General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[gus]

I don't think I ever said Ryan was "moderate" (he's clearly not and no disagreement with your points on abortion), only that he has shown some willingness on occasion to compromise. It doesn't really speak to Ryan's voting record per se, but the linked article from today's WSJ lays out his efforts to find some common ground with Democrats on budget issues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_6

But if I may rephrase, perhaps the more salient point from an election standpoint is that Ryan has had notable success in convincing voters in his traditionally blue/purple district of the merits of his views and/or to otherwise trust in his stewardship, at least based on the margins with which he has been elected. This is no mean feat, and also part of the rationale for his selection as Romney's running mate.

I was a little loose with the language. You said his voting record was moderate, but I challenged that. I think his voting record is among the most conservative in congress.

I was unable to read your WSJ link (it's behind a firewall), but everything I've read on Ryan is that he is cordial, but uncompromising. These are probably good traits for a VP (assuming one agrees with his policies).

[luvdahops]

I was a little loose with the language. You said his voting record was moderate, but I challenged that. I think his voting record is among the most conservative in congress.

I was unable to read your WSJ link (it's behind a firewall), but everything I've read on Ryan is that he is cordial, but uncompromising. These are probably good traits for a VP (assuming one agrees with his policies).

I did indeed say moderate in my original post, but that wasn't really what I trying to convey. Hopefully my follow up clarified at least a bit.

[Mal]

I think you're largely on point here, and you hint at the Democratic parry to Ryan: they will paint his "deficit hawk" reputation as a facade, because he voted for bailouts (TARP), Medicare Part D, and stimulus under Bush, and that since military spending cuts and (increased) taxes are off the table, they'll say he's just not serious about the deficit.

At the moment, Todd Akin is a huge gift to the Obama campaign (in addition, of course, to numerous Democratic congress-runners). Paul Ryan's co-sponsored 8 separate anti-abortion bills with Akin, including the recent (of highly dubious constitutionality) personhood amendment. Whatever Ryan's reasons for supporting those bills, he's now being linked to Akin all over the place, and so instead of talking about economics, everyone's talking about his rather extreme anti-abortion positions. And since they're talking about the federal personhood amendment, people are also now starting to talk about how Romney came out in support of allowing states to pass their own personhood amendments, which would in some cases attempt to ban such things as birth control pills, IUD's and in-vitro fertilization. These are disastrous subjects for the Romney campaign, and having them come into the discussion through Akin makes it virtually impossible for them to cry foul play or accuse the other side of just making things up to distract from the real issues.

If and when the Democrats do get back to Ryan's budget plan, I'm very, very interested to see where that conversation goes, and what the media treatment of it is. The Dem's have a lot of work to do to break down the cw right now. Ryan's almost universally lauded in the mainstream press for his "seriousness" and wonkishness, dedication to small government and deficit hawkishness, and some moderateness that is (in my admittedly biased opinion) completely unsupported by his actions. The ammunition to break down that cw is there, in abundance, if Democrats message correctly, but it's difficult to get the media to turn on the image it's invested in for a politician. Fully admitting that the foregoing and following may sound partisan, but I'm pretty sure it's not sniping . My policy leanings are probably evident enough throughout this thread and board, so I'm just noting that there are multiple, clear avenues of attack here that can potentially serve Obama well, if he can get the public focused on the actual specifics of Ryan's economic policy, instead of the prevailing aura of respectability attached to its author. As cspan notes above, of course, Ryan's preference for severe economic measures just coincidentally kicked into high gear around January, 2009. There's also the fact that his actual proposal from last year includes over $4T in tax cuts over a decade, almost exclusively to the wealthiest and corporations, and would significantly add to the deficit rather than trim it. It wouldn't actually balance the budget until (projected) around 2050. He covers about 1/4 of those tax cuts with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and the like, and says the rest will come from unspecified deduction eliminations and such (which could never realistically even come close to closing the gap, but would presumably eliminate things like the extremely popular mortgage interest deduction). He includes in the savings tally almost a trillion in Medicare savings anticipated to materialize through ACA, despite the fact he and Republicans want desperately to overturn it. The Medicare voucher scheme in his budget has been roundly criticized by health care experts as not realistically anticipating actual cost, leaving senior citizens to come out of pocket for estimates ranging from $2-5k annually (not current senior citizens, of course, but those currently under 55, who wouldn't be as prone to riot in the streets over this). He intends to eventually reduce defense and non-entitlement discretionary spending to 3.5% of GDP, where it's never been since we became an industrialized economy or world leader. And he wants to do this despite the fact that defense itself is more than 4% of GDP now, and Ryan hasn't specified any actual defense cuts.

Newt Gingrich himself called Ryan's plan "right wing social engineering." Piling on my point in re: sporthenry's post up above, I think it rather remarkable, frankly, that his budget proposals are characterized as serious and deep, rather than exceptionally far to the Right. Reagan would have fainted if someone proposed some of the things Ryan has. The specifics I've outlined above are not speculative or hyperbolic - they're right there in his budget and the public record: shouldn't that stuff be a political goldmine for Democrats? I think it's an interesting window on where we are politically as a nation right now - either we've drifted very far to the Right of where we were even ten years ago, as a populace we've become completely incapable of discussing policy in any depth and placing it on a spectrum, or Democrats have really lost any ability to control the conversation. Perhaps some combination of all three.

As to the race for President, of course, perhaps it's not even worth it for the Obama campaign to spend much time or energy on Ryan. He is, after all, just the VP candidate, so it can be a double-edged sword for the incumbent - there's a fine line between making Romney squirm over the things his VP nom has proposed, and looking like you're scared of the VP nom.

[OldPhiKap]

The only thing less popular than the President is Congress, particularly the House of Reps. I think the Obama administration will simply tie Romney to that through Ryan and then paint with a broad brush.

[gus]

Apparently I'm no longer allowed to give feedback to mal anymore either.

At any rate, I think the GOP approved a plank that supports the substance of Akin's statements:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...y-platform/?hp

"...the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed..."

Considering how conservatives tend to interpret "infringe" in other contexts, I don't think this leaves room for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or even the health of the mother. Regardless of whether they actually mean what they wrote, I think the GOP is making it very easy for the Democrats to tie any Republican running to Akin and his comments.

[Olympic Fan]

Update as of 10:21 ET Tuesday morning -- Akin insists that he's staying in the race in a statement on Mike Huckabee's radio show. He cited a post-gaffe poll that shows him still up one point (the consensus of the polls before the gaffe had him up five, although there was an outlier that had him up 11).

He also talked about his remarks, insisting that he "misspoke" one word. Instead of "legitimate rape" he meant to say "forcible rape" ... to be sure, his original mistake touches a concern that I know some conservatives have -- that if they write a rape exception into the abortion rules, a lot of women will claim rape weeks after the fact when none took place.

Without getting into that issue, what surprises me is that he stands by what was to me the most astonishing part of his controversial comment -- that women have a biological safeguard that shuts down their reproductive system when they are raped and prevents pregnancy.

I don't want to get partisan here, but checking that out, I find that there ARE anti-abortion advocates who believe that. From what I understand, that claim has been pretty emphastically debunked by the medical establishment. I'm just curious, but do any medical people on this board give Akin's theory any credence?

And answer me this -- if he had said (as he claims he meant to) the same thing with the word forcible substituted for legitimate would this have blown up?

[gus]

And answer me this -- if he had said (as he claims he meant to) the same thing with the word forcible substituted for legitimate would this have blown up?

I don't think so, but it's hard to say. Like I said above, his stance fits squarely into the GOP's plank on abortion, and misunderstanding science hasn't gotten republicans in much trouble before.

[Duvall]

And answer me this -- if he had said (as he claims he meant to) the same thing with the word forcible substituted for legitimate would this have blown up?

Yes, but not as much. The attempt to distinguish "forcible rape" would still rightly outrage many women, and the "shut it down" language would still be frighteningly ignorant. But it wouldn't have ignited quite as large a firestorm.

[Tom B.]

At any rate, I think the GOP approved a plank that supports the substance of Akin's statements:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...y-platform/?hp

"...the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed..."

Considering how conservatives tend to interpret "infringe" in other contexts, I don't think this leaves room for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or even the health of the mother. Regardless of whether they actually mean what they wrote, I think the GOP is making it very easy for the Democrats to tie any Republican running to Akin and his comments.

It's the same plank that was in the GOP platform in 2004 and 2008, but now it obviously takes on greater significance because of Congressman Akin's remarks. Some Democrats are already calling it the "Akin plank" (now, really, who didn't see that coming a mile away?).

Aside: One angle of the narrative that hasn't been played up yet, but that I expect Democrats to pick up on, is the fact that Akin is not some Tea Party insurgent who just recently appeared on the political scene. He's been in Congress for over a decade, so he's a known commodity in Republican circles and has had at least the tacit support of the Republican establishment. Makes it just a little harder for the party to distance itself from him now and say, "Oh, gee, we had no idea he thought that."

[Olympic Fan]

Aside: One angle of the narrative that hasn't been played up yet, but that I expect Democrats to pick up on, is the fact that Akin is not some Tea Party insurgent who just recently appeared on the political scene. He's been in Congress for over a decade, so he's a known commodity in Republican circles and has had at least the tacit support of the Republican establishment. Makes it just a little harder for the party to distance itself from him now and say, "Oh, gee, we had no idea he thought that."

And, of course, Akin and VP choice Paul Ryan have co-authored eight anti-abortion bills in the House ...

[Tom B.]

He also talked about his remarks, insisting that he "misspoke" one word. Instead of "legitimate rape" he meant to say "forcible rape" ...

. . . .

And answer me this -- if he had said (as he claims he meant to) the same thing with the word forcible substituted for legitimate would this have blown up?

Probably, if he still tied it to the whole "shut it down" nonsense. Setting aside the, um....highly dubious notion that the trauma of a "forcible" rape prevents pregnancy from occurring, let's take a closer look at the implications of that statement. In essence, what he's saying is that if you get pregnant, you weren't really raped. Drugged and then raped? Sorry, not real rape. Statutory rape? Nope, not real rape. And if you were raped by force or threat but still somehow got pregnant, too bad -- it must not have been "forcible" enough because, after all, you got pregnant, and we all know that doesn't happen with true forcible rape. So sorry, not real rape.

It all hearkens back to the days when laws criminalizing rape actually required proof of "force" and, in many instances, required proof that the woman "forcibly resisted" before it would be considered rape. Somewhere along the line, legislatures began deciding that maybe it wasn't a great idea for the law to say it's not a criminal act unless the victim does something in the course of the act that very well could put her at even more risk of being harmed or killed. So laws were gradually amended and the focus shifted from whether there was "force" to whether there was "consent." Akin's revised comments just dredge all of that nasty history back up and feed the larger meme that Republicans want to take us all (especially women) back to the 1950s, or before. I just don't see any of that going over well with most women, and a lot of men.

But regardless of whether or not there would have been a similar uproar if that's what he'd said originally, man....talk about throwing gasoline on a fire now. By saying that what he really meant to say was "forcible" rape, he's practically screaming for everyone to take special note of the legislation that he co-sponsored with Paul Ryan (and a bunch of other Republicans, to be sure), which used the exact same language.

Somewhere, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and Romney's entire campaign staff are banging their heads against their desks.

[gus]

I don't think so, but it's hard to say. Like I said above, his stance fits squarely into the GOP's plank on abortion, and misunderstanding science hasn't gotten republicans politicians in much trouble before.

Let's amend that to be non-partisan, and still totally accurate.

[Bluedog]

Without getting into that issue, what surprises me is that he stands by what was to me the most astonishing part of his controversial comment -- that women have a biological safeguard that shuts down their reproductive system when they are raped and prevents pregnancy.

I don't want to get partisan here, but checking that out, I find that there ARE anti-abortion advocates who believe that. From what I understand, that claim has been pretty emphastically debunked by the medical establishment. I'm just curious, but do any medical people on this board give Akin's theory any credence?

I'm not a doctor, but just from a google search, it does appear that there are some scientific studies that have shown that women achieving pleasure leads to an increased likelihood of pregnancy. I don't know the rates of climax for women with forcible rape, but I'd imagine it's much much less likely. Basically, studies have shown that women who are stressed in general have a harder time conceiving. Relaxation is very important and those who have endured such a terrible incident likely will not be relaxed for quite some time. Obviously, that doesn't mean that one cannot still get pregnant; simply that studies have shown high stress leads to a decreased chance of pregnancy. And perhaps climax plays a role in that too.

Incidentally, I am NOT agreeing with Akin's statement at all. Just want to make that clear. I am simply answering the question that it does seem that conception rates may perhaps be lower due to the high stress of the incident and perhaps lower rates of orgasm. But, again, that's not the "body shutting down" and rejecting it. And, if one is particularly fertile, I doubt it makes much of a difference at all. So, Akin probably took the above information and extended it to a much more extreme level.

Here's an article from the BBC in 1998:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/167186.stm

[Tom B.]

UPDATE: Good news for Congressman Akin -- looks like he isn't being completely abandoned by every Republican elected official.

And Kirk Cameron is in his corner as well. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[gus]

I'm not a doctor, but just from a google search, it does appear ...Here's an article from the BBC in 1998:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/167186.stm

I think you're giving Akin far too much credit.


A more directly relevant paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

"RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45);"

[Bluedog]

I think you're giving Akin far too much credit.


A more directly relevant paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

"RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45);"

Again, I'm not giving Akin credit. I'm simply saying that he probably took studies saying individuals are less likely to get pregnant during periods of high stress and extended it tremendously by saying the body shuts down and it doesn't happen in cases of forcible rape. Or maybe he didn't base his comments on that and completely made it - that's certainly possible. Is the 5% pregnancy rate higher, lower, or the same as the "normal" rate? I have no idea...Obviously, even if it is "less likely" that doesn't equate to "doesn't happen." I personally find Akin's comment ridiculous.

[Mal]

Update as of 10:21 ET Tuesday morning -- Akin insists that he's staying in the race in a statement on Mike Huckabee's radio show. He cited a post-gaffe poll that shows him still up one point (the consensus of the polls before the gaffe had him up five, although there was an outlier that had him up 11).

It's been a little funny to watch some of the reaction to that poll, which was done by PPP, a D-leaning pollster. Some on the R side pushing for Akin to step aside have been theorizing it's a deliberate attempt by PPP to provide enough of a flotation device to Akin to keep him around past today's withdrawal deadline. I think it's way too early to learn anything by polling such an issue literally the day after it occurred. It hasn't had time to sink in with many and has just been filtering out in the media, so it's quite possible he'll sink further as this saturates over the coming days. Then again, if any weight can actually be placed on this poll, it would also make the point (for either Akin or the establishment trying to oust him) that it might not much matter who's running against McCaskill, as both Republicans and Democrats don't particularly like her. She's spent a lot of time trying to burnish her conservative/moderate credentials in a quixotic attempt to appeal to the rightward moving red part of Missouri, while at the same time antagonizing whatever actual liberals live there by very publicly breaking with the President and Majority Leader on a number of issues. I'd theorize that this episode, while certainly a game changer, will mostly cause some who'd otherwise vote for him because they don't like McCaskill or the President to just sit it out when Election Day comes, or vote in the Presidential race but leave the Senate ballot spot blank. But not so many it puts McCaskill over the top - she was going to get smoked before this episode.

Aside - throaty, gus, stop talking 'bout my sporks! Blushing over here.

[gus]

UPDATE: Good news for Congressman Akin -- looks like he isn't being completely abandoned by every Republican elected official.

And Kirk Cameron is in his corner as well. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

I think rep. King is being misrepresented here.

The headline says "Steve King: I’ve never ‘heard of’ statutory rape victims becoming pregnant"

What he actually said: "Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way", which I parse as "I don't personally know someone who has become pregnant from a statutory rape". There's a big difference between those statements.\

eta - I say "I think" because to be fair, his statement isn't exaclty clear.

[Tom B.]

eta - I say "I think" because to be fair, his statement isn't exaclty clear.

True -- but you'd think that someone in his position, when speaking on this subject, at this particular time, might want to go that extra measure to make sure that he is clear.

[77devil]

If and when the Democrats do get back to Ryan's budget plan, I'm very, very interested to see where that conversation goes, and what the media treatment of it is. The Dem's have a lot of work to do to break down the cw right now. Ryan's almost universally lauded in the mainstream press for his "seriousness" and wonkishness, dedication to small government and deficit hawkishness, and some moderateness that is (in my admittedly biased opinion) completely unsupported by his actions. The ammunition to break down that cw is there, in abundance, if Democrats message correctly, but it's difficult to get the media to turn on the image it's invested in for a politician. Fully admitting that the foregoing and following may sound partisan, but I'm pretty sure it's not sniping . My policy leanings are probably evident enough throughout this thread and board, so I'm just noting that there are multiple, clear avenues of attack here that can potentially serve Obama well, if he can get the public focused on the actual specifics of Ryan's economic policy, instead of the prevailing aura of respectability attached to its author. As cspan notes above, of course, Ryan's preference for severe economic measures just coincidentally kicked into high gear around January, 2009. There's also the fact that his actual proposal from last year includes over $4T in tax cuts over a decade, almost exclusively to the wealthiest and corporations, and would significantly add to the deficit rather than trim it. It wouldn't actually balance the budget until (projected) around 2050. He covers about 1/4 of those tax cuts with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and the like, and says the rest will come from unspecified deduction eliminations and such (which could never realistically even come close to closing the gap, but would presumably eliminate things like the extremely popular mortgage interest deduction). He includes in the savings tally almost a trillion in Medicare savings anticipated to materialize through ACA, despite the fact he and Republicans want desperately to overturn it. The Medicare voucher scheme in his budget has been roundly criticized by health care experts as not realistically anticipating actual cost, leaving senior citizens to come out of pocket for estimates ranging from $2-5k annually (not current senior citizens, of course, but those currently under 55, who wouldn't be as prone to riot in the streets over this). He intends to eventually reduce defense and non-entitlement discretionary spending to 3.5% of GDP, where it's never been since we became an industrialized economy or world leader. And he wants to do this despite the fact that defense itself is more than 4% of GDP now, and Ryan hasn't specified any actual defense cuts.

As you suggest, there is an ample record in Ryan's votes in the House if the dems want to attack his seriousness on fiscal matters. Ryan voted for at least 4 major unfunded programs that contributed significantly to the current structural deficit and national debt: Medicare part D, two wars off the books, and the 2001 tax cuts.