Hillary came to Northern Virginia and endorsed Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe and long time friend. Former President Bill Clinton is expected to join McAuliffe on the campaign trail in its final 3 weeks.
Hillary spoke of divisiveness as she endorsed McAuliffe, according to Politico.com:
She laid out a case for him that rested strongly on women’s equality, gay marriage and rejecting the “scorched earth” politics that have defined Washington over the past several months. Though she didn’t directly call out Republicans, it was clear who she was talking about when she said some politicians have been operating in an “evidence-free zone”, “do not believe in America’s progress” and are trying to “hijack” the future
.
The Saturday Falls Church event was Hillary’s first campaign event in nearly 5 years. She looked refreshed, energized, and ready to roll. Meanwhile, according to most news sources, national republicans as well as many state republicans have given up on the Cuccinelli campaign. Some point to the McDonnell scandal. Others blame the government shut down.
To be fair, it’s over when it’s over. The worst thing either candidate could do would be to grow complacent. Much can happen in the last 3 weeks of a political campaign. However, rather than blame McDonnell or House Republicans, perhaps we should take a closer look at Cuccinelli’s unwavering ideology and his personal crusades at Virginia taxpayer expense. His personal belief system is great for his followers. Not so great for those of us who aren’t trying to cover the breast of goddess-warrior Virtus, goddess of virtue, seen on the Virginia State Seal.
Virginians who don’t subscribe to the far right agenda of Cuccinelli’s ideology find the thought of him at the helm in Virginia to be a horrifying thought. Women, in particular, reject his stance on reproductive rights. However, if the women don’t go to the polls on election day, Cuccinelli’s personal brand of Creep Night could very well become a reality.
McAuliffe has received endorsements from both the Washington Post and the Norfolk Pilot. The Richmond Times Dispatch has refused to endorse any of the three candidates. The Clintons entering the scene in full force is expected to do what the Clintons do best–guarantee a win for their candidate.
This isn’t news. It would be news if she endorsed Cuccinelli. This is like a headline that says: Bostonians support the Red Sox.
Its probably only newsworthy to those of us who have been waiting with baited breath for the Clintons to show up to bring this race home.
Go Boston 🙂
This is a ridiculous election. A man that is a carpetbagger, a man far removed from the concept of governing, a man who thinks Democrats are anti-god and a man who sponsored legislation requiring a woman suffering a miscarriage should report that to the police. I do see a pattern.
Its always nice to support your friends.
McAuliffe has the liberal trifecta of support: Obama, Billery, and The Washington Post. Virginians should be very afraid.
Nothing about that line up makes me the least bit afraid. I would fear the Republican line up enough that I would strongly consider selling my house and moving to West Virginia or Maryland and talking my daughter to bring her and her daughters out of state with me.
I would think the Clintons might be, at best, of no help to McAuliffe. They clearly have their admirers, particularly in NOVa, but they also excite great antipathy, particularly in ROVa. Maybe it’s just a self-cancelling phenomenon.
I imagine McAuliffe’s people’s greatest concern now is that Northern Virginia might not turn out in sufficient numbers to give real world meaning to polling data.
@Cargosquid
yes it is. I also wouldn’t support all my friends if they ran for office. I can like people without liking their politics and vice versa.
@Scout
The Clintons still appeal to women (both of them) and blacks (Bill). Those are the folks that McAuliffe needs to make sure get to the polls.
That comes from me, not from any contact I have with the McAuliffe Campaign. My husband is the only contact I have with the campaign,
Fair enough, Moon. It also may be that the areas where the Clintons have strength are also the areas where turning out the vote is most important for McAuliffe.
I can’t back this up empirically, but I have the impression that Northern Virginians tend to undervote in these off-year elections, while more downstate demographic groups tend to be more determined about getting to the polls. If I were working the Cuccinelli campaign, I’d be praying for blizzards and/or locust swarms north of the line of the Rappahannock.
He has probably worn out the knees on several pairs of pants doing just that.
I don’t know if Northern Virginians do or don’t. I am not even sure we can draw historical conclusions this election because of the players and the really draconian things Cuccinelli has done during his tenure as AG. He inspires moderates, librals and some republicans to vote ABC.
Da butt, boys, Cuccinelli is going to get kicked in da butt!
Travelgate, Whitewater, Benghazi, Global Crossings,Greentech, Franklin Pellets…..bit of a pattern here, don’t ya’ll think?
A swing and a miss.
Perhaps to this crowd. My point is while the Left has done a pretty complete job of demonizing the GOP candidates, mostly regarding their principles, scandels seem to follow your champions like seagulls follow those Virginia-bound New Jersey trash barges. Perhaps the “morality issue” is legitimate criticism of GOP candidates, made by a party that celebrates scandle.
From the party of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, Jim Kolbe, and Larry Craig? I don’t think the left accepts the behavior of Gary Hart, John Edwards, Gary Condit, Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer and yes, even Bill Clinton. However, the difference is the democratic naughty boys didn’t set themselves up as the morals police like some of the above listed Republicans have. The Democrats have just as cruddy personal behavior but they generally aren’t hypocrites about it.
I simply think its the pot calling the kettle black to discuss the Virginia-bound New Jersey trash barges.
I am not sure I particularly like some of the principles I hear being voiced, especially when there are campaign promises to turn some of those Republican principles, which sound more like religious beliefs into law. Several candidates have been particularly vociferous about gays being morally bankrupt or abominations. There is no place for that kind of discussion in public life.
Isn’t one of the state candidates from New Jersey? Was that a coded message? Cargo says I am all about secret codes. Actually, I am more about dog whistles.
Vaginagate. How’s that for the here and now as opposed to decades ago scandals. (If you want local and recent look at Star Scientific.) AND Vaginagate affects half the population of Virginia. If I need a gynecologist, I know where to go and it isn’t the Virginia legislature and the current R slate – the Triumvirate of chauvinist pigs.
Censored,
Really, I am getting tired of the single-note song being sung by the Left. “Keep Your Roseries off My Overies” is all played out. What I find odd is the same folks screaming “No government will decide the future of my vagina” are the same ones defending the Obamacare, which is a government takeover of ALL healthcare, not just the care of your ladybits.
If the polls are correct (and I have little reason to doubt the trend), the Dems will probably win the Gov and LG races. Lot’s of reasons why, that have absolutely nothing to do with woman’s plumbing.
I believe VA will look an awful lot like what we have in DC: Dems control the Mansion and the Senate. GOP controls the House. Outlook: Gridlock and partisan fighting.
I also strongly believe that 2014 is going to be a bloodbath for Dems. I was just notified that my health insurance premiums are going up 40%. Mrs. T’s up 30%. Serveral analysts predict premium increases in the 60-90% range. Obamacare is 100% Democrat-owned, and no matter how much turtlewax you put on a turd, at the end of the day, it’s just a shiney turd. The economy is slowing again to recessionary levels, few jobs being created, and most of them are part-time. And the investigations into IRS and Benghazi aren’t going away. Plus there’s that whole impending February debt/spending/budget fight coming. No way you can distract enough people with your constant vagina monologue.
“From the party of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, Jim Kolbe, and Larry Craig? I don’t think the left accepts the behavior of Gary Hart, John Edwards, Gary Condit, Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer and yes, even Bill Clinton.”
None of which are running to be our governor, or who plan to run for President in 2016. Hey, VA will most likely elect Mcauliffe, and I’d say most of his margin will be from women who bought the whole “war on women” circus. So, when we elect someone under an active SEC investigation, whom both the RTD and WaPo says lacks both the governing experience and knowledge of how VA operates needed to be governor, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get the government that we deserve. I do think the next four years will be interesting indeed. Biscuits and BigTops….
@Moon-howler
“Was that a coded message?”
When we import out-of-state trash, we shouldn’t be surprised when things start to stink. We KNOW T-Mac is shady. We KNOW he has no elected experience…anywhere. I’m just saying.
I don’t think T-Mac is shady. I think KNOW is not the right verb. You may think he is shady but that doesn’t make it so. We also know that Cuccinelli used very poor judgement and was under investigation. That has nothing to do with my reason for not voting for him. He offends my values. He gravitates around issues that I feel have no place in politics.
As for the women issue, regardless of how YOU feel about it, its a huge issue to many Virginians,in particular, women Virginians. I will fight for the right to make my own morally appropriate decisions as long as I draw breath on this earth. No politician has the right to make those types of decisions for me or my posterity.
Perhaps you didn’t notice the war on women because you are 1. male 2. waging it from your own position.
I am old enough, as is censored, to have witnessed the oppression women have lived under. It might not seem like much to you but from my vantage point, it is significant. That ‘war’ kept me from going to the college of my choice and it prevented me from pursuing certain careers I wanted to explore. It created at atmosphere for women where boys could be boys and women would be whores if they did the same thing. I have detected a little of that attitude on this blog recently as a matter of fact (not by you, of course.)
I have a lot more to say about the war on women but I think I will go outside and enjoy the remains of the day….
Well. if we are going to make up lists here, we might as well add the latest shining star of the Democratic Party: Graciela “Grace” Napolitano (D-California), House member representing a district in the Los Angeles area. 60 Minutes and the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) just outed allegations that, since 1998, she has been running an under-the-table loan scam which has put $294, 245 of her campaign funds in her private accounts. Ching, ching. One more for the list?
Slap her on the list of wrong-doers if she needs to be on it. Clinton is the only sacred cow in the list and that is because Elena and I declared him so, on this blog. I have never heard of Grace. She sounds like a crook to me. I also forgot the dude’s name who was keeping $100k in his freezer. He would go on the D side. I also left off Speaker Livingston off the list. He goes on the R side.
I will say that I think there is a lot less promiscuity amongst the women than the men.
@Steve Thomas
You don’t think the Republicans will have to own some of the slow growth in the economy by stonewalling everything Obama proposes? How about the very recent loss to the economies – local and national, private and public – that the shutdown debacle produced? I see no bloodbath for the Dems in the mid-terms. You guys managed to turn a possible win into sure defeat by shutting down the government. My walking buddies are moderate Repubs who won’t be voting for the Triumvirate this election and are actively looking for a third party to appear on the horizon. They wouldn’t be caught dead with Cuccinelli signs in their yards although they’ve always planted signs for R’s there before. The shutdown and furloughs did it for them.
You can be as tired as you want about hearing your ticket labelled as woman-hating. You’re a man. You don’t get how offensive your ticket is. BTW, my insurance costs went down a little this year. Unless your party has some solutions to stem the rising insurance costs in this country, don’t be too quick to harp on ObamaCare. Nothing that size launches without snafu’s and I expect it to be tweaked and fixed. If your party wants to continue to complain and be negative instead of finding solutions, expect to be seen as a bunch of whiny old men.
It wouldn’t be good for our state legislature and Guv to look like the Feds because the closer to home the mess is, the less tolerant people are of it and they’re damned intolerant of it at a national level as all polls show.
My pattern… Was male, male, male, male.
“You can be as tired as you want about hearing your ticket labelled as woman-hating. You’re a man.”
Here’s my response: Why do you hate babies? You support abortion, so why the war on babies?
A ridiculous argument, I know. Almost as ridiculous as the whole “war on women” canard the left has managed to put over on the country.
Still, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and the pro-choice side has been losing ground ever since. Nationally. Polls show the country is becoming majority “pro-life”. Perhaps not to the level that Cuccinelli would like, but the trend is irrefutable: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
As I argued before, and as the data would indicate, the electorate is shifting right (right on schedule), growing more conservative on every issue, including life, immigration reform, guns, taxes. The only exception the same-sex marriage issue. So you hedge your bet on the GOP dying off, and some moderate third-party rising to ensure a united Democrat party dominates in the future. I’ll look at the data, and it doesn’t look good for the Dems. The future will prove one of us correct.
Most people are pro-life. Pro choice people are pro life. Most pro choice people have children. Many have never had an abortion. Some have, some haven’t.
As for shifting right, I think that depends on how we define left and right. How about the death penalty? What conclusions can you draw there and is that a pro life position? How about euthanasia? A limited form of euthanasia is legal in both Washington and Oregon? Is that a pro life position? Is it right or left? I would see it as libertarian but that’s just me.
Again, most of us are pro life. I think the point I am trying to make is pro life really is not what anti abortion people should be using. I don’t think any of us own the ‘life’ word.
Certainly the entertainment industry is not growing more conservative, I am sorry to say. Ditto for advertising. I love for the days that I could watch TV with kids and not have erectile dysfunction commercials, tampons an condoms floating all over the TV set. But again, that’s just me. I enjoy my adult entertainment, but I also watch when kids aren’t around. Boardwalk Empire has sex and lots of shooting up people. There’s nothing like a Tommy gun to slice through people.
As for the GOP, right now its a math problem. The GOP needs to clean house and has needed to do so for a couple decades. There are lots of people who simply aren’t comfortable in either party. The party that manages to capture those disgruntled people will rule for a while. Right now, the GOP can’t do it as along as the wing nuts are running the show.
In politics, however, the pendulum swings….We are both right and we are both wrong.
@Steve Thomas
The right-wing has spent decades fighting Roe v. Wade. They’ve pushed too far and women are pushing back. That doesn’t seem like a rightward turn so much as a repudiation of the far right. Not everyone who supports Roe v. Wade wants abortions to be available at the ninth month for all reasons. But the majority of people in this country believe in contraception and early termination. Most women want you, me, and politicians out of their business and believe these issues are between them and their doctors.
Younger women (college age and a bit older) are generally more in tune with my generation rather than yours on these issues. It’s that old pendulum swing thing.
I am glad to see that the college age women are finally picking up the torch. You and I carried it too many years. The younger women assumed their reproductive rights would always be there. They couldn’t imagine life without access to contraception or abortion services even if that isn’t how they would handle an unintended or unwanted pregnancy.
I guess the threat has come too close now. I will defend the right for women to make their own reproductive choices as long as I draw breath on this earth. I will call those who misrepresent liars. Women aren’t really free unless they make their own decisions, not the politicians or men.
In particular, women will return to being 2nd class citizens if they cannot control their own reproduction to suit their needs. Anyone who denies this fact is denying history.
I think there are other issues more important to some Virginians. At least I hope so.
I found this fascinating article, ultimately, about the very basic empowerment of women, beginning with their bodies. I loved the last paragraph.
Look at how base the discussion over birth control became by republican men. “aspirin between the knees”, “Sandra Fluke needs to show us the video of her having sex if we have to pay for her birth control”.
When women are empowered sexually, when women control their reproductive destiny, they are empowered to chart their future, that is what being equal represents to me.
There is explicit language, but honest discussion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
@ Steve Thomas: I have a lot of trouble discerning what “Travelgate, Whitewater, Global Crossing, Greentech, Franklin Pellets” have in common with each other, let alone what their relevance is to the current gubernatorial race in the Commonwealth. There are some overlapping actors in those situations, but they are rather different one from the other, and completely unrelated to any issue I’m aware of in Virginia.
Also, while I’m satisfying my curiosity, what is the shift to the “right” on immigration? Is this a shift in favor of revising existing immigration laws? Is it opposition to revisions?
I have never been much of an adherent to the idea that graft and peccadillo are partisan attributes. It seems to me that human weakness and failings are equally distributed across political party lines. I haven’t empirical data on this – it’s just a hunch. Thus, Wolve’s “aha!” moment re a Dem in California leaves me cold, as do references to the numerous hypocritical pervert Members of Congress that the modern Republican Party has laid on us. These are fallible humans who, with a few stellar exceptions, would not be doing this kind of work for a living if they had other more positive skills or qualities. Those rare exceptions at the right time have been what has saved the Republic, but the scalliwags have the exemplars outnumbered by a large margin.
@Elena
The discussion has come a long way from that old classic “Our Bodies Ourselves”.
@Censored bybvbl
Aint that the truth!
@Scout
“@ Steve Thomas: I have a lot of trouble discerning what “Travelgate, Whitewater, Global Crossing, Greentech, Franklin Pellets” have in common with each other, let alone what their relevance is to the current gubernatorial race in the Commonwealth. There are some overlapping actors in those situations, but they are rather different one from the other, and completely unrelated to any issue I’m aware of in Virginia.
Also, while I’m satisfying my curiosity, what is the shift to the “right” on immigration? Is this a shift in favor of revising existing immigration laws? Is it opposition to revisions?”
Scout, the top of this thread is Hillary Clinton endorses and campaigns for Terry Mcauliff. Whitewater, Travelgate are both scandals where Hillary was at the center. Global Crossings, Greentech and Franklin Pellets are scandals where Terry Mcauliff is the center. So, when you have one shady individual endorsing another, who happens to be running for the highest office in Virgina, I see this as germane to any discussion of the fitness of the individual office-seeker to serve. As a side note, I see the willingness of certain boosters of said candidate to overlook these character flaws as a reflection of their individual judgement.
With regards to the “shift to the right” I referenced, google “Stimson Policy Mood Study”, or if you aren’t inclined to work with primary resources, you can read the synopsis here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/09/the-conservative-shift-in-public-opinion-has-happened-in-all-50-states/
If you read either, you will see that the mood of the country is shifting right on all public policy issues, except gay marriage, which moves against the current. Regarding immigration reform, while most support in part, support diminishes the more “comprehensive” the plan. However, the data would also indicate that it isn’t a top-priority issue nationally. My point is, I don’t think a “moderate third party” will be an issue. A moderate third party will be irrelevant in the future. A more moderate GOP will suffer the same fate. All the “Cruzhaters” get ready for the “Cruzaders” because they are coming, and the electorate is moving in that direction. If you don’t trust the data, we’ll just have to see if it proves out…and we won’t have to wait long, as 2014 is right around the corner.
One thing I can say about this thread is it has lead me to the conclusion that I will not be changing anyone’s mind here, and I have other pressing things to attend to, and I can assure you that not one of these substantative undertakings involves debates regarding Censored’s anatomy, or the anatomy of any other woman who would rather see Detroit or California-like public policy inflicted upon the Old Dominion. My positions on “Choice” are in the majority, according to almost every poll out there, in that a return to a pre-1973 state is unrealistic, but so not support public-funding of abortions or “on-demand”. The accusations being made that Cuccinelli, or any other Republican will “Ban contraception” are ridiculous, as there is no legal basis upon which such a ban could be made. This is intellectually dishonest, and is intended to sway those who lack the ability to exercise critical thinking.
While it looks like Mcaulliff may very well win, as well as Ralph Northam for LG, there is a very strong possibility that the incoming administration will include a Republican AG. Also, closer to home, Delegates Lingemfelter, Anderson, Marshall, and Miller are expected to win re-election. 2016 may well see a change in the state senate, along with a change in the Whitehouse, if the studied trends and past history bear out. In the meantime, VA’s government will look a lot like the Fed, at least for the next 2-4 years. A divided government headed by an inexprienced (fact), unqualified (opinion I share with RTD and WaPo), individual who is unprepared for the office, who also has a shady past. We shall indeed get the government we deserve. Wrap this with the trainwreck that is the Obama presidency, and be have much greater problems than lady-bits and plan-b.
Peace to all.
I don’t believe Hillary was ever found at fault in
WatergateWhitewater and her involvement in travelgate is purely speculative. We can stir up something from just about anything. We know that Cuccinelli took gifts he probably shouldn’t have. Was it illegal? Probably not. He tried to make restitution. Time to move on. My point is, it seems sort of pot meet kettle for you to be digging up dirt.As for the contraception issue, no one has said on this blog that Cuccinelli tried to outlaw birth control. The all the women on this blog are too savvy for that. What he did try to do, along with many of the people you have mentioned, is pass personhood legislation that defined personhood as beginning at fertilization. The resulting effect, if that bill had passed, would have been to create a loophole enabled hard core enemies of choice or contraception to legally have contraception outlawed because many of the pills prevent implantation. In fact, this strategy used to be explained on Judie Brown’s American Life League website. Bob Marshall helped Judie Brown found American Life League.
It would not be legal for any state to pass a law banning contraception. However, it would not be impossible to get that outcome with a personhood act.
Just to set the record straight, the WaPo didn’t say McAuliffe was unqualified. They said he was inexperienced. In fact, they endorsed him. The RTD endorsed no one. (which is hardly an endorsement of YOUR candidate.)
You have attempted to be dismissive of ‘ladybits.’ That’s ok. We won’t ever be dismissive of reproductive rights because we know that the instant we are, we relegate our daughters and granddaughters to the position of second class citizens. Unless women have control of their own reproduction, they can’t compete economically in a global economy. History, sociology, an socio-economics tell us that. It’s all about earning power.
After we get past the economic issues, then we can discuss the niceties about women not wanting to be incubators and the emotional stuff like that.
Steve,
I am certainly more than capable of exercising “critical thinking”.
When you propose a “personhood amendment” legalizing terminology that “life begins at fertilization”, then several methods of very popular birth control become illegal.
I know science can be an inconvenient, but apparently quite a necessary evil when debating facts.
@Moon-howler
“I don’t believe Hillary was ever found at fault in Watergate and her involvement in travelgate is purely speculative.”
Whitewater, not Watergate.
yea that one. Definitely not Watergate. fighting major malware attack over here. Not even thinking. Ad infestation.
And yet Cucinelli himself has said
““I don’t think government should be doing anything about birth control. . . . So, no, I would not,” Cuccinelli responded. “Government legislation shouldn’t address contraception.”
When the woman suggested that meant he would not support personhood legislation, “because that’s automatic with a personhood bill,” Cuccinelli replied: “If you say so, but what I’m telling you is I’m not going to touch contraception as governor, so I think you and I might disagree.”
“So the rumors that you would support birth-control restrictions are false?” she asked.
“Actually,” Cuccinelli said, “I wouldn’t call them rumors, I might call them lies. Yeah, let’s be accurate about this.”
Cuccinelli reiterated that point to reporters after the event.
“I‘ve never supported legislation that invades people’s choices about contraception,” he said. “People can argue what they want about personhood. I’ve said it before and I’m telling you now, that contraception is not something we’re going to regulate, period.”
\
He can say whatever he wants. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the medical end of it himself. Perhaps, he doesn’t understand how birth control pills work. I doubt that he has had much experience with them.
The bottom line is, declaring life beginning at fertilization leaves the door wide open for many forms of contraception to be banned because it prevents a fertilized ovum from implanting on the uterine wall. In fact, I have read this plan to outlaw abortion on several Anti aborton websites, including American Life League. You can bet your last dollar Bob Marshall knows about it.
If someone wants to push the issue, it would also make IUDs illegal also.
So Blue, it really doesn’t matter what he says or what his intentions are. I think a lot of people voted in favor of that personhood at fertilization bill without thinking of the consequences. Perhaps they didn’t know that there is a medical difference between fertilization and conception, which is implantation of a fertilized ovum on the uterine wall.
There is another problem with fertilization–no one knows the exact moment of fertilization. That would be a guessing game at best.
Lastly, who are politicians to think they know when life begins. Perhaps its a continum. Great theologians haven’t been able to agree on this age-old question. Why do the polticians think it is their job?
Blue makes the excellent point that Cuccinelli simply may not understand the biology of the reproduction process and hence sincerely believes that a “personhood” law has no effect on contraception (viz. Elena’s comment at 1305). I would be inclined to give the man the benefit of the doubt on this.
I guarantee that Bob Marshall knows.
I have never claimed that Cuccinelli sponsored that bill to outlaw contraception. I don’t know what his intent was. Some people who oppose contraception, however, did plan for that to happen because they believe chemical forms of contraception are abortifacients. <--------their words, not mine) BTW, after 7 kids he should know SOMETHING about the biology of reproduction. 👿
@Moon-howler
“fighting major malware attack over here. Not even thinking. Ad infestation.”
Look at Malwarebytes (free) and Adblocker Plus for IE, Firefox and Chrome (Also free) (depending on whichever browser you use). These will server you well.
Thanks, Steve. I have been using malwarebytes, cccleaner, spybot, ad-aware, and Norton. Does Adblocker work on all three? I use all three browsers.
@Elena
“I am certainly more than capable of exercising “critical thinking”.
When you propose a “personhood amendment” legalizing terminology that “life begins at fertilization”, then several methods of very popular birth control become illegal.
I know science can be an inconvenient, but apparently quite a necessary evil when debating facts.”
Someone who exercises critical thinking would most likely look at the actual proposed amendment to see if their reading of the legislation leads them to the same conclusion as the those whose opinions they are also reading. Also, while a doctor may reach a conclusion on a particular piece of legislation, a constitutional lawyer may reach a different conclusion. Either way, facts are facts: verifiable, demonstrable. Opinion is a conclusion reached after (hopefully) reviewing the facts. This is called working with primary resouces. But the process goes further.
A critical thinker would also look at the likelihood of passage of a proposed amendment, and would understand that any such amendment would have to pass the GA during two consecutive sessions, and then be passed by electoral majority by ballot referendum during a general election…and could quite concievably be blocked or overturned in federal court.
A critical thinker would, after verifying/eliminating the claims regarding the more onerous portions of the bill that actually passed, and the multi-step amemendment process, would most likely conclude that the odds of successful passage of such an amendment are slim, and survivability even slimmer, may reach the conclusion that this is nothing more than a means of garnering support amongst the authors small, but dedicated base.
In reaching this conclusion, a critical thinker may place this issue very low on the priority list, and instead focus on more “kitchen table” issues such as taxes, education, transportation, economic development, etc., etc.
Dismissing the alarm that goes off over personhood bills isn’t something Elena and I are likely do to any more than you are likely to dismiss a call over gun restrictions. I believe a friend of mine once referenced being pecked to death by a duck. That is what has happened to reproductive rights.
To suggest that the probability of contraception being outlawed because of an act passed in Virginia is deceptive, whether intentional or not. We all know about unintended consequences. The reality is it could happen. If Virginia passes a law that declares that life begins at the moment of fertilization, then by logic, anything that prevents that life from continuing could be banned. Its not farfetched at all. In fact, the architecture is already in place on several anti-abortion sites I have visited over the years. How long do you think it would take some zealot to bring the prevention of chemical contraception to court?
To someone in my generation, having full access to reproductive rights is imperative. We have seen what happens to women who are denied full control for whatever reason, whether because of husbands, politicians, parents or simply lack of invention. It is a matter of economic empowerment. As a general practice, women weren’t given professional jobs outside of nursing, library science or nursing because [gasp] they might become pregnant and quit. All that training would be down the drain. (read: the company would be out of money.) That was just the general attitude of most of corporate America. College graduate women were sent to the secretarial pool of corporations. Unless women have full control of their own reproduction, there really is no equality. I have seen it. It isn’t a maybe. It’s a fact.
@Steve Thomas
That female voters will put this issue on the back burner is wishful thinking, not critical thinking, on the R’s part. Women aren’t blind to what other states have done to try to get around Roe v. Wade. It’s the old “give an inch” admonition. Virginia doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It influences – and is influenced by – other states. Women would be sloppy thinkers not to notice that fact.
Steve,
Ergo the VERY reason you Republicans need to stay out of a woman’s reproductive system, the fact that you don’t understand exactly how birth control works. That all these uneducated politicians presume to know science, life, and birth control. That all these politicians presume to take control over what goes in (trans vaginal ultrasound) and comes out (a baby) of woman’s vagina is astonishing. I wonder, since men have such personal feelings about their own genitalia, how they would feel about “the state” controlling what painful event they would be forced to undergo, not matter what the extenuating circumstances.
Let me tell you Steve, birth hurts, REALLY bad. I’ve done it via surgery and I’ve done it via home birth with no drugs, there is NO easy way. It is a major trauma to a woman’s body. I”ll tell you what, since having a kidney stone is about the closest pain a man will ever get to birth, how about if you volunteer for every forced baby a woman has to bear, to have stone implanted in your kidney and then have to pass it.
You talk about pregnancy without talking about what a woman has to go through for approximately 40 weeks while she carries it and then the pain of labor, of birth itself, of the recovery physically and emotionally.
You have no understanding of the economic consequences of giving a birth as a single woman. What if she doesn’t have insurance? Oh right, you would repeal the ACA, now she’s really screwed. What happens if she has to go on bed rest for months (been there done that). Who supports her? What happens if she has to have a c/section (almost 30% chance of that happening in this country). Do you have any idea how expensive it is to have a surgical birth, about 15 grand or more!
I won’t even touch upon raising the child now. And what would republicans do to help this struggling single mom? What policy is put in place that Republicans advocate doing more of? Nothing. Take away food stamps, take away SChip, take away head start, that is what Republicans advocate.
I scoff at your suggestion that this is all political theater. How about we start passing draconian gun laws and see how you react. No, I see first hand the level to which republicans will go to strip a woman of her ability to control her body. Almost all clinics that offer reproductive services to Virginian women will be forced to close. Love to see how you would react if I inserted gun shops instead of clinic.
Do you even understand that many abortion clinics also offer comprehensive care for women that includes birth control? Probably not. But don’t worry, your man Cuccinellli has ensured restricted access to affordable birth control by closing clinics. You’ll see unwanted pregnancy on the rise in Virginia.
Steve: the reason I asked the question the way I did, is that I frankly don’t see immigration issues as shaking out in some cognizable “right” or “left” dichotomy. Traditional, mainstream “conservative” economic analysis would favor minimal barriers to migration of labor resources. Politically, a lot of self-identified “conservatives” seem to have problems with removing constraints on immigration, despite the benefits that America has derived from immigration up until now.
While we now have a bill passed by the Senate, the House seems to be intent on dealing with pieces of the issue rather than the issue in its entirety. How that reflects a right/left alignment eludes me.
With all the social and medical services provided to the poor and, frankly, to studients – for example -without income, to include dental, I doubt that ACA is making it any better for them. No, for those singles who had health insurance – either as an individual or through an employer its a far different story. They are losing their jobs and having hours cut due directly to ACA and are losing what coverage they had because the Administration is so incompetent. In other words, they are now being caught between the reality of the law and market consequences and the failure of Obamacare to be ready to pick them up. All those folks who were insured – now are not. Worse they will pay more for less if the ACA ever does come on line. Great job.
Blue,
Just wondering, what do you believe should have been done to curb rising health care costs? What do you believe are the reasons for our out of control health care system as it pertains to cost?
http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/businesscase/reasons/rising.html
@Elena
There are a number of things that I think could /should have been possible in a bipartisan way (as compared to no Republican input or support with ACA). The clue was that we needed to pass it in order to find out what is in it. These alternatives include:
1. provide insurance-premium tax credits based on income, but also outlaw discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.
2. Raise the child on parents insurance to 26 as ACA does until the economy recovers.
3. leave the current market and support infrastructure in place rather than destroy it and try to replace it. This would have prevented the emerging insured gap.
4. Provide incenives to employeers to hire and bring people to full employment rather than, as the ACA does, to eliminate jobs and reduce hours — ACA is trying to force folks into government insurance
5. simply allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines to increase competiton for individual and groups and decrease cost – bigger pools
6. allow small businesses to pool together to lower their risk and reduce insurance costs.
7. Allow state high-risk pools and then expand federal support.
8. cap to the total damages for medical liability for doctors and a repeal to the federal antitrust exemption for hralth providers and health insurers in an effort to break up monopolies and increase competition in the market. ACA is the legal industry’s best dream.
Elena, we are loosing doctors every day because of ACA. Privacy and the centralization of information is only now being understood. It is not just about cost and the premiums are not competitive. The deductibles insane. My costs have already gone up – how about you. ACA is tearing the country apart. It is not needed. We could build on what we have and see how it looks 10 years from now and do more. Insteradm we have thrown the baby out with the bath water and are going to pay for it big time in health care quality, cost and more and more bitter political polizeration. Health care will be by politiican and bureaucrat not market conditions, competition, incentive, quality, freedom or innovation. We needed market re-regulation not government replacement.
Blue, I will have to digest your suggestions but thank you for making them.
Did your health care plan go up significantly or the usual? Mine went up every year–not by quantum leaps, usually, but it went up.
We should be able to keep what is there and tweak what is wrong with the plan. It sounds to me llike the greedy insurance companies need to be kicked in the tail. I understand profit but do we need CEOs making $10 million a year annually?
@Moon-howler
Did my insurance go up in a “quantum leap” — no, but it is going up at a faster rate and I blame that in no small part on ACA. And its not just the cost of health care, health care technology, drugs, better customer service, IT support, ect that is doing it. It is more and more the cost of liability. A large rush of number of new patients, who will demand the best care with no financial responsibility, e.g longer lines, a lot of new rules, a lot of new lawyers trying to get in on it, and fear of the government will push rates up and companies out of business with no one replacing them. ACA is doing this whether you call it the law of unintended consequences or not.
Greedy insurance companies that have an ROI of 3%. Greedy insurance companies where CEOs average about a million in billion dollar firms, but also have stock options and performance incentives that can rise to well over $10 million. What, would you now have the goverment limit private salaries by industry? This is the call of investors / stockholders not some politiician or bureaucrat. CEO salaries are not the cost issue for you and me, but raising this kind of red herring is the dangerous socialist us vs them political spin that makes fixing the issue more difficult.
I never suggested that the government limit salaries. The astronomical salaries are an indication of why the people should cut the insurance companies no slack. Insurance companies whine moan groan bitch and wheeze about their profits, and yet pay the top CEOs the big bucks.
I am not sure it is accurate to say that there will be a rush with new patients. That has yet to be proven. I think the jury is still out. The bottom line is people need health coverage. It is our business to insist that it is affordable and that people are treated fairly.
Blue,
Our family plan rose about 100.00, insignificant. Our co pays rose a few dollars and deductibles increased. However, this has been happening every year anyway! Our ER copay has increased 150% in a decade, before ACA.
I think your ideas are interesting, but did you see the analysis on why interstate commerce is a loser in providing comprehensive insurance? I actually don’t think healthcare should be on the backs of employers, why are we putting the burden on them? I am very interested in the genesis of our health care delivery system. I plan on looking for a wonkish book that can give an accurate historical picture.
I have been having this discussion off line with someone who use to work in the public health care sector. It’s interesting. Germany seems to have figured out a decent system. I will say this, I don’t believe that everyone will ever get the same standard of care. Even if we could get a minimum single payer system, private insurance would still flourish, just like it does with Medicare. It does matter if you have resources to bolster your healthcare. Which then brings us to a deeper question of the growing income inequality.
I was listening to NPR this morning and the discussion was about mobility and why Americans, for the first time in decades, are not relocating to move up the economic ladder. I was fascinated by the disparity as I related to our poorest communities. Forget traveling across state lines, people are living in the same zip code for generations, they are stuck.
Elena, that was $100 more per YEAR, wasn’t it?
My insurance issues are complicated because I’m an old guy with relatively young children. Health care has always been expensive, and it escalated dramatically year-to-year well before ACA. What ACA does for me now is to give me more options than previously. Not sure how that will work out in dollars and cents, but I don’t expect ACA to hang an additional cost on me. My gripe is that health care costs were over the moon before ACA, the national stats on the quality of care we get for the money have not been particularly encouraging for many, many years, and ACA, because it essentially seems to perpetuate the basic structure that was bringing us these bad outcomes, may not work any major improvement. We’ll see if it, in fact, has a pro-competitive effect. However, I don’t think we’ll have good data for around five years.
Ah, the Bungler of Benghazi came to town, eh?
Bwahahahahaha The Bungler of Benghazi!!!! The muse is with you tonight, for sure.
Me? Kicking back watching Cecile Richards on Rachel Maddow. Now there is a powerful team!!!
Richards is saying she thinks that the republican are just going to have to lose enough races to see that they cannot get elected in the United States if they oppose women. Women make up 51% of the electorate. I think she is on to something. Its really a very simple math problem.
The math has been apparent (and simple) for about 15 – 20 years. It’s not just women – it’s almost every other demographic. To borrow from Senator McConnell (hate to do it, he really is an unfortunate fellow in many ways), how many times do you have to get kicked in the head by a mule to figure out that you should stand back a bit?
I thought we did a “post-mortem” after 2012 and were going to try to stop being the Stupid Party. Whatever happened to those lessons?
This time they got set on Cruz-control and another whole group of mathematically challenged people jumped in with him.