2010: Return of the Whigs

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=rand+paul&iid=8847361″ src=”a/e/1/3/Rand_Paul_gives_4a73.jpg?adImageId=12938540&imageId=8847361″ width=”234″ height=”277″ /]

I’m well-known for saying that at current rate and speed, the Republican party is on target to be the Whigs of the 21st century. Based on last night’s election results my prognosis may have been premature. Then again, was it? If you listened to the victory speeches of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio you did not hear the defiant declaration of Bush-era Republicans returning to the helm. On the contrary, you heard a rejection of a political party that had lost its way. Rand indicated he was going to make the Senate “deliberate” on a thing or two. Marco reminded his audience that last night was not a vote FOR the Republican party but rather a rejection of the current leadership.

After listening to a good six hours of talking heads (yes I’m obsessive) I came away with a few perspectives on last night’s mid-term results which I shall share in no particular order:

(For the most part) Nutjubs, Racists, and Misfits Need Not Apply

A few weeks ago MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow mourned the demise of the “macaca moment”. It was her assertion that the type of gaffe that could destroy a candidate the way “macaca” destroyed candidate George Allen in 2008, seemed to go unnoticed and completely forgiven in 2010. Alas Rachel was being a bit melodramatic. One thing we learned last night was that if you send pornographic photos via email (Carl Paladino), use blatantly racist campaign ads (Sharron Angle), declare that you are not a witch (Christine O’Donnell), dress up like a Nazi on the weekends (Rich Iott) or can barely complete a sentence in an interview, with a sex-offender accusation pending against you (Alvin Greene) then you are not going to be elected dog catcher by Americans in 2010. I cannot overestimate what a relief this was to me as I watched the results come in last night.

It’s The Economy Stupid

Liberals will burn me in effigy for saying this but if last night taught us anything it was that we wasted eighteen months on health care reform that most of the nation didn’t want when we should have had a full court press on job creation. Before you stick your pin in my voodoo doll, let me distill this for you. I walk up to you and say I am going to ensure that your employer can provide you with health care and that you cannot be rejected for pre-existing conditions. Your reply, “that’s fine and dandy but I don’t have an employer. I haven’t worked in two years. I’m about to lose my house.” And then I say “but I insist it’s your right to have good health care!” Then I wonder why you don’t vote for my ass in the next election.

There are those who say there is never a “good time” to introduce health care reform. That may be but I can damn sure tell you there are some particularly bad times to do it. If Obama presided over a booming economy, he would have still encountered philosophical opposition to HCR but at least he could have made it  a reasonable priority. Whether or not it makes sense, people prioritize earning enough money to keep their home over good health. That is a social and political reality that the Obama administration, most liberals, and I ignored. Yes, I admit it. I fell in love with the Utopian idea of health care for everyone. I did so ignoring my own underemployment. I was a fool. We liberals paid a price for our principles last night and I’m not at all sure it was worth it.

Some Hispanics, Our Youth and Minnesotans Have Got to Go

If you don’t know when you’re being insulted, you deserve everything that’s coming to you. 30% of Hispanic voters in Nevada voted for Sharron Angle after she portrayed them as a criminal threat to law abiding white folks. Guess what 30%? That makes you a bunch of nimrods, oh pardon me, estupidos! Marco Rubio was right to call out Harry Reid when he wondered aloud how any Hispanic could vote for a Republican. Harry should have wondered how any of them could vote for Sharron Angle.

Apparently our young voter count was lower than expected. You know what? All I hear the Tea Party Movement and other conservatives say is how terrible it is to leave all this debt to the younger generations.  Well, I don’t feel one shred of remorse today. They came out in droves in 2008 to vote for the rock star like it was some friggin’ edition of “American Idol”. Now when policy and our future is at stake, they had better things to do. Until the lazy selfish bastards stop texting their BFF’s while watching the latest installment of “Jersey Shore” and get out and do their civic duty by voting, they can choke on my debt.

Finally, Minnesota. What to do about Minnesota? OK I know they like colorful characters. Just look at Prince or Jesse Ventura. And yes I can forgive them for electing Michele Bachmann the first time. But now that we know what a show-boating brain-dead, rhetorically dangerous woman this is, how in the name of all that is good and decent, could she be re-elected? There is only one solution but I will limit this solution only to the sixth congressional district of Minnesota because unlike the average conservative Islamaphobe, I don’t smear the whole with the faults of the few. The solution is that the sixth district of Minnesota must be sold to Canada. I don’t know how much we’d get for it, but it would certainly help bring down the deficit that Ms. Bachmann is so fired up about.

Two Lib Losses that Don’t Upset Me That Much

A good number of our lib heroes survived last night with nary a scratch. Icons like Barney Frank (yeah conservatives … SUCK IT), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Barbara Boxer and that other boxer from Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid. Even that old example of political decay, Charlie Rangel lived to see another day. However there are two losses that don’t have me all that bothered. The first is Alan Grayson from Florida. I have maintained almost from the beginning that Grayson was all show and no substance. In a political climate where there is too much heat and too little light, Grayson generated a lot of the former. Was it great for catharsis? Damn straight it was! Did it move the ball forward in any meaningful way? Not one bit. Grayson was doing an audition to replace Ed Schultz on MSNBC but he was doing it on the tax payer’s dime. I’m not shedding a lot of tears that the audition was canceled.

The other loss that I almost cheered was that of Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. When Sestak unseated party-switcher Arlen Specter for the Senatorial nomination he made a huge self-righteous ruckus about how the Obama administration tried to buy him off so he wouldn’t run. Honest-Abe Sestak rejected the “bribes”. All this did was fire up the “impeachment” advocates claiming that Obama had authorized political dirty tricks for which he should be punished. A good Democrat would have kept his big fat mouth shut but no, Joe had to prove to everyone what a virtuous guy he was. I nearly vomited at the time and I found him equally obnoxious in his concession speech last night. By the way, his daughter was obnoxious too …

Most Obnoxious Performance on Election Night

That award goes to Joe Sestak’s daughter Alex. Yes, I know I’ve been beaten up on this blog in the past for prodding at politician’s families but I’m sorry, this kid needed a good swift kick in the ass. As Joe attempted to give his concession speech, not five seconds would go by without Alex interrupting him with some pithy comment. Her mother smiled ear to ear with that look you’ve seen on mothers who mistake their children’s rudeness for “just being precocious”. Joe seemed slightly less amused and I was expecting him any minute to scream “I JUST LOST THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL RACE OF MY LIFE …. WOULD YOU SHUT THE F**K UP?????” Instead, Joe just grinned and carried on. At the end of his speech he lifted his “little girl” up in the air and for a split second, I thought he was gonna throw her into the crowd like Alice Cooper throwing a chicken into a mosh pit. No such luck.

Later in the week, I’ll share my thoughts on where progressives should go from here.


WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Except in the Case of Rape and Incest

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=sharron+angle&iid=9981473″ src=”http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9981473/newt-gingrich-launches-his/newt-gingrich-launches-his.jpg?size=500&imageId=9981473″ width=”234″ height=”158″ /]

As we approach the midterm election, my friends on the left are particularly disturbed by some in the current crop of nutjob GOP candidates who are pro-life and do not make the exception for rape and incest. Sharron Angle is one such candidate. Well, I hate to disappoint my liberal friends but this is about the only issue where Sharron Angle is right on the money.

No, I haven’t switched from pro-choice to pro-life but I know an inconsistent argument when I see one. Calling oneself pro-life and then tossing in the rape/incest caveat completely implodes the position. Let’s examine why the exception gets discussed and why supposedly pro-life people should be called on the carpet for it.

Fundamental Premise

The fundamental premise of a pro-life stance must be zygote/embryo/fetus centric. That is the “life” we are talking about when we say pro-life. So the rape/incest exception must be viewed from a zygote/embryo/fetus perspective.


Rape is an horrific trauma to the female victim. I know of no scientific study that says a developing fetus is negatively effected by having been conceived by rape. A pro-life stance places our priority on the new life, not the psychological situation of the mother. No child chooses a rapist for his father. Why should any child’s life be terminated because of it? Is that not the very essence of visiting the sins of the father upon the child? The argument that the presence of the child in the mother’s life will forever remind her of her rape is compelling but is answered by adoption. The cold hard fact is rape is no excuse for abortion.


First we need to define our terms very carefully. Intercourse between unwilling partners is rape. So incest between non-consenting partners is rape. See above argument. So now we get to the much stickier situation of consensual incest. This of course is the ultimate taboo in Western culture. I argue that few people are really concerned about the medical implications of “in-breeding” when they make incest an abortion exception. The truth is they are disgusted by the circumstances of the birth and are visiting that disgust upon the developing fetus. Once again, abortion is not the answer. No one asks for their uncle to be their daddy. So why should their life be snuffed out because of it?

If you are truly pro-life, then the only exception that I can fathom is distinct physical risk to the mother that might result in her death. Then you’ve got a real dilemma in balancing the welfare of the baby against that of the mother. From what I’ve heard, Sharron Angle has not advocated mother’s risking probable death to go full term.

So what this comes down to is that the rape/incest exception ipso facto makes you pro-choice. The only difference is that you have self righteously declared your set of choices more worthy than the choices other women might wrestle with.

I may be pro-choice and Sharron Angle may be as nutty as a holiday fruitcake but I applaud her and others like her for being truly pro-life. The rest of you so-called pro-lifers are pretenders to the throne.


WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance