The Caterpillars Are Winning
I’ve written before about the “Republican War on Women”. It’s a meme, to be sure, but one that seems to have some stickiness or even truthiness to it, because key Republicans keep doing things that are so gloriously tone-deaf.
Instead of concentrating on jobs, the Republicans in the House concentrated on sex. House committees investigating the conflict between women’s previously established right to contraceptive services and the desires of the Catholic Church refused to hear testimony from women. When Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi held shadow committee meeting with Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testifying, de facto Republican spokesman Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut”.
Faced with the ensuing controversy, Republican National Committee chairman called the idea of a “Republican War on Women” a false and pervasive meme, likening it to a mythical “War on Caterpillars”. Regardless of what he meant, the caterpillars were enraged.
Even a Nixon-appointed Federal judge failed to see the sense in a suit filed by several states’ Republican Attorneys General which advanced the argument of Federal “coercion” to drive women towards contraception that they did not want and were morally opposed to. I’ve written before how the provision of contraceptive services is required by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, not by some imagined special feature of Obamacare. Yet, that hasn’t stopped Congressional Republicans from wrapping themselves in the flag and carrying the cross before them. Sometimes their religious zeal has outstripped their common sense.
Freshman Representative Kevin Yoder (R-Overland Park, KS) went on an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored trip (supposedly for Congressional fact-finding). I’ve never been compelled to disrobe when visiting the holiest religious sites on Earth. That’s why I find it hard to explain why Yoder apparently thinks that mixed-gender skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee is a damn fine idea. He has a 100 percent solid voting record from National Right to Life, including votes against Planned Parenthood funding. His moral rectitude was evident for all to see, along with his primary sexual characteristics. By current standards, Yoder is also more fiscally conservative than the average Republican; his fiscal combined DW-NOMINATE is +0.574, significantly to the right of the average +0.478.
(Note that the DW-NOMINATE scores listed in this article are combined, meaning they use the scale designed to be used between the House and Senate; these numbers appear to be more moderate than the separate DW-NOMINATE scores used with just the House, but it’s just a different scale, and they are therefore not comparable to the scores we have used in previous articles. Why do we use the combined scale here? Because the separate-scale numbers have yet to be published for the 112th Congress.)
Republican Vice-Presidential candidate and House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan (R-Janesville, WI) voted for a Federal-level “personhood” amendment. (I’ve written before about these amendments, which would ban any contraceptive medication or procedure that acts after conception, and may well make each miscarriage a potential homicide to be investigated.) Like Yoder, he voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Like Yoder, Ryan is more fiscally conservative than the average Republican; his combined fiscal DW-NOMINATE is +0.567.
Women’s advocacy groups, such as Emily’s List, reacted to Ryan’s candidacy with predictable outrage.
Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg shot back:
This is a desperate attempt by President Obama’s allies to distract from his failed economic policies, which have been particularly devastating to women. Hundreds of thousands of women have lost their jobs; poverty among women is highest in nearly two decades; and half of recent graduates can’t find a good job. Middle-class families have struggled in the Obama economy, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan to strengthen the middle class and get our country back on the right track.
Now cometh Missouri Representative Todd Akin (R-Wildwood, MO), who (at least until yesterday) was favored to win over incumbent Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, with a five-point Akin advantage in the Real Clear Politics average (with the usual sparse polling data). For example, in Michael’s latest Senate Watch, he rates the Missouri Senate race as “Leans Republican”. Akin is an engineer and a member of the House Science Committee. He’s leveraged that position to invent a new system of human reproductive biology, claiming that women who are raped release Magic Unicorn Dust from their ovaries which stops conception in its tracks:
It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [conception from rape is] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.
Confronted with the rank stupidity of this remark, Akin’s campaign website tried to walk back the quote but failed to follow The First Rule of Holes. His campaign released a statement, which reads in full:
As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.
I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.
But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.
Instead of admitting he just Made Stuff Up, he claims he merely failed to capture his empathetic spirit in his remarks.
Akin’s combined DW-NOMINATE is +0.623, to the right of Reps. Ryan and Yoder.

DW-NOMINATE scores for the 112th Congress. I’ve also left in Poole’s original plot of the numerical locations of Rep. Pelosi, Pres. Obama, Vice-Pres. Biden, and Vice-Pres. candidate Rep. Paul Ryan. Source: voteview.com
To give the reader an idea of where these three Republican House members stand relative to their colleagues, here’s a graph by DW-NOMINATE developer Keith Poole which he posted on his blog. All three of these caterpillar-hating Representatives lie well to the right of the mean Republican House member, which puts them amongst the most conservative politicians in the country. It would seem, based on this evidence, that hating caterpillars is highly correlated with DW-NOMINATE.
President Obama has a 14-point lead among women in Virginia, a 23-point lead among women in Wisconsin, and an eight-point lead among women in Colorado, according to an August 8 Quinnipiac/CBS/New York Times poll. I don’t know what the President’s lead among caterpillars in swing states is. But based on what I’m seeing here, I’m thinking Reince Priebus might want to take another look at that caterpillar problem he’s having.
Related articles
- Concerned Women For America Mocks Sandra Fluke (huffingtonpost.com)
- State Drops All Charges Against Planned Parenthood (huffingtonpost.com)
- How Not to Figure Out Republicans (esquire.com)
- GOP Senate nominee: Women don’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ rapes (rawstory.com)
- Missouri Republican: ‘Legitimate rape’ rarely causes pregnancy (firstread.nbcnews.com)
- What Happens Next on Akin (thepage.time.com)
- Is Todd Akin Toast In Missouri? (decoded.nationaljournal.com)

This entry was posted by Monotreme on August 20, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
@Max… They have passed bill after bill, introduced legislation after
legislation, nationally and locally, on social issues AND ALMOST
NOTHING on jobs and the economy! It why many people are talking about
the “war on women”…Indeed. All this abortion/contraception/ women’s issues/immigration/ birther/ vote suppression stuff has such an odd feel to me. We see so many high-profile Republicans getting in trouble with the establishment not for what they believe, but for saying it out loud. And yet the act of saying it out loud tends to wins that person increased noisy support from the base.
The GOP increasingly reminds me of a once stuffy and respected couple on the verge of total breakup and divorce, where everybody in the whole dysfunctional extended family has taken sides and fixed positions, and are so wrapped up in their internecine warfare that they no longer care what they say to people on the outside, how bad it looks or what the neighborhood thinks of them. It’s just degenerated into messy public warfare, an attempt by each faction to grab what they can before the end comes, and continual airing of the family’s private business and dirty laundry.
It’s really kind of embarrassing to watch… but also fascinating enough that it’s hard to look away.
-
#103 written by Mule Rider 10 months ago
So, in post #99, we get Max reading the minds of EVERY Republican out there, assuring us that HE KNOWS what they’re really thinking, even if it’s completely orthogonal to what most are saying on the matter.…and then he closes with a tidy little Nazi reference.
And you people think I’m the one who’s gone off the rails and is unhinged??? This site has truly become one of the most despicable blogs on the internet. You guys make the freepers look tame, by comparison. I’ve never seen such a uniqute collection of hate-spewing jackals.
-
So here’s an interesting question posed by a liberal commenter over at NRO…
If Akin were running unopposed, how many Republicans would be wringing their hands and calling for his resignation?
What do you guys think? If Akin was certain to win the seat, would they still dump him for “damaging the brand” by saying out loud what lots of them actually believe? Or would they just “tut-tut” a bit, give him a little slap on the wrist and then carry on as usual?
-
#105 written by Mule Rider 10 months ago
“It’s really kind of embarrassing to watch… but also fascinating enough that it’s hard to look away.”
Precisely my takeaway when I read this site after something like this when a guy like Akin makes a despicable comment and is roundly criticized, yet somehow the members of this site are so cock-sure in their ability to read the minds of millions of people (and that it MUST align with what this scumbag said) with a Nazi reference thrown in for extra credit.
Max knows exactly what he’s saying too. This isn’t an innocent man fumbling his words; he knows what he’s implying by linking Republicans to the Nazi Party because he knows how the Nazi Party is looked upon through the lens of history. He knows that many in the Nazi leadership were put to death for their heinous acts and despicable crimes. No, it’s quite clear just where Max is taking this. He wants to draw a line to the Nazi Party so a case can be made that Republicans should be considered worthy of execution. Max’ bloodlust on behalf of his own ideological insanity is unquenchable. Folks, you just got a peek at the incredibly sickening and perverse mind of a bloodthirsty leftist extremist who is willing to pursue having the state pursue execution of his ideological opponents. And his cohorts tacitly endorse this mindnumblingly atrocious stance by silently agreeing or disagreeing but impotently standing in the shadows and doing nothing.
Wow, just wow. This might be a low point for this site. An. Absolute. Low.
-
-
#107 written by shortchain 10 months ago
filistro,
They’d still be unhappy, because, although his particular style of social conservatism plays well in the particular region, nationally it brings undue examination of just how closely it aligns with the national party. Which, today, will be voting (to approve, I suspect) a “personhood begins at conception” plank for their platform. -
@shortchain… although his particular style of social conservatism plays well in
the particular region, nationally it brings undue examination of
just how closely it aligns with the national party.But isn’t that totally bizarre? It’s like… “Don’t look at what we’re actually doing here. Just listen to what we’re saying. Better yet… hey, look at that shiny thing over there!”
Do they think people are absolutely stupid?
-
#109 written by shortchain 10 months ago
filistro,
I don’t think that the GOP thinks people are absolutely stupid. They probably think a lot of people are either ignorant, uncaring, or obsessed about one particular issue (“abortion”, “gun rights”, “entitlements”) — whether they’re stupid or not in addition doesn’t matter.According to Public Policy Polling, 21 percent of Missouri voters polled either agreed, agreed somewhat, or disagreed only somewhat with what Akin said. This is in addition to the 20 percent of female voters polled (and 13 percent of male voters) who weren’t familiar with his comments (!). So the GOP has got some grounds for their beliefs about the electorate.
-
-
#111 written by Max 10 months ago
Mule,
In re: #103. You are cordially invited to quote the passage from #99 wherein I stated “every” Republican. Since I know you can’t, are you man enough to admit your error and apologize for TRYING to put words into my writings that I did not? Because I specifically stated “the national GOP”. Those folks who are trying to maximize their gains this November. And as to whether or not there is a “hidden” agenda, I’ll let the events in the GOP controlled legislative bodies since January 2011 speak for themselves, when compared with their statement prior to November 2010.
In re: #105. If you knew your shit even 1⁄10 as well as your opinion of yourself, you would know there is NO, repeat “NO”, reference to Nazi’s in that comment, though you again, through ignorance, attempt to add words I did not use to draw a conclusion I did not imply. Your ability to infer wrongly, in an attempt to force your own conclusion, is surpassed only by rgbact. I’ll give you some time to discover the error of your snot-slinging bullshit analysis and maybe restate your objection in actual, truthful terms.
I have doubts that you have either the maturity, or the wherewithal to do so.
You have the choice of the path we walk.
-
Max… I always kind of love it when you say “snot-slinging.”
I grew up on a prairie ranch where we maintained a big herd of Brahma bucking bulls that we contracted out to rodeos. I know exactly what an enraged bull looks like when he’s gotten himself worked up enough to be in “snot-slinging” mode.
It’s a truly vivid (and apt) figure of speech… and it makes me kind of homesick
-
#113 written by shortchain 10 months ago
filistro,
If Akin remains within striking distance in the polling, the national GOP and Rove, et al, will certainly go in for him. No question.If he sinks more than about 7 points, expect them to stand by and let him sink.
