If you've been following the Republican primaries (and if you haven't, why are you reading this blog?) you have heard that Republican turn out is down. This is, allegedly, because (a) no one is exicted about Romney (b) because the campaign is so negative and (c) because Obama is gonna win anyway. You may have read something like this:
Illinois Voters Pick Romney; turnout low
Mitt Romney's percieved elligibility carried him to a major illinois victory over Rick Santorum today in the race for the White House, though turnout was light despite the rarity of the state actually playing a major role in the presidential primary.
It should be noted that other than that paragraph (and, er, the headline) there is no real mention of the turn-out, numbers, or comparisions. Perhaps there's a reason for that? About a week ago, a survey by Washingpost's The Fix, determined that this narrative is not true:
Reports of the GOP's turnout problems appear to have been slightly premature. A Fix review of turnout in the Republican presidental nominating process shows that it has rebounded in recent weeks, and GOP voters are now turning out in consistently higher numbers than they did in 2008.
Their conclusion is that, with the notable exception of Florida, and adjusted for the different rules, where there is a competitive race Republicans are turning out to vote in higher numbers (if just slightly) than four years ago.
despite the spirited battle between Mitt Romney and a succession of challengers, turnout as a percentage of the eligible voting population is down, and the states where turnout is up are often those that allow Democrats and independents to vote in Republican contests.
Indeed, there has been some allegations that the open primaries and various Democrat voting strategies have been responsible for some womky numbers. I'm not sure I buy that--the whole Operation Chaos strategy relies on motivators that I don't think are all that strong (you have to get off your couch and vote for a guy you'd never vote for in the general election just to try to have a slightly less strong opponent--and you have to hope literally thousands of other people do the same--which is unlikely). It's also true that just because someone isn't a registered Republican doesn't mean they won't vote GOP in November. Much less, it doesn't mean they'll vote for Obama either.
That's good.
Still, our defense against bias and conjecture is, as always, math. The FiveThirtyEight blog shows the numerical breakdown that has Romney losing rural voters and holding strong only with urban GOP voters. They conclude that this may make it hard to unify the party in November.
So that's bad.
The frogurt is also cursed.
What Do I Think?
I think that it's interesting that the media narrative was so strongly in favor of the "low turn-out" meme that it went almost unquestioned for weeks. As it is, I'm still having a hard time determining exactly what happened that led to the narrative taking hold the way it did. The obvious answer is that the press is simply biased--and that may be part of it--but a lot of GOP-friendly press held with it too. And, to be sure, very few people are really, really exicted about Romney. I mean, he's a reasonable choice--and the favorite between him and Santorum to beat Obama in November--but beyond that? Kind of a yawner.
I think that the real finding here is that the Conventional Wisdom is to be question. Now, let me be clear: I'm a Conventional Wisdom guy. I think that Conventional Wisdom, like Conventional Weapons, is usually what gets the job done. If everyone is saying turn-out is down there's probably a reason for it. Example: This article holds that turnout for Chicago was very low--but the headline extends that to the whole state. One can be true without the other being true. That might actually fit with the urban vs. rurual nature of Illinois. I don't know. I'm mistrustful of conspiracy thinking so while I do think the press has a left-wing bias as a profession I do not think that it leads to networked deception across multiple agencies (yes, I know about Jurnolist).
So what is going on? I don't know for sure--but I would think that Romney does have a popularity problem and his nomination will count on the negative of people disliking Obama more than liking him. That's an uncomfortable place to be--but that's where I think he is. My opinion.
Santorum still has a few races he might win--but his battle strategy is reduced to playing keep-away. He also said he'd be open to the VP spot on Team Romney--who, you know, is just like Obama. Would he take Obama's VP spot? I doubt it.
Well, Is It?
Probably? Yeah. Statistically, it was probably over around Illinois, though. Let's break it down by candidate:
Pretty Hate Machine: If Gingrich really and truly hates Romney--and very, very few people really and truly hate the way Gingrich hates--he might stay in just for the spite. At least one guy thinks Gingrich should stay in the fray, spite or not:
I think he should ignore the people telling him to get out so the party can line itself up behind the Romneybot 2.0, because the party plainly doesn't want to do that. Willard Romney is not unpopular because Newt Gingrich is still running against him. He is unpopular because, to anyone not in Willard Romney's income ionosphere, he is an unprincipled boor who speaks as though he learned English backwards and 20 minutes ago.
Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now: Santorum, on the other hand, has a Hillary problem. That is: why the hell would you get out when you're still winning states? Santorum would probably like to wrap this up with him as the VP--or at least still retaining dignity and cred--but he has to at least make it to Pennsylvania to do that. Sure, people have been telling him to get out--but people have been telling him that since Iowa.
“And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan, and move all the production to Wisconsin,” Romney explained. “Now, later he decided to run for Governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign, and I recall at one parade where he was going down the streets, he was lead by a band, and they had a high school band that was leading each of the candidates, and his band did not know how to play the Michigan fight song.”
“They only knew how to play the Wisconsin fight song, so every time they would start playing ‘On, Wisconsin,’ ‘On, Wisconsin,’ my dad’s political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop because they didn’t want people in MI to be reminded that my dad had moved production to Wisconsin,” said Romney, letting out a laugh. “None the less, I appreciate the chance to be with you this morning.”
If he keeps doing that could he, you know, actually self destruct? Like in flames? Like literal human combustion? Probably not--but he certainly isn't Mr. Popularity.
Romney’s got three challenges: comparatively weak support in core Republican groups, lower popularity than Obama’s in the political center and more Americans – about one in six – who’ve yet to form an opinion of him one way or the other.
Nothing Left To Lose: And Ron Paul? He was never going to win anyway. Why should he quit now (the same argument applies to "Why not quit now"--but he's got these fans, see: if he quits they'll desert him).
What Next?
As the remaining Not-Romneys have failed to land any eviscerating blows (and, to be fair, I don't think they really tried as hard as they could) I think we'll see this thing die slowly over April. Gingrich, no matter how much he hates Romney, will be ineffective without funding. Santorum, without a game changer--which he doesn't seem to be able to produce--will get hammered in the next few states and cement his image that he's not going to win. At that point: death spiral.
For his part, Romney will continue to out-spend his opponents by a huge ratio--but the basic numbers will drop and he'll start focusing on building his anti-Obama machine.
Unless you've been under a rock, you know that The Affordable Care Act is being argued before the supreme court today (Wednesday the 28th being the last day). The final decision is, apparently, due in June.
The word is that it's not going well for Team Obama--some comparatively liberal justices have questioned the constitutional legality of the mandate and, while strong, even pointed or hostile questioning is not a definite indication of a leaning (the judge could be adopting the pro-ObamaCare point of view and wants to make sure it's airtight) the thinking is that, yeah, they're not sold on it.
I am not qualified to judge the arguments--or even to really summarize them here--but I'm going to link you to this summary of yesterday's discussion (Andrew Sullivan) and note several points of interest.
