‘Baby-killers.’ It’s always ‘baby-killers.’

Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred. — C.S. Lewis

“Baby killers.” It’s always baby-killers.

Yes, this graffiti vandalizing the offices of Eric Cantor’s Democratic opponent in Virginia has to do with the politics of abortion. But here is the key thing to understand: This vandal did not accuse others of being “baby killers” because he opposes abortion. He opposes abortion because he wants to believe he is a hero fighting against monstrous “baby-killers.”

The epithet “baby-killer” predates America’s abortion politics. It predates America. It’s as old as the blood libel, older than the New World (a place Europeans “discovered” and found occupied by “savages” who were deemed illegitimate because they were, why, yes, that — always ultimately that).

The inclination to accuse one’s opponents of being “baby-killers” does not arise from America’s abortion politics. America’s abortion politics arises from the inclination to accuse one’s opponents of being baby-killers.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Bowling with Jesus
Clobber-texting isn't a principled hermeneutic: A horrifying case study
The sins of the fathers
Whatever happened to 'pro-life Democrats'? Go see 'Spotlight'
  • http://algol.wordpress.com/ SororAyin

    Posts like this one are why I love your blog, Fred.

  • Katie

    It also has to do with it being easier to call people who support reproductive freedom-lately, this includes not just people who want abortion to be legal, but also people who are pro-contraception-baby killers, than it is to deal with the systemic problems that are killing babies who have already been born.

  • aunursa

     a universe of pure hatred

    Mitt Romney is an evil, evil person who will enslave women, put the black folks back in chains, and cause thousands of people to die — all for the insatiable greed of himself and his billionaire friends.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t have any idea what your point is. It certainly can’t be another instance of ‘the left does it too, gotcha’, because Romney has admitted that he wants to repeal the legislation ensuring women get paid as much as men for the same work, he wants women who find themselves pregnant to have no choice but to bear and raise the child with no assistance save what they can persuade their family to give, he wants to get rid of Obamacare and he won’t admit what he wants to replace it with–I’ll give you the ‘black folks in chains’ bit because I can’t think off the top of my head of any instances of Romney being racist (though Romney is not going to rein in his party on racism, you can count on that), but intersectionality being what it is, black women and poor black folk are going to be hit harder by Romney’s anti-woman and anti-poor agendas than white women and poor white folk are.

  • Carstonio

     Romney may or may not be prejudiced against non-whites, but he has enabled racism by using Southern Strategy euphemisms about welfare. I don’t care what Romney’s motives are, I just care about the effects of his actions and policies.

  • Dgsinclair

    the same and more can be saud of obama and his race baiting former preacher. i am still clinging to my religion and guns

  • AnonymousSam

    Romney joking that he’d have the race in the bag if only he was a minority. That’s a pretty racist dog-whistle if I’ve ever heard one.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I’d forgotten about that.

  • P J Evans

     Romney joking that he should be a Mexican, because his father was born in Mexico. (Leaving out that his grandparents moved there because they could be polygamists without much interference: lie by omission.)

  • Dgsinclair

    the truth hurts, dont it? when 90% of blacks vote for obama, how is that not racist?!? its like me voting for romney bc he is white.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Fairly sure that “Biased against people who hold you in utter contempt on account of your skin tone” is not actually a form of racism.

  • Dgsinclair

    essentially, we’ve gone from a culture that favors white males to one that discriminates against them in favor of diversity. we are not moving to a color blind society, just a different favored race or races. thank you , affirmative action

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which is of course why resumes identical bar the name get differing results, with better results for male-sounding names than female-sounding and for white-sounding names than black-sounding.

  • AnonymousSam

    Not just job resumes either. A study was done a few years back where a variety of people called housing agents, realtors, landlords, etc. They used eight university students and variations of a single script, each offering the same details regarding ability to make payments and housing needs. Needless to say, the African Americans were significantly less likely to be called back than the whites, males more likely to be called back than females, and those who spoke with clear enunciation were more likely to be called back than those who spoke with “black” dialects.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

      There was an interested thing a few years ago where some school or other created a baysean computer system to do a first pass over applications to reduce the load on the admissions department. The way a system like this works is that you don’t specifically tell the computer what you’re looking for: instead, you just give it examples of applications that were accepted and ones that were denied, and the system develops a mathematical model that determines whether a given input resume is more “similar” to the “approve” set or the “reject” set.

    And what they found was that the computer, which didn’t know anything about race (Did not even know the race of applicants since it wasn’t included in the data that was given to the computer) was making decisions that were *incredibly* racist.

    It turned out that their institutional history with accepting and rejecting applications resulted in the computer learning that even when the academic credentials were similar, a more ‘ethnic’ name pulled sufficiently hard in the “reject” direction to get the application tossed.

    (When they replaced the names with a randomly assigned ID number, the effect vanished)

  • Erikagillian

     Wow, where do these people come from?  They can hardly be reading Fred.

    Obama has done nothing to effect you and your penis, I mean guns.  Nor your beliefs. 

    You wouldn’t have voted for Hilary Clinton either, because she doesn’t look like you.  Or act like you.  Black people voted for Obama, yes, partly because he looks like them, why shouldn’t they?  You always get to vote for someone who looks like you.  But more clearly, he has some of the same experience they have, and seems less likely to hurt them.  That’s a reason for a woman to vote for Hilary Clinton too. 

    And you’re going to vote for someone who superficially is like you but is in fact so different he’d never speak to you if he could help it.  Instead of someone who is in fact to the right of center and is much more likely to understand you than someone as cocooned in wealth and privilege as Romney is.

  • Ursula L

    I’ll give you the ‘black folks in chains’ bit because I can’t think off the top of my head of any instances of Romney being racist 

    He was a member of the Mormon church, active in it and a leader, prior to 1978.  He was a missionary working actively to convert people to a faith that treated African Americans and other racial minorities as second-class.

    That’s racist.  Active racism.  And working to make the world a more racist place by increasing the number of adherents to a racist faith.

    And he’s done nothing to renounce his beliefs or actions of that time – if anything he remains actively proud of having worked to promote this racist agenda.

  • Lori

    You can continue to try to make excuses for the man you’re voting for and for what that says about you, but it doesn’t change reality. Mitt Romney is not a good person. In the (unlikely) event that he becomes our next POTUS it will be bad for women, bad for minorities, bad for the middle class (the actual middle class, not the Romney fantasy middle class), union workers, the uninsured and the soldiers who will lose their lives in the next neocon war. It will be good times and high cotton for rich white men.

    That’s who you’re voting for. If you don’t like it blame yourself or vote for a someone else or don’t vote at all, but stop blaming us with your feeble attempts at cleverness.

  • Kristen

    Man. I wish there was a dislike button here. I strongly disagree, but I don’t really blame you for your point of view. Our cultural perspective now marinates in a strong broth of liberal perspective. But you have fallen for some grave fallacies. As a woman, I proudly support Romney and resent how liberals have reduced women’s issues as the right to have an abortion. My issues extend far beyond that. Thankfully, it seems many American women are not falling for it either.

    As for the middle class, our take home income is nearly 5 thousand dollars less than it was when Obama took office. Unemployment is now higher than when he took office. The hardest hit demographic when it comes to those numbers are African Americans.  

    As for soldiers, I sat next to a soldier on a flight back from Tampa this weekend who talked about Benghazi and how demoralizing it is among our troops right now to know that their Commander in Chief will likely not have their back when trouble comes. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    What is Romney doing to ensure that women who do not want to be mothers do not have to be? That women who are mothers have the support they need to make sure their children do not grow up in poverty? That women who do the same work as men get the same hourly pay? That women are not being pressured to work fewer hours than men or at less-well-paid jobs?

    What is Romney doing to combat the idea that a woman in a miniskirt deserves to be raped? That a lesbian can be made straight if a man rapes her? That a woman drunk or asleep or physically incapable of producing intelligible syllables or gestures must have consented to sex because obviously she didn’t say no?

    What is Romney doing to make money move from those who have much more than enough to those who have nowhere near enough, rather than the other way around?

    What is Romney doing to increase the size of our armed forces and thereby maintain our forces’ strength in all locations while reducing the number of tours in hot boxes each soldier must serve? To increase our armed forces’ pay to account for the value and danger of the work they do? To care for our homeless veterans and our veterans with physical disabilities and/or mental illnesses acquired in the course of serving our country?

  • Antigone10

    I really wish I lived in the world conservatives did.  Truly, I want to be the one where liberal beliefs are common and normal, and the Overtone window wasn’t so far to the right.

    There are more issues than abortion for women’s rights- equal pay, seeing women get promoted into more positions of power,  anti-sex traffic, birth control, violence against women and rape.  I would also include things such as “support for day care” as well, but that may or may not be more economic than feminist, but it overlaps.  In all of these things, Romney is terrible.

    Name exactly one thing that Romney has done for women’s rights.

    The employment rate is crap.  It’s terrible, and I won’t argue otherwise.  And what precisely do you think Romney’s going to do about it?  His Trickle-down philosophy is terrible, and proven wrong again and again.  His voodoo for balancing the budget is based on wishful thinking and fairy dust.

    As for the soldiers, I know soldiers too- and they don’t seem to care too much what the president is doing.  They have work to do.  “Morale” is a nice amorphous concept, but I prefer things like “not killing them by starting stupid wars” and “helping veterans find jobs” to talk about who’s good for the troops.  

    I’ll be over with the candidate that isn’t actively hateful to half the country, thank you.  

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > resent how liberals have reduced women’s issues as the right to have an abortion

    Right. Because it’s not like liberals support equal pay independent of gender, or support treating harassment, intimidation and assault of women as though it were harassment, intimidation and assault. Or maybe women don’t really care about that stuff.  Or something. I dunno. (I realize it’s conventional to mention support for childcare and children’s health care here as well, but I’m not entirely on board with the idea that having a generation of well-cared-for and healthy children is a woman’s issue especially.)

    So, OK, Kristen: I’ll bite. List three women’s issues on which you endorse Governor Romney’s position over President Obama’s. Extra points if Governor Romney’s position is one he has not himself opposed within the last twenty years. I’ll listen.

  • Turcano

     

    Extra points if Governor Romney’s position is one he has not himself opposed within the last twenty years minutes.

    Fixed that for you.

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

     Right. Your house income is lower because of Obama. All Obama. Its not like there was some world wide crash of the economy before he was elected.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    As a woman, I proudly support Romney and resent how liberals have reduced women’s issues as the right to have an abortion. 

    It’s far beyond abortion.Liberals support the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act, and equal pay for equal work. Romney opposes it.Liberals support health care coverage of contraception, including for non-reproductive medical reasons. Romney opposes it.Liberals support increasing the minimum wage, which would disproportionately benefit women. Romney opposes it. Want to keep going?

    As for the middle class, our take home income is nearly 5 thousand dollars less than it was when Obama took office.

    Mmmmm… anecdata! Tell me, where did that $5k go? Did you actually compare your 2008 tax returns to your 2011 tax returns? Did you have the same gross income, or was it less? The same deductions? If you’re actually comparing the forms, what was your effective tax rate in ’08 versus ’11? Because those are meaningful numbers relative to an election. If your investments in Chase, Washington Mutual, and Bank of America declined by almost $5,000 since January 2009, I’m not sure how the president is blame.

    Unemployment is now higher than when he took office.

    January 2009 unemployment rate? 7.8%September 2012 unemployment rate? 7.9%One tenth of one point higher, after the largest banking crisis in U.S. history, the collapse of the real-estate market, an oil spill that devastated the Gulf Coast fishing industry,  an auto industry about to go under before the President took office, and a Senate that refused to even debate, let alone vote on jobs bills. 

    Good to know your standards aren’t too high…

    As for soldiers, I sat next to a soldier on a flight back from Tampa this weekend…

    …and then you talked about this with your black friend, and your gay friend, right?

    …about Benghazi and how demoralizing it is among our troops right now to know that their Commander in Chief will likely not have their back when trouble comes.

    Riiiight. Sure. OK. US troops fought for seven hours, the embassy suffered four casualties (two of which were not security forces) and that’s soooooo demoralizing!  

    But it’s liberals who “marinate in a strong broth” of their own perspective, because to everyone else, Benghazi is really really important, because, um… it just is, right?

  • Magic_Cracker

    Any halfway competent President would have suited up, hopped in the matter transporter, and personally broken the siege at Benghazi. /stupid-ass fuck-brained wingnut

  • Hawker40

    Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?
    Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
    Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
    How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
    There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
    Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
    In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
    In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many

    Where was the concern then?  It’s like the deficit, the GOP don’t give a damn until they can blame a Democrat.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    I suspect that “Benghazi” is just another conservative-meme, another right-wing-shibboleth. 

    In the last six years, the U.S. conservative movement has been getting oddly insular in it’s messaging. I have almost no idea who Saul Alinski is, and only the vaguest sense of what “Chicago-style politics” are, but when I hear or read commentary by conservatives, they seem to think that these things are terrible indictments of American liberalism. ACORN was, IIRC, a non-profit for housing and voter registration, and hasn’t existed for years, but I keep seeing it mentioned as though it was significant.

    I’m not sure why these things matter, and I have yet to see a coherent explanation as to why they should. Like Benghazi, they’re used vigorously as talking points, “proof” of presidential unfitness or wrongness or awfulness of some kind. But asking “how” or “why” results in increasingly rambling, tenuous connections to reason and logic and fact. 

    The “Sandra Fluke is a slut” meme nearly reached this category, and we still see claims that allowing employees to control how they use their compensation amounts to a violation of religious freedom. 

    It’s an odd phenomenon  I don’t know what (if any) the left-wing equivalent might be, of phrases that are used without context but implying great meaning. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I have almost no idea who Saul Alinski is

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

    Supposedly he is to have said “Give me a phone booth and six people and I’ll start a revolution”. :)

  • ohiolibrarian

     IN: And I thought you were referring to Nate Silver!

  • WalterC

     

    It’s an odd phenomenon  I don’t know what (if any) the left-wing
    equivalent might be, of phrases that are used without context but
    implying great meaning.

    Well, you wouldn’t, would you? The thing about jargon like that is that it gets inside your head, to the point where you are only dimly aware (at best) that the phrasing you’re using doesn’t make sense to anyone who doesn’t have the same cultural background, technical expertise, or habits/hobbies as you do. I remember when I first started reading this blog — terms like “RTC”, “PMD”, “Bad Jackie”, “spoons”, Kitten-Burning Coalition aren’t that easy to decipher. Sure, once you get the context they make sense, so don’t think I’m criticizng their use or saying that they should be abolished, only that they .

    The “Benghazi” thing isn’t almost the same. Just as “RTC” (Real True Christian) calls to mind Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps and Rick Santorum and Tim LaHaye, and all of the harm that their prejudice has inflicted on the LGBT community, “Benghazi” calls to mind the image of the dithering, weak-willed Commander In Chief Obama and his cowardly failure to protect our embassy over seas.

    As far as why they’re stuck on this one issue right now, it is a good way to allay the discomfort that many conservatives feel about backing the candidate who has by far the weakest foreign policy background in favor of the candidate who ordered the assassination of public enemy #1 Osama Bin Laden.

    It is difficult to make a structured case that Obama is weak on foreign policy; it’s probably his strongest advantage over Romney right now, and the “Benghazi” meme is a convenient way to even the odds. (It’s also why they spent all that energy on the whole “Did Obama call the attack an ‘act of terror’ or a ‘terrorist attack’?!!?!” thing a few weeks ago. It is very hard to argue that Obama is soft on terrorism, what with the OBL thing and the drone strikes; if they can argue that he’s somehow afraid of terrorists after all that, that helps their guy out just a little bit.)

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    It’s an odd phenomenon  I don’t know what (if any) the left-wing equivalent might be, of phrases that are used without context but implying great meaning. 

    “The Murdoch press” and “talk back radio” come to mind.

  • Andrea

    “our take home income is nearly 5 thousand dollars less than it was when Obama took office. ”

    Yeah? So is mine, and it’s got nothing to do with any president and everything to do with a voluntary job change.

  • http://flickr.com/photos/sedary_raymaker/ Naked Bunny with a Whip

    nearly 5 thousand dollars

    Wow. I’d have held out for much more before selling my bodily autonomy.

  • Magic_Cracker
    nearly 5 thousand dollars

    Wow. I’d have held out for much more before selling my bodily autonomy.

    “Pocketbook”* issues indeed.

    *Old-timey slang for a prostitute’s vagina.

  • Darkrose

    The hardest hit demographic when it comes to those numbers are African Americans.  

    Please point me to the specific plan of Mitt Romney’s that would alleviate unemployment among African-Americans. 

    For that matter, please point me to the specific plan of Mitt Romney’s that would alleviate unemployment among anyone.

    Or hell, please point me to the specific plan of Mitt Romney’s. Any specific plan, not “Watch me while I pull numbers out of my ass!”

  • dj_pomegranate

    As for soldiers, I sat next to a soldier on a flight back from Tampa this weekend who talked about Benghazi and how demoralizing it is among our troops right now to know that their Commander in Chief will likely not have their back when trouble comes.

    Surprisingly, soldiers don’t all vote the same or even have the same perspective on soldier-issues!  

    mr. dj_pomegranate was working with embassy security in Libya  at the time of the Benghazi attack.  And he thinks Romney is a clown when it comes to national defense, especially since he and Ryan failed to even describe the chain of command accurately.  So.  

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    BUT BUT BUT

    GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED IS A SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE VOTE FOR THE OLD WHITE GUY BECAUSE FAMILY VALUUUUUUUES.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    ZOMG!, it was only when I was considering a reply (since abandoned) to your “vote for old white guy!” comment that I suddenly noticed a coincidence that can only have the deepest meaning, for there are no coincidences: The abbreviation for “Old White Guy” is OWG.  And what do we know from the Left Behind books also called “OWG”?  That’s right, folks.  The Old White Guys are the One World Government!

  • spinetingler

     “Unemployment is now higher than when he took office.”

    By a whole one-tenth of a point! Whoo! Republicans forever!

    http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/2.html

  • spinetingler

     “As for the middle class, our take home income is nearly 5 thousand dollars less than it was when Obama took office.” Citation needed.

  • EllieMurasaki

    To be fair, she may be speaking of her own personal household income, and I think requiring her to show her paystubs from now and from 2008 would be an invasion of privacy.

    If she’s speaking of the middle class as a whole, then yes, citation absolutely fucking needed, but I have the impression that she is not.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The problem is generalizing from her/his experience to the population as a whole. This kind of thinking is why whites often tend to believe blacks are overexaggerating about job and police discrimination. (-_-)

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    To be fair, she may be speaking of her own personal household income, and I think requiring her to show her paystubs from now and from 2008 would be an invasion of privacy.

    I think she was speaking of her own, personal household income, hence my term “anecdata”. The problem is that we don’t know what where the gross income came from, (salary versus wages versus billings versus capital gains) we don’t know how it might have changed in the last four years, (switched jobs, had hours reduced) how expenses might have changed (renting versus mortgage, medical bills, other tax-deductible expenses) and how much could be directly attributed to government roles. (effective tax rates) 

    “My income went down by $5,000 because I lost my interest-only-mortgaged rental property” is a somewhat different complaint than “because of Federal budget difficulties, my spouse who is employed with the government has had their wage frozen for the last 4 years while gas prices have exploded”. 

  • spinetingler

     Ah, my bad (possibly).

    Yeah, one data point does not constitute a tendency.

  • Glorendone

     Our family’s take-home income *is* thousands of dollars less… because Scott Walker and other Republicans in the state attacked and dismantled collective bargaining, because threatened with another wave of layoffs, what used to be our union agreed to pay more toward our health insurance, etc. Meanwhile, disability benefits in the state have decreased for people like my uncle – while his co-pays have increased. He has to be cared for 24/7. This puts an additional burden on our family’s time and resources.

    I could also mention things that seem very small to a lot of people, like my uncle’s art class losing funding. Seems small, but it was a big loss to *him*. It was very simple but brought him a lot of joy. And having a free hour during the week was often really helpful in getting things done.

    My life is worse than when Obama took office. But it is not Obama’s fault.

    Thanks, Republicans.

  • Lori

     

    As for the middle class, our take home income is nearly 5 thousand
    dollars less than it was when Obama took office. Unemployment is now
    higher than when he took office

    Is your gross income the same? Assuming that your gross income is not lower, is the difference in your take home pay due to differences in your federal tax rate or your state tax rate? Many states have had to raise their rates and fees because they are in dire financial straights, in part because they’re getting less money from the federal government. Because of Republicans in Congress.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Also, because of Republican governors cutting off their state’s noses to spite their faces in refusing federal matching funds which would take the pressure off their budgets.

    For a bunch of people who call themselves hard-nosed money pragmatists they sure seem to have trouble with “the money’s green, who cares where it comes from?”

  • wendy

    As for soldiers, I sat next to a soldier on a flight back from Tampa this weekend who talked about Benghazi and how demoralizing it is among our troops right now to know that their Commander in Chief will likely not have their back when trouble comes. 

    and yet, 

    “President Barack Obama has received almost twice as much in campaign contributions from U.S. military and Defense Department personnel as his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, despite Romney’s promises to boost defense spending and his criticism of military cuts set to take place in January.

    Obama has received $536,414 from such donors, compared with Romney’s $287,435, according to research by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. The group’s study, which includes data through August, looked at donations from individuals who listed their employment as the Defense Department or one of the branches of the military.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-16/military-personnel-campaign-funds-favor-obama-over-romney.html

    Maybe because Obama is less eager than Romney for another war. Or maybe the troops got wind of Romney’s plan to privatize the VA.

    Or maybe because the troops are part of that 47% Romney calls dependant, who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives.

  • Lori

    Or maybe because Romney’s increased defense spending would do far more for military contractors than it would for the troops.

  • VMink

    Speaking as a former military person, it takes more than throwing money at the armed forces to get their attention.

    We/they want to know that the armed forces being used properly, that the Commander-in-Chief knows what they’re doing and isn’t just sending soldiers off to some war to… to throw a small country against the wall every decade or so to make sure the rest know who the big dog in the yard is.  That the military isn’t just being used as a penis extension for the person in the Oval Office.*

    One of the things I got out of four years of a military college, was that leadership is more than just being Teh Decider — which while often mocked, is actually not that far off from the job description of C-in-C.  It’s just not the be-all and end-all of leadership.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    In the (unlikely) event that he becomes our next POTUS it will be bad for women, bad for minorities, bad for the middle class (the actual middle class, not the Romney fantasy middle class), union workers, the uninsured and the soldiers who will lose their lives in the next neocon war.

    Perhaps it will also be bad for the unmentionable poor.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-lower-class-still-waiting-for-first-mentio,30185/

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-lower-class-at-least-grateful-it-not-part,28999/

  • Loki100

    That sounds about right.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Nice try, but your attempt at hyperbolic parody failed because everything you said happens to be true.

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

     You’re right. Its good you’ve seen the light on this issue. I hope that you live in a swing state, so that your vote for Obama is where it counts most.

  • EllieMurasaki

    He’s Californian, I believe.

  • Guest

    We don’t scorn Romney because we live in a universe of pure hatred. We scorn Romney because we live in reality, a place it seems like Romney has never been.

    But hey, I don’t know you. Maybe you’re the one guy to whom Romney and Ryan revealed all those tax loopholes they’d close that would magically balance their otherwise negative-seven-trillion-dollar budget. Maybe you’re the one guy who Romney told what his actual foreign policy would be after he’s talked tough to his base and offered conciliation to foreign leaders. Maybe you’re the one guy Romney told the truth about his stance on Roe vs. Wade.

    Anything’s possible in Romneyworld, where a candidate can be simultaneously for and against FEMA and Roe and contraception and universal health care and offshoring and balancing the budget and and and…

  • reynard61

    “Mitt Romney is an evil, evil person who will enslave women, put the black folks back in chains, and cause tens of thousands of poor people to die — all for the insaiiable greed of himself and his billionaire friends.”

    Um…no. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a whole line of equally evil, evil people behind him with those exact same goals in mind. It’s our job to *keep those evil, evil people from realizing those goals by keeping them away from positions of influence where they can attain those goals.* As we’ve seen tonight, we were partially successful; but too many of the people who want to watch the world burn (Yes; I’m looking at you Michele Bachmann, Steve King and Allen West!) were re-elected to those offices where they can make their mischiefwreak their havoc. Until their constituents wake up and realize/comprehend the error of their ways, that line behind Romney isn’t going to get any shorter.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Bachmann and West haven’t been reelected yet. (Dunno about King.) West isn’t even ahead.

  • Lori

     West lost, but by a small enough margin that there may be a recount.

    Bachmann is now trailing, but there are a lot of votes left to count. No one but the hardcore, stay up all night, folks are going to have any idea about the outcome  until tomorrow.

    King won

    Joe Walsh (R) deadbeat dad lost by quite a bit though.

  • reynard61

    Thanks. I stand corrected. At the time I wrote my comment I thought that West and Bachmann’s races had been called in their favor.

  • abra11

    I was listening the latest episode of This American Life (Red State Blue State), which was all about people struggling with and ending relationships (friends, siblings, etc.) over differences in political ideology.

    There was a segment on this about 2 academics (I think) who have developed a model for  training in political dialog — healthy political dialog. The reporter had recruited 2 sisters who were barely speaking to each other to have a conversation with each other with the support of the researchers. One backed because she was afraid of saying something that would end the relationship (of course, if you aren’t speaking what kind of relationship are you ending) but the reporter convinced her to speak to them without the sister. It was amazed me that she started by asserting that her sister frustrated her so by insisting on liberal ideology because liberals are so selfish — never wanting to help other people, just wanting the government to do it — and she knew her sister wasn’t selfish. She hadn’t allowed her own sister to explain her reasoning… 

    I will begrudgingly admit that probably I live with a caricature of the other side in my mind and that is often who I am responding to rather than the person in front of me but I don’t think both sides are equal offenders — based on the sheer amount of factually inaccurate information the right serves up to conservative followers. 

    In any case, however, it was a good reminder to try to understand people in their own terms — disagree with them as to whether government assistance is/isn’t the best way to help people but assume/recognize they want people to get the help they need… but even as I type this, I struggle because I think that there is a certain amount of self delusion that we are all capable of and that it is quite easy to buy some version Ayn Rand’s virtue of selfishness as a way to justify “helping people” by not helping or just helping the “deserving” poor, etc.. If that is the case, when do we call a spade a spade?

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

     I actually know people who think like that person thinks liberals do…

    Well actually I know one person who thinks like that.

    He’s usually okay but he disdains charity for ‘doing the government’s job’ and the voluntary sector for stepping in when government makes cuts. *facepalm*

    His argument is the exact opposite of the “let the charities/churches do it” absolutely no nuance.

    He’s like the antiteaparty.

  • Random_Lurker

    Why, I’ve even heard that the Negro, left to his own devices and in his natural habitat of Africa, will kill and consume his own children!  It is, therefore, in the best interest of the Negro to be kept under the compassionate governance of the white man, so that the Negro might be protected from his own savage  nature.*

    *- I have no idea if that’s a historical justification for slavery or not.  But it would not surprise me one bit, and it seems to fit right in.

  • The_L1985

    IIRC it is

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    I’ve said it before (here or elsewhere) that both sides of this election have narratives in place to deny the legitimacy of a close defeat. 

    If the president wins re-election, the Republicans will argue voter-fraud (meaning non-citizens voting or citizens voting more than once) and voter intimidation. (expect ACORN/Black Panthers/UN observers to be blamed)  They’ll claim that pollsters and the media were biased for Obama and misled the public in an attempt to discourage Republican voters. They’ll probably revive the claims from four years ago that the President was never properly “vetted” and suggest that liberals are the real racists. 

    If the challenger wins through close races, the Democrats will show cases of voter suppression, (denying registered voters the right to vote) voter intimidation, (one party training “observers” to enforce non-existent election law) or vote tampering. (Diebold machines switching votes, or officials wrongly invalidating ballots)

    I am biased, so the actual news reports I’ve seen are voter suppression and disenfranchisement in Ohio, bomb threats against early-voting locations in Florida, and the numerous examples of statistically-impossible voting trends found in Diebold voting machines, but if someone can find me moderately-well sourced evidence of voter-fraud or organized “left-wing” voter intimidation comparable to “True The Vote”, I’ll be all ears. 

    The moral of the story, for me at least, is that it’s no longer enough to win; it has now become necessary to win big, to win by a large enough margin that “cheating” can’t explain it, to win big enough that 

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > The moral of the story, for me at least, is that it’s no longer enough to win; it has now become necessary to win big, to win by a large enough margin that “cheating” can’t explain it

    Another moral one can draw here is that we need to make more of an effort as a country to encourage the idea that voter suppression and disenfranchisement are bad things, not legitimate campaign tactics. One possibility is to enforce the existing laws against them.

  • P J Evans

     I’ve heard of one case of actual voting fraud this year. A woman in Las Vegas tried to vote twice, at two different locations. She was arrested. (She’s also registered as a Republican.)

  • wendy

    >>The moral of the story, for me at least, is that it’s no longer enough to win; it has now become necessary to win big, to win by a large enough margin that “cheating” can’t explain it, to win big enough that <<

    There's no such thing as a win big enough to satisfy the right wing. 

    Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008; his popular vote margin was more than 9 million votes. That didn't stop McConnel and Cantor and the rest of their cabal from meeting *ON INAUGURATION DAY* to plan total obstruction and delegitimization of the man they like to call Kenyan Usurper. 

  • WalterC

    Extra points if Governor Romney’s position is one he has not himself opposed within the last twenty years. I’ll listen.

    Okay, that one’s a little steep. How many politicians haven’t changed in twenty years? I think if you can find a position that Romney hasn’t shifted in the last three weeks or so, that would be phenomenal. Seriously, it is astonishing how liberal Mitt Romney became once he was nominated. The guy who was against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and thought that the DADT repeal law was a mistake is now for both of those things. Is the old asshole Mitt Romney the real candidate, or is it the new more moderate one? We can’t be sure, and it seems like a lot of voters are banking on the assumption that the “bad” Romney was the fake one and the better one is the real one.

    They may be right, but I don’t understand why we should elect someone who “might” (if we’re lucky) be a center-right conservative when we already have one in office.

  • http://xulonjam.wordpress.com/ Xulon

    Back in the 80s, my then sister-in-law heard that I did not vote for (All Genuflect!) Ronald Reagan. She told my not-yet two year old niece to call me “Uncle Baby-Killer”, because when you are just SO right, not only is nothing below the belt but you are the only one with a sense of humor.

  • TheFaithfulStone

    Here’s the deal.  I’m not a person who thinks that all conservatives are at home twisting their mustaches and hatching plots to resurrect the confederacy.  It’s possible to be a well meaning conservative.  It’s even possible to hold some really weird and horrible, but still well-meaning views that include denying rights to gay people.

    But the deal is, as we say around here, intent ain’t fucking magic.  It helps women not one iota if you think you’re helping them by making sure they stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.   It doesn’t help minorities or LGBT people to make sure they don’t have the same rights as a white heterosexual.  Global warming is real, and aggregate demand is a real thing, and no matter how well conservative’s MEAN, and the fact that so many of them don’t seem to change what they DO in the face of clear evidence that their well-meaning ways depend on counterfactuals makes me doubt how well they actually mean in the first place.

  • http://nobleexperiments.blogspot.com/ NobleExperiments

    I used to give a pass to my conservative friends; they were, personally, very nice people who just had a different perspective than I did, and they meant well.  Then a couple of years ago I realized that while they, personally, didn’t want to disenfranchise minorities or keep gays in the closet or want women to stay home and raise litters of kids…. they were voting for people who DID want those things and were actively trying to make them happen.  And I I also realized that they weren’t giving ME the same benefit of the doubt and assumption of good will that I had been giving them.  
    So I quit giving them a pass.

    Probably explains why I don’t have many conservative friends any more.   

  • Julian Elson

    I wonder whether the Carthaginians were baby killers. It seems there are accounts from  Greek, Roman,  and Jewish sources claiming this about the Carthaginians and (in the Jewish case) other Pheonician peoples. On the other hand, archaeological sites that were previously thought to contain sacrificed infants  did not have conclusive evidence that the infants were sacrifice victims… but then again, it’s not as if that’s conclusive proof that infant sacrifice wasn’t practiced. (No one claimed that Carthaginian babies *never* died for any reason other than being sacrificed.)

    The Romans, of course, were outraged, because the alleged Carthaginian practice of sacrificing children was *completely* different from the Roman practice of just leaving unwanted infants exposed to die. Hey, maybe some it’ll be some infertile woman’s lucky day and she gets a free baby! Maybe the Gods intervene!

    It’d be interesting to find out whether the Carthaginians called the Romans baby-killers. Especially if they did turn out to sacrifice infants themselves (“*We* send a child’s soul to Baal Hammon’s loving embrace. *They* just… throw them out like rubbish! The Rite of Moloch  isn’t baby killing. Baby killing is what the Romans do!”)

  • AnonaMiss

    In my high school American history class, our professor (OK, technically not a professor, but he did have a doctorate) told us that in the days immediately following the Civil War, when word was still getting out that the South was beaten, a group of northern soldiers in the deep mountain country came across a pocket of resistors who wouldn’t believe that they were actually Yankees. They had been told that they needed to defend against the Yankees because Yankees eat babies, and not knowing what Yankees were, had assumed them to be some kind of monster or demon that lived in the north.

  • LL

    It’s amusing how willfully ignorant many Republicans are. They really do live in a poorly informed bubble. And just to make clear, they’re not poorly informed because they’re Republicans, they’re Republicans because they’re poorly informed. There are some valid criticisms to make about Obama, but they never make them. That’s how I know they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They yap about Benghazi or abortion, but not about drone warfare. I guess because drone warfare kills brown people, which Republicans see as a point in his favor. Maybe that’s why they never mention it. They’re afraid it would make him look good to the typical brown-people-hating Republican voter. 

  • MaryKaye

    I just received a very unhappy mailing from Oxfam International about how the White House had suddenly pulled out of negotiations for a treaty on global reduction of the arms trade.  I am not happy with Obama over this, nor over his civil-liberties record at home or abroad (drones, Guantanamo, etc).  If he is re-elected I will do what I can to put pressure on him to change these policies, because I think they are wrong.

    But it is frightening when much of the criticism of the President’s policies is blatantly detached from what his policies actually ARE.  I could respect someone who said “Obama’s record on civil liberties is so bad that I can’t vote for him.”  Or “Obama’s bipartisanship efforts were actively harmful to the country, so I can’t vote for him.”  Or “Obama did so little to rein in the big banks that I can’t vote for him.”  But it is hard to respect someone who plans to vote against him because he’s increased taxes on small businesses (since he hasn’t) or because he’s never done anything for women (Lily Ledbetter Act).

    Obama is significantly to the right of me.  I voted for him because (a) he’s still significantly to the left of Romney, but more important (b) because no one knows what Romney’s positions as President would be, as he has contradicted just about every position he’s ever held, generally within the past 12 months–sometimes repeatedly.  I can’t possibly vote for that.  If you are a candidate you are responsible for explaining what you’ll do if elected.  By and large, Obama did that.  He has not come through on 100% of his promises, but his behavior in office has been pretty consistent with his campaigns.  Romney refuses to explain whenever he can and reneges on his explanations when forced into them.  He *has* to break his campaign promises because he routinely says both X and not-X.  I have no idea what he’d do as President except that it’s going to be right-wing–he won’t have the political coalition to do anything else.

  • P J Evans

    Obama is significantly to the right of me.  I voted for him because (a)
    he’s still significantly to the left of Romney, but more important (b)
    because no one knows what Romney’s positions as President would be

    Voting tomorrow, but I feel the same way. Romney has about as much moral core as a marshmallow, and isn’t nearly as useful.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Николай-Крутиков/100002311958508 Николай Крутиков

    Obama and the Dems kill babies in their imperialisitc interventions in Afganistan, Libya, etc.

    You’re a Social-Imperialist, Fred. 

  • JohnDale49

    They are baby killers though. That’s what abortion is, you idiot.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh, not this crap again.

  • EllieMurasaki

    How can it be abortion if it takes place when there’s a baby, that is, after birth? Similarly, how can it be infanticide if it takes place during pregnancy, that is, when there’s no baby yet?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X