BTW, I expect yet more out of this guy. Does anyone imagine that a person this ignorant will have only one bizarre and unfathomably stupid idea rattling around in his head? All it will take is one fairly good interviewer, and we’ll likely get treated to yet another example. I note that Missouri is right in the middle of the current severe drought zone. Ask him about climate change, somebody!
-
shortchain… you are quite right to expect more from Todd Akin, who will continue to amaze and delight you. This guy has been flying under the radar thus far, but now we will surely be hanging on his every word. (About an hour ago he explained to radio host Dana Loesch that when he discussed the legitimacy of rape, he really was referring to “false rape”… a concept which he then went on to helpfully elucidate.)
And if you have the stomach for it, here is a brief compendium of some of Todd Akin’s greatest hits.
I suspect the dude is going to be the gift that keeps on giving
-
Also for shortchain…
From Todd Akin’s congressional website, his view on the environment:
By any objective standard, the environment is cleaner and healthier
today than at anytime in recent history. Much of the progress the
country has made in maintaining and improving our environment is
directly attributable to an increased standard of living. Increased
prosperity, fueled in large part by the relatively low tax and
regulatory environment of the United States, has enabled us to balance
environmental protection with personal empowerment – allowing more
people to enjoy the beauty of a diverse land. -
Max,
I am of the opinion that the ENTIRE reason the national GOP is pissing their pants over the Akin thing is, not that they disagree with him, but because HE LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG! He leaked the party secret.
I’m afraid you’re missing the forest for the trees on this one. In the absence of hard facts (and sometimes, but less often, even in the presence of them), people naturally fill the gaps with their desired outcomes.
In the case of abortion, those who are opposed in all instances tend to fill in the nuanced gaps with their own beliefs. Therefore, it benefits the party for the nuanced gaps to remain gaps. Statements like Akin’s can do nothing but harm by removing the gaps that people filled in on their own. To those whose opinions he already matched, there is no change, but to those whose opinions he differs, it reduces support for the party.
But this is a far cry from the position that the party as a whole agrees with his sentiment. It’s more like they don’t want to discuss the areas of difference, choosing instead to focus on areas of commonality (e.g., reverse Roe v Wade).
-
shortchain,
Look at what you said here:According to Public Policy Polling, 21 percent of Missouri voters polled either agreed, agreed somewhat, or disagreed only somewhat with what Akin said. This is in addition to the 20 percent of female voters polled (and 13 percent of male voters) who weren’t familiar with his comments (!). So the GOP has got some grounds for their beliefs about the electorate.
Based on what you said eighty percent strongly disagreed with Akin. It’s rare to find something that 80% of the electorate agree on strongly. Doesn’t sound to me like the Republican Party has reason to be pleased with this.
-
If Akin was certain to win the seat, would they still dump him for “damaging the brand” by saying out loud what lots of them actually believe?
I think it’s more than his own seat that’s at stake. As you and Max pointed out, he’s let the cat out of the bag. Of course, anyone who has been paying attention knows it anyway — since getting into power, Republicans have done not one thing to create jobs or improve the economy. They’ve instead concentrated on social issues (abortion and women’s health, mostly, but also immigration) and on trying to hold on to power and extend it (the vote suppression efforts across the nation).
Oh, and on using the poor economy as an excuse to cut jobs programs and to extort cuts in social programs. They’ve pushed a tax-cut agenda that is designed to help the very wealthiest at the expense of everyone else — right-wing class warfare.
As I said, anyone who’s been watching has seen this. Republicans, however, have been counting on no one paying attention. People like Akin bring their true agenda to the forefront — they don’t care about jobs (or they’d be passing jobs bills) or about balancing the budget (or they wouldn’t have walked away from President Obama’s offer for $4 trillion in deficit cuts). What they do care about is restricting abortions, deregulating banks, taking away health care, and giving money to the military that even the military isn’t asking for.
Akins is dangerous for the Republican Party because his association with Ryan shows that this goes all through the Republican Party, not just being isolated to one nut case. It shows the ugliness Republicans will enact into law if they ever get the chance. Akins is dangerous because he shows what the Republican Party is really all about — and America is bound to recoil in horror at the sight.
-
#119 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#120 written by Mule Rider 10 months ago
-
Here is the proposed language for the 2012 Republican Party Platform on abortion.
Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of
Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the
unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be
infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and
endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s
protections apply to unborn children.Make of it what you wish. You can find a comparison between the 2004 and 2008 planks on abortion here.
-
#123 written by Max 10 months ago
Michael,
What you said in paragraph 2 of #116.
Otherwise, your attempts at rational consideration as a deflection in the face of slight hyperbole is NOT appreciated!!! Next thing, you’ll be arguing that because we do not have actual photos of mucus flying from Mule’s nostrils, my use of “snot-slinging” is also inaccurate! ;-) Talk to him, fili!
Notwithstanding that, we are willing to let the actual events of the past 24 months stand as empirical evidence of my general point.
-
… Increased prosperity, fueled in large part by the relatively low tax and regulatory environment of the United States,…
It’s nice to see even a nutball like Akin admitting that the United States already has a “low tax and regulatory environment,” even though he assigns it magical powers it does not have. Perhaps we can stop pretending anyone actually beleives the United States has high taxes or heavy regulation.
-
-
#126 written by rgbact 10 months ago
“Doesn’t sound to me like the Republican Party has reason to be pleased with this”
If 80% disagree with Akin’s statement but only 60% disagree with McKaskill’s vote for Obamacare.….I think Akin is in fine shape when it comes to a battle of who do you despise more.
Akin will still win this race. This stuff is blog fodder,but doesn’t affect races drastically. Heck, Anthony Weiner was still beloved in his district. Sharron Angle said wackier stuff and still almost beat the Senate Majority Leader. McKaskill is toast.
