Sunday, January 22, 2012

Chill, please.

You're embarrassing yourselves.

The Presidential primary has gotten really mean-spirited in the last few weeks, and I'm not just talking about the campaigns.  Political junkies, some inside but many outside the DC beltway, have become exceptionally aggressive in their attacks on non-preferred candidates.

I almost wrote "aggressive in their advocacy", but very little of it can be called that.  It's mostly just sniping at the other side.  

Mittens is a RINO. Newt is a wildcard.  Bain Capital was evil.  Newt's dodging the "lobbyist" label for his work for Freddie and Fannie, which, by the way, are the definition of state corporatism.

Not so "inevitable" are we now, eh Willard?!

Mining on the moon, Newt?  Really?  What a fundamentally and profoundly stupid idea!

Let's face it, all of the Republican candidates for President are pretty seriously flawed.  Each one of the big three have done or said things that under normal circumstances I would consider to be a disqualifying action or position.  I'm at the point now where as long as it isn't Ron Paul, I really don't care much which one of the remaining candidates is nominated.

So to my fellow political addicts, please chill the heck out about bashing the other side.  You look like giant tools trying to slam your opponents when your preferred candidate is sort of lousy himself.  And really, isn't that why you're so aggressive, because your guy is weak too?

And don't forget -- one of these turds is going to be our nominee.

"Those who pick up the weapons of the Left today will find them turned against us tomorrow."

Just so.  Remember that one, Newtonians.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Shame on the Pro-Life Movement

Saturday night’s Republican debate on ABC revealed a startling deficiency in the Presidential field regarding the understanding of legal underpinnings of the abortion debate.

Yes, George Stephanopolous’ question about outlawing contraception might seem bizarre in a modern context. But the question goes to the heart of the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision that established the right to privacy that provided the basis for Roe v. Wade.

Romney in particular seemed very ignorant of this intellectual lineage of Roe. This is especially uninspiring in a candidate who has changed his position on the issue.

There’s an argument that a reversal of Roe would necessarily reverse Griswold, and would eliminate a generalized individualized right to privacy. That’s why Democratic Senators always ask prominent judicial nominees if they believe in a right to privacy. (There’s also an incorrect assumption among many that reversing Roe would make abortion illegal at the national level. A simple reversal of Roe would actually return regulation of abortion to the states, where, at the time of the Roe decision, there was an early trend toward liberalization.)

When George Stephanopolous asks whether a state would have the right to ban contraception -- AS CONNECTICUT ACTUALLY DID from 1879 to 1965-- he is asking a legally and philosophically relevant question, if not an electorally pertinent one.

It speaks very poorly of the pro-life movement that the importance of this question was lost on the GOP front-runner and much of the audience.

It really shouldn’t be that hard to distinguish Griswold from Roe. A candidate could simply state that individual privacy exists, but doesn’t extend to the killing of the unborn. Pro-lifers need to give better answers on the privacy question, and it is shameful that they seem unable to do so.