Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama TV Ad: Women Need to Know the Real Mitt Romney's Plans to Take Away Their Health Decisions (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's what I don't get about the GOP critics. (8+ / 0-)

    Why are they so anti-woman?

    Theocratic dictates.  This comes from the religious faction the GOP panders to.  Why don't more people object to that?

    Their desire to inflict this danger to women's health comes from religious devotion and fanaticism.  They want to break down the separation between church and state.

    Interestingly, Biden answered the question about his church's position as wrong for the country because it would impose his church's views on the country at large.  It's correct to frame things that way.

    Pro-life is a cause that exists to tear down the wall between church and state.  If they ever succeed, they will pick another cause and hammer at that.  They're already trying to do so with educational reform.  Their religious fanaticism should be addressed.

    •  The simple answer is that a great portion (8+ / 0-)

      of the GOP base is made up of that religious faction and if the politicians don't object to it is because they would lose votes.

      But now it goes even farther than that. At first it was just the GOP pandering to the base. But as time has gone by, some of the people who actually have these extremist views have entered politics and gotten elected. A great example of this is Todd Akin in Missouri. When he made his comment about "legitimate" rape, he actually believed what he was saying. So, not only does the GOP have to pander to these people, they have them elected to office in local, state and federal positions.

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

      by hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 09:20:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, I don't get why this critique is so rare. (5+ / 0-)

        I understand why people like Akin and the like get into power.  Politics has almost nothing to do with competence or actually effective policy position.  Politics (and political leadership) has more to do with sounding like the best voice for a social community that one represents.  This is why people who promote insane ideas (creationism, homeopathy) can sometimes get political positions.  Intelligence has nothing to do with being elected, interpersonal skills do.

        Akin's views come from his religious background and foundation.  Now here's what I don't get at all.  Why is it that we don't criticize his religion?  Why is it that his anti-science, fundamentalist religion is not critiqued, when the vile ideology he follows is the source of his anti-woman views?

        These things don't come out of nowhere.  It comes from a theology that views women as inferior to men.  It comes out of a theology that says scientists are tools of evil.  It comes from an theology that calls 'critical thinking' the enemy.

        It comes from a worldview that is entirely antithetical to science.  It comes from religion.

        Now I get some people are not fanatically religious, and that's fine.  But what it means to be religious and not fanatic is the following:
        If science and religion ever have competing explanations for something, toss out the religion and go with the science.

        I don't know what value a religion could possibly be to someone if they do that, but that's their business.  However, the people who toss out what is known in favor of religious assertions about the nature of the world are nihilist, anti-scientific, and anti-humanist.  It is the nature of rejecting science that leads one to this, inevitably.

        Only when one accepts science can we begin to have morality, equality, and true compassion for one another.

        •  one word: spineless (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          palantir, hungrycoyote, Paul Rogers, jdld

          It is the same reason Obama refuses to use the word LIAR when referencing Romney's disavowment of reality.   it is the same reason Democrats aren't on stage every day yelling at a camera about obstructionism and reckless governance.  From gay rights to women's rights, to civil rights in general; from immigration to climate change; from budgets to wars...both sides are in the business of doing the least amount of business because once a stand is taken or a vote is made...they fear the people they might piss off more than they want the adulation of those they can help.

          Biden showed all politicians how it should be done...call out the lies and then provide the truth.  Fight for the those who can't fight for themselves and not those who no longer need protection.  

          But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. – Yeats

          by Bill O Rights on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:01:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They want their religion in public, let it show. (4+ / 0-)

            It makes me angry to see injustice and persecution, and moreso against groups that I know are being actively persecuted.  Implicitly, I understand that if they ever succeed in their campaigns against any of these groups, they may very well turn their hateful spite towards me, or just redouble it on someone else they're already targeting.

            Criticize their religion.  They want it to be in their public life, fine.  Let's talk about how their religious views justify slavery, excuses racism, demands sexism, endorses bigotry.  Both in the past, and even to this day.

            Let's talk about how their ideology opposes everything good that has ever existed.  Let's talk about how major social improvements have never developed out of religious movements, but only out of secular causes.

            Religion is not the source of ethics or morality.  In every case, religion comes out with surprising revelations of ethics long, LONG after secular society conquers the debate.  They desire to revise history to claim otherwise, but it is false.  Secular reasoning and secular arguments bring us justice.

            I guess I've been a little more pissed off about this recently.  But I'm tired of reading about David Barton and Todd Akin and Paul Broun and, and, and....

            It's time to call out what they're doing.  It's time we recognize what they are.  Nihilists.

        •  You're asking them to think rationally like (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul Rogers, Creosote, Loose Fur

          you and they simply don't. They are driven by faith; not facts or science and they have infiltrated the Republican Party more severely than you want to believe, more so at the local and state levels. If you've seen any of Rachel Maddow's shows about the abortion issue like I diaried here and here you know how much they've accomplished since taking over state houses and governorships in 2010. Look at this graph of abortion legislation since 1985.

          Howard Fineman was on Hardball with Chris Matthews back in August and explained it better than I can. I wrote a diary about the appearance at the time.

          Howard Fineman: Chris, I'm not making a value judgment when I say this, but the Republican Party has become a faith based party. Starting with Ronald Reagan, there was a marriage between the Bible belt of the south, the fundamentalist Bible belt of the south.

          Chris Matthews: Literal interpretation?

          Howard Fineman: Literal interpretation. And Catholics elsewhere in the country who were becoming more conservative socially. They joined hands. And there are many good things that came from that, especially if you believe in the Republican Party and its success. But these people start from a fundamentally different point of view on questions such as abortion, on questions such as evolution, on questions such as climate change. They see, as John McCain belatedly said, "the hand of God in everything that happens." And they look to God first. They're legitimate concerns. For example, about genetic manipulation of the human species. Should we leave that to God, or do we as human beings take that on? There's a serious point underneath this. Okay, there is. But nobody in the modern Republican Party dares question the orthodoxy of a faith based Republican party at this point. That's what it is. It's a Bible-based Republican Party.

          As for why Democrats aren't pointing their fingers at Republicans and saying "they are trying to put religion in our government;" it's an extremely sensitive area. When Ted Kennedy was defending his Senate seat from Mitt Romney in 1994, he tried to make Romney's Mormon religion an issue in the campaign. It didn't work out well for him. Yet another diary I wrote quotes an article from 1994:
          We want to know our political candidates as whole men and women. We want to know where and how they grew up, where they went to school, what traditions and experiences formed them. Religion, or lack of it, is part of that formation. To deny religious values a place in politics would leave the leaven out of the lump. To use religion as a shorthand to distinguish Like Us from Not Like Us is reprehensible.

          Kennedy erred in making issue about Mitt Romney's religion by Ruth Walker, The Christian Science Monitor, 6 October 1994

          How do you point out that a candidate's religion informs who he/she in a way that is not good for all Americans without attacking the religion and then opening your side up for attack for judging another person's religion?

          “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

          by hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need politically active scientists/skeptics. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hungrycoyote, Creosote

            We need people willing to aggressively target and attack nonsensical religious justifications for social policy.  No social policy, ever should be justified by anything but scientific arguments.  Science is the same everywhere and for everyone, whether or not one belongs to a religion.

            Also, it might help to remove the tax-exempt status from religious organizations that insist upon injecting themselves into political discourse.  By doing so, their political speech is effectively being subsidized by the US government.

          •  Sometimes I think that talking about abortion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hungrycoyote

            is the only way fundamentalists can deal with the emotions aroused at some level by awareness of the profoundly mortal issue of global climate change.

            They can understand it only as the death of a cell and its 'potential.' Not of the totality of the world's people, animals, trees, ocean, and millennia of culture.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site