-
#128 written by rgbact 10 months ago
-
I think rgb has a point. Akin has plummeted to 43 cents now at Intrade, and he might be a pretty good buy at that price. They REALLY hate Obama/McCaskill… and there are lots of guys in Missouri like this Freeper who posted a few minutes ago:
I am a native Oklahoman, now a Missouri resident. It is ONLY for the
people of Missouri and Mr. Akin to decide his fate — NOT persons outside
of Missouri that don’t vote here. I sent him a donation this morning to
encourage him to stay in, because he is genuienly pro-life…not just a
lip service only pro-lifer.And now that he has shown the COURAGE to stay, I will send him more
money. I am certain that REAL Conservatives throughout Missouri will do
the same. BTW — The only REAL conservatives are those that are
moral/social conservatives first. The rest of you are just posers.I am confident he will win the Missouri Senate race. Also, I think a
great many in Missouri are like me in deeply resenting Scott Brown of
Mass. having the audacity to tell a Missouri conservative to step down.
IT CERTAINLY GOT ME TO SUPPORT AKIN!I originally supported Steelman in the primary because of Palin’s
endorsement. However, with the viciousness of the attacks on Akin…I’m
glad he won, and I WILL support him. I’m pretty much now sick of Palin
and won’t follow any endorsement by her anymore. Conservative is as
conservative does. Sarah, and a horrific number on FR, have stopped
being conservative.….they are CINOs.Unlike some here on FR that promised to oppose Romney (and other
phoney CINOs) to the bitter end.…I am a man of my word and cannot be
swayed. Supporting Akin is just another way to support real conservatism. -
-
#131 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#132 written by shortchain 10 months ago
Michael,
It’s a glass 20 percent full versus 80 percent empty. That matters particularly when the glass contains pure, unadulterated wacko-juice, as Akin does.Personally, I’m aghast at both that 20 percent half-agree with Akin’s comments and that 20 percent of the women voters hadn’t heard about it by the time the poll was taken.
Actually, I rather mispoke — it’s only 65 percent who strongly disapprove of his statement. You really should go look at the crosstabs yourself. I’m too busy today to do a good job. (Not that I’m claiming to do a good job if I weren’t.)
-
as Bill Clinton proved, voters can forgive almost any “lapse of judgement”
Akin may or may not win his particular race. But to call his insanity, lack of humanity, and absence of reason a “lapse of judgement” — and to compare it to a personal peccadillo — well that’s just so Republican.
Conservatives seem to have no realistic sense of proportion, perspective, or context. Or at least, they pretend not to.
It’s the old false equivalence, tu quoque argument — which is the only defense they have for their inability to comprehend the real world.
-
filistro,
And if you have the stomach for it, here is a brief compendium of some of Todd Akin’s greatest hits.
TPM may be making mountains out of molehills. At least, that’s how I read it. On the other hand, the Washington Examiner is now suggesting that Akin was handed the primary by…the Democratic Party. How? By a double-backwards-psych-out move! It’s an accusation that, from what I can tell, is too clever by half.
-
#135 written by Mule Rider 10 months ago
“Conservatives seem to have no realistic sense of proportion, perspective, or context. Or at least, they pretend not to.
It’s the old false equivalence, tu quoque argument — which is the only defense they have for their inability to comprehend the real world.”
Thanks for not generalizing or being condescending for a change. Much appreciated.
-
shortchain,
It’s a glass 20 percent full versus 80 percent empty. That matters particularly when the glass contains pure, unadulterated wacko-juice, as Akin does.
Ahh, but it isn’t. The portion of the glass that contains pure, unadulterated wacko-juice is a mere six percent. That’s how many strongly agreed with him. Once you start getting into the muddled middle, where the “somewhat” 26% reside, you’re left having to live in the world of interpretation. Why would someone “somewhat agree” or “somewhat disagree” with him? What was the question that they were asked?
This past weekend, Todd Akin said that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape, because, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the
female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Akin’s comments?Might someone “somewhat agree” or “somewhat disagree” because they agree that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, but not for the reason he stipulated? Or perhaps because they agree that it should be illegal, but believe that there should be exceptions? It’s a much messier sort of world in that muddled middle.
I’m aghast … that 20 percent of the women voters hadn’t heard about it by the time the poll was taken.
Why? It was barely a day since he had made the statement, and (I know it’s hard for you to imagine) most people are focused on things other than politics, particularly since it’s not yet October. I’m actually surprised it was as many as 80% that had heard about it within a day. Within a week, sure. But we’re talking just one day.
-
#137 written by Max 10 months ago
State Rep. Freind (PA), 1988, said “that women possess a “certain secretion” that kills sperm. ”
State Rep. Henry Aldridge (NC), 1995, said “the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant,”
State Rep. Fay Boozeman (AR), 1998, running for Senate against Blanche Lincoln, said, “pregnancy resulting from rape was rare, because of ‘God’s little shield,’”
So why no outcry by the national GOP over THOSE? Why didn’t they practically piss their pants and fall all over each other giving each of them a beatdown? There was even a Senate seat at stake! Well, let’s see:
None occurred in a presidential election year, where the discourse is NOT going the GOP candidates way.
Paul Ryan was not in a VP slot, having voted for and sponsored “Personhood Amendment” or “Forcible Rape” exclusion for abortions and thus could be tied to the craziness?
We didn’t have the legislative history then as we have had the most recent 24 months.Hmmmmm. Sound suspicious to anyone else? Or am I the only one seeing the discrepancy here?
-
@Max… So why no outcry by the national GOP over THOSE?
