Brook(s) No Evil

To the list of one-issue voters (e.g., supporters of Israel, pro-choice or anti-abortion champions, environmental advocates), David Brooks of The NY Times wants to add another—Medicare cost containers. He wants you to cast a vote for the candidate who “can slow the explosion of entitlement spending (Medicare) so we can devote more resources toward our future.” He reluctantly, it seemed to me, believes it would be Mitt Romney, unless Barack Obama can come up with a credible alternative plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/brooks-guide-for-the-perplexed.html?_r=1&hp).

I applaud his willingness to cross party lines in the latter case, but regret his narrow-minded argument. Though it’s true spending on Medicare (Medicaid and Social Security, as well) must be contained, Republican budgets with their no-new-taxes foundation fail to balance for at least 10 years, during which time Romney-Ryan and their acolytes will have gutted all investment in our future—investments in education, in infrastructure, in the arts, in parks and recreation, in support for the disadvantaged, in women’s health, in the environment. In short, in everything but the military (perhaps they realize they’ll need a strong armed forces not to defend us from outside attack but from a revolt from within. Just kidding, I hope.)

Simply put, a vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote into the past, a vote to solidify the polarization of our society economically, socially and educationally, though not politically, as that has already been achieved (a rather ignominious, but nevertheless accurate, descriptor). 

Obama is not the perfect candidate, but at least he plausibly addresses our needs for the future. By focusing just on Medicare, Brooks fails to see the dangers lurking in a Romney presidency. He’s like the Naderites who cast an absurd ballot for Ralph Nader in 2000, thereby condemning the country to the tragedy of George W. Bush, whose mess Obama has had to clean up, with no assistance from Bush’s Republican mates. 

The headline of Brooks’ column was “Guide for the Perplexed.” What is perplexing is how a normally astute and reasoned commentator could be so narrow-focused when Medicare is but one challenge facing the country.

Akin for More: Speaking of one challenge, it’s easy to focus on and deplore Todd Akin’s misguided and ill-informed views of rape, women and their reproductive systems. It’s easy to dismiss them as an aberration, not just by Akin but also by any other Republican who shares those ideas. 

The true measure of Akin and the problem or benefit Republicans have being associated with him, depending on one’s political point of view, is his advocacy of other extreme positions including, according to Sean Sullivan of The Washington Post, an end to federal support for the National School Lunch Program, his comparing federal student loans to stage 3 cancer, and his belief that civil rights should be re-litigated. 

Akin is a deeply religious man. That appeals to many Missouri voters. But his reactionary positions on social welfare issues, not just abortion, demonstrate he has very little compassion for his fellow man, woman or child. 

Money Votes: Campaign finance is one of the big stories this election season, what with all the “soft” money going into funds, especially conservative leaning ones, that do not have to disclose their donors. Coupled with Romney out-muscling Obama for the third month in a row in raking in millions of dollars in disclosed campaign contributions, the GOP looks like it is winning the vote among those willing to put their money on the line. 

But for those who missed an intriguing story in Tuesday’s NY Times, here’s a different read of the political winds. Under the headline, “Investors in Health Care Seem to Bet on Incumbent,” the article revealed how companies with a stake in the future of Obamacare have made acquisitions based on their belief the president would be re-elected 

(http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/investors-in-health-care-seem-to-bet-on-incumbent/).

What If ...

I don’t normally watch Hardball with Chris Matthews, but the Yankees game hadn’t started yet and I had a few minutes to kill while doing the dishes last night. I tuned in at the end of Hardball, in time to hear Matthews describe what would happen if Romney-Ryan were elected. If you vote for Mitt Romney you get the “March of the Clowns,” said Matthews, enumerating the likes of Bachman, Trump and other extreme politicos who would shape a list of regressive disasters known to most intelligent observers and already delineated by your faithful correspondent back in January. I’ll spare you the details, but here’s a link in case you don’t remember what I wrote: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2012/01/america-of-our-past-and-future.html.

What prompted Matthews’ outrage Monday was the Todd Akins affair. For anyone not familiar with this ultra-conservative Republican congressman running to unseat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri, he espoused Sunday, before partially recanting, a theory that when a woman is “legitimately” raped, her body “has ways to try to shut the whole thing (meaning, pregnancy) down,” thus negating the need for an abortion. Akins opposes all abortions.

Beyond the repulsiveness of what Akin said about rape and his utter failure to comprehend and empathize with women who are attacked sexually, Akin has performed a public service. He is proof-positive this election is about more than just the economy. Social issues, the right to an abortion being one of them, are very much at stake.

Akin exposed a basic belief among many Republicans, that there be no exceptions for abortions. It’s all part of the Republican war on women that includes shutting down Planned Parenthood, requiring invasive gynecological ultrasounds before legal abortions, and efforts to ban contraception. Though Romney said yesterday he would permit abortions in the case of rape or danger to the health of a mother, in the past he has supported a total ban. It’s another flip-flop, another example of not knowing what we’d get should Romney win. 

What’s more, a draft of the Republican Party platform to be adopted next week calls for a constitutional amendment banning all forms of abortion, according to CNN (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/gop-platform-abortion_n_1815021.html). Will Romney finesse that total ban out of the platform, or simply ignore it during the campaign, much as he has sidestepped specifics about his economic recovery plan and his taxes? 

His presumptive running mate, Congressman Paul Ryan, in linked to Akins. As Eugene Robinson pointed out in The Washington Post, “Last year, Akin co-sponsored a bill in the House that would have narrowed the exception that allows Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for women who are raped. The proposed measure would have permitted the use of funds only to end pregnancies resulting from ‘forcible rape.’ Paul Ryan, now Mitt Romney’s running mate, was another co-sponsor of the measure, which ultimately failed.

“The statutory rape of a child by an adult would not fit the definition the House Republicans tried to impose; nor would the rape of a woman who was drugged, say, or who had limited mental capacity. Never mind the fact that, as far as criminal law is concerned, rape is rape. Never mind the fact that all rape, by its very nature, is ‘forcible.’

“Akin’s assertion about ‘legitimate’ rape is really nothing but an attempt to blame the victim. It stems from the view that the only true victim is a woman who is raped while violently resisting a ski-masked assailant who came in through the bedroom window. Anything short of that, she must have been asking for it.”

Robinson also noted, “Akin, by the way, is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.” 

Hey, Chris Matthews—no need to send in the clowns. They’re already here.