2012 Election – Page 9 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Grasping Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

I think the best summary of the Missouri Senate campaign that I’ve seen so far starts with this:

Here’s the thing, if you’re running for the Senate and you have to cut a spot that assures voters that you think rape is bad and you now know that women don’t have a goalie in their vajay-jay to stop sperm in case of “legitimate rape”, you’re in big trouble.

I didn’t think I’d live long enough to see an ad worse than “I’m not a witch” but I was wrong. I regret the error.

I appreciate that the post highlights that this isn’t just about the risk of repeal of Obamacare, losing this seat impacts judicial nominations.

I’ll be honest, as a woman, if I saw Todd Akin’s name on a ballot, I don’t know if I could cast a vote for him even though I realize I would need to strategically in order to see my preferred political outcomes that have nothing to do with abortion become reality. When someone is so out-of-touch that they can’t take a serious look at the issue of a major criminal act, then I don’t believe they should be serving in government. When they are so unbelievably misinformed that they believe there’s some magic switch women can flip when they don’t want to become impregnated during a specific sexual act, well, they shouldn’t have any role in defining education or health policies.

As a female voter, I’m constantly hit with ads telling me that policies dictated by anatomy are ALWAYS AT RISK and that this election will be the one to see my rights DIRECTLY BANNED FOREVER. They stop only slightly short of saying that if a Republican is elected in this country, it will turn into a nation not unlike The Handmaid’s Tale. Needless to say, I tune it out.

Even with that filter in place, Akin’s remarks are simply inexcusable. The things he said aren’t even said in polite company, mostly because polite company probably wouldn’t be able to keep from making faces at the sheer stupidity of his understanding of how reproduction works even if they were left in stunned silence at his dismissal of the impacts of rape.

I truly hope that the women of Missouri get a better candidate later today. With someone like him on the ballot, there can’t be a true debate over the actual issues that women – whether on the right, left, or in the center – might want to discuss when it comes to healthcare and access to services. There won’t be room to make the argument that perhaps taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to fund everyone’s favorite birth control because with Akin on the ballot, he might just assume that women don’t really need birth control at all since we can apparently just “shut that whole thing down.” It really doesn’t matter what he says now, those will be the arguments that people will hear. And really, is that unbelievable that those arguments might stick with a few folks? It’s less unbelievable than the idea that a 65-year-old father doesn’t know about the birds and bees and wants to make public policy on his misinformation.

UPDATE: I think this is an excellent post from Clayton Cramer on why Akin’s statement just isn’t backed up by data no matter what he claimed as his source. I guess what really disturbs me about that situation is that it’s not just a fundamental knowledge issue, it shows that he’s not remotely serious about his beliefs in order to defend them, and he doesn’t do any basic research at all before taking a position on public policy. Clayton sums it up best:

This is one of the reasons that I try to emphasize to ideologues of all stripes that if you go looking for evidence that backs your position, you will find evidence that backs your position, and you will miss the evidence that doesn’t.

Go read his entire post.

Pennsylvania Dreamin’ on Such a Summer’s Day

You’re starting to hear conservative celebration that the recent ruling in Commonwealth Court, upholding voter ID, is a game changer. It is not. Philadelphia will not enforce this law. Election officials outside of Philadelphia won’t even enforce the law. Voters in Philadelphia, or any other jurisdiction that Republicans think are rife with voter fraud, will easily be allowed to vote without any ID come November. I would put real money on that. This law will simply not be enforced in jurisdictions that are hostile to it.

Anyone who is involved, or has been involved, in gun rights in this Commonwealth should know what the pertinent question is; how are you doing to enforce this law? The law itself, without enforcement and subsequent penalties actually applied, is no better than smudges of ink on parchment. We’ve seen this with the number of local jurisdictions willing to extend a middle finger to the state’s firearms preemption laws, or by local jurisdictions inventing extralegal requirements for exercising constitutional rights. We are well familiar with this.

The Voter ID law will be ignored by those it is meant to target, and they will do this with impunity. Enforcement of election law is done entirely at the local level by poll watchers, and without honest people on the ground, this is never a problem that will get solved. That leads me to believe the solution to this problem lies in creating more transparency, and better reporting and enforcement mechanisms for reporting real voter fraud. One has to address that problem first, before deciding that a top-down solution out of Harrisburg is all it takes to fix the problem.

There are more outlets than ever that accept reports from voters about irregularities and violations. Hell, even the Philly MSM picked up voter reports of one of their incumbent darlings illegally campaigning inside polling locations. In Philadelphia, there’s Committee of Seventy which was gathering reports of voter ID violations on Primary Day. The Daily News published the account about the illegal campaigning by an incumbent Democrat. There’s @electionjournal which publishes accounts of election problems. The internet-only PA Independent might accept reports, as well as Daily Caller for national scale. It’s very handy that most of these can be reached with a simple smartphone.

Of course, if voters witness something egregious, the fastest way to make a real impact is likely to call the local leaders of the opposition party. They have lawyers on call for just this kind of situation.

Could Election Fraud Issues Impact Races for Pro-Gun Folks?

When most people think of the voter fraud issue in Pennsylvania, they think of Philadelphia. With turnout running over 100% in some precincts in local-only election primaries, it’s no wonder the city has become the face of election fraud in the Commonwealth. So, outside of statewide races, it’s not something that most people would think impacts races with pro-gun votes since pro-gun candidates don’t run serious, competitive campaigns in Philadelphia.

However, there’s some kind of likely election law violation going on in Berks County which is home to portions of the districts of three pro-gun Congressional incumbents, two of whom are in somewhat competitive races.

An investigation into an unspecified violation of state election law began Thursday at the direction of the Berks County Board of Elections.

They note that the three Commissioners on the board aren’t talking, and the Democrat had to sit out of the vote on whether or not to investigate because of a conflict of interest. The District Attorney says that it’s best to have the outside investigator, and they claim that releasing any information about the investigation whatsoever will jeopardize it.

I have no idea whether the Berks County case is anything that could possibly be influenced by the new law this year over voter ID requirements, but preplanned violations of that new election law by both election officials and voters are have already been announced around the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Christopher L. Broach, a Democratic inspector of elections in the tiny borough of Colwyn, said he would not ask voters to prove who they are on Election Day. …

Though Broach is the only official publicly taking such a stance, Philadelphia’s nonpartisan Committee of Seventy received a call from a Pittsburgh poll worker saying he, too, plans not to demand photo ID from voters he knows. The law has set off defiant talk among voters as well, with a few vowing to vote without the required forms of photo ID.

An echo could be heard in Lower Merion Township. “No, I will not enforce it,” said Joe Breidenstein, 55, a Democratic judge of elections in Ardmore.

Part of Ardmore is in a competitive district for a key pro-Second Amendment vote in Congress. So this isn’t just an urban problem for the typically corruption-plagued city of Philadelphia. Violating election laws is now a planned method of potentially swaying the outcomes of elections in the suburban areas in ways that can cost us valuable seats in Congress.

A Little 2012 Newsflash

I think there’s a difference between “we’re winning” in the cultural sense and “we’re winning” in the political sense. I don’t think I need to remind people that sometimes something that is highly unpopular and opposed by many people can “win” in the political sense. *cough*Obamacare*cough*

Sebastian already pointed out that we have a Democrat who represents a more suburban/rural part of Pennsylvania running on a platform of gun bans and ammunition control – and he’ll win his race without putting out any serious effort this November!

If my list is up-to-date, we’ll have lost 23 lawmakers in Harrisburg to legislative retirements throughout 2012. Twelve of those are A or A+ rated by NRA. When I went to look up their last opponents to get an idea of what the new races could mean for gun owners, 2/3 of those districts were last challenged by declared or presumed anti-gunners. Folks, that’s an awful lot of pro-gun votes to have at risk.

Think about what a battle it was for us to pass the last Castle Doctrine measure here in Pennsylvania – that fight went across multiple governors. That was simply Castle Doctrine that allows you to defend yourself on your own property, and yet gun owners had to work very had to make that happen. I personally don’t think we can afford to lose any allies in Harrisburg if a simple self-defense bill took so much time and energy.

Culturally, we’re making progress. Politically, we’re still at a very dangerous time for gun rights in many areas.

Game Changer?

All I keep reading in the conservative media is how McCain has made a bold choice, and how the veep pick is just totally reshaping the whole race. It’s a different dynamic! A game changer! It’s not just McCain now, it’s a ticket! Lines around the corner to see the newly selected Veep! We’ll have this election in the bag!

Wait, did I say McCain? I meant Romney. I guess a bit too much deja-vu today.

Paul Who?

Ilya Somin has another excellent post illustrating the rational ignorance of most voters, most of whom seem to have no idea who Paul Ryan is:

Public ignorance about federal spending isÂ widespread. One of the challenges that Ryan faces in selling his entitlement reform proposals is that most AmericansÂ donâ€™t realize how large a proportion of federal spending is devoted to these programs, and therefore donâ€™t understand that it is impossible to get the budget crisis under control without cutting back in this area.

One of the reasons I often feel we’re doomed is that the only place many of these low-information voters get their information from is the traditional media, which is so far in the tank for this Administration, it’s highly unlikely they’ll learn anything about Ryan’s ideas, other than they are bad and will destroy America.

I continue to be relatively un-optimistic about this coming election, and think Obama has a better than even chance of being re-elected.

It’s Ryan

All I can say is this is going to make the Vice Presidential debates a thing to watch. Paul Ryan v. Joe Biden? That’s almost worth getting cable again for. But here I am, I once again, as I have for every race since 1996, wishing the ticket were reversed. GOP candidates seem to do a better job picking leaders than GOP primary voters.

UPDATE: Ryan on guns.

Context for SCOTUS Nominations

If you think that Supreme Court nominations shouldn’t be a factor in this year’s elections, here’s an interesting way to look at the future of any issue you care about that could face serious court challenges:

…the fact is that Supreme Court nominations matter more than ever, for several reasons.

First is the soaring value of lifetime tenure. When our republic was created, the average age of Supreme Court nominees was older than average life expectancy. That has changed dramatically with increased human longevity. And presidents are catching on, naming ever-younger Justices.

The result is that the average term of a Supreme Court Justice today is nearly twenty-five years â€“ spanning more than six presidential terms. Ronald Reagan last appeared on the ballot seven elections ago, yet two of his appointees (Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia) still serve on the Court. If Clarence Thomas remains on the Court until the retirement age of his predecessor, he will have served for forty years. If Elena Kagan remains on the Court until her current life expectancy, she will serve until the year 2045. …

We have not had a significant change in the Courtâ€™s philosophical balance since Thomas replaced Marshall more than two decades ago. In the six subsequent appointments, liberals replaced liberals or conservatives replaced conservatives. But in the next administration, the president may well have the opportunity either to shift the Courtâ€™s majority from conservative to liberal or to reinforce the conservative majority. And given the number of years most Justices now serve, the majority created or reinforced in the next administration may endure for a generation.

That’s freakin’ scary to think about what a long-term difference each of the candidates can make. I mean I emphasize to people that state elections matter more during census years because of redistricting that impacts politics for a decade.

Go read the entire article at by Clint Bolick. It’s quite an interesting look at the lasting impacts of modern court appointments.

White House Statement after Temple Shooting

I’ll summarize this for you. The administration’s official position is that it wants the Assault Weapons Ban renewed. But the White House is not going to push for it in Congress. Too many other more important things. In the mean time, they’ll be improving the background checks, though they offer no specifics on how exactly they plan to do that.

Gun Control Groups Putting Pressure on Scott Brown

They think they can get Brown to capitulate. They might be right. Scott Brown already stabbed us in the back on reciprocity:

An aide to the Massachusetts Republican said Brown believes that states are the appropriate venue for weapons bans. Brown said he supports Massachusettsâ€™ assault weapons ban.

As much as people might be angry, and as much as I might disagree with Brown’s position here, because the Second Amendment is not a state to state kind of deal, you have to admit this guy has some room to be “not as bad as the other guy”, or woman, as the case may be. What do you think? Is it a victory to replace staunch anti-gun Senator and gun control leader Ted Kennedy with a Republican who’s wishy washy on gun rights at best? I don’t think Senator Brown should carry any further NRA endorsements, but I have to admit I’m having a hard time figuring out, if my alternative is another Ted Kennedy, why keeping Brown in that seat isn’t better for us overall.