DOWNLOADS: (128)

PLAYS: (1833)

Embed

When Republicans really screw the pooch and do something that hurts them with the electorate — and that happens a lot — they usually do one of two things: 1) blame the "media" or; 2) blame Democrats. And Wednesday night on Hardball, a Republican Congresswoman from Washington state picked option "2."

MATTHEWS: Let`s hear right now -- we have a couple points here. Congresswoman, what do you make of -- in Virginia -- by the way, Congresswoman, what do you make of the charge that Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, is making in her new fund-raising letter that there is, in fact, a war on women being waged by the Republicans?

RODGERS: The reality is, in 2010, the Republicans won the women`s vote. And the Democrats know that in order to win the presidency, in order to win the seats in the House and the Senate, that they have to scare women, that they have to win the women`s vote.

Damn those scary Democrats who are doing all those scary things like allowing employers to deny women birth control or mandating transvaginal ultrasounds or forcing women to watch abortions before they get one.

Oh wait — Republicans did all that. But Rodgers would have none of it.

RODGERS: The reality is, the Republicans won the women`s vote in 2010 and the Democrats know they have to win the women`s vote and that they are scared. These are scare tactics to scare women. And they have — they have often used the abortion...

MATTHEWS: Whose tactics are they? I`m just asking you, whose tactics are they? You say they`re Democratic tactics.

How did Democrats get Republicans legislators to make these proposals? How tricky are they, these Democrats? They get the Virginia legislature to bring up all this stuff on abortion. They get Santorum to talk up contraception. These Democrats are ventriloquists? How do they get the Republicans to say all this stuff? They are really masterful, I would say. I know I`m being sarcastic. But you know the evidence is a lot of right-wing social activists in your party are giving the Democrats catnip here, right? You`re admitting that.

MCMORRIS RODGERS: There are a lot of left-wing social activists that are also pushing their agenda in various legislators — legislatures, and here in Congress, the same thing.

Facepalm.

The Party of Personal Responsibility That Blames Everyone Else For Their Problems strikes again. Angry Black Lady has a brilliant but NSFW takedown here.

DOWNLOADS: (112)

PLAYS: (1116)

Embed

If you thought the wingnuts in Arizona can't get any crazier, you were wrong. Check out this statement by Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson):

"Personally I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a "surgical procedure." If it's not a life it shouldn't matter, if it doesn't harm a woman then she shouldn't care, and don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.

Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain - I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living - I will be voting YES."

But the War on Women is just an invention of the Democrats and the media to make conservatives look bad.

Proud should keep it up. With talk like this, she'll wind up with the Veep slot.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has absolutely no credibility left. On Thursday, this is what Nancy Brinker, Komen's CEO, told Andrea Mitchell.

BRINKER: In 2010, we set about creating excellence in our grants, not just in our community grants, but in our science grants, putting metrics, outcomes and measures to them. [...] Part of that includes taking these grants into communities and being excellent grant givers. Many of the grants we were doing with Planned Parenthood do not meet new standards of criteria for how we can measure our results and effectiveness in communities.

She went on to emphasize that this was the key reason the funding had been withdrawn -- and played down the fact that the GOP House was currently investigating Planned Parenthood.

But here's part of the statement she released Friday.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

So, what happened to those "measures" and "metrics" and "outcomes" Brinker was babbling about on Thursday?

Meanwhile, wingnuts are circulating this piece, which claims a Komen board member says they've haven't reversed themselves at all.

Following a new statement Komen for the Cure released making many observers believe the breast cancer charity reversed position on whether it would fund grants to Planned Parenthood, one Komen board member says it hasn’t caved.

Komen board member John Raffaelli talked with the Washington Post after the statement was released and said the new announcement doesn’t necessarily mean there is any reversal until and unless Planned Parenthood receives additional funding beyond what was already planned before Komen’s December decision.

Based on Komen's actions this week, does anyone have any confidence that they'll do the right thing now?

For Komen to regain any credibility at all, Brinker's got to go. And so does the other wingnut behind this.

DOWNLOADS: (155)

PLAYS: (1270)

Embed

If you're wondering why Komen, an organization supposedly dedicated to women's health, would withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood -- look no further than one Karen Handel.

As pro-choice supporters sound off over the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to pull grants to Planned Parenthood for funding breast-cancer screening and other breast health services, some have suggested a link between Tuesday's announcement and Komen's hiring of a self-described "pro-life Christian" last year to a prominent position within the foundation.

Karen Handel, a former secretary of state in Georgia and a Republican activist, was hired in April as vice president of public policy at the Dallas-based Komen. Handel was coming off an unsuccessful run for governor of Georgia during which she frequently called for an end to abortion.

Handel ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 as a right-wing Christian -- and was endorsed by none other than The Quitter and Jan Brewer. And during the campaign, she said:

Since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.

And check out this Tweet she recently promoted on her account -- then quickly deleted.

“Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.”

You can see the screengrab of the Tweet, here.

Classy lady.

What kind of woman supports Rick Santorum?

I've always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created— in the sense of rape—but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.

We don't know, so we had to imagine. Rick is still seen by some as a promising candidate, supportable by right wing fundamentalist leaders. This enthusiasm is only dampened by the fact that nobody outside of right wing fundamentalist leaders particularly gives a flying fuck about Rick Santorum.

But as his campaign flounders awkwardly along like—Oh, I dunno—a man-on-dog sexual pairing trying to jog mid-tryst, it's a good time to be reminded: There are piggish elements within our body politic who will always, always, always abuse women's rights for political gain. And that Rick Santorum's "google problem" was never just Dan Savage's brilliant gag, it has always been the things that he actually says and does.

Frothy lube may stain your futon, but Santorum stains the American political landscape—until such time as his well-established inability to win actual votes brings the Santorum slide to a messy end.

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (1253)

Embed

[Ed. Note: There's a whole lot more videos from the first NH debate over at our sister site, VideoCafe]

The Willard campaign and various right-wingers are annoyed that, during the Republican debate Saturday night, the candidates were asked whether they think states should be able to ban contraception. In particular, Willard's people are ticked about this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled --

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ... or a -- or a legislature of a state -- I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sure Congressman Paul...

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK, come on -- come on back...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?

ROMNEY: George, I -- I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to.I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no -- no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.

"Silly thing"? If it's so "silly" -- why do they keep bringing it up?

Rick Santorum, who placed a close second in the Iowa Caucuses, recently said:

“The state has a right to do that [ban contraception], I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

And Ron Paul, who's currently polling second in New Hampshire, has argued exactly the same thing.

Also, this isn't some esoteric legal abstraction. Two Southern states recently tried to ban certain forms of birth control.

At any rate, the Supreme Court case Romney's feigning ignorance about is Griswold v. Connecticut, and it served as a legal precedent for Roe. Which is why social conservatives like Santorum and Paul frequently attack it.

So why was Willard and Hugh Hewitt so irritated that George Stephanopoulos asked him that question?

Because Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to pander to the fundies, who are the shock troops of their party, but they know that New Hampshire is moderate on social issues -- and that this kind of talk is an absolute killer with independents nationally. In short, they know what fires up the snake handlers turns off everyone else -- including the Wall Street crowd.

So when they're backed into a corner, they strike this incredibly cowardly pose -- "States should absolutely have the right to do [x], but I don't think they should."

Funny how they don't take that approach to gay marriage, isn't it?

This is a terrific, upbeat, positive ad for Democrat Scott McAdams, who is a far better choice for Alaska Senator than Joe Miller. It introduces him, gives some background, and portrays him as a "regular guy." Spread the word.

The Washington Note

Since the White House has made noises about wanting a UN Ambassador before the United Nations' session opens in September, they've created a phony pretext for the recess appointment -- the time demand -- when in actuality they've spent the whole summer running out the clock.

The Record, a New Jersey paper, has a superb editorial on Bush's "snubbing the Senate" if he recess appoints John Bolton:

He couldn't do it the right way, so President Bush is apparently about to make John Bolton ambassador to the United Nations the wrong way - in what's known as a recess appointment.
It's a sign of defeat, since Mr. Bush couldn't get his choice confirmed, even by a Republican-controlled Senate.

It's a president's prerogative to recess appoint, but has there ever been a case where one has done it after the Senate has so clearly, and so effectively, done its job of advice and consent? When an appointed Bolton would go to New York under not one cloud, but several, what better evidence is there that the Article II nomination process worked?

But his reputation precedes him, and he could have very little influence at the United Nations. That may be a good thing in this case, but it deprives the United States of a strong and credible voice at the world body at a crucial time. A world summit will be held at the United Nations headquarters in September. A respected ambassador can accomplish a great deal, including pressing for substantive internal reform.

The Record, a New Jersey paper, has a superb editorial on Bush's "snubbing the Senate" if he recess appoints John Bolton:

He couldn't do it the right way, so President Bush is apparently about to make John Bolton ambassador to the United Nations the wrong way - in what's known as a recess appointment.
It's a sign of defeat, since Mr. Bush couldn't get his choice confirmed, even by a Republican-controlled Senate.

It's a president's prerogative to recess appoint, but has there ever been a case where one has done it after the Senate has so clearly, and so effectively, done its job of advice and consent? When an appointed Bolton would go to New York under not one cloud, but several, what better evidence is there that the Article II nomination process worked?

But his reputation precedes him, and he could have very little influence at the United Nations. That may be a good thing in this case, but it deprives the United States of a strong and credible voice at the world body at a crucial time. A world summit will be held at the United Nations headquarters in September. A respected ambassador can accomplish a great deal, including pressing for substantive internal reform.

wrote a few weeks ago on the consequences of having a UN Ambassador with so little political support from his own country. Congress has long played an integral role in the United States' relationship to the UN; thus, thwarting the Senate to send up an illegitimate ambassador is exactly the wrong way to begin a UN reform program.

The Record concludes:

All the controversy apparently hasn't fazed Mr. Bolton. The Washington Post reported recently that he has asked to have the State Department office used by U.N. ambassadors doubled in size - because he expects to spend more time in Washington and less time at the United Nations than his predecessors.
If he wants to stay in Washington that badly, he should find another job.
- StygiusSuzanne Nossel wrote a few weeks ago on the consequences of having a UN Ambassador with so little political support from his own country. Congress has long played an integral role in the United States' relationship to the UN; thus, thwarting the Senate to send up an illegitimate ambassador is exactly the wrong way to begin a UN reform program.

The Record concludes:

All the controversy apparently hasn't fazed Mr. Bolton. The Washington Post reported recently that he has asked to have the State Department office used by U.N. ambassadors doubled in size - because he expects to spend more time in Washington and less time at the United Nations than his predecessors.
If he wants to stay in Washington that badly, he should find another job.
- Stygius

The reasons are many, not the least of which is age. I turned 55 recently and, having lived more than half my life, I can't afford to worry anymore about the other guy. It's time for me.

As a Republican, I can now proudly -- indeed, defiantly -- pledge to never again vote for anyone who raises taxes for any reason. To hell with roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, Medicare, Social Security and regulation of the airwaves.

President Bush has promised to give me more tax cuts even though our federal government owes trillions of dollars to its creditors. But that's someone else's problem, not mine. Republicans are about the here and now, and I'm here now.

As a Republican, I can favor exploiting the environment for everything she's got. No need to worry about quaint notions like posterity and natural legacy. There are plenty of resources left for everyone, and if we don't use them, someone else will.

I want a party that doesn't worry about things before we have to. Republicans refuse to get hog-tied by theories such as global warming, ozone depletion, fished-out oceans and disappearing wetlands. The real problems -- if there are any -- aren't forecast to take hold for at least 50 years. So what do I care? I'll be dead.

God is Pro-Choice

via Seeing the Forest

If you believe in free will, God is pro-choice. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that suggests anything to the contrary. If you accept the concept of free will, then allowing individual choice is a requirement for allowing people to choose between Satan or God. Free will is at the crux of the abortion debate. Martin Luthur broke from the Catholic Church over the issue of free will in his essay, Concerning Christian Liberty. The Catholic Church rejected the idea that God's grace removes freedom from the human will at The Council of Trent. read on