Congratulations to Matt Bors, who notes his latest nomination for an Eisner Award, and with with penultimates like this, it’s easy to see why.
Image note: Detail of cartoon by Matt Bors, via Daily Kos, 18 May 2016.
This is … what, traditional family values?
According to a proposed bill filed last week by two Republican Illinois state lawmakers, if a father is not listed on a newborn’s birth certificate, the birth certificate will not be issued and any future financial assistance will be denied.
The proposed bill HB6064 by Representative John Cavaletto and Representative Keith Wheeler would amend the Illinois Vital Records Act to require that unwed mothers either name a father on the birth certificate or within 30 days go to court and have another family member sign the birth certificate and agree to accept financial responsibility for the child ....
.... If a single mother fails to name the father or identify another guardian, the child will not be issued a birth certificate and the family will be permanently banned from public assistance. The bill makes no exception for rape or incest victims. Under current law, an unmarried father is not named on the birth certificate unless he signs a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity.
You know, something useful is supposed to go here, but in truth I am uncertain what that is. More specifically, I’m still stuck on the obvious question.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Tesfaye, Sophia. “Illinois Republicans target single mothers and their babies: GOP bill would ban birth certificates, financial aid if father is not named”. Salon. 25 February 2016.
A question arises: Is there room for Republican presidential candidates to maneuver to the
left not so far-right of the GOP platform?
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday that Republican primary voters in New Hampshire “should be concerned” about presidential rival Marco Rubio’s position on abortion, suggesting he is out of step with the state’s GOP electorate ....
.... Christie argued Thursday that Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, supports banning all abortions, including in cases of “rape, incest or life of the mother.” Appearing on NBC, he added, “I think that’s the kind of position that New Hampshire voters would really be concerned about.”
Rubio backs an exception for abortion when the life of the mother is in danger, and would back legislation with allowances for cases of rape and incest — even though he personally doesn’t support those exceptions.
“I understand it’s a difficult issue,” Rubio told reporters Thursday. “But I have to choose between the right of a person to do what they want with their body and the right of an unborn child to live. And I support and defend the right of an unborn child to live.”
To the one, it is an interesting threshold check. After all, does this question even exist in the Republican discourse, or, more accurately, to what degree does it matter?
To the other, this is what New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is down to in search of attention for his presidential bid. And even that consideration suggests a thing or three about the state of the GOP: When all else fails, give what traditionally passes for moderation a try.
So, what’s the office pool say? Will “too anti-abortion” fly with Republican voters in New Hampshire? Or should Rubio find a disappointing day would we really attribute it to his abortion policy outlook?
Image note: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) speaks at a town hall meeting at the American Legion Dupuis Cross Post 15, 1 July 2015, in Ashland, New Hampshire. (Detail of photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
Beaumont, Thomas. “Christie: Rubio as out of place in New Hampshire on abortion”. Associated Press. 4 February 2016.
Eisele, Erik. “All (presidential) politics is local”. The Conway Daily Sun. 23 December 2015.
“Just so we’re clear, Fiorina lied, then she defended the lie, then she repeated the lie, and then she grudgingly conceded that the ‘fact-checkers are correct’. But she still sees herself as a victim of a media ‘attack’.”
Here’s the tricky part: “This is what the liberal media always does; it attacks the messenger trying to avoid the message.”
This can be taken two ways:
• “It attacks the messenger [who is] trying to avoid the message” ― While it would, in fact, be the more accurate interpretation according to the facts, we can rest assured this is not Ms. Fiorina’s meaning, lest she be complaining that messengers seeking to avoid the message might be subject to scrutiny for the attempt.
• “It attacks the messenger [while] trying to avoid the message” ― This is more likely what Ms. Fiorina meant, except it’s dysfunctional. To wit: The media “attacks” [calls out] the “messenger” [bearing false witness] while trying to avoid [propagating] the [false] message.
In other words, it seems Ms. Fiorina thinks she’s only being treated fairly if the news media carries water for her presidential campaign.
Then again, what is a serial liar supposed to say?
Carly Fiorina’s alleged presidential merit is her business acumen. Her demonstrable political demeanor, however, is straightforward dishonesty.
Image note: Carly Fiorina, former chairman and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co., pauses while speaking during the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday, Jan. 24, 2015. (Detail of photo by Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Benen, Steve. “Fiorina finally admits she flubbed her facts”. msnbc. 2 November 2015.
This is one of those obvious points, you know, the kind where a cartoonist like Matt Wuerker might feel somehow obliged, as a matter of simple duty, to remind that just because ideas or behavior might seem mundane cannot be taken to mean they are not extraordinary. That is to say, among works of genius we rarely place such cartoons, but neither is that the point.
“I kicked a giant mouse in the butt!” Homer declared. “Do I have to draw you a diagram?”
Yes, sometimes people need pictures.
Of course, that is the wonderful thing about human frailty, isn’t it? Certain Republicans would just be offended by the notion.
By “certain”, of course, we mean, “seemingly all of them”. Then again, that’s not exactly true either. The Republican Party and its affiliated community are not entirely devoid of minds and consciences capable of understanding the critique.
The question for them is what they can do about it. This is not an enviable conundrum.
Wuerker, Matt. “Reince’s Women Issues”. Daily Kos Comics. 16 April 2015.
You know, with all the diversity in the right-wing tinfoil and wingnut sectors, it is sometimes hard to choose. Then again, misogyny tends to stand out. Trump talks to plot a place in politics; Lindsey Graham belabors Benghazi; a sense of inevitability about a Bush-Clinton grudge match has a wearying effect even as the ponies register for the sideshow.
But misogyny perches on a precarious pedestal. The 2012 debacle caught so many off guard, yet the signs were all there. The Tea Party Revolution set out to remake the House in its own image, trying to distinguish between statutory and other forms of rape. Even Ron Paul had his go, waxing furiously about “honest” rape, but perhaps we gave him a pass for being from Texas, or simply for being Ron Paul. Mitt Romney stumbled over Blunt-Rubio, and Republicans dragged birth control back into controversy.
And this year everyone looks to Hillary Clinton, the one person in Washington who should be sick and tired of State of the Union Addresses, having attended some twenty of them as First Lady, United States Senator, and Secretary of State. If men have reason to fret about their penises, they ought not wag them about as the glass ceiling shatters.
Misogyny really could be the show. As Republicans hope to lipstick wage inequality (Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN07) and women’s health (Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-NC05), compel rape and trafficking survivors to bear assailants’ children, and, well, run a presidential election against a female candidate, don’t ignore this impish hatred.
No, seriously, at this point, who will be the least bad on women’s rights? Jeb Bush? Perhaps the most alarming aspect of that suggestion is that even having seen just how poorly Mitt Romney’s campaign went over, we might wonder how well Jeb will or won’t handle these issues. Certes he can’t be as bad as Romney was on Blunt-Rubio; then again, after Cory Gardner’s ascension to the Senate, we might have reason to wonder if it really matters one way or another. They are, in the end, Republicans.
Tomorrow, Tom. “A sneak peek”. This Modern World. Daily Kos. 23 March 2015.
To: American Republicans
re: Rape obsession
Look, I don’t know what it is you think you’re up to, but at some point the rest of society has to take you seriously. That is to say, as we witness the parade of elected Republicans taking their turns tugging on Excalibur, each hoping to be the first to finally convince us to look at the redeeming side of rape, there comes a point where we have to accept that you really do want us to find an upside to sexual violence.
So just stop.
“Republican” is fast becoming one of those words that sets off alarms in people’s heads: Republicans should not be trusted around children.
That’s what it comes to. You send rape abettors to Congress? Yeah, that’s what it comes to. You want us to reflect on the beauty of rape? That’s what it comes to: You are a danger to society, and especially our society’s most vulnerable.
So, you know … just … stop.
Gutman, David. “Obviously, rape is awful …”. Twitter. 5 February 2015. Twitter.com. 10 February 2015.
“American politics is changing. Politicians are losing power and political parties are gaining it. A politician’s relationships might once have been a good guide to her votes. Today, the “D” or “R” after a politician’s name tells you almost everything you need to know.”
To the one, he has a point. To the other, it does not seem to matter much, as the applied political science still seems more aimed toward deceiving than understanding. Nor is that intended as a condemnation of political science as a discipline, but if we bear in mind that electoral politics is an industry ripe for plunder, we might pause to wonder what business would employ a rising social science to its own detriment.
And the answer to that is clear: None.
Well, sort of. Because then there are Republicans; the conventional wisdom in this exceptional case—that they are not hurting themselves on purpose, but, rather, are simply unable to not—seems
pretty safe rather quite demonstrable.
“But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday. It’s tough to decide which party’s worst nightmare she would be.”
It is not, by the logic of conventional wisdom, a good thing when the candidate actually frightens the Cook Political Report editor, but down Lou’siana way perhaps the Palin of the South and voters in Terrebonne Parish see it differently.
And let us be clear—”Palin of the South” is not an insult, regardless of however hilarious or horrifying or redundant others might find the phrase.
David Wasserman explains, for the Washington Post:
As a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, I’ve personally interviewed over 300 congressional candidates over the course of seven years, both to get to know them and evaluate their chances of winning. I’ve been impressed by just as many Republicans as Democrats, and underwhelmed by equal numbers, too. Most are accustomed to tough questions.
But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday. It’s tough to decide which party’s worst nightmare she would be.
Then again, as bad reviews go, that one is pretty impressive.