NORTON META TAG

29 February 2012

REVERSAL IN VIRGINIA 23FEB12 & The He-Man Woman Haters Club 29FEB12

I have to agree, it seems that most repiglican / tea-bagger men hate women, there is no other rational explanation to the vile language used against women or the laws being considered and passed in states across the country regulating women's lives. Here are the transcripts of the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU 88.5 on 23 FEB 12 covering the ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound and abortion legislation that was being debated in the Virginia General Assembly. Most moving are the comments from a caller to the show, Elizabeth, who had an abortion after she was raped and became pregnant. Be sure to click the link to listen to the show and especially to Elizabeth. Then read Bob Cesca's article from HuffPost.....

Reversal in Virginia

MR. MARC FISHER

13:06:41
From WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your community with the world. I'm Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, sitting in for Kojo. Later this hour, we will talk to someone from the new African American Museum on the Mall about the creation of this new museum and the effort to wrap all of black history up in one building. But first, ever since Republicans completed their first clean sweep of Virginia's most powerful government positions last fall. Abortion opponents have been eagerly awaiting a chance to tighten restrictions on the procedure.

MR. MARC FISHER

13:07:29
Over the last few weeks Republicans in Richmond have moved to pass a bill that would require pregnant women to have an ultrasound image made of their fetus. Doctors would have to show the picture to the woman who would have to sign a document acknowledging that she had seen that picture. And abortion opponents hope that the image of a growing, living fetus would discourage many women from going ahead with a planned abortion.

MR. MARC FISHER

13:07:52
Well, somehow, through weeks of debate and public hearings on this issue. Legislators never realized that requiring the ultrasound procedure at very early stage of pregnancy meant that the procedure would not be done by the usual jelly on the belly technique, but rather by a more intrusive technique, trans-vaginally. Before you knew it, Virginia Republicans were being criticized not only in Richmond, but being lampooned on "The Daily Show" and on "Saturday Night Live" where Amy Poehler joked, really? Now, don't get me wrong, I love trans-vaginals. It's my favorite airline.

MR. MARC FISHER

13:08:27
And this has created a fierce political backlash against Governor Bob McDonnell and the Virginia government about the idea of mandating such an intrusion into women's bodies. Governor McDonnell has now, in the last 48 hours, changed his mind and decided he would not sign the ultrasound bill without revisions. Not exactly the kind of publicity the governor's looking for as his name is bandied about as a possible vice presidential candidate on a Mitt Romney ticket this fall.

MR. MARC FISHER

13:08:57
Well, here on the phone with us to discuss this is Stephen Farnsworth. He's a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. And Professor Farnsworth, this is not exactly the kind of thing that the government was hoping to have accruing to his benefit at this stage of the presidential campaign, I would imagine.

MR. STEPHEN FARNSWORTH

13:09:19
Absolutely not. The worst thing in politics is to be made a laughing stock. And Virginia right now has been declared ridiculous by no less than "Saturday Night Live" and Jon Stewart, the two biggest names in political comedy out there.

FISHER

13:09:36
And do you think that's the explanation for the governor backing off in this way?

FARNSWORTH

13:09:43
Well, this was really lose-lose for the governor. If this legislation had proceeded as originally proposed with the vaginal ultrasound, it simply would have been a problem to pass it, to sign it. And it would have been a problem to veto it. When you have a bad situation in politics, you need to cut your losses. And that, I think, is what the governor did here. It's not clear how the story ends, of course. They're trying to amend this legislation to salvage it.

FARNSWORTH

13:10:11
But the Republican situation is, you know, is clear enough. They control the levers of power. And so, if they can come up with something that they can all go with, there might still be some sort of ultrasound requirement.

FISHER

13:10:24
Well, let's take a step back and see how we got here, because obviously when Republicans won not only the governor, the attorney general, lieutenant governor positions, but also control of both Houses of the legislature in Richmond, there was, at least on the part of some social conservatives, a considerable amount of crowing about the fact that they were finally going to be able to move ahead with their social agenda that they had been itching to get for many years. And obviously abortion is high on the list.

FISHER

13:10:53
And so, it was entirely predictable that someone would come along with these kinds of proposals for restrictions on abortion that we've seen in other states around the country, including this notion that women should have to be somehow confronted with a picture of a fetus to sort of confront them with the reality of this life that is taking form within them. But somehow, in all of the preparation of the bill and discussion of it, the fact that this meant not only a traditional kind of ultrasound, but a more intrusive kind.

FISHER

13:11:29
And I should note that we'll be discussing pregnancy and reproductive choices in this segment. And some people who may find such discussions uncomfortable may want to turn down the radio for a bit. We'll be doing this for half an hour or so. But given -- how is it possible politically that the actual medical implications of the bill were not discussed?

FARNSWORTH

13:11:51
Well, I think that one of the realities, politically speaking, is that, you know, a lot of political decisions are being made on the basis of ideology, of personal commitment. And that doesn't necessarily lead to the kind of due diligence that might lead to responsible, careful lawmaking. I think that what you see with this Virginia Republican victory in the last election cycle is the great risk of overreaching.

FARNSWORTH

13:12:20
The last time the Republicans controlled all of the levers of power, back when Jim Gilmore was governor, the Republican caucus had a significant number of moderates in it, particularly from the northern Virginia area. And that meant that the truly conservative social agenda could not move through, because the Senate, even though in Republican hands, was still under moderate control effectively.

FARNSWORTH

13:12:41
What you have in this Republican caucus now is a much more conservative Republican Party. And as a result, the caucus is much more aggressive. And you can understand why if you look at the political dynamics of the last few years, you're looking at the rise of the Tea Party movement nationally and in Virginia. You're looking at a real strident conservative movement that has really been strengthened and built in reaction to the Obama presidency.

FARNSWORTH

13:13:06
And so, within Virginia, there was the great opportunity to overreach in many ways. And that's not something that's unique to these Republican games. And if you look back at the 2010 elections and the movement in Wisconsin that a newly constituted Republican majority created there triggered a backlash with recall elections. If you look at the new Republican majorities in Ohio, they tried to curtail the collective bargaining rights of workers in that state.

FARNSWORTH

13:13:38
And there was a public referendum saying that won't do. And so, you ended up with a situation where, in some ways, what's going on in Virginia right now is predictable in terms of the Republican risk of overreach. But so too predictable is the counter-reaction, the response that comes from the moderate voters who may not be all that visible in terms of talk shows or in political campaigns, but really are the decisive voters when you think about who wins and losses in elections.

FISHER

13:14:03
You can join our conversation about the restrictions on abortion in Virginia by calling 1-800-433-8850 or email us at kojo@wamu.org. You can also send us a tweet to @kojoshow. And we're talking with Stephen Farnsworth who is a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. There's a poll just out from the Richmond Times Dispatch and Christopher Newport University of Virginia voters that shows perhaps the predicament that Governor McDonnell found himself in yesterday when he was considering what to do about this.

FISHER

13:14:39
Nearly 6 in 10 Virginia voters approve of the job that Governor McDonnell is doing, whereas only just over 4 in 10 approve of President Obama's performance. So, clearly, Governor McDonnell, very popular, even at this stage in his term. But on this abortion issue, a slight majority of Virginia voter oppose requiring women to undergo an ultrasound procedure before seeking an abortion and a small majority also oppose defining life as beginning at conception.

FARNSWORTH

13:15:11
And this is the so-called personhood bill, which just this morning was approved by Virginia Senate Committee and this bill provides that unborn children, quoting now, "at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons." And there was a very strong opposition at the capital this morning when the bill was passed. People chanting: Women will not be silenced, and so on. Is the legislature overreaching here in such a way that the governor feels the need to separate himself from his own Republican comrades in the legislature?

FARNSWORTH

13:15:49
Well, certainly there's a concern that the governor has expressed for some time. If you go back to the State of the State address that the governor gave about a month ago now, he explicitly warned the Republican majorities not to overreach, to be cautious. And part of the reason for that, I think, is the issue that we've talked about already, the idea that McDonnell has national ambitions. And being involved in things that are very controversial could be problematic from the point of view of getting perhaps a vice presidential nod for a Romney ticket or something like that.

FARNSWORTH

13:16:21
But it doesn't seem like the lawmakers are really all that interested in the governor's national standing. It seems like the governor is in a very difficult spot here, where you've got a Republican majority, you've got Christian conservatives who, for years, have chafed not only at the Democratic majorities that existed but the Republican moderates within their own caucus who's kept the social agenda items from moving forward.

FARNSWORTH

13:16:45
And so, there's a great deal of pressure to move forward. I think if we look at it from a larger perspective, you might say it might be a lot wiser for some of these social items to have been discussed a year from now. After the 50/50 Kaine-Allen race has been decided. After the possibilities of Virginia's electoral votes going to a Republican or Democrat had been decided. I think that, in many ways, this Republican social agenda is undermining the party's prospects for the very close elections that we're likely to see in November 2012 for the electoral votes of Virginia and also for the U.S. Senate seat.

FARNSWORTH

13:17:22
A Senate seat, by the way, that may very well determine which party controls the Senate and Washington. It's a very high risk strategy.

FISHER

13:17:30
And all of that with Virginia being a swing state, a purple state going into the presidential campaign this fall.

FARNSWORTH

13:17:36
Absolutely.

FISHER

13:17:37
Let's go to David in Snow Hill, Md. David, you're on the air.

DAVID

13:17:40
Hi. Kojo, I think -- thank you for inviting me and letting me talk. My question about this procedure for the sonogram is if this is a state-mandated procedure that's otherwise unnecessary, medically unnecessary, then isn't the state and the taxpayers are going to foot the cost of that? I mean, the hospital's not doing it for free.

FISHER

13:18:07
Well, that's an interesting point. Professor Farnsworth, I did not see anywhere in the bill that the state was going to cover these costs for them.

FARNSWORTH

13:18:14
The state is actually not going to cover the cost. This is part of the reason why this is such a controversial provision, because the way that this would be covered would be at, basically in most cases, I suspect, from the woman involved. You're looking at a situation where insurance will cover medically necessary procedures. And if the argument is that in this particular case it's not medically necessary, that it's politically necessary, if you will, that you're not going to get insurance coverage for that.

FARNSWORTH

13:18:41
And so, not only would this be a procedure that would be conducted against the will of the woman, in some cases. But also, she would be forced to pay for it as well. It's very ironic that some of the people most concerned about government getting off the backs of Americans when the question was the Obama health care bill have come up to a very different conclusion about the level of government intrusion when the issue of course involves these ultrasounds.

FISHER

13:19:06
We will continue our conversation about abortion in Virginia after a short break. You're listening to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show." I'm Marc Fisher, sitting in for Kojo.

FISHER

13:20:58
Welcome back, I'm Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, sitting in on the Kojo Nnamdi Show. We are talking about abortion in Virginia, recent changes politically and restrictions that the Virginia legislature is attempting to put on abortion or access to it. And you can join our conversation at 1-800-433-8850. Because we are discussing pregnancy and reproductive choices, some people may find such discussions uncomfortable and you might want to turn down your radio and return to us in about 15 minutes.

FISHER

13:21:29
We have an email from Elaine saying "The story in Virginia is about bullying women and getting between them and their doctors. The rest of the analysis is secondary. That's not the core story." Another email from Katie in D.C. "What I don't understand is why it is only when the instrument is a phallic object being inserted into a woman that lawmakers understand that this is a harmful, invasive, over reach of government. This is the state attacking women's emotional, sexual and physical and integrity."

FISHER

13:21:58
And so, Professor Stephen Farnsworth, joining us. He's a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. Professor, obviously, this is a hugely emotional issue and one that does indeed effect how voters will go. Is there -- do you think the republican legislatures in Richmond sort of thought this through politically before going ahead with this bill?

FARNSWORTH

13:22:23
Well, I really think that the level of opposition that they've seen is surprising them. I don't think that any of them anticipated, oh, this is a way to get on the Daily Show. I think that what you see here is the nature of how different Virginia can be when you look at very different parts of the state. The conversation in the listening area around Washington may take a very different shape then if we were on a radio program in Lynchburg this morning or this afternoon.

FARNSWORTH

13:22:54
And so it's important to recognize that a lot of these lawmakers represent districts that are very, very different then Northern Virginia. The republicans, primarily in the legislature now, do come from outside of Northern Virginia. Once upon a time when you had more moderate republicans, you had a significant number of republican lawmakers who had more moderate politics and had to present themselves in a more moderate way to be reelected.

FARNSWORTH

13:23:17
Now, of course, most of the districts have been gerrymandered, drawn in ways that create very conservative sinecures for some lawmakers and then, of course, a few democratic liberal sinecures for some others. But, by and large, the lawmakers pushing these issues, the lawmakers focusing on the social agenda don't represent Northern Virginia. And, by and large, they don't have to worry that much about losing because the districts have been drawn in ways where if you can win the republican nomination, you can go back to Richmond.

FARNSWORTH

13:23:46
So much of the decision for who gets to be elected in Virginia politics is made at the primary stage, not at the general election stage because the districts are drawn in such a way is to favor one party to an overwhelming degree over another. And...

FISHER

13:24:01
Well and then there is even in a district that is slanted entirely in one direction politically, a legislature can still feel some backlash, but they're not going to feel anything like the backlash that a governor who represents the entire state and hears from a much wider variety of people hears from. And especially in this case where, you know, as you pointed out, Virginia has not been embarrassed to this extent on the national stage in years. Let's hear what John Stewart had to say on "The Daily Show."

MR. JOHN STEWART

13:24:30
And by the way, it's not that Virginia legislatures don't understand the concept of forced violation, the supporters of this mandatory ultrasound bill believe many things rise to that level. For instance, Virginia Republican delegate Bob Marshall believes that the health care reform bill, put forth by Obama, is not regulation of voluntary commercial intercourse, it is more akin to forcible economic rape. See, Bob Marshall feels like having to buy something you don’t want is like being raped. Oh, the cable package I want has to have the Lifetime Movie Network, oh, stop raping me.

MR. JOHN STEWART

13:25:05
Whereas having something shoved inside your genitals against your will is not rape. He thinks that's not rape. He's like a regional quark. Like some places of the country call soda, pop. I guess what I can't figure out is, whatever happened to the Republicans being the party of personal liberty? Don't they remember this guy?

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

13:25:26
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

STEWART

13:25:34
Yeah I got nine scarier words for you, I'm from the government and this wand's a little cold.

FISHER

13:25:41
Pretty harsh stuff and yet that's what republican legislatures in Richmond are having to deal with. And some voters are feeling like maybe they made a mistake. Here's Liz, who voted for Governor McDonald, is that right? Liz, you're on the air.

LIZ

13:25:57
Yes, I'm -- yeah, I made the mistake of voting for him because I'm in favor of smaller government and I want to protect individual liberties. I had no idea how someone can claim to have the platform of smaller government and want to invade and violate women in this way.

FISHER

13:26:14
And so you see this as the republicans being intrusive in a way that their own philosophy would tend to argue against?

LIZ

13:26:22
Exactly. It doesn't make any sense. There's no science, there's no backing to this. It's just to invade someone for the sake of invading someone.

FISHER

13:26:32
Okay. Thanks for your call. Now, let's go to Andrea in Rockville, Md. Andrea, I think you have a different point of view of this.

ANDREA

13:26:41
Hi there, yeah, thank you so much for taking my call. Yeah, I am pro-life and I find the opposition from the public and from NPR commenter's so far, a little hard to understand. Listen, I can understand why John Stewart made a mockery out of that hypocritical statement that you just aired. But I'm a little confused. You know, we've been talking a lot about the invasiveness of the procedure and I realize that your guest is, you know, is taking a political stamp on this and is talking about it from a political point of view, but these guys could at least talk a little bit.

ANDREA

13:27:14
I don’t know a lot about abortion. I know that I'm pro-life, but I do know that abortion has got to be painful and invasive. So in light of the fact that these women, these patients, are already going to see a physician about doing something extremely invasive to their bodies, what's one -- and I do realize you made a financial argument to that. That certainly stands. But just speaking to the invasiveness, is that really that relevant in light of the fact that these women are already about to undergo a very invasive procedure? Thank you.

FISHER

13:27:45
Thanks for the call. And I think those who argued against this procedure being mandated by the state were opposed to the idea that these were lawmakers rather than medical professionals who are determining when and under what circumstances a woman would have to have that invasive procedure. Stephen Farnsworth, I mean, obviously we're hearing the emotions on both sides but also some of the arguments that should've been had at the hearing in the legislature in Richmond. And apparently they never really got to this level of discussion.

FARNSWORTH

13:28:21
Well, one of the things that a majority is tempted to do is not listen very seriously to a minority. And that's the nature of politics, generally. Whether you have a democratic majority or a republican majority, there's often an attempt to shut down descending opinions. And that happens a lot. But, you know, in reference to the previous caller, I mean obviously, the lawmakers who are making these decisions can represent themselves for the choices that they choose to make.

FARNSWORTH

13:28:49
But I would draw your attention to an important distinction. When a person decides whether or not to have an abortion, that is their choice. When a person in Virginia has to go to a doctor and is required to have procedures that the state mandates and yet will not pay for, it strikes me as somewhat different a matter all together. Where, you know, individuals are making these choices on, with respect to the abortion question, what the law would propose, if it does become law, would be that the state would make these decisions. And the state would not be paying for them, but rather the individual would.

FISHER

13:29:24
And one of the groups that was most upset by this is some of the physicians who've said the thought that this was a matter of politicians usurping their role. Here's Nora in Annandale, Va. who is a pediatrician. Nora, you're on the air.

NORA

13:29:37
Hi, I am both a pediatrician and obviously I'm a woman and I just wanted to express my horror that in Virginia, they would consider forcing a transvaginal ultrasound on women. In today's day and age, such a backward policy is absolutely horrific. I am the mother of four children and having been pregnant, I had the transvaginal ultrasound. And I know that it's a very uncomfortable position and this is when I have been watched and with my husband holding hands, ready to have it. The idea of forcing it upon a woman is akin to raping a woman.

NORA

13:30:14
It is completely horrific and obviously the men who voted for woman to be forced to have this have never seen a transvaginal ultrasound or been with their wives when they had one. And, you know, to the other question that it's an invasive procedure and these woman are about to have another invasive procedure, you know, thank goodness, I have never had the other procedure, but forcing a procedure like this onto women, as a physician, as a mother, as a woman, I am horrified in the state that I live in.

FISHER

13:30:47
Well, we should point out that the bill was actually introduced in the Virginia Senate by a woman, Jill Holtzman Vogel, who is a republican senator from the Winchester area on the fringes of the Washington area. And she has said in recent days and hours, that she did not realize that the ultrasound that she was mandating in her bill would not be external, but would, in some cases, be transvaginal. So as a physician, what do you think of whether it's a man or a woman, politicians proposing or mandating procedures that previously were a purview of physicians to make that decision?

NORA

13:31:28
Well, I think the idea of an external ultrasound, while far less invasive, is completely useless because in early pregnancy, nothing can be seen externally. So, you know, it's a -- oh, we're just going to switch to an external exam, is obviously somebody without any medical knowledge because nothing will be able to be seen. You really need that, unfortunately, more invasive procedure to have it done. But it is not something that can be forced on a woman without being government rape.

FISHER

13:31:55
Okay, thanks for your call, Nora. Let's go to Elizabeth in Clifton, Va. Elizabeth, you're on the air.

ELIZABETH

13:32:02
Yes, I can speak about this on a far more personal level. I've always lived my adult life in a sense that I never knew truly what decision I would ever make if confronted being pregnant and had not wanted to be. And I was on birth control and that decision was taken away from me while sexually assaulted 19 years ago. And I don’t know if people are aware of this, but I know the exact date I was assaulted, I also know the exact date that I had an abortion. I will never forget that as long as I live. That was the most humiliating, degrading, painful, horrible experience I have ever gone through in my life.

ELIZABETH

13:32:46
I was counseled extensively by the clinic. They were very caring. They wanted to make sure that I had made the right decision. They just, you know, I don't know if people are aware that -- but you just don't go in and order it like a Happy Meal. It is an incredible life defining experience. And I want people to realize that women are not making that decision casually.

ELIZABETH

13:33:15
I am a mother of a child and when I was pregnant with my daughter, I found out, and I live in Virginia, that I -- my daughter, may have been a trisomy 13 baby, which is an extremely huge chromosomal disorder. And Virginia said I was allowed to have a second trimester abortion. It was legal in Virginia for this. And we went and had an amniocentesis and luckily everything was fine and I have a beautiful healthy child.

FISHER

13:33:44
Right.

ELIZABETH

13:33:45
But I was counseled again and I have to tell you, even though I was counseled again and I knew all this and I was pregnant. Once again, my husband and I were faced with this opportunity of what decision were we going to make. And it was -- it was soul searching. And I said to myself my God, I don't know if I can go through this twice...

FISHER

13:34:07
Okay.

ELIZABETH

13:34:07
...in my life.

FISHER

13:34:08
Well, thank you very much Elizabeth. This really drives home the deep -- the intimacy and the deep emotional impact of abortion and of this whole issue. And Stephen Farnsworth at Mary -- University Mary Washington, as you see what this issue brings out and the kinds of reactions to what the politicians see as simply a matter of law, you have to wonder whether the republicans will now attempt a different path or will charge ahead. And what role the Presidential election and the pressures from the national party will have on the decisions that are now being made in Richmond.

FARNSWORTH

13:34:51
Yeah. I think that what you've seen with these stories from the callers that we've been listening to, the last few minutes, really demonstrate just how personal this is and how unique one's own personal experiences and feelings might be with respect to how to proceed in this situation. And I think that, you know, this is where, you know, lawmakers can look at an abstraction in terms of looking at an idea in the abstract level and not necessarily recognize the magnitude of profound personal feelings that might be involved with the lawmaking that they're about to undertake.

FARNSWORTH

13:35:31
And I think that, you know, it is a very difficult road for the legislature going forward from here because, obviously, the Christian conservative voters who put many of these republicans in office want something for their efforts on their behalf. The tea party movement also pushing for very conservative lawmaking, want to see something other than a capitulation here. So my guess is that the Republican majorities will actually try to come up with some kind of compromise in the days and weeks ahead.

FARNSWORTH

13:36:02
There's an effort to try to just use the external, I guess we could call it a jelly on the belly ultrasound, to deal with trying to satisfy some of these concerns. But it creates a significant problem in this legislative session. But in addition...

FISHER

13:36:20
Well, we're going to have to leave it there. But thanks very much Stephen Farnsworth, professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. And when we come back, after a short break, we'll get into the African-American History Museum. Ground was broken this week on a glorious new building going up next to the Washington Monument. Well, what will go inside that building? We'll find out after a short break. I'm Marc Fisher, sitting in on The Kojo Nnamdi Show.
Transcripts of WAMU programs are available for personal use. Transcripts are provided "As Is" without warranties of any kind, either express or implied. WAMU does not warrant that the transcript is error-free. For all WAMU programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative version. Transcripts are owned by WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio and are protected by laws in both the United States and international law. You may not sell or modify transcripts or reproduce, display, distribute, or otherwise use the transcript, in whole or in part, in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the express written permission of WAMU. All requests for uses beyond personal and noncommercial use should be referred to (202) 885-1200. 
During a month when the abortion and contraception debate peaked -- again -- you would've thought the Sunday political shows would feature a larger than usual roster of female panelists, strategists and experts.
Not a chance.
There were a total of four female guests during the entire month of February. This bears repeating. Out of 56 guests on the Sunday shows, only four were women. Four.
This statistic probably reminds you of Republican Rep. Darrell Issa's contraception hearing two weeks ago in which his panel of witnesses was composed entirely of men who were summoned to discuss health care for, you know, women. In fact, on the following Sunday's edition of Meet the Press, the all-male Issa hearing was discussed at length by David Gregory, Paul Ryan and Chris Van Hollen, who we can assume are each biologically male. Smart booking choices.
Sadly, the men's locker room on Sunday morning is a virtual bridal shower when compared to the increasingly aggressive He-Man Woman Hater's Club known as the Republican Party.
We begin with the voice of the party, Rush Limbaugh. The "Spanky" of the club.
Yes, I get it. We shouldn't pay attention to Limbaugh because he's a clown. He's nothing more than an over-drugged over-paid disc jockey who's performing a loud-mouthed Morton Downey, Jr. routine for the much coveted paleoconservative "market segment," as David Frum called it. All of this is true, but we can't ignore the fact that he controls the radio with more than 15 million weekly listeners. So whenever he says something awful on our public air, it has a significant impact. For example:
"Why is contraception so important that it must be paid for by somebody else?" he demanded to know. He asked why contraceptives are "a must-have" in comparison to toothpaste, hotel rooms or a car. "Why are so many people afraid of birth?"
I wonder if it was the use of toothpaste to prevent pregnancies or if it was his alleged inability to achieve an erection that prevented him from having children during any of his three marriages. Speaking of which, I wonder if his health insurance plan paid for the Viagra he was allegedly trying to smuggle into the Dominican Republic several years ago. While we're here, I wonder why he needed ED drugs in the Dominican Republic in the first place without any female partners with him on the trip. And if he was indeed planning to have anonymous sex (just guessing) in the Dominican Republic, I wonder whether he considered contraception to be "so important" during that potentially dangerous activity.
OK, I'm grossing myself out now. Moving on.
Over the last two days, Limbaugh reminded us in no uncertain terms of his legendary hatred of women. Since his show began in the late 1980s, he's profited from attacking women and women's issues practically every day. The term "Feminazis" only skims the surface of Limbaugh's misogyny. Lately, he's highlighted his professional class and morality by teasing and mocking the Obama girls. And here's what he said this week about NASCAR driver Danica Patrick, who dared to express her support for the president's contraception law:
"She was talking, Danica Patrick was talking about Obama's contraception ruling. She was not speaking in general though it applies generally... She said, "I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for America." ... What do you expect from a woman driver?"
That's not all. Last week, Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke spoke to an informal gathering of congressional Democrats about the Jesuit college's refusal to cover birth control as part of its health insurance plan. Fluke told lawmakers that contraception can cost a law student up to $3,000 and a classmate recently lost an ovary because she couldn't afford the contraception drug that would've prevented the reoccurance of ovarian cysts. (How many "potential lives" were lost when that ovary, and its lifetime supply of unfertilized eggs, was removed?)
Here's what Limbaugh had to say about Fluke's testimony.
"What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps."
The most popular radio talker in the world just called an ordinary citizen a slut and a prostitute in front of 15 million people. 15 million Americans tune in specifically to hear him say horrendous things like that. Many of those listeners fancy themselves to be "dittoheads," meaning they blindly "ditto" everything that comes out of his increasingly slurred yapper.
And that's not even the worst part of this reinvigorated conservative war against women.
In state legislatures from North Carolina to Pennsylvania, Republicans are pushing laws that force the usage of transvaginal ultrasound probes to be inserted into the bodies of women who are in need of an abortion. It's a form of state-mandated rape and it's being mandated by the so-called "small government party."
And while Virginia and Alabama Republicans backed away from the transvaginal transducer, North Carolina already has a law on the books, and Pennsylvania is getting ready to pass its version of the transvaginal law. All of these states, irrespective of whether they keep or jettison the transducer, will continue to sanction the use of ultrasounds on women as means of intimidating them against having the procedure. Remember during the health care reform debate when Republicans blew a gasket over Medicare paying for end-of-life counseling? They said it was somehow shoving government into a private matter between doctors and patients even though it simply made this voluntary discussion affordable. But now they're doing exactly that -- shoving government into a private medical decision in the most literal sense imaginable.
Your modern Republican Party has decided that a one percent increase in taxes for multi-millionaires is an impeachment-worthy high crime, but the state-mandated insertion of an electronic device into the vaginas of women who are ostensibly struggling with the most difficult moments of their adult lives is a perfectly acceptable exercising of government power. (By the way, these are the people to whom Ron Paul -- the self-proclaimed guardian of liberty -- would hand the reins of, well, everything.)
Well before these new laws were introduced, including the personhood laws dictating that life begins at conception and therefore outlawing many forms of birth control, hundreds of women across the country were convicted and sent to prison because they had miscarriages. More than 300 women in South Carolina. 40 women in Alabama. Illinois prosecuted a woman for manslaughter after she gave birth to a stillborn baby. As of June, 38 states had passed "fetal homicide" laws. The consequences? Pregnant women who are suffering from drug addiction or mental illnesses are afraid to seek prenatal medical attention for fear of being arrested. It's increasingly evident that being pregnant and in distress is almost as bad as being an illegal immigrant in America.
If Republicans were really interested in making it easier for women to carry pregnancies to term, they would pass laws to make the process safer and more affordable. Instead, they're criminalizing it. We can only assume they're not truly interested in fetuses or zygotes or babies who, by every other piece of Republican legislation, are on their own once they're born. They're simply interested in dominating and oppressing women because they believe women are genetically incapable of making difficult and otherwise very private life choices. Listen to Limbaugh's rants -- unburdened by the demands of politically correct language -- and the truth emerges. Women are sluts and prostitutes. They hate their own biology. They're dingbats who can't drive. The words of the de facto leader of the Republican Party, preaching to millions of dittohead acolytes.
Again, why else are they passing these barbaric anti-woman laws and not laws that make pregnancy -- laws that make womanhood -- easier? We can only draw the conclusion that the Republican Party hates women.

Is Rick Santorum Missing JFK's Point On Religion? 29FEB12

THE person guilty of waging war on religion isn't Pres Obama, it is rick santorum. His Christianity is nothing like the Christianity I was baptised in, confirmed in, taught in Sunday school and is my faith today. I was taught to believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, salvation through belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and the promise of Heaven. I was taught the compassion of Christ, that Christians and the Church living lives based on the teachings of Christ are the best examples of Christianity for the world. The Beatitudes, Mathew 25, and the parables of Jesus concerning prayer, forgiveness, self-righteousness, wealth, poverty, humility, mercy, and compassion are the the lessons I try to keep in my life in my relationships with my family, friends, coworkers, and any others I  encounter in my life. And I remember I am human, and a sinner, and fail to live up to the hopes of my God, but the mercy of God grants absolution and I keep going in my faith, doing the best I can.
I do not recognize Christianity in rick santorum's constant use of lies, deception, and manipulation in his political campaign (check out PolitiFact 
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=santorum )and have to question what god he is really serving in his campaign for president; the god of lust for power and wealth or God the Father of the Holy Trinity. santorum rails against social moral decay in America, condemning abortion, the LGBT community, birth control, and tolerance of non-Christian faiths without being able to backup his beliefs and political platform with New Testament scripture. His social policies and most definitely his economic policies cause harm to the poor, to children and to families and favor the rich and powerful, the exact opposite of the basic teachings of Jesus Christ. If he really believes he represents Christianity in his campaign for president I can honestly understand why non-believers I know are disgusted by him. rick santorum does not represent the Christianity I believe in, and I have to believe he doesn't represent the Christianity a vast majority of Americans believe in either. This from NPR......
Then-Sen. John F. Kennedy participates in a question-and-answer session with the Ministers' Association of Greater Houston on Sept. 12, 1960, in Houston. In a speech to the group, Kennedy addressed concerns about his Catholicism and his run for the presidency.
Enlarge Houston Chronicle/AP Then-Sen. John F. Kennedy participates in a question-and-answer session with the Ministers' Association of Greater Houston on Sept. 12, 1960, in Houston. In a speech to the group, Kennedy addressed concerns about his Catholicism and his run for the presidency.

When GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum was growing up, he says, John F. Kennedy was a hero in his Catholic home.
In a speech last year, he said he had always heard glowing reports of Kennedy's speech about religion to Protestant ministers in 1960.
"And then very late in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech and I almost threw up," Santorum told a group of college students last year. "You should read the speech. In my opinion, it was the beginning of the secular movement of politicians to separate their faith from the public square."