Points Of Interest
Here are some things I am thinking about the ObamaCare discussion:
The Limiting Clause:
One of the major points of contention yesterday is that if the Federal government can force you to buy a private product--insurance--what can't they force you to buy? For sure, if you are engaged in commerce the Interstate commerce clause can get involved--but if you're just smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo? Seems unlikely. Sure, health insurance is different from everything else--so why did Team Obama do such a bad job of pointing that out?
If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.
End Game--ObamaCare Wins: It is possible that ObamaCare will win. The odds are against it as of, like yesterday:
But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. If the justices do uphold the mandate (either because it is a tax--which the Federal Government generally thinks they can levy or because there is some limiting principal) what is the net effect? I have a suspicion: it would be bad for Romney. This is because although conservative forces have looked to the next presidential administration to strike down ObamaCare, now that the court will have tempted them with its destruction and then followed up by not doing it the feeling will be that Romney--who has never apologized for RomneyCare will be too weak to attack it.
End Game--ObamaCare Loses: If, as it looks like is quite possible, the mandate--and therefore ObamaCare--is struck down, might it be good for the Democrats? James Carville thinks so: We tried, now it's their turn. This has been suggested as one of the reasons that Team Obama is doing such a lousy job. Also: ObamaCare is not popular. The suspicion I have heard--but cannot find a handy link--is that people like some or all of what it does--but fear it will interfere with the coverage they have and/or cost too much. This, IMO, is a reasonable concern. If the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare might Team Obama breathe a sigh of relief?
What Do I Think?
Not knowing anything about constitutional law, I will say that I think that ObamaCare is, if not unconstitutional, definitely an edge case or an "expansion of powers." As such, we ought to be really sure its benefits are worth the risks (both budgetary and expansion of powers-wise). I also suspect that there is a Limiting Clause argument that makes sense. I'm not the guy to articulate it in a legal sense but to me, it goes like this:
(a) Unless you die young--and suddenly--you are going to need healthcare at some point.
(b) Healthcare Insurance, in America, is tied to your job. Trying to get healthcare insurance outside of a job that is any kind of decent is, if you have ever tried, almost impossible. It's hugely expensive and you better be so healthy you don't need it. If not you are screwed--if not right now, later (when you get sick).
(c) When you get sick, if you do not have health insurance, tax payers will pay much more for you because you are in the emergency room than if you had, say, preventative care and had actually not had the critical health problem.
(d) Therefore your sick ass will be a burden on us all so something has to be done. In this case: making people who think they won't need it buy insurance.
This is why automotive insurance is required: you can't go "I'm a good driver--I won't crash. I don't need insurance!" and go without. Even if you're statistically a good driver! You also can't just go "I'll pay for whatever I damage. Out of my own pocket." You might think you're ready--but society does not. Society wants you insured so there's no question the money will be there.
Now, you can choose not to drive. But you mostly cannot choose not to go to the hospital when you are desperately sick (you can, if you are conscious--but come on).
So I think some kind of mandate make sense. From what I understand of the original Republican-backed Heritage Foundation concept was that everyone would buy critical care insurance only. This wasn't "normal insurance" but was designed to defray the cost in the case of a serious condition. I think that's about the minimum that makes sense in the above scenario and I can see why Republicans (at the time) backed it. Now "Let Him Die!" gets applause. What the heck, guys?
I also don't think that health insurance, by itself, equals health care. If the system is overburdened or the health care doesn't pay for whatever structural reasons are involved then it's a bit like having a gold ownership certificate in the Mad-Max world: yes, you bought gold you Glenn Beck listener you--but Lord Humongous will not spare you for handing over the paper certificate. You need the metal. If government mandated insurance is only taken by a handful of doctors you can have all the paper you want and it isn't medicine.
So I don't think there's an easy answer. I'm not sure ObamaCare is the answer--but I'm pretty sure "Let Him Die!" isn't the answer (and the pre-existing condition stuff is also pretty nasty, really--so are cut offs when you get really sick).
The Hunger Games is in theaters, everyone is talking about it--and we're going to look at the politics of it!
The Film
The three Hunger Games books, by Suzanne Collins, take us to the world of Panem--a post-apocalyptic society where the ruling city (Panem, meaning bread as in bread and circuses) has put down an uprising from the 12 districts and now requires, as their penance, a 'reaping' where each year one boy and one girl (aged 12 to 18) are selected at random to fight to the death in a huge arena. In the story Jennifer Lawrence plays heroine Katniss Everdeen who volunteers to go to the deadly games when her young sister is tragically selected (the volunteer trumps selection). There she must kill or be killed. Complicating matters is that the boy--Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark) is in love with her.
The books are a young-adult sensation and as we live (thankfully) in an age where beloved books can get a respectful movie treatment (allegedly Steven Spielberg once wanted to compress the first four or five Harry Potter books into one movie--and make Harry an American) we get to watch it in the high-end splendor that it ought to get.
At 2:30 minutes, The Hunger Games can't fit everything in (and changes a few things intentionally--such as the origin of her iconic Mockingjay pin)--but it does a more than credible job. It is well cast, well put together, and we should see the next two films coming out to give us the full trilogy (something that tragically failed for The Golden Compass / His Dark Materials books).
Should you see it? Yes.
Let's do the politics! (spoilers abound)
The Hunger Game's Politics: Other People's Impressions
Both the left and the right have both criticized and laid claim to the message behind The Hunger Games (if, indeed, there is any coherent message at all). Ed Morrissey finds it a bit degenerate:
I’m sure it’s meant as an allegory for war as well as class exploitation, but it’s both ridiculous and grotesque.
A Christian review of the movie decides that the forced situational ethics of the film (the unlikely construction where young people are forced to kill-or-be-killed combined with several strokes of luck that either absolve the main characters or, at least, prevent them from having to resort to atrocity) make it artifically anti-Christian. The author decides that all these "hard questions" break down to no-I-won't-do-that when you apply the commandments:
When you are imagining some kind of scenario, it is easy to construct one exactly to the needs of your plot, and the sub-creating author can create a world in which it is not true that “God will not let you be tempted beyond what you are able to bear.”
No opportunity for achievement or growth. The work that the district residents perform is dictated by the Capitol, not allowing natural talents to flourish.
No free trade, unless you count the black market. The wealth of the districts is sent to the Capitol, minus meager rations allotted by the government.
No competition to drive innovation. The industry of each district is mandated by the Capitol, removing competition—and any impetus to innovate—from the equation.
On its face the book reveals the oppressive cruelty that is big government. Indeed, while the global political class and their enablers in the media to this day try to explain away droughts and the resulting famines from an “Act of God” point of view, the simple truth is that economically free countries don’t suffer them.
There is a poverty draft. Families can "choose" to get an extra ration of food, a tesserae, from the state in exchange for the name of a family member being added into the lottery for additional time.By the time the book begins, Katniss already has her name added to the lottery 20 times to help feed her family.
This system reeks of the poverty draft in real-life America, where working-class and poor kids have no choice but to join the military to get money for college, job training or to get out of small, de-industrialized rural areas.
At least one person finds a connection between Woody Harrelson's role as Sarah Palin's "creator" in HBO's Game Change and his mentor to Katniss in The Hunger Games.
Each woman was tasked with painting a portrait for an audience that had lost all sense of legitimate priorities and of reasonable expectations from their leadership: a thirsty crowd that wants little more than, as mentioned, “a good show.”
So which is it? Is the message of The Hunger Games one for the 99%? Or does it speak to the 53% (the American tax-payer base?) ... or is it just a story?
Getting It Wrong
Fist things first: Panem is, before it is Obamaville or the some right-wing nightmare vision of the future, Rome. In a later book we go to a Panem dinner where the participants drink chemicals that make them vomit--so they can consume more food (this in a world where the districts are so consumed by hunger that they must risk their children to feed themselves). This is a common misunderstanding of the Roman "Vomitorium"--but it is 'Roman' non-the-less (the books, being Young-Adult, forego any Roman-orgy-sex).
It should also be pretty clear that Rome, more than the United States, whatever you think of ObamaCare, was way out in front of us when it comes to atrocities and gladiatorial games for entertainment. And, while we're on this topic, the first book came out in 2008, well before the Occupy movement. There is no direct analogy in the books to our current political climate. That doesn't mean it doesn't have one though. Let's look at what the (above) critics get wrong.
1. It's Not About Free Enterprise
Of the analysis above the number one thing that's wrong is that the book is about economics or free enterprise (unrelated to getting it wrong, Slate interestingly notes that the putative economy of The Hunger Games would theoretically lead to a lot less starvation as people would sign up for a greater chance of getting chosen because the odds would be low. I question that: it's children who do the signing up, not parents--and if you are chosen you are likely to die horribly--but it's a good piece of analysis anyway).
While the books--and the movie--do mention the economy (Katniss sells animals she illegally hunts and kills to help feed her family)--Panem is not evil because it controls the economy--or even because it harvests the fruits of the people's labor (each district has a unique industry that provides things the Capitol needs). It is evil because it harvests children for it's deadly reality TV show. Even the run-of-the-mill citizens are not exactly portrayed as evil but rather clueless as to just how horrible this really is.
It's true that if Panem were a liberal democracy The Hunger Games would not be happening. But it's also true that if Panem were a liberal democracy so much would be different that it wouldn't be Panem. This is the same way that Katniss' illegal bow-and-arrow isn't commentary on "the right to bear arms." Arming every citizen with bows and arrows wouldn't give them a chance against Panem's ultra-tech hovercrafts. It would, however, make them consider rebellion--which is what must be suppressed.
2. It's Not About Moral Dilemmas
The Christian review is interesting--maybe even insightful--but if the movie with kids killing each other seems artificial, that's not the point. Of course it's artificial--it's a book. Every character is a construct. When you dream about your wife being a bitch you aren't dreaming about her: you're dreaming about you. None of this is real. That said, the moral questions of whether or not Katniss is in the wrong are entirely tangential to the book itself. Not only does no character--anywhere--even question whether or not she should kill or be killed there is no indication that she struggles with it. Yes, by purely Christian morality she would martyr herself--and that's fine: but in the context of the story there is no hard decision or "what would I do here?" moment. Everybody fights--no one just gives up.
3. It's Not About Small Government
Yes, Panem is an empire--and, yes, if it were, say, Libertarian, there (again) would be no Hunger Games. But this is not the point of the books or the story. We don't know if Panem is capitalist, crony-capitalist, socialist, or what. Katniss is not political. Her "creation" by Woody Harrelson's character--but even more so by her fashion designer Cinna (played with show-stealing aplomb by Lenny Kravitz)--is only subversively political. It's about her survival. Yes: one could argue that both Palin and Katniss are media personalities--both, after all, have had a reality TV show "about them." But Katniss is not a reformer. She's not anti-corruption save for that her antagonists are corrupt. She's not a libertarian advocate, save for the fact that she wants to be free and left alone. All of this is tangential to the story. None of it is the driving core.
What Is It About?
What the above pundits get right--when they get it right--is that if there is a coherent message in The Hunger Games it is about the intersection of Class Warfare and The Media's Message (both in capital letters as they are the concepts rather than the execution). The #Occupy movement isn't a bunch of people freezing in a park--it's hashtag. The people, without the tag, don't have a message you can easily access.
Panem's pampered population (...sorry) are, as I said, not so much evil as clueless. Only one, Cinna, recognizes the enormity of what is happening. Only he tells her he is sorry she was chosen (everyone else congratulates her). Only he understands the media narrative well enough to subvert it. The Hunger Game's protagonist--the one who takes proactive action--is not Katniss who is, by events beyond her control, driven into corner after corner--it is Cinna.
When president Snow sees something he doesn't like in Katniss' arrival he isn't seeing the girl who is brave, resourceful, and driven to live--he sees her burning dress--fire that was created by Cinna. He sees her media personality--not her. He doesn't know anything about her. It's her message that is dangerous. Cinna is Facebook and Twitter: he is organizing the revolution--facilitating it. It's Katniss who has to shiver and starve in the 'Zuccotti Park' arena.
The book does not have much to say about the poverty of the many against the wealth of the few--but it does make it clear: the people living in the towers of Panem have no idea what is happening in the districts. The movie shows us some scenes that did not appear in the book--a conversation between the game-master and president Snow where the president asks if the game-master has ever visited the districts--and the game-master says "not personally."
Charles Murray's Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010 begins with a series of questions to determine how isolated you are. One of them asks if you have ever been on a "factory floor." It is a sure bet that none of the citizens of Panem have ever set foot on a factory floor--Panem has no factories. The point, hammered home over and over in the book and the movie, is that the ruling class does not understand what it is doing and is terribly, terribly insulated from those who are impacted by their polices. Murray's book finds that you, if you are reading this blog, are very likely "insulated" from the other half of America that works on the factory floors.
That's what The Hunger Game's political message is: when the decision making apparatus (which includes not only the government--but the governed--the active voters) is divorced from the reality of its actions there exists a space in which abuse--perhaps even atrocity--can flourish. Whether this applies to foreign wars seen on TV as the next, most realistic installment of Xbox games--or reality TV shows where we watch human beings debase themselves chasing fifteen minutes of fame--when the audience is not the actors there is a dangerous potential.
It isn't just or at least specifically the rich (everyone in Panem is rich and even the rich few in the districts hold no political power)--it is about the hunger of the masses for meaning that is served by fast-food TV and policy. Where Katniss is literally starving the people of Panem are hungry for her celebrity--they need her charisma. They are hungry for her (semi-real, semi-false) expressions of love. They need her drama. They are as much participants in The Hunger Games as she is--they just, being the audience instead of the actors--don't have to suffer and die.
It's an effective message because while you might think you wouldn't watch The Hunger Games ... you would. In that world? We all would.
This is Obamaville: what is apparently the beginning of an 8-part horror-show mini-series about a town in the nightmare world where Obama is reelected. It isn't kidding--there's a tip of a tongue in it's cheek--but it's serious about trying to be scary.
Deadly serious. Let's take a look!
The Ad
Obamaville is 1:05 seconds long--enough time to fill a commercial air slot but not the go-anywhere 30-second gold-standard. Here is the text:
“Imagine a small American town two years from now, if Obama is reelected. Small business are struggling and families are worried about their jobs and their future The wait to see a doctor is ever increasing. Gas prices, through the roof. The freedom of religion, under attack. And every day, the residents of this town must come to grips with reality that a rogue nation and sworn American enemy has become a nuclear threat. Welcome to a place where one president’s failed policies really hit home. Welcome to Obamaville: more than a town, a cautionary tale. Coming soon to RickSantorum.com.”
The announcer voice is male and measured. There are faint horror-show overtures but, again, it plays it straight--not over the top.
The opening takes us to a ghost town--maybe almost literally. Crows take wing against a flat-gray sky. The streets are deserted--the shops shuttered. Or maybe Ravens--the briefly seen hotel in Obamaville is The Raven's Loft. I thought that sounded familiar. Some quick flash images ("Two years from now"): someone has spray-painted 2014 on a wall. In red.
A children's merry-go-round playground toy spins in the wind. We see swings also swaying and a single shoe in the foreground. This brings us to our first fast-cut image sequence.
At 13 seconds in (many of these images exist for less than 1 second) we see this:
I called it "fog."
It cuts to a super-fast image of this:
I called it EYE. I mean, I thought about "Nose." But I went with "Eye."
Then this. I called it "family":
They look wholesome enough (WAIT--are those the girls from The Shining?). Where's dad? I think he's coming:
And finally? For several moments longer--these are all well less than a second:
Red Baby. In a crib? Or is that ... erm ... a coffin? Okay, clearly it's a crib. Kinda.
Then we're in The Matrix. We hear that small businesses are struggling. We see green tinged streets. A grim looking young family, bathed in green light in their kitchen. He's even wearing green. We hear they are worried about their jobs ... and their futures. We see a girl sitting alone with a grim picture.
We get a close up of that picture. For no good reason. Other than that it is creepy. And Grim. We're told the wait to see a doctor is increasing. The camera looks in here:
There's no doctor in the room--but we have a hall ... to nowhere good:
A somewhat jagged cut back and forth does give us the doctor:
Maybe. Could be a Cenobite. Or someone developing old-style film in a dark room--but you get only fractions of a second to see the doctor--hey--just like under ObamaCare--I get it! We hear gas prices are through the roof. In yellow we see a gas pump tick off over 90.00. An image has a man holding a gas-pump to his head--suicide by petrol?
Against a black background we see a candle flame. It goes out.
The film brings us home to an older woman sitting in front of a TV. On it she is watching images of Iran as the narrator tells us an enemy rogue nation--a sworn American enemy--is getting a nuclear weapon.
On the screen Amadenijad's face morphs--for a moment--to Obama's. It's not even clear where all these TV's are, anyway" one is on the floor, plugged into a wall. They're too poor to afford a TV stand? But some of the others?
I think it's Videodrome?
We see a woman watching the screens. A close up of an eye. A legion of Agent Smiths going to kick Neo's ass. Wait, what?
Tell me I'm wrong. I dare you.
Here we get to our last montage. There's some moderately "long shots" (which, for this video) mean a second or a second and a half of the capitol, Obama, a guy looking out of a SUV window ... stuff like that. Then the quick cuts.
In the quick cuts are:
A breaking piggy bank falling to the floor.
Men toasting each other--probably a pricey washington dinner?
Obama against a red background with a red filter.
I'm-a-dinner-jacket giving a press conference during War of the Worlds or something.
A meat grinder. Up close.
What the heck!?
A smoke-filled room. Power-brokers making decisions for you.
A man reading a termination notice. He's been fired. The notice is done in Lorem Ipsum. The guy got fired from a type-setting factory.
And then we go the end (for now) of a car driving down a road ... to Obamaville ...
When a crowd member said at a town meeting in Lakeville, Minn., on Friday that he feared what would happen if Obama were elected, McCain said that Obama is “a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.”
The crowd booed.
Why wouldn’t it? McCain says there is nothing to fear from Obama, while McCain’s running mate says Obama pals around with terrorists who target America.
It's an attack on Obama, right? I mean, he's the target, yeah?
Wrong.
When Rick Santorum goes to sleep at night, if he's not thinking about his Google problem, he's thinking about Mitt Romney. When he wakes up in the morning, he's not wondering what he'll get for breakfast--he's thinking about beating Mitt Romney. Make no mistake: this is about Romney.
I think there are a few factors at play here--before I get to the meanings of these images.
Santorum wants to show the base--not just his base--that he will attack Obama in ways that McCain would not and, people fear, Romney will not. The ad is made to be hard-hitting and controversial. He intentionally crosses the morphing-line.
Then the first image again. My theory: This is Umbrage Bait, with the goal of bringing the Obama campaign into a discussion of how, no, it's totally unfair to compare him to Iran's quasi-elected president. An easy Santorum campaign riposte would be that the ad doesn't compare them -- the flash-flash is meant to show how Obama let the situation go pear-shaped.
Can it backfire? There's a precedence problem; the confines of good taste have prevented previous campaigns from, say, flash-cutting between George McGovern and Ho Chi Minh, or between Wendell Wilkie and Adolf Hitler.
He actually does want to scare you. Yes, his framing method, a B-grade horror movie, acknowledges that he's being a bit absurd--but don't think for a moment that the makers of the Paranormal Activity franchise don't know they're being a bit absurd. They still want to scare the hell out of you. So does Santorum. Specifically, he wants to scare you into thinking that if you vote for Romney, Romney will lose and give us Obama.
He is going for the gut. There are plenty of people who suffer a visceral negative reactions to Obama (to read the comments threads on conservative blogs, anyway)--but this is trying to engender them in people who don't. Subliminal effects do show some (mild) effectiveness in eliciting a visceral response. That's what the meat-grinder picture, for example, is doing. Team Santorum is trying to push your buttons.
The Images
Here is the meaning in the messages:
The Fog: Everything you value will be swept away. A wave is coming. Darkness is coming.
The Eye (up close): Fear--a 'wide' eye. It is an arresting image associated with shock.
The Family: The only positive picture in the whole onslaught. This is what you stand to lose--this is what you have to protect.
The Blue-Man: The missing father. He is out of a job or depressed. Separated and alone ... in the dark.
The Red Baby. A threat to your infants. Provoking on abortion (a place where Romney is questionable). Provoking to anyone with small children. The color red against the black stands out long enough to make it a conscious shock moment. This is the image where you realize Team Santorum is not screwing around.
The Green Couple and Child (and the not-shown Matrix-Green outdoors): Green is the color of sickness. Something is wrong with the world. These people are suffering. The girl is alone in squalor.
The Medical Imagery. In this case the hospital is not a place of healing--but one of the Death Panels. There is no one in the exam room. To see the doctor you go down a sickness laden (green) corridor to blackness where a black-and-red doctor examines ... something. There is no patient care and no comfort. The world of ObamaCare is one where nothing good happens when you are sick--because the world itself is sick.
Yellow Gas and the Suicide Pump: Anxiety. Stress. Worry. You will suffer financially and it will wear you down until ... blam.
The TVs and the Obama Morph: Poverty and fear of the outsider. The outsider is inside. The calls are coming from inside the house! Everything is green-laced and there is decay. The crowds in Tehran show a banner which promises the destruction of Israel. The throngs echo those in Germany during Obama's 2008 campaign: foreigners applauding Barack--the consumate outsider. One dictator turns into another.
The big finish: the legions of men-in-black are people from Obama's government who are "here to help you." They are tax collectors, EPA regulators, and so on.
The piggy bank is the debt-bomb and Obama's economic policies.
The smoke-filled rooms and men toasting are the Washington Elite (perhaps of both parties) making decisions in smoke-filled-rooms and toasting themselves afterwards on your tax dollars.
The red group are danger signals. You will be ground up like meat. Obama is red-tinged--he is not to be trusted. The woman is, perhaps, meant to be Nancy Pelosi. In any event, she signifies the nanny state.
In the end, you will (or have) lost your job. There is an image of a man who has cleaned out his desk: the iconic cardboard box with a plant in it leaving an office.
What Do I Think?
I am hesitant to think we are seeing something new--but I think we might be seeing something new--especially with the 8-part series element. The infamous Daisy ad ran once and was intended to provoke emotional shock and awe. This isn't quite as overt--but it is, again, going for the gut. It isn't a policy appeal at all--but an emotional one.
I think the big wrap up--the 8th installment--should show Mitt Romney as Commander In Chief: He ran, and won--but it's still Obamaville--'cause, hey, there's no difference!
Santorum won't have that level of guts--but just imagine it.
Exhibit A: Obama Is a Muslim? "Why does the president behave the way that people would think [that Obama is a Muslim]?" Gingrich said in response. "You have to ask why would they believe that? It's not cause they're stupid. It's because they watch the kind of things I just described to you."
Exhibit B: Might as well Vote for Obama As Romney: "You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.
It is highly unlikely that Gingrich thinks people who genuinely believe Obama is a Muslim are not stupid. Gingrich, I am dead certain, considers all kinds of people stupid and, not being dumb himself, I am sure he knows that issuing a strategic apology for burning holy books--or for urinating on corpses while filming it--is not enough to actually make intelligent people believe Obama is a follower of Islam.
Similarly, it seems unlikely that Santorum, who is also a bright guy, believes it is possible that a President Romney would be further left than President Obama--no matter how hard he was shaken.
So why'd he say that?
There are two reasons. The first, especially with regards to the Santorum statement, is that it might possibly hurt Romney--who knows, right? But the second reason is that for both of them, their constituency expects it. If Gingrich were to stop going after Obama on religion his support would dry up. If Newt were to say "Obama is a Christian" and leave it at that he wouldn't be the heroic guy who will fight him tooth and nail.
If Santorum said "Well, yeah, Romney's better than Obama" (and you can read the walk-back here: he says he'll support whoever wins the nomination--not 'I'll support Romney) then his 'brand' would start drying up because to his base he's the guy who is supposed to save us from RINO Romney.
Does Romney Have a Brand? Obama?
I think every politician does. Consider this (Wikipedia):
Brand is the personality that identifies a product, service or company (name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them) and how it relates to key constituencies: customers, staff, partners, investors etc.
Some people distinguish the psychological aspect, brand associations like thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and so on that become linked to the brand, of a brand from the experiential aspect.
The experiential aspect consists of the sum of all points of contact with the brand and is known as the brand experience. The brand experience is a brand's action perceived by a person. The psychological aspect, sometimes referred to as the brand image, is a symbolic construct created within the minds of people, consisting of all the information and expectations associated with a product, service or the company(ies) providing them.
All these politicians are basically products. They have images, feelings, and perceptions associated with them. Romney, for example, is the high-end college politician. I am sure that if you take his demographic (moderate Republicans with high incomes and college educations) you would find a very well defined target demographic in cars, clothes, electronics, and so on that marketers try to sell to. We know the opposite is true of Santorum--and both these candidates are so strongly branded that, in fact, their demographics have been highly predictive in this race.
What's This Mean?
I think it means that so long as each candidate plays to their brands they're probably okay. Santorum caught a lot of heat for his Better-Obama-Than-Romney remark but I don't think that'll actually hurt him. It's still within his brand (although, maybe not: maybe part of his brand is that Obama is worst of all). Similarly for Gingrich: people who don't like the Obama-is-a-Muslim thing were never going to vote for Newt anyway. That's how this works.
On the other hand, the Etch-A-Sketch remark Romney's adviser made could hurt him. His 'brand' is not about his flip-flops (or, well, his positive brand, anyway). Nate Silver points out that although we know that Romney is flopping around like an asphyxiating fish the rest of the world doesn't. So if Santorum, Gingrich, and, yes, Obama keep hammering on it? It may permeate the public consciousness in a way that Santorum's comments don't.
I read Erick Erickson (RedState) saying that it takes about a week for negative comments to take hold. I don't know if that's true--but I'd be interested to see if any of the races about five days out get less rosy for Romney.
What Do I Think?
I think Romney considers it a strength for the general that he doesn't say things like Newt--or go after social issues like Rick Santorum. He gets a lot of heat for it now but it should pay off later ... unless his rivals force him too far to the right ... and he can't shake himself clear.
Romney wins Illinois--probably the best blow he's landed to-date on Santorum's chances, effectively closing out any chance for either a Gingrich comeback or a momentum-building Santorum-surge--and the day after? A senior staffer says this:
HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.
The result has been instant and consistent (the article is excellent--it looks at how the Etch-A-Sketch gaffe has been pounced on by, well, everyone):
And they say bipartisanship is dead.
...
The quote, captured by liberal blog ThinkProgress, didn’t spread so much as it was shoved down the media’s throat with one of the most concentrated efforts by professional politicos this cycle. Within hours, it seemed every political flack in the country not aligned with Romney’s campaign had their own video, one-off website or stunt to hammer the message home.
Gingrich appeared with one--he handed it to a kid in the audience and said "Now you can run for president." Santorum's people handed out small etch-a-sketches at a Romney rally Politico has "9 Fun Facts About Etch-A-Sketchs". And the rest of the conservative punditry? They're saying: Yeah, we already knew this--but every blog, save one (all that I read, anyway. Exception: PowerLine), has covered it:
In case you missed it this morning, here again is the Kinsleyan gaffe of the year thus far — a comment so stupidly vivid and vividly stupid given Romney’s vulnerabilities that it ends up being more effective than 99 percent of the attacks Santorum and Gingrich have lobbed at Mitt.
What Does It Mean?
Romney's attempt to spin is that what the guy meant was that after the primary the whole administrative mechanism will change--how he runs--not what he runs on will change. Clearly, from the context of the question, that is weapons-grade bullshit. But what do you expect him to say? "Yeah, I'm gonna run to the center--like you knew I would"?
A lot of the commentary aligns with the "This is news!? We've been saying this all campaign!!" Of course other people saying it and a top Romney staffer saying it are two very different things.
There are a few more notes.
It's funny. The Etch-a-Sketch imagery is exploitable and humorous. As Alinsky's Rules for Radicals tells us (even as we are constantly reminded that no rock-ribbed GOP candidate would stoop to using them): Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. (every GOP candidate but maybe Ron Paul is mocking Romney for this at setting 11).
The timing couldn't be worse. Now instead of talking about Romney's newly re-established inevitability, everyone is talking about how the GOP is going to inevitably nominate an Etch-a-Sketch. That's not momentum building.
Campaigns can be "lost" on a turn of a phrase. It takes more than a really bad phrase--it has to have a sort of lock-and-key dynamic where the phrase is uttered at the right (or wrong) time and has a payload above "dumb" and into "ZOMG, HE SAID WHAT?" A case in point would be a guy named George Romney having said that Vietnam was due to 'brainwashing'--a comment that killed his quest for the GOP nomination. I mean--I mean--I'm just picking a historical precedent at random here. Could've been anyone, really. I'm sure a lot of campaigns have gone down on a single phrase. This one just comes to mind for some reason. Just spit-balling here, really. Oy.
What Do I Think?
The question for Etch-a-Sketch gate is how long does it last? In the HBO drama Game Change they note that most news stories have a 48 hour life-span. Oh, sure, some things last longer, trickling out--but the question is: does this gain momentum (something Romney, himself, has not been able to do)?
The other issue is around the general election itself. We know he's going to try to pivot--everyone does. Romney, much less so than, say, Santorum, doesn't have far to go. He has avoided the more toxic rhetoric explicitly in order to keep him centered for the general. What this does, however, is throw a lot of light on that maneuver.
YouTube was created in 2005. Facebook launched in 2004. Twitter launched in 2006. The first election to see these was Obama-McCain and while the technology was in or nearly in it's current form, I would suspect that over the past 3 years these technologies have matured. Twitter had 400,000 tweets in the first quarter of 2007. In 2010 that was 100 million.
Here is a graph of Facebook's growth over the period of the 2008 election and immediately after:
Here is a similar growth for YouTube:
Simply put, we have never seen an election with as much access to video and as many vectors for viral data as 2012 will be. More people than ever--in more demographics--are using these tools. This will make changing the narrative far, far more difficult to manage than it was in 2008. It will place large portions of the message in the hands of the 99% instead of the 1%.
The Etch-a-Sketch thing is unlikely to be the torpedo that sinks Romney--but it might be the framing device that Team Obama tries to use when he wants to pivot. As such, well--that could leave a mark.
Last night in Illinois, Mitt Romney won his first victory without caveats.
Even in Florida, a big win, there were plenty — counties that saw increased turnout rejected him. The northern part of the state rejected him. It required an amalgamation of voters not quite typical of the base to get Romney the nod in Florida. In Illinois, Romney won. Period.
That ends one of the supposed scenarios for a brokered convention. Some had figured that the most likely non-candidate to prevail in an open floor fight would either be Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels. Bush’s endorsement takes that off the table, and with it any reason to push for a brokered convention to get another candidate onto the ticket. Bush made sense as a way to carry Florida, a much-needed swing state in the fall, while Daniels has remained consistently hostile to any sort of run, and the GOP should carry Indiana this time.
A recent Gallup Poll suggests that enthusiasm levels for Romney are below those of McCain:
And who knows: Maybe The Race is Just Getting Started? But Nate Silver says it's pretty much over (albeit not quickly) and I'd tend to agree. Romney may be an imperfect candidate but he is not an insane candidate. If he can get out from attack-other-Republicans mode and into Attack-Obama mode he will see his positives increase. More importantly: if it looks like Santorum simply cannot win? His funding will dry up.
I'd written this earlier for a friend who was not looking forward to Romney. I will repeat it here :)
Previously I looked at Obama's WAR on Religion. Now I want to look at the GOP's WAR on Women. Is there one? Who declared it? What the heck does that mean anyway?
How would I know? Well, Google knows everything so I googled War On Women and checked out the top-ten links or so.
Exhibit A: Access to Abortion
The number one issue at stake in The War On Women is access to legal abortions. If you are on the left any restriction is an Act of War(!). If you are on the Right, it's defense of the innocent unborn. This issue has been around for a while and I'm not about to propose an answer here. There are three things I want to note:
1. Support for Legal Abortion has Fallen.
Gallup shows that the Pro-Choice faction has declined since '96 and the Pro-Life has made gains.
2. Not All Abortion is Equal
A second graph here:
Shows indicates (to me) that the issue may be around certain conditions. For example, from the links, about 70% of respondents think abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest--more if the life of the woman is in danger. I didn't find stats--but I'm pretty sure that, for example, 3rd Trimester abortions receive substantially less support.
3. Women As a Demographic Seem To Favor Abortion Access (To a Degree) More Than Men
The second thing (from Pew) is that women, especially of child-bearing age, favor abortions more than men--although the raw numbers have declined.
Halfway through my pregnancy, I learned that my baby was ill. Profoundly so. My doctor gave us the news kindly, but still, my husband and I weren’t prepared. Just a few minutes earlier, we’d been smiling giddily at fellow expectant parents as we waited for the doctor to see us. In a sonography room smelling faintly of lemongrass, I’d just had gel rubbed on my stomach, just seen blots on the screen become tiny hands. For a brief, exultant moment, we’d seen our son—a brother for our 2-year-old girl.
...
“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t wantto hear a description of the life I’m about to end. Please,” I said, “I can’t take any more pain.” I confess that I don’t know why I said that. I knew it was fait accompli. The counselor could no more change the government requirement than I could. Yet here was a superfluous layer of torment piled upon an already horrific day, and I wanted this woman to know it.
“We have no choice but to comply with the law,” she said, adding that these requirements were not what Planned Parenthood would choose. Then, with a warmth that belied the materials in her hand, she took me through the rules. First, she told me about my rights regarding child support and adoption. Then she gave me information about the state inspection of the clinic. She offered me a pamphlet called A Woman’s Right to Know, saying that it described my baby’s development as well as how the abortion procedure works. She gave me a list of agencies that offer free sonograms, and which, by law, have no affiliation with abortion providers. Finally, after having me sign reams of paper, she led me to the doctor who’d perform the sonography, and later the termination.
The doctor and nurse were professional and kind, and it was clear that they understood our sorrow. They too apologized for what they had to do next. For the third time that day, I exposed my stomach to an ultrasound machine, and we saw images of our sick child forming in blurred outlines on the screen.
“I’m so sorry that I have to do this,” the doctor told us, “but if I don’t, I can lose my license.” Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. Somewhere, a nurse cranked up the volume on a radio, allowing the inane pronouncements of a DJ to dull the doctor’s voice. Still, despite the noise, I heard him. His unwelcome words echoed off sterile walls while I, trapped on a bed, my feet in stirrups, twisted away from his voice.
“Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart...”
I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.
I want to note that it turns out that in her condition she might not have been required to go through that--but not the 24 hour waiting period. And the exemption advice was given several days after her experience--so unless the doctor was willing to play bumper-cars with his license she was probably going to get that regardless. Finally: we might assume that the people who put forth the law draw the line at severely disable children--but, at least as of 2003, about 50% of respondents didn't believe in that exemption either.
I think the safest thing to assume is that (a) the exemption is a compromise position and (b) the architects of the law have about a 50% of having intended exactly what she went through.
Conclusion: While I'll leave it up to the reader as to whether restriction of access to abortion is a "war on women" I will note the following:
Women themselves, as a demographic trend more towards access than restriction. Where restriction is favored it is much more strongly on the conditional end of the axis rather than complete restriction.
The position of the Republican Party is towards more restriction: the base favors the most restrictive position. The most extreme position (illegal in all cases) is held by Rick Santorum (as well as, for example, Sarah Palin) and the other candidates allow it to be a state decision (which is the safe ground) while being against it. Romney thinks abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest.
Whether or not there is WAR involved here, these decisions, as illustrated above, can, at least in some--or the most extreme cases--serve to compound trauma on women as an intended result (if you believe otherwise, again, consider that while the exemption appears, statistically, to be a compromise measure).
Exhibit B: Rush Limbaugh
This is played out--but I'm going to address it here shortly. Rush Limbaugh has a particularly unique position in that he is not only a shock-jock radio entertainer personality--but also seen as the main person who speaks for the Republican Party.
When he called Fluke a slut and a prostitute he was just shooting his mouth off--but so would Reince Priebus be if he said that stuff and he's the head of the Republican National Committee. Just as we expect Reince to be judicious about what he says--as it will rightly reflect on the RNC and the Republicans it is at least reasonable to hold Rush to a similar standard (but not the same one: Rush is an entertainer first and foremost).
So I will say this: if there is a line that Reince better not cross (when Michael Steele said critical things about the GOP when he was the head of the RNC he was, rightly, admonished by the base) there is also a line somewhere for Rush. It's much higher (Reince has no other job than presenting the RNC with poise and grace)--but it is still there.
Was what Rush said over that line? Well, he apologized for it--so he thought he was.
Did what he said hurt all women? Or just Sandra Fluke? I don't have an objective answer to this--but I'll say what I think. I think that the use of the term slut and calling her a prostitute (when she is clearly not) when testifying before a House committee on the topic of contraception makes her more than just one college girl somewhere who had bad words said to her. He essentially used gendered insults against political speech. This is different than just being personal or offensive ("She's a bitch"). I suspect that women--as a demographic--do not like powerful men calling people sluts or prostitutes because they know that once that starts getting thrown around it does, in fact, hurt all of them--to a degree. That's my take-away (although I know from reading comments there are several women who find her behavior wrong--I did not see any defending 'slut' and 'prostitute'--although I did see some men doing so).
Conclusion: Rush is, like it or not (whether he likes it or not), a major voice in the Republican party. What he said was, I think, over the line. Act of War? I'm going to say ... yes. So far as it goes. But keep in mind that accepted or not (and well constructed or not) he did apologize.
Exhibit C: The Rest of the WAR!
But the Abortion issue is only the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole laundry list of stuff that I'll look at in a minute. But first, let's examine our terms:
Connect The Dots Sucks
You'll see me refer to/deride "connect the dots" arguments. These are arguments that put up a list of facts (or 'facts') and then ask the reader to "Connect the dots" for it all to make sense--like a picture emerging from one of those puzzles on the back of children's menus. I find this approach implicitly disingenuous. Any time someone is making a connect-the-dots argument I'm at best suspicious. When they turn out to be willlfully misleading about a dot? They're dishonest.
What Is WAR!?
In order for there to be a "Republican" WAR on Women (or a Democratic one) there has to be:
Coordinated and orchestrated intent behind the behavior and it has to come from the top down or at least the top echelon. A staffer sending a naughty email doesn't count as WAR. Some junior congressman somewhere proposing a bill that reads badly isn't WAR either. People will be stupid: Film at 11.
Failure To Police Your Own isn't WAR. Yes, it's bad behavior--but Romney failing to upbraid Rush Limbaugh, whether or not Romney is Owned By Clear Channel, is not WAR. It's not Romney or anyone else's job to shout down Rush (and good luck with that anyway) and while 'Silence Means Consent' may be a nifty slogan it isn't, actually, consent.
Hypocrisy is not WAR. It's possible for both sides to be engaged in bad behavior at the same time. Just because some other guy did it doesn't excuse you doing it.
What is Damage To Women?
One would expect a war (or a WAR) on Women to damage them in some way. How would I track that? Well, the first way I'll try is by polling: if, indeed, the women-demographic is going one way or the other, that's a sign (note: as of writing this, I haven't checked yet so I don't know what I can find).
But secondly, I'm going to punt. Not being a woman--nor having access to one that can speak for all women (although online there is no shortage of people of all genders trying) I'm going to say this: I will tell you if I think the charge or argument is true or not--and honestly presented.
I will tell you if I think the issue at stake is just a random actor behaving badly--or a policy decision.
And you can decide. It's like Fox News, right?
So Let's Look. Here are the links ...
From the Left: Stop The War On Women.The page goes to the list of Left-side acts of WAR I will be looking at.
Looking at Stop The War On Women we find this list of infractions:
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
1. Forcible Rape vs. Rape The first issue hinges (and the article links to Left-Wing MoveOn.org) on the inclusion of the term 'forcible' before the term 'Rape' in bill H.R. 358. The goal, it seems, is to distinguish between ... erm ... rape-rape (to use a pretty bad term itself) and, erm, date rape? It's to "prevent the opening of a very broad loophole for fedreally funded abortions for any teenager," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
While I am on the pro-choice side of the line, I think that what most people think of as rape is, in fact, 'forcible'--assuming you include coercion and abuse of authority as force (which any good libertarian ought to, eh?). If you assume this is limiting rape to physical force then, yes--it's redefining. If you assume it is excluding the more loosely defined aspects such as statutory rape then it is not. I don't know how 'forcibly' would be interpreted in a court of law so there's some gray area. On the other hand, it has 150 Republican signatures so it does count as coordinated / orchestrated.
Conclusion: I'm dubious that this is presented in the most honest fashion possible.
2. Changing Victim to Accuser
The link is to the Huffington Post the change this guy is spending tax-payer dollars on looks like this:
This is stupid. Yes, there's a (completely toxic and delusional) Men's Rights argument around how women, wholesale, destroy men's lives with false accusations of rape. Even if you buy it (in which case you are an idiot--yes, that can happen, no, it is not a problem that approximates that of, you know, actual rape) this does nothing to help with that. It's just grand-standing on the body of every raped woman who has considered not coming forward because she wouldn't be believed.
What this lacks, though, is, as far as I can tell, support. Yes, Bobby Franklin wasn't shouted down--but I don't (see above) require that. So far as I can tell he's an idiot, doing his idiot thing--and that's it. So far.
Conclusion: Yes, it's stupidity--but it lacks the orchestration and support necessary for WAR.
3. Making It Legal To Murder A Doctor!? From Mother Jones: the bill makes killing someone trying to harm a fetus a self-defense act. True--but according to the sponsor (who is a foe of abortion rights--but still ...):
Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion."
While a misunderstanding of it might encourage someone to kill abortion doctors, the pithy one-liner from StopTheWarOnWomen doesn't paint a remotely accurate picture here. It's also lacking national support--although in North Dakota it passed 9-3 (and is now so amended I'm not clear where it stands).
Conclusion: Misleading. Not War.
4. Republicans Want To Cut Funds ...
Yes. This is news? They also want (same article) to cut funds to NASA and AmTrak. The War on Trains?
Conclusion: It has the national scale and orchestration but ... They're cutting the IRS too. War on Taxes--hey, that actually fits. No. This is not specifically a war on women. It's just a war on funding--low income women will be hit in the crossfire.
5. Let Women Die--Rather than Have An Abortion?
Well, yes--it does not force religious hospitals to provide even life-saving abortions. And it does not mandate the patient be transferred: they could do nothing. Would that happen? Yeah: it could. I know of cases where women have not been advised on abortion where it could / would kill the mother because of personal beliefs. Not common--but yeah. Possible. Also: it passed the House: that's sufficient top-down support for my criteria.
Conclusion: If you think that restricting abortion--in the case of the life of the mother--is warish? This counts.
6. Maryland Republicans Cut Low Income School Program Saying Women Should Be Home With Kids--Not Working Did they do that / say that? Yes: to a degree, anyway. The vote was 4-1 and pulled 2.3MM from the Head Start program. They gave it to the 2012 fiscal budget (440MM, for comparison). Two of the guys doing the pulling said this:
"As many of you know, I had a lot of kids and my wife stayed home at a significant sacrifice in those early years, because she knew she had to be with those kids," said Smith, who is the parent of 12 children. "I know everybody isn't able to survive doing that, but clearly if we can strengthen marriage, we can decrease the number of children we have to reach."
And then, erm, clarified:
"I'd just like to say that I have four kids that graduated from Frederick County Public Schools," he said. "My wife is college educated and could go out and get a very good job. She gave that up for 18 years, so she could stay home with our kids and we gave up a lot to do that. I agree with Commissioner Smith. The marriage thing is very important."
Delauter told the parents that they should not rely on the government to educate their kids.
"I never relied on anyone else to guarantee the education of my kids," he said. "My wife and I are the ultimate decision makers on the education of our kids."
This is rock-bottom stupid--Head Start programs help kids who won't get enrichment any other way. And their mothers have to work. However, this event lacks national coordination and orchestration. If you want to talk about Frederick County's WAR on Women ... call me.
Conclusion: Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Not WAR on Women (not national Republican, anyway)
7. But Then Republicans Do Cut Head Start On a National Level! This article argues that the pains caused by broad budget cuts the article is talking about are born disproportionately by women. It seems that these are in the context of larger budget cuts--but I'm going to give them this one (although I am not sure the argument is correct). Women do bear disproportionate responsibility for raising kids and so on. If I didn't give credit for a local event I think I will for the national-level case.
Conclusion: Yes--this targets women (specifically low income women--but they are more vulnerable)
8. Cut Funding for Employment, Meals, Services, for Senior Citizens ... and 2/3rds of the elderly poor are women.
Visions of starving seniors are ugly--but this is more about a War on Seniors than Women.
Conclusion: Weak for a WAR on Women.
9. Stripping Planned Parenthood of Funding?
It's not news that the GOP doesn't like Planned Parenthood.This passed the House. It wouldn't (likely) pass the Senate. That said:
I'm going to say that this is more or less a strike on women's health issues. STI/STD testing and Contraception--not to mention Cancer Screening are all fairly uncontroversial. If the graph is true (and I think it is) then this is firing a shotgun at women's issues trying to hit abortion.
Conclusion: War-ish. National and seems to impact women's health issues. Especially since it's around contraception more than specifically abortion.
Final Score: 3 out of 10.
WAR From The Left
Those are the charges. What about the counter-charges? Here we have Obama's War On Women:
This focuses on Bill Maher's misogynistic comments and the lack of Democratic response. It also makes some general assertions about Obama sidelining women--without much by way of back-up. The Hot Air article also notes the hypocrisy of Republicans getting Lim-bashed while Maher gets off scott free.
While I don't deny the level of outrage isn't equivalent I also don't find the speaker equivalent.
Conclusion: This is thinly constructed. I've rules out bashing Romney for not hitting Limbaugh so I have to rule out Obama for not hitting Maher. That said, yes: the media should be making sure we know about both and Limbaugh is much bigger news (although to be sure, between the two--on any scale--Limbaugh is much bigger news).
Both sides have tried to shape the narrative in this battle for and about women. But many Republicans are beginning to wish they had never waded into what has become a heated conversation over contraception, who should have it and what it says about people who use it.
GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s campaign, said Republicans need to return to pocketbook and fiscal issues. “We know what works,” she said, “and we need to get back to it.”
Fortunately, there have been actual polls conducted on whether women have become disenchanted with the Republican candidates. Today’s Washington Post/ABC poll found “no measurable effect at this point” showing that women are moving toward the Democratic Party. In fact, President Obama actually appears to have lost ground with women in a general election matchup against Mitt Romney
"Republicans are not hostile toward contraception," says conservative pollster Kristen Soltis. "The real issue is what employers should be required to do, and what should government pay for."
"There are real arguments about the role and size of government, and the employer/employee relationship that can be very favorable to Republicans," Soltis says. "Unfortunately, the conversation has gone to birth control and value judgments about people who use birth control."
So who knows?
What Do I Think?
I think this took longer than I freakin' planned for. Here's what I think: I find the trans-vaginal ultra-sound stuff to be abusive and specifically humiliating for women. Not being a woman myself--nor facing an abortion--I have a hard time imagining that "happening to me" but I know I wouldn't like it. And I feel for the woman in the linked article who was doubly traumatized by the law (even if she should've been exempt, I still find that to be a compromise to what the GOP's right-flank would want).
I find Limbaugh a national GOP figure--and Bill Maher an HBO comedian. Both should be repudiated for their statements--but Bill's do not reflect on the party itself. Rush's do. Because of who he is--and denying that seems like denying reality.
The WarOnWomen site is fairly weak though: there are a few things in there--but like most connect-the-dots arguments it's a mix of local stuff that's stupid and miss-characterizations of things that are more nuanced. Since I presume "That is the best they've got" it's a bit weak.
On the other side I'm even more underwhelmed. Maher is, again, a talking point--but it's at odds with who, exactly he and Limbaugh are. If the Democrats are being opportunistic? So is this--it's trying to use a minor issue to frame a major one and leaving out key facts (such as that Limbaugh commands fear from everyone in the GOP and Maher doesn't command fear from anyone in the Democrats--although his money is green).
So is there a WAR on Women from the Republicans? It mostly comes down to the abortion and contraception question: if you find restriction to abortion to harm women? If you find easy access to contraception to be something the government ought to help provide women with? Then, yeah--the GOP is at WAR with Women.
But you've gotta be clear about where exactly you stand.
