Tonight John and Anita welcome accomplished TV Panelist, sportscaster and SarahNET Radio creator Kevin Scholla –we’ll be discussing the state of conservatism today, (with two who are not so conservative) the fiscal cliff negotiations, Sarah Palin‘s relevance going forward, the pressure to nominate a woman in 2016 and Hillary’s health scare and return to work…
Click HERE to listen at 7pm Pacific or any time after for the archive.
Parties with Pelosis shouldn’t throw stones at Palins
I found Kevin Scholla to be a very interesting, articulate guest with well-considered opinions. I do, of course, consider false many of the assumptions on which he bases those opinions. But we can only benefit from engagement and discussion with reasoning conservatives like Scholla, especially in hopes of finding common cause on issues like campaign reform and fiscal responsibility.
I was somewhat surprised by two of Anita’s comments. First, Anita related “how much I despise Claire McCaskill” only moments after gushing over Susana Martinez. My understanding was that Anita supported any and all female candidates regardless of their political stands. I’m puzzled why Martinez gets Anita’s blessing, but not McCaskill.
Second, Anita stated that she thought Sarah Palin “would make and excellent Energy Secretary.” This is a person who regards the incontrovertible scientific findings on climate change as “a bunch of snake oil”; who was fatuous enough to blame “the loss of sea ice, not oil and gas development” as the cause for listing the polar bear as an endangered species; is an ardent supporter of fracking; whose entire energy policy is wholly dependent on expanding domestic oil, gas, and coal production, with no provisions for efficiency or reduced consumption.
As governor, Palin glibly advocated a goal of deriving 50% of Alaska’s energy from renewable sources, but defined “renewable” as primarily nuclear plants and dams. Her energy study found more environmental concerns with tidal and wind than in opening up ANWR to drilling.
Finally, Palin’s repeated references to “domestic resources that God has created for us” hints at a pre-modern mindset unfit for grappling with the complex challenges of the 21st century.
In short, Palin would make as excellent an energy secretary as whoever was the forestry minister on Easter Island.
Tamerlane, I didn’t listen to the show, so don’t know the context, but my take on Ani’s statement re: McCaskill is that it is based on McCaskill’s totally obnoxious, untimely support for obama during the disaster that was 2008. Claire was emblematic of those many unthinking souls (I use that noun freely) who were proud to depend on their adolescent children’s opinions to decide what kind of crap to vote for during that fateful cycle. She was also emblematic of the women who abandoned a woman. I doubt that Ani would support any woman for political office. She puts much more thought and discretion into such choices.
I’m sure Anita would appreciate you going to bat for her, but what I hear you saying is: Anita has a hit list of anti-Hillary people on whom she seeks to wreak vengeance. If that’s her agenda, then so be it, but it conflicts with her avowed support of any candidate, so long as they’re a woman.
I’d be curious as to whether Anita would consider it “a woman abandoning women” for Gov. Martinez — until public pressure forced her to recant — to amend NM statutes to force a single mother seeking child support to prove that she was “forcibly” raped or else apply jointly for assistance with her assailant.
I agree with Anita’s stance of supporting women candidates regardless of their party affiliation because I believe political parity is vital not only to women’s equality but to our nation’s well-being. IOW, I think more women in political office is not just good for women but good for our country.
However, there is a fine line between supporting women and voting for someone who actively supports a misogynistic, or sexist, ideology. For instance, I could never vote for someone like Phyllis Schlafly, but I could vote for someone like Sarah Palin because, IMO, even though she is conservative, she is not anti-woman. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but perhaps Anita has deal breakers of her own.
Then surely you also condone blacks who voted for obama solely because of his race, and agree that any black delegates who supported Hillary were ‘abandoning’ their people.
Under this twisted logic, conservative atheists should have supported the socialist Pete Stark, log cabin Republicans should have embraced Barney Frank.
Identity politics is tearing to shreds the fabric of the American commonwealth, and the ‘elect women at all costs’ agenda only furthers that.
Supporting a candidate based solely on gender is a horribly ignorant thing to do. Thank goodness I don’t support people just because they’re gay — otherwise I’d have to call Andrew Sullivan ‘relevant’.
“perhaps Anita has deal breakers of her own”
I’m left with the impression that supporting obama over Clinton in 2008 is a “deal-breaker”, while sharing Todd Akin’s views on rape in 2012 is not. Please clarify if I am mistaken, or please rationalize if I am correct.
I can’t speak for Anita, but I would not vote for Akin, ever. And most likely wouldn’t vote for a woman if she held his views on rape and pregnancy.
To clarify, my voting stance is 1) look for the women, 2) if there are no suitable women candidates, look at the men, 3) if there are no suitable candidates, don’t vote. In November, I skipped the Senate race for reason #3.
And, yes, it’s true: I completely understand why black people voted for Obama. I think they voted against their best interests, but I understand why they did.
I also agreed with Scholla’s interpretation of anti-abortion advocates as “pro-baby, not anti-woman”. As I’ve stated often, if pro-lifers are correct — that abortion is the murder of a baby — then it’s proper they be so outraged. My conviction, of course, is that they are completely wrong on this key point, so I find offensive equating a brainless mass of cells with the thinking, feeling, smiling children lost in Newtown.
I dunno. I think “pro-baby” is a stretch. The anti-choice contingent doesn’t seem terribly interested in the welfare of the “baby” after it enters the world.
I do not believe that the impetus for the pro-life movement was: ‘hey, let’s think up new ways to subjugate women!’
There’s too much demonization today of people who hold opposing views, no more so than in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, where the positions are asymmetrical. No, pro-choicers don’t think women’s rights include murder, because they don’t see abortion as murder; No, pro-lifers don’t think women’s personal bodily choices can be violated, because they don’t see abortion as a personal bodily choice.
It is possible to understand why someone holds a position without agreeing with it. And I’d much rather engage with someone who’s logic is sound, but whose assumptions are false, than vice versa.
I do not believe that the impetus for the pro-life movement was: ‘hey, let’s think up new ways to subjugate women!’
I don’t either, but I do believe it does, in part, arise from the inherent cultural assumptions that a woman is property (as are the children she bears) and that it is her “place” to bear children.
It seems to me that the term “pro-baby” would best characterize a movement concerned with the health and well-being of infants and children (and mothers, since a mother’s health directly impacts her offspring). And I just don’t see that with the American anti-choice movement. They seem more focused on outlawing abortion, and access to birth control, than on legislation that positively impacts the lives of children. It’s really a bit of a catch 22 for anti-choicers, because a mother’s reproductive health is essential to the well-being of the children she brings into this world. Women must have access to reproductive care, including birth control and safe abortions, if we are to succeed in bettering the lives of infants and children, not just in America, but around the world. I would classify Hillary Clinton as “pro-baby” well before I’d apply that tag to people like Todd Akin (who I would never vote for, not even if he was running against Obama). I think it’s safe to say that there are as many “pro-baby” pro-choicers as anti-choicers, so IMO the term really only serves to muddy the already polluted reproductive rights debate, not clarify it.
I also think pro-lifers who oppose contraception and sex education are a bit hypocritical, to say the least.
I see the conservative religious view of women as subservient to men (and God) as parallel, not causal to their stance on abortion. But I don’t doubt that some pro-lifers — male and female alike — get a rise out of telling women what they can & cannot do.
Still, I find it best to accept the pro-life movements intentions at face value, but then compel them to define “life”, to explain why a pupa ought enjoy equal rights to a breathing individual, and specifically, what about the merger of a sperm and an ova is so special. And somewhere around that point, they start trampling the First Amendment.
Thank you Tamer for a balanced point of view.
Not trying to change any minds, but surely there is something wrong with this picture:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthoods-new-annual-report-we-did-333964-abortions-1-every-94-seconds
Yes, there is. With the United States grossly overpopulated, and increasing numbers of families on food stamps and child support, there should be even more abortions. Unless you want to start darting them.
Tamer, I can’t disagree with you. But as one who struggled with health care budgets, birth control is way cheaper..It is almost always dispensed at the same places that provide abortions.. Education is key, and the best way to keep abortion out of the hands of politicians is to keep abortion safe, legal, and infrequent. Giving birth control out with Happy Meals would be fine with me.
Of course birth control is cheaper than abortions, and healthier, too.
I’m glad we agree that as a back-stop, abortion is better than unwanted children on the dole.
If we want convert those 300K abortions p/a into contraception, we need to study the demographics of who’s having those abortions & why. Education fights an uphill battle against culture & conditions. I’d be very curious to see that data, but haven’t found it anywhere.
– meaning that, I haven’t seen that data presented honestly by either partisan side of the debate.
Tamer, I can only offer anecdotal opinions, based on experience. I’m not sure which comes first, but in no particular order; Certain cultures are too macho to take bc seriously, these same cultures almost never choose abortion, even when the mothers are clearly beyond exhausted,and their existing children often present with injuries and other signs of neglect. So while I would never say this out loud, I would support continuation of benefits being tied to use of birth control and/or sterilization.[pretend you didn't read that] That is why I am a strong supporter of Immigration reform, which is causing healthcare costs to go out of control, they will be worse under O care, and the undocumented still won’t be paying for anything..We simply can’t afford to babysit the whole third world, or if we want to, we must demand the cessation of unfunded wars, we can’t do both.
The overall abortion rate in NYC is now above 41% overall, but with numbers above 60% in the Black community. In NY State, medicaid covers abortion for its’ patients. The average cost to the taxpayer is around 500 bucks, barring complications and excluding follow up care. In a large metro area like NYC, this adds up to very big numbers.. Many of the younger girls use abortion as a method of birth control, and have multiple abortions, a massive abuse of a ‘right’, imo, not to mention failing to curb the epidemic of std’s. It seems all the rights in the world can’t fix stupid. Meanwhile private clinics proudly advertise ‘safe’ abortions up to six months, safe for whom ? Surely not the possibly viable fetus.
Clearly, am not referring to grownups who make a mistake, or who use methods that fail,they are few and far between and usually not on Medicaid.
Considering the staggering costs, it naturally follows that there is less money available to treat the non pregnant. In terms of budgets, it all comes out of the same pocket, so Medicaid has scaled back greatly on dental care, mental health care, the disabled, and children’s care… Even the Alzheimer’s patients are getting short shrift.. All of those folks are supposed to have ‘rights’ too, arent’t they? They just don’t have the really good lobbyists. Rights are supposed to be about freedoms, the abuse of those rights inevitably takes freedom from someone else.
I don’t doubt there are multiple studies around that dispute much of the above, I am simply sharing the view from my battlefield. In NY, everything’s political. I have almost no idea what goes on in other States, The scenarios may be completely different elsewhere.
I have some interesting statistics to add to your observations, but I think I feel a post coming on.
“I would support continuation of benefits being tied to use of birth control and/or sterilization.[pretend you didn't read that] ”
I’ve been advocating that (discretely) for some time. I think it would have a dramatic, rapid impact.
Tamer, to your comment; I don’t think either of us is trying to limit the ability of a family to procreate, or terminate, as long as they’re not doing it at public expense. Taxpayers need to choose, unlimited free births and abortions, or schools for all children with at least, enough textbooks ? Hmm.. The public often still deludes itself in thinking that these questions are about apples vs. oranges.In reality.they are not.