Sunday, April 15, 2012

The Democrats' modus operandi: from demagoguery to denial

The Democrats' denial that they ever talked about a GOP "war on women" is, in a microcosm, an illumination of their modus operandi.

First they gin up a total phony point that they trumpet in the worst sorts of demagoguery. Somehow, thinking that religious institutions shouldn't have to provide free coverage of birth control and the morning after pill if that conflicts with their religion's tenets becomes a war on women. Remember, we weren't arguing over women having to cover a co-payment for their birth control, but that it should be provided free of charge by their insurance companies. No other health product was being mandated to be provided for free - not cancer, heart, or diabetes medicine.

The fact that the drug at issue was related to sex rather than any other medical treatment is quite revealing of what is most important to the Democrats.

The demands betrayed the total economic cluelessness of the Democrats as they totally ignored the reality that there is no such thing as a free birth control pill. The cost would have to be covered by people paying for their policies or by the insurance companies. As always, the Democrats seem to miss that corporations will just pass their increased costs on to their customers.

But hey, the line "war on women" hits a political sweet spot as they seek to increase women's purported uneasiness with Republicans and Mitt Romney. And that is all that matters. Never let a good demogogic line go to waste.

And then when the whole thing backfires in their faces, they suddenly turn about and deny that they ever were talking about a "war on women." Suddenly, they start claiming that it is just the Republicans who used that term. Even though, as Jim Geraghty demonstrates, congressional Democrats have been parroting that term and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the term with gusto and the DCCC have been selling "Stop the Republican War on Women" products.

And there you have the Democrats' m.o. In a few short weeks they go from demagoguery to denial and hope that no one notices.


Buttercup said...

Loved your assessment. I would only point out that I believe the Democrats not only don't care whether we notice, it may be a part of the game. To know you are being lied to and to also know that the media is refusing to address this in any credible way, is frustrating, even demoralizing. But it is powerful.

mark said...

Hey there, Buttercup,
Perhaps it's the repubs who don't want you to notice all the federal and state laws being passed against women.
Start with the easy ones,such as govt. mandated, medically unnecessary vaginal probes (Texas), and go from there.
Repubs may want to pretend this is all about the contraception and Obamacare, but it goes much further.
Repubs decry the "nanny state", but are more invasive on private lives than dems. In NC, there is an amendment which will take away rights from couples (gay and straight) including elderly people who choose to live together to help with the financial burden.
While a few repubs have spoken out against this invasion of privacy, most who know better will play along.

Rick Caird said...

I see Mark, you haven't learned anything in the past 4 years. Your reference is all about abortion. I doubt many people would believe the best source of information is the self named "People for the American Way", but it is noteworthy these people feel they can define the "American Way". But it underscores that for the far left, it is all about abortion first. I prefer the Merchant of Venice approach: you may have your pound of flesh, but not a drop of blood".

You, and other like you, define "reproductive rights" as solely abortion. I submit that is not "reproductive right", but "no reproduction right". As such, abortion is but one approach and usually after none of the others have even been tried. The PWAP piece is merely advocacy for approach and has no bearing on a "nanny state" as you claim unless you want to argue caring after conception is being a nanny. But, the description fails because this is all an attempt to get around an egregious decision by the Warren Court than required a massive creation of new law regarding "right of privacy" that strangely only refers to abortion. Try arguing a right of privacy to your bank records or TSA searches.

Your comment on the NC amendment is deceitful. It is merely an amendment to bar gay marriage. The idea that it will, somehow, affect elderly heterosexual couples is even more deceit. Why do you feel you have to resort to such deceit to make some incorrect, but liberal, point?

mark said...

2. Negative Effects on NC Seniors

The Blunt amendment was about contraception and other services that could be denied to women, as the link pointed out. So that is lie #1.
My comment about the NC amendment is not deceitful. It goes beyond what even many opponents of gay marriage would like.

Amendment One will hurt some of our seniors. Many older people who have previously lost spouses, but find love later in life never remarry, even though they are committed to their new partner. They do this to protect the benefits their previous spouse earned including health care, pensions, and Social Security, and Amendment One puts those benefits at jeopardy.

So that's lie #2.

Are you trying out for tfhr's spot?

Rick Caird said...


You are still quite wrong. The only place the word "Blunt" shows up is in a sidebar reference to "related content". So, you have given us a reference that is, as I said, about abortion and misrepresented it, not once, but twice.

Second, you are quite misinformed about seniors. There is no state that I know of that has some special arrangement for seniors who choose not to get married. There are very valid reasons seniors do not get married. Among them are pensions, health insurance and wills. But, it is an exceptionally dubious argument to claim homosexual marriage will affect that. Let me also point out to you that seniors living together often split when one of the gets sick because the other one has usually lost a previous partner and nursed them through the end and do not want to do it again.

Let me tell you sometime about my Dad's 11 day marriage, in violation of NYS law and while under the influence of morphine, on his deathbed, to a Canadian women and what a host of legal problems, and expense, that caused. No gay marriage law would have helped that.

Mark, you have become famous for arguing positions you clearly do not understand.

mark said...

Thanks, but I'll pass on your dad's story. Though I'm sure it's fascinating.
You should do your homework. The amendment is being opposed by a growing number of republicans because it is an invasion of privacy. It would take away rights of straight and gay couples, including seniors. Under the amendment, city and town governments will not be able to offer health care to partners (gay or straight).
You claimed it will "merely bar gay marriage" Actually, that is the one thing it will not do, as gay marriage is already barred.
If it passes, it will be because of fools like you who are so easily duped.

Rick Caird said...

Typical Mark stuff.

You pull out a list of objections from a far left site and then claim that the world will end if the amendment to bar gay marriage passes. And, yes, that is what it is about. Notice, the first talking point notes gay marriage is already barred, but it is barred legislatively. This will bar it constitutionally.

In previous posts, you tell us this impacts seniors and then the silly list of talking points barely mentions seniors. For one thing, seniors rarely are affected by domestic partnership issues. Why, because they get there insurance from Medicare.

The one being duped here is you. These people are telling you about all these horrible things that MIGHT happen to people who do not want to get married but want all the same benefits of being married. So, what. They are eligible to get married if they wish. That is their value judgement to make.

Finally, I explain to you why seniors CHOOSE not to get married from both personal experience and from people I know, but you want to "pass". You might actually understand the problem and that is always an enigma to "know nuthin'", knee jerk liberals, like you. If you actually know something, it is hard to defend liberalism.

I notice, too, you finally gave up on your first reference. It was exactly what I said it was: a pro abortion screed from a far left site.

You know, Mark, I run across ill informed liberals like you on lots of sites. We call it "comic relief". Invariably, they are like you: they do not understand what they are attacking or defending. Ignorance must be bliss to a liberal because they prefer their ignorance.

mark said...

Bizarre, Rick. You acknowledge I'm right on both counts while telling me I'm wrong.

The link included info about the Blunt amendment. You said it yourself.

Amendment One has provisions that effects straight people, including seniors. They either must marry, or risk losing benefits such as visitation rights or health care.

As I've stated, many repubs have come out against it because of the unintended consequences as well as the damage it may do to the business climate.

Contrary to your hyperbole, I haven't expressed any fear about it passing. It's an embarassment for the state, but life will go on.

Rick Caird said...

The first rule of holes, Mark, is when you are in one stop digging. You need to get your shovel out of the manure and stop digging.

First, you give a reference claiming it is about the Blunt amendment. I point out to you not only is your reference not about the Blunt amendment, but the only mention of Blunt is to a link on the sidebar. Somehow,you think that makes you "right". I do admire your alternate universe where a link to a page that has a link to another page is, somehow, being right about your reference.

Now, you then proceed to double down, by claiming these crazy talking points against the gay rights amendment from some far left organization, actually have some merit. But you have no idea if they do or not. How they affect anyone is left to the imagination, but even your fevered imagination offers no examples. What visitation rights would be affected and why would marriage be necessary for those visitation rights? Do you actually have any idea? It is doubtful. You also fail to offer any reason why benefits like health care should be offered to non married heterosexual partners when marriage is an option if health care is a priority to them. If they choose not to get married, then they must have some higher priority which is on them, not any gay marriage amendment.

Four years after first encountering you, it is clear you are still a child unable to think and debate rationally, unable to verify your own links, and unable to move past a few talking points you are cannot articulate, understand, or even evaluate the scope of the talking point and if it really is a problem. You simply neither know nor are willing to try to research the point.

I am surprised your mother lets you have an internet connection. Is it in the living room where they can keep watch over you?

mark said...

Thanks, Rick. You're doing an admirable job filling in for tfhr. (perhaps he's following a hot lead concerning the whereabouts of OBL). Pointless rant, followed by absurd contradiction.
Your brilliant argument is 'once people comply with government mandates to get married, they can have their freedoms'. No irony? Nothing?
As I've said a few times in the past four years, it is not possible for me to be insulted here. Certainly not by the people who supported (and continue to defend) the probably-worst foreign policy decision in our history. Not by people who have degraded our country by accepting torture and war-profiteering as SOP.
But please, keep trying.

Hint: This is where you make a joke about my Chevy Volt going up in flames. Always a devastating zinger!

Rick Caird said...

So, now your argument boils down to a typical strawman: "once people comply with government mandates to get married, they can have their freedoms".

So, somehow, like most liberals, you have gotten the cart before the horse. Somehow, you are managing to equate the definition of marriage, as it has always been, with a loss of freedom. However, there is no loss of freedom here at all. The same benefits of marriage are available to all. You, however, want the same benefits to accrue to those who, for whatever reason, do not want to get married. Well, it may come as a surprise to you, but decisions have consequences. If someone decides not to get married, then the consequence is they do not get the benefit of being married. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

So, do not put your strawman inside your Chevy Volt or the strawman will go up in flames too. Oh, and not only is it possible to insult you, it is actually quite easy.