Wendy Davis is a Republican Nightmare

sneakersTexas is a solidly Republican State that hasn’t elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994. With Gov. Rick Perry stepping down to devote some personal time to remembering what that third thing was, the way is clear for his heir apparent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, to waltz into office.

No prominent Democrats chose to mount a campaign against him because there are no prominent Democrats in Texas. So the mantle of “default candidate” is falling on Democratic State Sen. Wendy Davis.

Davis is developing into a problem. She started with little name recognition, a massive fundraising disadvantage, a thin resume and no experience in a state-wide race. The fact that she’s gathering national attention and closing in on Abbott in the money race is not what’s really scary about her campaign.

Why is Wendy Davis such a dangerous challenge? Texas Republicans have learned from hard experience that they should never, under any circumstances, express what they think about blacks and Mexicans. Women, however, are still fair game and Republicans are Akin’ to share what they think about Davis’ personal life.

The Dallas Morning News published a bio piece that stirred some dark waters. Davis was raised in Fort Worth by a divorced mother with virtually no child support. She got pregnant as a teenager and briefly married the father. She left him at 19 and moved back into her mother’s trailer. Her divorce wasn’t final until she was 21, which matters for some reason. A few years later she married a well-heeled lawyer who held a seat on the city council. So far, it’s a pretty standard DFW socialite career-path.

Then it takes a turn. She attended TCU and graduated at the top of her class, earning a place at Harvard Law School. With her children in the care of her husband, she graduated cum laude from Harvard. She returned to Texas where she established a successful law career and became a business owner. She left her husband after they paid off the last of her student loans (in strictly legal terms “they,” not “he” paid those loans). Her second ex-husband kept custody of the kids while she pursued her career and her political ambitions.

Across most of the rest of America and the non-Muslim world, this resume would rate somewhere between mildly inspiring and boring. Single mother goes to college, has a career, blah, blah, blah good for her. Texas, however, is not the rest of America. It’s barely America at all. In Texas, Wendy Davis is a symbol of all that’s evil and terrifying.

The Dallas Morning News’ bio piece sparked a storm of comment from the usual corners. Any woman who would leave her children in their care of their father to pursue her own personal ambitions is a whore, unless she’s Sarah Palin. “Conservatives” lined up to express their moral superiority and some of the nastiest comments came from other women. A fellow Houston Chronicle blogger led the righteous charge with these gems:

divorce

whore

For those who aren’t familiar with the place, it is socially acceptable in Texas to say absolutely anything, no matter how ugly or bigoted as long as you preface it with “sweetheart.” That makes it cute. And women in Texas are supposed to be cute. They are supposed to smile, and do what their husbands tell them, and keep themselves pretty, and take care of the children, and tame their tongues.

Good, wholesome Texas women do not leave a husband behind in Fort Worth to go gallivanting off to Harvard. They do not let fathers raise children while they pursue a career. They most definitely do not stand up to ignorant, sexist bullies in the Texas Legislature, thwarting plans to shove righteousness into the dark unwilling places that resist it.

And if they do, you can be sure that “good” Texas women will be on the front line of the effort to hold their uppity sisters down while society enforces proper social order. Wendy Davis is not a good girl. Righteous Texas women do not approve.

Sounds like a feel-good story so far, right? What could possibly go wrong?

Many Americans, especially those far from the South and insulated from social media, still look to the Republican Party as the bastion of traditional commercial values – the strongest political force defending free enterprise, trade, and prosperity. Whoever it is out there who has missed the party’s ugly takeover by our own homegrown Taliban may see their foggy delusions burned away in the light of this otherwise inconsequential state-level contest.

Leaving behind for a moment all questions of morality or decency, this side of the GOP’s madness is unquestionably the most politically disastrous. The party may have alienated African-Americans and sold off much of its moral credibility in the process, but there are only so many black voters out there.

By contrast, there are lots of women. Many, many women. Many of them, more than you probably want to imagine, wish they had the chutzpah to do what Wendy Davis did.They do not always vote in the manner that their husbands and fathers request.

Wendy Davis is unlikely to win this election. She was always unlikely to win this election. So far her chief qualification for office is a filibuster she conducted once. By that criteria, Ted Cruz is ready for the White House.

Meanwhile Greg Abbott has served in an executive office for nearly a decade. Sure, he is utterly beholden to a cadre of religious kooks, but he has also demonstrated fundamental competence in a high-level state-wide political office over a long period of time. That’s really all the campaign story this race ever needed. The ugly references to Davis’ biography are not going to help.

Thanks to this race, young women all across Texas and the country who will one day be successful business owners, entrepreneurs, and perhaps also mothers and wives are going to hear what the GOP thinks of them. The way things are headed they may remember this race for the rest of their lives and vote accordingly.

Sen. Wendy Davis is a walking invitation to Texas Republicans to put their worst instincts on display. Anyone with any investment in the Republican Party’s broader goals, the ones that have nothing to do with putting people of certain races or genders in their divinely assigned place, please shut the hell up about Wendy’s Davis’ private life.

Pardon my manners. Please shut the hell up, sweetheart.  🙂

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Religious Right, Republican Party, Texas
278 comments on “Wendy Davis is a Republican Nightmare
  1. […] Wendy Davis will cause serious headaches for the Texas GOP Date: January, 2014 How does it look: Dead […]

  2. DanMan says:

    To close out the insult fest I’d like to offer up something that struck me when I read a comment from our host Chris. A couple of days ago he responded to tuttabella with a comment that started out with this…

    ‘Here’s why your experience in this regard doesn’t actually matter and why I haven’t bothered to share my own. Neither of us knows what opportunities we DIDN’T have because of the limited options we were given. And this whole discussion is about opening up options that no one in this country has ever had before.

    I turned out “fine.” You turned out “fine.” Maybe. Perhaps, but compared to what?’

    This is really the way pro-lifers see abortion. On this anniversary of Roe vs Wade we count that we have destroyed 55 million Americans at minimum. We can’t quantify what they could have achieved. Please take a look at this girl’s take.

    http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html

    • goplifer says:

      I recognize that, but unfortunately hardly anyone in the pro-life movement is willing to consider the other set of options at stake in the decision to carry the pregnancy – those of the mother.

      As with almost every other policy matter, the woman’s options, impacts, and consequences are invisible. She is merely supposed to be a vessel for other, more important fates.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Lifer, women do not spontaniously become pregnant. There are ways to prevent that from happening. But once it does happen, there is another person involved in the decision, the one that is to be killed. If I were to be conceived today under the same circumstances as I was many years ago, I would be a likely candidate to for an abortion. Thankfully I was protected under Texas law and am alive today. I am much happier to be alive instead of dead and discarded. Sadly, those law no longer exist, and between 50 million and 60 million people have been brutally killed as a result, almost all simply because they were deemed inconvenient. Shameful.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn apparently doesn’t believe that a “person” needs to have a brain.

        Is that because he’s desperately in need of a peer group?

      • DanMan says:

        for Chris

        http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-caught-covering-up-child-rape-in-philadelphia/

        kidnapped at 13, taken for an abortion at 14 and returned by PP to the guy that kidnapped her

        This is what you defend when you support the tactics of PP, which is a huge corner of the dem party…your party. Who has the war on women?

        That is in Philly. Where Gosnell thrived. It gets no media coverage, like Gosnell because your allies in another corner of the dem party know it will harm their collective. Gosnell got a life sentence with almost a total black out of reporting.

        I was faced with a choice once and chose life. Had I chosen otherwise a marriage would not have occurred. A son would not have been born. His brother would not be alive. Who knows what my motivations would have been. For some reason y’all consider that me subjugating my wife. Believe me, this little gal would take you down in a minute on the choice she asked me to make that you deride.

        All of you have choices. What we find absolutely disgusting is your insistence we participate in the consequences of your choices. And one more thing. The women I know who have had abortions don’t celebrate them like y’all seem to.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I see. So organizational mistakes or even allegedly criminal errors in one part of a national enterprise automatically damn the entire system.

        Thank you for conclusively proving that Steve Stockman’s misdeeds irrevocably demonstrate the immorality of the whole Republican Party.

        I wouldn’t make that sort of claim, of course, because it’s crap. But you just did.

      • John Galt says:

        Dan, I’m glad you and your now wife had the opportunity to make the right choice for you and your family. It is not the right choice for every woman or couple. You say, “All of you have choices. What we find absolutely disgusting is your insistence we participate in the consequences of your choices.”

        We don’t insist or ask that you participate in any way. We just want you to keep your damn nose out of our business. It is you who want to remove those choices that we currently have. Is that so hard to understand?

      • DanMan says:

        It is not an issue of understanding. Your party profits mightily off keeping the issue front and center as a political wedge while taking donations from the methods of funding said organizations have. The federal government gives millions to PP that get turned back to democrat constituencies.

        Go screw your women on your dime. Go have your abortions on your dime. Do you understand?

      • flypusher says:

        “kidnapped at 13, taken for an abortion at 14 and returned by PP to the guy that kidnapped her..”

        Here’s a news flash for you, forcing a rape victim to have an abortion is just as wrong as forcing a rape victim to continue a rape-caused pregnancy.

        Are you seeing the common theme here?

      • flypusher says:

        “Lifer, women do not spontaniously become pregnant. There are ways to prevent that from happening. ”

        So that rape victim should have done what?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Very few pregnancies happen through rape. And that still doesn’t justify killing an innocent third person for the crime.

      • flypusher says:

        The link was about pregnancy as a result of rape, so you can’t invoke rarity here. You claimed the pregnancy could be avoided- so what should that rape victim have done?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Mis-posted elsewhere in the tangled skein:

        Dan, you’re seeming awfully bipolar in this discussion. If you kept to the facts-conscious debater personality rather than periodically descending into the potty-mouthed little ignoramus, you might get more of the kind of reaction to which you apparently feel entitled.

        In the mean time, the result is hilarious. Sure, abortion and contraception are wedge issues — but for Republicans at least as much as Democrats! Republicans receive donations, too, from causes which they reflexively support: military contractors, big oil, big pharma, and the like.

        If you’re not aware of the flaming level of hypocrisy you’re displaying, well, then you’re even less than the man I took you for.

      • DanMan says:

        Politics is a wide ranging catch-all to many issues, and I don’t even bother arguing the moral aspects anymore because liberals heads explode whenever religion is mentioned but I still argue the financial consequences and they are legion.

        If the GOP is pulling donations to counter it’s one thing. Having the government fund the largest provider if abortions with plenty of kickback to dem benefactors is another. It doesn’t surprise me you can’t see that.

      • SistrinCF says:

        “As with almost every other policy matter, the woman’s options, impacts, and consequences are invisible. She is merely supposed to be a vessel for other, more important fates.”

        Seriously, why would you call yourself GOPlifer and then spout such mindless drivel as this? This is a liberal talking point, nothing more than a lie. But I am not surprised to see you promote it.

        In addition, from the guttmacher institute:

        “Reasons for Abortion: Among the structured survey responses, the two most common reasons were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” and “I can’t afford a baby now” (cited by 74% and 73% respectively, table 2).”

        “The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study.”

        Source: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions, Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, the Guttmacher Institute.

        This is abortion for convenience. Justify that.

        But this issue is exactly why Davis is being defended, because she is pro-abortion.

      • goplifer says:

        I don’t have to justify that. No one has any obligation to justify that to you. It’s none of my business and it’s none of yours.

        You are butting your nose (and your politics, and the coercive power of your government) into affairs where they do not belong for no reason other than the fact that you think God wants you to. That works in certain countries around the world. Miserable, poor, repressive places. Places where we regularly drop bombs on people to keep them from spreading their misery elsewhere. It shouldn’t work here. That impulse to impose religious tenets on other people deserves neither respect nor tolerance.

      • SistrinCF says:

        GOPlifer said: “I don’t have to justify that. No one has any obligation to justify that to you. It’s none of my business and it’s none of yours.”

        I wasn’t asking you to justify an individual case of abortion, I was asking you about the ideal of abortion for the sake of convenience. The Guttmacher Institute compiled the study and posted the percentages.

        GOPlifer said:”You are butting your nose (and your politics, and the coercive power of your government) into affairs where they do not belong for no reason other than the fact that you think God wants you to.”

        Where in my post did I evoke God? And the coercive power of my government? Which government are you subject to? As for citing my politics you just keep proving my point you are no more a member of the GOP than Margaret Sanger was. However, I have made no mention of nor stated any desire to impose religious beliefs on others. Yours is a straw man argument.

        GOPlifer said: “Places where we regularly drop bombs on people to keep them from spreading their misery elsewhere.”

        If this wasn’t so sad it would be funny.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      So, Dan, let’s look at this logically. Social and economic mobility in this country are at a frighteningly low level. The majority of abortion-seekers do so for economic reasons.

      Sure, some vanishingly small percentage of those abortions might, instead, have produced children who became great politicians or artists or scientists or activists. But the vast majority would have incurred huge social COSTS in welfare payments, public education, and, in the worst cases, judicial proceedings and prison operation.

      Republicans are supposed to be fiscally responsible. Yet you want us to have made indisputable massive financial outlays in search of an unknown, unreliable, low-probability pay-off?

      You may want to think about turning in your conservative credentials. You’re mooning over goofy fantasies, much like some other Republican posters on this topic.

      • DanMan says:

        I suggest you get an opinion and defend it or keep looking like the tool you are lightweight. As it is you are nothing more than a tedious little hyena running in a pack.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Such a cogent, compelling response! Such a devastatingly precise exegesis, analysis, and overthrow of my post. The maturity of your response richly displays the degree to which you deserve your chosen moniker.

      • DanMan says:

        owl, go look at your comments. Every one of them is an insult that could be generated from a card file of Rachel Maddow talking points. Like a crying baby with a dirty diaper you make a lot of noise and have nothing to say. Do you have anything to offer other than childish snark? ever?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        You’re working really hard to run away from even the most minimal attempt to respond to the perfectly logical argument I raised. Why is that?

      • DanMan says:

        1st paragraph – http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

        disputes your economic mobility pabulum, from a current article by a paper that is written for democrats by democrats

        2nd paragraph – vagaries based on conjecture BS

        3rd paragraph – fantasy outcomes based on paragraph 2

        4th paragraph – typical owlshit insults

        you asked for it crybaby, now go away and suck your thumb

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Dan, you might want to read the whole article before waving your dick around.

        “That finding implies mobility is stuck at a low rate, at least compared to other wealthy nations: It is much harder for a poor child born in America to climb into the rare air of the country’s highest earners than it is for a similar child in, for example, Canada or Denmark.”

        My goodness, how tiny and flaccid you’ve become.

      • DanMan says:

        ” Social and economic mobility in this country are at a frighteningly low level. ”

        So its the same it always has been, where does it factor into me paying for your abortions? Why did you mention it? I think its a BS article from a BS source but that’s what you guys delve in.

        Mentioning my capabilities sounds like projection on your part. Go see a doctor if you feel the need sad sack.

      • flypusher says:

        “…So its the same it always has been,”

        So why is it better in those “socialist” countries like Canada and Denmark?

    • flypusher says:

      To force a rape victim to give birth to a rapist’s child is to continue the rape. She is still being used against her will.

      If you can persuade such a women to carry a pregnancy to term, fine. You compel her, you cross the line.

      • CaptSternn says:

        How do you justify killing an innocent person for the crimes of someone else?

      • flypusher says:

        How do you justify increasing a traumatized person’s pain and anguish over the potential of a person? Who are you to force something else on a rape victim?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What innocent person?

      • CaptSternn says:

        The “potential” has already been met and happened when a person is concieved.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What makes a person, Sternn? Are we really only flesh?

      • flypusher says:

        Your OPINION, Sternn, not a scientific or even legal consensus.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Opion? No, it’s fact and reality. Do you really think a human woman is pregnant with something other than a human being? Or maybe you think slavery should be brought back because some might have the “opinion” that blacks aren’t really human beings? The only difference is what criteria you use.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        That’s old and tired, Sternn. Old and tired. It’s now just a greasy spot on the pavement, no longer even resembling a horse.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Presumably, Sternn does not eat chicken eggs because they might, if left to the natural course of events, acquire salmonella or go bad, so we must obviously treat them that way now.

        And, of course, he doesn’t drive, because any car he purchases will, in the natural course of events, become an old and unsightly hoopty that would embarrass him, so he can’t drive it now.

        I’ll leave Tutt out of this, but you can see where it could go.

        You’re irrational, Sternn: blinded by your own stubbornness and need for a childish and unthinking simplicity.

      • flypusher says:

        Ah yes, the slavery analogy again. It didn’t work the first million times, but hey it might work now, you never know! Developmental biologists don’t all have the same opinion on personhood, but I can tell you the consensus is NOT the fertilized egg stage. But why should they know any better than you?

      • CaptSternn says:

        So, Fly, what species do they the human woman is pregnant with? Or maybe it would be an inanimate object?

        A unique human life begins at conception. That is not real difficult to understand, except when one person wants to treat another as property.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Is that poor body-become-incubator up in Fort Worth still a “unique human life”, Sternn? Or will you be too cowardly to engage the question again this time, too?

        Human beings are more than human flesh. But we all know you don’t care about brains.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Owl, she is still a human being even though she is brain-dead and at the end of her life. That is one messed up case, but the child stilll has a chance. And under the law, she is the only one that can choose an abortion.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Dan, you’re seeming awfully bipolar in this discussion. If you kept to the facts-conscious debater personality rather than periodically descending into the potty-mouthed little ignoramus, you might get more of the kind of reaction to which you apparently feel entitled.

      In the mean time, the result is hilarious. Sure, abortion and contraception are wedge issues — but for Republicans at least as much as Democrats! Republicans receive donations, too, from causes which they reflexively support: military contractors, big oil, big pharma, and the like.

      If you’re not aware of the flaming level of hypocrisy you’re displaying, well, then you’re even less than the man I took you for.

    • flypusher says:


      So, Fly, what species do they the human woman is pregnant with? Or maybe it would be an inanimate object?”

      Intitialy an undifferentiated ball of cells. Human cells, but not yet a human being.

      “A unique human life begins at conception. That is not real difficult to understand, except when one person wants to treat another as property.”

      Then explain the merged blastocyst. If each is already a unique human being, yet they merge and only one child ( with genetic material from both) is born, what happened to the second person?

      As for the word “property” that’s not even close. No one is buying or selling embryos/ fetuses.

      • CaptSternn says:

        People die of natural causes. When the two merge, one is usually absorbed. That does’t mean it was not a human life, some other species or an inanimate object.

        Property applies, just look to the unused embryos at a fertility clinic, treated as property. That ishow the pro-choice crowd views the unborn, less than human, property, You are doing it now.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Fly, with respect to your comment about opinion versus scientific and legal consensus: Isn’t a “consensus” a set of opinions, albeit “expert” opinions? Or maybe “interpretations” is the better word. If science could provide the final, definitive answer about when life begins, why is a consensus even necessary? Why bring in legal scholars? Or theologians, as medical ethics panels do? As for the question of how to determine when a woman can or cannot legally have an abortion, that does seem to necessarily require a consensus of some sort, since it involves drawing a line at some point in the pregnancy, and that line has been readjusted over the years, as “interpretations” have changed, or as new scientific knowledge has become available. In light of new information and changes in interpretation that have resulted over the years, can you really say the question of when life begins, or of when it’s legally acceptable to abort a child, has been settled for good? Even the question of what is legal has changed over time and will continue to change.

      • flypusher says:

        “People die of natural causes. When the two merge, one is usually absorbed. That does’t mean it was not a human life, some other species or an inanimate object.”

        You are not paying attention. There are cases where two blastocysts merge, one child is born, and that child has BOTH genotypes present in his/ her tissues. It’s called chimerism- look at up if you don’t want to believe me. So I ask again, if each blastocyst is a person, and neither died (since the genotype of each persists in the child), what happened to the second person?

        “Property applies, just look to the unused embryos at a fertility clinic, treated as property. That ishow the pro-choice crowd views the unborn, less than human, property, You are doing it now.”

        Fertility clinics have nothing to do with a women seeking an abortion, so your word choice continues to fail. She’s not buying or selling embryos.

      • flypusher says:

        “Fly, with respect to your comment about opinion versus scientific and legal consensus: Isn’t a “consensus” a set of opinions, albeit “expert” opinions? Or maybe “interpretations” is the better word. If science could provide the final, definitive answer about when life begins, why is a consensus even necessary? Why bring in legal scholars? Or theologians, as medical ethics panels do? ”

        Humans like order, patterns, neat and discrete categories. Anyone who looks into nature realizes that it doesn’t order itself according to our categories. That doesn’t mean our categories/equations/etc have no value, just that we should remember they are not always an exact fit. So the problem of human development and where to declare personhood- while science has clarified things in some places, it’s totally muddied the waters in other ways (For example, there is no “moment” of conception. The process takes a day or two.) I know very well the scientific arguments for and against various stages of development. There is no definitive argument to be made for any one developmental stage, so you have to look for consensus. Plus “personhood” is more an ethical/theological concept than a scientific one. So on this one I think you need medical, theological, and legal input.

        “As for the question of how to determine when a woman can or cannot legally have an abortion, that does seem to necessarily require a consensus of some sort, since it involves drawing a line at some point in the pregnancy, and that line has been readjusted over the years, as “interpretations” have changed, or as new scientific knowledge has become available. In light of new information and changes in interpretation that have resulted over the years, can you really say the question of when life begins, or of when it’s legally acceptable to abort a child, has been settled for good? ”

        Definitely not. I don’t begrudge anyone the right to look at the evidence and draw their own conclusion. I do take exception if someone tries to claim that the science unambiguously backs their opinion, and that the cased is closed. I have my opinion on the matter too, but I’m not presenting it as anything other than that. Informed, yes, but not the same as a fact.

        “Even the question of what is legal has changed over time and will continue to change.”

        I agree, and when the changes are backed by solid science, that’s fine. In previous discussions on this topic, even the most liberal posters acknowledged that the viability threshold had changed due to advances in medicine and could potentially change to the point of making the whole argument moot ( as in a working artificial uterus).

  3. objv says:

    Huckabee’s comments were taken out of context, and CNN’s Dana Bash and NBC News’ Kasie Hunt had to clarify their own quick knee jerk reactions.

    Here’s Dana Bash being interviewed by Anderson Cooper:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/01/24/ac-bash-huckabee.cnn.html

    • flypusher says:

      So the “context” is to try to put the inflammatory rhetoric into someone else’s mouth? Does anyone really believe that the Dems secretly think that women “cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government”?

      Let’s keep it real. Huck opened his mouth before engaging his brain. He could have argued against what he saw as government overreach without building that crazy strawman.

      • objv says:

        Fly, did you watch the interview?

      • flypusher says:

        Your link? Yes. And it’s not a good defense of Huck. The absolute best scenario is that he chose his words poorly- is that really something you want to defend?

        And I’ll pose the question again- do you HONESTLY think his characterization of the Dems is accurate? That they really think women are like that?

      • objv says:

        Fly: No, I don’t think that ALL Democrats are like that. I confess to be puzzeled by the constant emphasis by party members on abortion and mandated free birth control – and the idea that all objections, even religious ones, consitute a “war on women.” I prefer to think of myself as a strong person. Contraception has always been something I have felt I could control without any government help.

      • objv says:

        Fly: I’ll add, that I do think Huckabee choose his words poorly although the rest of the speech provides context.

      • flypusher says:

        ‘ I confess to be puzzeled by the constant emphasis by party members on abortion and mandated free birth control – and the idea that all objections, even religious ones, consitute a “war on women.” ‘

        It’s more than that. The Sandra Fluke episode could be considered a tipping point, but this has been building for a while. There’s also equal pay issues at play in this. There is a really long list of GOPers (many at the state level) who have said some mind-blowingly politically-tone-deaf things, often compounded in defense of legislation that is not being fair to women. Every dumb choice of words just ads to it. The people within the GOP who are sounding the alarm here are right. In politics perception often becomes reality. This issue with women has a component of hype, but it also has a component of reality. What percentages you want to assign to each makes for lively debate, but at the end of the day the GOP still has this gender gap. Trying to convince anyone that this issue is just some Dem fabrication isn’t going to work when your words help grow the issue.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      OV you really have to get new prescriptions for your glasses as it even affects your hearing and your grasp on reality. There was no “clarification” from Dana Bash or backtracking of any kind on your clip. She in fact stated that Huckabee was catering to the right wing “red meat crowd” and was “inarticulate” and his own aides privately admitted he screwed up.

      And since you provide no warped “proof” of comments by Kasie Hunt I would have to presume you “misunderheard” her too.

      Must be nice to live in your own warped hypocritical reality.

      And speaking of your consummate hypocrisy, let me repost this tidbit you conveniently ignored below:

      From your buddy and brethren Dan, “Hey babe, ‘nuther beer please!”

      So “Objective” View, suddenly partisan political affiliations trump your “women’s rights” fake indignation or did you somehow miraculously (and conveniently temporarily) develop an ephemeral touch of nuance?

      But hypocrisy is forever ingrained in you as demonstrate continually eh OV?

      • objv says:

        Oh, bubba, why should I even bother to respond? You’re the one who told me to fetch you a sandwich while barefoot in the kitchen. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

        Check your hearing. As usual, it’s selective.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV wrote: “You’re the one who told me to fetch you a sandwich while barefoot in the kitchen.”

        There you go again to quote your favorite all flash/no substance hero. Looks like your selective “nuance” capability, sarcasm receptors, general basic intelligence, etc. have abandoned you again when you conveniently want to play the faux victim card (re: consummate hypocrisy).

        Give it a rest.

      • John Galt says:

        From objv’s link:
        “Mike Huckabee says he is mystified by the liberal criticism of his remarks on women, contraception and libido…”

        And that is the central problem. Huckabee is a politician, but he seems to me to be more down-to-earth than most and more earnestly religious as well. I think he really has no idea why someone would be offended by his comments and that this must just be a liberal attempt to smear him.

    • oryzarius says:

      objv, after revealing your deep but blithe ignorance about Texas’ abortion legislation yesterday, and confessing that you believe in regulating behavior not out of any actual principles but merely based on how icky you find it, are you really back to offer yet another shallow, thoughtless defense of Republican propaganda?

      It’s rather silly, not to mention more than a bit disgraceful.

      • objv says:

        Owl, If you call dismemberment and pulling out pieces of a 24 week fetus merely “icky,” you’ve probably watched many more horror films than I have. I’ll have to admit that early stage abortions bother me less that ones done in the second trimester although I do object to them on principle. Sorry, but the gruesomeness off later abortions give me a visceral reaction because of the development that the fetus has already undergone.

        I just posted a reply to Lifer below to answer his question about legislation.

        So, do you think I need to stay chained to my desk to answer all comments directed my way? I would rather keep appointments!

        Now, I’ve really got to go … my sock drawer needs sorting ….

      • John Galt says:

        And later term abortions are exceedingly rare. Old data (1997) from the Guttmacher Institute estimated that only 0.08% of abortions occurred after 24 weeks. Slightly more recent CDC data says that only ~1% occur after 21 weeks. Many late term abortions, which I agree can be grotesque, are done for legitimate reasons – such as severe developmental abnormalities meaning the fetus is inviable outside the womb and the risks to the mother from carrying it to term are significant.

        Now is probably where you bring up a butcher in Philadelphia who is serving life in prison with parole to further sensationalize this.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Don’t be a nitwit. As has been explained to you many times over, but which you seem either deliberately unwilling or haplessly unable to understand, well over 90% of abortions happen long before the kind which produce the lurid tales and images you hold close to your heart because it’s easier than thinking. You apparently have no principles worth speaking of: only a bored housewife’s vapid twittering about issues which she hasn’t bothered to actually investigate, let alone actually contemplate, for herself.

        Innumerate, illogical, and ill-informed, you are the poster child for the typical GOP voter, a troglodyte happy to be fed nothing but the night-soil that Republican talking heads periodically dump into your self-excavated hole.

      • objv says:

        Owl: About 1.2 million induced abortions are done yearly in the US according to Guttmacher. If you multiply that by 10% you get 120,000. Are you really OK with that figure?

        Even if you take a lower percentage – like John Gault – you still come up with quite a large number. Guttmacher lists the 2008 percentage at 1.5% for abortions done at 21 weeks or more. That still comes out to 18,000 fetuses that are near or already at the stage of viability.

        Granted, that some of those late abortions were done because of fetal abnormalities or because the health of the mother was in danger. I, personally, have nothing but compassion for women who have to make such an agonizing choice. When I was pregnant, I passed on the genetic testing available because I did not want to have that choice given me. There was a girl with Down Syndrome at the church where I grew up and she was a happy child. Additionally, I have worked with special needs kids – some of them profoundly mentally handicapped. While it’s true that the situations families find themselves are unimaginably difficult, the kids are human and their lives have meaning.

        That said, a woman who learns that her baby has severe fetal abnormalities can’t be faulted for terminating her pregnancy. Not everyone can cope when put in that situation.

        Owl, I’m surprised at the degree to which you are lashing out at me. On this issue, I believe that you are the one who is in denial. Aren’t you the one who is overlooking current scientific information? A fetus, at 20 weeks, is not an undifferentiated blob of tissue. Go to numerous websites on fetal development. Go to medical sites that describe abortion. You tend to dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions. You are male and have never been pregnant. I’m female and have. I’m also a former R.N. who has seen more than a hundred babies born. On the issue of fetal development my knowledge base is greater than yours.Why the hatred? Why the insults?

    • GG says:

      Off topic but over on the Chron some loon is said he doesn’t approved of Huckabee as he’s too “liberal”. I almost fell out of my chair reading that.

  4. flypusher says:

    Another little interesting subplot- we have some conservatives bashing the child custody arrangements, yet it is the conservatives I hear complaining the loudest about the lack of fathers’ rights. I don’t know the details and dynamics of the Davis family, but if her ex-husband was the best choice for the children, why bash Sen Davis over this?

    The notion that the mother is always the better parent is such out-dated BS.

  5. Tuttabella says:

    Uh, is it safe to come out now? And I’m NOT referring to the icy weather conditions in the Houston area.

    • Texan5142 says:

      Well I will refer to the weather conditions in the state on Minnesota….it is cold!

      It should be safe Tutt, Fox and Friends is on right now and the rabid right ( Dan the Richard) is occupied getting his/her morning dose of stupid.

      • GG says:

        Frankly, I’ve come to the conclusion, as Chris posted the other day, that it’s best to just ignore unemployed trolls like DanSparkle. All he does is deride and insult anyone who doesn’t follow his line of thinking. He is merely lonely and looking for attention and his hobby is trolling the internet screeching “lib” or “dem” at anyone who doesn’t listen to Fox. We should all just adopt the “don’t engage” policy with him.

        Too bad we don’t have the old “ignore” button.

      • Turtles Run says:

        GG – I agree ignore is the best policy. Heck – he/she does nothing but offer wild statements and insults..

        Texans5142 – I will be billing you for a new keyboard, the “Fox and Friends is on right now and the rabid right ( Dan the Richard) is occupied getting his/her morning dose of stupid” comment made me spit my dink out with laughter.

    • goplifer says:

      Maybe. I don’t know. What do you plan on throwing out there?

      Sorry. Yesterday got a little…warm.

      • objv says:

        Morning, Tuttabella et al. Yes, it did get a little “warm” in here yesterday, but I think it’s OK to come out now.

        It’s a balmy 15 degrees where I live – perfect for taking my Aussies out on a walk. There’s an old Norwegian saying that there is no bad weather – only bad clothing. The Scandinavians must know what they’re talking about. I’m beginning to really like cold weather..

      • flypusher says:

        Is your avatar an Aussie? Pretty dog.

      • objv says:

        Yes, that’s my dog. She LOVES the cold. Thanks, fly!

  6. Chris, first of all – great site. As your equivalent in Virginia, I’m glad to find another sane GOPer, especially one from Texas.

    The issue, as I see it with Wendy Davis, isn’t – as you pointed out – her actual biography. It’s her willingness to fudge the truth in order to score a few political points. Why some folks in politics need to embellish their backgrounds to become “inspiring” figures has never really made a lot of sense to me. I’d rather learn that she’s competent enough to handle the job of being a governor. Anything else is just interesting to know, but has nothing to do with whether she should be elected.

    That’s more an indictment of popular political culture – we no longer simply reward competence in office. We demand inspiring figures in the cast of the President, that make us feel better about ourselves when we vote for them. And the result of rewarding inspiring but ultimately ineffective behavior is that we get more of it.

    That’s why I think ties funny to see so many of our fellow Republicans trashing Wendy Davis but praising Ted Cruz. They both rose to national prominence by bloviating for dozens of hours at a time, and they were both completely ineffective at impacting their target, whether it’s an abortion bill or Onamacare. And Cruz is another of these “inspiring figures” we’ve put forward who have great bios but limited competence.

    So if when we explain to voters why Wendy Davis should lose, we should stick to the fact that the only reason anybody knows her is because she staged the political equivalent of an appearance on the View, not because she’s accomplished anything that would make her gubernatorial caliber.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Anse says:

      “So if when we explain to voters why Wendy Davis should lose, we should stick to the fact that the only reason anybody knows her is because she staged the political equivalent of an appearance on the View, not because she’s accomplished anything that would make her gubernatorial caliber.”

      Here’s an idea. How about looking at where she stands on issues? Debating the respective political philosophies of the two candidates? How about looking at the party platforms? Does that stuff even matter? Because I don’t care what a candidate’s resume is if I can’t agree with their politics. That’s what ought to be most important; the candidate’s ability to fulfill that platform is the second-most important thing.

      • Where she stands on the issues is part of the competence decision. But it should always be secondary, because until you’re in the office and faced with a specific challenge in a specific way, just talking about things in the abstract is kind of pointless. She can say she’s for X or for Y, but until she has to make a decision in one of those issues and confront both sides and the concerns, it’s just a platitude with no real consequences attached.

        Their politics can change, and I don’t want anybody in office who isn’t willing to ignore the politics if it means accomplishing a goal that benefits the citizenry without overwhelming downsides.

        At the end of the day, elections need to be about making a judgment call about who is the best candidate for the job. If we just elected a spokesman for a political platform, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment because nothing in governing is ever as cut and dried as it appears in a campaign.

      • rightonrush says:

        Brian wrote:”At the end of the day, elections need to be about making a judgment call about who is the best candidate for the job”
        As a former Republican I can tell you straight up that I will not be voting for a man that made millions the easy way, by suing another homeowner.

        “Abbott became a paraplegic when an oak tree fell on him while he was running following a storm in 1984. He had two steel rods implanted in his spine, underwent extensive rehabilitation at TIRR Memorial Hermann in Houston, and has used a wheelchair ever since.[] He sued the homeowner and won an insurance settlement worth more than $10 million. [26]”

      • flypusher says:

        Christie has the get things done rep, but sadly that’s getting buried in all these stories of petty behavior.

      • flypusher says:

        “As a former Republican I can tell you straight up that I will not be voting for a man that made millions the easy way, by suing another homeowner.”

        I don’t mind that so much as I mind his stance and actions on tort “reform” after he got his.

      • Anse says:

        I don’t buy it, Mr. Schoeneman, for the simple reason that I don’t think it really reflects the truth of how we vote. We may parse out such personality differences and resumes in the primaries, but when it comes to the general election, the “swing” voter–at least in Texas–is almost never as open-minded as they so often love to claim. We are partisans. Heck, if we aren’t, there is something acutely wrong with us. Anybody who can swing from Democrat to Republican in one election cycle is not a rational person. These parties represent different ideologies. Those who cynically assert that they’re just two sides of the same coin are too bitter or too lazy and unwilling to look through the morass of messy democracy to see the truth. I will never believe that people are gonna vote for Greg Abbott because they might have voted for a Democrat but Wendy just doesn’t fit the bill. It’s like these Tea Partiers who claim to be ideologically conservative but politically independent. There isn’t a single one of them that won’t vote GOP when the time comes. They just don’t have the stomach to get behind the party that really is their party. They want a kind of “out” so they can feel entitled to complain about the GOP when problems arise.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Very good point Anse. Anyone who can’t tell the vast ideological chasm between a Wendy Davis and a Greg Abbott and would shallowly and blithely flit from one to other on a whim (or some other pretentious criterion) is an embarrassment to the country and the entire representative governmental process. But they are out there.

      • flypusher says:

        “I will never believe that people are gonna vote for Greg Abbott because they might have voted for a Democrat but Wendy just doesn’t fit the bill. ”

        It’s a very common political dilemma voters face these days

        Candidate A – agrees with a lot of your stances, but reasonable questions can be raised about experience/ abilities to execute the office

        Candidate B- has qualifications, but has opposite stance on important issues and/or allies self with party extremes

        So maybe low voter turnout shouldn’t be so shocking.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        flypusher — No, there the solution should be blindingly obvious: you vote for the candidate with her heart In the right place.

        I’d far rather have a governor with proper priorities but who lacks experience and has to rely on allies or staff than an ultra-efficient administration run by Darth Vader.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        “I’d far rather have a governor with proper priorities but who lacks experience and has to rely on allies or staff than an ultra-efficient administration run by Darth Vader.”

        Thank you Owl. And besides, been there, done that. Darth Cheney brought us the botched war in Afghanistan which we are still trying to extricate from 2 administrations after he left in disgrace and of course the totally unnecessary and useless war in Iraq that needlessly killed over 4,000 American military, wounded and maimed tens of thousands more, and psychologically destroy untold how many more. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and American and foreign civilians killed as collateral. In the meantime, the militants have retaken Falluja from the Iraqi “government”. Draft dodging Darth Cheney at that. No thanks.

      • flypusher says:

        Owl, my tendency has been to hold my nose and pick A too, but you take the risk that if A really, really screws up, you can put your cause in a very deep hole, and give the Darth Vaders more wind in their sails. Sometimes it is a pick your poison.

        The sad thing is that politics are so petty and shallow that many of the sensible and competent people stay far away.

    • flypusher says:

      “So if when we explain to voters why Wendy Davis should lose, we should stick to the fact that the only reason anybody knows her is because she staged the political equivalent of an appearance on the View, not because she’s accomplished anything that would make her gubernatorial caliber.”

      That’s a fair criticism. As for the fudging, it’s not the first time a politician has done it, nor will it be the last. It amazes me that candidates still do it, especially in the Internet age. You’d think some of that would learn.

      This Indy voter is no fan of Abbot, but Davis isn’t making me want to vote FOR her.

    • John Galt says:

      Brian – You make some reasonable points, but the one about the “fudged biography” is a stretch. Davis said she was divorced at 19 when in fact she was not legally divorced until 21. If you asked me when I was divorced it would have been when I said sayonara and moved out, not when some judge signed a piece of paper, and I bet most people are the same. Fudging whether your mother left school when she was 11 or 14 just doesn’t seem worth a conscious thought. This is pretty low rent stuff. Ironically, the manufactured controversy will probably help her in the long run by increasing name recognition.

      Now your point about her credentials is a good one. I think her present strategy is to run against GOP overreach and seeming insensitivity to the plight of the less fortunate in this state. Abbott has his fingerprints all over that record. That will probably be effective, to a point. If I were Abbott, I’d be a little concerned that someone with “the political equivalent of an appearance on the View” and without widespread name recognition is within shouting distance in the polls (I’ve seen polls as close as 6%) and is raising serious money.

      Breaking one party rule in this state is not a one election task. A good performance by a political neophyte against the establishment would be an important step.

    • goplifer says:

      Brian,

      Thanks for dropping by and sharing a comment. You’re right. Sen. Davis is a very weak candidate. She’s a “nightmare” because the rhetorical target which you point out so well, is surrounded by a dense ring of “bigot-bait.” Our response to that bait threatens to overwhelm the message and reflect more on the GOP than on her.

      Best regards.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Hello Brian,

      I have one little quibble with your post about Wendy Davis. Did she lie? or is she simply chronologically challenged? I know I am, most days if you asked me how long I have been married I would have to go look at my marriage license to see what year I married and do the math. For many people the date of the final divorce decree isn’t as important as the day the decision is made to end a marriage. Exactly what political points do you think she was making here?

      As for her ability to run a state based on what you think you know about her tells me you really don’t know much about her activities in the legislature outside of a filibuster against the restrictive abortion laws before the legislators. Granted it got a lot more press than the previous one in which she attempted to curb the draconian cuts to education in the state of Texas. Education vs Abortion well, you know which is going to get the most attention.

      I don’t have a crystal ball to tell me how this election will turn out, but I will say that we can and should do a hell of lot better than Greg Abbott and company.

  7. kabuzz61 says:

    I read through the comments. I knew it. Liberals love liars when they are lying for their party. Totally acceptable to them. Just remember it. Pathetic people make excuses for bad behavior.

  8. DanMan says:

    man I believe my here is done! reads like a huffpo or koskids page of comments

    Hey Chris, did the hits make you any money today? yer mighty welcome

  9. John Galt says:

    I know in some capacity a fair number of accomplished professional women in Texas, some of whom are mothers (and darn good ones). The Texas GOP would be lucky to get 5% of these votes. Dismay at the idiocy of GOP policies towards women’s issues (especially reproductive) and cutting school budgets (with Abbott saying that Texas teachers made fine, fair salaries) is turning to anger and, sweetheart, you don’t want to make Texas women angry.

  10. DanMan says:

    wahoo!!! the looney bin is in overdrive today! I knew it was going to be a great day. The Liars Club is crankin’ out their crap, come and get it!!

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      You are pathetic. You seem to be the only one here who doesn’t realize it, though. Which is, of course, even more pathetic.

      • DanMan says:

        I give that a 0.3 on a 10 scale bird brain

      • DanMan says:

        Like with JG, its more indicative of the denizens of the site when it comes to realization and awareness. I bring it to ’em, they explode in hysteria. It’s the Chicago way I guess.

    • rucasdad says:

      Dan, what are you more upset about? The fact that you and your ilk are on the fast track to irrelevancy and no one cares because it’s all self inflicted or is it the fact that once again, we’re all laughing at your SO (Kathleen)?

      And Chris, while we all do enjoy a good laugh at that person you mentioned, I’m sort of disappointed that you went the easy route and took a swing at the low-hanging fruit. You’re so much better than that…

  11. goplifer says:

    Right on cue another stupid comment from a Republican religious fundamentalist about women and their libido, http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/23/mike_huckabee_democrats_want_women_to_think_they_can_t_control_their_libido.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

    The ignorant, bigoted mistake that the Religious Right consistently makes on this and nearly every other issue is that all would be right in the world if people just behaved the way the Bible (as they read it) says they should. Women’s rights issues are about the failure to control sexual urges, particularly women’s sexual urges.

    Women wouldn’t vote for Democrats if they recognized that there are alternative ways that they can rein in their dark impulses. Women are being “deceived” by the Democrats, because, like blacks and Hispanics and young people and urban voters and all the other demographics that the party has alienated, they are vulnerable and weak and controlled by their urges and their greed.

    This is beyond merely insulting. It is dehumanizing in a way that no one should tolerate in a 20th Century, much less a 21st Century climate. The arrogant conviction that my direct line to God gives me a right to tell you how to live should never been tolerated as a legitimate political position.

    There is no daylight between Huckabee and your run of the mill Egyptian Imam on issues that most deeply affect ordinary people in their day to day lives. The Religious Right in this country is positively terrifying. As long as they dominate Republican politics at the national level there is nothing useful that can come from the Republican Party.

    Republicans here in Illinois are generally pretty reasonable and I have worked hard to support the party here, but we may be reaching the end of the line. This is miserable.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Not Catholic but I’m thinking Pope Francis has better (LTE, FiOS, cable, DSL, VoIP, etc) connection in his “direct line to God” and gets the message than Mike (my son the Michael Vick doppelganger tortured and hung a stray dog because he was being “humane” and “putting it out of its misery”) Huckabee’s 300 Baud audio coupler modem.

