|
The GOP's Vagina Monologue |
 |
|
Monday, 05 March 2012 17:33 |
|
Milbank writes: "March is federally recognized as Women's History Month, and Republicans have been celebrating the occasion in a most unusual style: with a burst of interest in women's private parts."
The debate over contraception has been terse in the run-up to the November 2012 election, but an amendment put forward by Republican Sen. Roy Blunt was defeated 51 votes to 48 in the chamber. (photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
The GOP's Vagina Monologue
By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post
05 March 12
 n Thursday, the Senate took up an amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would allow employers to deny women birth-control coverage if the employer found contraception morally objectionable.
About 100 miles south of Washington on that same day, Virginia legislators passed a measure requiring a woman to be offered an ultrasound image of her fetus before aborting it. The legislation, which opponents say could also require some women who have miscarriages to be offered ultrasonic images of their dead fetuses, is the successor of a bill that would have required women to undergo an invasive "transvaginal ultrasound."
Still on Thursday, the industrious Virginia House of Delegates also approved legislation bestowing rights on people, including a father, to bring a lawsuit over the death of the fetus.
On Wednesday, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, a powerful influence among Republican lawmakers, described as a "slut" the law-school student invited by House Democrats to testify in support of birth control. "It makes her a prostitute," Limbaugh said of the woman, blocked last month by House Republicans from testifying on what became an all-male panel. "She wants to be paid to have sex."
On Tuesday, Oklahomans held a protest at the state capitol to oppose a bill, passed by the state Senate and now being taken up by the House, that would bestow "personhood" on fetuses - one of many such efforts across the nation. Democrat Judy McIntyre, one of just four women in the 48-member state Senate, was so upset that, according to the Oklahoman newspaper, she held a protest sign proclaiming: "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd [expletive] a senator."
Democrats think they have a political winner in the Republicans' fascination with reproduction at a time when economic production is what voters have in mind. The party is raising money with a petition against the "Republican War on Women," and 11 Democratic women running for the U.S. Senate are using the occasion to launch a fundraising tour.
They are attempting to tie together everything from last year's effort to defund Planned Parenthood to the proposed repeal of Obamacare (which expanded coverage of mammography and birth control). And Obama campaign strategists tell me they are confident that the two leading Republican presidential candidates, a Mormon and a devout Catholic, will have difficulty beating the rap that the party is obsessed with reproduction.
Evidence that the Republicans realize they're in a pickle: Mitt Romney spontaneously flip-flopped on his initial opposition to the Blunt amendment, which would also provide employers with a moral opt-out from other elements of Obamacare. Romney first said that "questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I'm not going there." But he quickly reversed himself in favor of the amendment, aligning himself with Rick Santorum, who has voiced doubts about the constitutional protections for birth control.
More evidence: After championing the Blunt amendment, Republican leaders backed away from their demands for a vote on the provision. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), an early proponent of the amendment after hearing about the issue during a Catholic Mass, disappeared from the debate. So Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) wound up forcing a vote on the provision, which was narrowly defeated Thursday afternoon.
"Today, the Senate will vote on an extreme, ideological amendment to the bipartisan transportation bill," Reid said, kicking off Thursday's debate. "This amendment takes aim at women's access to health care."
The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell (Ky.), made no mention of birth control in his reply, countering that "it is not within the power of the federal government to tell anybody what to believe, or to punish them for practicing those beliefs."
Most other Republicans followed McConnell's lead in avoiding mention of contraception. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), however, said the provision in the health-care law requiring preventive medical coverage for women is "questionable policy," and he accused the administration of "deferring to its feminist allies" by mandating contraceptive coverage.
After the amendment went down to defeat, its sponsor gave a General MacArthur. "I'm confident this issue is not over," Blunt said. "It won't be over until the administration figures out how to accommodate people's religious views as it relates to these new mandates."
