This is just amazing:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a close Romney ally, said it was “offensive” for Democrats to say they’re better for women on reproductive rights. Speaking with reporters at the Republican National Convention, Haley said Democrats drawing attention to the pro-life plank in the party’s platform are merely “distracting” from Obama’s record. Asked if the platform does indeed call for a total ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest, Haley replied, “I have no idea. I haven’t been paying attention.” The platform endorses the Human Life Amendment, which would give constitutional rights to fetuses, and thus equate abortion with murder.

I’ve read this paragraph about five times now, and I’m just amazed that a person with a presumably functional brain could get this out without shuddering and collapsing. Haley thinks that Republicans ought to be offended that Democrats are asserting their superiority on matters of reproductive rights? What kind of apology might she be looking for? (“Sorry for reading your platform before you did?”) And the second graph is about as confusing:

Women are not one issue voters, we care about the economy,” she explained. ”These debates [abortion] that you fellas keep talking about, that the Dems keep talking about, is just not where women are… The only people that are saying that the Democrats are the better party for women are Democrats. And they think if they say it enough, we’ll believe it, and that’s probably about as offensive as it gets,” Haley added.

Perhaps she didn’t get the memo that the economy is out, and divisive culture war skirmishes are in when it comes to the Romney campaign, so this is entirely pret a porter.

This gets back to one of my ongoing fixations: minority (and women) Republicans with power who nonetheless try to assert leadership over their own cohorts. Just like Michael Steele during his RNC salad days, and one or two brief moments of Herman Cain’s presidential bid, this sort of leadership campaign just doesn’t work from within the confines of a high-profile Republican position. Steele’s sad antics showed someone desperate to exercise some form of cultural leadership in a context that wouldn’t allow it substantively, and his symbolic outreach (“hip hop conservatism”) was hilariously inept. Cain at times flirted with being angry about the lot of black people in America before inevitably remembering his role as the validator of white rage, and then he had to walk it back. Haley here seems to be trying to demonstrate gender leadership, trying to tell women that social issues don’t matter as much as having firm economic management (from her point of view, anyway). But she can’t do it without jettisoning, well, almost all women. The idea that women don’t care at all about debates concerning their own bodies is a bizarre one. I’m guessing, for example, that quite a few of them are behind Todd Akin’s precipitous collapse in Missouri. The problems here–insulting the audience’s intelligence, feigning ignorance of the party’s platform (or actually being ignorant of it, which is worse for someone opining on the issue for the press), throwing around inflammatory terms with no basis while dismissing legitimate concerns–display an incredible lack of sensitivity to what women outside beet-red states think about these issues, and really more of a contempt for all that to boot. Which is to say that Haley is a politician for the 27%, and no one else. Only she doesn’t really realize it.

Either that, or she’s just Christine O’Donnell in an elaborate disguise. Which I’m not prepared to rule out at this point. I realize that “rising star” Republicans at this point just mean younger, not as white, and perhaps female Republicans with the exact same beliefs, rather than “demonstrating enormous promise as a potential political leader in the future,” i.e. the actual definition of the term. Republicans keep finding more of the former, but the latter remain to be seen. Haley barely held on to win an election in South Carolina, and if she’s the future of the GOP, then there’s no future.

Share

I must apologize for having been a little unavailable last week, but this week should be less crazy for me. I wanted to share my thoughts on two aspects of the campaign. First, the news that new polling shows Republicans pulling a draw on the Medicare issue. Benen:

Last week, a New York Times poll showed overwhelming opposition to the Romney/Ryan plan, which would effectively privatize Medicare out of existence. Great news for Democrats, right? Wrong — most Americans have no idea what Romney/Ryan has in mind for Medicare, and as a result, a plurality of seniors in Florida and Ohio believe the Republican ticket would do a better job protecting Medicare than Obama/Biden. […]

When Romney launched his Medicare offensive, it struck me as absurd — people are easily fooled, but there’s no way the American mainstream could be this confused. The notion that voters would want to protect Medicare and then trust the ticket that wants to eliminate Medicare was simply too ridiculous to believe.

And yet, here we are. Candidates lie in ads because people will believe them.

Here’s what I think. Romney/Ryan managed to pull off a reset of sorts, and they timed it well. They got the public (and especially seniors) to believe that their Medicare plans are based around restoring the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts, while skillfully avoiding discussion of vouchers and what not. Why wouldn’t seniors like that “plan”? And seniors lean Republican and they’re willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. It was slick, I’ll give them that. But the facts still remain: Ryan (and now the GOP platform) supports Medicare vouchers. What this news shows is that Democrats were at something of a disadvantage, since Romney and Ryan rather deftly used the press attention during the VP rollout to try to defuse the Medicare bomb underneath them. Only it’s still there. Dems need to step up and launch a fresh offensive after the conventions–the GOP won’t likely have another moment like that rollout again, and the original attack should still work if pressed hard enough. What I still wonder about is whether Republicans really would move to implement the Ryan Plan if they win–I’m assuming Romney doesn’t really care about it, just about winning. Running on vouchercare would provide something of a mandate (or a dramatic electoral loss), but trying to implement it without campaigning on it smacks of Bush’s Social Security plan.

