Technically, The Move To End Women's Choice Is Bipartisan-- Thanks To Two DCCC Blue Dogs

Dan Lipinksi (IL) and Collin Peterson (MN), two of the scumbag Blue Dogs whose reelection protection Cheri Bustos has made her life’s work, joined over two hundred women-hating Republican fanatics-- 166 in the House and 39 senators-- in signing the amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to outlaw women’s Choice by overturning Roe v Wade. And you laughed when we pointed out that Lipinski could well be the next Blue Dog to join his pal Jeff Van Drew in leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP? Peterson has already announced he’s too old to switch parties in the twilight of his career, but Lipinski is evasive about his plans, especially if-- as many people think-- he’s beaten in the March primary by progressive activist Marie Newman.

On Thursday morning, Newman told Chicagoland voters that “Lipinski’s decision to sign this amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade is further proof of his willingness to pursue a distorted personal agenda and extreme views at the expense of his constituents’ health and best interests. My opponent does not trust women and he is not fit to represent us. Congressman Lipinski refuses to stand up for the values of our community and it is time that our district has real leadership.”

Lipinski, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, has co-sponsored 54 bills attacking the right to choose, including bills sponsored by Mike Pence, Steve King, and Todd Akin. He co-sponsored legislation to require invasive ultrasounds before women receive an abortion and he voted against a measure to create an exemption to an abortion ban for when the life of the mother was at risk. Trump personally thanked him for his work supporting the movement to take away a woman’s right to choose at an anti-abortion dinner in 2018. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case March 4, just 2 weeks before the Illinois primary.

The case will be the first anti-Choice attempt to overthrow Roe v Wade since Trump appointed two anti-Choice fanatics, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh-- to the Supreme Court. Charles Pierce, writing for Esquire Thursday, noted that this is a problem America has with Republicans, not just with Trump. “In case you were wondering,” wrote Pierce, “if simply replacing the president will be enough to wring the extremism out of the Republican Party, think again… This is going for broke. This is about tossing the privacy rights of 51 percent of the American people overboard. They want abortions made illegal, every one of them. Critical to their argument is the notion that the protocol set down in Roe is ‘unworkable.’ Of course, after doctors get shot, clinics get bombed, judicial vandalism, and SLAPP suits fall like iron rain, almost any system will be rendered ‘unworkable.’”

The Fifth Circuit labored to do the best it could with the vague and opaque “undue burden” standard on which the Court has relied since Casey. Amici respectfully suggest that the court’s struggle-- similar to dozens of other courts’ herculean struggles in this area-- illustrates the unworkability of the “right to abortion” found in Roe and the need for the Court to take up the issue of whether Roe and Casey should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled.

“That’s been the whole point all along,” noted Pierce.

Ireland Votes Pro-Choice... In A Landslide

The vote to repeal the harsh 8th Amendment to Ireland's Constitution-- which banned all abortion, even when rape was the cause of the pregnancy-- was expected a to be close, especially after American anti-Choice fanatics funneled campaign funds into the election. But it wasn't close. Ireland voted overwhelmingly to join the rest of the EU, just as they had voted to allow same sex marriage in 2015. And not unexpectedly, it was younger voters who led the way, nearly 80% of voters under 34 voting against the abortion ban. The only age cohort voting "No" was those over 65. The Irish Times reported a landslide based on exit polls Friday. As the votes were counted officially Saturday, reports all sounded like this:

It's official: Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, Yes, Yes, Yes.

Nationally the final vote was 3,367,556 (66.4%) to 2,159,655 (33.6%).

By late Saturday afternoon it was clear that just a single constituency was voting "No", Donegal in the far north. Central Dublin led the way with a 76.51% to 23.49% vote for "Yes" (pro-Choice). Except for tiny, rural, backward Donegal, the best the "No" vote could do was around 40% in places like Tipperary, Offaly and Limerick. Anti-Choice proponents expected to win in rural parts of the country. They didn't. All 10 Dublin constituencies were counted by early evening on Saturday. Mind-blowing results:

Click to view the Dublin results

For decades, Irish women with an unviable or unwanted pregnancy have faced an impossible choice. A choice between a lonely-- and for many, prohibitively expensive-- journey to a foreign country to seek a safe abortion; an attempt to do it themselves, risking death or criminal prosecution; or simply succumbing to a state that forces them to carry their pregnancy to term, regardless of whether they conceived through rape, or fatal foetal abnormalities mean their baby will die at birth.

No more. Friday’s referendum-- expected to be close-- in the end delivered a decisive majority in favour of repealing the Irish constitution’s eighth amendment, which since 1983 has recognised an equal right to life for both mothers and their unborn children, effectively prohibiting abortion in almost all cases.

The result, described by Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, as “the culmination of a quiet revolution in Ireland,” is extraordinary on two counts. First, in its decisiveness: watching thousands of young people flock home to vote by boat, train and plane, many thought this vote would be a tale of two Irelands-- older and younger; rural and urban; the past and the future.

That the resounding victory was not purely a result of generational displacement hints at an Ireland more unified than many believed. Exit polls suggest that even among the over-65s, a very significant minority voted for repeal. Alongside Ireland’s popular vote for equal marriage, it reveals just how much social attitudes have transformed as a result of people with longstanding views changing their minds.

The result was also extraordinary for what it represents: not just an embrace of women’s reproductive rights, but a sweeping away of one of the last vestiges of church influence on the state. Decades of scandal-- from the Catholic church’s role in running the Magdalene laundries where thousands of unwed, pregnant women were imprisoned and abused, to the child sex abuse scandals that have racked it-- have eroded its moral legitimacy and left it vulnerable to charges of the most extreme hypocrisy. An institution that looked the other way when women in its protection were raped, and children in its care were sexually abused, cannot expect to command the moral obedience of a nation.

The Irish parliament is now set to legalise abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, bringing Ireland into line with most of Europe, with abortion available up to 24 weeks on much more restricted grounds.

This will profoundly improve the lives of Irish women. But the result will also be felt beyond Ireland’s borders: most strongly and immediately in Northern Ireland, where the only way women can secure safe and legal abortion is to travel to the British mainland. The MP Stella Creasy is planning to force a parliamentary vote on the issue, but liberalisation is strongly opposed by the anti-abortion DUP, on whose votes the government relies at Westminster. The DUP cannot claim to speak for Northern Ireland, where there is a clear majority in favour of liberalisation. It would be unforgivable for Theresa May to trade away the rights of British women in exchange for the DUP’s parliamentary support.

Sorry Pelosi, Democrats Can Be Anti-Choice If They Want... But Democratic Candidates Can't Be

Coddling anti-Choice asshole Bart Stupak, made the Affordable Care Act less defensible

You know how much I hate when people use Identity Politics for candidate selection, right? EMILY's List is the progenitor of that poison but it's spread and spread and spread since then. Yesterday I was railing a little about how the newest Identity Politics bullshit is around scientists (and fake scientists). But you name it, it's there. I'm a Korea, elect me. I'm an Indian, elect me. I'm gay, elect me. Blah, blah, blah... If the candidate isn't talking about issues, run in the other direction. But you know what's not Identity Politics? Support for abortion. That's a crucial policy that Pelosi-- much to her detriment-- is trying to undermine within the Democratic Party right now. She's wrong and she;'s not fit to lead any longer.

Shaunna Thomas is one of the co-founders of UltraViolet Action. Here's how she responded to Pelosi's deranged crap this week:

Nancy Pelosi is dead wrong if she believes that the Democratic Party should open its arms to candidates who will legislate away women’s access to safe, legal abortion. People are entitled to their own personal view, but the Democratic Party cannot and should not support and endorse candidates who seek to legislate their personal beliefs on others. Courting social conservatives by selling out women is not a winning campaign strategy, but a morally bankrupt attempt to win votes without concern for the women who desperately need Democrats in their corner to fight against Republican attempts to restrict abortion. And it’s a flawed strategy: The vast majority of people in this country support a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Make no mistake: As the Democratic leader in the House, Pelosi’s unsettling statements have the power to set the agenda for the party, and Democrats must commit themselves fully to protecting the rights of women as a non-negotiable party stance without exception. If the Democrats will not stand by women unconditionally and support their right to reproductive health care, then who will?

Ilyse Hogue is a progressive who runs NARAL. She seems to be more in touch with grassroots Democrtats than elitists like Pelosi are. This went up on her personal Facebook page yesterday:

This absolutely has to stop. Democratic leadership is sending bad messages that will lead to poor outcomes both in policy and politics. There's no excuse. Do much, much better Leader Pelosi. The only thing less excusable than winning elections on the backs of women--poor women and women of color disproportionately--is NOT winning elections and still selling them out. That's what this strategy amounts to.

Here's my full statement:

"The conversation about whether the Democratic Party has room for people who personally identify as pro-life is the wrong conversation and only plays into the hands of our political opponents. Of course the Democratic Party has room for those who identify as personally opposed to abortion. It always has and always will. However, the real question, and where we draw the line, is when candidates and elected leaders force their own ideology and religious values on their constituents and the women of this country. Legislating your own personal beliefs on women runs counter to the core democratic values of diversity, respect, dignity, and equality. Period.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates leads to bad policy outcomes that violate women's rights and endanger our economic security. It also endangers the economic security of our families, who are dependent on us as wage earners and oftentimes as primary breadwinners. It is fundamentally impossible to lift women and families out of poverty without centralizing reproductive rights and family planning.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates is also bad politics in a county where 7 in 10 Americans believe in legal access to abortion, where the majority of self-identified Republicans believe in legal access to abortion, and where a plurality of self-identified, personally 'pro-life' people believe in legal access to abortion. The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.

If anyone, at any level, believes that this election was won by Donald Trump based on his position on abortion and LGBTQ rights, we couldn't disagree more. A small minority of voters vote strictly on an anti-choice platform, and they are unlikely to join the Democratic Party anytime soon because they disagree with Democrats on most everything.

In 1984, Mario Cuomo-- who personally identified as pro-life-- gave a speech at the University of Notre Dame in which he promoted his proudly pro-choice voting record as not just vital for women, but vital for democracy. Separation of church and state is the fundamental principle that allows for our government to serve all of its people and to allow diversity to flourish. The only thing that has changed since then is that women's rights are even more under attack and now more than ever, we need party leaders to stand up for those of us most vulnerable under Donald Trump. Now more than ever, we need party leaders to stand up for those of us under attack.

Last year, both delegates for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton came together to produce the most progressive Democratic Party platform ever. That platform went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access-- it sought to expand it.

If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles.

For me, economic issues largely determine who we endorse at Blue America-- so far this year, these men and women. But before we even discuss economic issues with candidates, we want to make sure they're of sound character, solid intelligence and will never sell out communities that have been systematically and systemically disadvantaged by the Establishment, and that includes women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, gays and lesbians, the physically handicapped, etc. Once we're sure of that, it's time too move on to questions about expanding Social Security, increasing the minimum wage and revamping trade policies so that they serve the interests of American workers, not just the 1%.

Will Chris Christie's Phony Pro-Choice Protestations Help Him In New Hampshire... Or Anywhere Else?

Chris Christie's desperate bid to get back into the second tier of Republican candidates-- the latest Fox News poll shows him as the first choice, nationally, of 3% of GOP voters, pretty much the same as what every other poll in the last month has shown-- is 100% dependent on a New Hampshire strategy. If he doesn't come in first or second in New Hampshire, his campaign is over. And an average of polls of New Hampshire GOP voters does show him doing better there than in the rest of the country-- 5.7%, trailing Trump, Bush, Walker and Kasich but ahead of Rand Paul, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee and everyone consigned to the Fox kiddie table tonight.

Christie's record among hard-core Republican voters as an inadequate defender of the anti-Choice orthodoxy-- see video above-- probably won't hurt him as much in New Hampshire, a solidly pro-Choice state, as it will in Iowa, where he's only going through the motions and knows he has almost no shot, not with Trump trumping the Christie bully boy routine that he originally had hoped would endear him to women-hating right-wing fanatics. But the evangelicals who dominate the Iowa Republican caucuses are not buying into Christie's Ralph Kramden routine-- not with the Trump clown in the race. Even some at the Fox kiddie table are beating him in Iowa! His average 2.3% in Iowa is less than what Iowa likely caucus-goers give Bobby Jindal (2.5%), Carly Fiorina (2.5%) and Rick Santorum (2.8%).

But in New Hampshire, 71% of voters say abortion should be legal all or most of the time and only 27% say it should be illegal. So maybe Christie can move up there. Maybe he can even come in in the top 2 or 3. But where does he go from there? South Carolina Republican voters are going to kill him. Nevada? Probably nothing helpful there either-- other than the Winecup-Gamble Ranch Inc., which has given Christie around a million dollars so far. I'd say Christie isn't going anywhere and crooked hedge fund billionaire Steve Cohen is wasting his millions on trying to prop him up-- two million between Cohen and his wife Alexandra-- as is the criminally minded Home Depot founder Ken Langone, Christie's other billionaire backer (although he's only given the New Jersey governor's presidential campaign $100,000 so far).

So what's Christie's next act? It probably won't be in New Jersey, where he is thoroughly loathed. And I don't see a President Clinton or a President Sanders appointing him to anything. Maybe that's why he's being so nice (relatively) to Jeb, Trump and Walker lately.

A Confused DCCC Doesn't Know If It Wants To Turn Out Voters Or Turn Off Voters

Yesterday Digby covered how Florida Democrats-- except Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- hope to use a medical marijuana initiative to turn out voters. In Colorado young people (the 18-29 cohort) made up 14% of Colorado voters, already high because of Obama-enthusiasm. But it increased to 20% in 2012 when there was a marijuana initiative on the ballot. Same results in Oregon-- where it went from 12% to 17% and in Washington, where the jump was from 10% to a startling 22%. And that was not what happened in states that did not have marijuana initiatives on the ballot. In fact, there was a fall off among young voters in Virginia, Wisconsin and Iowa and in Florida, the increase was an anemic 1%. Florida Democrats decided to change that this year.

A highly influential Democratic donor named John Morgan has spearheaded the campaign creating a group called United for Care.  They genuinely believe in the cause but there’s little doubt that it is also hoped that this ballot initiative will boost the rest of the Democratic ticket. Morgan sent out an email just today  telling the story of his late father’s illness and how much marijuana had helped make him feel better in his final days. He says:

Medical marijuana is legal in nearly half of the states in the country. And where it’s legal-- none of the scary, apocalyptic consequences promised by the opposition have come true. Violent crime has gone down, youth consumption has remained flat, and society has not collapsed.

Here’s what did happen: patients got access to another form of medicine, safer and less addicting than what doctors were legally allowed to recommend before.

So what can one make of the fact that the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee is voting against medical marijuana in the House and has come out against the ballot initiative in Florida? That’s right, the purportedly liberal Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is stridently anti-marijuana, even for medical purposes. This is, of course, her right as a representative of her district, but considering the political stakes for her state and the country at large, a leading Democratic Party official should probably have to answer for a position that’s completely at odds with members of her party, especially the voters of Florida. This is a Quinnipiac Poll from last May that suggests that Wasserman-Schultz is very much out of the mainstream (emphasis added):

Florida voters support 88 – 10 percent allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes, if a doctor prescribes it. Support is over 80 percent among all listed groups, including 84 – 13 percent among voters over 65 years old.

She has claimed the initiative is too broad and her office has said she has concerns “as a mom.” John Morgan of United for Care rebutted her claims: Ms. Wasserman Schultz says she feels Amendment 2 is too broad, but in fact it’s quite specific. It establishes the right of a physician to recommend medical marijuana to a patient with a debilitating condition if its use would offer that patient relief. It then asks the Florida Department of Health to build a regulatory framework that makes it possible for that person to have access to the medicine he or she needs. It’s difficult to say whether Ms. Wasserman Schultz believes sick people should be kept from their medicine, or whether she thinks the public servants at the Department of Health are incompetent and would implement the amendment irresponsibly, but both positions are puzzling, unfortunate and wrong.

Wasserman-Schultz will likely retain her seat in November with no problems. But that hasn’t stopped her friends from sending out emails begging for donations for help her beat back the bad guys. James Carville sent this on out just this week-end:

An outside group with money is like an alligator with a chainsaw — you’re pretty sure he doesn’t know how to use it, but you don’t want to be nearby when he tries. My friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz knows what I mean. She’s seen outside groups attack her earlier this cycle than ever before. And while they didn’t do much damage, that doesn’t mean they won’t the next time they try.

He goes on to imply that the “outside groups” who are running ads against her are the Koch brothers. But in reality, the group that’s been running ads against her is a medical marijuana group called Americans for Safe Access  concerning her record in the House.  The “attack” against her is this one:



You can see why she would not be happy with this damning indictment. It takes some real chutzpah to ask your donors to contribute to help fight the Kochs when this is the “outside group” that’s criticizing you.

Perhaps this is just a personal decision on the part of the Congresswoman which, again, is her right. Maybe she just doesn’t like pot. But as the highest official in the DNC, it’s political malpractice to fight against this.

Or maybe it's because Wasserman Schultz has been building power for herself with the financial aid of the private prison industry that is frantic the flow of marijuana convicts will dry up and put them out of business.

Yesterday Gallup published results showing another model for voter turn-out: anger at dishonest and incompetent political hacks like Wasserman Schultz. Conventional wisdom holds that voters don't go to the polls when they get turned off by politicians. But Gallup's data indicates that when they get angry enough, they do go to the polls-- for revenge.

Americans' disenchantment with Congress may lead to higher voter turnout on Election Day this year. In the last five midterm elections, voter turnout has exceeded 40% when Congress' approval rating was low, but turnout was below 40% when Americans were more approving.

Congressional job approval, currently 13%, is on pace to be the lowest it has been in a midterm election year. Moreover, a near-record-low 19% of registered voters say most members of Congress deserve re-election. This latter measure shows a similarly strong relationship to voter turnout as does job approval.

…It is unclear how the current frustration with Congress will manifest itself in terms of party control of the two houses of Congress. Because the president's party usually loses seats in the House in midterm elections, few give the Democrats much chance of reclaiming the majority there. The Senate appears to be the more important battleground, as Democrats, expected to lose seats, are trying to avoid losing the six seats that would give the Republicans the majority.

The problem with all this is that many voters who are not primarily motivated by blind partisanship for one Beltway party or the other, are loathe to pick between the lesser of two evils. The DCCC under Steve Israel has been particularly pernicious in recruiting overwhelmingly atrocious candidates that do not office a viable choice against equally atrocious Republican incumbents. This week, for example, the DCCC launched one of their idiotic politics-for-morons initiatives: a scorecard about how the GOP fails women. The 10 hapless Republicans weren't chosen because they are the worst on women's issues. They were chosen because the DCCC thinks they are vulnerable to defeat in November. There are far worse Republicans who could be on that lost-- who meet the DCCC criteria (some as flimsy and specious as candidates Tom MacArthur in New Jersey and Jeff Gorell in California saying they want to repeal Obamacare)-- but who are in districts Steve Israel has decided against contesting.

Worse still is that the always hypocritical DCCC is spending millions of dollars on Democrats with far worse records that several of the Republican targets. Jennifer Garrison, an Israel recruit from Ohio, is an anti-Choice fanatic with a long and sordid record who would fit perfectly into the DCCC chart-- except Israel is preoccupied with lying to other Democrats about her record so that they contribute to her campaign. Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV), and Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL) have excruciatingly anti-women voting records, worse than plenty of Republicans. And if the DCCC wants to talk about repealing Obamacare as an anti-women vote… say hello the virtually the whole Blue Dog caucus that Israel and Hoyer treasure above all other Democrats.

Look who voted for the Stupak amendment, widely viewed as one of the most anti-Choice votes to pass Congress in decades. It could never have passed with only194 GOP votes but 64 anti-Choice Democrats crossed the aisle and helped the GOP pass it 240-194. Almost all of those fake Democrats have been defeated but not every single one of them-- all Israel is trying to keep the rest in Congress. These are all so-called "Democrats" running in November who voted for the Stupak Amendment and who could not win reelection without massive financial aid from the DCCC. The dollar amount represents the money the DCCC alone (not allied groups) has already committed in TV time reservations:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- $1,160,000
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $1,500,000
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)- 1,225,000

On top of that, Israel green lighted another $940,000 in TV ad reservations for northern Michigan long-shot conservative, Jerry Cannon, who calls himself "pro-life," a Republican Party-manufactured insult to women. These are the endorsements so far this cycle by the anti-Choice wing of the Democratic Party-- Democratic For Life America:

You wonder why voters are confused and wondering why they should bother turning out on election day? This guy, with progressive politics and in a  winnable district in Washington state is being 100% ignored by the DCCC:

Hawai'i Senate Race: Brian Schatz's Record On Choice Is Far Better Than Colleen Hanabusa's

Another wise Brain Schatz supporter

More often than not, EMILY's List backs conservative women but they claim they only back ones who are pro-Choice. And most of the conservative women they endorse are indeed pro-Choice... kinda, sorta. Sometimes they're far less pro-Choice than the progressive men EMILY's List is always on a jihad against. Almost every race pitting one of the EMILY'S List conservative women against a progressive male, shows the male to be the more pro-Choice. And that's certainly the case in the Hawai'i Senate race this cycle in which EMILY's List has encouraged conservative New Dem Colleen Hanabusa, technically a pro-Choice candidate-- if only marginally-- against progressive incumbent, Brian Schatz, who has a spectacular pro-Choice record.

In April 2013, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed a bill into law to ensure that sexual assault victims are provided information about and access to emergency contraception when receiving emergency medical care at Hawaii's hospitals-- religious or not. Opposed by conservatives, the legislation progressed through Hawaii’s legislature for decades without success-- including under then-State Senator Colleen Hanabusa’s supervision as Chair of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee.

While serving as Chairwoman from 2003 to 2006, Hanabusa repeatedly thwarted or watered down legislation that included language protecting access to emergency contraception for victims of rape and sexual assault no matter the healthcare provider. First, in the 2003-2004 legislature, Chairwoman Hanabusa altered a bill that would have provided emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault in all of Hawaii’s hospitals so that only “nonreligious hospitals” would have to comply with the law. From the Standing Committee Report signed by Hanabusa:

“Your Committee notes that use of emergency contraceptives in sexual assault cases is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Hawaii Medical Association. Your Committee is sensitive, however, to other religious, social, and moral views on contraception. Therefore, after balancing the needs of victims with the religious beliefs of care providers, your Committee amended the bill by:

(1) Amending the purpose section to clarify that only nonreligious hospitals are required to offer and provide emergency contraceptives to sexual assault survivors;

(2) Adding a definition for "religious hospital"; and

(3) Adding a new section that exempts religious hospitals from the requirement of offering and providing emergency contraceptives while retaining the requirement that they provide unbiased information on the risks of pregnancy.” [Senate Judiciary Standing Committee Report, SB658, 2/26/03]

That bill later was vetoed by Governor Linda Lingle. Another piece of legislation targeted at providing emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault that was explicitly crafted without an exemption for religious hospitals was referred to and died in under Hanabusa’s supervision as Judiciary Chair. Then, in 2005 and 2006, Hanabusa continued to dead-end sexual assault emergency contraception language and even missed a committee vote to direct a working committee study the best way in which to disseminate information on over-the-counter emergency contraception.

That's the kind of garbage EMILY's List backs, even though Schatz helped lead the charge to provide over-the-counter emergency contraception in Hawaii, supported increased access to abortion services, actually DID support requiring hospitals provide access to emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault and supported increasing access to medical care for minors (without parental consent). By any objective comparison of the two candidates' records on Choice, Schatz would get an A+ and Hanabusa, maybe a B... maybe a B-.

You can support Senator Schatz's reelection efforts at the Blue America Senate page. He's better than his opponent, across a wide array of issues. She's a conservative New Dem who frequently votes with Republicans. He's a progressive. It makes a difference. She's also one of the most corrupt Members of Congress, on either side if the aisle.

Why is it so hard for "Poor Old Pat" Buchanan to believe that pro-choice people might really hope to see fewer abortions?

It wasn't till this morning that I noticed the comments added to my post yesterday about Christopher Buckley's departure -- a slight step ahead of the wingnut lynch mob -- from National Review, the magazine created by his father, the late William F. Buckley Jr.

It was impossible for me to resist leading with the "sighful" quote Christopher recalled from "dear Pup" ("after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous"): 'You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.'” To which our old friend "Me" responded: "That was wasted effort. It can't be done."

Then commenter Matthew ventured: "His father was actually a horrible human being who is rotting in hell. If he likes his dad, he's probably a bad dude." And in fact Bill Buckley seemed to me quite a horrible human being. (One of my particular problems with Bill Buckley was his steadfast championing of classical music. Jeepers, that's not the kind of ally I'm looking for.) While it seems to me a bit strong to declare someone a bad dude for liking his dad, if we changed that to "If he's like his dad," I could hardly complain. And Christopher Buckley indeed seems quite a lot like old Bill -- even apart from the increasingly creepy physical resemblance.

I was happy to have these correctives, in case I may have been seen to be sentimentalizing Bill Buckley. My point, rather, is that his brand of conservatism, which was at least firmly attached to the real world, serves as a benchmark for how far into the loonosphere the present-day variant has traveled.

Which brings me to Pat Buchanan. I don't mean to link Poor Old Pat to the present-day conservative lunacy, but then, he never quite fit into the old Buckley-style lunacy. Our Pat has always been his own loon. Unless you want to count his even loonier sister, Bay. Myself, I try not to even think about Bay Buchanan.

Poor Old Pat has become especially important to one of his part-time employers, MSNBC, as MSNBC has cast its prime-time lot with two unabashedly liberal hosts, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Pat, of course, provides "balance."

One of the, er, surprising features of Rachel's show, which continues to shine, has been the semiregular feature "It's Pat," in which Rachel's "fake uncle" moans and whines about some issue of importance to the Right. (More often than not this has so far involved defending the Republican vice presidential candidate, Gov. Danger Moose.) Rachel to her credit fights back. Indeed, as AP television writer David Bauder notes in a really good piece that's ostensibly about the "odd couple" of Rachel and Pat, but in fact is more about Rachel and the show itself, with lots of excellent background material, including Rachel talking about how the show has developed and will continue to develop:

Maddow is something of a happy warrior compared to Olbermann's increasingly dark prince. The Rhodes Scholar can lap almost anyone intellectually without making you hate her for doing it.

"She's likeable," Griffin said. "She smiles, she has fun. She's interesting."

If Olbermann's show has a drumbeat that drives it, Maddow's "got a little bit of a symphony," he said.

She also doesn't back down from a fight. Olbermann's "Countdown" is well-written and meticulous, but he relies on guests who rarely disagree with him.

Maddow frequently brings on guests to argue with her, none more so than Buchanan.

He can exasperate her, and vice versa. To date, it hasn't become nasty.

Of course we understand why Rachel is saddled with Pat. Apart from the fact that MSNBC has him on the payroll, the network is surely conscious of the risk it's taking in turning its whole prime time over to Keith and her. Poor Old Pat is there to provide balance -- and to give him credit, even in his dotage he does a better job of it than, say, the "liberals" who supposedly provide "balance" on Fox News.

Nevertheless, our Pat -- with that whine that's amplified into a roar, one of the odder modes of vocal delivery I've heard -- drives me nuts in a way that not many TV talking heads have since, well, old Bill Buckley, with his exaggeratedly patrician drawl.

But sure enough, on the special post-debate wrap-up edition of Countdown last night, there were Rachel and Uncle Pat squaring off. Pat was arguing that Obama has gone so cautious that he has failed to seal the deal, even with voters who may have decided to vote for him -- and I certainly can't say I entirely disagree with this. If it weren't said in that screechy roar-whine, I might even want to ponder his claim that Obama isn't going to win any kind of "mandate" in this election. (Yes, yes, we know that Tiny George Bush didn't have any electoral mandate in his stolen election "victories" and that didn't stop him from ruling like an emperor. But that doesn't make it right!)

But Poor Old Pat said something that gave me pause. He was talking about Obama's practice in the debate of reining in his positions, "moving to the center." Again, this is something that generally speaking we liberals have been bitching about throughout the campaign. On the question of abortion, though, when Rachel pointed out that Obama had tried to find some area of accomodation by pointing out that he would like to see fewer abortions, Poor Old Pat dismissed this as "standard boilerplate."

Which stuck with me. Why is it so difficult for Poor Old Pat to believe? Has he been roped in by Young Johnny McCranky's characteristically lying rhetoric? Young Johnny loves to pretend that there's a "pro-abortion" faction, people who want to promote abortions until everybody's had one, or more. There may in fact be people who like abortion, but they keep themselves well hidden. What many of us are is pro-choice, believing that there are cases where abortion is the least objectionable solution and therefore ought to be available as a free choice.

I suppose it's important to the Right to believe that it has some kind of high moral ground. They're the ones who should be calling themselves "anti-abortion," which accurately states their position. Instead they call themselves "pro-life," which is one of the vilest lies in the history of the human race. With the single exception of fetuses, the anti-abortion crowd is, for the most part, as bloody-minded a party of death as has ever existed.

Is it because of all the lies the anti-abortion movement is built on that it's so hard for someone like Poor Old Pat to believe that, really and truly, Barack Obama -- and a lot of the rest of us -- would like to see as few abortions as possible? We would just like that decision to rest where we think it properly belongs: with the woman.

And of course any woman, or any man for that matter, who saw young Johnny put those "air quotes" around "the health" of a woman who seeks an abortion as a medical necessity -- perhaps the most shameful moment of the most shameful national political campaign I've witnessed -- it should be perfectly and permanently clear that the Crankyman ought never to be permitted any say of any kind at any time in any matter in any way relating to any woman's health.