The monologue will continue.
 |
|
Cowards and Apologies That Aren't |
|
|
Sunday, 04 March 2012 17:00 |
|
Cory writes: "... Limbaugh's apology was not an apology; it was a lecture and a rationalization of the vile, mean-spirited invective that is his trademark. I don't know why or what influenced Limbaugh to issue this statement. I can only speculate that the heat from sponsors, and perhaps from some GOP insiders, came to bear."
Rush Limbaugh takes a trip to Washington, 03/03/09. (photo: Saul Loeb/Getty/AFP)
Cowards and Apologies That Aren't
John Cory, Reader Supported News
04 March 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
 aturday afternoon, the Huffington Post front page had a big orange headline that blared: "RUSH CAVES." A photo of Limbaugh was centered underneath the headline, and below Limbaugh's picture was a bright red caption: "I Sincerely Apologize to Ms. Fluke."
But Limbaugh's apology was not an apology; it was a lecture and a rationalization of the vile, mean-spirited invective that is his trademark.
I don't know why or what influenced Limbaugh to issue this statement. I can only speculate that the heat from sponsors, and perhaps from some GOP insiders, came to bear.
Look closely at his statement. The first paragraph is three sentences about his wrong choice of words and analogy of the situation and how "I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
That is a lie. Three days of personal attacks on Ms. Fluke was no accident.
The second and longest paragraph of Limbaugh's statement is a garbage-based lecture on morality, and the continued twisting of the issue into the phony theme of taxpayer-funded sex and some gibberish about sneakers. Even as he extols personal responsibility and accountability he plays dodge ball with his own accountability.
Please.
The last paragraph is two sentences ending with an apology for "the insulting word choices."
Where is your accountability and responsibility, Limbaugh? Nowhere does Limbaugh come close to uttering a true apology. He seems incapable of saying outright: "Ms. Fluke, what I said was not only wrong, it was reprehensible and evil and I apologize to you."
But this is not new for Limbaugh, or the network of poison-talk that spews across the AM radio dial and our television on a daily basis.
Limbaugh is the sacred icon for the likes of people like Erik Erickson who called retiring Supreme Court Justice Souter "a goat-f**king child molester." So entertaining was this guy that CNN just had to snap him up as an analyst.
A federal judge sent an insulting email about President Obama and doesn't seem to understand why no one gets the joke.
Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out, "You Lie!" during President Obama's State of the Union speech. But he was not the first Congressperson to insult a modern president. Rep. Dan Burton called President Clinton a "scumbag."
Limbaugh has paved the way for detestable folk like Joe Arpaio in Arizona, who just this week held a press conference to announce that his "posse" of investigators could pronounce President Obama's long-form birth certificate a fraud.
Limbaugh imitators are legion, as are the far-right networks and think tanks that support these hucksters of hate.
And it is profitable. Very profitable.
But let's be honest, none of this is new, nor would it be possible without the full embrace of the so-called establishment media. As long as ABC and CNN and NBC and all the rest of them continue to treat "trash" as "treasure" and provide a platform of acceptability then we will continue to be inundated with this bile.
Once you give hatred, personal ad hominem attacks, racism and lies validation as diverse opinion or equivalent political argument, you have lost decency and honesty and truth. You end up with nothing but a world of Limbaughs.
And, let us note for the record here, no major Republican or GOP leader publicly denounced vLimbaugh for his attacks on Ms. Fluke. They all found ways to cluck and tsk-tsk the entertainer - the "distraction" effect - as they all hid quietly away in the dark, waiting for FOX to defend Limbaugh and rally support from the true believers. In other words, the GOP was cowardly. Afraid of Limbaugh, but not women voters.
GOP silence is endorsement.
These people know no shame.
When they issue a statement of apology it is not an apology to the harmed, but an apology to the money-class and sponsors; an apology for any inconvenience and interruption their hateful words and broadcasts may have caused the steady flow of profitability.
This is the world of cowards and apologies that aren't.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
|
Why the GOP Won't Win the Senate |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11314"><span class="small">Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 04 March 2012 16:46 |
|
Clift writes: "Six months ago, Republicans were talking confidently about taking the Senate next November, widening their lead in the House and having a really good chance to win the White House. A debate about social issues ... is the latest evidence that their predictions are widely off the mark, particularly in the Senate where Republicans need four seats to gain control."
John Boehner, with Mitch McConnell in the background, listens to a question during a news conference, 11/03/10. (photo: Reuters)
Why the GOP Won't Win the Senate
By Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast
04 March 12
Olympia Snowe's resignation is the latest sign of disarray within the party.
 hen the votes were counted, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe stood alone, the only Republican to oppose a hotly contested amendment that would have granted employers the right to withhold insurance coverage for any health service they find objectionable for religious or moral reasons. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell runs a tight ship, and that was one of the reasons Snowe announced earlier this week that she is ending her campaign for reelection and leaving the Senate. As one of the few moderates left in the Republican caucus, she had grown tired of the pressure to always toe the line. Snowe's isolation was stark as the amendment was voted down, 51 to 48: almost all Democrats were on one side and Republicans on the other.
The tight tally "is just another sign of polarization," says Jack Pitney, a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. "The center is a lonely place and getting lonelier with every election."
In the lead-up to the vote, Republicans portrayed the "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act" as an effort to keep government out of health-care decisions, while Democrats said it was so broadly written that employers citing moral objections would be empowered to cut off everything from prenatal care for children of single mothers to HIV screening. When Snowe went public with her decision to vote against the measure, the question was whether other GOP moderates would follow in her footsteps. None did, not even Susan Collins, her fellow home-state senator. The two women, who typically vote in lockstep, are known as the "Maine twins."
Republicans looked to Snowe to provide political cover on thorny social issues, and Democrats knew she could generally be counted on to bring along a handful of additional Republican votes once she was persuaded on an issue. Her support of ending the ban on gays in the military was key and she helped persuade Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown to vote with Democrats on the issue. He is up for reelection in November and looking for ways to demonstrate independence from his party in a state that votes Democratic in a presidential election year. Brown, though, stuck with his party on the so-called Blunt Amendment, named after its principal sponsor, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri
Brown is betting that there are enough independent Catholic votes in his state that see the issue as one of religious freedom as opposed to an assault on contraceptives. Yet his assertion in an op-ed and in a radio ad that Sen. Ted Kennedy would have supported the Blunt Amendment was belied by Thursday's vote when liberal Democrats who are Catholics, including John Kerry, voted to table the amendment. Kennedy's son, former congressman Patrick Kennedy, asked Brown to take down the radio ad; Brown refused. "If I were Elizabeth Warren, I'd have Patrick Kennedy cut an ad to say, 'I knew Ted Kennedy, Ted Kennedy was my father' …" says Matt Bennett of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group backing Warren in her bid to defeat Brown in Massachusetts.
A Republican activist who worked on Capitol Hill and who does not want to be quoted says the debate over the availability of contraceptives is "way bigger than a wedge issue" because it goes against settled thought for two generations, and makes the Republican Party look out of touch. "Younger people hear [a debate about contraception] and think those people are Martians. They are unlike me or anybody I know or care about. Republicans risk becoming irrelevant to a whole generation of people, and I include Catholics in that. This is a private matter between a woman, her God, her spouse, and her physician. It's a crowded enough conversation without government in there."
Six months ago, Republicans were talking confidently about taking the Senate next November, widening their lead in the House and having a really good chance to win the White House. A debate about social issues that many think has gone off the rails capped by Snowe's surprise resignation is the latest evidence that their predictions are widely off the mark, particularly in the Senate where Republicans need four seats to gain control. That seemed easy enough with 23 Democrat-held seats being contested, some of them in red states, but Snowe's departure will likely put Maine into the Democratic column, and Elizabeth Warren, an outspoken consumer advocate, is probably the one Democrat with a chance to defeat Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
That has not escaped the notice of Republicans, who say that if McConnell had let Warren's nomination go through to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the GOP wouldn't be sweating Brown's seat. "He can chalk that up to his own stubbornness," says the GOP activist about McConnell. "He may be running a tight ship, but it's a small ship, a nice small ship of white guys." Snowe is one of five Republican women in the Senate, and one of even fewer GOP moderates, which is why she will be missed. "I'm a partisan Democrat, and a pick up is a pick up," says Third Way's Bennett. "But you don't want to lose the only people on the other side who are willing to talk to you. That's not how we want to pick up seats, and it's not good for the institution."