And then there’s this article about Romney’s racebaiting:

The main media consultant for the “independent” pro-Romney super PAC Restore Out Future, Edsall notes, is Larry McCarthy, who crafted the most vile Willie Horton ad of 1988.

Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race in two ways. Most overtly, the Romney campaign is accusing President Obama by of gutting welfare reform by dropping the work requirement—a gross distortion of an unexceptional waiver Obama granted several states allowing them to experiment with alternative ways to meet the work requirement. Two of the five governors requesting the waivers were Republicans, and among those who have denounced the workfare accusation as flat-out untrue is the Republican former congressman and current talk-show host Joe Scarborough. The second way Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race is more subtle. According to Edsall, Romney is conveying a racially-charged message in accusing Obama of taking money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority non-white recipients of) Obamacare.

Can we all just now admit that Mitt Romney is not a very good person? Fuck the wife and kids, Tony Soprano had those too. I’m well aware that campaigns, especially presidential campaigns, have a lot of grey area. I expect candidates to do whatever they can to win, since after all, there’s a lot invested in them, and they’ll likely never have this chance again. But even in campaigns there should be limits, and pumping deceptive sludge into the electorate simply because it would be too hard to win otherwise has to be considered over the line for anyone who has an interest in maintaining some semblance of civil society. Especially when you compare this to Obama’s conscientiously healing and reconciliation-centric 2008 campaign, it’s so ugly and gauche, and the contrast speaks volumes. Romney, as I have said before, has no limits and an insatiable appetite for power. If he wins the presidency, I can’t imagine any significant portion of Americans will be happy about it in four years.

Share

It never ceases to amaze me how stupidly Kodak handled the changes in the photography industry over the last 15 years.

Now Kodak’s film business is up for sale, which includes the wildly overpriced Kodak-sponsored souvenir photo stands at theme parks, according to the AP. Selling a physical film enterprise these days seems like it would be only slightly easier than selling a covered wagon dealership.

Share
Metavirus filed this under:  

Don’t make Mormon Jesus cry.

So now Mormon Jesus is Mitt Romney’s new tax return deflection shield:

“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given,” Romney tells Parade magazine in an edition due out Sunday. “This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church.

In response, ABL says it best:

You know what, asshole? If you didn’t intend for your contributions to be known, you shouldn’t have run for president.

And by the way? You can’t send your wife out to talk about how super awesome and honest you are, and have her gush about how you give ten percent of your income to the LDS Church and then two weeks later claim that you want to keep the amount you donate to the church private because of Jesus.

Share
Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  

Don’t make Mormon Jesus cry.

So now Mormon Jesus is Mitt Romney’s new tax return deflection shield:

“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given,” Romney tells Parade magazine in an edition due out Sunday. “This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church.

In response, ABL says it best:

You know what, asshole? If you didn’t intend for your contributions to be known, you shouldn’t have run for president.

And by the way? You can’t send your wife out to talk about how super awesome and honest you are, and have her gush about how you give ten percent of your income to the LDS Church and then two weeks later claim that you want to keep the amount you donate to the church private because of Jesus.

Share
Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  

Don’t make Mormon Jesus cry.

So now Mormon Jesus is Mitt Romney’s new tax return deflection shield:

“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given,” Romney tells Parade magazine in an edition due out Sunday. “This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church.

In response, ABL says it best:

You know what, asshole? If you didn’t intend for your contributions to be known, you shouldn’t have run for president.

And by the way? You can’t send your wife out to talk about how super awesome and honest you are, and have her gush about how you give ten percent of your income to the LDS Church and then two weeks later claim that you want to keep the amount you donate to the church private because of Jesus.

Share
Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  

Don’t make Mormon Jesus cry.

So now Mormon Jesus is Mitt Romney’s new tax return deflection shield:

“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given,” Romney tells Parade magazine in an edition due out Sunday. “This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church.

In response, ABL says it best:

You know what, asshole? If you didn’t intend for your contributions to be known, you shouldn’t have run for president.

And by the way? You can’t send your wife out to talk about how super awesome and honest you are, and have her gush about how you give ten percent of your income to the LDS Church and then two weeks later claim that you want to keep the amount you donate to the church private because of Jesus.

Share
{ 1 comment }
Metavirus filed this under: , , ,  

Don’t make Mormon Jesus cry.

So now Mormon Jesus is Mitt Romney’s new tax return deflection shield:

“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given,” Romney tells Parade magazine in an edition due out Sunday. “This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church.

In response, ABL says it best:

You know what, asshole? If you didn’t intend for your contributions to be known, you shouldn’t have run for president.

And by the way? You can’t send your wife out to talk about how super awesome and honest you are, and have her gush about how you give ten percent of your income to the LDS Church and then two weeks later claim that you want to keep the amount you donate to the church private because of Jesus.

Share
Metavirus filed this under: , , ,