Republicans vs. Birth Control or Why the GOP is Going to Lose in 2008

From The Baltimore Sun:

The quiet campaign against birth control

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens.

But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.

One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions."
(snip)

Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from Title X family planning for the poor. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.

Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo, like Mr. Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception-is-abortion" territory. According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor."
(snip)

The American public is unaware of the new wave of anti-contraception activism by opponents of abortion, which makes it much easier for politicians to appease the anti-contraception base. Take, for example, President Bush. While he has delivered some big anti-abortion victories for the religious right in the last seven years (Supreme Court Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and the so-called partial-birth abortion ban), anti-contraception work has taken up more of his energy. He attempted to strip contraceptive coverage for federal employees; appointed anti-birth control leader David Hager to the FDA panel that approves and expands access to contraceptive methods; chose another contraception opponent to oversee the nation's contraceptive program for the poor; defunded international family-planning programs, and invested unprecedented sums into sex-ed programs that prohibit mention of contraception.

For now, the candidates vying for the Right to Life endorsement are doing their best to avoid directly answering mainstream voters' simple questions on the subject, such as, "Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception?" Considering that even 80 percent of self-described "pro-life" voters and a majority of Republican voters strongly support contraception, it's no wonder why.
full article

Now any reasonable person realizes how ludicrous the idea of getting rid of birth control is. Period. But the fact that GOP hopefuls are willing to court the extremists of their party by deception shows some of the very real problems the GOP is facing. First there's the honesty factor. Romney implying that he's anti-contraception is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He never came out and said it. He just led them to believe he did. It seems that every candidate has an issue they treat like that when it comes to competing for the base. (Imagine Hillary speaking at PETA meetings implying "meat is murder" and you start to see my point.)

The sad fact is that currently the GOP actually needs that subsection of votes because the war in Iraq and a handful of other issues has caused it to hemorrhage moderates and independents thereby leaving more a more socially conservative Republican party. By being forced to endorse positions that they may not actually believe in they are shooting themselves in the foot by making themselves appear to hold positions not held by the majority and simply put this current batch of front runners aren't good liars (I think Giuliani could lie with the best of them but he's using the "I was there on 9/11" strategy so he doesn't have to.)

I really believe as long as the GOP keeps pandering to its base it is going to be relegated to the minority party until the Dems royally screw up and I'm guessing it'll be eight years of Dem control before that happens.

h/t The Gun Toting Kitten

Dude, where's my vote?

One of my earliest posts was about the potential for voting machines to be tampered with. Now its been proven possible in CA:

University of California computer scientists have recently shown it's possible to carry out a bevy of hacks on electronic voting machines currently certified for use in the Golden State.

In reports released late last week, the researchers chronicle their five-week endeavor, at the request of California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, to exploit examine machines made by Hart InterCivic, Sequoia Voting Systems and Diebold. The same models are also in use in many other states, according to a database compiled by the Election Reform Information Project.

Their conclusion? "The security mechanisms provided for all systems analyzed were inadequate to ensure accuracy and integrity of the election results and of the systems that provide those results," wrote principal investigator Matt Bishop, a computer science professor at the University of California, Davis. More

Makes for a strong argument for paper backups even though paper ballots have been known to disappear although I will say that one million electrons are much easier to dispose of than one million voting slips. So whats the solution? There isn't a perfect one. I'm pro paper trails and I'd like for voters to be able to choose a paper ballot if they prefer. I think the only way to truly dissuade tampering with elections would be to make it an act of treason. I know that if I were dictator of America it certainly would be.

Sarkozy Wins, Vows to Restore Pride in France

By John Ward Anderson and Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 7, 2007; A01

PARIS, May 6 -- Nicolas Sarkozy, the combative son of a Hungarian immigrant, was elected president of France on Sunday, promising a new generation of leadership to transform the country, restore its self-respect and reinvigorate ties with the United States and Europe.

Sarkozy, a member of the ruling party and France's former top law enforcement officer, defeated Socialist Ségolène Royal, who waged a determined battle to become France's first elected female head of state, by a 53 percent to 47 percent vote, according to final results. Voter turnout was a near-record 84 percent.

In a victory speech before a jubilant crowd of supporters in Paris, Sarkozy said voters "have chosen to break with the habits and behavior of the past." He pledged "to give greater value to work, to authority, to respect, to merit."

"I want to give French people back the pride of being French -- to finish with repentance, which is a form of self-hate," he said, renouncing a pervasive national malaise fed by economic decline at home and sinking influence abroad.

An unabashed admirer of America, Sarkozy, 52, had a special message for the United States, which has had troubled relations with France under President Jacques Chirac, who led international opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq.

"I'd like to appeal to our American friends to say that they can count on our friendship," he said. "But I would also like to say that friendship means accepting that your friends don't necessarily see eye to eye with you."

In particular, he said, "a great nation like the United States has the duty not to oppose the fight against global warming, but to lead that battle, because what is at stake is the destiny of mankind." Sarkozy said he would make the issue a top international priority as president.

His election signals a shift to the right in French politics and could herald a major transition for French society. Sarkozy has promised to boost economic growth and employment by cutting taxes, reducing deficits, shrinking government and loosening labor laws -- the kind of free-market policies embraced by the United States and Britain, but long eschewed by French leaders.

In selecting the passionate, pragmatic and pugnacious Sarkozy, who is a lawyer by training, voters rejected Royal's prescription of continuing big spending programs to protect and expand France's vast social welfare state. more

So why is this important to us? Because France is our oldest ally and under the previous party's reign that relationship soured. The administration turned down France's offer to train Iraqi police in France and one has to wonder if it wasn't because of the tone in which the offer was made. Maybe we'll luck out and Sarkosky will extend it again. I wish him the best either way as the man definitely will have his hands full trying to solve unemployment, opening up their markets, and reducing illegal immigration. Sound Familiar?

Obama Requests Secret Service Detail

Hey, If I were the only candidate of color to ever stand a snowball's chance of being the president I'd be requesting a security detail too.

Republican Presidential Contenders face Off

Well with the Republican primary debates over the question is who won? According to two major Republican blogs Red State and Powerline McCain did although Redstate throws in the caveat that as no participant truly captured one's spirit Fred Thompson won by default.




Frankly given Giuliani's centrist views I don't see him winning over the GOP base. I foresee a deal in which he drops out and becomes a vice-presidential nominee. But then again I think the same about Obama. Only time will tell.

McCain Seems to Have Gotten the Message

I recently posted that the direction McCain had been going had me worried. However from his recent TV appearances he seems to have gotten his ducks in a row and seems to be back to his old no BSing self. Which is the only way he stands a chance of winning in my opinion. Take for example this snippet of his recent interview on Fox:

WALLACE: How would you fight the War on Terror differently than it's being fought now?

J. MCCAIN: I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone.

I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we've got some image problems in the world. I think that we've got to understand — diplomatic, intelligence-wise.

Clearly, in the area of, quote, "propaganda," in the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning as much as — well, in some ways we are behind.

Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in the view of some — my view — may sometimes do a better job than we are.

At the end of the day, it's how people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values, our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

WALLACE: Senator, you talked about torture. Former CIA Director Tenet now says that the intelligence that they got from harsh interrogation techniques against some of these big Al Qaida types, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the intelligence they got from them using, reportedly, things like water-boarding, extreme temperatures, was more valuable than all the other CIA and FBI programs.

Were you wrong? I mean, this is the CIA, former CIA director, saying this. Were you wrong to limit what CIA interrogators could do?

J. MCCAIN: A man I admire more than anyone else, General Jack Vessey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, battlefield commission, told me once — he said, "John, any intelligence information we might gain through the use of torture could never, ever counterbalance the image that it does — the damage that it does to our image in the world."

I agree with him. Look at the war in Algeria. Look, the fact is if you torture someone, they're going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

It's interesting to me that every retired military officer, whether it be Colin Powell or whether it be former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — everybody who's been in war doesn't want to torture people and think that it's the wrong thing to do. And history shows that.

We cannot torture people and maintain our moral superiority in the world.

WALLACE: But when...

J. MCCAIN: And that's a fact.

WALLACE: But when George Tenet says...

J. MCCAIN: I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior.

WALLACE: But if I may, sir...

J. MCCAIN: Yes, sir.

WALLACE: ... when George Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

J. MCCAIN: I don't accept it. I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history.

And so again, I know this for a fact, and anyone who's had experience with this, I think, that's — well, the people I respect will tell you that if you inflect enough physical pain on someone, they will tell you anything they think you want to know in order to relieve that pain.

That's just a fundamental fact. And we've gotten a huge amount of misinformation as well as other information from these techniques.

In my opinion the only way McCain can win is to be unique not an older wiser version of W and thereby pull in enough swing voters to clinch it. The far right doesn't and isn't going to trust him and his major current hurdle is beating Giuliani in the primaries. Although he has one concrete advantage over Giuliani in that regard. There are no pictures of John McCain in drag.

McCain and I

You know, I like John McCain. But lately he's been heading in directions that makes me wary.
Yesterday Donklephant had a nice piece about just that....

Dear Senator,

So, I see that you tinkering with your campaign after getting reports that you aren’t raising so much money as your GOP rivals. When I heard about this, I had hoped you were going to announce that you would return to your so-called maverick status in 2000. Alas, what I learned was that you were employing some of the same fundraising ideas that the President has used in the past.

Listen, John, (can I call you John?) your campaign isn’t doing so well. Lot’s of people thought you would be the nominee next year. As the saying goes, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. You had been denied the nomination seven years ago, so it would make sense that it should be your turn to shine.

But things aren’t going according to plan, are they? I mean Mitt Romney is raising more money than you and Rudy Giuliani is the front-runner in spite of his socially liberal views. So, now you are basically hitting the reset button at least financially.

But John, the problem isn’t that you aren’t raising enough money. The problem is your message or lack thereof. more

The DNC's Master Plan

Hmmm...It looks like the Dems may actually have a plan should they win either the house or the senate and its kind of ingenious in its simplicity; Propose poular legislation and then let the Republicans paint themselves as the bad guys by shooting it down and thereby cinching a Dem win in 08.
......................................................................................................................................................................

From the WaPo:

In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

All these measures command massive popular support. The reason they've not been enacted is that House Republicans have passed rules making it impossible for the Democrats to offer amendments to any significant legislation, thereby sparing themselves the indignity of having to choose, say, between the interests of their financial backers in the drug industry and their constituents.

Cognizant that they will owe their victory in part to the public's revulsion at the way Congress does (or avoids) business, the Democrats also plan to revise House rules to enable the opposition party to introduce amendments and to sit on conference committees, from which Republicans have routinely excluded them since Tom DeLay became majority leader. They also will ban members from accepting gifts and paid trips from lobbyists.

By bringing such measures to a vote in the House, and conceivably in the Senate as well, the Democrats will be in the enviable position of doing both good and well: promoting long-overdue policy shifts that the public supports and putting their Republican colleagues in a pickle. Confronted with an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage or making medication for seniors more affordable, many Republicans will side with the Democrats. Should the Democrats win the Senate, Republicans will have to calculate the risks of filibustering such mom-and-apple-pie measures. These bills will also pose a conundrum for conservatives such as John McCain, whose presidential aspirations have not been clouded by having to vote on these issues.

Its so crazy it just might work.

GOP Spiraling Downward?

If you ever made paper boats and floated them down a stream when you were a kid you may recall that sometimes they'd become caught up in the swirls and eddies and begin circling and once that happened one of two things would occur they'd either build up enough speed to break free or they'd be pulled under.

It seems that the GOP's chances of maintaining a majority in the House and Senate this election year are about the same.

From the NY Times:

In Final Weeks, G.O.P. Focuses on Best Bets

Senior national Republican strategists who had been briefed on decisions made during the party’s internal deliberations discussed the overall strategic thrusts but declined to provide specific dollar figures, saying that would give too much information to the Democrats.

The decision involving Mr. DeWine offers the most compelling evidence so far that Republicans are circling their wagons around a smaller group of races, effectively conceding some Senate and House seats with the goal of retaining at least a thin margin of control when the 110th Congress is seated next January. Democrats need to win 6 seats to capture the Senate and 15 seats to win the House on Nov. 7.

Still, in interviews, Republican strategists said that the flow of bad news out of Iraq and the resignation of Representative Mark Foley after admitting he had sent sexually suggestive messages to teenage Congressional pages had soured the environment for incumbents and blunted the impact of a long-planned crush of negative advertisements Republicans had prepared to undercut Democratic challengers this month.

In one sign of the shifting political environment, as of this weekend, national Republicans were running advertisements in 29 districts; of those, 26 are held by Republicans and 3 by Democrats, though Republicans plan to begin running advertisements this week against an Illinois Democrat, Representative Melissa Bean. National Democrats are on the air in 30 districts, and defending Democrats in just 3 races.

“For a midterm election in the sixth year, based on historically the number of seats lost, you’ve got to play defense,” said Carl Forti, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We have the luxury of being in the majority, so all we have to do is hold our own.”