Not a compromiser, just a coward

Olympia Snowe announced yesterday that she wouldn't be seeking a fourth term in the Senate, and vainglorious New York Times weathervane David Brooks was so moved that he Godwinned the entire GOP.

What will we do, he wondered, without republicans like Snowe? The great compromisers, the great negotiators, the great lady who represents the middle 60%?

In typical Brooks fashion, he totally neglected to mention that Snowe was the perfect example of what's wrong with politics today. Back in 2009 she negotiated on behalf of "moderates" for health care reform. The Dems, so thrilled that somebody on the red side of the aisle would invite them to the cool kids' table at lunch, capitulated and gave Snowe every little thing she asked for.

Everything. Not a single compromise - just a list of demands. Harry Reid and company couldn't roll over fast enough.

Though triumphant, Snowe did not take the bill back to her constituents and say "This is what we can get when we work together." She did not take the bill to her peers and say "This is how we can responsibly implement a mandate, a fundamentally conservative stance." She did not comply with the comedy rule of threes.

She just bided her time, then gutlessly voted against the bill when it came to the floor in December of 2009.

There's no more perfect example of legislative cowardice in recent years. Snowe made a list of everything she wanted, gave her word, then backed away as quick as she possibly could.

Even the GOP doesn't need senators like that.

A Love Letter to Rick Santorum

So a new Gallup poll has Rick Santorum ahead of Mitt Romney by 10 points nationally. The man won Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, and has been leading in Michigan polls -- although Romney has closed the gap over the last few days. Meanwhile Romney is losing ground to his new rival in Arizona, where Santorum has narrowed Mitt’s lead down to 3 points. Both primaries are February 28.

I never would have dreamed that Rick Santorum would manage this feat, but it looks like he has a realistic chance at nabbing the GOP nomination.

Imagine it. Just take a moment, please, and let your mind contemplate this very real possibility. Rick Santorum could be the GOP nominee for President of the United States.

If Santorum should win the nomination, voters will be presented with a candidate who has claimed that states should have the power to make birth control illegal.

In the general election, independent and swing voters will get to know all of Santorum's colorful past statements. YouTube is a treasure trove for the curious voter. Take, for example, this gem in which Santorum claims that 50% of all euthanasia in the Netherlands is forced, and that elderly people have to wear bracelets that say “don’t euthanize me.”

Or take this one, in which he tells the Heritage Foundation that the right to privacy, which doesn’t really exist, is a selfish right, one that doesn’t serve the common good:

Just this past weekend, Santorum was on a tear, saying that Obama’s agenda was not based on the Bible, but a "phony theology."

Then on Meet the Press, he insisted that kids at public school can’t get properly socialized, not the way home schooled kids can.

He also attacked Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act for covering prenatal testing, which he opposes because it encourages abortion.

And of course on Monday he asserted that Democrats are “anti-science” for believing in climate change.

What we’re looking at here are not gaffes. These are the man’s sincerely held beliefs, and he’s sticking to them.

This moral certitude is apparently playing well to the GOP base. The 23% of the population who steadfastly embrace social conservatism and therefore identify with Santorum and his values may propel him to the nomination. But they don’t have the sway to make a difference in the general. Whoever wins that will have to appeal to those notorious independent and swing voters, people who vote based on their wallets more so than their Bibles.

The Republicans appear to have recognized that the economy may not be their winning issue in November. With jobs being created and the DOW doing fine, this avenue of attack is looking less and less promising. So they’re targeting those trusty social issues. Drumming up bigotry over gay marriage worked pretty well in 2004.

But it’s not 2004 anymore.

Just imagine Rick Santorum standing at a podium, across from President Obama, at a national debate. Imagine him being asked about any one of his many past statements regarding birth control or home schooling. Imagine him telling all those soccer moms (or whatever demeaning term they’re using to generalize about women voters now) that it would be morally wrong for them to find out whether their unborn babies have congenital defects.

It’s hard not to believe that such a move would be suicide for the Republicans. And I’m sorry, but it would be so much fun to watch.

I know I should be careful what I wish for here. A Santorum nomination would bring out the fundamentalist vote, which could have an unpleasant result in the downticket races. Romney would suppress turnout among that segment, which is from any angle a Good Thing.

On the other hand, Santorum’s views are so out there, that they draw out the public’s heretofore unrecognized inner-feminists. Here is a man who knows better than you do what kind of prenatal testing you ought to get. He thinks the state should be able tell women that they may not decide when they should have children! The 1984-like level of invasive government he advocates is distasteful to anyone with a remotely rational concept of the appropriate role for government in our lives.

This man could provoke the next wave of feminist action in the United States. He could single-handedly revive the movement. He could wind up being a tremendous boon to the struggle for women’s rights.

So maybe it’s a little crazy, but I’m not-so-secretly hoping for a Santorum nomination.

Plus, the entertainment value.

Follow Up: Cut off the head...

Sometimes, bad things happen to bad people:

Komen vice president Karen Handel resigns

Handel, as you read in Rebecca's post from yesterday, is the *insert non-gender-specific insult here* who came up with the "policy" of de-funding organizations that are under investigation. And who believes that life starts at heavy petting.

