Posted by: Donna
Here’s AZ GOP Chair Bob Graham, standin’ by his man
“Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
PHOENIX – This afternoon Chairman Robert Graham of the Arizona Republican Party released the following statement in support of Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump.
“Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.” As Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and Executive Board Member of the Republican National Committee it is important to me to share my thoughts regarding Donald J. Trump.
Do you regret anything in your past? There is no explicable way to defend Donald Trump’s comments and their aggressive nature towards women from more than a decade ago…nor has he asked us to defend him. Donald Trump has sincerely expressed his regret and has apologized for his actions.
We understand when the leftist media condemns Republican candidates with bias. However, it is hard to understand why some are willing to surrender the principles and values we espouse as conservatives well-knowing that Hillary Clinton, if President, will systematically condemn our freedoms.
Leadership is more than stopping political mail, not campaigning for someone or making statements condemning a person’s comments made nearly a dozen years before–Leadership is making the tough decisions, digging in and sacrificing for beliefs and ideas greater than one person.
Donald Trump is a fighter and showed us all the fight that it will take to get our nation back on track. From lowering taxes, to protecting Americans, to replacing Obamacare — his plans are consistent with what our country needs and our citizens are longing for.
Secretary Clinton once again showed why she is part of the problem we have in America. Her answers were the same tired and unproductive government based solutions that she has talked a lot about over the last 30 years, but done very little to change.
Whether the image is Donald Trump surprised by a loving embrace from a family who lost their home in Louisiana or when he stands in front of thousands of supporters promising to make America great again…his love of nation and his love of the people of our nation is clear.
In the end, I will not condemn or abandon a man that has every right to forgiveness as I do. Nor will I give up on the people of this great nation. We must lead. It is my responsibility, as a member of the Republican National Committee, to elect our Republican nominees and defend our country against all enemies. Hillary Clinton is an enemy to our nation’s security, general welfare and blessings of liberty. I will continue to work with passion, integrity and restlessness to stop Hillary Clinton and elect Donald J. Trump.
Donald Trump has the same right to be forgiven and have everyone move on that Robert Graham does. It’s a sacrament belonging to wealthy white straight men. Everyone else, but especially you ladies and LGBT, your lot is a lifetime of pain and punishment, if not death, for your “sins”. In Graham’s view, it is better to have a (probable) rapist be President than a woman who would want to help a rape victim get a morning-after pill. Deplorable!
Posted by: Donna
Right wing dude barfed this “wisdom” up about Trump, in the wake of recent further revelations of what a nasty, rapey scumbag the GOP Presidential nominee is.
Faithful family man.
Stands by wife with M.S.
Went out of his way to hire women.
Dems: "WAR ON WOMEN!!!"
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) October 7, 2016
“It could be worse” is a common tactic of sexists attempting to shut down feminist opposition to sexism. In this case, Dan McLaughlin is cherry-picking a few personal aspects of Mitt Romney, while completely ignoring the actual problems Democrats had with his stances (anti-choice, anti-safety net, lack of concern for wage inequality, etc.) in 2012. Bad laws and policies toward women don’t harm us less because a genial, “G-rated” guy is doing them to us.
And as far as that goes, McLaughlin seems to have forgotten whom Democratic voters did send back to the White House in that elections. We put Barack Obama and his family back in, and I challenge anyone to find a clan more impressive and respectable than they. Democrats didn’t choose vulgarity over gentility, Republicans did when they nominated Trump.
Own your shit and stop trying to blame everything you screw up on liberals, Republicans, kthxbai.
Pence won the Theater Critics Award for his debate performance. Which is great for anti-choice liars.
Posted by: Donna
— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) October 5, 2016
One of the many things Indiana Governor and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Mike Pence lied about in his award-winning Tuesday night debate with Democratic nominee, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, was the stance on abortion held by Donald Trump and himself, namely that women should face prosecution for abortion.
Pence piously insisted, with a wistful shake of his head, that this would never happen:
“Donald Trump and I would never support legislation against women who make the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy,” said Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.
Oh my, heavens no! Never!
Yet Purvi Patel was sentenced to two decades in prison for self-inducing an abortion – called “feticide and neglect of a dependent” – in July 2013. Patel could hardly turn to her governor for help – it was Mike Pence.
A judge overturned the conviction, meaning she could walk free on 31 August after one year behind bars.
Patel was bleeding through layers of clothing when she came in a panic to her local emergency room three years ago. She admitted to staff that she had taken abortion pills. She came from a conservative family who would not have approved of her having sex outside of marriage. She had placed the foetus in a dumpster.
Two years later, the 34-year-old was facing punishment. Punishment that would span the majority of the rest of her life.
The fact that Donald Trump actually said, when caught off-guard by the question about it by Chris Matthews, that women should be punished for abortion, was conveniently forgotten by pundits, including Matthews himself, who breathlessly declared Mike Pence the “winner” of the vice-presidential debate for lying so skillfully.
The willingness of MSM people to put the comfort of conservatives ahead of truth and decency, and to hand them cookies and prizes for wording good and approximating human empathy, has been a real boon for anti-choicers. They are rarely confronted with their monstrous views on women and forced to defend them. When they are, as with the Trump-Matthews exchange, a sort of gentleman’s agreement ensues where we all have to pretend it never happened and give the more practiced anti-choicers the opportunity to refine the terrible position:
“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”…
…The Susan B. Anthony List chalked up Trump’s comments to his recent opposition to abortion rights and said punishments should only be dished out to “the abortionist.”
“As a convert to the pro-life movement, Mr. Trump sees the reality of the horror of abortion — the destruction of an innocent human life — which is legal in our country up until the moment of birth,” the group’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a statement.
And that works out fine for pundits who are super-duper careful about stepping around the feelings of right wing reactionaries. It’s not so great for women who have to deal with laws passed on the basis of the belief, as evinced by Mike Pence Tuesday night, that they are such stupid, heartless cretins that they wait until the “moment of birth” to terminate perfectly healthy pregnancies.
An MSM less smitten with “Mike Pence won cuz so polite!” might be asking why Mike Pence thinks so badly of women. They might also ask why he thought women should be forced to provide funeral services to an abortion or miscarriage.
The goal is to deny, deny, deny, their actual intentions, until they come to fruition. And then anti-choicers count on (as with Purvi Patel) people’s sexism, racism, misplaced trust in authority figures, and the Just World Fallacy to kick in.
The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person’s actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people’s misfortune on the grounds that they “deserve” it.
Just FYI, giving someone like Mike Pence a “win” for blatantly lying through an entire debate is a pretty forceful rebuttal of the above. Namaste.
Posted by: Donna
So this charming image has gone viral today.
— Saja Hindi (@BySajaHindi) October 3, 2016
I was thinking about my past involvement in candidate recruitment and training and about how difficult it is to get people to run for office as Democrats in Arizona. Many potentially great candidates resist the idea, citing (legitimate) fears of past mistakes or family skeletons being trotted out against them.
Women especially are petrified of being publicly humiliated, and why not? Look what is happening to the highly qualified woman who is seeking the office of President? Her husband famously cheated on her and this is somehow being turned into evidence of her moral perfidy, while her male opponent’s decades of gross behavior toward wives, female employees, relatives, and his possible rape history seem not to hurt him at all.
Girls are watching this and learning. They’re learning that any mistake they make may haunt them forever in their careers while their male counterparts are forgiven for much, much larger ones. They’re learning if they dare to be public figures and to seek powerful roles they will be savaged for it. Many will opt out of it, resulting in the continuation of low representation of women in elected office and other important positions.
Meanwhile, I’m sure one or both of the boys in that photo – should they grow up to be the kind of men their parents are raising them to be – could easily go on to prosperous careers as politicians.
Posted by: Donna
I was very pleasantly surprised by this, given that I’ve tangled with NT writers a time or two:
She is liberal, hear her roar. Local lefty firebrand Donna Gratehouse is an unrepentant Democrat and feminist in a state dominated by Republicans hell-bent on doing everything they can to restrict women’s reproductive rights as well as pissing on the poor every chance they get. No wonder Gratehouse is ticked off all the time, and she takes all of that righteous anger, wads it up, pours gasoline on it, lights it afire, and sends it hurling like a flaming bocce ball into the Republican night. Granted, her kills are purely rhetorical, but in a state dominated by Koch-brother suckups, ammosexuals (you know, gun nuts), and anti-abortion fanatics who wear lapel pins made to resemble little fetus feet, Gratehouse holds aloft the progressive flame like an Arizona version of Lady Liberty. Only, she’s more likely to take that flame and jam it up the backsides of some sexist pig tuskers, if given the chance. Rock on, Gratehouse. Rock on.
I especially appreciate them describing me as an “unrepentant Democrat”. As I’ve explained repeatedly, I’m definitely a fierce partisan Dem and don’t care if that makes me uncool. I turned on cable news for a few minutes this morning and watched as superannuated libertarian hero Ron Paul sort of endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, most likely because the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has been revealed to be such an uninformed doofus. Not that Stein is much better but Paul has to keep up his anti-partisan cred and his decades-long tradition of being the standard bearer of mostly ridiculous policy positions that sound great to stoned anarchists.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the two major parties aren’t responsive to everyone – though Democrats do the best they can to represent the most people – but I’m not going to pay much heed to constant carping about the “two party duopoly!” if the best the carpers can come up with as alternatives are gadflies with no serious plans and no intention of building an infrastructure to compete in most elections. Because infrastructure is so establishment, man.
Posted by: Donna
— David and Michelle (@David_M_K) September 28, 2016
Some people are not taking the endorsement well.
I was truly expecting the Arizona Republic to do their usual thing on a Presidential endorsement, where they ignore the gaping flaws of the Republican candidate and endorse him, on the basis of some horsepucky about national security or, as they did in 2012, because troubled economic times called for the “animal spirits” of the Republican candidate.
But they didn’t. For the first time in history, the Arizona Republic gave the nod to the Democrat, in what a Slate headline called a “mic drop” of an endorsement.
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.
That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
Thankfully they gave the job of writing it to Linda Valdez, so it is a genuinely good endorsement, not merely a perfunctory CYA-anyone-but-Trump deal. It makes a positive case for Clinton as well as laying out the problems with Trump sharply. But the best part of it is that it brings up SB1070, which is where many of us believe that the Trump phenomenon was germinated. The editorial warns the country not to make the same grievous mistake Arizona did in 2010, for which we’re still paying.
What’s more, Arizona went down the hardline immigration road Trump travels. It led our state to SB 1070, the 2010 “show me your papers” law that earned Arizona international condemnation and did nothing to resolve real problems with undocumented immigration.
Arizona understands that we don’t need a repeat of that divisive, unproductive fiasco on the national level. A recent poll shows Arizonans oppose both more walls and the mass deportations Trump endorses.
We need a president who can broker solutions.
I wish we could say the electorate of Arizona has absorbed the lesson fully enough to stop electing the Republicans who caused the mess to run the state but we’re not there yet. I do hope the Republic ed board is wise enough to built upon what they began with this Clinton endorsement and makes a choice in the US Senate race that is consonant with it. That would require endorsing Ann Kirkpatrick.
Let’s not forget how John McCain, who was headed for an easy reelection in 2010, enthusiastically embraced SB1070, the Tea Party, and ran ads promising to “build the dang fence!” Furthermore, he has done nothing to counter the massive GOP obstruction to President Obama, including their current obstinate refusal to give Merrick Garland’s nomination a hearing. For all the respect as a maverick he still (mysteriously) enjoys, in recent years McCain has shown little to no interest in anything but getting on TV to carp about President Obama. And he supports Trump, despite everything.
I make no prediction on how they’re going to go with the Senate race. The rapturous write-up they gave McCain for the primary race would seem to portend favorably for him, but he was running against whackadoodle Kelli Ward then. We’ll see.
Posted by: Donna
On the way down to do phonebanking early Wednesday evening I was half-listening to “All The Fresh American Things Considered” or whatever on NPR when they began a segment about young, disaffected voters considering voting third party. They spoke to two former Sanders primary voters, the first of whom was a 24 year old law student(!) who said he’d be voting for Green candidate Jill Stein because (paraphrasing) Hillary Clinton’s entire platform was hot neoliberal garbage from which he could not find a single position of hers he found acceptable (despite it having many similarities with Sanders’ platform and her and Sanders voting alike 93% of the time in the Senate together). Then they interviewed a young woman who said she knew Trump was awful but also felt that Hillary Clinton was “dishonest and inauthentic”. She was torn between Clinton and Gary Johnson, despite knowing that voting third party might help Trump.
We often deem these protest votes, in a system designed for two major parties, to be an act of throwing one’s vote away. But it’s worse than that, albeit admittedly not as bad as voting for Trump. The reason is that Stein and Johnson are real candidates, both of whom are running on policy preferences they apparently believe in.
As Jordan Weissmann of Slate explains, Stein’s platform is a mishmash of unworkable unicorn economic schemes laced with a heaping dose of unscientific woo.
Tucked into this long, starry-eyed list of progressive causes are a few lines that remind you of the far left’s fraught relationship with biological science. There’s a call not just to label genetically modified foods but to “put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.” Never mind that scientists have studied GMOs extensively and found no signs of danger to human health—Stein would like medical researchers to prove a negative. She would also “Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.” This is a nod to the discredited theory that some pesticides are driving the collapse of honeybee populations (which, by the way, are not actually collapsing). Again, this is somewhat standard stuff on the far left these days, but coming from a physician, it’s discouraging. It is also in keeping with the last official Green Party platform, from 2014, which supports the “teaching, funding, and practice” of “alternative therapies” such as naturopathy and homeopathy, i.e. funneling money into quack medicine. (Stein first ran for president as a green in 2012).
And Kevin Drum at Mother Jones can’t fathom why any liberal would find Johnson’s platform appealing, outside of legalized pot and a few civil liberties issues:
On the other hand, Johnson is a libertarian. Here’s a smattering of what else he believes:
He supports TPP.
He supports fracking.
He opposes any federal policies that would make college more affordable or reduce student debt. In fact, he wants to abolish student loans entirely.
He thinks Citizens United is great.
He doesn’t want to raise the minimum wage. At all.
He favors a balanced-budget amendment and has previously suggested that he would slash federal spending 43 percent in order to balance the budget. This would require massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and social welfare programs of all kinds.
He opposes net neutrality.
He wants to increase the Social Security retirement age to 75 and he’s open to privatization.
He opposes any kind of national health care and wants to repeal Obamacare.
He opposes practically all forms of gun control.
He opposes any kind of paid maternity or medical leave.
He supported the Keystone XL pipeline.
He opposes any government action to address climate change.
He wants to cut the corporate tax rate to zero.
He appears to believe that we should reduce financial regulation. All we need to do is allow big banks to fail and everything will be OK.
He wants to remove the Fed’s mandate to maximize employment and has spoken favorably of returning to the gold standard.
He wants to block-grant Medicare and turn it over to the states.
He wants to repeal the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax, the payroll tax, and the estate tax. He would replace it with a 28 percent FairTax that exempts the poor. This is equivalent to a 39 percent sales tax, and it would almost certainly represent a large tax cut for the rich.
Simply sitting out the election, or voting a pure protest vote by writing your own name or Mickey Mouse in, is throwing one’s vote away. A liberal voting for Stein or Johnson is infecting their protest vote with Ebola, especially if either or both receive enough votes to tip the Electoral College to Donald Trump. Like that unrepentant narcissistic fuckwit Ralph Nader before them, neither Stein nor Johnson will have the self-awareness or sense of shame to assume any blame for the horror a Trump presidency would unleash upon the U.S. and the world. Instead, they will convince themselves they have a mandate to double-down on their goofy, dangerous ideas and infect more elections.