Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktJust add this to the list of reasons to avoid Illinois. Alas, they are hardly the only place stopping folks for things they didn’t do in order to attempt to confiscate their cash and cars.
Asset forfeiture is the process by which law enforcement agencies can take possession of property suspected of being tied to illegal activity. Under these laws, the property itself is presumed to be guilty of criminal activity. Once the property has been seized, it’s up to the owner to prove he obtained the property legitimately.
In about 80 percent of civil asset forfeiture cases, the property owner is never charged with a crime. And in Illinois — like many states — the law enforcement agency that makes the seizure gets to keep the cash or the proceeds of the forfeiture auction (in Illinois, the prosecutor’s office gets 10-12 percent).
Critics say civil asset forfeiture is rife with poor incentives, and violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against seizure of property without due process of law. Police can seize a car, cash, even a home on the flimsiest of evidence.
Filed under: War on Drugs | Tagged: cops, drug laws, police |
All Things in Moderation 
Welcome back, KW.
Perhaps you’d like a strip search with that traffic stop.
LikeLike
Mike, would you comment in depth about the strip search case? It seems a far cry from what we think of the civil rights of a misdemeanor suspect, especially. This seems sudden to me. Have we been moving in this direction and I hadn’t noticed b/c I had no reason to keep up with ordinary crim procedure cases? I thought Alito’s concurrence was thoughtful – but the detainee in this case was strip searched twice. No drugs in his anal cavity either time.
LikeLike
*forever scratching KW off my party invite list*
LikeLike
“Critics say civil asset forfeiture is rife with poor incentives, and violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against seizure of property without due process of law. Police can seize a car, cash, even a home on the flimsiest of evidence.”
Correct. The 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments are incompatible with the successful prosecution of the drug war. For myself, I’d keep the civil rights and ditch the drug war.
LikeLike
How to use War on Terror powers to suppress political dissent:
“April 3, 2012, 12:49 pm
A Government Harassment Suit Goes to Court
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
The Obama administration has been disturbingly successful at slamming the courts for any challenges to its excessive use, and abuse, of national security powers. So it is worth noting when a judge demands accountability.
Take last week, when the administration insisted that U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper throw out a civil suit filed against the Department of Homeland Security. She refused, granting the plaintiff a much-deserved shot at justice.
Some background on the suit: David House co-founded a group that supports Bradley Manning, the soldier who was charged with turning over government documents to WikiLeaks. Mr. House says he was questioned multiple times by the F.B.I., among others, and put on a watch list that “has resulted in him being stopped for questioning and searched each time he enters the United States.” On Nov. 3, 2010, customs agents stopped him in Chicago. Then the Department of Homeland Security took him into custody and ordered him to surrender his laptop, USB storage device, video camera and phone. Mr. House said those devices contained personal information, including bank account passwords and private email, as well as material about the support group for Mr. Manning.
While in custody, Mr. House was questioned about his association with Mr. Manning, and about whether he had any connection to WikiLeaks. “The agents,” the court said, “did not ask House any questions related to border control, customs, trade, immigration or terrorism, and at no point did the agents suggest that House had engaged in any illegal activity or that his computer contained any illegal material.”
Federal agents held his equipment for 49 days. They later offered the ludicrous explanation that it took so long because their computer whizzes were unfamiliar with the operating systems. (Was he using DOS?) The federal government refused to say what information had been copied from the electronic devices, who had seen it, if copies were made, and whether they were destroyed, given that they had nothing to do with any criminal investigation.
From the use of customs as a pawn in what is obviously a political game, to the seizure of Mr. House’s computer devices, this is an outrageous abuse of power. But the government didn’t think Mr. House deserved even a day in court. It demanded that the court dismiss Mr. House’s claims that the search and seizure violated his Fourth and First Amendment rights.”
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/a-government-harassment-suit-goes-to-court/?ref=opinion
LikeLike
“Rekowski said one tactic police use is to put up a sign for a “drug checkpoint” roadblock ahead. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court said such checkpoints are illegal; roadblocks are legal for DWI checks, but not for narcotics checks”
So i read the Wiki blurb on City of Indianapolis v. Edmond and I still don’t get why this is so. It seems the court says that checking for drugs with a dog is akin to setting up a roadblock “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing”. That makes no logical sense to me. While I detest both kinds of roadblocks, I am curious to have someone here explain to me the difference.
