Those defiant Republicans

I keep hoping the GOP primary will be over, but the Republicans coming to the polls keep demolishing my hope.

A lot of this hope is based on my personality. I'm not a person who lives for adrenaline rushes--I prefer the comfy chair in my nice quiet and stable home. So, as much as I'd like to know which kook will be running against Obama, I'm doomed to wait anxiously. (And I've decided that each of them deserves the appellation 'kook.' I'll justify that if called upon to do so.)

I don't expect the Republicans or any political group, or even my own family, to follow my political whims, but I'm wondering what it means that GOP voters aren't paying fealty to the Romney campaign siege machine. The conservative blog I read no longer has comments about policy positions or even much combativeness. I think I see mostly lethargy and apathy there. The GOP base has given up hope on the not-Romneys without accepting that Romney deserves the nomination, perhaps because lately he's been demonstrating less economic vision. But more likely because his heavy hand and oh-so-innocent demeanor have worn thin.

The evangelicals are sticking with Santorum. They seem to be the only group with any enthusiasm left. But they are a smallish group (which I'm glad of, since I don't care for their theocratic leanings or intolerance of non-Christian and non-traditional ways). Perhaps this is the proof that the evangelicals don't own the Republican party. That means they're just a few steps away from the same level of disappointment that the rest of the GOP is feeling.

One of the funniest factoids is that perhaps 2 percentage points of Santorum's vote in Ohio came from Democrats playing dirty tricks in the GOP primary. I didn't hear that acknowledgment in Santorum's speech. It's an extra bit of weirdness in this campaign that Santorum has called on Democrats to execute an Operation Chaos on his own party. Is that a reflection of how desperate he is for votes, or of how much he dislikes Romney?

Personally, I used to feel sorry for Romney as he tried to woo the GOP. But not any more. I've tired of his earnest lines about cleaving to the conservative line with all his heart. A lot of people have, because his unfavorables have grown considerably. Perhaps we'll see a presidential election where Republicans don't rally around their choice. But will it be because they're defiant or because they're dispirited?

 Who Cares?

PS. My sweetie asked me if I thought the Republican party would split into an evangelical party and a business-friendly party. I don't see it happening. Their platforms would be similar enough that any split wouldn't last. I think they're doomed to cohabit the same party and get on each other's nerves for quite a while into the future.

Equivalence: God's judgment on you

I might have figured out the liberal equivalent to those religious people who claim that "X" is God's judgment on some sinner. Like 9/11 was God's retribution for tolerance of gays (Falwell).

Here is my nomination for liberal equivalent:

When a 43-year-old man dies of an apparent heart attack, you look for something extraordinary that might explain it. In Andrew Breitbart's case, you don't have to look far. . . judging by his work, hostility was no stranger to him.

To their credit, few readers let this columnist get away with this speculation, hedged though it was. It's ugly when conservatives do it, and it isn't any prettier when liberals do it. Can we just stop?

Being a Republican means never saying I'm sorry

This seems to be one of Newt's principles. I suppose Newt apologized for making the commercial with Nancy Pelosi, but not for:

• Having an affair while persecuting Bill Clinton for having casual sex.
• Following a political strategy that cost a number of Republican House seats.
• His questionable ethics while Speaker.
• His lobbying consulting work after quitting the House.
• His lies about his lobbying consulting work.

According to Newt, Rush Limbaugh needn't apologize for calling a 30-year law student a slut and a prostitute, and demanding that she upload sex tapes for his and other taxpayers to enjoy.

The president shouldn't apologize for what the military does in any of those insignificant foreign countries, but should be accountable for situations beyond his control, such as gasoline costing over $2.50 a gallon.

I'm really tired of politicians demanding that other politician apologize for or repudiate this or that. Tell me why the other politician is wrong, but don't go into a long, moralizing harangue. And when someone does decide to apologize, don't go into a long, moralizing harangue about why he shouldn't.

We aren't 8 year olds forced by our parents to make apologies. We are supposed to be adults who are capable of deciding when to apologize and when not to. Let's try to treat one another like adults, and steer clear of the apology circus.

You're not the boss of me, so I'm not listening ...

Update 3/6/12. I just found a compendium of the 21 insults Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, the law student. Another indication that he's a shock-jock, not a political commentator.

What is Romney's real tax policy?

It's difficult to nail down Romney's new tax plan that includes 20% across the board tax rate cuts. Is he proposing to offset these cuts with changes to the deductions or not? Romney or his economic adviser have said at various times, like here, that there will be changes to deductions making the cuts revenue-neutral.

Romney himself isn't clear whether he supports the 20% tax rate reduction by itself without the changes in deductions. In this op-ed from March 1, he fails to mention deductions or whether the cuts will be revenue-neutral. He's also embraced "dynamic scoring" which uses the assumption that tax cuts will lead to permanent economic growth and permanent higher revenue... just like the Bush tax cuts. It isn't clear whether he's bought into the faith that "tax cuts will pay for themselves" or whether he wants to cut rates more than dollar-for-dollar offsets will allow.

His lack of clarity may gain him votes from the trickle-down faithful. Maybe he's planning a bait-and-switch after the primaries so he'll look more fiscally responsible for the general election. Or maybe no one will pin him down and he won't decide what his tax plan really is until he's president. Of course there's a tradition of presidents not showing their true colors until they're elected, but I was hoping this campaign would be different. Tough luck on that, I guess.

Contraception: Good works, bad people

Another rumination on pro-choice issues: Planned Parenthood has been besieged by conservatives all last year, but this might be a turn-around year for them. Susan J. Komen foundation announced that it was going to cut off grants to PP. Before Komen backtracked completely, it announced that it would still fund four locations because they were the only facilities in their areas for low-income women to receive breast cancer screenings.

This confirmed what I suspected: healthcare for the poor is spotty; PP is a major player for poor women; in some poor areas, PP is the only provider.

I wonder how many of the people who are working strenuously to defund (or preferably permanently close) PP have considered how poor women will get the healthcare that PP has provided. Are unsullied providers (with no connection to abortion) ready to step into breaches that would open if PP were closed or cut off from federal and state funding? The big question is: Can you actually separate contraceptive care from abortion?

I did a quick web search and found many independent women's health service providers. Roughly half stated that they provide abortion services, so scratch those. Many of the rest do referrals. Only one stated that it didn't provide abortion services. So it may be hard to find providers who are squeaky clean--no connection to abortion.

It's no surprise if it's hard to separate contraception services and abortion. Many people who use contraception want some sort of backup if the contraception fails. The failure rates aren't insignificant; they range from less than 1% to 20% depending on the contraceptive method. The backup is often abortion rather than continuing the unintended pregnancy. The provider who helped with the contraception will often want to help the woman with the unintended pregnancy, which means providing an abortion, referring her for an abortion, providing prenatal care, or making a referral for prenatal care. Few providers of contraception will want to throw up their hands and not help a woman whose contraception has failed.

So, the big answer: I don't think you can operationally separate contraception providers from abortion providers. People interested in providing contraceptive services don't usually stop there.

And what if they fail?

"I’m amazed, almost daily, at the fervor and zeal for which many conservatives, independents, and liberals espouse, nay advocate, for the murder of human beings to allow for the convenience of a mere vessel." --Wall Street Journal comment


More answers to the big question.
Indiana has trouble separating the services.
Washington Times article regurgitates pro-choice research.

Death of a partisan

A surprising event today: Andrew Breitbart died.

It's hard to figure what to say on this occasion. I didn't care for his political positions  and especially for his egregious tactics, but I agree with the tradition that it's unseemly to bash someone on their death. After all, some people respected and even loved him.

So, it is OK to say something like this?

This is a reminder that we are all mortal. Through his hard work and pointed commentary, Breitbart had influence on a national scale. He'll be mourned by his supporters, but I'm not among them. However, I don't believe and would never say that this is God's judgment on him. May he rest in peace and may his family find some solace.

I think that is as kind as I can be, but I welcome comments and criticism.

Died March 1, 2012

Paradoxical quote of the day

"I learned so much law listening to Orrin Hatch. We all remember his memorable performances on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was particularly influenced by him in my 20s and 30s during the Reagan and Bush I eras. His efforts to save the nomination of Clarence Thomas were truly heroic. Thomas was a weak candidate to begin with and the Anita Hill allegations seemed to many to be more than enough to doom his nomination. But Hatch took it upon himself to resurrect Thomas, and Clarence Thomas sits on the Supreme Court today as a result of the supreme efforts of Orrin Hatch. It takes a man with a very special gift to place a complete ignoramus on the U.S. Supreme Court." - Wall Street Journal comment

Courtroom of the Supreme Court

Background - Like other Republican senators, Orrin Hatch was been judged a RINO by Tea Partiers and faces Republicans challengers for his seat, which prompted this news item and attached comments. I have a soft spot for Orrin Hatch, who seems to me one of the most decent and respectful politicians.