unemployment claims.) My hope is that the Fed will stop trying to manipulate the economy by screwing savers and investors and will work to defend the dollar.
- New Akin Poll. There have been times I've been suspicious of certain Rasmussen polls. I was particularly incensed by a 2010 poll that had Congressman Mike Castle at about a 5% rating against Coons and O'Donnell after O'Donnell's narrow upset victory against Castle in the primary. Castle had been routinely trouncing Coons in polls by double-digits prior to O'Donnell's victory, and the best he could do is half the size of his former lead against Coons? Not likely. My personal opinion is that Rasmussen was trying to send a message. I'm sure Castle had second thoughts as he saw Lisa Murkowski win her write-in general election going away. Don't get me wrong; Murkowski did it in a red state, and I had no doubt the Democrats would come out for Coons. But I suspected that Maher was sitting on that "dabbled in witchcraft" thing, until after O'Donnell's victory. Castle was no fringe write-in candidate--he had been a multi-term governor and Congressman.
In any event, the last Rasmussen poll had Akin ahead 47-44, and this one has McCaskill up 48-38. This is in contrast to the just released PPP with Akin up 44-43 (consistent with a long series of prior PPP polls showing the two in a virtual tie). Here's the point: of all the Akin-McCaskill polls RCP has tracked, McCaskill has never led by more than 2 points, and this year her percentage has never been over 44. I wonder if this is one of those "Castle shock" polls where Rasmussen is trying to tell Akin to leave, that he has no chance of winning. In fact, I was one of those jumping on the bandwagon. Dick Morris had some sort of online petition going (I tried at one point to sign it, but there was some bizarre website problem where it wanted to send a generated form letter to my (Democratic) US senators, asking them to push Akin to withdraw.) I was angry that Akin had blundered his way into talking about rape when he was facing a female incumbent and what he should be doing is appealing to independents and moderates, not pushing divisive social conservative issues.
But when Akin refused to resign, I looked at his apology video, and I reexamined the situation, I saw the race as fixable--I see it more like Rand Paul's original stumble out of the blocks on the Civil Rights Act than Clayton Williams' joke comparing a rainstorm to a rape. Does making a mistake, say, about female reproduction, disqualify you from higher office? No. I mean, if Obama thought there were 57 states... I think sometimes you have a herd mentality, and I got swept into it myself. A single gaffe? I don't believe that 4 people who were upset with McCaskill's positions and votes are going to vote for her because Akin got a fact about women's reproduction wrong. He's running for the US Senate, not applying to be the Gynecologist General. I have to admit it's pretty bizarre seeing a Tea Party Caucus member known primarily for social conservative issues like abortion and "gay marriage". I do write about these issues, but not that frequently in this blog. He's got to remember "it's about the economy, stupid!"
- New Fox News Poll Out. With the GOP convention due next week (with some excitement over whether Tampa might be affected by an approaching tropical storm), the Obama campaign is trying to manage expectations by suggesting that Romney will get a convention bump. One of the things I've been waiting for is for Romney to introduce himself to the nation; he really hasn't done it through his ads to date. I've been sharply critical of the fact that he hasn't had an effective counter response and has largely let the Obama campaign define him. Today's roundup showed 4 head-to-heads: Rasmussen and Gallup tied, Fox Romney up by 1, LA Times Obama up by 2. CBS/NYT has a group of polls out, all in favor of Obama/Dem senators, although some paring of leads; I think in the past these polls have been overstated by about 5 points. Call it a "gut feel"--not necessarily wishful thinking--but I think that the polls are reflecting a slight social desirability bias in favor of Obama. (In other words, I think there are some people whom say they will support Obama but will actually vote for Romney. I think people have changed their minds about Obama but won't admit it.) I have a few marker states I'm looking at: Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon, and New Jersey. (This goes beyond the obvious battleground states like Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin.) I think Romney can put those states in play--say, trim Obama's lead in half by the end of September or get near a statistical tie, he'll be in a good position.
- Miscellany: 8/11/12: Follow-Up. Nathan Duszynski, the 13-year-old hot dog cart entrepreneur in the City of Holland, MI, is back in business, at least through the end of the summer season. The city is simply requiring that he puts his cart on the sidewalk instead of two feet inside the sporting goods store parking lot. The city mayor is in public relations damage control mode, saying his hands are tied by a 20-year ordinance; he claims they've finally some commercial use exception in the law and will address reforms like food trucks and carts in the future but noted that there will be resistance to change. If I lived within an hour's drive of Holland, I would go myself to buy a couple of hot dogs from Nathan. Hopefully he'll get some business because of the news on the Internet.
I know that the national news media absolutely HATE when the Romney campaign features clips from their news shows, talking about the worst post-WWII recovery ever. These are people not plugging Romney per se: they are simply pointing out that Obama's economic plan hasn't worked for them. If I had a criticism of the spot, it would be this point: Obama already had 4 years to implement whatever solutions to the problem he has, spending the future generations' tax revenues, and it hasn't worked.
The Democrats are running Bill Clinton repeating the same old same old rehearsed political spin we've heard from Obama, Wasserman Schultz, O'Malley, Cutter, Gibbs, Axelrod, Burton, etc (you can see "Clear Choice" here). It's the same old discredited garbage about "putting back into place the same policies that got us into trouble in the first place", "build up an economy through the middle class", etc. Do I really need to repeat myself? The Bush Administration ADDED regulations--billions of dollars worth. The government fed the real estate and credit bubbles by guaranteeing mortgages acquired by the GSE's, pushing low collateral home purchases, by promoting easy money policies, and by failing to regulate competently; what failed was not a free market system but a government-dominated system, and the Democrats' response to failed government is to double down on dysfunctional government!
And, no, no one believes that market manipulation by a centralized government works. Big Government steals money otherwise invested in the economy to spend by fiat versus deployed in the private economy. A growing economy lifts all boats.
Is there anything more appalling than this mediocre, vastly overrated President, whom benefited from reduced Defense spending after the Cold War, was the principal beneficiary of a once-in-decades information technology boom fueled by a massive influx of easy money by the Federal Reserve, and lucked into a balanced budget because his HillaryCare initiative failed, a GOP House refused to approve his spending requests, and unsustainable federal capital gains income during the Nasdaq bubble? It's bad enough that the Obama campaign has him parroting unoriginal lines and thus undermining his credibility and usefulness. President Zipper, you didn't confess to the people watching the ad that Obama has already hired all the best economists your administration had to offer, and they came up with NO SOLUTION. Maybe instead of trying to "fix" the economy, we need to save the free market from meddling, incompetent central planners...
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Toto, "Hold the Line". The last video in my Hodgson/Supertramp series yesterday. Today I start a new, short series on Toto.