Because this, as you say, is a very different year. Republicans are desperate to win the White House and the Senate this year. For one thing, they truly believe that if Obama gets another term it will be “the end of America as we know it.” I don’t know why they feel such dramatic urgency over this since Obama really looks pretty moderate to me, but there you are. Even intelligent, thoughtful, high profile conservative pundits say this kind of thing when they are at their own blogs, among friends. They are also desperate to win the Senate so they can “stop Obamacare” which will also, if allowed to become law, mean the end of America as we know it. Again, kind of baffling, but they honestly believe this stuff.And yet here in the midst of the “most vitally important presidential election of our lifetime” (they say that all the time) they have somehow been bamboozled by those evil scheming Democrats into grasping the first “third rail”… Social Security… by naming Paul Ryan as veep. And now they have been further tricked into grasping the second “third rail”… abortion… by those devilishly clever Democrats who somehow got Todd Akin to win the primary and then made him go on to display the splintery underside of the Republican party platform for all to see.
So you can’t totally blame them for their general mass freakout. It’s a really, really scary time to be an elephant.
-
Max,
Freind made his statement in a debate. State audience.
Aldridge made his statement to the state House Appropriations committee. The audience was a very small subset of the state.
Boozeman made his statement at a political rally. State audience, and a relatively small one of political friendlies at that.Akin made his statement on a Sunday talk show. Big national audience, particularly among political wonks. There’s the discrepancy.
-
I think both Michael and filistro are right. Akin poured his crazy juice on national television, in a vital year when things were not going the Republicans’ way, a year in which the Republicans are engaged in a no-holds-barred total-warfare kind of campaign.
Added to that, for once the Republicans are not united. There is a life-or-death struggle going on for the soul of the Republican Party. Akin is not wanted by the Republican establishment, but is loved by the insurgents. The question is whether his off-the-wall wackiness is to become the totality of Republican mainstream. It would mean McConnell and Boehner have to fear for their jobs, and it would mean half of the American political machine is hanging over a cliff.
By the way, the anti-choice plank in the Republican platform is starting to be called the Akin Amendment.
Meanwhile, we’re spending yet another day not talking about the things the Romney campaign wants to talk about. Regardless of what happens to Akin, this is a bad day for Romney.
-
And let us not forget that Akin is still digging that hole.
-
#142 written by dawolf 10 months ago
“
Hannity interrupted Akin, pointing out the poll Akin referenced — conducted by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling — appeared to have oversampled Republicans. “Coincidence, or a very very clever politician asking PPP to produce a result likely to keep Akin in the race?
For instance, “PPP, here’s some money, but in this survey can you just look at landlines please, and not do any work on mobiles?” -
#143 written by Max 10 months ago
MW,
Actually, Akin made his statement on a local St Louis Fox station, KTVI. Not a national Sunday talk show. The Hannity and Huckabee appearances were follow-ups attempting to repair the damage.
But your observation is irrelevant, or perhaps confirms, as to my point. Which is: It’s NOT the message that these GOP figures are talking, it’s the timing of a national presidential campaign that attracts the unwanted attention, thus the hue and cry.
-
I pointed out that every day we talk about Akin is a day we’re not talking about Romney. When we finally do get around to talking about Romney, I’m convinced that will be a Bad Day for Romney as well.
If you look at the economic plans that Romney and/or Ryan have proposed, they don’t add up. They are clearly fantasies at best — and to even get to the fantasy stage, you have to cut around 60% of everything that isn’t Medicare, Social Security, and the Military (which Romney and Ryan promise they won’t touch) while also slashing taxes for the extremely wealthy while increasing taxes for the rest of us.
The Romney/Ryan economic talking points are clearly intended as nonsense propaganda. They aren’t going to do what they are claiming they will do, and it will be simple to present them with a clear dilemma — either admit they’re lying about what they intend to do, or admit they’re living in an alternate universe where math works differently. Or admit neither, and look like total fools.
Akin may be supplying Bad Days for the Republican Party and for Willard Romney, but it’s just putting off the inevitable.
-
Max,
Actually, Akin made his statement on a local St Louis Fox station, KTVI. Not a national Sunday talk show.
I stand corrected. The timing led me to believe it was on one of the nationals. Then filistro is probably right on the money, which brings us to:
my point … is: It’s NOT the message that these GOP figures are talking, it’s the timing of a national presidential campaign that attracts the unwanted attention, thus the hue and cry.
Certainly that has a lot to do with it. The stakes are higher in Presidential election years, and the national messaging is commensurately more important. Do you think there’s something wrong with this?
-
dawolf,
Coincidence, or a very very clever politician asking PPP to produce a result likely to keep Akin in the race?
For instance, “PPP, here’s some money, but in this survey can you just look at landlines please, and not do any work on mobiles?”Well, not unless they lied about it. From the poll details:
This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization.
-
#147 written by Max 10 months ago
Michael,
From an established GOP political strategy standpoint: absolutely NOT!!! I would be doing the same!!
But it’s like a loud, stinky fart at a dinner party. The damage is done and spraying the air freshener is only a cover-up! A false outrage, pretending this is a sudden and remarkable departure from the GOP norm, creates the dis-ingeniousness that must be pointed out.
The hostess served the bean dip! Just because she is spraying the air freshener does not absolve her of the reason the guest passed the gas. She should have had the Beano out when the dip was served!!!
-
#148 written by Armchair Warlord 10 months ago
dc,
I’m assuming Paul Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act — in fact, as the primary GOP House budget wonk he presumably wrote most of the damn thing.
Paul Ryan is directly responsible for the biggest defense cut since Clinton, one which has already done serious damage to American military readiness. We’re in the process of laying off seventy thousand active-duty Soldiers — many of whom have put in years on the battlefield fighting for their country and who want to continue their Army careers — right now because of his idiotic debt ceiling fight.
And the GOP disingenuously claims it won’t touch the military? How about they put some money where their mouths are and work to reverse the cuts they have already forced through? Because we’re $600 billion dollars short of our “healthy” funding level (in quotes because we needed about that much more to get really healthy) right now and people are probably going to die unnecessarily at some point because of it.
-
#149 written by rgbact 10 months ago
“Coincidence, or a very very clever politician asking PPP to produce a result likely to keep Akin in the race?”
If true,you’re basically confirming PPP is nothing more than an arm of the DNC. Maybe true, but I think that means we can toss out all their other polling too since its clear they just change their samples to get results they want. Its amazing you think thats “clever”
Anyway, I susect there are more GOP voters in MO,so oversampling them doesn’t seem out of line.
-
#151 written by dawolf 10 months ago
@rgbact: “Its amazing you think thats “clever””
I consider Karl Rove a clever politician. Try reading Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Your logic paths are weird btw. Let’s break down the other part of your paragraph:
“If true,”
IF
“you’re basically confirming PPP is nothing more than an arm of the DNC.”
Remember that IF from two words ago?“Maybe true,”
Back to a MAYBE
“but I think that means we can toss out all their other polling too since its clear they just change their samples to get results they want”
Eh? How does an IF, a MAYBE etc turn into a declarative last sentence of ditch the lot of them?
As I said at the beginning, weird logic path. BTW, I’d have said that whoever did the poll, the fact it was PPP had no bearing. Just that a poll that kept Akin in the race was good for both the Democrats and Akin, and bad for the RNC.
(how it can be good for both the Democrats & Akin btw: because the game has not reached it’s conclusion yet. The Democrats chances of picking up Missouri have increased, and clearly Akin has a non-zero chance of winning the state whereas if he’d pulled out that chance would have been zero. Right now that result is therefore good for both, after the election it will collapse into being good for one of them)
-
#152 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Dawolf–
Please don’t go all “it depends on the meaning of the word is” on me.You
stated how “clever” it was for a Dem politician to be working with a
presumably friendly pollster to produce favorable results to her
goals.…and not reflect true accurate polling. That is a serious
charge, and I don’t find it “clever” that the current leading pollster
is producing results biased to favor Democrats.Karl Rove isn’t a politician, he’s a political consultant/fundraiser.
-
#153 written by dawolf 10 months ago
rgbact, I chose my words very precisely in the first place. Not my fault that you are assigning meanings to them that simply aren’t there. I’m unsure how you are so definite about things btw — “I don’t find it “clever” that the current leading pollster is producing results biased to favor Democrats. ” — what evidence of this do you have? My hypothetical? Please, tell me you have more than a hypothetical from a Brit to base your belief on…
Karl Rove is a politician btw. From 1 minutes googling(can’t be bothered to research further for something so elementary) “A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Greek “polis”) is someone who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making.”, “ One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.”, “One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.”
Other examples of politicians are the aforementioned Machiavelli, or a current one is Grover Norquist.
You don’t have to be elected to be a politician.
-
#154 written by rgbact 10 months ago
“Please, tell me you have more than a hypothetical from a Brit to base your belief on…”
What hypothetical? You’re the one that noted PPP is a Dem polling firm and used the term “clever”. The implication was pretty clear,so don’t call me crazy for seeing things. So do you or do you not believe PPP intentionally produced a poll showing Akin leading when in reality he is not? If they did,do you beleive it was done intentionally to keep Akin from dropping out? And if yes. do you or do you not think thats “clever”?
You don’t have to be elected to be a politician.
I guess not. Seems I’ actually may be a politician. Definitely alot more people are politicians than I thought. I still don’t think Rove qualifies.
-
#155 written by dawolf 10 months ago
-
#156 written by dawolf 10 months ago
“do you or do you not believe PPP intentionally produced a poll showing Akin leading when in reality he is not?”
I do not. It was a hypothetical.
“If they did, do you beleive it was done intentionally to keep Akin from dropping out?”
IF they did, then I think a clear motivation would be to keep him in. That could be from anyone who wanted Akin to stay in btw, which isn’t just the Democrats“And if yes. do you or do you not think thats “clever”? ”
IF yes, then I would consider it a clever move, yes. Morally dubious, not something I would advocate, but clever. The same way I consider many of the things Rove has done pretty despicable, but clever. The same way I think swift-boating Kerry was despicable but, as it worked, successful in its aims and clever.
-
Armchair,
I’m assuming Paul Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act
A safe assumption. He did.
as the primary GOP House budget wonk he presumably wrote most of the damn thing.
I don’t know that anyone outside of those directly involved know how much of it was his doing, but it’s safe to assume that he was pretty heavily involved. That makes it particularly hard to buy his crocodile tears about the chickens coming home to roost on that deal.
Because we’re $600 billion dollars short of our “healthy” funding level (in quotes because we needed about that much more to get really healthy) right now and people are probably going to die unnecessarily at some point because of it.
Perhaps. How many people do you think will die unnecessarily from it? Order of magnitude would be sufficient.
-
rgbact,
I think that means we can toss out all their other polling too
No, you don’t. You already thought all their other polling should be tossed out (I know this, because you said so weeks ago). You think this even if this poll was a coincidence. To pretend that this was the magic tipping point stretches the bounds of credulity well beyond the breaking point.
-
#160 written by Mainer 10 months ago
Hell I threw out Scotty Raz stuff some time ago but even he gets stuff sort of right at times just not often early on.
PPP didn’t seem to fare badly when Nate evaluated them all, or am I mistaken?
I seriously doubt any Democrat would have been so clever to lure Akin to stay in with such an interesting ploy. A Rovian sure but this would have taken some serious manipulation on the fly and I’ll be damned if I have ever known any Democrats that were near that clever.
-
#161 written by Armchair Warlord 10 months ago
Mike,
Perhaps. How many people do you think will die unnecessarily from it? Order of magnitude would be sufficient.
We’ve probably had twenty or thirty suicides in the Army so far this year related to the enormous tightening of retention policies that has happened with the rapid BCA-triggered drawdown. People are getting kicked out for things that would have slid or been overlooked earlier, and fully-qualified people are being denied reenlistment. Soldiers’ careers mean a lot to them, and you can get pretty low when your career is being damaged through no fault of your own. I can’t think of any other factor that’s changed since last year in the military that would cause a 25% spike in the suicide rate.
Delaying or cancelling procurement and having to make do with a smaller Army entail accepting a greater level of risk than we would have otherwise done. Maybe we’ll get lucky and we won’t fight another major war for a generation. And maybe my next post will be from Damascus.
-
#162 written by dawolf 9 months ago
-
#163 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
-
#164 written by dawolf 9 months ago
good morning from London, and good very early morning over there in the US
From the sounds of it, you would say that the cost in lives outweighs the saving in this example.
20–30 people, $1Billion, is $33-50million per life lost. That’s quite a lot of money. That money could be spent on other things — for instance housing homeless people — and I’m sure if you housed that number of homeless people, it would save lives (no reference). Spending $1Billion on building renewable energy would reduce the use of coal for electricity generaion, and coal dust kills a lot of people annually. Spending $1Billion boosting physical fitness would save lives.The point is that everything has a value — including life, frankly. The government has a choice on where to spend it’s resources, and there is nothing that inherently makes a military life worth many times that of a civilian life IMO.
-
#165 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
dawolf,
Our monetary resources are not so tight as to make playing a shallow zero-sum game of that sort necessary.
You also failed to address my main point, which is that decreased readiness can (and has in the recent past) cost thousands of soldiers’ lives, not to mention tens or hundreds of thousands of dead and displaced civilians from unnecessarily prolonged military operations and the incalculable cost of military failure. Or other costs, difficult to measure, related to losing experienced troops and the drain on morale a difficult retention environment produces. Suicides attributable to budget cuts are merely a very small known fraction of a larger unknown total cost that may or may not ever be fully realized.
-
#166 written by dawolf 9 months ago
AW — given that the US spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined, it is simply not true that the US has low readiness due to lack of finances, if at all.
But then, I don’t understand how the US military feels it is necessary to spend such vast amounts of money more than other countries anyway. The US has (very roughly) 7 times as many service personnel as the UK, but 12 times the budget. 4 times as many service personnel as France, but 12 times the budget. 3/5ths as many service personnel as China, but 5 times the budget. 6/5ths as many service personnel as Russia, but 10 times the budget.
So compared to other nations it spends vastly more per member of the armed forces. You can’t have the biggest total spend in the world by a ridiculous factor, AND be spending the most per troop, and at the same time claim its not enough. It’s frankly ridiculous.
-
#167 written by shortchain 9 months ago
dawolf,
Perhaps it hasn’t been reported internationally, but there have been some developments that cast light on the issue of military spending and military health.- It’s been reported that the military has tried to low-ball diagnoses of PTSD, so as to reduce the cost of treatment for veterans.
- There has been a parsimonious attitude toward treating psychological problems by active-duty soldiers, and a stigma attached by the military chain of command to soldiers who admit to this type of problem.
In my opinion, which I believe has ample evidence in the way the military operates, the military would rather spend a billion dollars developing a new piece of military hardware which it will with high probability never use rather than spend 10 million dollars to hire 50 qualified psychiatric practitioners who can reduce the suicide rate.
If it actually were the suicide rate in soldiers that bothered the military, after all, the psychiatric services would make more of a difference than the new equipment or another division of soldiers to move around the battlefield — and it would cost far less.
Remember, one of the boasts of the modern American military is that it trains its soldiers to a degree unprecedented in history. Given that this is true, what happens to a person who undergoes such intensive training — and then gets stuck somewhere far from the support of family, friends, psychological help, where every rock may hide an IED?
The military mind will no doubt conceive that the solution is to train the soldiers even more intensively. (Yes, military thinking is a form of insanity. IMO.)
-
#168 written by rgbact 9 months ago
Looks like Dawolf was right. Rasmussen poll shows Akin down 10 in MO race,yet earlier PPP showed him +1. So somehow the pollster that almost always shows results that favor Democrats.….this time showed results that were favorable to the Republican. Clever polling indeed.
Given the Rasmussen results,hopefully Akin grows a brain,figures out the PPP poll was a scam,and finally bows out.
-
Given the Rasmussen results,hopefully Akin grows a brain,figures out the PPP poll was a scam,and finally bows out.
Three things:
- Both PP and Ras have been outliers from time to time, sometimes in the opposite direction from what one would expect.
- If there is manipulation of poll results going on, Rasmussen is likely to be working for the Republican establishment here, since the Republican establishment dislikes Akin.
- According to Missouri law, the deadline for Akin to withdraw was passed earlier this week. It would now take a court order and a lot of other red tape for his name to be pulled from the ballot.
-
#170 written by Max 9 months ago
AW,
“I don’t see any reason why lives should be endangered for the budget’s sake. “
” Our monetary resources are not so tight as to make playing a shallow zero-sum game of that sort necessary. ”On the 1st: Happens every day! For every proposed and enacted budget contains that EXACT thing. Limited funds, and the way available finds ARE spent, cause lives to be lost as a result of those decisions.
On the 2nd: Yes, pretty much they are. We are spending $1T MORE than we take in each year. Even with the end of the Bush Revenue Killer rates for folks making less than $250K, that number will STILL be $700B/year. Resources ARE finite.
As a reminder, comment #27
-
Every time someone suggests we cut our bloated and wasteful military budget, we’re treated to horror stories about how seriously it endangers our security and threatens the lives of our brave troops. Meanwhile, the things that really endanger our security and would really improve the lives of our brave troops are pretty much ignored.
I don’t buy it any more. Not a word of it. We could cut the military budget in half, and we’d still be spending more than UK, Russia, China, Japan, and France combined. That money would be far better spent on things that really do threaten us and that cost thousands of lives — like mitigating global climate change, or educating our people, or paying down the Republican debt, or rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure or providing medical services to our brave troops.
-
rgbact,
Looks like Dawolf was right.
Yes, except for the part where he wasn’t.
Rasmussen poll shows Akin down 10 in MO race,yet earlier PPP showed him +1.
And you, like so many in the press who are dying to have a story, get all breathless over a single poll from a single firm. Have you not noticed that Rasmussen has been swinging wildly all over the place for the past two months? There’s no there there.
-
#173 written by rgbact 9 months ago
“Have you not noticed that Rasmussen has been swinging wildly all over
the place for the past two months? There’s no there there.”I need to scour the data but I imagine there are mighty few times this year that PPP has shown a result thats 5+ pts more favorable to the Republican than Rasmussen. But hey,maybe PPP tweaked their methods.I noted they were also largely favorable to Nelson in FL all year, but now are actually less favorable than Rasmussen
-
-
#175 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
Max,
On the 1st: Happens every day! For every proposed and enacted budget contains that EXACT thing. Limited funds, and the way available finds ARE spent, cause lives to be lost as a result of those decisions.
Rarely, however, is one able to establish causation as I have here.
On the 2nd: Yes, pretty much they are. We are spending $1T MORE than we take in each year. Even with the end of the Bush Revenue Killer rates for folks making less than $250K, that number will STILL be $700B/year. Resources ARE finite.
It’s called entitlement reform. We need to do it. We also need to raise taxes more (much more) than current weaksauce proposals call for.
Everyone else in this discussion,
I notice that none of you have actually disputed my point about readiness with more than overheated anti-military rhetoric. If American military spending is so “wasteful” and this is so self-evident I expect that any of you could explain why you hold this position (beyond blunt reference to other countries’ spending, which needs to be, you know, put in context to be anything more than a rhetorical device used to bludgeon the armed forces in a budget fight), which appears to me to be motivated by sheer antipathy to the armed services and/or the use of military coercion in foreign policy. I’ve gone into the weeds on my side of the issue many times.
-
#176 written by dawolf 9 months ago
AW, it’s obvious its wasteful. It simply is. The entire world can see it. Half a million dollars spend a year for each member of the armed services, when all the other major military powers spend far less.
The reason other countries get mentioned is because THAT’S the contrast.
If we were back in Roman times, America is Rome at the height of its powers. You’re arguing that more money should be spent on the army now because its not strong enough — when what ruined Rome wasn’t a lack of military prowess at all, and not for another couple of centuries.
Or lets look at those “off the book” projects — Iraq and Afghanistan. It cost the UK somewhere over £20 Billion to be in those two countries — about $30-$40 Billion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10359548 (link is from 2 years ago, but Iraq costs should be low/nonexistant since then).
Very roughly, the US has had 10 times the number of troops compared to the UK involved in these two conflicts.
The US figure just for Iraq? Nearly $3 TRILLION, about 100 times the UK figure. 10 times as much per troop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
If you can’t see waste there, you’re blind.
-
#177 written by Max 9 months ago
AW,
“ I notice that none of you have actually disputed my point about readiness ”
Then you were not paying attention to my rejoinders concerning the purchase of systems in search of a mission and the overrun and overspending by significant percentages for many existing systems and the Congressional mandated purchasing of systems the the Pentagon flatly DOES NOT WANT! All of which have NOTHING to do with “readiness”.
“Readiness” is an extremely subjective concept as there is no such thing for EVERY possible scenario. Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated “readiness” for what?
You complained once about the “Clinton cutbacks”. Please explain, in gory detail and in military terms, the practical and strategic lapse in Pentagon capabilities that the level of spending for DoD for FY’s 1996–2001 that allowed the half million dollar operation that was 9⁄11 to occur. Then explain, in gory detail and in military terms, the practical and strategic readiness that has been gained DIRECTLY as a result of the $3 TRILLION increase in DoD budgets for the past tens years that would prevent a couple million dollar operation by like minded operatives from occurring today.
Because you and I BOTH know that there are SEVERAL easy access points that could be exploited that has NOTHING to do with DoD mission coverage.
Finally, given everything that, in your opinion, would make the DoD “ready” to face every conceivable threat, please tell us your cost estimate for the FY2013 DoD budget, along with what you would expect the annual escalators for the next ten year would be needed.
As I said before: “I don’t want to have to come out there!” Especially since Mila Kunis quit over at Turtle Bay! I just DON’T know where I’d stay.
-
#178 written by shortchain 9 months ago
AW,
I dispute the theory that we’re not spending enough on the military. In fact, I think that we should spend far less — and spend some of the savings on boosting American science, industry, and agriculture, alternative (to fossil fuel) energy, and infrastructure.As it is, we’re creating a society that’s only good for kicking the crap out of weaker nations, while China is becoming an industrial powerhouse. Ever read up on just why the Allies won WWII? Why the North won in that fracas in the 1860’s?
And then there’s the incredible damage we’re doing to our people, to our politics, when the military and their co-dependents are becoming so powerful. -
AW,
To my way of thinking, America in 2012 is in a similar position to Japan of the early 20th Century (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930). We were once self-sufficient, which gave us strength. Now, our appetite for cheap energy has forced us to climb into bed with unstable and undemocratic regimes, particularly in the Middle East.
To redirect funding to a program of energy independence, or at least, reliance on North American energy, would mean we’re not subjecting our soldiers to incredibly expensive asymmetric warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan and we can focus on defending our borders and living in peace with other nations, attacking only when directly provoked — the way the Founding Fathers clearly intended in our Constitution.
-
-
#181 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
-
#182 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
-
#183 written by Max 9 months ago
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Monotreme (250 posts)
Monotreme is an unabashed liberal and dog lover who lives in an almost-square state in the Western U.S. He keeps a second blog related to his work as a scientist and author at 7synapses.com.






Mule,
I will happily engage in fact-based respectful discussion. My point was that your accusation of hate and bile are, first not supported by example (so I really don’t know what that means to you), and are actually represented by your own tone much of the time. I believe I made clear in my first statement that, when you refrain from bile and hyperbole, you have interesting things to say.