What all “pro-life Democrats” must do to earn my trust.

26 Apr 2017 06:18 pm
Posted by: Donna

Oh yes, am watching this tonight.

There’s been an uproar on the left the past week over Bernie Sanders giving a full-throated endorsement to a Democratic Omaha mayoral candidate with a troubling anti-choice record (warning: autoplays) while seeming to give the cold shoulder to, then finally endorsing after much criticism, pro-choice Georgia candidate for Congress Jon Ossoff.

What has emerged from it, among other things, is confirmation of what we pro-choice feminists have long suspected about the econ populist wing of the left: that they view our reproductive rights as dispensable and a bargaining chip to win white voters in the Heartland. Viewing repro rights as a distraction (the word often used) is an astonishingly ignorant and tone deaf position to take on purely economic merits, since babies cost a lot of money and having them can greatly alter women’s earning prospects.

But even worse, these perennial demands on Democrats to be more open to abortion and (increasingly) contraception restrictions and to anti-choice Democrats running for office reflect a profound misunderstanding of the character and intentions of the anti-choice movement. Put simply, the organized opposition to abortion and contraception is a hate movement, every bit as dedicated to their particular brand of rabid misogyny as other hate movements are toward homophobia or anti-Blackness or anti-Semitism.

That may seem to be a shocking comparison but I would suggest people miss the obvious similarities for several reasons, among them leaders in the anti-choice movement being clergy or in other trusted authority positions. Also, antis find a disheartening amount of support for many of their views in the general public. It’s not difficult to convince a populace already disinclined to trust women with sexual freedom that some sensible measures are needed to stop irresponsible women from (say it with me now!) “using abortion as birth control” or aborting healthy 8 month pregnancies for no reason, even if they don’t buy the whole anti-choice program.

Make no mistake, though, anti-choicers fully intend to deprive all women of reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy, while brutally punishing (up to and including death) those they can for the “crimes” of being sexually active and rejecting compulsory motherhood. If you don’t believe me I don’t have time to educate you on this. Go read their websites and the comments sections.

Democrats, when you compromise with this movement on anything (and I’m not saying that’s always avoidable) know that you are helping to perpetuate their hatred. This isn’t a debate over marginal tax rates. Please stop believing you will find the magic compromise sweet spot that will finally put the debate to rest because I can promise you a committed group of organized sex-obsessed misogynists will never fucking rest! That “sensible” 20 week ban will be used to push for earlier bans, and also to prosecute women. Parental notification laws are used to terrorize young girls. Cuts to Planned Parenthood have devastating (intentional) outcomes. Et cetera and so forth

Anti-choicers are well aware of the consequences to vulnerable people of their policies. They want them. Don’t find common ground with them if at all possible.

But there are people who identify as both anti-abortion and Democratic, some of whom are politicians. There are areas of the country where full-throated support of abortion rights could be a problem for Democrats trying to be elected. There are people of all political affiliations who are uncomfortable with abortion because the anti-choice movement has done a damn good job convincing them they should be and also we live in a shitty patriarchy.

What to do about it? Is there, as we’re so often asked, room for pro-life Democrats in the Big Tent™? Sure there is. But if you want me to trust you and see you as an ally, you need to do this one thing. And I mean after you express support for all the parts of the Democratic platform that are good for women (and men and children too), such as universal health care, education, social safety net, equal rights, environment, etc. You need to oppose all abortion restrictions, especially if they involve criminal penalties of any kind.

Democrats describing themselves as “personally pro-life” who are already doing this include people like Joe Biden and Tim Kaine. It’s possible for Heath Mello to make the transition from a guy who sponsors mandatory ultrasounds and other anti-choice bills to an acceptable Democratic politician on choice (in behavior if not rhetoric).

Those of you considering yourselves pro-life Dems who can’t make the no-bans conversion? Sorry, but no. I’m unimpressed with your sincere commitment to economic justice and to helping women “choose life”. There is no political will at the national or most state levels to implement the European-style welfare system you insist would ameliorate that bans you also insist must be in place. It’s dishonest to pretend they would coexist. And even under this (purely hypothetical at this point) generous safety net, there will always be women who choose to terminate. Please stop assuming the default state of all persons with uteri is enthusiastic motherhood. You may have the best intentions but what you are really doing is playing Ivanka Trump, softening the image of a bunch of nasty misogynists.

Don’t be Ivanka.

Most Americans, despite aforementioned sympathies with anti-choicers’ views on women, don’t want to live in The Handmaid’s Tale. They want the space to be able to express their discomfort with abortion (which is in most cases really a proxy for female promiscuity) and, in the less-liberal districts, to have Democratic politicians reflect it back to them. It sucks, I know, but changing hearts and minds is the job of the pro-choice movement, not Democrats in tough districts. Democrats in those districts need to learn how to say things like, “I understand abortion is a difficult issue but it needs to be treated as a personal health and economic matter, not a criminal one”. And then not vote with the anti-choicers.

You know who created lots of jobs? (Rhymes with Gaydolf Ditler)

21 Apr 2017 01:39 pm
Posted by: Donna

I used to subscribe somewhat to the view of this bike shop owner, until SB1070 in 2010 made me scrutinize it really hard and then the election of 2016 and aftermath beat it completely out of me.

It seems plausible at first glance but there’s simply historical no basis for it. Racism has persisted throughout all kinds of economic conditions and, if anything, the election of Barack Obama twice, first in a recession and next when the economy was improving but unemployment was higher than it was four years later (when Donald Trump rode to an Electoral College victory on a supposed economic populist wave) would seem to indicate that tough economic times don’t necessarily predict racism in the voting booth. But I’ll leave it to the political scientists to debate if there is a correlation that goes either way.

I was thinking yesterday about how economic populism has been used in the past to cloak bigotry and brutality in virtue and (because Godwin’s Law has been obliterated) the obvious example of that came to mind. Looking for a historical account that wasn’t too much of a long reading haul, I found this school exercise the BBC prepared to help students understand how it arose.

Economic policies and benefits

Many German people had suffered during the First World War and the Depression, so welcomed Hitler’s economic policies with open arms. There was full employment, new public works and ordinary workers even had the opportunity to purchase a car to drive on the new autobahns [Autobahns: German motorways ].

Economic policy summary
Hitler’s economic policy had four main ideas:

Full employment – the idea that everyone should have a job. By 1939, there was virtually no unemployment in Germany.
Beauty of Work – the Nazis set up the SdA (Beauty of Work) to help Germans see that work was good, and that everyone who could work should. In fact – because the Nazis had abolished the trade unions, banned strikes, and given more power to the industrialists – real wages fell and hours were longer under Hitler.
Re-armament begun in 1935 – the idea of ‘guns before butter’.
Autarky – there was an unsuccessful attempt at making Germany self-sufficient.

The good life in Nazi Germany
Despite the loss of political and religious freedom, life improved in Germany for many ordinary people who were prepared to ‘toe the line’ and look the other way.

Everybody had a job, and a wage. To people who had been unemployed and starving, ‘work and bread’ was a wonderful blessing worth every civil liberty they lost.
The Nazis set up KdF (Strength through Joy), which gave workers rewards for their work – evening classes, theatre trips, picnics, and even free holidays.
The Nazis devised a scheme to allow workers to buy a Volkswagen Beetle car for a small weekly payment.
The autobahns improved transport and travel.
People appreciated the public works – eg new schools and hospitals.
The streets were safe and there was no crime.
Germany was strong and successful in world affairs.
Nazi rallies provided colour and fun.
Nazi Youth groups provided activities and holidays for young people.
Nazi ideology gave people hope and confidence.

Breaking unions is clearly not populist but the Nazis were careful to promise other things that were. And they made good on many of the promises. People (mostly men) were able to go back to work, public works projects were done, and some German industries (armaments for sure) flourished. Others did not fare so well.

Many Jews were sacked and their jobs given to non-Jews.
Many women were sacked and their jobs given to men.

As we all know it got much, much worse and, contrary to the beliefs of the bike shop owner and others, the bigotry was most assuredly not sorted out by the majority residents of Germany enjoying some increased economic prosperity.

Economic populism is a real thing and a necessary counterpoint to corporate and elite power run amok. Crucial planks of the Democratic Party include supporting a living wage, workers rights, the right to form a union, universal healthcare, and a social safety net. But I no longer think it’s possible to downplay so-called “identity politics” and unite on colorblind econ populist issues. Not in general but certainly not under the current Presidential administration and most state governments.

As our democratic institutions are quickly being overrun by a hideous admixture of religious fundamentalists and white supremacists, it is the worst possible time for Democrats and others on the left to abandon a commitment to racial, gender, LGBTQ, and other identity-based justice movements in the hopes of peeling off some Trump voters, most of whom were primarily motivated by racism and sexism to vote for him.

And if you think many of Trump’s voters are bad, at least most aren’t in the positions of authority to enforce the new immigration bans and anti-choice laws that are sure to come. Speaking of the latter, guess who had definite ideas about women and reproduction?

Jeff Flake held a town hall! I was there!

14 Apr 2017 04:58 pm
Posted by: Donna

When I arrived via light rail at the Mesa Convention Center Thursday evening for Senator Jeff Flake’s town hall there was a long line of cars waiting to get in the parking lot and the extra-large event room was already nearly full.

I expected there would be more people on my side in the audience than the other but I wasn’t prepared to see so many YES ACA stickers on shirts (a woman in a chicken costume – signifying Flake’s reticence in standing up to President Trump is my guess – was handing them out) before my eyes.

I tweeted furiously throughout the event, and you can check out my feed if you’re interested in my searing real-time takes. Suffice it to say the people lined up to interrogate the Senator, one by one, had done their homework and checked their answers twice on topics ranging from health care to climate change to information security.

And yes, because local pearl-clutching pundits are wont to emphasize it, there was a lot of yelling.

Credit where it’s due, it was obvious early on this was not going to be a pleasant experience for him but our junior Senator gamely strode out on that stage and faced it. Flake tried valiantly to defend himself against a barrage of difficult questions with his trademark bland affability and carefully memorized talking points and dodges but this crowd simply wasn’t having it.

Some moments I found particularly memorable, and telling, included Flake answering a young scientist’s excellent, detailed question about Flake’s well-known disdain for scientific research funding – which is hugely important and barely a tiny fraction of federal spending – by citing the deficit. However, to several questions about the President’s constant trips to Mar-a-Lago, at taxpayer expense that will end up dwarfing the budget for science research, Flake’s response was that it wasn’t his business what the President did with his free time, the deficit and his famous rock-ribbed fiscal conservatism seemingly forgotten.

Several women went to the microphone to challenge Flake on his deplorable record on reproductive rights, including his recent support of the law Trump had quietly signed that day allowing states to pull funding from Planned Parenthood (warning: link autoplays). It was rage-inducing hearing Flake repeat the oft-debunked canards about “tax payer-funded abortion” and “thousands of federally funded clinics that do what Planned Parenthood does“. Flake then compounded it by condescendingly rebutting the women’s detailed accounts of the necessity of Planned Parenthood in their lives with “I disagree”, as if it were a debate over what color the curtains should be rather than women’s health and lives being at stake.

So Flake got yelled at, a lot. I can already hear the comparisons to Tea Party behavior at events held by Democratic lawmakers in 2010. Okay, fair enough, yelling is yelling in terms of volume and how jarring it can be. But not all yelling is equal in terms of the anger behind it being justified. The Tea Party protesters were offended by the Kenyan Usurper giving health care to minorities and outraged over lies they’d been fed by right wing media, such as “death panels”, and were uninterested in anything Democratic Reps like Harry Mitchell or Ann Kirkpatrick had to say and mostly unamenable to rational arguments.

I also distinctly remember the national and local media being very deferential to the Tea Party, treating them like a refreshing grassroots political movement and taking their stated concerns at face value. News teams showed up for every TP event, no matter how sparsely attended, and lavished attention on the participants, rarely questioning the overall incoherence of their views or challenging their obvious contempt for President Obama and his voters. So, pundits, miss me with your sudden concern for propriety, okay?

Also, pundits, when the accusation of “paid protesters” arises, as it so often does when Republicans attempt to distract from the endless monstrosities being protested, ask yourself why anyone needs to be paid to protest the destruction of education, democracy, and the environment and demand evidence from the Republican making the charge.

“Alt Schools fiasco” for Ducey, Republican legislators? Maybe we can make it so!

07 Apr 2017 05:21 pm
Posted by: Donna

When you’ve lost Laurie Roberts.

Big tip of the hat to my sweetie Mark for using the phrase “alt-schools fiasco” to describe the expansion of vouchers Governor Ducey just signed into law.

PHOENIX — Gov. Doug Ducey late Thursday signed legislation to make all public school students in Arizona eligible to get state money to attend private and parochial schools.

But the plan, approved by the House and Senate hours earlier with no Democrat support and several Republicans in opposition, will not mean every child would be able to get one of these vouchers. The bill has a limit, though that could be removed by lawmakers in the future.

Mark’s sobriquet for the voucher law is an homage to the infamous Alt Fuels Scandal of 2000, in which mostly affluent Arizonans were given thousands per gas guzzling vehicle in tax subsidies if said vehicles merely had the option to burn cleaner fuel, thanks to legislation pushed by then-Speaker of the House Jeff Groscost. Both he and then-Governor Jane Hull were humiliated by the bad publicity and I recall several of my coworkers at Intel, who did not tend to pay much attention to state politics, being furious about it.

As I’ve mentioned before, I tend to be chary of the idea Democrats can win in most of Arizona by emphasizing education, outside of certain, highly educationally-driven districts with a lot of households with a lot of K-12 or college students in them. Most people will tell pollsters they care about the schools, but Republicans have been adept at calming the concerns of voters who are low information on education issues (AKA most voters) via pleasing buzzwords and platitudes like “school choice” and “putting more money in the classroom”. It works, clearly.

But these vouchers allow (warning: autoplay) rich Arizonans to take thousands of tax dollars to educate their kids in private schools while local public school districts beg for funding. This is not hard to explain and you can already see the backlash against it fomenting. You don’t have to have a student in your home to be outraged at this tax giveaway, just as you didn’t have to own a vehicle to be incensed at the alt-fuels boondoggle sixteen years ago.

And while it is true the Alt-Fuels blew a far bigger hole in the state budget than the voucher expansion is expected to, that’s really kind of beside the point. Yes, the eye-popping figure of $200M was certainly helpful in fueling the outrage and resentment to the alt-fuels fiasco but it wasn’t the crux of it, as demonstrated by quotes like this:

Taxpayers are fuming at the extravagant cost. Vehicle buyers are considering suing the state for reneging on the deal. The House speaker lost an election for his role. And drivers of the vehicles say their distinctive blue license plates make them targets of what writer William Least Heat Moon calls fellow travelers’ “middle digit opinion.”

“The other people around town in $50,000 Excursions with a TV and leather seats and a one-gallon (alternative-fuel) tank they’ll never fill up — they’re the ones taking advantage of the system,” said Bill McPeters, owner of a trenching company. He invested more than $100,000 in two trucks, two fueling stations and other costs, with the expectation of recouping tens of thousands of dollars from the state.

“Alt Schools Fiasco” has the added benefit of sounding hip and referential of modern uses of “alt” to ridicule Trump’s and other Republican’s lies, making it the perfect label for an Arizona taxpayer boondoggle to wealthy families sold with absurd lies.

I have some questions for Robert Robb on vouchers!

05 Apr 2017 11:14 pm
Posted by: Donna

Bob Robb Raw
Not an actual photo of AZ Republic columnist Bob Robb

As an expansion of vouchers makes its way to an AZ Senate vote Thursday, Bob Robb has questions for opponents of the bill that I’m sure he came up with entirely on his own and not via talking points brainstormed up in a Goldwater Institute and/or Heritage Foundation conference room:

Opponents are using the analysis as a club to beat the expansion to death. Vouchers are just a con job to help the rich pay to send their pampered offspring to posh private schools, they exhort. And drain resources from district schools for average Jacks and Jills.

There’s actually less here than meets the eye.

ESAs are currently used mostly to help educate special education students. It shouldn’t be surprising that affluent parents are quicker to find and use resources to help their special-needs children than low-income parents. But does that make the existence of the option a social injustice?

Why constantly try to sell them by guilt-mongering over disadvantaged poor minority kids then?

Robb goes on to make some speculative claims – when special ed students walk out the door, more expenses than revenue go with them” “The use of vouchers by parents of special ed students isn’t necessarily predictive of what would happen if access to them were made universal. But it is suggestive.” – before he gets back to pooh poohing the importance of the finding that vouchers are being used mainly by affluent families (exactly as critics predicted).

For these parents, the cost of sending their children to parochial school can be a considerable financial sacrifice. Truly high-performing charter schools with traditional programs have been cannibalizing parochial school enrollments in upper middle-class neighborhoods. For some of these parents, a voucher could tip the balance back in favor of the parochial school.

So, is it a con job to argue that vouchers are intended to help low-income students and parents? Not entirely.

Again, it is a con job when the ESAs are being sold with lugubrious pleas about poor children. Why does Bob Robb think this kind of deceit is okay?

Oh, he gets to that. Behold:

It may be politically incorrect, but it would be obtuse not to acknowledge that upper middle-class parents are more likely than low-income parents to take an active role in directing their children’s education and taking advantage of whatever options are available. Compensating for indifferent or destructive parenting is one of the challenges for inner-city schools.

That right there is vintage Bob Robb*.

Vouchers, however, give low-income parents who want to take an active role in directing their children’s education more options. Given that most private schools have a religious affiliation and sense of mission, scholarships are often available to bridge the voucher-tuition gap.

I have questions for Robb now. First, where would even the most educationally motivated low income families be able to afford to educate their children in private schools with subsidies (from all sources) less than 100% of tuition, uniforms, meals, transportation, and sundry other expenses always or often covered by public school districts? Next, since he already acknowledged in his column how poor families don’t use them and predicts expanding them will not change that, then what is he even doing here?

Oh right, Robb is making the same bullshit sales pitch using poor people as props as the professional voucher peddlers do. Is this why he wants voucher opponents to stop pointing out what a lie that is and instead pay attention to the pink squirrel he wants them to see over there?

*Oh, I’ve had this dude’s number for so many years now.

Anti-choicers smear an AZ abortion provider. Will the media blow it again?

30 Mar 2017 02:46 am
Posted by: Donna

I was up late Tuesday night thinking about how over the past couple of years two organizations – Planned Parenthood and the Democratic National Committee – and one individual – Hillary Clinton – had their images profoundly damaged by allegations of serious unethical and even criminal behavior. All the claims (that Planned Parenthood trafficked baby parts, the DNC somehow rigged state primaries, and pretty much everything Hillary Clinton was accused of) turned out to be overblown or even fell apart completely when subjected to actual scrutiny. Sadly, most people aren’t bothered to do due diligence in general, let alone when it might challenge a pre-conceived narrative they hold about, say, Hillary Clinton or the DNC or Planned Parenthood. And unfortunately, that description includes many people in political journalism.

That thinking prompted me to tweet this:

During the election many mainstream news outlets chased down multiple half-baked conspiracy theories pulled out of the butts of right wingers about Hillary Clinton. When wild accusations about her use of a private email server, or her family’s foundation, or her bout with pneumonia, etc., fizzled out, the media kept the stories alive and in the news cycle through “optics”. “Well, it doesn’t seem the Clinton Foundation did anything wrong by taking meetings with donors but the optics are bad!”, the pundits mused with furrowed brows, with some demanding the Clinton Foundation be shut down. Over and over the media did this, resulting in Clinton’s approval numbers plummeting and in her being perceived as less honest than Donald Trump.


The endless harping on Clinton’s email server finally culminated in what many believe to be the final blow to her election chances when FBI Director James Comey released a letter stating their re-opening of their investigation of Clinton based on emails found Anthony Weiner’s laptop. It turned out to be nothing but the damage was done in the crucial days while early voting was going on all over the country.

Similarly, the DNC fell victim to a campaign orchestrated by Russia and using Wikileaks to sow hostility to Hillary Clinton from the left by dumping a cache of stolen emails right before the DNC convention, and again one month before the election. The dumps were calculated and spun to play into existing beliefs that the Democratic establishment not only favored Hillary Clinton (arguably true) but that they actively worked to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders (extremely unlikely, given how the DNC doesn’t run state primaries). Again, if you did your due diligence and actually read the ostensibly damning emails, all they revealed is that, yeah, some people in the DNC and Clinton campaign really didn’t like Sanders (shocking!) and that (gasp!) political operatives like to talk trash. Nothing more.

Trump and his supporters eagerly slurped up Wikileaks as well, for the obvious reason that they hurt Hillary Clinton, but also because they played into stereotypes of “crooked” Democrats engaging in voting fraud. Again, the entire story came down to “optics”, which was (of course) how the media framed and justified nonstop coverage of the content of leaked emails, rather than covering it as an actual crime against the Democratic nominee as it should have been.

Optics is a reality in politics, and bad optics is sometimes self-induced silliness like riding in a tank wearing a goofy hat, which may be avoided if you have good handlers. But when your “bad optics” are deliberately crafted by people using lies and distortions to make you appear unethical and even criminal, there’s no foolproof way for you to anticipate and neutralize against it. Especially if the targets of the manipulation, and most everyone else, seems to be invested in believing the worst they possibly can about you.

And that’s the thing about going with “optics” despite a dearth of evidence for heinous misdeeds alleged against both Hillary Clinton and the DNC. It’s not just sloppy jounalism (it is!) but it’s unjust as all hell too. Optics for politicians are like a cousin to respectability politics in that the amount of damage they will do to you tends to be proportional to your own identity and that of your likely constituents.

Seven hundred some odd words in, I now get to the crux of this post: If any group of people knows firsthand what it is to deal with unrelenting attacks on their integrity and constant bad optics problems, it is the people who provide low income women with sensitive, respectful reproductive and sexual health care. Every couple years or so, in Arizona and the rest of the country, anti-choicers wave around “sting” videos purporting to show abortion providers engaging in macabre activities.

These are highly staged operations where operatives gain access to clinic workers through false pretenses. They gain the trust of their targets and lull them into discussing outlandish and highly unlikely situations. Oftentimes the videos are then deceptively edited to make the abortion providers appear as bad as possible.

Every time they’ve done it so far, the MSM has lapped it up, until the wild allegations of the “sting” fall apart and then it slides into “optics” about Planned Parenthood (largest provider of repro health care to low income patients) and Democrats.

The latest installment in this saga (I’m getting to the point, promise!) came on Wednesday when the Center For Medical Progress (CMP), which happens to be facing fresh felony charges in California (warning: autoplay), released a shocking new video! featuring clips of an Arizona abortion doctor discussing her work and how she might obtain usable fetal tissue for medical research. And, yes, engaging in some dark humor about how she does her job, as doctors around people they trust and are comfortable around are wont to do.

I can hear you already. “But Donna, those jokes look really bad! This is bad optics!”

Which is precisely how it works. CMP videos are clearly choreographed and doctored to disturb people. Luckily for anti-choicers, despite the unpopularity of most of their positions, there is an endless willingness in the general public (and in the media) to believe the absolute worst of women (especially if they don’t know them personally) which gives anti-choicers the perfect opening to do these smears.

Watch how Center For Arizona Policy (CAP), in a manner Wikileaks would admire, spins:

A shocking new video released today by The Center for Medical Progress catches an Arizona abortion doctor discussing potential trafficking of aborted baby body parts – and joking about the need to workout her biceps so she has the strength to abort babies.

In the video, Dr. DeShawn Taylor, formerly of Planned Parenthood, now with Desert Star Family Planning in Phoenix had a cavalier attitude about taking life and skirting the law.

When asked about babies born alive during abortion attempts, Taylor didn’t mention a 42-year-old law requiring her to try to save the baby’s life. Instead she tipped her hand, saying, “The key is you have to pay attention to who’s in the room… because the law states you are not supposed to do any maneuvers after the fact to try to cause fetal demise.”

You are probably going to be bothered about jokes made by abortion providers, or their descriptions of how they try to shield staff from upsetting sights, if you already subscribe to a whole bunch of stereotypes about women who seek abortions. Such as how most done past the first trimester are at the request of wanton floozies irresponsibly ending their pregnancies for funsies, but who are sometimes strangely altruistically driven to donate the fetal tissue for important medical research.

If you’re a regular person who believes all of this, I can forgive you. Though you should do better, honestly. If you’re a journalist? No. Again, the job here is not “optics”. This is not Planned Parenthood in a funny hat in a tank. This is a damning charge against reproductive health providers leveled by groups organized against them, who have a long history of lying and fomenting violence.

Ask the right questions: What are CMP and CAP alleging here, specifically? Is it even plausible? The claims by CMP and CAP are deliberately vague. Why? Why do they always run to the public airwaves and politicians with their allegations first and never law enforcement? What, precisely, are CMP and CAP accusing women and their doctors of doing? Make them spell it out. Pursue that.

Don’t blow this, media. Don’t make it about “optics”. It may be enticing, but it’s not good journalism. We see where this kind of coverage leads.


Watch conservative media try to mold Doug Ducey into the anti-Trump

27 Mar 2017 01:55 pm
Posted by: Donna

ducey herrod
Do you think these two want most people in Arizona to enjoy liberty? I don’t.

George Will’s syndicated column from Saturday is a regurgitation of the same inane pap that comes up every year or so where some conservative visits Arizona (or possibly doesn’t even bother to come here, just makes a phone call or two), pronounces our state to be a conservative utopia, and mentions golf. Reading these paeans, one can always be certain the author has not spoken to any public school teachers, low wage service workers, or immigrants. Mainly they stick to talking to white guys who play golf on nice private courses. You know, the regular people.

Will’s piece ran in the Sioux City Journal and was entitled – wait for it – “An Oasis of Liberty in Arizona” and contains the obligatory nostalgic Old West reference and talking points straight from the Goldwater Institute about how plucky small business owners being menaced by evil government bureaucrats is not tolerated in these here parts.

What did strike me was Will’s adoring profile of Governor Doug Ducey and how he cast Ducey as the anti-Trump without saying the President’s name. It’s difficult to pick which paragraph of this love letter to Ducey to highlight but here’s one that mentions golf:

Born in Ohio, he came here to attend Arizona State University and became a businessman who attended Goldwater Institute events. After he joined the founder of Cold Stone Creamery ice cream shops and opened 1,400 nationwide, he was elected state treasurer, then governor. Seeking advice from the best, he called former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who suggested appointing to his administration business people looking for new challenges. (Daniels asked, “Do you know anyone who plays golf on Tuesdays and is miserable?”)

I…can’t even snark about that golf on Tuesdays statement. We are so fucked, Arizona.

As we speak, the highest office in the land is manifestly demonstrating why “run the government like a business” is not a great approach but for George Will and the Goldwater Institute, this holy tenet cannot fail, it can only be failed. Thus, in the capable hands of someone like Doug Ducey, doling out powerful positions to business leaders leads to dandy outcomes, always.

Ducey wants Arizona to have a “West Coast vibe with a Midwestern work ethic,” and he cheekily calls California’s Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown “my partner in growing Arizona’s economy” because California’s business climate is a powerful incentive for firms to relocate in Arizona, where more than 60 percent of its residents were born elsewhere. Arizona’s motto is “Ditat Deus” (“God Enriches”), but His work can be facilitated by Ducey’s goal of getting the state’s income tax “as close to zero as possible.”

He calls himself a “full-spectrum conservative,” including support for free trade (NAFTA has been good for Arizona’s commerce with Mexico), but there are limits to his Western libertarianism. Last year, he led the campaign that resulted in Arizona being the only one of five states voting on the issue to defeat legalization of recreational marijuana: “I’m the son of a cop and the father of three teenage sons.”

The current president has pointedly said, “This is called the Republican Party. It’s not called the Conservative Party.” Actually, it became a conservative party partly because of what an Arizonan did many decades ago. It may become such a party again, with another Arizonan’s help.

Oh, George, keep dreaming. But my suspicions that 1. Ducey is shitting bricks over Trump and 2. there is a concerted effort among “establishment” Republicans to mold Ducey into the anti-Trump are further confirmed. And if they repeat it enough the mainstream media will run with that theme as well.

It’s dead wrong, though. Ducey is in many ways worse that Trump. In addition to being an anti-pot scold, he’s a true believer anti-choicer. He has shown a level of contempt toward poor Arizonans that Paul Ryan would admire (pushing for lifetime limits on TANF and Medicaid, for example). He is against funding public education (and no, throwing a few pennies at it via Prop 123 doesn’t mitigate that) and just signed an anti-democratic bill attacking citizens initiatives into law. And it turns out happy-go-lucky business dudes with ample time to golf on Tuesday don’t make great leaders of agencies in charge of child welfare.

Doug Ducey is a bog standard Republican, and far from being a departure from the President it makes him every bit as dangerous as, if not more so, than Trump*. Being blandly affable and having guys like George Will putting the “principled conservative” spin on him has enabled Ducey to do harmful and unpopular things without them sticking to him personally. But they should. As I keep saying, at some point it needs to be recognized that the solution to problems created by Republicans is never going to be more Republicans.

*In domestic policy, that is. Trump does have access to nukes, which could prove to be a tad problematic.

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.