American Conservatism In 2012 & Beyond

wasn't even on my radar, but then I'm not a liberal. I think it fell into the narrative of the "war on women" and his ivory tower world view. Of all the reasons I didn't support Romney, his binder comment didn't make the list.

Romney's "binder" comment only proved once again that he has no idea about the average American. He lacks the normal sensitivities of others who are not "rich."

How did it prove it CI?

Don't dodge the question.

The proof is in the pudding; the many media commentaries talked about it. If you missed it, that's your problem, not mine.

Undoubtedly it fell into the ridiculous War on Women element of the Obama campaign, but I can't for the life of me figure out how.

The entire War on Women shibboleth was a cynical ploy to capture the votes of single-issue women.

There is nothing about the conservative position on the Administration's requirement that religious institutions provide insurance that includes reimbursement for contraception, that can rationally be interpreted as a desire to ban access to contraception - the hyperbole of the vapid Ms Fluke not-with-standing.

I've no doubt that there are reasonable and decent people on the Pro-Choice side of the abortion issue, just as there on the same on the Pro-Life side. It is an obviously difficult issue for Americans, but it serves no positive purpose to deliberately and, quite frankly, malignantly mischaracterize the position of either side.

The overwhelming majority of those who can be said to be Pro-Life, base their stance on sincere and fundamental beliefs concerning when life begins and the sanctity of same, and not on a desire to force women into some second-class status.

Mitt Romney was not running explicitly or implicitly to drive women's rights back a couple of centuries. The people who have idiotically declared that he did are...well, idiots.

Todd Aiken is, himself, an idiot and a self-centered one at that. His absurd comment about "legitimate rape" was the mouthing of a moron. On the one hand he was referencing a tiny sliver of actual rape cases wherein consentual sex was later claimed to be rape for reasons of spite and/or greed, and on the other he made utterly absurd claims about female biology. He was a disgrace, and conservatives and the GOP condemned him from day one and called for him to withdraw. Undoubtely much of the outrage had to do with his doomed candidacy, but certainly not all.

In any case it is ridiculous to suggest, as Democrats, did that Aiken was representive of the Right's view on women, abortion and rape.

Some of the virulent despisers, in this forum, of the Tea Party point to Aiken as the poster child of the movement. Nonsense. He wasn't supported by local Tea Party members for these comments and positions and since when does any group bat 100% with their candidates. I doubt Democrats want to hold up folks like Alan Grayson, William J Jefferson, Wilbur Mills, Kerry Gauthier, and Albert Bustamante (to name but a few) as exemplars of their party.

Richard Mourdock's comments are a different story.

(Cue the onslaught of outraged A2K Liberal reactions)

Consider this, if one believes that the lives of unborn children are sacred, why would the life of an unborn child conceived by a terrible crime, but entirely innocent of the malignancy of its father be any less sacred?

It is certainly not obscene to consider the lives of the unborn to be sacred. You and others may not agree, but it clearly comes down to a matter of opinion and belief, and not fact.

Starting from the principle that all unborn life is sacred, it actually makes sense that a child concieved by rape should not be aborted simply because of the circumstances of its conception.

Clearly, this is a difficult argument to be made in the face of the revulsion we have for the crime and the sympathy we have for the victim, but it is entirely consistent with the basic premise.

There are good and just reasons to believe that a woman should have the right to abort a child conceived through rape, but for someone who holds that all unborn life is sacred, it is a tough exception to make.

His comments about the child born of rape perhaps being a blessing from God were certainly impolitic, but, again, there were entirely consistent with his beliefs.

If you believe that all things flow from God and that all events, good and bad, have a purpose in his plan, then it follows that you would believe that the child born of rape is part of that plan. It's hard to imagine the most secular of his opponents contending that the child bore the sins of the father.

This is not to say that I agree with Mourdock but that I respect the consistency of his beliefs .

If you don't share those beliefs, you will not want him to represent you in congress and that is all well and good. What is not, in my opinion, is to suggest that he was demonstrating some underlying hatred for women or an utter lack of appreciation for the consequences of the crime of rape.

Unfortunately he spoke from the heart, rather than his political brain, but that's hard to condemn.

CI: The Unartful Dodger.

No, you're wrong as usual.

Here's a whole slew of them just by an easy Search.

So you don't have an opinion of your own? You can only provide the opinions of others?

You miss the whole point; they support what I said - and what you asked me.

Maybe these were Yankee females with Quaker pasts.

Bullshit.

Todd Akin was elected by his constituents to represent them in Congress. As such, he proposed legislation that was voted on by all members of the House. My supposedly moderate R Congressman saw reason to support his bill and vote in the affirmative. That man is no longer in Congress.

If morons are getting elected and sent to Washington then it behooves us to place closer attention to how our own representatives vote on the bills put forward by these morons. That he was on the Science and Technology committee was a reflection of the Republican leadership that put him there. The Republican leadership is responsible for the way their party is perceived by the public. This wasn't about Todd Akin being a moron. It was about what happens once a moron gets elected.

Nationwide, there have been many bills at the state level that intend to determine through the legislative process what a woman can and can't do with her body. That's a party platform position and has nothing to do with the occasional moron.

Nicely stated. (I started to highlight just the first quoted paragraph for that, but I like the second one too.)

I answered this in the Where Did Romney Screw Up thread, too, but in case you didn't see it there:


Romney, himself, participated in trying to relegate women to second-class status. His answer to unequal pay... is to send women home early to cook dinner? Really?

Republican office holders routinely seek to deny women access to health care and contraception. Republicans rail about Planned Parenthood... which provides women with all kinds of health care.

How many candidates made offensive comments about rape (and pregnancies from rape)? To what political party did every single one belong? And how many prominent Republicans spoke out against these offenses? (Not many.)


Republicans have a serious image problem when it comes to women's issues, mainly because their "conservative" viewpoint is about 50 years outdated.

As a father with two daughters... you're not going to win me over by telling me they would have to carry a rapist's child. You're not going to win me over by trying to tell me that a rape has to be "legitimate" or "forcible" in order to taken seriously.


Here's my prediction: You will keep denying that, as a party, Republicans have serious issues with women taking an equal place in the world with men. And Republicans will keep pushing forward with these repugnant policies. And Democrats will keep winning elections.

"Fifty years outdated?" LOL That belief remains from the beginning of most cultures of this world.

Because "binders full of women" shows a lack of personal understanding. Considers women a stack of resumes. He should have said , I personally interviewed many women and when they were qualified I hired them, at equal salary. Obama mentioned specific women, and came across much more sincere.

Maybe you should ask a woman.

If it disagrees with his opinion he dosent care what women think.

I'm assuming JPB is one. You don't value her opinion?

Well, if that's all there is too it, it's a pretty pathetic charge.

Yes I do. And it's about men telling women what they can and cannot do.