Is it Just Me, or Is the Religious Right Really Obsessed with Rape?

So Richard Mourdock, GOP Senate candidate from Indiana, decided to add his two cents to the rape/abortion debate last week, saying "...  and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."  He, of course, amended his comment later to clarify that the rape was not what was intended, but the pregnancy, and that all life is precious.  And while we all know full well that's not what he intended, it doesn't make his argument any less dumb.  And it should be noted that, in proclaiming divine providence on pregnancies, you are, in fact, at least implying that the rape was God's will, since the result was God's will.  And I'm sure that God, with all His omnipotence, appreciates people like Dick reaching out to help those of us lesser people truly understand God's will - as if that's actually possible.

The problem with the abortion debate is that, to have it, you have to split a lot of hairs.  I don't support abortion, I wouldn't want my wife to have one unless there was a specific need to.  But I'm sorry, the argument against abortion is a religious one.  Even for those who shoot for secular, only debating when life begins, the origination of that argument has always been a religious one.  I'm Christian, but I also think God doesn't need me telling anyone what their life is or should be, or the decisions they make for themselves.  And it sure as hell isn't my right to legislate beliefs onto the whole of the country, especially when a good portion of the country doesn't share in that religious belief.  So I would fall into the pro-choice category - as would my wife.

God's greatest gift was his Son, Jesus Christ, who died for our sins.  His second greatest gift was the freedom of choice - even the choice to not believe in Him.  God doesn't force belief - omnipotence being what it is, He already knows the end result - so He patiently waits, with His hand out, for His children to find that belief in their own time.  We can't ever really know God, only ascribe to a relationship with Him, try to live in His light.  So as God gives us choice, the religious right have decided to circumvent God and dictate people's lives to them, knowing, for an indisputable fact, that this is what God wants, whether those people are believers or not?  

Right to lifers say the same thing about abortion that they do about gays - that they don't want gay rights and abortion rights forced upon them.  Aside from the fact that they're not (any of you been pulled into a Justice of the Peace office and forced to marry someone of your own gender lately?  How about women?  Been yanked into a back room, tied down, and had your baby aborted lately?), they all have no problem forcing what they want onto everybody else.  Could it be more disingenuous?   I'm not sure there's a more two-faced approach in our legal system.  Splitting hairs about cells vs. developed human bodies is an argument that goes nowhere, and it completely sidesteps the root issue:  should any person have a say in what someone else does with their body, if that person is of sound mind and spirit? 

Religious beliefs do not belong in legislation unless the entire country the legislation serves believes the same thing.  Christians want every other non/religion to bow to their whim.  It's the greatest of hypocrisies - the religious right complains that guys like Obama believe they know better than you what's best for you, and they chastise him for that attitude - and full throatedly campaign against that attitude.  At the same time, they wag the naughty finger at abortion rights groups and gay rights groups, saying they know better than you what's best for you, and you should just do as they say - after all, this is about what God wants, and they are God's enforcement officers here on Earth.  They could be more wrong, I suppose, but I'm not sure how.

VP Debate: A Review

VP debate at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky:

So Joe Biden and Paul Ryan had their debate last night.  Generally speaking, the VP debate has virtually no impact on the outcome of elections.  They usually are just a drumbeat of what the top of the ticket pushes in their own debates.  What you do have the opportunity to get is a feel for the intellect and temperament of the potential presidents, poised to assume power should the unfortunate happen to the man on the throne.  So how did the evening go?

Joe Biden’s job in this debate was primarily to energize the base of the Democratic party, who are still fuming over Obama’s abject failure to project a pulse in the first presidential debate.  The party was offended by the failure, and Biden was the punch back, and Biden was happy to comply.  He was aggressive, commanding, and did his best to keep Ryan on his heels.  He did tell some whoppers, particularly about the terrorist attack in Libya.  Not sure Biden paid much attention to the news of the day before the debate, because the State Department flatly contradicted everything he claimed last night.  Someone should have told him, because anyone who knew of the SD statements watched the lie snowball with every sentence.  The White House had to execute the requisite spin and roll it back after the debate, saying that Biden was only referring to himself and Obama, not the administration.  But he also was shockingly rude, unprofessional and condescending – not something I expected, even with Biden’s propensity for running his mouth without using his brain.  I thought Biden would be what made the debate fun to watch, but I found myself more put off and offended the longer the debate went on.  The non-stop interruptions, the condescending laughter while shaking his head, the retorts that flirted with being obnoxiously loud, all of it made Biden look unprofessional.  And that may have backfired for him, as independents and women tend to despise that exact attitude.  It’s fortunate that the VP debate has little impact on the election.  That said, Biden was successful in accomplishing his goal, which was energizing the base.  No tangible impact will come of it, but he did what was expected.  Grade:  B+

Paul Ryan is clearly the novice in these circumstances and, as such, Biden did his best to smack him around.  Ryan never got flustered, he was even tempered and measured, even when Biden was overpowering him and talking over him loudly.  He seemed to consciously restrain himself a few times, when it appeared he was going to run over Biden for interrupting him AGAIN.  But he kept his cool, and just plugged along.  He was at a distinct disadvantage, with the moderator Radditz interrupting him as well, and allowing Biden free reign in his treatment of Ryan.  As for his substance, I will say I was pleasantly surprised at Ryans’s competence on military issues and foreign affairs.  His specialty is economics, finance and taxation, so a deft touch with foreign affairs is a definite plus for Romney.  But he still wouldn’t give specifics in his economic plan, and that’s been a sticking point with independents.  I don’t think it hurt him, but it didn’t help.  In general he did a good job, and he was respectful of everyone, which is more than can be said for Biden.  Grade:  A

Martha Radditz is ABC's Chief Foreign Correspondent for the State Department, who specializes on national security and foreign affairs, who spends most of her time overseas with the military.  Her moderation was appropriate, being that she probably knows more about foreign affairs than Biden and Ryan combined.  I  laud her ability to keep the debate moving along, something Jim Lehrer had difficulty accomplishing.   But she is very liberal, and she appeared to favor Biden most of the night.  She did nothing to stop Biden from belittling and interrupting Ryan, never even trying to quiet him down when he was overly loud with his interjections.  She also interrupted Ryan herself several times, demanding a specificity she never demanded of Biden.  And with her foreign affairs acumen, she mostly focused on her specialty, the Middle East.  She never talked China or Latin America, and only tapped domestic policy sparingly, covering Medicare and Social Security under the same topical segment.  It was generally hit and miss with her.  Overall she was okay, but she will never moderate another debate.  Republicans were angry with her tactics and free reign allowed to Biden’s behavior, so she’ll likely never get approval from the GOP to moderate again.  Grade:   B-

The debate was mostly a wash.  I graded Ryan a little higher than Biden, mostly on attitude grounds, but I give a sliver of an edge to Biden as the winner - barely.  The simple fact is that, while Biden's behavior was poor, Democrats wanted to see some fight in their candidates.  Biden went overboard, but he did what they wanted, making his night a success.  Ryan had nothing to really gain, but plenty to lose on Romney's success last week.  He really just needed to maintain, and he did that very well.

The next presidential debate is October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in New York.

Debate #1: Domestic Policy - A Review

OKAY!  Debate #1 was last night.  How did it go?

Well for starters, full disclosure:  I am a registered Republican, but not a fan of either candidate.  I have not been happy with some of President Obama’s policies, in particular his handling of foreign affairs.  I don’t like his playing with our civil liberties as if he’s King of the Mountain.  Asserting his right to order the death of any and all Americans he deems “terrorists,” with no due process (bad precedent to set, yes?), is right at the top of the list.  He is also killing thousands of innocent women and children with his massively under-reported drone war in Waziristan (NW territory of Pakistan).  And the calamity that is his botched handling (some say outright lies) of the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi makes me want to punch something.  There are a number of moral issues in play with the president's foreign affairs, and that pretty much makes him a no-go as far as I'm concerned.  I have already discussed the health care situation in previous posts, so please feel free to peruse them if you have any interest.

Mitt Romney has been an empty shirt.  I have referred to him several times as 2012’s John Kerry.  Essentially a suit with a spray tan, great smile, and not much else.  I’ve never doubted his business acumen, he has a reputation of strong business skills, knowledge and intellect - if he were not a Mormon, he would have been the VP candidate for McCain in ’08.  I generally ignore the Bain Capital garbage because anyone who’s ever invested in any company has contributed to the closing of failing businesses and lost jobs.  I will say Bain’s willingness to support a failing company long enough to secure loans and extended financing – and then let the failing company fail anyway, pocketing the difference as profit on the failure – does give me some pause, but it’s not an uncommon business tactic for corporate raiders.  Sad but true.  But on the whole, I haven’t seen anything from Romney that tells me I should vote for him – rather, I’m wishing in general that both candidates would stop giving me reasons to NOT vote for them.  My candidate would be a cross between Jill Stein (Green Party, Mass.) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party, NM).  But neither of them will win, so we’ll just move on.  On to the debate…

Jim Lehrer retired from doing debate moderating after the 2008 debates, only to be lured back by the prospects of a different, not often used format:  Six segments on separate-but-related topics of domestic policy.  2-minute answer, 2-minute response, and then an 11-minute free flow discussion, with the candidates handling the discussion on their own – with Lehrer cutting into to move the discussion along or move on to the next segment.  Nice idea, gives the candidates a chance to riff off of each other.  But ultimately we got a back and forth of repeating themselves like broken records, and each one cutting off Lehrer when he tried to manage the time.  Lehrer liked the format because he likes “officiating,” rather than dictating the discussion.  So he did give them leeway when they cut him off, provided they stayed at least in the ballpark of “on topic.”  The problem with this, is it limited his ability to inject new questions into the discussion, often only asking how one candidate's view differ from the other one.  And because they focused so heavily on the fiscal, domestic social issues were left out, like gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and immigration (hopefully, the town-hall format on the 16th at Hofstra will allow audience members to inject some of these topics into the debate).  The free discussion was just asking for the time to get away from them, and it eventually did.  They ended up with only THREE total minutes between both candidates to discuss their views on partisan gridlock.  I personally think this was the most important issue on the docket, as it has frozen our country in it’s tracks – if they can’t fix that, their views on anything else are irrelevant, because the next four years will be the same as the last four, and we can’t afford that.  So I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that 90 seconds apiece usually gets you nothing of substance.  So Lehrer, while relatively successful in keeping them talking, let the time get away – the only real “failure” in his moderation.  For a format that was sure to cause this problem, he did okay.  Grade:  B-

Barack Obama did not want to be in the room last night.  I’ve always gotten the impression from him that he just tolerates people – he doesn’t want to justify himself to anyone, and his attitude betrays that.  You can see this same attitude in many of his press conferences.  He just looks offended that someone calls him out to account for anything.  I’ve often wondered if he likes the power and title and of President of the United States, but doesn’t really want the job.  He spent most of the debate looking down at his podium, appearing to take notes.  But as predictable as most of the answers were going to be, I suspect he may have just been doodling… or playing Sudoku… or a crossword.  He was completely disengaged, and he kept giving that now very well known smile of condescension he gives while looking down, when he disagrees with something someone says.  You know, that “Oh-aren’t-you-cute-with-the-thinkin’“ smile.  He did the exact same thing to John McCain in the 2008 debate.  That attitude didn’t hurt him in 2008 because people didn’t know him yet, and McCain wasn’t going to win the election.  Bush had soured so much of the country on the Republican party that all Obama had to do was not give them ammunition that could be used against him.  Very little vetting of him was done in ’08, and so little was known about who he really was, that they didn’t have much to go after him with.  How do argue against “HOPE and CHANGE”?  There was simply no where to go, and McCain was fighting a losing battle, unable to shed the coattail of Bush.  But it’s 2012, there’s now 3½ years of his decisions and policies and actions (and inactions) to hit him with, and he simply doesn’t want to justify himself.  Instead of attacking Romney on philosophical things that were supposed to hang him out to dry (Bain Capital, the 47% comment, etc.), Obama kept bringing up the same "$5 trillion in tax cuts, $1 trillion in extending the Bush tax cuts, and $2 trillion in military spending “that the military didn’t even ask for.”  Even when Romney rebutted him, he just kept saying the same thing over and over.  With every repetitive rebuttal, Romney’s position bolstered.  He couldn’t have helped Romney more.  Major debate no no – try it once, but never give your opponent a chance to strengthen his position.   Ironically, that last 3 minutes, that normally would give no room for substance, was the only substance (albeit minimal) to come out of the debate, because it was about philosophy and mindset.  Romney stated that, as Governor of Massachusetts, 87% of his legislature were Democrats – but he still managed to accomplish a lot by getting them to work with him and the Republicans to move the state forward.  What was Obama’s response?  After saying he listens to all suggestions that come his way, and another 45 seconds about the handful of successes, he said “…occasionally you have to say no.”  He quickly added “…to folks, both in your own party and in the other party.”  The sentiment reminded me immediately of his first State of the Union, when he told the country that if he doesn’t get what he wants from Congress, he’ll issue executive orders.  He has said he’ll go it alone many times, and that attitude has cost him in his first term.  His obvious disinterest in this debate showed, and he angered even his own party with it.  This was supposed to separate the men from the boys.  He was supposed to run Romney over and end the election right now.  In that endeavor, he could not have done worse.  Grade:  C-

Mitt Romney was not supposed to even be in this, let alone perform well.  In the last two weeks, I heard and read many comments from the DNC and Obama himself, attempting to pump up expectations for Romney (calling him a masterful and skilled debater) and lower them for the president (saying he was an okay debater, and was practicing hard to compete well).  Not caring about either candidate, I laughed it off as posturing for the sake of gamesmanship.  I was wrong.  Romney came out swinging and swinging hard.  His points also lacked the same substance as Obama’s, but in presentation of canned rhetoric and live stump speech and ad quotes, he could not have performed better.  While the president looked down at his podium dismissively, Romney maintained consistent eye contact, attempting to engage the president over and over, despite Obama’s unwillingness to be engaged.  Romney did dismiss Lehrer a couple of times when Lehrer tried to move along – likely unintentional, but no less unprofessional, and easily corrected before the next debate.  He clearly relished Obama gift-wrapping him those repetitive rebuttals, growing more confident, pointed and determined with each one.  He lucked out, Obama never forcing him into discussions about Bain or the 47%, although it probably good that Obama left the 47% thing alone.  Giving Romney another rebuttal to knock out of the park (and you know he had one) would have just bitten him in the rear again – and Obama’s too slender for that many bites.  If he wins the election, Romney owes a Director of Communications job to whoever is schooling him, especially if he can deliver in the next two debates.  Not a fan of his, but Romney owned Obama last night – one hell of a job, and his polls and money will likely reflect that.  And worse for Obama, the Foreign Policy debate will give Romney a Gallagher-size Sledge-O-Matic to hammer him with.  This election was supposed to be over last night – clearly, it just started.   Grade: A

Debates are never a place to go for substance.  If you’ve seen their advertising campaigns, you generally have already seen the debate.  The hitch in this year’s set up is the format.  The 11-minute discussion period gives a hefty load of leeway for riffing off each other and jabs.  The substance overall will likely still lack, but they’ve found a way to possibly make it interesting.  I wasn’t looking forward to this debate – I had to convince myself to watch it, in fact – but I am looking forward to the next one.  And I am really looking forward to the VP debate next week (nine 10-minute segments) – who knows what comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth with this open format…