      And it shows. it shows.

    • Crogged says:

      “Uncle Sugar”. A minister who can’t hide his arrogance of being above those petty things the small people in this world want. WWJD on Fox?

      • GG says:

        Dan, what on earth are you referencing? You are trying to troll way to hard today. Almost desperate sounding. Talk about boring.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Not just the politicians; apparently it’s a male thing:

      http://digitaljournal.com/article/351233

      Scientists fear ‘female Viagra’ could make women nymphomaniacs

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        “More than one adviser to the industry told me that companies are worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong, that the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering.”

      • GG says:

        OMG….LOL.

    • DanMan says:

      Right on cue another liberal can’t hear any words that push back against the insanity that is democratia without hearing a dog whistle to fetch the frothy responses. You guys are predictably obtuse.

      You ought to change your handle to GOPLaugher

      Hey, did you hear Aetna is hinting they are bailing out the precedent’s signature swindle? Libido!!!111!! Hey, did you hear everything is pointing at Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and Patrick Kennedy about Benghazi? WAR ON WIMMIN!!!111!!!

      Y’all are so used to lying it almost sounds like you believe yourself.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Wow Dan the Richard is lacking in both irony and mirrors.

        I guess that makes him a pre menopausal vampire who forgot to take his One-a-Days.

      • DFC says:

        You do the GOP damage every time you post. Please continue.

      • DanMan says:

        rucas posse!

      • rucasdad says:

        I love the fact that it’s been so long since Dan and I have conversed, yet he can’t stop thinking about me….Dan, what exactly was it that I said that has made me the apple of your eye? Or do you just have a soft side for me, big fella?

      • DanMan says:

        it was the day I found out I could get past the censors and made a comment, you and the pack of jackals dog piled on me that day with the exactBS I’m getting in waves today and it was all the same. But GG was boring, turtlehead and a couple of others referenced shat in every comment or called me their childish names but you! you had the rugged look that only a guy staring into space with his hat on backward could bring and I knew they considered you their enlightened leader of leaders.

        Ride hard my friend.

      • rucasdad says:

        You’re so confused that it’s funny. There is a multitude of people here that are far more intelligent, thoughtful and articulate than me. The thing I’m good at is trolling neanderthals like yourself and you can’t say that’s not true because look, it’s been almost a month and yet you’re still almost bringing my name up every other day.

        One day you’ll learn or someone close to you will tell you that there isn’t a group or gang of people here willing to jump on people they don’t agree with, it’s just that you can’t get away with the idiocy here that you would be able to on spakle’s “blog” or any other random comment section. When that day comes, then, all at once, the bulb in your head will slowly start to brighten and you too will understand that all this time you were just a punchline to a joke that you never got and it will be forever glorious.

      • rucasdad says:

        One more thing Dan that you mentioned…

        “…you and the pack of jackals dog piled on me that day with the exactBS I’m getting in waves today and it was all the same.”

        Like so many others before you, you’re just now realizing that you are not strong enough to defend all the stupidity in the world and that is why you’re having such a hard time. You’re learn soon enough, Dan. You’ll learn.

    • SistrinCF says:

      Did you actually bother to read the article you linked? Quote:

      “The ignorant, bigoted mistake that the Religious Right consistently makes on this and nearly every other issue is that all would be right in the world if people just behaved the way the Bible (as they read it) says they should.”

      Except Huckabee didn’t say any of that. In fact he didn’t say any of things you claim he did in order to support your…conclusion.

      A more complete quote of what Huckabee actually said, along with another example of how the left is twisting his words, can be found here:

      http://ace.mu.nu/archives/346676.php

      In addition it was liberals, in creating adds meant to engender support for Obamacare, which promoted the exact image of women Huckabee is faulting them for.

      • goplifer says:

        Bullshit.

        Here is what Huckabee said, verbatim:

        “And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it — let us take that discussion all across America”

        http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-mike-huckabee-women-libido-democrats-20140123,0,2291975.story#ixzz2rGEeO5ut

        Prescription coverage on your health insurance is “Uncle Sugar.” And they need it because they are convinced that “they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government….” In other words, birth control pills, which my wife and millions of other women take to control health conditions, are just a crutch to help them deal with their libido.

        What f’g planet do you have to come from to see that as anything but a condescending, ignorant, sexist insult?

        So Republicans are going to “liberate” women from their “Uncle Sugar” who has them hooked on contraceptive coverage? Seriously? Yea, go ahead and take that “all over America” and see what happens.

        What an asshole.

      • Crogged says:

        Requiring insurance companies to cover expenses regarding reproduction is no different than covering digestive tract expenses and the ’empowerment’ he offers is worthless.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Evidently Huckabee is the kind of idiot who believes a straw-man argument is a legitimate tactic. I can see him in the 1920s: “I’m opposed to women’s suffrage because I’m worried about those terrible people who want to de-sex women and make them the same as men!”

        When you’re arguing against a standpoint that doesn’t actually exist, it’s pretty clear that you’re at least dishonest, if not actively immoral. Huckabee should be ashamed. But, in keeping with his usual low level, he’s probably not.

        As for the ad you cite, truth-telling might demand that you point out it’s only from a web site known as DoYouGotInsurance.com, a collaboration between Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education. And plenty of people — including the renownedly ultra-liberal Huffington Post — are calling them stupid.

        Oh, dear. It seems your quiver of ammunition has suddenly come up distressingly empty.

      • DanMan says:

        You really do have comprehension issues don’t you Chris? Let’s knock out the words in between and focus on the ones that are your issue.

        And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe … they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it — let us take that discussion all across America”

        That is exactly what your party declares. If you can’t pay $9/month for your wife’s birth control you are a pathetic little man. If any guy can’t cover that, or at least split it her I will laugh at you all day long because your issues aren’t reproduction ones. You guys are children.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Because obviously Dan believes that men need to take care of women.

        Making his pathetic worldview an obvious part of the problem.

      • Crogged says:

        Why Dan why? If it is a medical issue why the hell SHOULDN”T insurance cover it! We set this system up, it does as we want and if we allow the superstitious, now matter how sophisticated, benign or even beneficial said belief system may be, to control it we set up anarchy. There’s insurance, covering medical expenses of all, including those dang women with their problematic plumbing.

      • DanMan says:

        hey ladies, this one thinks you have problematic plumbing, I think I see why you’re so gloomy now

      • Cynthia says:

        Looking at my Walgreens receipt – “Quasense, retail price $138.99. Your insurance saved you $118.99” Where are all these $9 BC prescriptions? Mine was $20! What an outrage! And BTW, they aren’t for birth control – I’ve been fixed for over a decade. My husband’s plan pays – for years, mine didn’t because there was a miniscule chance that I could conceive with snipped tubes in my late 40’s-50’s, according to All-Knowing Management,and they just didn’t want to risk it since they didn’t approve of birth control. Doesn’t get much sillier than that.

      • Crogged says:

        If you want forgo your insurance coverage on your wife, that’s your right, but you have no right to demand that it denies mine. Your ‘freedom’ is a burden for yourself.

      • SistrinCF says:

        “What f’g planet do you have to come from to see that as anything but a condescending, ignorant, sexist insult?”

        You really appear to have a hard time with reading comprehension. Huckabee did not say either he or the Republican party believe contraceptives are just a “crutch to help (women) deal with their libido.” He was faulting Democrats for promoting that ideal via their continual hawking of the supposed Republican war on women. Did you sleep through the Fluke affair?

        .

      • goplifer says:

        ***Did you sleep through the Fluke affair? ***

        No, I didn’t. And I’m not sleeping through this one either. And I’m furious. I can’t imagine how most women must feel.

      • flypusher says:

        “He was faulting Democrats for promoting that ideal via their continual hawking of the supposed Republican war on women. Did you sleep through the Fluke affair?”

        So your defense of Huck us that he doesn’t really believe that gratuitous and immflamatory rhetoric, he’s just putting it in other people’s mouths? Wow, that makes him look sooooo much better!

      • SistrinCF says:

        GOPlifer said: “What an asshole.”

        Why? Because I dared come here and question you? Perhaps if you didn’t embrace so many liberal tenets I wouldn’t have bothered. But if you are going to be touted around the internet as someone worth listening to you should expect and be able to intelligently handle a bit of challenge or criticism.

        Your piece on Davis is both churlish and puerile. If she is a Republican nightmare at all, it is because winning the election would put her in a position to advance the liberal agenda in Texas. I don’t know about you, but I read the transcript of her filibuster speech. The issue here isn’t how some Texas Republicans and Republicans at large react to her lies and distortions, the issue is her agenda.

        Of course if you agree with her position on abortion that kind of proves my point.

        Owl said: “Oh, dear. It seems your quiver of ammunition has suddenly come up distressingly empty.”

        Don’t flatter yourself.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I apologize: evidently it’s really your rhetoric which is empty.

        Republicans used to allow some reasonable discussion and dissension on the abortion issue. That made them the party of the Big Tent — but the iron, unthinking orthodoxy that enchants you is making them instead the party of the pup tent.

      • Crogged says:

        If the hole fits…..the author’s comment was directed at Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee created a fictional Democrat, not the truth that in the regulation of insurance it is the Democrats who ask that even women get coverage for their needs and not worry that someone in the chain of money exchanging hands is offended.

  12. rightonrush says:

    Now, I ain’t one to rub salt into wounds but I want to share this with all my TeaP friends.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-gallup-poll-uninsured

    • DanMan says:

      we’ll be okay

      “Gallup cautioned that it’s unclear if the drop is directly correlated with Obamacare’s implementation.”

      y’know I have not heard the number of uninsured was over 50 million as this report indicates. Al Green blew up his torn hall when I said 35 million and insisted it was way less than that…meh, just more BS from another dem fluffer

      • Crogged says:

        What a terrible thing, all these people getting insurance and Medicaid, we should do something to minimize the good news.

      • CaptSternn says:

        People getting insurance? More like people losing insurance. Almost 6 million lost tehir insurance so far. Claims of maybe 1 million signing up on a web site, not actually getting insurance, hardly makes much of a difference. Now it is estimated that up to 100 million could be losing their insurance the month before elections. 2014 could very well make 2010 look like a picnic for democrats, and democrats know it. That’s your “good news”.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        The sky is falling!

        Been there, done that Cappy. OV already stole your histrionic Chicken Little thunder (and was thoroughly discredited) about 50 of Chris’s blogs ago. Regurgitation is oh so boring and unappealing.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Can’t discredit facts and reality, and I am not the one screaming that the sky is falling. Democrats and Obamacare supporters are doing that. The meltdown is very good for the tea party movement and conservative republicans. Cruz has been vindicated. The sad thing is that democrats have caused so much harm and so many people are suffering the consequences.

  13. CaptSternn says:

    Humorous entry today. Here are the people that couldn’t attack Palin enough making up imaginary attacks on Davis. The same people that said Palin should stay at home, take care of her kids and cook for her husband, that she should know her place and stay out of politics and avoid having a career.

    Davis earned a name for herself. I won’t use it, but everybody knows what it is and it will stick with her for the reast of her political career.

    • GG says:

      I think the people who were saying those things merely did so because Palin was running on the whole traditional pious family values platform. They were pointing out what they saw as hypocrisy.

      • DanMan says:

        dems were screaming in fear, ever see the Kanye video where he’s hiding behind a cover and whining about her? poor little libs are so afraid of taking care of themselves

      • GG says:

        No, I don’t pay attention to Kanye.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Oh, go ahead and use “the name”, Sternn.

      It can’t make you look any less classy than you already are.

  14. SistrinCF says:

    A portion of lifer’s comments were posted on another website, which is how I was exposed to them. I responded there but thought it only fair I respond here as well.

    I have read enough of GOP lifer to realize if the guy is a member of the GOP at all it is only in the spirit of Grima Wormtongue. He spouts much of the same nonsense as the majority of the liberal Democratic establishment, attempting to lure actual Republicans away from the core by perpetuating the standard lie the GOP is a party of white men dominated by racist, bigots, and homophobes doomed for extinction if they fail to become Democrats. Only on this occasion in order to make his point the GOP needs to be misogynist as well. Responding a portion of the diatribe above.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    For those who aren’t familiar with the place, it is socially acceptable in Texas to say absolutely anything, no matter how ugly or bigoted as long as you preface it with “sweetheart.”

    Absolute drivel. This is a regurgitation of another liberal talking point, that Republican men lord themselves over their cowed and beaten into submission Republican women who only speak when told. This isn’t erudite punditry on lifer’s part, this is mindless sophistry.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    That makes it cute. And women in Texas are supposed to be cute. They are supposed to smile, and do what their husbands tell them, and keep themselves pretty, and take care of the children, and tame their tongues.

    Well God forbid Texas women take care of their children. I mean can you imagine a world, lifer, where women parents actually take care of their children? The horrors, the absolute horrors! How could anyone promote such a thing?

    Seriously, the above quote reeks of the same elitist disdain prevalent when reading Sally Kohn, or when listening to Al Franken, Juan Williams, or Arianna Huffington, or watching Rachel Maddow. GOPlifer has far more in common with Air America than with actual America.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    Good, wholesome Texas women do not leave a husband behind in Fort Worth to go gallivanting off to Harvard.

    The point being made, lifer, is decent honorable people don’t milk someone for all the money and support they can and then immediately dump them the instant they are no longer required. If you actually believe wholesome Texas women, and therefore by extension wholesome Republican women, do not believe in personal advancement then you are a bigger idiot than I give you credit for.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    They do not let fathers raise children while they pursue a career.

    Again you have artfully missed the point. Decent people, people with a soul, do not pawn their children off on others without good reason. Wanting to pursue a career is not a good enough reason. That is why it sometimes takes true sacrifice in order to be a good parent, and it is obvious to anyone without an agenda to pursue Davis wasn’t willing to sacrifice much of anything in order to be a good parent. Such a quaint and old fashioned notion, being a dedicated parent. Keep whispering in slimy terms how the GOP needs to turn away from that.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    They most definitely do not stand up to ignorant, sexist bullies in the Texas Legislature, thwarting plans to shove righteousness into the dark unwilling places that resist it.

    And now the lies and distortions come into play. Davis did not stand up to sexist bullies, she stood up to promote not only abortion but unfettered abortion on demand. As discussed prior elsewhere, she did so by employing the standard litany of additional lies and distortions the left always trots out when shouting their pro-abortion mantra. Being reminiscent of Maddow apparently wasn’t enough, now you are evoking the spirit of Olbermann.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    And if they do, you can be sure that “good” Texas women will be on the front line of the effort to hold their uppity sisters down while society enforces proper social order.

    More idiotic sophistry. Being pro-life does not equate in any manner to the image you are trying to create.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    Wendy Davis is not a good girl. Righteous Texas women do not approve.

    Wendy Davis is a heartless opportunistic liar. That is what some women of Texas are responding to. I say some because there are of course many Texas women who support Davis. They are called liberals, and the GOP does not need to become like them in order to survive people like you.

    Originally Posted by GOPlifer View Post
    Regardless of the election results in the race for Governor, this binge of bigoted moralizing cannot end well for Republicans at large.

    Says the bigoted moralizer. Your constant pleas for the GOP to become more like Democrats in order to survive evoke a line from “The Fools Revenge:”

    “… Nay, strain not so hard To keep it down; you are among friends here …”

    You, of course, are the Dentist.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Unfettered? Really?

    • CaptSternn says:

      There are people that want the two parties to be so alike that it doesn’t matter which is in power at the time, the only difference is at what speed their agenda is pushed on the people, denying more rights and destroying more freedom. Those people are on the left. Lifer is one of them. Republican In Name Only.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Never mind that *fascism* is, by definition, a far-*right* phenomenon. Sternn places all opponents of freedom on the left.

        Get that plank in your eye looked at, buddy. It makes you look ridiculous.

      • DFC says:

        I’m entirely supportive of Republicans like CaptSternn who seek to purge party ranks of anyone but the most rigidly doctrinaire, conformist monoculturists. Nothing cheers an Independent voter quite as much as seeing RINO hurled as an insult inside the GOP.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      You lead with a *Lord of the Rings* reference, then follow with a lazy point-by-point analysis more suited to corporate email or adolescent argument than an adult forum discussion?

      We’re used to better, here.

    • GG says:

      Sistr sounds very disagreeable and cranky.

    • Crogged says:

      There are ‘decent, honorable people’, ‘actual America’, ‘people with soul’, ‘people who need people’ and people who write windy, self righteous drivel.

    • Cynthia says:

      “Decent people, people with a soul, do not pawn their children off on others without good reason. Wanting to pursue a career is not a good enough reason.”

      Nice. I’ll mention this to a friend whose husband is working in Afghanistan for three times what he could make here, thus cementing his daughter’s college education, plus their retirement when he gets back due to his enhanced work skills. What a jerk he is.

      • SistrinCF says:

        He plans to return to his children, does he not? That is the difference you fail to recognize.

      • goplifer says:

        Holy crap, really? Your take on this is that is Davis if different because she did not “plan to return to her children?” You know absolutely nothing about this person, her husband, her children or her situation, and you feel comfortable interpreting her life story to mean that she abandoned her children?

        Dude, pardon my French, but you’re an asshole.

      • Crogged says:

        Sistrin you need to use the same charitable reflex with regards to the actions of Ms. Davis and her former husband. No one was ‘abandoning’ anyone.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Stuff a sock in it honey your’e frothing at the mouth.

  15. DFC says:

    When the GOP’s go-to weapons are sneers, sarcasm and solipsism, the arsenal is empty.

  16. objv says:

    Lifer, sweetie, the mistake you are making is to assume that most women in Texas find Wendy Davis to be a sympathetic character.

    Undoubtedly, some of the younger women may find her a role model and the pro-abortion types are falling all over themselves to kiss the top of her pink sneakers, but it will be interesting to see what the majority of Texas women think.

    What is Davis primarily known for? To many women, her filibuster was not about women’s rights. The right to have most abortions was being left intact. The new law concerned healthy fetuses which were near the stage of viability. To any woman who has had an ultrasound at five months, the fetus looks remarkably like a mature “baby” – not a blob of tissue. Many women will see her filibuster as only as an attention grabbing stunt.

    Yes, Davis did get her name in the news, but, she has to be careful about her messaging. Distorting her past to make it seem like she worked her way through college could come back to bite her. In reality, her rich husband cashed in his 401K money to get her through Harvard. She dumped him after the last loan payment and left him to raise their kids.

    It is OK to be ambitious, and I realize that many men have done the same to women, but the problem for Davis is that she was dishonest and comes off as mercenary. Not good.

    Lifer, honey, I realize that you and the other men mean well, by trying to figure out what women want, but honestly …… Have you ever been all that good at it?

    • rightonrush says:

      objv, since you proclaim to live in N.M. what gives you the “inside track” into what Texas women think? I’m married to one and she thinks you and others need to butt out of her, our daughters in law and granddaughters lady parts. Yours and others obsession to control another persons body is killing the GOP.

      • DanMan says:

        hey gay, applying that logic what does a liberal democrat living in Chicago know about conservative politics in Texas

      • rightonrush says:

        my-my, looks like DanSparkle is actually objv. Not surprising.

      • objv says:

        Princess?, Princy-poo? … ROR? I’m assuming that since you referred to me as princess in a previous post that that is your preferred method of greeting. What’s up with you guys who supposedly are for women’s rights who call conservative women “sweetheart” and “princess” – or tell them to stay in the kitchen barefoot? Isn’t that a tad misogynistic?

        I moved to New Mexico last year but spent around 20 years total in Texas between other moves. Most of my friends live in Texas and my son still goes to college there. While living in Texas (three different locations), I was always involved in different social groups and talked to a wide variety of people of all income levels. I’m friendly and people sense that I am a sympathetic person so it’s not unusual for the young guy stocking the shelves at Office Depot to tell me about his girlfriend troubles or an older woman confide about grand kids who are getting out of hand while waiting to get my tires rotated at Discount Tire. My hairdresser (and friend) was married to an illegal immigrant. Other friends were important people in the oil industry. What can I say, I like variety.

        I have no desire whatsoever to have anything to do with your wife’s “lady parts” – not my thing. I am sure she can speak for herself. However, who speaks for the unborn girls whose body parts are literally torn apart during some abortion procedures?

        I am not DanMan. The only thing I know about him is that he is conservative – and has a good sense of humor. That’s it (and more than enough) for now.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        objv — So, let’s be specific. Which specific abortion procedures to you object to (the ones where “body parts are literally torn apart”), and does that mean there are others to which you have no objection? Or are you just being lurid?

      • objv says:

        Owl: I’ll have to admit, that abortions at earlier stages bother me less, but Davis was seeking to keep these later abortions legal. I didn’t think the description was lurid – just exact. I used to work in an OR. I have a feeling that some who are “pro-choice” have no idea of what that choice actually entails.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Davis had a *host* of goals in opposing the law with her filibuster. Just because conservative propagandists foam that the primary goal of the legislation was the 20-week-ban doesn’t mean they’re not lying like the low-life scum that they are. Almost everyone I know (most liberal, naturally) found that curb the LEAST troubling part of the bill; everything else was far worse, such as the ridiculous requirement for admitting privileges, etc.

      • objv says:

        Owl: Low-life scum? Well, at least you aren’t referring to me as “princess” like ROR or telling me to stay in the kitchen barefoot like bubba!

        Low-life scum has a nice ring to it. Could I be pro-low-life scum just as I am pro-tattoo?

        I’d love to stay and chat but I must go. Hopefully, you’ll be able to find Cap and argue with him awhile.

        To tell you the truth,this blog is starting to get too crowded and going back and forth between replies is giving me vertigo.

        Bye for now.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, rather than make even the slightest attempt to defend her viewpoint once it’s revealed as fundamentally vapid, she runs away?

        Why am I not surprised?

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      There are no “pro-abortion types”. Almost no-one is pro-abortion.

      But plenty of people are pro-freedom, and pro-women, and in favor of the right to control your own body, and thus pro-choice.

      Why aren’t you?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Killing an innocent, living human being is not “controlling your own body”. There was a time when people were denied their humanity, basic human rights and treated as property, and there were people that supported it. That was supposed to have ended in 1865, but it was brought back in 1973. Anybody that defends treating other human beings in such a manner should hang their heads in shame and hide the fact that they would ever have such thoughts to begin with.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What innocent, living, human being?

        You are tedious, Sternn.

      • rightonrush says:

        Sternn writes “Killing an innocent, living human being is not “controlling your own body”. There was a time when people were denied their humanity, basic human rights and treated as property, and there were people that supported it” God you are such a hypocrite Sternn. Your all gung ho fetus but it’s kick’em into the gutter and let them starve after they are out of the uterus.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Right on cue, ZähEule.

      • CaptSternn says:

        RoR, find where people taht are against abortion have called for making it legal to kill any innocent human beings for convenience after they are born and you will have a point. Otherwise, you don’t.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Let’s not forget the demonstration of Sternn’s grotesque tyranny going on in a Fort Worth hospital right now.

      • rightonrush says:

        So Sternn, you are for providing for the welfare of the child after it’s born. Why do I think you are full of B.S.?

      • GG says:

        I noticed Sternn has not addressed that issue Owl.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I guess you didn’t find it, RoR. Some of us support equal rights for all, others support abortion and treating innocent human beings as property, won’t even accept that those others are human. Not really any different from the way slave owners viewed black people. That’s the company you keep.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        GG — Of course not. That would require knowledge, thought, and introspection. And we wouldn’t want to be over-demanding of his meager faculties, now would we?

      • objv says:

        Hey, Owl. Good to see you! I have no problems in controlling my own body and have no desire to control anyone else. However, a person is either for allowing abortion (pro-abortion) or not. Pro-choice has all the specificity of someone driving up to McDonnald’s and being asked, “Do you want fries with that?”

        There’s the same problem with being labelled pro-life. A person would have to be suicidal or homicidal – or in a coma not to be pro-life.

      • DFC says:

        Judging from its behavior over the years, it would be politically catastrophic for the Right to achieve a victory over the abortion issue, for several reasons: first, the issue delivers the financial and political value of fighting endlessly; second, it gratifies the fundamental Conservative cravings (1) to subject themselves to an absolute authority (2) to wield absolute authority over adversaries and (3) to judge absolutely anyone who takes either side in the question; and third, the emotionalism over abortion is easily transferable to other issues such as ACA, climate change, etc., thereby making it a political lynchpin in the GOP’s whole agenda.

        Losing on abortion is good politics for Republicans. They can’t win on empirical grounds, and the voters are rejecting their political arguments; but they need the issue to go on and on.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, if you’re in favor of allowing tattoos or tongue-piercing, then you’re pro-tattoo or pro-piercing? You’re elliding a rather necessary distinction: that of supporting freedoms for others even when you don’t intent to use those freedoms yourself. And I’d like to think better of you than that.

      • objv says:

        Owl: Here’s the testimony a doctor who formerly preformed abortions speaking before a congressional committee:

        http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/23/doctor-who-did-1200-abortions-tells-congress-to-ban-them/

      • objv says:

        Owl: Ha! I guess that means I am pro-tatoo. 🙂

      • GG says:

        Obj, that doctor is, of course, free to go in front of Congress and express his opinion but that does not mean a woman’s control over her body should be infringed upon or will be.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        objv — Whooptedo. Levantino is describing a late second-trimester abortion, in words as lurid as he can manage.

        In reality, of course, 88% of all abortions occur before 13 weeks after a woman’s last menstruation, and 95% before 16 weeks.

        So, shall we take it by your own admission that you have problems with second-trimester abortions (as do most people, which is why they’re rare, and usually undertaken in dire medical cases), but no problem with first-trimester procedures?

        Or were you ducking the question?

      • objv says:

        GG: By way of explanation, Owl had asked which abortion procedures I objected to. The link describes an abortion at 24 weeks..

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I mean, surgery is pretty unpleasant, too, which is why we don’t undertake it lightly. But no-one would be taken seriously if they proposed banning it merely because it was disturbing to watch.

        Late-term abortions should be rare, and should be vetted by capable doctors for their medical necessity. I don’t hear many liberals (if any) arguing against such a stance. So, really, what are you presenting if not a straw man?

        What about first-term abortions, ObjectiveView? Are they fine because they’re not as “icky”, or are you just incapable of expressing your opposition to them because you can’t rely on scary anecdotes from others?

      • objv says:

        Owl: My reply is below another post of yours.

      • objv says:

        Wasn’t Wendy Davis filibustering for the right to do the abortion as described? The 20 week limit of the law was equivalent to 22 weeks gestational age. The procedure described an abortion at 24 weeks – not much difference.

      • goplifer says:

        No. She was not, because that is NOT what the bill was about. The 20-week bit was a purely deceptive red herring. The bill is a back door effort to shut down abortion rights in Texas and so far it is on its way to working.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Not much difference? 24 is 9% more than 22. If we cut total military spending in this country by 9%, would you view that as “not much difference”?

        And, as I said, the filibuster was about much more than the 20-week ban. Most folks I know considered that the LEAST objectionable part of the law. But it makes great camouflage for people who don’t really want to think: just quote something that sounds vaguely nice, and never mind the other, much more troubling parts of the law which were clearly designed to impede ALL abortions, including the 90% of them performed much earlier than the ones prostituted around in the propaganda you seem to love.

        Levantino never bothers to mention WHY some of those abortions might have been performed, either. ObjectiveView, are you claiming that second-trimester abortions should NEVER be performed because you find them disturbing? Or can you imagine situations in which a disturbing procedure might be required for a greater good like, say, preserving the life or health of the mother?

      • objv says:

        One more reply before I sign off … Lifer, riddle me this: If the 20 week limit was such a red herring,why didn’t democrats try to overturn the law while still conceding that a 20 week limit for abortion was reasonable?

      • goplifer says:

        The 20 week limit is also unconstitutional. No one is going to be able to hold up that portion of the law. And no one offered them that option, because no one on the GOP negotiated on any portion of this bill at any stage.

        With all due respect, if you actually think this had anything at all do with banning abortion after 20 weeks you really need to take a hard look at where you’re getting your information.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        You may recall that Republicans weren’t letting Democrats have any amendments whatsoever to the bill. Apparently that’s a horrific assault on American democracy when done with a national health-care law (even though it wasn’t, as nearly 200 Republicans attest), but business as usual within the corrupt confines of a one-party-dominated state legislature.

        Moreover, Texas’ 20-week-ban is only lifted in cases of threats to the woman’s life or physical health. Plenty of liberal folks wanted those exceptions extended to include rape or incest, and fetal abnormalities. But the theocratic cretins who run our state’s legislature would have none of it. They wanted a stalking-horse, and they got one.

        And it looks like they completely pulled the wool over your eyes, too. Or are you being deliberately deceived because it’s easier than thinking?

      • objv says:

        Lifer, other states have also passed laws restricting the gestational age at the time of abortion. Yes, you do make a perfectly valid point about the constitutionality of this law, however, the age of viability continues to decrease with advances in science. The 20 week (22 week gestational age) limit is just two weeks below where a fetus is considered viable. If the age of viability changes, your point will be moot.

        My original comment concerned what many women see as the primary issue: abortion at later stages of pregnancy. More people are now pro-life than pro-choice. Women who have ultrasounds see a “baby” instead of a fetus at 20 weeks, In my opinion, Davis’ support for later stage abortions is a losing issue for her.

    • Turtles Run says:

      The Texas laws and the debate over it covered much more than late-term pregnancies. It was an end run to limit access to all abortions by forcing standards on these clinics that were not applied to other medical clinics.

      But I will allow an actual doctor argue the case:

      ““Moving abortion clinics under the guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers will provide Texas women choosing abortion the highest standard of health care. Texas allows no other procedure to opt out of the accepted standard of care.”

      Dear Ms. Hughes,

      As a physician, licensed in the state of Texas, I opposed HB 2 and I continue to oppose it now that it is the law. The rule clarification quoted above, found at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/sos/Proposed%20Rules/25.HEALTH%20SERVICES.html#110 on September 27, 2013, is blatantly incorrect. Many, many other “procedures,” both surgical and non-invasive, are currently performed in Texas outside of ambulatory surgical centers.

      I am not aware of any law or rule requiring common procedures such as vasectomy, cystoscopy, colposcopy, IUD placement, subcutaneous implant placement (such as the contraceptive rod), colonoscopy with or without polypectomy, sigmoidoscopy, hemorrhoid banding, skin biopsy, abscess incision and drainage, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, laryngoscopy, dental extraction, wisdom tooth extraction, lipoma removal, joint injection, arthrocentesis, eye surgery including LASIK, breast cyst aspiration, fine needle aspiration of lymph nodes or thyroid nodules, or ANY OTHER MEDICAL OR SURGICAL PROCEDURE, to be performed in an ambulatory surgical center, rather than a clinic. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I do not see any such requirement in Title 25, Chapter 135. Thus, your statement that “Texas allows no other procedure to opt out of the accepted standard of care” is false.

      The state of Texas has also not demonstrated that these rules will improve the health and safety of women. Texas vital statistics data from 2010, available at http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/vstat/vs10/t33.shtm, shows that there were zero reported maternal deaths out of 72,000 abortions that year. That puts the mortality rate from abortion in Texas very close to zero (as indeed, the rate in 2010 was zero). By way of contrast, the mortality rate associated with colonoscopy is estimated to be 0.03%, or 128 per 370,000 procedures. CDC data shows a maternal mortality rate of 0.68 per 100,000 abortions from 2003-2008, which is 0.00068%. This makes the risk of death from having a colonoscopy 44 times that of having an abortion.

      This law, and the rules that follow, are flawed. The ASC regulations allow for exemption filing, but not where abortion providers are concerned. There is no grandfather clause.

      It is also still unclear to me, after reading these rules and HB 2 itself, whether medical abortion must be prescribed by a physician at an ASC, which would be absolutely ludicrous. As it is, restricting physicians to the dosing on the FDA insert and requiring them to administer the medication in person impedes the right of the physician to prescribe a medication “off-label” for evidence-based indications (but those for which the drug company did not file a request for indication with the FDA).

      A final point: In 2010, the Texas maternal death rate was 9 per 1000 live births. 95 mothers died out of 385,746 live births, or 0.024%. This makes the mortality rate from childbirth 35 times higher in Texas than that from having an abortion. The state of Texas is committing a grave injustice by focusing on such a low-risk procedure and drastically prohibiting access to it, which will likely force more women to die as a result of childbirth. From the available data, we can estimate that 17 more women would have died in 2010 had the 72,000 women who chose abortion not been allowed to do so.

      Your department is carrying out unjust rules based on an inhumane, unscientific law, which will directly lead to the deaths of women.

      Sincerely,

      Jennifer Cowart, MD”

      http://blog.chron.com/worldwithnoboundaries/2013/09/a-doctors-answer-to-texas-abortion-law/

    • Crogged says:

      ‘Careful messaging’ goes along with stating that the latest, unnecessary legislation regarding the medical rights of women was about ‘healthy fetuses which were near the stage of viability’–which as a starting point is almost talking about getting into female and male pants………..

      Within a very short time frame there will be a medicinal/hormone pill available over the counter that a woman can take within weeks of a sexual encounter which will induce a period. Or in your words, an abortion. Maybe a pill a male can take which causes his sperm to not start the cell division when it actually encounters an egg. Then what?

    • rightonrush says:

      I’m sure you are the salt of the earth in your own eyes objv. I can imagine you hang around various Home Depots in whatever area you live in. This statement “What’s up with you guys who supposedly are for women’s rights who call conservative women “sweetheart” and “princess” – or tell them to stay in the kitchen barefoot? Isn’t that a tad misogynistic?” is beyond ignorant and says lots about your truthfulness.

      • objv says:

        ROR: Right back at you, princess! That’s what you called me in a previous GOPlifer post. The stench of your own self-righteousness is quite overpowering.

    • DanMan says:

      I sure didn’t see my name but I saw a reference of people losing their bearings and enclosing themselves in their own world of truths of their own making. Great context for a cover piece written by a liberal democrat for liberal democrats to try to counter the lies their darling candidate spread about herself.

      I guess you meant this part: “The Internet, in particular, offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity,” Francis said. “This is something truly good, a gift from God.”

      I’m not Catholic but I’ll accept praise from the Pope any day! Thanks

      • rightonrush says:

        “I sure didn’t see my name but I saw a reference of people losing their bearings and enclosing themselves in their own world of truths of their own making” Yep, fit you to a tee DanSparkle.

      • DanMan says:

        keep trying sweetheart

      • rightonrush says:

        Oh precious, it doesn’t take too much to bring you to your proverbial knees.

      • DanMan says:

        ?…kinda creepy bub, your partner okay with you flirting like that?

      • rightonrush says:

        Oh lookee, Little Dan is playing the homosexual card. You folks are afraid of everything and everybody…we called your type puzzies in Vietnam.

  17. rightonrush says:

    While the Texas GOP whine and gnash their teeth about wanting less government in our business, they allow and cheer sick practices such as this. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fetus-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-distinctly-abnormal-lawyers-article-1.1588511

  18. greybeerd says:

    “For those who aren’t familiar with the place, it is socially acceptable in Texas to say absolutely anything, no matter how ugly or bigoted as long as you preface it with “sweetheart.” That makes it cute. And women in Texas are supposed to be cute. They are supposed to smile, and do what their husbands tell them, and keep themselves pretty, and take care of the children, and tame their tongues.” Typical left wing smuck. Not true. Texas and Texans do NOT think this is socially acceptable but of course if you were really a Texan you would know that.

    “Whoever it is out there who has missed the party’s ugly takeover by our own homegrown Taliban may see their foggy delusions burned away in the light of this otherwise inconsequential state-level contest.” And just who is the “home grown taliban”? The Christian right? or maybe the Tea-Party? or as you rino’s like to refer to them “tea-baggers”? As for inconsequential state wide race, if it’s so inconsequential why are so many left wing, progressive (who aren’t) and liberal organizations lining up with huge sums of money to “turn Texas blue”? Dude, you need to get out more and more importantly spend more time in Texas if you are going to represent yourself as an expert on a subject you obviously are not.

    ” The party may have alienated African-Americans” Why? Because they are fighting against the fabian-socialist/communist obama administration? Really? Are you that shallow and ignorant of reality? Since you have missed it, more blacks today identify as Republican than ever before. The facts are the solid black constituency is hardly solid once obama is removed from the picture. But then when all you are doing is parroting the latests schmeel from the democratic party it’s understandable you would miss that.

    “Meanwhile Greg Abbott has served in an executive office for nearly a decade. Sure, he is utterly beholden to a cadre of religious kooks,” sooo there we have it. It’s not that Texans are mysoganistic bastards, it’s that they are Christian and everyone knows that Christians are arrogant, ignorant, red necked, sorry excuses for humanity, right?

    By the misrepresentations of Texas and Texans contained in your piece are so egregious, a little enlightenment. Texas was the first state to elect a woman govenor in the 1930’s not the 1990’s as millenials seem to think. Texas was as solid a democratic state as there was in the union until the 1980’s when it’s takeover by the EXTREME left, better known as progressive(who aren’t) wing was completed. Texans today no more resemble the picture you paint than they resemble the characters portrayed in the 1950’s movie Giant where it appears you got most of your information on who Texas women are. More women in Texas identify as republican than democrat and vote more solidly republican than men.

    If you’re going to do a hit piece…follow the slogan of the State Department of Transportation “DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS”.

    • DanMan says:

      Nice work. While Chris Ladd mounts his war on Texas women from Chicago, here’s how they do in other democrat controlled precincts:

      http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-caught-covering-up-child-rape-in-philadelphia/

    • Crogged says:

      Not every Christian is an arrogant, ignorant, redneck sorry excuse for humanity, but every arrogant, ignorant redneck sorry excuse for humanity is a Christian Republican.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      greybeerd proudly claimed, “Since you have missed it, more blacks today identify as Republican than ever before.”

      Why, yes. And Klingon is the fastest-growing language on the planet.

      Neither set of small numbers is anything really worth crowing about.

      • rightonrush says:

        It’s getting to the point where very few want to be identified as Republican.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        ^ That’s why I think Chris’ point is astute. We’ll have months of Rs bad-talking Wendy all over the media, casting their special pall.

        Even if she doesn’t win, the Rs will repeatedly reveal their true selves. The populace will be sickened.

      • DanMan says:

        yeah, it’s the repubs fault she lied, everybody can see that

      • Crogged says:

        I read the Dallas Morning News which looked at her story and wow, she couldn’t exactly give timelines regarding her first marriage and like other ambitious people, made some choices which weren’t the best: if ‘the best’ is defined as being married under the same roof with the partner with whom you had children. To call her a “liar” is simply partisan spin motivated by, what’s it called, fear? I suppose it’s dreaming to hope that people who call sitting President’s “communists” and blame every policy on “Dems” might have a deeper appreciation of the word “nuance”. The truth of her story isn’t that of a liar, most people who read her story will know this, maybe she knows somebody who worked at the IRS office in Benghazi-DRINK!

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Grey wrote: “The facts are the solid black constituency is hardly solid once obama [sic] is removed from the picture.”

      Ah, I ALWAYS enjoy when wing nuts literally conjure up “facts” from their cauldron of ignorance and hate.

      Care to back that up with stats and sources Grey? Let me save you the trouble (but not the shame, but then again, ignorance has no shame).

      “But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000.”

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/107770/most-say-race-will-factor-their-presidential-vote.aspx

      Bill Clinton received 83 percent of the black vote in 1992 and 84 percent in 1996.

      Does anyone see a historical trend?

      Yes, I’m suuuuure the Black vote will shy away from Hillary Clinton in droves against whichever Republican survives their wingnut primary dogpile.

      And as Owl already noted, in my best Barbara Billingsley/June Cleaver impersonation,

      “Oh stewardess, I speak Klingon”.

      Whatever Treebeard.

  19. Tuttabella says:

    Mr. Lifer, you may be placing too much importance on social media, in your comment about how those insulated from social media are in for a rude awakening, and how this will affect the way they vote. Via social media, we may say what we truly feel, ugly things which we previously reserved for private conversations with family and friends. On the other hand, it’s just words on a screen which are often misundersood, if they’re even read from start to finish, with posters being unfairly lumped into certain camps, comments often thrown out by people on auto-pilot, who sneak in a post here and there throughout the day without much thought to the ripples that might be set in motion. Others do it for that very reason — to get a rise out of people. I wouldn’t give too much power to a small percentage of the population who seemingly have the neurotic urge to put out every thought that occurs to them.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      ‘Morning, Tutt.

      If that’s all you see in social media, perhaps you should consider following a different crowd.

      Social media is a major part of my job.

      I use it to increase blog readership, draw prospective customers to our website, and produce sales leads for technical products.

      Yes, there’s a lot of crapiola on the internets. But most of us don’t turn off our brains when we log on. We find what interests and informs us same way we used to look though magazine racks.

  20. Bobo Amerigo says:

    “in a high-level state-wide political office over a long period of time”

    ^ a good reason to help him find another job

    [Perhaps it’s opposites day in Texas…]

  21. rightonrush says:

    Kathleen McKinley Mazzanti is the rich wife of an oil executive. She’s just protecting her husband’s oil subsidies by spreading any lie that will keep the Reps. in power.. Bless her heart, she finally got her daughter a job with the Texas Republican Party. She followed Rick Perry around like a puppy and finally got his attention. Now she’s betting big on Greg Abbott and also fills the role as an attack dog for Ted Cruz. She’s known for her attacks on other ladies, especially those that are more intelligent than her. Mrs. Mazzanti is a legend in her own mind, and IMO as fake as a 3 dollar bill.
    http://republicansecuritycouncil.wordpress.com/tag/kathleen-mckinley/

  22. kabuzz61 says:

    Amazing that you bring up everything except what she is now known for. She is a liar who lied to people who may have voted for her. I guess you missed that fact. She lies, she is exposed so your democrat responsibility is to blame the republicans. You must have gotten the memo. Good comrade.

    • JohnD says:

      How do you define “lied to people”? Saying that her mother had a sixth grade education when it was really a ninth grade one? Saying that she was divorced at 19 when it was really 21?

      I expect that if you were to give us the story of your life, you would make some similar mistakes. The question is “Are they material?”; i.e., do they change the basic story? In Davis’ case, they don’t appear to do so. If you think that they do, then please enlighten us as to how these errata matter. And remember “they matter because they prove she is a liar” is a tautology.

    • goplifer says:

      ***Amazing that you bring up everything except what she is now known for.***

      No, I mentioned that too:

      They most definitely do not stand up to ignorant, sexist bullies in the Texas Legislature, thwarting plans to shove righteousness into the dark unwilling places that resist it.

    • DanMan says:

      The funny part was her first response was a lie. She claimed Abbot’s group was behind the exposure of her lies when it was an ex-MSNBC guy likely trying to help her get in front of it. I catch the quote from her second ex? Something along the lines of “Ironically she left me the day I paid her last tuition bill at Harvard”.

      Our rock ribbed conservative host kind of has a problem with the truth too doesn’t he? Claiming to be a life long repub that only wants to help the party recover. Funny how all of his suggestions come from the democrat playbook isn’t it?

      The believe repus have been consumed with trying to appease whoever they can attract and are moving to the left to do so. They are shedding conservatives as they do. I’m not too motivated to support them but ain’t no way I can support what the democrats stand for. Period.

  23. Crogged says:

    It could be an interesting campaign and I’m looking forward to it. We’ve got the good Christian wheelchair warrior who made sure he got his before limiting the ‘rewards’ for suffering from debilitating accidents against a blonde woman who just kept on talking. And the Sparkle you quote doesn’t fool me or publish comments which possibly make her argument look silly. I’ll reserve judgment on Wendy but you could run an atheist tree stump against these any of these recent so called Christians and I would vote for it.

  24. DanMan says:

    I smell fear. Liberals have a hard time hiding it. Let’s see what the Liar’s Club has to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: