Elections

Posts filed under Elections

2012Wed22Aug

In Which Bryan Fischer Doubles Down on Todd Akin’s Pseudo-Science Stupidity

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (2) | TrackbackFiled in Politics, Science, Social IssuesTags: Conservatism, Elections, Pseudo-Science, Rape

I used to enjoy a good Fisking, usually of an article by a liberal columnist from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. But today, the honor goes to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.

In the wake of Todd Akin's profoundly stupid comments asserting pseudo-science in defense of a policy position, Mr Fischer has chosen to double-down on Akin's stupidity by attempting to defend the scientific credibility of Akin's statements. First, for background, Akin's quote:

From what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that down.

Now, both this comment, and the response it has elicited, is fertile ground for discussion (not the least of which is the left's absurd attempt to claim that Akin somehow expressed "pro-rape" views due to the term "legitimate rape"); but the bottom line is that Akin's assertion is prima facie absurdity. Debate whether or not such comments should be grounds for pressuring Akin to withdraw from the Senate race, but don't be foolish enough to try to defend the validity of his assertion.

Alas, that is precisely what Bryan Fischer has done. And because of such manifest foolishness, I must respond. Let's roll tape on Fischer's on-air remarks in defense of Akin. Fischer accompanies those remarks with a blog post, from which I will quote liberally (all emphasis added by me):

Akin’s words, for which he apologized even though he had no need to, were right. He was entirely correct to say that pregnancies in cases of forcible rape are rare. Even if the exaggerated figures of the pro-abortion medical community are accurate, pregnancies due to rape amount to just 0.005% of all pregnancies. That’s rare in anybody’s book.

In defending the assertion that a woman's body can somehow reject or stop conception from rape, the relevant question is not whether total pregnancies resulting from rape are rare with respect all total pregnancies, but rather whether rape results in conception less frequently than conception from consensual, unprotected sex. The given statistic is silent on this comparison.

Fischer later says:

Unfortunately for the nattering nabobs of negativism who think Akin is some kind of medical Neanderthal, the London Daily Mail has a headline story TODAY which has this as the very first paragraph: “Stress can make women infertile, research has revealed. Scientists found that those with high levels of a stress hormone stop ovulating and are therefore unable to conceive.”

Who look like the dumb ones now?

Who looks like the dumb ones, indeed? Implying that the linked study proves his point requires one to ignore the cardinal rule of data analysis: correlation does not prove causation. Did Fischer consider any of the following questions:

Does the study involve acute stress, chronic stress, or both?
Does the study address the effects of acute stress on ovulation?
Assuming that acute stress can adversely impact ovulation, how often does rape occur within the extremely small window of time required for the rape-induced stress to have that impact?
What impact does rape have on the body's production and sustained levels of cortisol?
Can rape interrupt or stop altogether the victim's menstrual cycle?

In fact, the referenced study can't answer any of those questions. It was merely an epidemiological study intended to suggest a potential correlation between stress levels and ovulation/menstruation. Sound science doesn't take a small, epidemiological study that can do nothing but suggest a correlation that may warrant further study, and turn it into an assertion of causation. Unfortunately, Fischer is not similarly disciplined:

Here’s the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: “In an occasional woman, too much stress can change her hormone levels and therefore cause the time when she releases an egg to become delayed or not take place at all.” Sounds like maybe her body can shut down the process after all.

Such an assertion is an unwarranted jump to conclusion, and is as foolish as it is absurd. Suggesting a link between stress levels and ovulation in no way whatsoever proves an assertion that a rape victim has an innate physiological response that inhibits ovulation, and therefore conception.

Unperturbed by scientific and logical discipline, Fischer finds yet another epidemiological study to attempt to defend his position:

How about the New York Times, the Bible of wingers on the left? Here’s the headline of a May 11, 2011 feature article: “Lowering Stress Improves Fertility Treatment.” The article refers to findings published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, and quotes Dr. Alice D. Domar, a psychologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who serves as director of mind-body services at Boston IVF, a large fertility center.

Said Dr. Domar, “If you’re really stressed out and depressed, the body seems to sense that’s not a good time to get pregnant.” Hmm. Sound suspiciously like the body shutting down, no?

Multiple epidemiological studies suggesting the same correlation still do not prove causation; rather, they merely provide a stronger argument for further studies. So I'll refrain from quoting the third such example Fischer uses.

Instead, I'll turn to relevant analysis of the assertion, by attempting to make a meaningful statistical comparison: the percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy, versus the percentage of consensual, unprotected sex that results in pregnancy. To that end, I'll reference three studies linked by PopSci.

Using this study as the baseline, 3.1% of unprotected, consensual sex results in pregnancy. How does that compare to pregnancy rates from rape? This study indicates that 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, and this study indicates that anywhere from 6.4% - 8% of rapes (factoring in birth control usage) result in pregnancy. Thus, according to these studies, rapes result in pregnancy at a rate around 2-3 more frequently than consensual, unprotected sex.

I don't know if those studies controlled for forcible versus statutory rape. But even such distinction likely won't change the numbers significantly enough to lend credence to the "magic uterus" pseudo-science. While hard numbers are difficult to acquire immediately, I did find this reference to a study from 1949 that indicates that statutory rape constitutes 30 percent of all sex crimes, and this site that asserts that 3/4 of all juvenile rape is forcible. Taken together, the two studies would indicate that non-forcible, statutory rape accounts for anywhere from 7.5% to 30% of all rapes. So even assuming the worst-case scenario, the statistics still indicate that rapes result in pregnancy with a frequency equal to or higher than consensual, unprotected sex.

I welcome more precise statistics, but based on what I've found, I don't see any reason to believe that differentiating between forcible rape and other forms of sexual assault (statutory rape, incest, etc.) would alter the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the assertion that rapes result in pregnancy less frequently than consensual, unprotected sex.

Thus, both Todd Akin and Bryan Fischer are foolishly and dangerously peddling pseudo-science. In so doing, the least of our worries is that Todd Akin will lose a Senate race. The bigger travesty is that, by changing the narrative to a defense of pseudo-science, those who peddle that pseudo-science forfeit the ability to hold a legitimate policy discussion regarding rape and abortion. Those who are pro-life, who believe that life begins at conception and that an innocent, unborn child should not be murdered simply because his father is a rapist, lose the opportunity to have that debate.

Thus, Todd Akin, Bryan Fischer, and anyone else who chooses to peddle such pseudo-science (or defend those who do) actively harm the objectives of the pro-life movement.

2010Thu21Oct

Senate Projection for October 21

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (5) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Democrats, Elections, Polls, Republicans, Senate

With the latest batch of Senate polling results, Neil Stevens of Likely voter has updated his Senate Projection. According to his latest model, he projects R+7, with a 3% chance of Republicans reclaiming the majority (R+10 or greater).

The problem I have with the Likely Voter projection model is two-fold: one, it factors in races that are, for all intents and purposes, already decided; and two, it seems to assume a normal distribution. If a projection were performed in which seemingly non-competitive races were removed, and the ANOVA based solely on the actually competitive races, intuition tells me that such a projection (especially with a right-leaning distribution) would have to center around R+8, if not +9. To wit:

Introducing Uncertainty Based on Non-competitive Races

Range of Possible Outcomes

First, let's set the table:

Seats not up for election: 63 (23R, 40D)
Seats up for election: 37 (18R, 19D)
Bondary of Possible Results: R-18 to R+19

Now, let's add in some realistic boundaries to those results.

Range of Realistic Outcomes

Lower Boundary of Realistic Outcomes

All 18 R-held seats are 100% likely R. (R+0)
The following D-held seats are 100% likely R: AR, IN, ND, PA (R+4)

It is logical to conclude that, at this point, any projection that shows anything less than R+4 is just not consistent with reality.

Upper Boundary of Realistic Outcomes

The following D-held seats are 100% likely D: HI, MD, NY, OR, VT (R+14)

It is logical to conclude that, at this point, any projection that shows anything more than R+14 is just not consistent with reality.

Range of Realistic Outcomes

So, at this point, the range of realistic outcomes is R+4 to R+14. Anything outside of these numbers should be considered 0% likely.

Range of Likely Outcomes

The following D-held seats are 90% likely R: CO, WI (R+6, lower)
The following D-held seats are 90% likely D: DE, NY (s) (R+12, upper)

So, at this point, the range of likely outcomes is R+6 to R+12. Anything outside of this range should be considered unlikely.

Likely Voter's current projection distribution curve has a mean of R+7, and R+5 - R+8 accounts for 77% of all outcomes (R+7 22.6%, R+6 22%, R+5/R+8 35.4%). If I assume that Likely voter's probability curve is normally distributed, then, IMHO, the mean simply must be shifted too far left. There is just no possible way that R+5 has 18% probability. I'd say, at the absolute upper end, it has 5-10% probability. Balancing the 90% Likely R pickups against the 90% Likely D holds lowers the probability even further.

So, just using back-of-mental-napkin calculations, I would say:

<R+5: 0% likely
R+5: 5% likely
R+6 - R+12: 90% likely
R+13: 5% likely
>R+13: 0% likely

Analysis of Actually Competitive Races

The eventual outcome will be determined entirely by the results of six races: CA, CT, IL, NV, WA, and WV.

Two or three weeks ago, I would have rated those races as follows:

Lean-R: The following D-held seats are 55% likely: IL, WV
Toss-Up: The following D-held seats are 50% likely: NV, WA
Lean-D: The following D-held seats are 45% likely: CA, CT

However, things have shifted a bit; I would now rate these races as follows:

Lean-Likely-R: The following D-held seats are 60% likely: WV
Lean-R: The following D-held seats are 55% likely: IL, NV
Toss-Up: The following D-held seats are 50% likely: CA, WA
Lean-Likely-D: The following D-held seats are 40% likely: CT

As you can see, aside from CT (which, to be honest, I am close to writing off as a potential Republican pick-up), all of the competitive races have shifted in the Republicans' favor. I put together a quick Monte Carlo simulation of my own, and here are the results:

So, my model projects a mean +9 seat gain for Republicans, and a 40.1% chance that Republicans will regain control of the Senate (a gain of +10 or more seats). Results:

n = 10,000
μ = 5.2
σ = 1.4
max = +13
min = +5
+8 - +10 = 73.1%
10+ = 40.1%

At first blush, these numbers appear to me to be more realistic, given the current state of the races in play (and not in play).

Evaluating the Normal Distribution Model

It seems that the Likely Voter projection model is based upon the assumption that the outcomes of competitive races will be normally distributed. I wouldn't expect a normal distribution for these outcomes, even in a "normal" election year - but especially not in a "wave" year.

Just as the outcome distribution of competitive races was biased toward the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, I fully expect the distribution to be biased toward the Republicans in 2010. This bias is due primarily to two factors that are not easily accounted for through pre-election polling: the enthusiasm gap and shifts in party affiliation.

In short, pollsters simply don't have a reliable means of estimating the breakdown of voter turnout, and it is entirely likely that they will tend to err on the side of a conservative estimation of the shift from 2006/2008 to 2010.

In a later post, I will examine some of these factors in each of the six competitive races.

2010Thu21Oct

Is Sestak Closing on Toomey in PA?

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (1) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Democrats, Elections, Media Bias, Polls, Republicans, Senate

The latest news out of the Pennsylvania Senate race between Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak is that a few recent polls have shown Toomey's 10-point lead evaporate. First, Quinnipiac showed Toomey up only 48-46. Then PPP showed Sestak up 45-46. Now Morning Call shows the race tied at 43-43. So what gives? Is this race, that Rasmussen still lists as "Solid GOP", actually in trouble?

In a word: no.

To explain why, we'll need to look more closely at the crosstabs of these polls. But first, so you don't have to take my word for it, read what Jim Geraghty has to say over at NRO's The Campaign Spot.

Quinnipiac

Now, onto the analysis of the polls. For the sake of expediency, and since their crosstabs are available in the poll report, I'll focus on Quinnipiac. Specifically, I'll look at the party-affiliation breakdown for the Senate race, and for Obama's job approval.

Poll Results

Topline

Toomey: 46%
Sestak: 48%
Don't Know/No Answer: 5%

Senate

	D	R	I	Total
Toomey	7%	88%	56%	48%
Sestak	89%	8%	35%	46%
DK/NA	4%	3%	9%	5%

Obama Job Approval

	D	R	I	Total
Approve	85%	11%	30%	44%
Disapprove	13%	87%	64%	53%
DK/NA	2%	2%	6%	3%

Analysis

The poll doesn't indicate its party-affiliation weight values, but based on the above polls, I calculate that this weighting is as follows:

D: 38.0%
R: 34.5%
I: 27.5%

And there's the problem with this poll: this party-affiliation weighting bears little resemblance to reality. Jim Geraghty's piece linked above does a great job of explaining how these numbers are completely inconsistent with the electorate. But to prove the point, I'll look at some comparisons (previous-election party affiliation breakdowns taken from the Geraghty post).

Obama Job Approval

First, I'll examine jjust one change from the previous Quinnipiac poll to this one:

President Obama gets a negative 44 – 53 percent job approval rating, compared to a negative 40 – 56 percent September 22.

Note that overall, Obama's approval numbers continue to decrease, not increase. Yet somehow, this poll (miraculously) discovered a seven-point swing in Obama's favor since the previous month. That, alone, is enough to raise questions about the validity of the poll's topline. Interestingly, adjusting the party-affiliation weighting from 38.0%D / 34.5%R / 27.5%I to 32%D / 38%R / 30%I returns Obama's Approval/Disapproval numbers to 40% Approve / 56% Disapprove, and result in a 52% - 42% Toomey lead over Sestak (which is essentially right where the race has been for some time).

Democrat Best-Case Scenario: 2008

Next, I'll adjust the party affiliation weighting from the above numbers to the 2008 election numbers. In 2008, the turnout was 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 17% Independent. These numbers, which clearly represent not only a best-case scenario, but also an absolute pipe dream, result in a 48% - 45% Sestak lead over Toomey.

Get that? In a pipe-dream scenario, the Democrat would only be leading this race by 3%.

Democrat Second-Best-Case Scenario: 2006

Since the 2008 results are clearly out of reach, let's examine the 2006 results, in which the turnout was 43% Democrat, 38% Republican, and 19% Independent. These numbers, which represent a huge Democrat midterm election (again, something that will not be repeated in 2010), result in a 48% - 47% Sestak lead over Toomey.

So, once again, a pipe-dream scenario results in the Democrat leading this race by only 1%.

Bad News for Democrats: 1994

Since 2010 is clearly a Republican wave year, let's examine the poll results adjusted for 1994 turnout in the state, which was 39% Democrat, 41% Republican, and 20% Independent. These numbers result in a 50% - 45% Toomey lead over Sestak.

The problem for Sestak is that even the clearly skewed Quinnipiac party-affiliation weighting shows a lower Democrat turnout in 2010.

The even bigger problem for Sestak is that not only is the Democrat vote suppressed, but also the Independent vote is breaking 2-to-1 in favor of Toomey, and the Independent vote is highly motivated (by similar 2-to-1 ratios, Independents disapprove of Obama's job performance, disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, prefer their Senator to oppose Obama's agenda, would prefer the Senate to be controlled by Republicans, and believe that Toomey rather than Sestak shares their personal values; also, 82% of Independents are dissatisfied/angry with the way government works).

Charting The Results

For comparison, here are the results of the above analyses:

	D	R	I	Toomey	Sestak
Quinnipiac	38.0%	34.5%	27.5%	48%	46%
Obama 40% Approval	32%	38%	30%	52%	42%
2008 Turnout	44%	37%	17%	45%	48%
2006 Turnout	43%	38%	19%	47%	48%
1994 Turnout	39%	41%	20%	50%	45%

Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Race

Perhaps the worst news yet for the Sestak campaign is that the Pennsylvania Senate race isn't the only statewide election this year. Pennsylvania also has a gubernatorial race, and that race has exhibited a very steady, 10-point lead for the Republican candidate.

Pennsylvania voters are not likely to switch parties between Gubernatorial and Senate candidates, and vice versa. Thus, if the sudden tightening of the Senate race is real, it should translate into a similar tightening in the Gubernatorial race. Unfortunately for Sestak, no such tightening exists.

Conclusion

Much ado about nothing. Make of it what you will, but the conclusion that Sestak is leading Toomey - or that he has even closed the gap - simply doesn't withstand a reality check.

By all appearances, Republican Pat Toomey will win the Senate race by 5-10 points over Joe Sestak.

2009Wed18Mar

Colorado Legislature Tries to Vote Away State Soverignty

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (2) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Constitutional Rights, Democrats, Elections

Apparently, our education system has been dumbed-down sufficiently that the entire concept of our country's founding as a federation of sovereign states is becoming lost.

Via Lucianne, the Colorado House passed legislation that would award the state's electoral-college votes not to the state's popular-vote winner, but rather to the national popular-vote winner:

Currently, whoever wins most of the country's 538 electoral votes becomes president. Under Tuesday's bill, Colorado would send its nine electoral votes to the winner of the most popular votes nationally.

"Basically, whoever receives the most votes for president in all 50 states should become president," said the sponsor, Rep. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood.

Basically, Andy Kerr is an idiot, and has no business holding elected office. Basically, Andy Kerr needs to go back to school and take a basic American History/Civics course.

Though, I have to imagine that the people of Colorado won't look too kindly on having their votes for President completely ignored.

The last paragraph in the article belies the underlying motivation for such legislation:

Had the scheme been in place in 2000, Colorado would have sent its electoral votes to Al Gore, who won the national popular vote, even though the majority of Colorado voters chose George W. Bush.

Apparently, some Democrats are still trying to get Al Gore elected in the 2000 presidential race.

2008Sun14Dec

McCain on Palin: “So Long and Thanks For All the Fish”

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (1) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Elections, Republicans

...and by "fish" I mean, of course, all of the conservative voters McCain reeled in by naming Palin as his Veep.

When asked by George Stephanopoulos, McCain refused to say whether he would support Sarah Palin if she ran for president:

"Listen I have the greatest appreciation for Gov. Palin and her family and it was a great joy to know them," McCain said. "She invigorated our campaign and she was just down in Georgia and she invigorated their campaign."

"But I can't say something like that," McCain said, "We've got some great other young governors, Pawlenty, Huntsman."

Stephanopoulos then pressed McCain regarding why he picked Palin to begin with, to which he replied:

"Well sure, but now we're in a whole election cycle... Have no doubt of my admiration and respect for her and her viability... but at this stage my corpse is still warm!"

Well, McCain has one thing right: he is a corpse - politically speaking, with respect to all of us conservatives who held our noses to cast our votes for him despite the stench of his duplicitous treatment of both conservatism and the Republican party that nominated him. And if it hadn't been for Palin, he wouldn't have had enough remains even to identify as a corpse.

H/T Josh Painter at RedState, who reacted appropriately:

The man rarely misses an opportunity to stab conservatives in the back, except when he kicks them in the stomach... Aside from his military service for his country, John McCain has proven time after time that to him, such values as honor, loyalty and respect are a one-way street.

John McCain: you are but a fraction of the person Sarah Palin is. You also aren't half the presidential prospect she is - something the conservative base you alienated will prove to you in four years should Palin decide to run. You can take your stinking corpse and your disrespect, and shove them both back into your RINO senate seat.

2008Sat12Apr

Obama Insults Flyover Country

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in Politics, ReligionTags: Democrats, Economy, Elections

Obama's recent insults of America's heartland were so egregious, even the St. Louis Post-Dispatch made mention of his remarks [emphasis added]:

The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians' economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Needless to say, the Conservative side of the 'sphere has taken these statements and run with them:

LGF: Obama: Small-Town People Cling to Religion, Guns, and Xenophobia
Michelle Malkin: Snob-ama disses pro-gun, religious, anti-illegal immigration activists in Penn.
PowerLine: Is Obama's Campaign Over?
RedState: Obama explains why small towns in the midwest don't like him
The Other McCain: Obama trashes small-town America
Hot Air: Obama on small-town voters: Bitter, xenophobic, religious (with comprehensive updates)

Of course Hilary Clinton, ever the opportunist, jumped at the chance to take a shot at her opponent:

"It's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who face hard times are bitter," Clinton said during a campaign event in Philadelphia. "Well that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania. I meet people who are resilient, optimist positive who are rolling up their sleeves."

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families."

The McCain campaign has also responded:

Asked to respond, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called it a "remarkable statement and extremely revealing."

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

And now, caught red-handed in his arrogance and elitism, Obama is trying to make quick work of spinning his remarks. Unfortunately for him, he's not doing a very good job of it.

First, the Obama campaign spokesperson tries a diversionary tactic [emphasis added]:

"Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. And if John McCain wants a debate about who's out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent,”

Then in Terre Haute yesterday, Obama tried the "Nuh-unh" approach in response to the McCain campaign's assertions that Obama's statement indicated that he was "out of touch with average Americans" [emphasis added]:

In Terre Haute, Obama chided McCain for not responding promptly to the home mortgage crisis and criticized Clinton for voting for a bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies.

"No, I'm IN touch," he said. "I know exactly what's going on. People are fed up, they are angry, they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington."

And finally, in the same speech, he tried to re-phrase his message [emphasis added]:

"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

Man, the cheap-seat view of the Democratic primary is so fun to watch!

2008Mon07Apr

Poor Hillary

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Democrats, Elections

Poor Hillary. Not only does she have to face two men in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but she has to do so while also taking time to do her hair (emphasis added):

While listing her credentials to be president, Clinton also said people vote for different reasons, including how a person looks or their hairstyle.

"And that is another difference, you know how long it takes me to get ready than my two opponents — I mean really just think about it," she joked. "I think I should get points for working as hard as I do plus the time it takes to get ready."

Nevermind that, had one of her male opponents said something similar - "jokingly" or otherwise - he would have been castigated to no end for his bigotry; when Hillary says it, the statement gets only passing comment as a humorous anecdote.

Okay, Hillary: we all feel so sorry for you - even without your on-cue tears (which, I assume, will be turning up again, just any day now). You could always try shaving your head and going without the makeup. It would sort of be like campaigning on your true agenda, without trying to pretend your some kind of moderate. Both would have the same outcome: scaring the crap out of the electorate.

(H/T: RedState)

2008Mon07Apr

Rice for VP?

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Elections, Republicans

This news would have really excited me a while ago: Condi Rice is apparently making a play to be named as McCain's VP.

As it is, she had better re-think her views on some issues before I could even hope to support her on the ticket.

(H/T: LGF)

The 'sphere is already buzzing.

2008Sun30Mar

Barack Obama: Pregnancy a “Punishment”

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (5) | TrackbackFiled in Politics, Science, Social IssuesTags: Democrats, Elections, Fatherhood, Sanctity of Life

On the campaign trail over the weekend, Barack Obama tried to assuage the socially conservative democrats of Western Pennsylvania regarding his pro-abortion stance. He starts with the typical, liberal, stance when confronted by an admonition to stop abortions:

"This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue," he said. "I have two precious daughters — they are miracles."

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."

This response is, of course, the typical liberal approach of ignoring the biological reality that an abortion impacts not just the woman carrying the unborn child, but also the separate, unique life that is that unborn child. Note also the canard about adoption (the viability of which is a non-issue, but ostensibly sounds good when making such deflection).

Unfortunately for Obama, he continued on with his comments in an attempt to persuade the audience regarding sex education - and in so doing revealed his true beliefs.

Somehow, I don't think his comments will have their intended affect (emphasis added):

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

There you have it: babies are a "punishment" resulting from a mistake - the moral equivalent of contracting an STD.

Of course, what else would one expect, from such a radical proponent of abortion such as Barack Hussein Obama?

(H/T: RedState)

2007Sat20Oct

Fred Thompson at the Washington Briefing

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (0) | TrackbackFiled in PoliticsTags: Elections, Republicans

Fred Thompson apparently takes one to the house Manning-to-Harrison style at the Washington Briefing. (H/T RedState. More here.)

Some interesting quotes:

"Our people have shed more blood for the liberty of other people than another other group of people on earth."

As President of the United States, no legislation that supports [abortion] will pass my desk without my veto."

On fiscal responsibility: "Those who are yet to be born do not have a seat at the table as we kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with. We have to blow the whistle on this irresponsibility."

On not knowing what he would do during his first 100 days as President, but knowing what he would do in his first hour: "I would go in the Oval Office and close the door, and pray for the wisdom to know what was right."

(P.S. - Unlike the left's "Anyone But Bush" anti-enthusiasm in 2000 and especially in 2004 that led to Kerry's nomination, while we on the right detest the thought of a Hilary presidency, we have a few good choices for our presidential nominee. While my first choice is Fred, I would gladly vote for Giuliani - who also impressed at the Washington Briefing - should he ultimately win the nomination.)