|
|
FOCUS | A Tale of Two Romneys |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9146"><span class="small">Will Durst, San Francisco Chronicle</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 04 March 2012 14:59 |
|
Durst writes: "Romney has the hair, the money, the staff, the family, the teeth, the cheekbones, the money, the Super PACs, the perfectly faded jeans AND the money; yet, it would be hard to imagine a candidate who has engendered less enthusiasm without first contracting a tertiary case of infectious flesh-eating psoriasis."
Political satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)
A Tale of Two Romneys
By Will Durst, San Francisco Chronicle
04 March 12
dd week for Mitt Romney. The roller coaster candidate was on the receiving end of more mixed messages than a basement bulletin board at the United Nations on Take Your Schizophrenic to Work Day. While cruising to an easy victory in the Arizona primary he barely eeked out a squeaker in Michigan. That's the problem with running around 12 different home states, eventually you're bound to trip and stumble up some familiar front steps.
Rick Santorum was on track to pull off a stunning upset but couldn't keep his self- righteous self from shooting from the lip, further fueling the contraception wars. What's the strategy here? Get women so riled up, you can make a case to repeal the 19th Amendment? Birth Control? Really? What next: you going to play the "radio is the devil's handiwork" card?
Ayatollah Rick inelegantly stated that one of JFK's speeches made him want to throw up. Sounds like a man not placing all his Super Tuesday eggs in the great state of Massachusetts basket. I remember seeing JFK when I was a kid. On more than one occasion I heard JFK speak. JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. And you, the hurling Mr. Santorum, are no JFK.
Romney complains the media makes him sound like an out of touch rich guy. Where ever could they have gotten that idea? Maybe when he said he likes to fire people? Or went to the Daytona 500 and ridiculed spectators for wearing cheap rain ponchos? Or admitted he's not a big NASCAR fan, but is friends with a couple team owners. You, sir, are beyond clueless. The Anti Sherlock Holmes. Arthur Conan Doyle has to be spinning in his grave.
Romney has the hair, the money, the staff, the family, the teeth, the cheekbones, the money, the Super PACs, the perfectly faded jeans AND the money; yet, it would be hard to imagine a candidate who has engendered less enthusiasm without first contracting a tertiary case of infectious flesh- eating psoriasis.
Undoubtedly, a significant portion of the ennui he induces has to do with the irregular emergence of his alter ego, Flipper Mitt. When asked about a Senate amendment to be welded onto a transportation bill that would allow employers to pick and choose which health care mandates they wish to follow, Mitt said he was against it and went on to explain why.
An hour later though, he came back to announce he had been confused by the question and what he really meant to say was he was all in favor of the Blunt Amendment. This guy would need extra pages added to the Kama Sutra to keep track of his multitude of favored positions.
Speaking of which, Mrs. Ann Romney, who may also be known as Lovey, kiddingly seconded the notion of strangling the press going so far as suggesting Mitt sit down for the rest of the campaign and let her do the talking. And the pants- wearing, a move that should surely vex Mr. Santorum's holy wrath.
Note to sister wife: It's not just the press that doesn't like your husband. In case you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of Republicans aren't all that into him either. Might want to skip this one and let sleeping dogs lie. Either that or strap them to the roof of one of your couple of Caddies where they belong.
The New York Times says Emmy-nominated comedian and writer Will Durst "is quite possibly the best political satirist working in the country today." Check out the website: Redroom.com to buy his book or find out more about upcoming stand- up performances. Or willdurst.com. Elect to Laugh! at the Marsh. Every Tuesday. 1062 Valencia. San Francisco. 94110. 415.826.5750 themarsh.org. Special $10 tickets. Use code "vote"
|
|
t has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by 