Good riddance, bad person.

Planned Parenthood, You Must Be Doing Something Right

Many people were shocked, and rightly so, at Susan G. Komen For the Cure’s recent decision to cut support to Planned Parenthood. But those who have really been paying attention weren’t entirely taken by surprise. Less than a year ago, the Komen foundation appointed the outspoken and staunchly anti-abortion Karen Handel as Senior Vice President of Public Policy. It would take an act of improbable faith in human decency to believe that Handel wasn’t going to drag Komen into her anti-abortion agenda.

But the Recent Susan G. Komen fiasco wasn’t the start of all this hating on Planned Parenthood. Anti-abortion groups have had a raging hard on for Planned Parenthood for some years now. Just last February, anti-abortion groups launched a campaign aimed specifically at denying Planned Parenthood its federal funding. This coalition of local and national anti-abortion groups set its sights on the Planned Parenthood boogeyman, and they’ve had their share of success. Their effort placed the Planned Parenthood funding question right in the middle of a budget stalemate which almost shut down the federal government back in April. Several state legislatures voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood last year, although judges overturned the laws in a few states. In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched a Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood’s spending, supposedly to uncover whether they’re using government funds to pay for abortions – even though the organization by law must keep scrupulous records of how government funds are spent. That bogus, politically-motivated investigation conveniently provided Handel and the Komen foundation with the pretense they needed for cutting off support to Planned Parenthood.

97% of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions, and no federal money (or Susan G. Komen money) funds abortions. Yet opponents of choice are determined to starve the beast, even if it means removing funding for a variety of vital reproductive health services. They argue that funding Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services “frees up” money for abortions. In order to believe that, I’d have to assume that Planned Parenthood can only spend a finite amount on non-abortion healthcare services, and once that ceiling is reached, the overflow of money goes into providing abortions. Conversely, if we de-fund the other services, Planned Parenthood will then have to dip into the old abortion fund in order to make up the difference. They’ll have to cut costs by cutting back on abortions -- even though Planned Parenthood actually makes money from providing abortions (about 15% of its annual revenue). It’s difficult to see where starving the beast of funds for cervical cancer screenings and contraception is going to motivate it to cut back on abortion services; it seems logical that the reverse would be true. Planned Parenthood would now be more motivated than ever to perform abortions, the payment for which would be necessary to keep the organization afloat.

Even if opponents were successful in driving Planned Parenthood out of the abortion business, or in destroying it altogether, what would that really mean for abortion in America? Foes like to point out the Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the nation. But its clinics around the country perform about 300,000 abortions a year. With around 1.2 million abortions going on each year in the US, that means that Planned Parenthood is providing in the range of 25% of this country's abortions. That’s no small chunk, I suppose. I guess if you believe that a significant portion of women who are going to use their abortion services will not seek an abortion elsewhere, then by eliminating Planned Parenthood you could probably stop – what? -- 10%? 15% of abortions from happening? And I guess if you believe that abortion is a brutal murder of an innocent child, well then every innocent child saved makes it all worthwhile. But we’re still talking about well over a million abortions each year. It just doesn’t seem like a “bigger picture” goal.

The truth is that probably 75 - 80% of abortions are performed in places other than a Planned Parenthood clinic. They are performed in doctors’ offices, clinics and hospitals all around the country. Your precious, precious tax dollars and the Susan G. Komen foundation’s money and other women’s health charity dollars still go to those other facilities. But you don’t hear anti-abortion groups or politicians foaming at the mouth about that. Planned Parenthood makes a nice, large, easy target. Also, they provide and advocate for contraceptives and comprehensive sex education… But this isn’t about that, right? This is about the little babies.

It’s a convenient boogeyman: the biggest, baddest baby killer in the nation. But truthfully, what really sets them apart from the health care providers who perform the other 3 out of 4 of abortions is that Planned Parenthood serves primarily poor women. According to Planned Parenthood, 75% of their clients have incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.

If Planned Parenthood were shut down entirely, there might be some women without the resources to find another abortion provider. The poorest women, with the fewest options available to them would have yet one more option cut off, while wealthy women would continue to enjoy reproductive freedom. But the number of (primarily poor) women who would be cut off from other healthcare services, including preventive care and access to contraceptives, would be much higher.

This is basic logic, folks. A few thousand women might not be able to obtain abortions without Planned Parenthood. But many thousands of women would also not be able to afford contraception, STD screenings, cancer screenings, and a host of other reproductive health services.

Demonizing and scapegoating Planned Parenthood reveals the “pro-life” movement’s true colors. They treasure their feelings of moral superiority far more dearly than they value anybody’s life. Their real enemy is not abortion; if it were, they’d be working to end abortion through education and family planning. Instead, they actively oppose an organization which provides those services to millions. To them, preventing women from taking control of their own lives is actually more important than stopping abortions from happening. They can only visualize an end to abortion through the lens of disempowering women.