Category: Current Affairs

Rape Without Rapists?

 

I am fortunate enough to have dozens of extremely thoughtful
friends. Some of them were kind enough to share their thoughts via Facebook
about the recent rise in attention paid to the GOP platform position that
abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape, incest and maternal health
concerns. Public statements by GOP Senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard
Mourdock have pushed the issue of pregnancy via rape into the national
spotlight. Something I’ve noticed and struggled with is that virtually none of
the public discourse I’ve heard about women’s choices actually talks about the initial
decision maker in this scenario: the rapist.  

 

In some ways, this whole debate is representative of the
broader dysfunction of our society. I have yet to hear important political
conversation about challenging America's rape culture. Everyone says rape is
bad then continues on to their talking points. No one's talking about how we
can ensure that sex is chosen, pregnancies are deliberate and all babies are
wanted. 

 

Instead of focusing on how to deal with the aftermath of
sexual violence, why don't we spend time and energy training our young people
to understand sex, abhor sexual violence and value others as themselves? That simply
isn’t happening. My goodness, who decided that sexual assault can't even be as demonized
in our culture as cigarettes?

 

Ultimately, I would love Akin and Mourdock's accidental
statements of belief to start a national conversation about sexual violence but
I have little hope that will happen. Instead, we will probably just keep
focusing on what we expect from the women who are victimized by rape. After
all, that's a lot easier than acknowledging that there are perpetrators of
sexual assault around us every day and our culture basically ignores them. It's as though we simply expect there will be a certain amount of rape in America. How awful. 

 

FDO

 

 

 

 

Numbers Never Lie…

 

Yesterday,
I realized I was experiencing the confusion of numbers. Multiple times in
this one day I realized that I felt just a little baffled. And every time there
were numbers involved. Here are a couple examples.


I
live at roughly 39.8 n Latitude and on 10/25 the high temperature was about 80
degrees. The forecast high for 10/26? 49 degrees.


Gas
prices typically have some variation and I’m accustomed to seeing significant
shifts in the span of a mile. I’m not accustomed to massive price differences
between stations at the same intersection but yesterday I saw gas priced at $3.17@
the Speedway on the southwest corner of Thompson and Arlington while at the
northwest corner Village Pantry’s regular gas cost $3.49.

 

No meaning here; just confusion. 

 

FDO

 

 

 

 

Can Obama Win Indiana (Again)?

 

A friend recently shared his suggestion that Hoosiers use
this year’s Presidential election to express their displeasure with the two
major party candidates by voting for a third party candidate. Here’s the reason
I don’t want my friend to make that choice this year: I think Obama has a puncher’s
chance to win Indiana again.

 

My friend’s contention is that Indiana will go red just as
surely as California will go blue so Hoosiers who are inclined to vote for
Obama have options since their votes won’t impact any outcomes.  I was immediately reminded of the massive
efforts to ‘swap votes’ in the 2000 election. In that election year, many
Americans viewed Ralph Nader’s campaign as an attempt to build off the
electoral successes of third party candidates Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura to
help promote a national multiparty system*. I had friends in Oregon and
Minnesota and California and Indiana and Arizona all talking about their fears
of ‘wasting’ their votes by supporting a Presidential candidate who had no
chance to win their state. While the typology of ‘red state’ and ‘blue state’
was not uniform until after the voting that November, the idea of that divide
was widespread and lots of folks wanted to avoid wasting blue in red places or
wasting red in blue places.

 

Part of the magic of elections is that they can amaze and
surprise. In 2008, I told everyone who would listen (and many who wouldn’t!)
that Obama was going to win Indiana. More than a few people laughed and some
wondered if I’d simply forgotten that Indiana is much more than Indianapolis. I
smiled at the laughter and often reminded folks that I was deeply aware that
many Hoosiers would have literally voted for the corpse of Ronald Reagan before
they voted for Barack Hussein Obama. But in 2008, an odd coalition of Hoosiers
coalesced enough to give Democrats their first Electoral College votes here since
1964. That coalition has frayed but not fractured. Relatively few of those
voters are going to be excited about voting for Romney; if anything, they may
need to be given reasons
to vote for Obama again.

 

Certainly an ad blitz is unlikely at this late stage but
here’s one ad
that would play fantastically well here.  A White, blue collar, middle aged Hoosier guy talking
about Romney making $100 million by closing his plant? That would be a winner.
It also seems pretty clear that Romney and Senate candidate Richard Mourdock
are a bad pair for driving GOP turnout. In fact, due to Mourdock’s most recent verbal
train wreck it’s possible he will produce a generic bump for the Democrats.
That may happen even though his Senatorial opponent is in a weak position
to benefit. There are an awful lot of folks who typically vote GOP who just won’t
be excited to show up at the polls in November.

 

However, relatively few people are immune to the largest
media waves and this election will be one of them. Even the folks who are least
inclined to vote will hear about the election all day Monday and Tuesday.  Between smart phones and nearly ubiquitous access
to social media, I anticipate a great amount of social pressure to vote. That
means more people showing up to vote without a deep well of engagement,
interest, knowledge or understanding. As cynical as it sounds, the Obama team
can take advantage of that situation to pull off a real ‘November surprise’ in
Indiana. There are also a lot of folks who are typically not voters but were
directly impacted by recent policies like Governor Daniels' Scott Walker style efforts
at union busting. Not only are those folks off the political grid but they'll
lean strongly toward the President.

 

With the combination of all these different realities
swirling about and the continuing strength of Obama's Get Out the Vote
campaign, I think this is an election with genuinely different possibilities
than in 2000. Remember that’s when vote swapping reached its apex… and perhaps
helped George W. Bush win the Presidency#. I want Hoosiers to vote for the
person they think will do the best job as President. And I believe their votes
may count more than they might anticipate.

 

FDO

 

*- I love the idea of a multi-party system and believe it
would help politics and our country as a whole. But it’s a long process and
certain short-term costs seem too high to me.

 

#- My argument on this point is very complicated. Lemme know
if you’d like me to share it with you. 

 

Mourdock or Milquetoast

 

With less than two weeks before the election, I need to
vent. Indiana’s Democratic Party is just plain stupid.

 

There, I said it. It’s really stupid. They simply refuse to
nominate an actual, true to life liberal to run for Senate. Instead, it’s one
milquetoast moderate after another. Hoosiers consistently have to choose
between a Republican is proud of his political perspective and a Democrat who
barely has one.

 

The biggest national political story
this morning is Richard Mourdock’s insane soliloquy about rape, abortion and
the will of God. Mourdock has gone the way of Todd Akin, Joe Walsh and the far
right wing of the Republican Party in making explicit their previously
subterranean desire for their vision of a 1950s fantasy America to be “inflicted”
upon 21st society. Specifically women.

 

Yet, the Indiana Democrats can’t take full advantage of this
opening because their own Senate candidate Joe Donnelly is also opposed to
abortion rights and, in many other respects, is a retread of the same watered
down elephant in donkey’s clothing. It’s the style candidate Hoosier Dems have
tried over and over again. Eventually, Evan Bayh developed some liberal bona fides but Donnelly has hewn closely
to the Brad Ellsworth playbook of accepting conservative orthodoxy.  The strategy seems to be simple: say
conservative things while smiling instead of sneering.

 

Obviously there are some important differences between
Donnelly and Mourdock and I plan to vote for Donnelly. I also have hope that if
Donnelly were elected he would discover the value of leaning left in the
Senate. What’s sad today is that had Donnelly been willing to make the leftward
move sooner, his election would be a fait
accomplit and Mourdock would be on the way to the next John Birch Society
meeting.  As it is, Mourdock may well
weather this storm. Cause after all, who wants milquetoast? 

 

FDO

 

 

Mitt Romney, Come on Down!

 

I’m
excited to watch the Republican National Convention over the next few days. It
seems odd to consider the range of very different interests Mitt Romney needs to
attend in Tampa to enhance his chances of winning the Presidency. I’d say the
GOP needs to thread the needle but most needles only have one hole. Team Romney
has an awful lot to do in just a few days.

 

Mitt
Romney needs to appeal to his base, particularly evangelicals and social
conservatives who distrust him for his previous apostasies on a whole host of
issues. At the same time, Romney needs to present himself as a compassionate
conservative to the independents and moderates who think folks like Todd Akin
represent the true core of the GOP these days. Mitt tried to convince
CBS that the President is irrelevant regarding abortion policy.  He’s hoping to deflect attention from abortion
(and ‘women’s issues’ more generally) because he’s stuck in a horrible spot on
that issue. (This is in part because of his own struggles
to develop a coherent position on abortion. And stick
with it.)

 

Even
though George W. Bush happily talked about himself as America’s CEO, it’s
Romney that really fits the description. He’s trying to convince America that
his corporate experience puts him ahead of President Obama as a potential
economic savior. But Mitt embodies all the negative stereotypes of the 1% too.
His Gore-like woodenness and helmet hair enhance the images of him as an
automaton. The reluctance of his campaign to reveal more information about his
taxes also helps move Romney’s image from hard working entrepreneur to robber
baron. The gap between those images is massive.

 

My
guess is that in reality, Romney’s probably a staid but wonderful person.
Nobody outside his inner circle is quite sure of that though. And unfortunately
for him, the typical strategies used to soften a politician all carry a high
price tag. Talking too much about his family life immediately brings up
Mormonism. Talking about his all-American upbringing calls to mind the overwhelming
advantages of his early privilege. Talking about the personal obstacles he’s
overcome will, uh, well, they’ll get back to us on that one.  Overall, it’s gonna be tough to convince
average folks that Mitt ‘gets it’. Today, CBS describes this as the empathy gap
as its polling shows
that “only 41 percent of Americans
said Romney understands their needs and problems”.  Ouch.

 

Problems
need solutions. While candidate Obama was often criticized for being so focused
on hope and change, his themes were clear and consistent. I really have no idea
what Mitt Romney wants to do if elected President.

 

Okay,
so he wants to cut the deficit. He’s willing to cut programs. (Just not the
ones you like.) He wants to save Medicare. His plan doesn’t sound like it will
actually do that in a way that resembles Medicare. And he’s also focusing on
making America great. Or maybe proud. Or maybe proud of its greatness. Sigh. That
worked for Reagan because the country was dramatically different in 1980. And
Reagan made people feel better. Romney struggles to make people feel at all.

 

So
this week Romney has to create buzz about moving the country in HIS direction,
not just a different direction. This week and this year should be about
competing visions of America but I don’t know that this will happen. Romney
should have already learned that defeating weak incumbents can be done but only
if you demonstrate that what you offer is something people genuinely want.

 

Maybe
that’s the biggest reason I want to watch this convention unfold. I am very
interested to discover what Romney thinks America wants for its future.

 

 

FDO

 

 

 

Justified Use of Force

 

Every year there’s a new one

A Diallo, King or me

Clamoring loudly

Broken faces on TV

We ask so many questions

But no one’s forced to answer

 

With sympathy’s short half-life

Soon most are hoping for the noise to stop

And the questions to disappear once again

Just like us

In our lives

And our deaths

 

 
 © Gayle Force Press 2003

 

 

Romney’s Troubles Begin in New Hampshire?

 

New Hampshire?!?

 

It’s amusing to watch the coverage of the GOP Presidential nominating process in New Hampshire.  For the last year, Mitt Romney’s camp has attempted to create an aura of inevitability around his candidacy with some success.

 

Even last week, after the photo finish in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum’s success there was portrayed as a boon to Romney as Santorum could help clear the rest of the field of candidates. To some extent that worked with Michele Bachmann dropping out and Rick Perry’s hours long exit. Overall, though, it appears to me that this race will continue much longer than Romney guessed it would. I anticipate today’s New Hampshire primaries will make Romney’s inevitability strategy look incredibly vulnerable.

 

My guess is that Romney will win with something less than 40% of the vote. That will be a classic case of losing by winning. It won’t be LBJ in 1968 but it’s gonna make things ugly for Romney.

 

If Huntsman continues his surge and finishes in 2nd place, he will receive the boosts in money and media that will make him a viable candidate in Florida and Nevada in a few weeks. Santorum and Gingrich will continue to point to South Carolina as a state they can win and is more representative of the GOP than New Hampshire is. Ron Paul will stay in this race for the long haul.

 

This means that for at least the next month, Romney will have to stave off attacks from at least 4 other candidates. All the unflattering stories, all the gaffes and the harsh glare of contention will continue to dog his campaign.

 

While I think Romney is still a solid front runner, his candidacy is in great peril for the long haul. A weak showing today may be a harbinger of more trouble to come for him.

 

 

FDO

 

Update: It's worse for Romney than I anticipated. Huntsman underperformed and Perry has no momentum at all yet they are still committed to running. Between their continuing campaigns and Gingrich's scorched earth policy, Romney will be forced to continue competing. Exactly what he doesn't want. 


Tweet Your Way to Third

 

Well, it looks like Ron Paul finished a disappointing third in the Iowa caucus. That's despite having the very best social media campaign as evidenced by this CNN piece. Unfortunately for him, Iowa's demographics are still Iowa's demographics. 

 

 

FDO

 

 

Tweet Your Way to a Win?

 

I wonder how much influence social media will have on the Iowa caucuses. Isn’t there a real possibility that there will be important outcomes during the caucus based on the (perceived?) momentum of candidates?

 

It’s easy for me to anticipate scenarios wherein early caucus victories for one candidate have a cascading effect on other caucuses’ outcomes. Small caucuses or caucus sites with relative unanimity can realistically finish their process quite early.  Even before there are official announcements, folks on the scene can relay their information to large numbers of other Iowans via Twitter. Especially in a contest with such a vast number of uncommitted voters, it’s not hard to imagine many folks deciding to go with the flow and vote for the candidate with early success.

 

Is this where Ron Paul’s ground game will win the day? After all, his network in Iowa is largely built around the kind of young, energetic supporters who will be likely to connect with each other and ardently encourage others to support the Good Doctor.

 

If Paul has a surprisingly good showing tonight, the ability of his supporters to share information broadly and instantly may be a key factor.

 

Will the rise of social media be permanently transformative in Iowa politics? National politics? 


<shudder>

 

 

FDO

 

 

 

Free the Libertarian!

 

It was reported last month that Gary Johnson had decided against creating a 3rd party candidacy as a Libertarian. I was surprised that Johnson would rule out that option because it seemed clear that Johnson’s one chance at a prominent national position is creating a 3rd party campaign. Now, apparently, that’s all changed and Johnson will run after all. It’s going to make the 2012 election more interesting to have Johnson involved.

 

Gary Johnson won’t win the Presidency this year but that’s ok. What he needs is not a win but relevance.  As a 3rd party candidate, Johnson will have a chance to receive increased media attention, substantial fundraising, a debate presence and the potential to launch a 2016 GOP candidacy with a chance of success.

 

I’m convinced many Ron Paul supporters will shift their allegiance to Johnson (and that Paul will encourage them to do so) as a Libertarian and he will gain more than 5% of the national vote next November. If that happens, Johnson will be the primary frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016 (followed up by Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio/Bobby Jindal), a position impossible for Johnson to achieve without making this run.

 

Now, Johnson’s run will cement Obama’s re-election bid next fall but will also supply the GOP with a ready made excuse for failure.  The GOP will be so desperate to regain the White House in the 2016 election cycle that Johnson will be warmly welcomed back into the fold. At this point, there’s virtually no downside for Johnson and lots of potential gain.

 

I imagine Johnson’s candidacy will also help enhance the 2012 campaign conversations involved in determining the direction of national issues like human rights, education initiatives and drug policies. Considering the present likelihood of personal attacks and partisan views in one on one debates, I’ll be excited to have Johnson’s voice moderating the tone of the political conversations.

 

Well, I can hope at least!

 

FDO