Watch Kennedy's 1960 Speech

Credit: JFK Presidential Library And Museum
In his Sept. 12, 1960, speech in Houston, then-Sen. John Kennedy said:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Read the full transcript at the JFK Library website.
Santorum said Tuesday that he regrets his graphic language. But he insists Kennedy's view was wrong, particularly the opening, when Kennedy said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote."
On Sunday, Santorum told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that Kennedy set the foundation for expelling faith from politics. "What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come in the public square and make their case?" he asked rhetorically.
But Shaun Casey, who teaches politics and religion at Wesley Theological Seminary and who authored a political biography of Kennedy called The Making of a Catholic President, says he thinks that's "a radical misunderstanding of what Kennedy was trying to convey in that speech."
Casey says Kennedy would have been "booed off the stage" if he implied there was no place for religion in public life. He says Kennedy was explicit: While religious leaders should not tell politicians how to vote, they can and should instruct politicians on faith and morals.
The speech has to be read in context, Casey says. Kennedy was running in a political climate that was openly hostile to Catholics.
"And the primary issue is the accusation that Catholicism represents a church and a state, that inevitably to be Catholic means you want to have a Catholic-dominated state — and that Catholic leaders will coerce Catholic politicians to make that so," Casey says.
Fifty years later, the political climate is vastly different.
"In 1960, the issue was differences between religious affiliations — such as between Protestants and Catholics," says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron.
Green says many Protestants considered the pope to be a threat. Now, conservative Catholics and Protestants have joined forces — and they consider the big threat to be secularism.
"The conflict seems to be placed around the level of religiosity — with more traditionally religious people in most, if not all, religious communities having different views about politics than those who are more progressive or more liberal or less traditional," Green says.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, shown at Temple Baptist Church in Powell, Tenn., on Wednesday, says John F. Kennedy set the foundation for expelling faith from politics.
Enlarge Mark Humphrey/AP Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, shown at Temple Baptist Church in Powell, Tenn., on Wednesday, says John F. Kennedy set the foundation for expelling faith from politics.
He says Santorum is finding a receptive audience among conservative, white evangelical Protestants: He won 51 percent of them in Michigan and is favored among them in polls nationwide. Indeed, Santorum says the Obama administration is waging a war on religion, even claiming that the president practices a "phony theology."
And the president is not the only target.
"One of the reasons I think Santorum is talking about religion is also to shine a bright light on his opponent Mitt Romney's reticence to talk about religion," Casey says. "So it's not just about getting the record 'straight' on JFK and attacking Democrats. It has the added benefit of shining a bright light on the fact that Mitt Romney ... is very hesitant to address the issue."
Romney is a Mormon, and polls suggest that makes many Republican primary voters uncomfortable. Romney tried to address that issue five years ago, in a speech modeled on Kennedy's. But unlike 50 years ago, Romney's speech does not appear to have put voters' concerns to rest.

 

28 February 2012

Ultrasound Bill Passes VA Senate 28FEB12 & Amy Poehler Returns To 'Weekend Update' For 'Really?!?' With Seth Meyers On Birth Control (VIDEO) 19FEB12

MEN deciding what is best for women. I just don't get it, when are women going to flex their political muscle and put an end to being treated as second class citizens? Here's Virginia's latest assault on women's health and rights.....and REALLY !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!! with Seth and Amy of SNL (click the link at the end of this post).....

Today, the Virginia Senate passed the mandatory ultrasound bill (House Bill 462), which requires women seeking abortion care to first have an ultrasound in a separate encounter for the purpose of demeaning and shaming women seeking reproductive health care.
Contact Governor McDonnell to tell him to VETO this overreach of the government. Call him at 804-786-2211 NOW and email him by clicking here. It has never been more important to make your voice heard. Tell him the government should not be interfering with personal, private medical decisions that should be best left to women and families and their doctors. 

Does taking action make a difference? Yes it does! Here's what the Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition accomplished during our Day of Action on Feb. 23rd: we made over 7,000 calls to Virginians about HB1 the so-called 'Personhood' bill; HB 62, which would have cut funding for low-income women seeking abortions due to severe fetal anomaly; and the mandatory ultrasound bills. The results?
> HB 1 'Personhood' has been recommitted to Senate Education & Health committee and moved to 2013!
> HB 62 didn't pass out of Senate Finance today! It is passed by indefinitely.
Add your voice to the movement and tell Governor McDonnell to VETO HB462, mandtory ultrasounds!
You can share this news and critical opportunity on your Facebook, Twitter and listservs by clicking here. Thank you for taking action today!

And from the Washington Post

RICHMOND — The Virginia Senate voted Tuesday for a scaled-back version of a contentious proposal that would require women to undergo external ultrasounds before abortions, but not the transvaginal ones.
The 21-19 vote in the Republican-controlled Senate — mostly along party lines — came after Gov. Robert F. McDonnell asked legislators to soften the bill following protests on Capitol Square and mocking on national television, including “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “Saturday Night Live.’’
McDonnell, an abortion opponent who had said he would sign the bill, asked lawmakers to amend the measure after it became clear the original legislation would have required a vaginal ultrasound in most cases because abortions usually occur in the first trimester.
The Senate amended the bill to exclude women who have reported to law enforcement that they are victims of rape and incest. But women who know that their fetus suffers from birth defects would have to undergo an ultrasound.
Two Democrats — Sen. Charles Colgan (Prince William) and Phil Puckett (Russell) — voted with Republicans. One Republican, Sen. John Watkins (Chesterfield), voted with Democrats.
Because another amendment was added to the bill on Tuesday, the measure goes to the Republican-dominated House of Delegates for approval before it heads to McDonnell for his signature.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/331282/saturday-night-live-really-with-seth-and-amy-birth-control

THE NUN





A soldier ran up to a nun. Out of breath he asked, 'Please, may I hide under your skirt. I'll explain later.'

The nun agreed. A moment later two Military Police ran up and asked, Sister, have you seen a soldier?'


The nun replied, 'He went that way.'

After the MP's ran off, the soldier
crawled out from under her skirt and said, 'I can't thank you enough
Sister You see, I don't want to go to Afghanistan.'

The nun said, 'I understand completely.'

The soldier added, 'I hope I'm not rude, but you have a great pair of legs!'


The nun replied, 'If you had looked a little higher, you would have seen a great pair of balls....I don't want to go to Afghanistan either !!

23 February 2012

ATTACK ON GIRL SCOUTS!!!!! 23FEB12

THIS is pathetic, a sad commentary on the state of our society and especially of some of the "religious" communities in our country. Please sign the petition in support of the Girl Scouts!
DAILY KOS
Some conservatives have decided that there is a new evil spreading throughout our land: the Girl Scouts.

Click here to add your name to the petition supporting the Girl Scouts, before this new attack spreads.

Because the Girl Scouts do not denounce birth control, non-Christians, or the LGBT community, a growing number of wingnuts have decided that the youth organization promotes abortion, paganism and "homosexual lifestyles." Some churches have even begun kicking out Girl Scout troops:
Several Girl Scout troops in Chantilly, Va., have been banned from meeting at a local Catholic church and a neighboring school.[...]

According to the Arlington Diocese, the pastor did not believe the National Girl Scouts membership to the World Association of Girl Guides & Girl Scouts aligned with the message of the church, stemming from a perceived connection between WAGGGS and Planned Parenthood
The anti-Girl Scout fringe also has at least one elected official on its side: Indiana Republican State Rep. Bob Morris refused to vote for a resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts because after "talking to some well-informed constituents" and conducting "a small amount of web research," he determined that the Girl Scouts are a "tactical arm of Planned Parenthood" that encourages "homosexual lifestyles."

Don't let social conservatives smear the Girl Scouts for promoting tolerance, diversity and responsible education. Click here to add your name to the petition supporting the Girl Scouts.

Thanks for all you do,
Chris Bowers, Daily Kos

Franklin Graham Calls Obama's Religious Beliefs Into Question 21FEB12

I have heard a lot of people make comments about Billy Graham and Franklin Graham not being Christians because of their conservative values. I have defended both, pointing out Billy Graham and the BGEA has never been rocked by financial or sexual scandals and that Billy Graham has confessed to errors in judgement concerning his statements on political and social issues (Nixon, the Vietnam war, Jews) and that the story of Franklin Graham is like that of the prodigal son. And I told those who would judge the Graham's faith to leave the judging to God. Franklin Graham has plenty in his life to cause some to question his claim to being a Christian, so who is he to question the claim of Christianity by Pres Obama? Franklin Graham, there is nothing in your judgement that is Christian, and you definitely are no BILLY GRAHAM! From HuffPost.....

Barack Obama
Evangelist Franklin Graham called President Barack Obama's religious views into question on Tuesday, stating that he does not know for sure if Obama is a Christian.
Graham, who is the son of Billy Graham and the CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Obama "has said he's a Christian, so I just have to assume that he is."
"All I know is I'm a sinner, and God has forgiven me of my sins... you have to ask every person," he said about whether he could say for sure that Obama is indeed of the Christian faith.
However, when asked about GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's religion, Graham gave a much more concrete answer.
"I think so," Graham said when asked if he believes Santorum is a Christian. "His values are so clear on moral issues. No question about it... I think he's a man of faith."
MSNBC's panelists questioned the reverend's double standard, but Graham continued to draw distinctions between the candidates on the issue of faith. On Mitt Romney, Graham was again evasive, stating that "most Christians would not recognize Mormonism as part of the Christian faith."
But Graham was more willing to label Newt Gingrich's faith. "Newt's been married several times... but he could make a good candidate," Graham said. "I think Newt is a Christian. At least he told me he is."
Later in the segment, Graham also said he could not be sure that Obama was not a Muslim.
"All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries," he said.
He continued, "Islam sees him as a son of Islam... I can't say categorically that [Obama is not Muslim] because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama."
Graham drew the criticism of the White House last spring when he suggested in an interview with ABC that Obama had not been born in the United States.
During that same interview, Graham also questioned whether Obama's actions and values matched up with his identification as a Christian.
"Now he has told me that he is a Christian. But the debate comes, what is a Christian?" Graham said of Obama. "For him, going to church means he's a Christian. For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith and we have trusted him as our lord and savior."
Watch Graham's full interview on MSNBC:
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc1260d3" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=46464672&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc1260d3" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=46464672&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

21 February 2012

The Gas Wars (IT IS TIME TO FIGHT BACK!) 21FEB12 & Oil Slicks: Who Benefits From Gambling on Gas Prices? 22FEB12

THERE'S never been a better time to put pressure on Congress to end the federal subsidies for big oil than now, while they are reaping huge profits from speculator driven high oil prices. It is time for people to stop bitching about the high cost of gas and actually try to do something about it. E mail your Representative here https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
and your Senators here http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm 
and Pres. Obama here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact 
and demand subsidies for big oil companies be ended now. And share with others if you like.
Below is an article explaining just what is going on with gas prices. Some may not like the political spin and linking Republicans to the interest of big oil. It is a fact that there are plenty of Democrats in Congress who are controlled by the oil and gas lobby, but it is the Republican Party that has blocked all attempts to repeal the subsidies for the oil and gas companies the past two years. All of Congress must be held accountable for ending these subsidies, so e mail your Rep and Senators and try to do something about this, or BOHICA every time you fill your tank.....
Nothing drives voter sentiment like the price of gas -- now averaging $3.56 a gallon, up 30 cents from the start of the year. It's already hit $4 in some places. The last time gas topped $4 was 2008.
And nothing energizes Republicans like rising energy prices. Last week House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans to take advantage of voters' looming anger over prices at the pump. On Thursday House Republicans passed a bill to expand offshore drilling and force the White House to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The tumult prompted the Interior Department to announce on Friday expanded oil exploration in the Arctic.
If prices at the pump continue to rise, expect more gas wars.
In fact, oil prices are rising for three reasons -- none of which has to do with offshore drilling or the XL pipeline.
The first, on the supply side, is Iran's decision to cut in oil exports to Britain and France in retaliation for sanctions put in place by the EU and United States. Iran's threat to do this has been pushing up crude oil prices for weeks.
The second, on the demand side, is rising hopes for a global economic recovery -- which would mean increased oil consumption. The American economy is showing faint signs of a recovery. Europe's debt crisis appears to be easing. Greece's pending bailout deal is calming financial nerves on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Bank of England and European Central Bank are keeping rates low. At the same time, China has decided to boost its money supply to spur growth there.
Neither of these would have much effect were it not for the third reason -- overwhelming bets of hedge funds and other money managers that oil prices will rise on the basis of the first two reasons.
Speculators have pushed crude oil to $105.28 per barrel, up 35 percent since September. Brent crude, Europe's benchmark, is now $120.37 a barrel -- also worrisome because many East Coast refineries use imported oil.
Funny, I don't hear Republicans rail against speculators. Could that have anything to do with the fact that hedge funds and money managers are bankrolling the GOP as never before?
But that's okay. The gas wars may come to a screeching halt before too long, anyway. So many bets are being placed on rising oil prices that the slightest hint the speculators are wrong -- almost any sign of expanding supply or declining demand -- will set off a sharp drop in oil prices similar to the record one-day fall on May 5 of last year.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Oil Slicks: Who Benefits From Gambling on Gas Prices?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/oil-slicks-who-benefits-f_b_1294906.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Anybody who doesn't believe that energy speculators can change election results might want to ask Gray Davis, the former Governor of California who was removed in a recall drive partly prompted by voter frustration over California's ongoing energy crisis. Only afterwards did we learn that the crisis was caused by speculators who backed his opponents' deregulatory agenda -- and benefited from it.
Coincidence? We report, you decide.
And anyone who doesn't believe that gas prices affect election results might want to ask former President Jimmy Carter. If the 1980 election hadn't turned out the way it did we might be living in a very different world.
Today gas prices continue to rise, despite the fact that demand for oil is lower than it's been in the last fifteen years. Are speculators affecting our fate again? That's the subject of heated technical debate, although I find the evidence very compelling. But here's something to consider: The prime suspects for oil speculation -- Goldman Sachs, the Koch Brothers, etc. -- are the people who are fighting tooth and nail to make sure government never has the power to investigate their actions.
Here's the California scenario in a nutshell: Deregulation unleashes the dogs of speculation on energy markets, driving up prices and creating scarcity. A moderate Democrat loses office as a result, turning the reins of power over to a Republican who calls for ... more deregulation.
Could it happen again?
Speculation Speculation
People keep debating the question, just as they did in 2008: Are speculators affecting oil prices? Skeptics point to the crisis in Iran and recent signs of increased demand as real-world factors that could affect prices. But end-user demand remains low.
I find the pro-speculation arguments compelling. But the professional approach to any financial question requires us to "put the 'anal' in 'analyst,'" so the most professional thing to say is: We don't know for sure. And we can't know for sure until the government gets the authority and the resources to investigate fully. (More about that in a minute.)
Here's what we do know: Oil prices rose while demand fell. Futures and other financial instruments have allowed all sorts of people to bet on the oil market, along with other commodities markets, for more than twenty years. And whenever demand and prices don't track together, something is happening that we can't see.
If prices are rising based on expectation that things will get better in the future, that suggests speculators are at work. And if they fall whenever there's a sign of an upcoming economic storm, that also suggests that prices are being driven by intermediaries who are gambling on the future rather than suppliers responding to demand.
Those intermediaries happen to be the same people who keep lobbying to make sure we don't have the ability to find out what's happening or the authority to stop it.
The Skeptics
Some of the people who reject the idea that speculators are at work are also defending a separate but related idea: That oil is a limited commodity and we're overly dependent on it. That's true, and some people are afraid that the "speculator" argument will be seen as a blank check to continue our over-reliance on oil.
But two things can be true at the same time: Speculation may be affecting the price of a commodity that will nevertheless continue to grow in direct and indirect cost, meaning that we should therefore begin reducing our dependence on it.
The Case
Why is the case for oil speculation prices so compelling? Not only is there that mysterious divergence between demand and price, but there are also convincing analyses like the one Michael Masters did which linked the last price surge to $60 billion in speculator purchases.
Twenty years ago, speculators purchased roughly 30 percent of the world's future oil deliveries. As of 2011 that number has risen to 70 percent. They wouldn't be doing it if there weren't money to be made. It's hard to believe that they would stake trillions of dollars merely on the wisdom of their educated guesses -- especially if they had the opportunity to manipulate the results instead.
You can count Goldman Sachs among the believers. Last year it issued a warning that speculation was getting out of hand and driving prices too high. Since Goldman was present at the creation of the speculation market, it has a lot of credibility on the topic. Nobody knows more about Frankenstein's monster than Dr. Frankenstein himself.
Speculation/Manipulation
Speculation is one possible cause of rising prices. Another is outright price manipulation, as took place in California.
If we have no clear proof that speculators are driving prices, that means we also lack proof of outright manipulation.
How do we get proof? There are three possible scenarios: One is that speculators are innocent of any wrongdoing, and aren't even hurting the economy. Another is that they're acting legally, but destructively, which may spur calls for new legislation. And the third is that some of them are engaged in criminal behavior.
The way to find out is through government investigation, and by strengthening the regulatory power of the appropriate agencies. But look who's blocking those actions.
Cui Bono?
As the old prosecutors used to say, Cui Bono? Who benefits? The people who would have both the motive and the opportunity to manipulate markets are the same people who are blocking real investigations.
Wall Street firms have been at the forefront of blocking even the mild financial reforms of Dodd/Frank -- reforms which include increased limits on their ability to gamble in the commodities market.
Energy distributors like the infamous Koch Brothers also have both motive and opportunity. The Koch Brothers own oil suppliers and distributors, and introduced the first oil-indexed Wall Street swap way back in 1986. As suppliers, they can influence price. As speculators, they can make a fortune.
Wall Street firms and energy distributors also happen to be pouring enormous sums of money into Washington to make sure they're never subjected to meaningful regulatory oversight. They're in bed with a number of prominent politicians, especially in the GOP. (Ten years ago they were literally "in bed" with one another, since Sen. Phil Gramm's wife was on Enron's board even as Gramm pushed the deregulation of oil speculation.)
Who else benefits from rising oil prices? Republican politicians, who have been using them all week to attack the President and Democrats in general.
Coincidence? We report, you decide. To be clear, we're not suggesting that anybody's sinking tens of billions of dollars into oil purchases just to decide this year's election. There are probably cheaper ways to purchase democracy. But if it is all coincidence, it's all working out pretty nicely for somebody.
A Populist Issue
As we said in the beginning, we can't know for sure what's behind these oil prices. But what we can know is that we don't know -- and that our government should have the resources to track these markets and intervene when they're being misused.
Some people believe the oil price boom may be ending, and that's possible. But with so much that's hidden from view, we can't know. If they continue to rise that could change the course of the upcoming election and lead the President to defeat.
Fortunately there are things he can be doing now that would greatly benefit the country, and parenthetically would also help his reelection efforts. Last year he announced an investigation into possible oil speculation, but it was underfunded and seems to have gone nowhere. The President should immediately ramp up that effort and give it real resources.
Secondly, the President should mount a strong defense for financial regulation and make the case for strong oversight of commodities trading. He can point to rising oil prices, should they occur, and tell the public that his opponents won't give him the resources he needs to handle the problem.
Third, he can point to GOP-backed moves like the amendment passed in Congress last week which would force U.S. taxpayers to keep guaranteeing big banks' speculation in oil and other markets as a sign of what this battle is really about: economic security for the many vs. government-guaranteed greed and speculation for the few.
To be sure, this latest move had "bipartisan" support, as so much dangerous deregulation has in the past. (This picture serves as a harsh reminder of Clinton-era coziness with Wall Street.) But that's exactly the kind of bipartisanship the President should reject: the bipartisanship of corporate politics.
That's a route the President would be well-advised to take. Should he? Yes. Will he? We don't know -- and we're not in the business of speculating.
We discussed oil prices last week with Thom Hartmann in his television show, The Big Picture: