Slut!

Condoleezza Rice, Laura Ingraham, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Malkin

The four women pictured above are leadership figures. One is a former Secretary of State. One is a talk radio host and television commentator. One is a former Governor. One is a new media entrepreneur.

Each of them has been characterized as a “slut” (or worse), and the language of each verbal attack is acceptable because the women are Republicans.

Michelle Malkin - who just launched twitchy.com - has a roundup of some of the comments. It is not pretty.

Why is this remarkable? It’s because our culture exhibits no outrage over attacks on Republican women.

Bill Maher, in particular, is celebrated! He is a comedian, and Americans consider his characterizations of Republican women “funny.” He makes a comfortable living promoting these conventionally accepted views.

With that background, please take note of the furor created by Rush Limbaugh last week. On his radio show, he parodied a young woman who appeared in a Democratic Party press conference.

Sandra Fluke, an unmarried 30-year old law student at Georgetown University, claimed to require help paying for her $1,000 per year contraception needs.

A typical woman might spend $100 per year on contraception products. Ms. Fluke claimed in the press conference that she needed ten times that amount. Mr. Limbaugh used his radio program to taunt her as being either a “slut” or a “prostitute.”

Cue the outrage!

We can assume that Ms. Fluke is not deriving income from her sexual practices, and therefore the word “promiscuous” might be more appropriate in describing her behavior.

Regardless, the parody stoked our cultural outrage. Mr. Limbaugh found that some of his advertisers (in a show of displeasure) terminated their spots on his show. In addition, the President of the United States called Ms. Fluke to encourage her to stand firm.

It was a spectacle.

Stepping back for a moment, consider whether this differential treatment of women is an instance of liberal bias. Does that characterization seem accurate?

As you might imagine, I believe the use of the term “liberal bias” dramatically understates the phenomenon we are witnessing.

I know, “Just keep moving. There is nothing to see here.”

UPDATE 3/11/2012:
Here is the collective view of Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan.  A quote that stands out:

This isn't political. While we disagree with Limbaugh's politics, what's at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech.

The idea that their intolerance is what is necessary to correct Republican shortcomings is what should cause concern.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Validation

 

Photo of Andrew Breitbart by Kathy Willens/Associated Press

This post is made with a sense of bitterness and sorrow…

How do you know when your actions are a success? A clear indicator is when you achieve the desired results.

With that in mind, the leadership of the Democratic Party must be celebrating today. They have worked tirelessly to instill Americans with a sense of hatred for Republicans and it is paying off.

A few months ago, I pointed out the specific efforts of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Here’s a summation of their past characterizations:

And so, Republicans are killers. They cheer executions, favor dirty air and water, and enjoy letting the uninsured die. Republicans are homophobic and are without sympathy for victims of floods, wildfires and hurricanes. Republicans are callous and insensitive, and are bent on keeping students, working Americans and minorities from voting.

More recent efforts by the DSCC describe Republicans as being committed to stopping birth control for young women in America. Here’s what the DSCC is saying:

--So if you’ve had it with Republican attacks on women’s health and our basic freedoms, remember: You have the power to stop them. (Dick Durbin)

--This GOP circus isn’t over yet, but you can bet on this: the nominee will be an extremist and out of touch. He will oppose birth control. He will give tax breaks to multibillionaires. (Patty Murray)

--And we know what these Republicans want. A nation where it’s hard to get preventative care, but easy to lose your health coverage. Where we put the rights of big polluters above the rights of women. (John Kerry)

--These guys are dangerous. They will do anything to win – whether it’s waging war on women or imploding our economy. (James Carville)

We see the repetitive theme that Republicans are bad people. Do the efforts bear fruit?

Apparently so.

The Daily Kos published a column last week by a contributor named “Troubadour” that tells us what to think of Republicans. The post is titled, “Murdering, Lying, Thieving, Rat-F*** Republican Pieces of Sub-Amphibian Sh**…”. It concludes with this paragraph:

Republicans, you vile, repulsive, scum. You're not leading this country. You're not contributing to this country. You're not even part of this country. You are the maggot-ridden rot that arises in this country's damaged flesh; you are the vultures constantly picking at us to see if we're weak enough yet to become your next meal; you create problems where none would otherwise exist, just to further weaken America and quicken your own insatiable appetites; you are garbage, and you are traitors. And you are not welcome in this country anymore.

If you look at the comments, you will see that the Daily Kos readership approves of Troubadour’s remarks by a ratio of more than twenty to one.

And here is further validation:

Andrew Breitbart died last night, and sentiments from the Democratic Party are pouring in. Charlie Spiering of Beltway Confidential in the Washington Examiner provides a compilation of Twitter comments. Note the frequent use of allusions to Adolph Hitler.

What must that feel like in the Democratic Party leadership? When you successfully teach people to hate, do you feel pride? Do you feel powerful?

Millions of Americans are learning to hate. The Democratic Party must feel validated.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Righteousness

Judge Andrew Napolitano (until last night) hosted a show on the FOX Business Network called “Freedom Watch.”

Judge Napolitano’s perspective is that of a Libertarian. He espouses the principles of the Constitution and of individual liberty.

Courtesy of Left Coast Rebel, here is a 4-minute clip of his provocative style:



Judge Napolitano advocates “for the people” and warns of the dangers associated with Authoritarianism and big government.

Does he have a point? Here are some recent actions by our governmental agencies, people, and politics:

--“We can spell it any damn way we please.”

--“Michelle Antoinette” does have a certain cachet.

--“Pregnancy is a disease.”

--“Deception must be used.”

As Glenn Reynolds would say, “The country’s in the very best of hands.”

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Payoff!

The Denver Post ran a story today describing the lucrative benefits of supporting the Democratic Party. Political contributions by venture capitalists often reap vast rewards.

The Democratic Party implicitly assures its supporters they will “get more than the other guy.” As the article explains, that definitely works on the high end of the economic spectrum. But occasionally the party has to do something for its every-day supporters. Those folks need something more than just words.

When the Democratic Party engages in this kind of activity during an election year, it runs the risk of being characterized as “buying votes.” Its intention might be to simply reward loyalty, but its actions can cause controversy.

A recent example is the tweaking of the Affordable Care Act for the benefit of young women. The Democratic Party wants to give young women free contraceptive services. It might seem opportunistic in some ways, but it does let young American women know that the Democratic Party “has their back.”

On the down side, it causes some religious organizations to think that the Democratic Party is working against their interests. We see the inherent problem of providing political favoritism to individual groups: Rewarding one group might be offensive to another.

The Democratic Party leadership could have chosen to provide young women with free movie tickets, or free pet food, or maybe free cosmetics. They chose contraception as the way to go, and it might very well work out.

November will tell us if their efforts are successful.

UPDATE 3/2/2012:
Here's a quote from a Wall Street Journal editorial:

The fact that Democrats don't dare to accurately describe their own positions, or the regulations that they want to foist on everyone else, shows how extreme those positions and regulations really are.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Calling Tim Groseclose

Scott Johnson at Power Line has a column on Tim Groseclose and his book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. Mr. Groseclose conducts a study of media bias with a statistical rigor that is unusual in the social sciences.

Mr. Johnson’s column got me thinking about another fertile area for study by our social scientists. It is the field of negative advertising.

Complaining about negative ads has become a national pastime, and as our election season heats up, we are going to see an abundance of these spots. Now might be a good time to do a little in-depth study.

What needs to be studied? It’s the variation in tone. There are two distinctly different styles of negative advertisement: One informs us of the actions of the targeted individual. The other characterizes the intent of the individual.

Here is a post from the 2010 election cycle that compares the two styles. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know which style is more effective and also which political party tends to rely on a particular style?

My sense is that the style differences are being downplayed so that we can all take refuge in deploring the negativity. Even so, the style differences remain emotionally significant.

As a reference, keep in mind how the distinction between legal and illegal immigration tends to be obscured in journalism. Reporters conflate both classes of people together as “immigrants” even though the two groups are vastly different in outlook and life experience. (Oftentimes - dare I mention - a journalistic agenda is advanced with the technique.)

Is it possible that while “negative advertising” is being employed in disparate fashion, the two styles are being intentionally lumped together for political purpose?

The conflating of both styles of advertising can obscure a specific journalistic agenda. It can also allow apologists to proclaim, “Everybody does it.”

Is there something going on here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Caucus!

Colorado’s Republican caucus was held last night (February 7). To me, it is like a pre-season game in the NFL: It sets you up for The Main Event.

Our 2012 caucus was less popular than the 2008 caucus. My precinct covers about 450 Republican voters. In 2008, we had over 30 people attend our caucus. This year there were sixteen. (I can remember a year when only four people attended!) Caucus attendance seems to be a proxy for the level of political energy in our electorate.

The purpose of the caucus is to provide direction for the county assembly coming up next month. The county assembly is where delegates will be chosen for the state assembly, which will in turn choose delegates for the national convention. The precinct caucus is where it all begins.

The caucus is also where a “sense of the Republican base” is taken. We participate in a non-binding straw poll to find out the popularity of the various candidates. At our precinct, eleven of us went for Romney, three went for Santorum, one person voted for Newt Gingrich, and one voted for Ron Paul.

The state results were not representative of our precinct. Of the 66,027 votes cast in Colorado, Santorum received 40% (26,614), Romney received 35% (23,012), Gingrich received 13% (8,445) and Paul received 12% (7,759).

The straw poll gives an idea of voter sentiment, but things can change. Our precinct elected two delegates to the county assembly, and those two delegates were supporters of Gingrich and Romney. Our primary alternate is a Santorum supporter. Depending on who actually attends the assembly, the basic motivations of those representing our precinct will differ.

At the county assembly, our delegates can vote for any candidate. They might vote for their personal favorite, or be swayed to vote for someone else. Nothing is final until the national convention.

All of this must drive Republican presidential candidates to distraction. Their campaigns take on the characteristics of a type of mating dance, where they work to gain political traction before running out of funds. They court us for our votes, knowing that not until those of us in the electorate enter the voting booth and pull a lever does all of this “count.”

THEREFORE, as a personal service (and in an attempt to give candidates insight into the Republican psyche), here is where I stand (currently):

--I don’t think Ron Paul should be our candidate for president. He is well-positioned as a principled legislator with a no-compromise set of values, and should remain a Congressional Representative from Texas.

--Rick Santorum has the unfortunate mantle of a Republican caricature. He leads with devotion to religious precepts, and does not have broad appeal in a secular America.

--Newt Gingrich has spent a life in politics, and comes across as inauthentic. This quality is personified by the use of Callista (his current wife) as a prop. You worry that she would appear disheveled in a stiff breeze, and it gives a Potemkinesque quality to Newt’s campaign.

--That leaves Mitt Romney. He has an edginess about him that is both appealing and concerning. He is unafraid of large and politically risky tasks, and seems to be genuinely interested in doing what is best for America. He has enjoyed success in his personal and professional life and projects a sense of being a winner (apologies to Charlie Sheen).

But here is the tie-breaker:

I am married to a Democrat. She has become disenchanted with our current president, and thinks Romney might very well receive her vote.  That is a strong incentive.

I’m for Mitt.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

The Economy, Stupid

One of the Six Themes of the Democratic Party is:

“Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe.”

With the current state of the American economy, you might think that would be a hard sell.

Think again.

Dan Henninger in The Wall Street Journal describes how president Obama is able to switch our focus with his yearning for “An Economy Built to Last.”

Michelle Obama lets us know how hard her husband has worked to get America “out of this mess.” She tells how (in spite of Republicans) “we’ve made some remarkable progress.”

Meanwhile, our press explains how distinctly out of touch Republicans are in dealing with economic problems. Republican candidate Newt Gingrich takes direct fire for his claim that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

I would note that at the time Mr. Gingrich made this claim, the most recent food stamp data was for October, 2011. During the eight years of the Bush presidency, 14.7 million people had been put on food stamps. During the 33 months of the Obama presidency (through October, 2011) only an additional 14.2 million had been put on food stamps. (Note that Obama’s 14.2 million is less than Bush’s 14.7 million.)

While the number is growing, and the rate of increase during the Obama presidency is more than twice that of president Bush, the statement was technically false at the time it was made (January 16, 2012) based on the published October data. Mr. Gingrich can hope to be exonerated when the January data finally become available.

You might think all of this is “splitting hairs,” but watch the Reverend Al Sharpton use this circumstance to political advantage.

Really, just watch it. This is politics in America:




The Democratic Party theme is that “Republicans are turning the economy into a catastrophe.” With enough repetition, it becomes fact.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom