Happy Friday the 13th, everyone!
The last Friday the 13th of political note took place last year, when Ron Paul announced he was running for president last May (which we noted in FTP [167]). Nothing as momentous seems to have happened today, at least as of this writing, but there are still hours and hours to go, so we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
Not a whole lot has been happening in Washington, due to Congress being out on one of their countless month-long vacations. Not a whole lot of Democrats have been in the news, either, since the Republican primary season is sucking all the oxygen out of the political arena right now.
President Obama's chief of staff quit, but this news wasn't as momentous as the departure of his predecessor, since Daley never went out of his way to personally insult the base of the Democratic Party in the way Rahm Emanuel routinely did.
What has been happening in a quiet sort of way is what I like to call "Flagpole Season." This is the time of year when the White House runs a few things "up the flagpole, to see who salutes" (as the saying goes), in preparation for the State of the Union address at the end of the month. Various policy ideas are trotted out to gauge reaction, and the ones that are received favorably will wind up in the big presidential speech to Congress. Today's news that Obama is considering consolidating some federal agencies is merely the latest in a series of policy proposals which will be steadily leaking out for the next week or so.
Over in the Republican clown show, I find it interesting that not a whole lot of people have latched onto a key story in the primary season so far: the disorganized nature of the Tea Party folks. While we were flooded with "Occupy Wall Street can't get their act together" stories at the end of last year, not many have picked up on the fact that the Tea Partiers are just as fractured.
Here's proof: who is the "Tea Party candidate" on the Republican side? There simply isn't one -- in fact, there are multiple candidates still vying for this role. If the Tea Party rank-and-file had coalesced around one single individual early on, we would currently be in a three-man race (Romney, Paul, and the Tea Partier). We aren't -- there are still six candidates in the race, being propped up by post-Citizens United super PAC money. So while the Tea Partiers were an undoubted force in the 2010 midterm elections, it seems they can't get their act together in 2012. I'm not sure what this means for the future of the Republican Party or the Tea Party faction, but it deserves more attention than it's been getting.
But enough idle speculation, let's get on with the show.
We truly wish that the rules allowed us to give some sort of award to Newt Gingrich's super PAC, because it's just been a joy to watch the circular firing squad taking place in South Carolina right now. The anti-Romney ads currently running will certainly provide fodder for the Obama team, later in the year, and it is rare to see Republicans savage each other in such a fashion. But the word "Democrat" in these awards precludes us from handing them out to the folks backing Newt, although (as we said) we would dearly like to thank them for their efforts in some humble way.
Elizabeth Warren deserves at least an Honorable Mention for the millions of dollars she raised last quarter to take on Senator Scott Brown up in Massachusetts. More power to her!
But this week's winner of the coveted Most Impressive Democrat of the Week award is Representative Allyson Schwartz, who is the woman most responsible for recruiting Democratic candidates to run for the House of Representatives in 2012. This is a low-profile job, for the most part, but it can indeed be a crucial one. So far, Schwartz has found 75 Democrats to run in open or Republican-held districts. Now, we haven't examined each and every one of these candidates, so this award may in fact be premature (we'll see what type of candidates they are, and how they do in the upcoming election), but we felt the effort itself deserved acclaim.
In the spirit of hoping her efforts pay off in a big and impressive way later this year, Allyson Schwartz is this week's Most Impressive Democrat of the Week award winner.
[Congratulate Representative Allyson Schwartz on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]
Â
It's been such a slow week that we are left without any real candidate for the Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week this week. As always, we may have just forgotten someone or some infamous Democratic blunder, so feel free to make nominations in the comments for a possible MDDOTW award.
Â
Volume 193 (1/13/12)
Because, outside the Republican primary, it has been such a slow news week, we thought we'd offer up some talking points for Democrats to consider using to begin framing the general election -- things to point out that separate Democratic thinking from what appears to be the emerging (and quite radical) Republican Party platform (of those people not named "Ron Paul," at the very least).
We'll be revisiting this broad subject all year long, of course, and issues will likely come and go, or rise and fall in importance as time goes by. So don't see this as any sort of end-all be-all list, but rather merely a starting point to frame the opposition's beliefs in a very stark and easy-to-comprehend way.
Â
   War with Iran, eight bucks a gallon
This one is a good place to start. Virtually all of the Republican candidates (Ron Paul excepted, of course) are all but promising this, out on the campaign trail. They do not go into detail, however, because the details are going to get very messy very fast if it happens.
Republicans seem to be trying to outdo each other in their rush to start another war -- this time, with Iran. I don't think America is exactly eager for another war in the Middle East, though. The thing to ask these Republicans is how exactly are we going to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb, and even more importantly, at what cost? Iran is not Libya. They have buried their processing factories underneath mountains. So what, exactly, would a Republican president do to solve this problem? Bomb the mountain? What if it didn't work? Send in American troops? Nuke the mountain? Have any of these candidates really thought out the implications of what they are bragging that they'll do, if elected? Personally, I don't think American citizens are ready for another Middle East adventure with rosy promises of early and complete success. And I really don't think people are ready to pay eight bucks a gallon for gasoline for years to come to make it happen, either.
Â
   Endless war
This is a more general point, but equally as valid.
The Republican Party seems to never be for ending a war. They were against ending our military presence in Iraq, and they are against pulling troops out of Afghanistan. After an entire decade spent fighting, Republicans still have no vision of any sort of end date for America's wars. In fact, Republicans seem to be a lot better at starting wars than finishing them.
Â
   Deport them all?
The Latino vote is going to be a big factor in the 2012 election, and (as usual) Republicans are already shooting themselves in the foot on this front. So hammer the point home!
I've noticed that Republican candidates never seem to have an answer for what to do with the over ten million undocumented immigrants currently residing within the United States. They are eager to talk about bigger and higher fences on the border, but they get very quiet when the subject of what to do with the people who are already here is brought up. This is because they have largely agreed that the only acceptable answer is to deport over ten million people. Can anyone actually imagine what this would entail? How many buses, how many airplanes would it take to deport that many people? How would they be identified for such a mass deportation? I also notice that nobody ever mentions how much all of this would even cost -- how many billions of dollars would it take to physically remove such an enormous number of human beings from our country? The media usually gives them a pass on this question, but I'd like to hear -- very specifically -- what the plans are of each Republican candidate when it comes to the question of what to do with these millions of people. Because I think the answer is going to shock a lot of folks.
Â
   Medicare vouchers
Remember Paul Ryan and his budget? The Republicans haven't forgotten. So point out what they're actually standing for, in plain language.
The Republicans running for president all seem to have nice things to say about the Ryan budget which passed the House this year. But nobody seems to ask them about the details, for some reason. The Ryan plan is to replace Medicare as we know it today with a system of vouchers. Granny would get a voucher, and be left to the wilds of the health insurance marketplace to fend for herself. This would result in her paying around six thousand dollars out of her own pocket -- each and every year -- that she doesn't have to pay today. A vote for a Republican is a vote to replace Medicare with vouchers -- and it's going to cost our seniors dearly in the future. Keep that in mind in the voting booth.
Â
   Repealing gay rights
The last three of these deal with the Republican obsession with sex.
Republicans talk a good line on 'small government' and 'getting the government out of our lives' except when it comes to the sanctity of the bedroom. For some reason, Republicans want the biggest and most-intrusive government possible when it comes to sex. A vote for a Republican candidate is a vote for repealing all the gains gay rights have made in the past few years. Most of the candidates would bring back the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, for instance. Is that really where we want to go as a country: backwards? Do we really want to start removing rights, rather than expanding them? I thought it was disgraceful when a Republican crowd booed a gay servicemember during a Republican candidate debate -- but I also noticed that not one of the candidates on the stage spoke up about such disrespect for our troops. Look for that sort of thing to continue under a Republican administration.
Â
   War on contraception
The "right to privacy" goes back further than Roe v. Wade. It actually stretches back to another Supreme Court case -- Griswold v. Connecticut. Remind people what this means.
When Mitt Romney was asked in a debate about the right to privacy and overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, he responded by saying he didn't think states would ever consider banning contraception. This shows how out of touch he is with his own party, because there is currently a movement to pass so-called 'personhood' laws at the state level. These laws would have the result of making certain forms of birth control -- used by millions of American citizens -- flat-out illegal. Romney tried to laugh the question off as some sort of unthinkable situation, but this effort is already underway. I don't think Americans really want states to be able to ban contraception, and I think what is unbelievable is that Mitt Romney is unaware that his own party is attempting to do so on the state level.
Â
   Rapists' rights
I've written about this one before. Like most of the rest of these talking points, all you have to do is take the Republican position to its logical conclusion, and lay it before the public to expose the ugliness.
I notice that this year the Republican Party seems to have taken the most extreme position on abortion imaginable: make all abortions illegal, with no exceptions whatsoever. Why the media doesn't ask them about the result of this stance is beyond me. I'd like to see these candidates asked a few questions, such as 'Would you really force an incest victim to bear a child that will be both her daughter and her sister?' The very idea is repugnant, but this is exactly what the Republicans would force such a girl to do. Even worse is the fact that Republicans are in favor of what would be a 'Rapists' Rights' law. If they had their way, rapists would be able to choose the mother of their children, secure in the knowledge that their victim would be forced to bring their child to term. Why are Republicans standing up for the rights of rapists, and trampling on the rights of rape victims? It just boggles the mind.
Â
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Â
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Dems Attack Romney on Abortion, Personhood - ABC News
Jason Salzman: Media Omission: Romney Supported Personhood ...
Previously pro-choice Mitt Romney now supports 'personhood ...
Democrats Attack Romney for Support of 'Personhood' Amendment ...
call me crazy, but i think nuclear iran is a bigger threat than ten bucks a gallon. expensive gas clears up the roads, encourages less pollution, more carpooling and more public transportation. nuclear iran is just scary.
Now, you just had to go and rain on a perfectly good parade, didn't you?
Heh.
The real question: is Schwartz another Rahm Emanuel, or something different? Only time will tell...
-CW
Strangely enough, I was just reading "Extracts from the Proceedings of the Court of Vice-Admiralty" by Henry Laurens, 1769, which is all about the British Customs officials' abuse of the Navigation Acts (and the Revenue Act of 1764). What is interesting is the way "probable cause" was used -- and how differently that term was used when the Bill of Rights was actually written than how we read it today.
The Federalists, of course, went on to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were the first egregious attempt to jettison the Bill of Rights. But they took things a bit too far when they took up an anti-war position in 1812 and walked up to the line of urging New England to secede. Which, of course, brought us the "Era of Good Feelings" and then Andy Jackson, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...
:-)
-CW
The GOP power brokers keep promising a "close" vote.
How can this be?? They don't have one candidate who can earn the majority in their own party, and yet they predict a close outcome in a general election, against an incumbent who broke turnout records.
Their suppression efforts are malicious in intent and horrific in scope.
We need to hear about democratic efforts countering the GOP.
That's a good point. As I said, this is just the beginning of a long process. We're just getting started, and this isn't an end-all be-all list, by any means.
-CW
It wasn't a criticism, just a concern.
He proved the system works just fine.
As did the republican lawyers looking for voter fraud.
Verified at .00005%.
Ah, but what exactly will be different under the new COS? He seems cut from pretty much the same cloth... which is why I'm kind of scratching my head wondering how much of a difference it will be...
-CW
And it's not relevant to the discussion to point out that some people, contrary to Obama's actions, think Obama is inciting war just like some people, contrary to the facts of what a war would DO, think Obama is being too soft on the Middle East by NOT inciting war. Using extreme viewpoints to undermine facts is pointless, expecially when the POINT is to present FACTS in a comprehensible way, not muddy them up with afactual opinions.
Actually, I did point out that Ron Paul is not on board with most of the Republican platform. In fact, he may be angling to use his influence to change some of that platform, which will be interesting (to say the very least) to see how that all works out.
-CW
Don't even get me started on most of the debate moderators... or, for that matter, the clown who inherited "Meet The Press," who couldn't ask a follow-up question if his very life depended on it.
Sigh.
-CW
Thanks to you too, and don't forget to "fan" me on HuffPost and follow me on Twitter, so you'll be notified every time I post.
:-)
-CW
Allow my ego to be unleashed for a moment to say: "What she said!"
:-)
-CW
The Tea Party is fractured because it is three major movements and a number of sub-movements.
First group is the Religious Right on crack. This is the group represented by some of the first Tea Party rallies, organized by the anti-freedom American Family Association. This faction has no problem with unbridled federal government when it comes to imposing religious law. This is the Santorum wing
Second group is the Patriot/militia movement, which gained a lot of its notoriety in the 1990s. They overlap some with the Religious Right On Crack, but differ sharply in that they tend to be very anti-globalist, agree that multi-national corporations need to be reined in, and believe in absolute or near-absolute state sovereignty/supremacy. This is the Ron Paul camp.
Third group is the group that Groups 1 and 2 are trying to masquerade as -- those who merely want to rein government spending, cut taxes, arrest the national debt, and come closer to something resembling real libertarianism. This faction is best represented by the Tea Party Express.
Unfortunately, the masquerade is working, because few of them have figured out that Groups One and Two want *MORE* government control, not less.
The right to privacy actually goes back to the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. Without a right to privacy, there would be no need for the Fourth Amendment to spell out exactly which conditions must exist in order for government to invade your private spaces.
The right to privacy is an obvious, assumed, natural right that fell under the umbrella that the framers of the Constitution created in the Ninth Amendment.
The next time some American counterpart to the Taliban claims that we "have no right to privacy," ask them, "then why does the government even need a steenkin' search warrant?"
Don't expect the PRESS monkeys to ever dig down further than their original question. They were probably up all night trying to think of one to ask ! And...god knows, they have to act responsible and "journalisimo" and not veer one way or the other, to be "fair and balanced" like the wonderful FOX they so dearly would like to work for.
The revulsion sets in when you think that all those fools of conservatism, will vote for a man who has "no core" "no values" and who is such a big LIAR, that he has outdone himself in the "Flipper" dept. His envy statement just about choked me......He is a vulture, as are all venture capitalists, and of course, none of the fools of conservatives, really knows how those things work anyway and care less. They just want the black man out of their "White" House, no matter if their christian minds are telling him, he is the DEVIL, disguised as a white man when he is really Hispanic, we learned, with old grandpappy having 5 wives in Old Mexico. And where is his birth certificate ?
Sorry to hear about the tea loons going nowhere ! That's a LIE.....I wish them hell hereafter.
Good point. The debate actually goes back further, to the political sex scandals at the very beginning of our government. Andy Jackson's marriage, for instance, or the Hamilton and Jefferson sex scandals -- it was argued then that people (politicians, mostly) had a "right to be left alone" and that their sexual conduct wasn't fodder for public debate. But this mostly devolved into a journalistic ethics debate, not a constitutional one.
Republicans are good at taking hot button issues and pushing for const. amendments -- I've long wondered why Democrats don't do the same thing by calling for a "privacy amendment" to the Constitution. One or two sentences would be enough, and provide the bedrock support for things like Griswold and Roe.
-CW
Great article as usual. However, I am surprised you did not mention this incident with the marines urinating on dead taliban fighters. This pains me so much that I even refused to read this story. And I hear people are trying to find justification for these acts claiming it is war and that a lot of things happen on war zones.
I am sure of one thing: people who do not travel outside of the country would react this way to these acts of barbary. We are Americans and are supposed to be better than this. When our marines go out and act like this, it reflects very poorly on all of us. The American people is highly regarded and respected outside of the US because we are good people, compassionate and generous people. But now with this, it just very unfortunate because it undermines all the good work that all our men, women of the Military, the State Dept, the Peace Corps do around the world each and every day. I am not sure how many times I had to explain to people around the world in an airport when I pulled the American passport that I did not vote for Bush and apologize for it. I am not sure how many times I will have to explain (if I can even do that) what these marines did. Just sad.
I am not an advocate of Ron Paul's and I don't condone this behavior, knowing the biggest majority of our military do not act this way, but I just wanted to point out that some of our military need a lot of help, mentally, and should be treated the same as those who lost limbs and other wounds. And I, too, have not watched or read about this terrible incident.
What they did is sad, but by comparison to the thousands we have killed in the middle east its not even worth bring up. Moral indignant-nation should be brought to our policy and practices in treating other people in the world.
While I understand your position, it didn't seem to fit in a Friday politics-only type of article.
One picture is worth a thousand words, we keep discovering over and over.
-CW
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court ruled the Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Griswold (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut) and Buxton (licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School) gave information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use.
How does Rick Santorum or any Republican believe they should or could overturn this 1965 decision rarely challenged since it was passed down?