Trump, Pro-Life and Punishing Women.

It’s a question Chris Matthews always hits pro-lifers with, attempting to take their position to its logical conclusion: so who would you prosecute? Would you punish the woman, the doctor?  I’ve seen Mr. Matthews do this for years. Dozens of times.  Today, he finally made headlines with it, because the questioning was directed to the candidate who hasn’t learned the tortured logic and rhetorical tricks of the trade to avoid the clear, direct and honest answer.

Trump makes an ‘honest’ mistake –  a mistake of honesty.  Because really, if you are pro-life, the only coherent position to take is that yes, a woman should be punished:   if you believe the fetus is a life, with a right to life, and that abortion is murder, then you have to punish the woman if she is complicit in the act or she is requesting and contracting a doctor to perform an abortion.

An analogy:  If a man hired a contract killer to murder his wife, would you only punish the contract killer?  Of course not.  Then why, in the case of the ‘murder’ of a child, would you only punish the doctor hired to do the job, who is merely acting at the will of the mother – is in fact, being contracted and paid by the mother?

If there were pro-life laws that recognized the right-to-life of the fetus, and the law required the punishment of the doctor but total amnesty for the mother – it is doubtful such a law would survive a legal test, since it is by nature arbitrary or discriminatory in its enforcement.

Pro-lifers are angry at Trump because he laid bare the incoherency of their official position:  abortion is murder, but we would never punish the mother.

Pro-lifers explain they have never been in favor of punishing the woman, because they consider the woman a ‘victim’ in the situation.  How patronizing! This seems far more misogynistic than the alternative. They rob women of all autonomy and agency, casting them as helpless, unwitting pawns controlled by the ‘culture of abortion’ – as if they are incapable of making their own choices and decisions.  Even juveniles are punished for murder. Somehow women are below even children?  They are now in the category of the mentally ill or intellectually disabled, unaccountable for their actions?

Trump quickly reversed himself, perhaps for the first time diluting his brand as the no-B.S. non-P.C. straight-talker who tells it like it is.

I think Trump should have stuck to his guns, and called out Cruz — and any other pro-lifers who criticized him — for being total pro-life phonies.

 

 

Trump, Pro-Life and Punishing Women.

Will Carson win Iowa?

Carson is getting major attention for taking the lead spot in recent Iowa polls. He’s the first candidate to overtake Trump anywhere, and a win in Iowa might be the key to derailing Trump’s national momentum.

Carson is riding the unique evangelical dynamic in Iowa, which went for Pat Robertson, Huckabee and Santorum in past elections.

However, I think there is a real possibility that another evangelical could swing into Iowa and unseat Carson at the last minute, by attacking him on his evangelical bona fides.

National media is focusing on his appeal and network among the home school demographic. However, a very influential figure in that arena is not supporting Carson and points to areas of Carson vulnerability on the abortion issue, which is the ultimate litmus for these voters.

Trump has keyed in on Carson’s Seventh Day Adventist denomination. It’s perceived by some to be on the fringe (or could be portrayed to be by a PAC-backed attack ad), and this certainly could be exploited to make Iowa evangelicals skittish on Carson.

A Carson key advisor is under scrutiny for supporting the Nation of Islam – again, more fodder.

Finally, Carson has said a lot of things that could be used in ads to portray him as unelectable…scaring off Iowa voters at the last minute.

And then there is the time he attempted to murder someone.

It all adds up. So what will the modern day Lee Atwaters do with this?

Several candidates like Rubio, Cruz and Bush are sitting on piles of Super PAC money. They are keeping their powder dry. But watch what happens the last couple weeks in Iowa.

Any of those guys could go on a suicide mission of mutually assured destruction and spend $30M to saturate Iowa airwaves in the final week and take down Carson.  Then, someone else will emerge to win the evangelical vote and take Iowa.

Will Carson win Iowa?

Congressman calls Trump a Democratic Plant

Echoing my post from 8 days ago, today Huffington Post reports Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) is now suggesting Trump may be a Democratic plant…a phantom candidate put forth by Democrats to sabotage the GOP.  You heard it here first!

Also today, Trump takes the lead in national polls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/14/donald-trump-democrats_n_7797154.html

donald_trump1

Congressman calls Trump a Democratic Plant

Media Stumbling Towards the Truth

In a discussion on the Trump train wreck today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Alex Wagner called Trump a “plant” by the Democratic Party. She was merely joking, and all the co-hosts chuckled. But two days ago, I put forth the very argument that Trump is purposefully damaging the GOP on behalf of himself (all evidence is that he’s a Democrat) and Hillary Clinton (a friend and frequent beneficiary of his political donations).

Before you dismiss it as wild conspiracy theory, read the full post here.

Meanwhile, MSNBS reports that Trump now leads the Republican field in North Carolina and somebody, somewhere is doing their best Hannibal Smith impression: “I love it when a plan comes together.” Daa-da-da-daa, duh-duh-duuuuh!

Hannibal

Media Stumbling Towards the Truth

Trump is a Tool. No, really.

Donald Trump is a tool. And I mean it in the best way. Although I assume the pejorative sense may apply too.

What I mean by tool:  His entire campaign is a “utilitarian” exercise in service of Hillary Clinton.

Maybe I’m stricken with a conspiratorial mood because I just finished reading “Nixonland“, a 750-page tome which included a highly entertaining and detailed chapter on how President Nixon, in 1972, interfered with the Democratic primaries:  sabotaging with ingenious dirty tricks the candidates he feared (Muskie and Humphrey), creating and keeping rumors of a Ted Kennedy candidacy alive just to disrupt any emerging consensus among Democrats, while leaving McGovern (his preferred and eventual opponent) untouched.

So actually, this is not UFO, Elvis-is-alive conspiracy theory. Dirty politics happen. It’s real. And if anyone is capable of Nixon-level political knife fighting today, it has to be the Clintons.

So let’s look at the facts:

1. Mr. Trump has been a major, consistent contributor to past campaigns of Hillary Clinton.

2. Mr. Trump contributed $100K to the Clinton Foundation.

3. Historically, Trump has contributed far more to Democratic candidates than to Republican candidates, helping key Democratic figures like Reid, Schumer and Pelosi win re-election.

4. The Clintons were invited, and Hillary Clinton attended Mr. Trump’s last wedding in 2005.

5. In June, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Mr. Trump was asked which of the last four presidents is his favorite. His answer?  Bill Clinton.

6. Wall street loves Hillary.  Mr. Trump knows that his business interests will have no greater ally than another President Clinton.  In the current political climate, where even Republican candidates feel pressured to address wealth inequity and economic injustice, where Huckabee, Santorum and others are even sounding downright populist, Mr. Trump (and the rest of the Wall Street elite) knows that only Mrs. Clinton can protect their interests while placating the would-be progressive, pitchfork reformers with symbolic victories such as being the first female President.

7. Look at the actual results of Mr. Trump’s utterly ridiculous campaign and whose interests are served. He’s very purposefully making outlandish, far-right extremist statements, that:

  • put him in the top-of-fold headlines everyday, increasing the value of his brand and celebrity status,
  • give him zero chance of winning the nomination — ensuring he can return to business soon,
  • tarnish the entire Republican brand by association, and
  • exert pressure on the entire field of other Republicans to move rightward for fear of being outflanked, making them ultimately less electable in presidential matchup with Hillary where they will compete for the moderate swing voters.

8. Mr. Trump is effectively dividing the GOP between far right and establishment. He’s primarily leveling attacks on the “establishment” candidates (aka the opponents Mrs. Clinton most likely fears, like Bush, Rubio, Perry), while leaving the more fringe candidates (Santorum, Carson, Huckabee) untouched and undamaged. A likely result is that one of the more fringe candidates will rise to the top (similar to McGovern in 1972).  Even if an establishment candidate survives the attacks to clinch the nomination, Mr. Trump will have inserted the wedge between this nominee and the more conservative wing of the party, depressing enthusiasm and turnout for the Republican in the general.

I rest my case. Hillary Clinton has a tool.  And with Mr. Trump’s comment on Morning Joe, he’s even telegraphing it, having the last laugh.

Trump is a tool

Most conservative members of the media have already denounced him as a distraction and embarrassment to the GOP. Will they next connect these dots?

I can only assume the more liberal members of the media are ignoring the possibility of dirty tricks and treating it as a genuine candidacy because they actually relish the chaos it’s causing the GOP too much to blow the whistle.

Trump is a Tool. No, really.

The Wrong Iraq Question

The GOP candidates are all stumbling over the Iraq question: “Knowing what we know now, what is a mistake to invade Iraq?”

But the real question is “Know what we knew then, what is a mistake to invade Iraq?”  This was the fulcrum on which 2008 tipped to Obama over Clinton. (Obama had opposed the war at the time, while Clinton voted to authorize).

There was enough information at the time, to make the right decision. People with the requisite good judgement, wisdom and courage opposed it at the time, knowing what we knew then.

The hindsight qualifier of “what we know now” makes the question so easy as to be meaningless.  Sure, it’s surprising that Republicans can’t give a simple straight answer. But even more curious: why are journalists serving up this pointless softball to the Republican field?

The Wrong Iraq Question