February 25, 2012

Friday Talking Points (199) -- My "War On Women" Rant

"When the going gets weird," Hunter S. Thompson famously said, "the weird turn pro."

This quote has been running through my head all week. It's been such a weird week, in fact, that I even wrote a column praising a Mitt Romney campaign ad. Weirdness abounds, in other words. Well, I was really just wonkily praising the cars in the ad, but still....

Speaking of weirdness, we had what could be the final Republican presidential debate. In it, the three top Republican candidates explained how they were going to -- simultaneously, mind you -- both bring down the cost of gasoline and bomb Iran. This qualifies not just as weird but downright bizarre. I mean, how stupid do they think the American public is? Well, I suppose it's just the Republican primary electorate, but even so....

When the going gets weird, the weird run for president, apparently.

The most bizarre statement of the night had to have been Mitt Romney's historically-ignorant and righteously-indignant avowal: "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama."

To borrow a schtick from Saturday Night Live in response: "Really, Mitt? Really?!? Are you really that ignorant of, say... just for example... the history of the Mormon Church and the federal government? Google 'Mormon Wars' sometime, you may learn something. Really! Why was your father born in Mexico, again? Oh, that's right, because his parents were there because of what they saw as religious persecution by the United States government. Really. The federal government didn't just specify what health insurance a Mormon hospital or charity offered their employees, the federal government dictated to the Church of the Latter-Day Saints what religious tenets they could believe in, and which were unacceptable to federal law. Remember that? You might want to check your church's history, there, Mitt. Or if that's too tough for you, how about the history of your own family?!? I mean, really."

Mitt's not only provoking the likes of me to rebut him, he also provoked an average citizen named Chuck Smith to {link won't work, sorry DU readers -- see note at bottom} wager his own $10,000 bet with Romney over a complete falsehood Mitt's been using out on the campaign trail -- how Barack Obama "promised" everyone that unemployment wouldn't go over eight percent if his stimulus plan was passed. While quite obviously an amateur attempt (it even points out its own editing mistakes within the video itself), this video is well worth watching in its entirety. Shows what an average Joe can do, when the media completely falls down on its job (as usual). It even includes footnotes and references, to prove exactly what the guy is claiming. Even if he doesn't win his bet, the video itself is priceless.

In other weird news, the Smithsonian held a groundbreaking ceremony for an African-American museum on the National Mall, which our first African-American president attended with his wife. When they called for people to come up and turn some ceremonial dirt with shovels, Barack Obama stood up and was then told that he wasn't invited to participate -- even though Laura Bush was. Weird, eh? The Smithsonian flunky who told the president this could have just as easily turned it into a memorable photo op -- by allowing Barack Obama and Laura Bush share the same shovel -- but instead told the president to sit back down.

Meanwhile, a Republican representative had to apologize for threatening to kill some Democratic senators, but (sadly) these days, that's not as weird as it should be.

Even the conservative press (weirdly enough) reported that pixie dust and magic simply doesn't work when it comes to budgeting, and that under the Republican presidential candidates' budget plans the national debt would explode at a rate much higher than President Obama's budget. But wait... I thought tax cuts paid for themselves? Weird, eh?

And finally, in one of those stories that seems inevitable (but only after it appears), an artistic couple has created a portrait of Rick Santorum made up entirely of tiny images of gay porn. Salon has the story (which can safely be read at work, if you don't click to expand the image to giant-sized... just in case you were wondering).

Enough weirdness, though, we've got to move along. I feel a gigantic rant coming on, so we'll try to keep the award section brief this week.



[center][/center]

Following the precedent we set last week, we award all the Democrats in the Maryland state government who just passed a gay marriage bill a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Because the "Golden Backbone" statuettes are not cheap, we will be sending only one of them to Governor Martin O'Malley, who is expected to sign the bill soon (if he has not already done so). Last week, Washington state did the same thing, but many "journalists" didn't notice, apparently due to their not being able to find the West Coast on an American map. Maryland, however, is right there in the middle of the East Coast, so this one simply couldn't be ignored. Well done, Free State Democrats!

We have a second Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to hand out as well, to the witness who was denied a chance to be heard at the Republican's male-dominated hearing on women's health issues. House Democrats held their own "hearing" just to give a chance for Sandra Fluke to tell her story. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi deserves an Honorable Mention for staging this event, but the MIDOTW award goes to Fluke herself, for telling a very compelling and important side of the story which the Republicans really don't want the media to pick up on: birth control pills are not just used for birth control. We're just assuming Sandra Fluke is a Democrat, but this is probably a pretty safe assumption, we feel.

{Congratulate Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley on his official state contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, and our longstanding policy is to not provide contact information for such.}



[center][/center]

Sigh.

When will these guys learn?

Florida state representative Richard Steinberg got caught this week not only sending sexy text messages to a married federal prosecutor, but actually stalking her by doing so. Thankfully, he decided to resign when the story broke. But that doesn't mean we can't still award him a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, on his way out the door.

{You can try to contact Richard Steinberg via his official Florida House page, to let him know what you think of his actions, but our guess is the site won't be up for very long, so you'd better hurry.}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 199 (2/24/12)[/center]

I'd like to begin today's talking points with an admission that maybe I was wrong.

The "maybe" in that sentence stems from the future's unpredictability. The jury won't be completely in on the issue until the election results (and exit polls -- from such states as Ohio and Pennsylvania, in particular) are released this November. So it's still too early to say.

Two weeks ago, in this space, I wrote a column entitled "White House Fumbles." The political issue I felt they fumbled was their announcement of the new health insurance regulations which stipulated that women's preventative medicine be covered by all non-church employers.

I felt that they fumbled because they were seemingly caught so flatfooted at their response to the controversy, which should have been at least somewhat predictable (to say the least). My column was written on the same day the White House announced their compromise, which still stood strong for women's health care.

Since then, the issue has grown and morphed -- to the Democrats' advantage, for the most part. In other words, it seems to not only be working out OK politically, but actually energizing the Democratic base over the issue. All of a sudden, women's health is in the news, and the Republicans are not looking good.

Which is why I'm starting with my "maybe I was wrong" statement. Maybe this is going to wind up being a good thing, even if (as I still believe) it could have been handled better at the beginning. But that's water under the bridge now. Instead of looking back, let's look forward instead.

If this is going to be a good issue for Democrats to make some political hay on, then I offer up the following as how I would go about doing it.

Democrats, so far, seem to be winning the framing battle on this issue. This is astonishing enough, since they're usually the ones playing catchup to the Republicans. But Democrats need to take it up a big notch, here. Instead of fighting each individual battle, Democrats need to offer up a big picture -- a very ugly big picture -- of what the Republicans' overall goal truly is. Thankfully, these dots are not that hard to connect right now. So many stories have gone Democrats' way in the past few weeks, that the time is ripe to hammer the big picture home in a way that will have Republicans playing defense from now until November. I offer up the following rant as an example of how to do so effectively.

Is this hyperbole? Perhaps. Is it demagoguery? You betcha. But just imagine if every Democrat starting using one simple phrase over and over again. Imagine the media picking up on this phrase. Imagine the media then declaring this election the "Year Of The Woman Voter." Imagine, if you will, a strong-willed female Democrat saying something along the following lines in the near future.



My "War on Women" Rant

The Republican Party is currently waging a war against women. They want to take America back a half-century or more, and Democrats are not going to allow them to do so!

When I see a congressional hearing called on women's heath with a panel of five old men, I wonder what the Republicans are thinking. When the state of Virginia contemplates passing a law which would force doctors to invade a woman's body for no medical reason at all, I think Republicans have forgotten all those talking points about not allowing government to get between a doctor and her patient -- talking points they used to love to utter. When I hear the likes of Rick Santorum weighing in on what tests a pregnant woman should have, I almost expect him to say women should stay eternally barefoot and pregnant. That's how bad it has gotten.

Republicans are waging a war against women. Furthermore, they are attempting to wage a war against sex. Why should some politician be able to tell any American woman how to run her life? Why should birth control even be an issue in politics in the twenty-first century? Why should Republicans -- who are supposed to be for getting government out of people's lives -- want Big Brother in every doctor's office?

When Republicans held their "no women allowed" hearing, the witness Democrats wanted to question was excluded. Democrats held a separate hearing for her this week anyway, and she testified about a friend of hers who could not afford birth control which had been prescribed to treat ovarian cysts -- and about the sad outcome. Contraceptive pills are prescribed on a daily basis for medical issues which have nothing to do with sex and which save women immeasurable suffering. But now Republicans are pushing to allow any employer in America to prevent a female employee's health insurance from covering such life-saving medicine. This is a war on science. It is a war on women.

Republicans say employers should be allowed to follow their "conscience" in such decisions. Where will this end? Will employers be able to limit AIDS coverage, because they do not morally approve of people who get AIDS? What about insurance coverage for sexually transmitted diseases? Should employers be allowed not to provide such coverage? What about an employer who doesn't believe in any medical intervention except prayer? Should he be allowed to limit his employees to "prayer-only" health insurance?

There's a reason why we have public health laws -- to protect the public's health with the best science available. All of the public. Even women! If this science tells us that an ultrasound is not necessary for a medical procedure, then why should politicians be able to override the doctor? Most states have laws against practicing medicine without a license, but Virginia lawmakers feel free to dictate medical treatments from their statehouse. Why aren't these lawmakers all being arrested for impersonating doctors?

It's a war against women, plain and simple. When the national public learned that the procedure mandated by the Virginia law would have forced women -- against their will -- to have a transvaginal ultrasound that was completely medically unnecessary, America recoiled in revulsion. So the governor backed off, and will now only force women to have an external ultrasound in such a situation -- a procedure which is not only completely unnecessary, but actually totally useless to spot an embryo which is too small to be seen by such methods. It is a war against medical science, and common sense.

The Virginia governor is attempting to put this genie back in the bottle. His statement read, in part: "No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure." But why would the state mandate any medical procedure -- without the patient's consent -- as a precondition to another medical procedure? What has happened to the conservatives? This is your idea of government getting out of people's lives? This is supposed to be conservatism? Barry Goldwater must be turning over in his grave, by now.

The state of Virginia backed off on forcing doctors to perform what Virginia law describes as "rape" on an unwilling woman. I suppose we should be thankful that now the new law will only shred the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution instead. Why should the government force a doctor to perform a search of a woman's body for her to get a legal medical procedure done? It boggles the mind.

As if all this weren't enough, it seems now that the Republican Party has opened up a new front of the war on women: a war on, of all things, the Girl Scouts. This is in addition to their war on Planned Parenthood -- often the only opportunity women have for their own health care for miles around.

This has gone too far. Republican men who sit in legislatures should wake up and realize that a woman's health -- including her reproductive health -- is her business and hers alone to decide. Any woman should be able to go to her doctor and have whatever medical care the two of them agree upon without moralizing governmental interference. This is about freedom, plain and simple.

I have a message for the Republicans who think this is some sort of political football which will help their party out -- you know what? Your wives, your sisters, and your daughters are having sex. Deal with it. It is a part of human nature. This is America, and they are free to do so, and you have no right to interfere with this decision in the slightest.

If your daughter is violently raped, then Democrats believe she should be able to get an abortion, so she does not have to spend the rest of her life with the consequences of this violent crime against her body. Deal with it. If American women want to use birth control, guess what? It is entirely her decision to do so. If a doctor prescribes a birth control pill to a woman because if she does not take it she may otherwise suffer, then -- hold onto your hats -- her employer doesn't get to be in the same room with a veto over her freedom. If a woman wants a procedure which is legal, then you don't get to attempt to shame her into giving up this freedom -- and especially not by trouncing all over doctors' First Amendment rights to say what they wish to their patients.

While a few high-profile stories have been in the media in the past few weeks, what has been largely ignored for the past year or so is the continuing Republican assault on women's liberty and women's freedom. The Virginia law horrified many, but the exact same law is already in place in other states. Because men decided they knew best. Republican men, for the most part.

On top of this, women are forced to go through "waiting periods" in many states before getting a legal procedure done -- for no medical reason whatsoever. If you have to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion, this is supposed to make the price of doing so too high for some women. No other medical procedure in America is treated this way -- only the one Republican men don't approve of.

These men are guilty of practicing medicine without a license. They are guilty of attempting to condemn women to death for lack of medical care -- as would surely happen if abortion were made illegal. They are guilty of attempting to legislate coercive rape upon women patients. They are guilty of attacking women's rights and women's health care -- every chance they get.

This is a war on women. We're fighting on the side of women. Maybe we should fight back on their battlefield. Maybe we should start passing laws requiring an anal probe for anyone who gets a Viagra prescription. Maybe we should hold a hearing on prostrate health and invite a panel of all women to testify why they're morally opposed to treating it. Maybe we should make testing for sexual diseases mandatory for anyone running for office. Maybe we should have a two-day waiting period for anyone who wishes to enter a strip club. You see how ridiculous it sounds when the shoe's on the other foot?

Democrats are on the side of women. We're on the side of science. We're on the side of doctors and patients being free of having Big Brother or their employer in the examination room. We're on the side of women's health -- all her health, and not just the pieces of it which old men decide are proper. Men like Rick Santorum, who is now apparently against pre-natal testing -- which even Sarah Palin herself was thankful for when she was pregnant. Republicans want to turn back the clock on women's health a half-century or more, and we will not let them!

I invite all of America's women voters to ask yourselves: Should I vote for the party which stands firm for my health care, or should I vote for the party which wants to deny me the freedom and liberty of making up my own mind what is right for me? Should I vote for those who are on the side of science and full health care rights for all, or should I vote for those who want to deny me access? Should I vote for those who want to force my doctor to penetrate me against my will, or should I vote for those who are outraged by such a concept?

The choice should be obvious. If you're for continued sexual freedom, and continued liberty in your own health care, then I strongly urge you to vote for those who are not actively trying to legislate these things out of existence -- in a word, Democrats. You are the foot soldiers in this war against women, and if you speak loudly enough, even Republican politicians will notice you in November.

[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]
Note to Democratic Underground readers: If any of these links aren't working, please visit my site at www.chrisweigant.com, where all the links contained within the article should work perfectly.

February 18, 2012

Friday Talking Points (198) -- Milbank's Unfunny Puns

I normally don't do this sort of thing, but today I have to begin this column with a criticism of a single media voice, because the writing was just so offensive. I mean... bad puns? In today's polite society?

The boundaries between politics and show business have become murky ever since Ronald Reagan became president. The lines between the media and politics are equally as blurred. But the line between certain types of comedy and the political/media world should be brighter than ever. This is a lesson Dana Milbank of the Washington Post apparently has yet to learn.

Using ethnic or racial stereotypes as comedy is dangerous ground, even for a professional comedian. Remarks from stand-up comedy have caused outcries in the past few years, leading to (in some cases) ruined careers. Using such stereotypes -- or even outright mockery -- has become all-but-unacceptable for people outside of the ethnic target group.

Those are just the boundaries for comedians. Journalists and politicians -- in the year 2012 -- should realize that whenever the impulse hits to use such imagery or phrases that they should follow one single rule: Don't go there.

Milbank, however, didn't just go there, he then doubled down in an attempt to be funny. You be the judge. Here's the intro to his new article, explaining the flap which occurred after his last article appeared:

Milbank's original article was a serious look at how the Republican Party is alienating Latinos in America. Most of the article makes a very good point, but it ends with the line Messina quoted, which used the word "chimichanga" from John McCain's recent Senate floor speech to make a snarky point.

However, his response to the fracas is nothing short of cringe-worthy. Here's Milbank, attempting to be funny:



The phrases "Holy mole sauce!" and "Not so fajitas" appear later in the article, as well.

The theme of the article is to scoff at phony outrage, or "false umbrage" as Milbank puts it. It contains an extensive list of offenses and apology demands from the political world of the past few years. The point Milbank is attempting to make, though, gets overshadowed by his mockery of his critics, and his doubling down on the whole "Tex-Mex food theme" in puns that even a fourth-grader wouldn't find amusing.

Milbank's first column made a very serious point, and ended with an attempt at snarky humor. Milbank's second column was nothing more than a sophomoric attempt at humor, which (at least for this reader) failed miserably. My guess is that whichever editor gave the green light for the second article is going to hear from a few others who were also not very amused.

OK, enough of my own umbrage at bad puns, let's get on with the meat and potatoes of the column.



[center][/center]

The mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, was just named chairman of the upcoming Democratic National Convention, which is certainly impressive, but he'll have to wait for an award until after we see how the convention is run.

President Barack Obama certainly had an impressive week, getting from Congress exactly what he demanded in the State Of The Union message -- a payroll tax holiday extension for the rest of the year... with "no drama." Speaker of the House John Boehner decided that next week's week-long vacation for Congress was much more important than staging the gigantic battle the Tea Partiers wanted him to wage, and so he caved before the fight even began. By doing so, we just saw how Congress used to work: one side realizes it is on the wrong side of an issue, and quickly retreats because it is holding a very weak political hand.

Republicans were in a lose-lose situation. Either they handed Obama a legislative victory, or they engaged in a "let's shut everything down" fight which would result in everyone's paychecks getting smaller the first of next month.

So they gave Obama his victory, and are assumably now slinking out of the D.C. swamp to jet their way back home or to some sunny locale for some relaxation.

We've got to pass out some Honorable Mentions this week for Representatives Carolyn Maloney, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Mike Quigley, for walking out of a hearing on women's birth control held by the Republican House committee chair -- which featured a panel of five men. The walkout was featured heavily in the news reporting, as well as the "no women" aspect. These three Democrats won the game of spin the Republicans were attempting to play, hands down.

But our real Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is the governor of Washington state, Chris Gregoire, for signing a bill which legalizes gay marriage in her state. On the other side of the continent, New Jersey governor Chris Christie vetoed gay marriage. (Aside: What is with all the Chrises in the news this week? Can't say I mind, it's easy for me to type, personally... ahem.)

Gay marriage is an issue which the Democratic Party should fully endorse. This culture war is almost over, and the pro-gay-marriage team is going to win in the end. Republicans like Christie are going to be seen by history as being on the wrong side of the issue. Democrats like Gregoire are going to be the impressive ones, seen later.

Which is why we see her right now as the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Well done, Governor Gregoire!

{Congratulate Washington Governor Chris Gregoire on her official state contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.}



[center][/center]

This one's pretty easy. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, after getting caught in the Milbank article fray, at least had the smarts to try and walk it back a little. His followup tweet when the storm clouds broke: "Tweeting someone else’s words caused a stir, but the GOP is on the wrong side of every Hispanic voter priority."

He tried to reframe the issue back to the original message of the first Milbank article, in other words.

But for sticking his foot in it in the first place, Messina is still our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Campaign managers aren't supposed to be a distraction in the news cycle. Messina needs to think twice about snarky tweets, the next time he feels the urge to quote someone in such a fashion.

{Contact Jim Messina via (naturally) his Twitter account @Messina2012, to let him know what you think of his actions. (Apologies for not providing a link, but Democratic Underground's formatting doesn't seem to recognize Twitter links correctly.)}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 198 (2/17/12)[/center]

OK, onwards and upwards to the talking points. Two weeks from today, we will roll over the odometer here at this column, with our 200th offering. I'm not sure how we'll mark this occasion, so any suggestions are appreciated in the comments.

For now, here's a grab bag of talking points all Democrats (especially those interviewed on national television) can use in the upcoming week. Enjoy!



GOP doesn't count

What is it with these caucus states? In most primary elections, the job of counting the votes falls on the state elected official who runs the general election. In caucus states, the party itself counts the votes. That's the theory, in any case...

"I see that the Republican Party of Maine apparently is having problems counting. Their caucus only drew one-half of one percent of the people -- less than 6,000 votes -- and the Maine GOP couldn't even count that high. This is after Iowa attempted a recount, and announced that they could not come up with an accurate number since they had lost a few counties' votes. That's two states out of only nine which have voted so far. Maybe the Republican slogan this year for their primary voters should be: Vote GOP, where your vote doesn't count!"



Boehner's dizziness

This one was just hilarious. John Boehner made a statement upon completion of the tax cut bill. The Huffington Post reported on it, and found one part of it amusing. I found a separate part amusing, myself.

"Did you hear the spin from John Boehner this week, on the payroll tax bill he agreed to? He said, and I quote:



So, let's get this straight. The Speaker says Obama's economic policies have failed, while at the same time he is offering his support for an Obama economic policy. Somebody better stop the Speaker's spinning, because I think he's getting dizzy."



Aspirin? Really?

This one is just too easy.

"I see a prominent backer of Rick Santorum just said that the answer to women's health needs was for them to hold an aspirin between their legs. Wow. That's just... wow. Somebody needs to send the Republicans a calendar, because I don't think they're aware of what decade it is. I mean... aspirin? Really?"



Getting Orwellian

There's a wider picture that Democrats really need to be drawing right now. Nancy Pelosi's doing a pretty good job, but other Democrats need to start framing the issue more bluntly.

"Republicans, back in 2010, told the voters to put them in power and they'd fix all of America's economic problems. Instead, once they got into office, they have launched a full-scale attack on women's rights. Mitt Romney, in a televised debate, was asked about contraception and he responded that he didn't think any states were trying to ban contraception. But that is just what the so-called 'personhood amendments' would do in every state the Republicans have been pushing them -- outlaw certain forms of birth control. This is an attack on women, on women's rights, and on women's health. The Republicans should be more upfront to the voters about their goals, and campaign wearing the red sash of Orwell's 'Junior Anti-Sex League.' At least it'd be more honest."



Remember Terri Schiavo? Rick can't seem to.

Barbara Coombs Lee recently wrote an excellent article which really should be getting some attention, especially by upcoming debate moderators. Because I'd love to see Rick Santorum answer a few more questions about the issue.

"Rick Santorum, like most Republicans, loves to rail against the government interfering in medical decisions -- at least, when Obama is the target. Seven years ago, Santorum was part of the effort to get Congress to federally intervene in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. News reports at the time had Santorum actively pushing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to take federal action in a private medical decision. I guess the federal government telling patients and their families what to do is OK with Santorum, at least when it is Republicans in the federal government doing so. Someone should ask him about his blatant hypocrisy on the matter."



Just send Congress home

Here's an idea everyone should be able to get behind.

"The consensus in Washington is that now that Congress has passed the payroll tax extension, that absolutely nothing is going to get done for the rest of the year. I've even heard people discussing what Congress will be doing in December, in the lame-duck session. Since we're all agreed that with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate -- in an election year -- nothing whatsoever will get done for the next nine months, why not just send them all home until after the election's over? Of course, we'd have to cut their pay, too. Imagine the budget savings!"



Deploy the FLOTUS

OK, I admit I wrote this one just for that title. Because I can just see someone in the political office of the White House barking out "Deploy the FLOTUS!" to the strategy team.

"Has anyone noticed that the First Lady seems to be everywhere in the past few weeks? She's greeting people on the White House tour, she's on late night television, she seems to be all over the place. I, for one, am glad that Michelle Obama is getting herself out there, because she is the best and biggest supporter her husband has, and she's also the best ambassador the White House has to the American public -- who seem to love her."



[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]

February 11, 2012

Friday Talking Points (197) -- White House Fumbles

{Note to Democratic Underground readers: I'm still getting used to the new DU, and last week it was suggested that I post these weekly columns under "Good Reads." If I am committing some horrible DU faux pas by doing so, I hereby apologize in advance. Please let me know if you think this is the right place for this column, in the comments. Thanks.}



Before we get to the week that was, politically-speaking (and, with it, our final football metaphors of the season), we've first got to call another state in the Republican primary season race. Last week, we almost forgot to predict Nevada's race, and this column went out without containing such a prediction to many readers, for which we apologize (we had to quickly paste in an "Update" at ChrisWeigant.com, which smacks of last-minute-ism, we fully admit).

While many haven't even noticed it, the state of Maine will wrap up its caucuses tomorrow. If there has been any polling out of the state, we certainly haven't been able to find it, so predicting the outcome is a true gut-feeling exercise. From conversations with the Mainers we know, nobody seems to have a clue what the results will be.

One interesting comment: virtually no television ads have run in the state, from any of the candidates. Which just adds to the free-for-all nature of the race.

Based on absolutely nothing more than tossing a mental dart at the wall, I think Mitt Romney's going to win the Maine caucus. Mitt could certainly use some good news right about now, especially since the only contest in the next two-and-a-half weeks is the Northern Marianas (which I will predict right now will generate almost zero interest in the media). But folks in Maine are in Massachusetts' back yard (fun Maine trivia fact number one: the state used to be part of Massachusetts), so they likely have formed a pretty solid opinion of Romney by now. Also, Mainers are a down-to-earth bunch who are not as impressed by glitz (Gingrich, for instance) or fire-breathing (Santorum, perhaps) as voters elsewhere.

The biggest news out of the Maine caucuses will be that Ron Paul chalks up second place, after doing so decisively in Minnesota earlier in the week. I think Paul is the only candidate who actually bothered to visit Maine, which will pay off for him in a light-turnout caucus. Third place is anyone's guess, but I flipped a coin and it came up Santorum, so let's call third for Rick.

So, Maine prediction, in the following order: Romney, Paul, Santorum, with Gingrich barely even registering. Those are my picks, feel free to share yours in the comments, as always.

As for my record, I only did OK last Tuesday, although I did nail 3-for-3 in Missouri. Overall, though, I only chalked up 5-for-9 for the entire night (which I've belatedly decided to call "MinneRockyShowMe Tuesday&quot , which leaves my overall percentage at:

Fun Maine trivia fact number two: Maine is the only state's name which contains only one syllable. But enough silliness, let's get on with the show....



[center][/center]

In what can only be called the best-yet example of "How To Springboard Off Stephen Colbert," Nancy Pelosi branded her effort to pass a political financial disclosure bill as the "Stop Colbert" campaign. So far, we're pretty impressed at her grasp of hilarity. Here's Pelosi, from the video:



Heh. Love that part about Pelosi's "friend" Newt Gingrich. It's a serious piece of legislation, but that doesn't mean you can't have some fun with it and get your message out as a direct result. For doing so, Pelosi wins at least an Honorable Mention this week.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week winner was Senator Barbara Boxer, for being the woman leading the effort to provide political cover for the White House this week on the birth control controversy (much more on this later in this column). Perhaps we're biased, since we do reside in Boxer's home state of California -- there were some other Democrats out there in the media mounting a strong defense of the new policy, as well. But Boxer has made women's reproductive health one of her signature issues in the Senate, so it was her voice that carried the most weight in the debate from the Democrats' side.

For being a consistently-strong advocate of women's rights, and for stepping up to the plate this week on the birth control decision, Barbara Boxer wins the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. Well done, Senator Boxer, well done.

{Congratulate Senator Barbara Boxer on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.}



[center][/center]

Moving along, we have the "How Not To Springboard Off Stephen Colbert" category, it seems. Colbert apparently, right after the BP oil spill, proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America" (on the you-broke-it-you-buy-it theory), as a joke. Mississippi state representative Steve Holland just introduced a bill in the state legislature which would do just that.

The only problem is, it's very easy to miss the fact that he's joking. After all, it wasn't that long ago our country's national legislators were spending their valuable time coming up with such neologisms as "freedom fries." So while Holland was shooting for some Colbert-inspired humor, he missed the mark for a lot of folks. We don't think this rises to the level of even a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, but we did at least think it was worth pointing out here.

In other news, the Obama White House had rather a bad week... but again, we'll get to that in a moment.

The disgrace of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week belongs to another state legislator, Bill DeWeese of Pennsylvania.

DeWeese has now been convicted of five out of six corruption charges against him. This will make him a convicted felon, once he is sentenced. He is scheduled to be sentenced April 24, which is the day Pennsylvania holds primary elections. In an astounding display of chutzpah, however, DeWeese is trying to move his sentencing back past the November election, so he can get re-elected. He is not just some backbencher, either, but the majority leader of the state house of representatives.

What he should be doing instead is writing his resignation letter. If he's sentenced as a felon, he will either have to step down or face the certainty that he's going to be kicked out. Rather than putting Pennsylvania voters through that disgrace, however, DeWeese should "take more time to work on my legal problems and my appeals" and resign his office.

For not immediately doing so -- and with golden "I'm Entitled To This Office, Dammit!" poison-ivy-leaf clusters -- Bill DeWeese is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Do the right thing, Bill. Resign.

{Contact Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions, even though he is not likely to pay the slightest attention.}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 197 (2/10/12)[/center]

We're going to forgo enumerated talking points this week, to follow the White House's lead.

That was sarcasm, just for the record.

For the past week the political world (outside of the Republican primary race) has been consumed by a gigantic policy fight. Barack Obama and the White House were supposedly at the heart of this battle, but they were (for the most part) missing in action. This left the field for the opposition, who successfully framed the entire issue in their own terms -- which was very damaging to Obama, to say the least.

The issue, of course, was the administration's decision to require religious organizations who operate secular businesses such as universities and hospitals to provide health insurance for their employees (who are also secular, not religious employees) which fully covered birth control. Churches themselves would continue to be exempt from this requirement, but hospital workers would not.

This decision was announced a while back, and it was greeted with a full-scale attack by the Catholic Church and (once they realized what was going on) most Republicans. Inexplicably, the White House was caught flatfooted in their response.

No matter what you think of the administration's decision (agree, kind-of-sort-of agree, disagree), I think we can all agree that it was handled extremely badly from the get-go. This is not the way to roll out a contentious policy, guys and gals.

This policy has been a long time in coming. I first read about it last fall, when many on the Left were predicting that Obama was going to cave in and give the churches what they wanted, rather than stand up for employee rights. This worried tone continued, with an article every few weeks on the immanence of the decision the administration faced. To put it another way: the White House had plenty of time to plan for this rollout. It seems they didn't bother to do so, or if they did plan for it, the person responsible should be fired immediately for rank incompetence.

The political implications should have been obvious. This is, after all, an election year. Catholics make up a large proportion of some very important swing states in the Midwest (such as: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan). Putting yourself in opposition to the bishops is going to have repercussions, in other words.

To be charitable, maybe the White House wanted to pick this fight. Maybe it was part of some multi-dimensional political chess where Obama could benefit from the backlash to the backlash. Birth control, after all, is a lot less contentious than gay marriage or abortion. Maybe it was some sort of attempt by the Obama team to create a wedge issue of their own, rather than fighting over the same old Republican wedge issues.

Even assuming this, however, you'd be a fool to say that it's been successful so far. If you're going to wage culture war, you have to get in there and strongly make the case for your side. If you're going to take a moral high road, you have to be aware that the other side is taking their own moral high road -- even if it's a different path than yours. You've got to plan for it and attempt to counteract it, by explaining your side of the story.

This, to be blunt, was noticeably absent. Once again, to be charitable, perhaps the White House was caught by surprise at the ferocity of the backlash, and has (instead of fanning the flames) been working diligently ever since to come up with a compromise. This compromise was announced this morning (which, incidentally, is why I'm ranting here instead of providing the talking points I had sketched out for today's column -- in support of the White House's position -- which are all now mostly moot).

But even this was handled badly. The bishops weren't on board, and may still fight back with everything they've got. If you hammer out a compromise, it would behoove you to make sure everyone's in agreement before announcing the compromise to the world.

The compromise itself didn't sound so bad, on the face of it. The women affected would still get the exact same thing: free birth control. Accounting hairsplitting may pass muster with the bishops, but the women affected won't care, because they're more concerned with managing their own health than in debating some "pinhead-dancing angels" theological conundrum.

Whether the bishops do agree to the new rule, or whether this is just the first round of attempting compromise remains to be seen, as of this writing. But no matter the outcome, the entire matter has so far been badly fumbled by the White House. They knew this was going to be a political decision -- just like their ruling on not offering the morning-after pill to women of all ages over the counter. If they intended on caving completely to the churches, they could have done so months ago and announced it at the same time as the morning-after pill decision -- before the presidential election really got going in full swing. If they intended to pick this fight as a political wedge issue, then they didn't just fumble, they fumbled the ball in the wrong end zone. OK, I know it's too late for bad football metaphors, but still.

If this was a political fight the White House was relishing, then there is a tried-and-true way to mount such an operation. You get everyone who will strongly agree with your decision completely on board. You coordinate with them, so they know when the decision is coming. You line up heavyweight members of Congress and have meetings with them so they're ready to be interviewed as well. Then, when everything's in place and everyone's on board, you call a press conference and roll the whole thing out to the media. Your supporters get on the news with their rehearsed talking points, while the other guys are left scrambling.

None of this, quite simply, was done. Democrats and other advocates didn't even have a fact sheet of handy things to talk about before they found themselves in the political firestorm. Even worse, the other side had done a superb job of preparation, and many otherwise-liberal pundits and media voices were -- from the very beginning -- saying what a horrible political misstep the White House had just taken. Democratic legislators began to peel off as well.

It was like watching a high school football team take on the Oakland Raiders (our next-to-the-last football metaphor of the season, promise). No matter what metaphor you choose, though, watching the whole thing was very disturbing to anyone who would like to see Barack Obama win a second term. We're in election season, folks. This isn't the time for rookie mistakes, or being caught so flatfooted. Granted, we've got quite a few months to go, but this isn't a good start for Team Obama.

The White House's political shop can be better than this, however. They can put this behind them and hone their skills for the upcoming race, but they've got to do so quickly. Because of this, and because we wanted to end on an upbeat note, we will close today with the full script of the outstandingly good Super Bowl ad featuring Clint Eastwood. The best thing Obama's re-election team could do right now is immediately hire whatever genius wrote this ad, and give him a free hand for the upcoming campaign. Because this is how it is supposed to be done, folks:






[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]

February 4, 2012

Friday Talking Points (196) -- Poor Mitt?

Well, that was a pretty good week, at least seen from the Democratic perspective.

Mitt Romney, frontrunner for the Republican nomination, announced he wasn't too worried about poor people. Maybe it would be fun to see Romney debate Joe Biden, just because nobody would know what to expect from either of them. Heh.

Later in the week, Romney squirmed under the spotlight when he was forced to accept the endorsement of Donald Trump, which Trump offered just to boost the ratings for the upcoming season of his reality show. To Mitt's credit, he did manage to look sheepishly embarrassed by the whole spectacle.

A previously-well-loved charity for women's health interjected itself into the political arena, and faced a backlash of enormous proportions for cutting off their funding to Planned Parenthood. This made Planned Parenthood look good all week, and today forced the other charity to reverse itself in a desperate bit of damage control. Good luck with that, as the damage may be deeper and longer-lasting than they think.

Barack Obama was in the news for reminding people, at a prayer breakfast with religious leaders, that Jesus said a whole lot of stuff about those poor people Mitt isn't concerned with. Afterward, some of these religious leaders said they were shocked that the president had the temerity to repeat what is (supposedly) one of the core messages of their faith, even quoting scripture to make his point. Jesus, after all, had precious little to say about the woes of high taxes for hedge fund managers, instead concentrating much more on how we treat the poor. But -- somehow, for some reason -- this became news.

To top it all off, the January unemployment figures came out today, and they told the continuing story of an economy that is getting steadily better. Knee-jerkism in the media (and the Republican Party) abounded with stories of "let me explain why things are actually getting worse," as usual. The Republicans -- from Romney on down -- are terrified of a recovering American economy, because they know full well this is going to help Democrats -- all the way up to Obama -- in the elections this fall. They have staked their entire campaign on: "Things are bad, let us lead again, and we'll make things better!" If things are already getting better, though, then this message is going to fall flat -- and they know it. Look for a massive restructuring of the Republican Party talking points in the coming weeks, to adjust to this new reality.

But I already wrote an article on economic optimism a few weeks ago, so I won't bother to repeat myself here. Instead, let's get on with the show.



[center][/center]

Harry Reid got an impressive 96-3 vote this week on a Senate bill named the "We Got Our Hands Caught In The Cookie Jar" Act. No, wait, I think it was actually named the "Corrupt Bastards? Who, us?" Act. Or something like that. A few weeks back, 60 Minutes did an exposé on how members of Congress are allowed to profit off of insider information they get in the performance of their duties, by buying and selling stocks on information not made public. Now, with red faces, Congress is acting to close this enormous conflict-of-interest loophole, and ban the practice. But even with that impressive vote total, Harry doesn't deserve any sort of award -- because idea of banning this sort of thing has actually been around for years. And we simply do not issue "It's About Freakin' Time" awards, here.

Ahem.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz does deserve an Honorable Mention this week, but we aren't going to tell you why until the end of the talking points. This is what is technically known as "foreshadowing," or (if you're more cynical) a "teaser" to get you to read all the way through the rest of the article.

The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week goes to Cecile Richards, the daughter of the late, great Ann Richards. We're assuming Cecile's a Democrat, actually (a pretty safe guess, in our opinion).

Cecile Richards is the president of Planned Parenthood. She was unafraid, this week, to call a blatantly political move by a donor charity exactly what it was -- a blatantly political move. She did not mince words, and her organization came out of the fracas smelling like a rose. Donations poured in, Planned Parenthood got a lot of very good media exposure, and the Republican drive to target Planned Parenthood for extinction got a lot higher profile than it has been getting. Cecile Richards did an excellent job as spokeswoman for her organization this week, and deserves recognition for that fact alone.

Although she's not in public office and is not a politician, Cecile Richards is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. To mix two metaphors shamelessly, Cecile is following in her mother's footsteps, and those are some very big shoes to fill. Well done, Cecile, and more power to you and to your organization.

{Congratulate Planned Parenthood's president Cecil Richards via Planned Parenthood's contact page, to let them know you appreciate her efforts.}



[center][/center]

This week, sadly, the choice for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award was pretty easy.

Although the headline was a lot scarier than the actual facts, the facts are bad enough (if true). This week, former Michigan state representative Kenneth Daniels was arrested and charged with being linked to a drug smuggling ring in Detroit. Daniels was charged with, essentially, helping the drug kingpin to launder money to buy a Mercedes. Now, this isn't as bad as if he had been the kingpin himself, but it's still pretty bad.

Daniels only allegedly committed the crime he was charged with, so we'll gladly rescind his MDDOTW award if he is exonerated. But our guess is that he's going to have a tough time explaining why he (allegedly, of course) used cashier's checks to help a drug kingpin buy a luxury car. For now, though, Kenneth Daniels is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

{Kenneth Daniels is now a private citizen, having lost his race for the Michigan senate, so we do not have current contact information for him, sorry.}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 196 (2/3/12)[/center]

Kind of a mishmash this week, mostly reactionary talking points from Republican gaffes. But then, hey, that's the kind of week it was.

As always, these talking points are offered up for Democrats to use both in nationally-televised interviews (should you be a prominent officeholder) and around the water cooler at work (for everyone else).

{One technical note, before we begin. Readers have been expressing some confusion as to the formatting of these talking points, so we'd like to clear the issue up. When quoting an actual person who said something worthy of being used as a talking point by others, the text is set in an indented "quote box." When the talking point is just me, suggesting something for other Democrats to say, the text is not presented in a quote box, but instead is just surrounded by quotation marks. As I said, there has been minor confusion over this issue, so we thought we'd define it to better the comprehension of our readers.}



The Golden Rule

The first two of these are excerpts from President Obama's remarks to the prayer breakfast this week (full text available at the White House website). This one is a little long, but is so inclusive that it's worth reading the whole thing.

For the love of God, Mitt...

It's hard to see this one as anything other than a shot across Mitt Romney's bow. Once again, Obama quotes from the Bible to remind everyone of one of the core messages in the New Testament: how you treat the poor matters.





Anti-American Republicans

This one is just disgusting, and should be denounced in the strongest possible language. {Revolutionary-era facts from Gary B. Nash's superb book "The Unknown American Revolution" (2005), pages 98-101.}

"House Republicans actually had a documentary filmmaker and his camera crew arrested this week for having the temerity to exercise their rights as Americans. Josh Fox, who created the Oscar-nominated film "Gasland" was led out of the House committee room in handcuffs, after attempting to film a public hearing on fracking. This is an abominable and anti-American act. In 1766, a revolutionary idea was forced on the statehouse in Boston, and as a result public galleries were built for the first time ever in a colonial government. The idea had spread to Philadelphia by 1772, and became a foundation of our new American government: The People were allowed to observe their public servants in the legislature at work. No more closed doors. No more secret meetings. The freedom of the press was written into the United States Constitution's First Amendment for the very reason that it would act as a check on the power of government. The Republicans ought to hang their heads in shame for so blatantly ignoring this spirit of openness in government which predates our country's birth. In 1766, public oversight of government meetings was a revolutionary idea. It should not be one, in 2012."



Republicans talking about the poor? Say what?!?

OK, the rest of these are reactions to the continuing circus they call the "Republican primary process." The first one should be delivered with as stunned an expression on your face as you can manage.

"I noticed that the Republican candidates were beating each other up over how much they cared for poor people. Is anyone as flabbergasted at this turn of events as I am? Republicans? Talking about how they're going to help poor people? I'm sorry, did I just wake up in some sort of alternate universe or something? Maybe now Republicans will go from talking about the plight of the poor to actually doing something about it -- like reconsidering the policies they've been promoting which would make the lives of the poor insufferably worse. But maybe that's expecting too much of them, I don't know."



Fix the safety net? Are you kidding me, Mitt?

Mitt's convinced that everyone quoted him out of context. Because this "safety net" thing that he's heard about is obviously in fine shape, and gosh darn it, he'll do whatever he can to "fix" it, if need be. One might consider uttering this talking point while rolling your eyes in a sarcastic manner. Just a suggestion.

"Mitt Romney says he'll, quote, fix the safety net, unquote, if it needs it? Who is he trying to fool? I mean, are you kidding me, Mitt? When Republicans talk about 'reforming entitlements' that is the same as saying 'gut, defund, and destroy the safety net,' plain and simple. That is what the Republican Party is all about, today: shredding the safety net and kicking the poor to the curb. If you go through the policy ideas of Mitt Romney -- or, really, any Republican -- you'll find that they all make the lives of the poor more miserable by far. Republicans aren't going to 'fix' the safety net if they get elected, they're going to try their hardest to eliminate it. Mitt Romney simply cannot be believed, there's no other way to put it."



Mitt: 60% tax hike for the poor.

The Democratic National Committee released an ad immediately following Mitt's "let them eat cake" remark. It's a pretty good ad, other than the choice of some very bizarre music as a soundtrack. Talk about the ad, and maybe the media will show it for free!

"Have you seen the new D.N.C. ad over Romney's remarks on the poor? It uses a Chris Matthews clip to point out the embarrassing fact that Romney's own policies, should he be elected, would raise taxes by 60 percent on those making less than $20,000. That's Mitt Romney's actual policy for poor people: hit them with a whopping big tax hike, while cutting taxes for millionaires by 15 percent. It's quite obvious who Mitt Romney cares about -- and it certainly isn't the poor."



Debbie Wasserman Schultz wins the spin

And finally, Debbie Wasserman Schultz once again shows other Democrats how to create a damn fine talking point. Her response to The Donald endorsing Mitt was priceless, and deserves to be repeated by everyone, whenever the subject arises. When asked about Trump and Romney, Debbie skewered both elegantly and hilariously:





[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]