Analysis

Democrats playing with fire in “War on Women” smear campaign

Clare McCaskill wanted Todd Akin to be her Republican opponent in Missouri, and now Democrats think his “legitimate rape” fiasco will yield returns beyond their wildest hopes.

McCaskill is currently going easy on Akin and criticizing the calls for him to drop out. Markos Moulitsas, founder of the radically left-wing Daily Kos, advises his party to soft-pedal their attacks on Akin until it’s clear he won’t be replaced, then move in for the kill. And the Democrats have added a handful of far-left female speakers to their national convention, including noted narcissist Sandra Fluke (who is also doing Obama fundraising letters tying Akin to Mitt Romney), Wisconsin Congresswoman and Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin, and Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards.

The strategy is clear: crank the “War on Women” demagoguery up to eleven and hope female voters are left with the fear that the GOP’s pro-life principles are rooted in sexism. We got an early taste of just how vile this could get earlier this week, when anti-life fundamentalist Sen. Barbara Boxer speculated of Republicans, “Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives; I don’t know what it is.”

Will it work? Unless the Republicans find an alternative to Akin, Missouri is probably lost. But as far as the rest of the country is concerned, Democrats are in for disappointment.

First, as I documented on Tuesday, the left has its own history of insensitivity to rape and misogyny, including turning a blind eye to Planned Parenthood’s crimes, liberal personalities wishing rape on conservatives, and overlooking Democrats who’ve committed rape. Informed voters aren’t likely to take too kindly to this sort of thing.

We can add to that distinguished list the late serial womanizer Sen. Ted Kennedy, who infamously left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in his car (a scandal which had virtually no impact on his reputation in the Democrat Party or the press); Sen. Al Franken joking about raping CBS reporter Lesley Stahl; California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsing an aide’s reference to opponent Meg Whitman as a “whore”; former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who defended the Occupy Wall Street movement from rape accusations by misrepresenting various facts and arguing that one particular case wasn’t really rape because the 14-year-old girl consented to be with the 23-year-old man; pseudo-documentarian Michael Moore, who pledged $20,000 toward bail for Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks head accused of sexual assault in Sweden; feminist icon Naomi Wolf, who even Amanda Marcotte attacked for denigrating Assange’s accusers; and Wonkette columnist Jack Stuef, who joked that maybe Sarah Palin’s husband Todd impregnated their daughter, Bristol.

Second, moral indignation has weight only to the extent that it’s true, and falsely exploiting rape for partisan gain is about as repulsive as politics can get – see, for instance, Vice President Joe Biden’s outrageous accusation that failing to pass Barack Obama’s jobs bill would lead to more rapes, the Democrats’ and media’s false claim that the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act would have somehow redefined rape, and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews suggesting that the GOP is “so far to the right that they have a problem with a woman saying she was raped.” By pushing their luck, Democrats risk being characterized not as women’s defenders, but as opportunists of the most shameful variety.

Third, the emotional appeal of asking if rape victims should be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy is undeniably powerful, but the flip-side of that question is at least as compelling. Fetuses conceived through rape aren’t abstract “choices” or “products” or “exceptions”…they’re people, like Kristi Hofferber, Rebecca Kiessling, Ryan Bomberger, and Jenni Maas. You can bet Team Obama would rethink this line of attack after a few TV spots of such individuals asking, “Mr. President, why should I be dead right now?”

Finally, to the extent that there’s a “gender gap” in the polls, abortion has little to do with it. In analyzing Gallup’s numbers, Ramesh Ponnuru finds that women are more likely to be pro-life on some aspects of the abortion debate and more likely to be pro-choice on others, but in no area is the gap drastic. Daniel Allot identifies several other polls finding women to be somewhat more pro-life than men as well.

The reason why should be obvious: for all their repetition and hyperventilating, liberals can’t convince America of any solemn link between abortion and the sanctity of womanhood because it just doesn’t exist. Abortion isn’t a right, it’s not good for women, and ultimately, all the euphemisms in the world can’t change the fact that it’s the murder of an innocent child. The real heroes of the American feminist movement understood this, and pro-abortion efforts to overturn their principles in feminism’s name will be about as successful as forcing a square peg into a round hole: the only way to make it fit is to damage the original beyond recognition.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Rebecca Downs

    Good thoughts on this! I feel the same way, clearly, lol. The only worry I have is that I’m not sure if there are enough informed voters to call the Democratic party out on their BS campaign. It is BS and dangerous, but it has been kind of well done in some respects for scaring people…

  • http://www.facebook.com/ptiderman Paul Tiderman

    Nicely done. I hope you are right. But you must be assuming the American public has enough of a soul left to feel anything…

  • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

    Rebecca and Paul are both correct: all this hinges on how well this information gets out to the people. That’s always a concern, but so far, Romney, Ryan, and even Priebus have exceeded my expectations as far as how hard-hitting a campaign they’d run.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    Oh! You’ve found a cherry to put on top of your growing mound of false equivalencies! Chappaquiddick! I live in Massachusetts, so that one gets thrown out any time some disgruntled conservative feels like he’s losing an argument and needs to pull something out of his *ahem* sleeve. It’s kind of like a Martha’s Vineyard Godwin’s Law.

    See, if Teddy went on to have a career where he advocated for more car crashes or more drownings or less penalties for guys who drown their girlfriends, maybe you’d have a point. But as usual, you’ve lost the point. Akin and his ilk aren’t only talking an offensive game, they’re marrying that talk up with offensive policies. As you note, asking rape victims “to endure nine months of pregnancy” with their rapist’s offspring is, indeed, “powerful”.

    And, Paul and Rebecca: I’m disappointed you have such a low opinion of the average American. You doubt if we have enough soul? You doubt if we’re informed enough? Informed on what? The mountain of false equivalencies Calvin has cobbled together the last two days? I tell you, the press is pretty good at leaning on false equivalencies when it’s desperate to appear “unbiased”, so if any of them are compelling at all, they’ll get some play. They just have to do better than lean on the resentments still festering out there towards our dead Senator, or Bill Maher’s dirty mouth, or all the various people Calvin’s pointed out have weighed in on rape at on time or another, whether appropriately or inappropriately. Wake me up when he’s tied any of them to a policy position that’s related to their appropriate or inappropriate speech.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Oh, look, the chronically-disingenuous child murder advocate presumes to judge what’s “heinous.” Apparently it’s easy to type with blood-soaked fingers. And it’s easy to pretend you have a moral compass when you arbitrarily define what acts of indecency “count” based on no criteria whatsoever beyond what’s personally convenient for the fantasy you’ve erected to cope with the suffering you’re complicit in.

      • Whoathere.

        Whoa! Blood soaked fingers? Pour yourself a glass of wine and STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        L.O.L.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          So how do you tell Hofferber, Kiessling, Bomberger, or Maas, “you should be dead right now”?

      • Timmehh

        Woah woah woahhhh there Calvin…I think you are doing the pro life side a pretty big disservice regarding how you treat people you are supposed to be debating against. Do you think your rhetoric will actually change anybody’s mind? All it really does is make the other side laugh at you, and not taking anything you say seriously. Can’t you see how that isn’t helping anything?

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Hi Timmehh,

          I recognize that my rhetoric often gets more personal than many pro-lifers, but I assure you there’s a method to my madness.

          First, this is not the default way I deal with people who disagree, but something I reserve for those who establish a repeat pattern of intentional dishonesty, personal attacks, and proving that they just don’t care whether they are causing suffering and murder through their position.

          Second, I believe that one of the problems with political debate in this country is we give motives and character too much of a pass. Part of the reason so few people are comfortable publicly identifying, with, say, the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church is because society stigmatizes those groups and their values, sending a message that it’s not respectable or honorable to believe as they do or associate with them. Yet for positions held by the major parties, American politics has this perverse rule of decorum that says they all deserve respect, regardless of content. Instead of making political discourse nicer or more productive, it’s only allowed hatred and dishonesty to spread. And babies to die.

          Third, I think you’re vastly overestimating the other side’s ability to have their mind changed. The sort of people I reserve this rhetoric for are so biased that they aren’t willing to consider the possibility they are wrong, and they’re not taking anything you say seriously, either. They’re ALREADY laughing at pro-lifers – especially the ones who let them get away with the most blatant smears and hypocrisy. I’ll grant you that maybe a few less fanatical pro-choicers could see it and get offended. But what should we do, lie about their side not being monstrous just to spare their feelings? Ignore dishonesty and hypocrisy right in front of us? Pretend there’s not blood on their hands? Maybe the moderates are still pro-choice because the movement they’re associating with hasn’t been stigmatized enough, because more soft-spoken pro-lifers have left them with the impression that the pro-choice movement is anything less than evil.

          • Timmehh

            I get that Calvin, I really do. And I appreciate you took the time to put out that nice response. I guess you and I will always disagree about which tactic is the best to take, but I acknowledge that there isn’t a single cookie cutter way to go about this. I also understand that this is the internet, and it is much easier to type out snarky, or more sarcastic responses than it is to say them in person.

          • Timmehh

            I get that Calvin, I really do. And I appreciate you took the time to put out that nice response. I guess you and I will always disagree about which tactic is the best to take, but I acknowledge that there isn’t a single cookie cutter way to go about this. I also understand that this is the internet, and it is much easier to type out snarky, or more sarcastic responses than it is to say them in person.

      • P.D.

        “Apparently it’s easy to type with blood-soaked fingers.”

        hahaha… i love that! please keep writing.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      More to the point, how do you tell one of those people, “you should be dead right now?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Siara-Delyn/100000094032948 Siara Delyn

    I realize that Republicans have aligned themselves with religious extremists because their support gets you a majority at the polls. Try treating women like equals. You’ll lose the religious nut vote but you’ll get more women and you’ll feel better when you look in the mirror.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Try accurately describing the people, ideas, and policies you’re defaming. You’ll lose the far Left but you’ll earn consideration in serious conversations.

  • Detroiter327

    Im really digging one of the polls that you coincidentally linked to! It goes on to explain that people who are pro choice are more educated than their pro life counterparts. Fascinating stuff! Great work! I would never have found this without you! http://www.gallup.com/poll/127559/education-trumps-gender-predicting-support-abortion.aspx

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      And yet, somehow yours is the side who hasn’t yet reached a rudimentary grasp of embryology. Or the Constitution. If pro-choicers are so well educated, then why do the still lack a grounding in the most basic concepts necessary to understanding the debate’s two most important questions, the status of the unborn and the soundness of Roe v. Wade?

      Besides, if we take the time to actually look at that poll, some interesting details emerge. First, it actually doesn’t say pro-choicers are generally more educated than pro-lifers; it just breaks down the education levels of one subset of pro-choicers: those who hold the most extreme, “under any circumstances” variation of the position. It doesn’t identify the education level of those who identify with any of the other degrees. Second, it also shows that, even within this group, support for that position has been fairly steadily *declining*. Shouldn’t such a stalwart fact-checker like you be more careful about taking information out of context?

      Oh, and it’s worth noting that contemporary higher education is a notoriously unreliable source of political wisdom, with student cultures beholden to ideological fads and scores of academics who think their mission isn’t to teach logic and understanding of the world, but to churn out progressive foot soldiers.

      • Detroiter327

        I’ve seen you lament multiple times about your foes lumping you all together and associating you with the more violent members of the movement, or the more uneducated ones like Rep. Akin. Its interesting when your back is up against a wall you write two articles doing the same thing you complain about on a regular basis.

        I never made any inference about the amount of pro lifers vs. pro choicers etc. I was simply quoting from the article, which proved that those who deem themselves pro choice have more “educational achievement”. You can lambaste higher education all you want but we know one thing, it churns out better critical thinkers.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          “when your back is up against a wall you write two articles doing the same thing you complain about on a regular basis.”

          Um, that’s not what my articles did. At all. I explained that the issue isn’t liberals doing bad things, but the Left holding liberals and conservatives who do bad things to different standards.

          “I was simply quoting from the article, which proved that those who deem
          themselves pro choice have more ‘educational achievement’”

          It proved nothing of the sort. See above.

          “we know one thing, it churns out better critical thinkers.”

          That’s funny. Considering what I see all the time from friends who went to public universities, that’s not the case. Mainstream college kids are learning something, but it sure ain’t critical thinking, sound history, well-rounded political science, or embryology. So let’s make a quick list of concepts germane to the
          abortion debate that pro-choicers consistently fail to understand:

          - When human life begins

          - The biological differences between a part of one individual (skin cells, sperm, etc.) and a complete organism (embryo).

          - The Lockean conception of natural rights: what a right is, the limits of an individual’s rights, the nature of property rights

          - The Constitution: enumerated powers doctrine, separation of powers, what privacy does & doesn’t mean, religious liberty, and how Living Constitution theory contradicts a constitution’s very purpose

          - The Federalist Papers’ understanding of good government’s role, limits, and requirements

  • Pingback: War on Women Update: Rapist Father Wants Visitation Rights in Pro-Abortion Massachusetts

  • Pingback: The “Bill of Reproductive Rights”: More Tyranny from Demagogues in Denial

  • Pingback: Irony Alert: Pro-Choice Kos Accuses Republicans of Favoring “More Dead Children”

  • Pingback: In gun debate, feminists decide trivializing rape isn’t such a big deal