LikeLike
Welcome back, KW.
In and out. Still busy on many things.
LikeLike
KW and LMS back on the same day! Oh what mysteries of life!
Glad to hear from you both.
Dave – I think policing for DWI is within the public safety power to keep the roads from becoming bloodbaths. Or some similar distinction.
I have been with JNC all day on everything and I don’t think Gary Johnson can piss me off enough to lose my vote in the GE.
LikeLike
OT – am eating in a sports bar. Watching clips of RGIII and Luck. TX HSs produce quarterbacks for the world, of course, but that neither of these guys went to UT is a travesty. The last two years would have been way better if either of these guys had been in Austin. I can understand choosing Stanford over UT, although we just had a recruit choose UT over Stanford. He will be pre-med here – his dad is the CMO of Scott and White. But RG III, an excellent student in HS and college, chose Baylor. He is accepted to law school in the Fall, but will probably delay. RG III chose Baylor b/c as great a HS QB as he was, his 4.4 speed had most colleges thinking WR or DB. Baylor promised him a shot at QB.
Stupid UT.
LikeLike
Thanks, jnc, for the Rosenthal link. Cavalier or excessive invocation by the govt of unreviewed national security defense has challenged my sensibilities for some time. Executive branch has been unfettered by any checks or balances on this issue. I wonder how frequently such incidents actually happen. Do you have any other links or info on the magnitude?
Hi all, especially kevin and lms. Glad to see you. And mark, I hope the sports bar menu has changed since I last ate in one, years ago. If not, we may have to call the dreaded food police and make you eat broccoli instead.
LikeLike
“For myself, I’d keep the civil rights and ditch the drug war.”
ditto
Worse, the GWOT has exacerbated the problems of the WOD, by granting more powers to & removing oversight from domestic law enforcement, DHS & the Executive Branch.
LikeLike
“we may have to call the dreaded food police and make you eat broccoli instead.”
There’s always sports bar broccoli: battered & fried or floating in cheese sauce.
LikeLike
bsimon, lol.
LikeLike
I for one won’t be eating sports bar food or any other bar food, fast food, or food in general if I’m not a personal friend of the chef, for quite some time. Call me paranoid.
This civil asset forfeiture really creeps me out. I feel as though we’re not really safe from some weird reprisals anymore, even when we follow the rules.
LikeLike
OK has had property seizure for a long time now. I don’t care for it, but I do not recall any allegations of abuse by any agency.
lms, sorry about the food. But I’m sure your home cooking is much better anyway.
LikeLike
Okie commented: …I do not recall any allegations of abuse by any agency.
There must always be some minimal level of reliance on the good faith of our officials, but danger lurks in incentivizing bad faith. Asset forfeiture does that and is violative of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment principles. The IL story KW posted for this thread is almost as frightening in its implications as the detention powers under NDAA.
It is especially pernicious that state legislators funnel asset forfeiture money to prosecutors’ offices. The lege is encouraging forfeitures as a fundraiser. Else the asset forfeitures would go to the general fund.
I hope the Libertarian Party picks up on this, too.
Note: I ate a chicken breast, mushroom, and swiss sandwich on sourdough with a salad, ranch dressing, and [unsweetened] ice tea at the sports bar.
LikeLike
KW and LMS back on the same day! Oh what mysteries of life!
We didn’t plan it………………….I haven’t spoken to Kevin or more than a handful of people in over a month. If he was gone though, I’m glad he’s back also.
I’m really behind on all the news, comments here and elsewhere and my garden. Hopefully, I’ll get my groove back pretty quickly. I did read somewhere that women are abandoning the Republican party in droves………………weird. I suppose I’ll have to look into that.
LikeLike
lmsinca-
Here’s an article addressing women leaving Romney.
LikeLike
Thanks Ash. I hadn’t read her piece yet. There’s a lot going on with the women’s vote this cycle I think. Republicans haven’t done themselves any favors. I don’t think it’s just contraception of course but taking the culture wars back 40 years hasn’t helped them and now with ACA hanging in the balance, even those of us who weren’t particularly crazy about the law are getting nervous. Republicans don’t seem to have an alternative solution to any of the problems that sparked reform in the first place and if we go back to status-quo pre ACA, I think women will coalesce around Dems in hope if nothing else. I know on just a personal level our own daughter will lose her PCIP insurance which has been both expensive for her and us but also has promoted a certain level of peace of mind that will disappear instantly.
LikeLike
lms:
but taking the culture wars back 40 years hasn’t helped them
Huh?
Republicans don’t seem to have an alternative solution to any of the problems that sparked reform in the first place…
“Alternative solution” implies that the Dems have forwarded a solution. What they have forwarded is certainly reform, but it solves little or nothing.
LikeLike
Huh?
Honestly Scott, you guys missed this the first time around a couple of months ago, and I’m not about to rehash all the negative impressions Republicans in state houses across the country have on the majority of under 50, educated women. You can believe the polling or not, your choice.
And the solutions I was referring to in ACA, the ones making people nervous about reversing, are the ones that have helped small businesses, people with pre-existing conditions, young adults who fall into that gap between college and working full time, liability caps etc. I realize and have conceded the law hasn’t done much to lower health care costs but it has done something to help at least thousands of Americans. Not everyone thinks in terms of how to fix such a huge problem that seems virtually unsolvable, but rather, they think in more personal terms.
LikeLike
The column I linked to warned of grouping women voters all together particularly when it comes to the issue of birth control. At the risk of doing exactly that I do think many women are suspicious of the Republican party and when Santorum wins primaries and Rush says what he says, they head back to the Democrat side of the ledger.
Romney has vowed to defund Planned Parenthood, Santorum has decried the use of birth control and wouldnt’ bat an eyelash if a state outlawed birth control. Rush’s comments didn’t help even if it is unfair to saddle the Republican Party with those comments. As lmsinca pointed out, lots of states have passed laws or attempted to pass laws making obtaining abortions more difficult. You can debate whether or not that is a good thing, but it isn’t particularly shocking that it may make some women reconsider their support for Republicans.
LikeLike
Ash
Mitt has lost double digit support among the group of women I mentioned earlier, a lot of it in swing states. There’s time to reverse, or at least mitigate, some of that damage but I think it will be interesting to watch him try. Talk about pretzels.
LikeLike
lms:
You can believe the polling or not, your choice.
It’s not the accuracy of the polling that I question. It’s the accuracy of your characterization. It is certainly fair to say that abortion has been a/the dominant culture war issue for 40 years, ever since Roe was decided, but taking the culture wars back 40 years? Come on.
LikeLike
I had such high hopes that this administration would rein in some of the unchecked Executive powers. . . alas, those hopes have been dashed.
Maybe we’ll be able to talk Mark into running in 2016, since he’s avoided doing it this year. . . 🙂
LikeLike
I’m fascinated by the Administration’s using the “do nothing” Congress meme to expand Executive powers. I know that for many of the patisan left, this pugnaciousness is like manna from Heaven, it will be used though by the next Republican to hold the office.
LikeLike
I dunno, Troll, I don’t think many on the “partisan left” actually agree with the expansion of Executive powers. We’ve seen where it takes us, and it ain’t good.
LikeLike
Michi,
Hope all is well. By the partisan left I mean the gunslingers over at Kos.
LikeLike
Ah, gotcha.
Things are going pretty well; work is going gangbusters and keeping me tied to the bench pretty much all day. How’re things in your world?
LikeLike
Work is ok, wish it was better:-)
LikeLike
Yep. Before I clicked the link, I knew it had a be a Radley Balko piece. His other site -http://www.theagitator.com/ covers issues like this
LikeLike
If the SG argued that “free riders” in ER’s are driving up costs why is full coverage required vs just catastrophic coverage? Wouldn’t that be cheaper for everybody and make those “free riders” more likely to buy insurance since costs would be lower, no? Why the need to force everybody into Cadillac, first dollar coverage?
LikeLike
I’ll add that maybe ER debt should be exempt from bankruptcy.
LikeLike
I’ll add that maybe ER debt should be exempt from bankruptcy.
If the debt is not payable by the debtor, why should it be treated differently than any other debt? This is the same idea the banks had about credit cards – their debt should get preferential treatment.
Might as well not have bankruptcy if we are going to say some people get stiffed while others have useless judgments they can hound debtors with for years.
IMO.
LikeLike
“Why the need to force everybody into Cadillac, first dollar coverage?”
short answer: interest group politics. disease specific groups want that first dollar coverage and Ds view it as a way to get universal “free” care.
LikeLike
Ashore, there’s another story on the subject of women & the GOP at the wapost. Sorry, don’t have a handy link at the moment. That author also cited the numbers on birth control views, which dn’t support/explain the shift from WMR. instead the author cited data on economic views of women, which tend to be more supportive of gov’t handouts to the needy, vs the cuts to social programs promoted by the GOP.
LikeLike
Mark:
I will gather my thoughts and some background on Florence (re-read Bell!) and try to put together a post. Kennedy’s opinion is like pieces of glass in my head all the time. Kind of like Stevens’ opinion in Kelo.
LikeLike
Bsimon
I don’t know, I keep reading stuff like this:
In both surveys, however, Obama has opened big advantages among white women with at least a four-year degree. Those women prefer him by a solid 54 percent to 42 percent margin in the swing state survey, and by a crushing 66 percent to 30 percent in the national poll. Again, while that margin is probably a statistical blip, the direction is consistent with other surveys and the 2008 result in which Obama carried 52 percent of those college-educated white women.
These college-educated white women tend to be more economically optimistic and more open to activist government than their blue-collar counterparts. But importantly, the upscale white women are also usually more liberal on social issues. Which means it’s probably not a surprise that they have moved sharply toward Obama after the GOP presidential candidates spent weeks pledging to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood and insisting that employers should be free not to fund contraception in company health care plans if it offends their moral beliefs.
I’m not saying it’s the only consideration or reason why the polls have shifted recently, but to deny a culture war against women and reproductive issues on the part of Republicans is to pretend that women don’t watch the news, read newspapers or follow political blogs. I have daughters in their thirties along with many of their friends who are more or less apolitical but would probably never consider a Santorum or Romney, even if they’re not thrilled with Obama. And my youngest is fairly conservative in economic/environmental matters but socially very liberal. There’s a lot of them out there.
LikeLike
lms:
but to deny a culture war against women and reproductive issues on the part of Republicans is to pretend that women don’t watch the news, read newspapers or follow political blogs.
For a woman to characterize disagreement with her about any particular issue or set of issues as a “culture war against women” is to pretend that all women think alike.
LikeLike
Scott–
No, not all women think alike. But the women who feel that Republican politicians (note that I specified “politicians”) are waging a culture war against us are in the majority of women. The fact that you, as a conservative who I don’t consider a knuckle-dragging Neandertal doesn’t see that this is a opinion held by most women–and certainly most on this blog–shows how pernicious the that conservative talking point is.
As lms said:
“Honestly Scott, you guys missed this the first time around a couple of months ago, and I’m not about to rehash all the negative impressions Republicans in state houses across the country have [made] on the majority of under 50, educated women. “
LikeLike
Mich:
No, not all women think alike.
Agreed. So, then, are the women who disagree with you on these issues also engaged in a culture war against women? Or, put another way, are they waging war against themselves? Why isn’t it equally true that the Democrats are waging a “culture war on women” by daring to promote policies, like abortion on demand, that are opposed by large numbers of women?
In other words, why is your view of things necessarily exalted as “the woman’s” view, when so many women actually disagree with it?
…as a conservative who I don’t consider a knuckle-dragging Neandertal…
Gee, thanks. And I don’t consider you an irrational man-hater.
The fact that you…don’t see that this is a opinion held by most women–and certainly most on this blog…
I never said that. I have no idea how many women think Republicans are waging a war against them, and clearly you and lms, and probably okie, think they are. I’m just saying that, regardless of who or how many people think it, the idea is still nonsense. There is no “war on women”. The phrase is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy useful mainly as a way to avoid debate of an issue on the merits by questioning the motives of those who disagree with you.
Opposition to more entitlements is a “war on the poor”. Opposition to same-sex marriage is a “war on gays”. Opposition to abortion is a “war on women”. These all imply that disagreement with the “proper” position is motivated not by legitimate thought and opinion but rather by simple animus towards a particular group of people. Which is, of course, nonsense.
…shows how pernicious the that conservative talking point is.
What conservative talking point? I have been discussing the notion of a “war on women”, which is a liberal talking point.
Besides which, I don’t follow your logic. Even if I did have a firm view that most women do not see the R’s as waging a culture war on them, how would that fact show that a conservative talking point, whichever one you are talking about, is responsible?
LikeLike
scott, I ratify lms and michi. If you think it’s no big deal, great. We’ll see at the polls. But IMHO conservative women voters are abandoning you, are you going to actually reconsider positions or stick with same old?
LikeLike
okie
If you think it’s no big deal, great.
Again, I’m not sure where you guys are getting this impression. For the record, I don’t know how women will vote this fall, why they will vote the way they do, or how big a deal it will be.
I am simply objecting to the nonsense notion of a “war on women”.
But IMHO conservative women voters are abandoning you, are you going to actually reconsider positions or stick with same old?
My political views are not driven by the popularity of those views among women, or, really, anyone for that matter. One reason I will never run for elected office, and would probably not be successful if I did, is that I am very much in the Henry Clay camp (see the quotation of the day.)
LikeLike
“…a culture war against women and reproductive issues.”
Republicans are in a culture war against women? And all this time, I thought that Democrats were in a culture war against religion! I will grant that the Republicans have done a poor job of explaining themselves and they have been losing the PR campaign to the Democrats, but the shift also coincides with an improving economy and a fractured Republican primary. Now I am certainly not discounting what the 3 of you have to say because it is important to find out why – but R’s pledging to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood is certainly not new. Nor is wanting to not force contraception coverage on people. So let me ask – which is more important to you – economic issues or social issues?
“These college-educated white women tend to be more economically optimistic and more open to activist government than their blue-collar counterparts. But importantly, the upscale white women are also usually more liberal on social issues”
What part of conservatism, either fiscal or social, applies to the women described above and why would any of these women even consider voting for a Republican?
LikeLike
Interesting similarities for women and Republicans in 2008 and today.
“Overall, women strongly supported Senator Obama over Senator McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain).”
http://townhall.com/columnists/janiceshawcrouse/2008/11/14/womens_voting_patterns_in_election_2008/page/full/
“And now, President Obama is leading Mitt Romney by an alarming 20 points (58% to 38%) among women, prompting many in the media to giddily prognosticate about Republicans’ inability to win female voters.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/blame-republican-men-gender-gap-article-1.1055398
In what way does the Pew survey show a demonstrably worsening position Republicans regarding women than 2008?
http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/29/the-gender-gap-three-decades-old-as-wide-as-ever/
LikeLike
McWing:
In what way does the Pew survey show a demonstrably worsening position Republicans regarding women than 2008?
I remember when I lived in London, there was a period of time in which the BBC would regularly do stories about Bush’s “plummeting” approval rating as a way of framing any new issue/event and how Bush had bungled it. But if you looked at Bush’s approval rating over the course of all these events, you discovered that it had been remarkably steady (albeit low).
LikeLike
but to deny a culture war against women and reproductive issues on the part of Republicans is to pretend that women don’t watch the news
No point in discussion of claims like this. No discussion actually possible or worth contemplating.
All it means is that you are part of a propaganda campaign.
LikeLike
I see “nonsense” must be the secret word of the day. And I didn’t even know PeeWee’s Playhouse was back on the air!
And then there’s “No point in discussion of claims like this. No discussion actually possible or worth contemplating.”
Welcome back, lms!!! I’m sure such validation that you might, maybe, possibly, have a legitimate opinion makes you want to post more often. At least you were not met with immediate outright dismissal.
LikeLike
okie:
I’m sure such validation that you might, maybe, possibly, have a legitimate opinion…
Characterizing certain political views as a “war on women” is hardly validation that those views might, maybe, possibly, be legitimate opinions. There’s an old saying about a goose and gander that seems appropriate here.
I think lms has lots of legitimate opinions about a lot of things. The notion that Republicans are waging a “war on women”, howeever, is not one. It is not an invitation to discuss a political opinion on the merits, but is instead the precise opposite.
LikeLike
mark, I absolutely agree that asset forfeiture is ripe for abuse and I too hope some pols pick up on it. I’m wondering if I just did not hear about abuses in OK or if they actually were not occurring with any magnitude.
Okay, you can be excused from broccoli. lol
LikeLike
Thanks for withholding nutritional judgment, Okie.
Have you ever read Freakonomics? It has been awhile, for me, but as I recall, the author’s explanation for why crime rates in the USA have been on a steady decline since the early 90s, despite boom and bust economic cycles, manages to tie crime prevention to women’s reproductive rights. The key, as I recall, was the sharp decline in unwanted births, beginning @15 years previously.
I do not know if his explanation is God’s truth, but having once been a prosecutor who was assigned to Juvenile Court for three months I do know that the correlation between crime and “young unwanted male” is very, very strong. We had county stats that were truly amazing regarding violent offenders – 90% had been victims of violence as children. So I found Freakonomics‘ assertion plausible.
LikeLike
No point in discussion of claims like this. No discussion actually possible or worth contemplating.
lol qb. It’s nice to be back. I’m sure you missed me while I was gone, if you noticed. All I’m saying is that Mitt’s support among younger college educated women has gone down according to the polls. It’s doubtful they were all liberals or they probably wouldn’t have supported him in the first place. I also mentioned he has time to reverse it and it’ll be interesting watching how he does it.
You guys don’t like the term “Culture Wars”, okay, but it’s pretty common knowledge that when political parties don’t really have a platform that resonates to run on, they resort to battles that jazz up the base……………or maybe you guys really believe insurance coverage of birth control, mind you, no one’s actually being forced to take it, is really a religious issue.
LikeLike
lms:
You guys don’t like the term “Culture Wars”…
No, lms. I don’t like the term “war on women”.
LikeLike
“I do not know if his explanation is God’s truth, but having once been a prosecutor who was assigned to Juvenile Court for three months I do know that the correlation between crime and “young unwanted male” is very, very strong.”
I don’t necessarily disagree but there is also a strong correlation between the decrease in the crime rate and the increase in popularity of the compact disc. Correlation only measures an association between two variables. It tells us nothing about one variable causing the other. I have not read the Freaks but I would assume, based on what i have heard about them, that there is a discussion of causality.
LikeLike
It is not an invitation to discuss a political opinion on the merits, but is instead the precise opposite.
I’m sorry but that is utter hogwash. Of course it’s a political opinion. It happens to be one most of you don’t agree with, I’m used to that. If I had more time I’d run down the list of State Legislative endeavors and accompanying comments and even highlight a few statements and thoughts from a couple of the Presidential candidates and their surrogates.
You can call it whatever you want but the Republican Party across the country screwed up big time and have lost potential votes because of it. They’re the ones who should have stuck to an economic message, if they have one they really think they can sell to the middle class.
Anyway, end of “War on Women” discussion from me, it’s obviously not worthy of the guy’s time.
LikeLike
lms:
Of course it’s a political opinion.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a political opinion. I said it was the opposite of an invitation to discussion political opinions on the merits. In other words, it is a political opinion which dismisses those who hold certain political views as having malign motives and therefore unworthy of consideration.
If I had more time I’d run down the list of State Legislative endeavors and accompanying comments and even highlight a few statements and thoughts from a couple of the Presidential candidates and their surrogates.
You could, I suppose, but that would in no way validate the notion that such endeavors or accompanying comments or statements amounted to a “war on women”.
You can call it whatever you want but the Republican Party across the country screwed up big time and have lost potential votes because of it.
That could very well be true.
Anyway, end of “War on Women” discussion from me, it’s obviously not worthy of the guy’s time.
Obviously? Considering that 5 of my last 6 posts have centered on the topic, your conclusion seems strange to me. I for one actually think it is well worth the time it takes to challenge these oft repeated but ultimately unhelpful cliches. They are a barrier to rational discussion about issues.
LikeLike
This is funny in light of our “discussion”, although it was from April Fools Day.
American GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, has apologised today for his party’s attacks on women’s health care, saying that it was ‘meanspirited and unnecessary’. The former Pennsylvania Senator, had a recent change of heart from his usual attacks because of the numerous polls pointing to a fall off in female support for his party.
A seemingly contrite Santorum, with an eye to garnering more votes for himself, added that women had a lot to contribute to the political debate, and the focus on their health care, especially denying them contraceptive insurance, was a ‘distraction’ from the real issues of the economy. He also indicated, though did not say so directly, that it was the paucity of real ideas or solutions for the country among Republicans why women had become a target. He hinted that GOP brain cells were missing, regarding any real solutions to the Great Recession.
LikeLike
Scott
Let me see if I have this right? I’m allowed to discuss the issues surrounding the way the Republican Party has treated women across the country and the bizarre reproductive rules and regulations they have either passed or tried to pass and the comments women have had to listen to, I’m just not allowed to call it a “War on Women” because that’s somehow an unfair, misguided and discussion ending characterization. Does that about cover it?
LikeLike
lms:
Does that about cover it?
Not really.
You are “allowed” to do whatever you want. But if you use cliches like “war on women”, I’ll challenge you on it. Because, yes, it is a discussion-ending characterization. It is an implicit statement about the motives of people who hold certain political opinions, suggesting an animus towards women, that is all the more bizarre in that many women themselves hold those political opinions, a point which you routinely ignore.
How would you react if I characterized the pro-choice movement as engaging in a “war on babies”? Or if I characterized supporters of ACA as propagating a “war on the constitution”? Or if I characterized supporters of higher taxes as demanding a “war on the productive”? This silly rhetorical game is very easy to play, but I don’t think it is very useful.
LikeLike
I read Freakonomics, and Super Freakonomics, and not all the assertions they make are plausible, but the correlation of an increase in abortion and crime is plausible, though by no means causative. There are other factors, including to availability of jobs, the availability of government support (you don’t need to rob people to feed your family with the government pays for it, and defrauding public programs for your personal benefit may be a better way to “steal” than mugging strangers, in many cases), etc. All these things have a role.
How many abortions happen in communities that are demographically the communities that have higher crime rates? I don’t recall that being discussed to my satisfaction in Freakonomics. That is, if a certain number of abortions occur to women with comes potentially sufficient to support a child, that blunts the influence of legal abortion on the crime rate.
That being said, a quick comment on the “War on Women”. Almost half the women in the country are part of the “War on Women”, which makes the nomenclature a framing device, rather than an accurate statement, in my opinion. 25% of women in a gallup poll identified as Republicans, suggesting that a quarter of the country’s women are participating in the “War on Women”, which suggests it may be more of a “War on Abortion”.
That being said, misogynists and misandrists abound, and there are those who might well be said to be conducting a “war on women”, and those who are conducting a “war on men”, but opposition to a particular activity in and of itself does not, I think, constitute a war on a gender. But, of course, I may be wrong about that.
LikeLike
Kevin:
How many abortions happen in communities that are demographically the communities that have higher crime rates? I don’t recall that being discussed to my satisfaction in Freakonomics.
I’ll have to go back and re-read my copy of Freakonomics, but my recollection is that this was precisely the claim that was being made, ie that abortions were indeed happening in the communities that had high crime rates, ie predominantly black, inner city communities, and that this largely accounted for the decrease in crime rates in those communities. As I recall, this generated a huge amount of protest from both the left, because of the racial implications, and from the right, because of the implicit endorsement of abortion as a positive force in society.
LikeLike
lmsinca: I’m allowed to discuss
I think we’re probably allowed to discuss anything, and other people are, similarly, allowed discussed their problems with the use of certain terminology. The discussion of the characterization of Obama’s comments about the SC would reflect that, as well.
LikeLike
That sounds fine Kevin if it was reality. Unfortunately, this is more along the lines of my reality.
No point in discussion of claims like this. No discussion actually possible or worth contemplating.
LikeLike
I’m just not allowed to call it a “War on Women” because that’s somehow an unfair, misguided and discussion ending characterization. Does that about cover it?
Not to reply on behalf of Scott, but you can call it whatever you want. You just need to accept that using those terms is going to exclude people from the conversation. In my opinion, that clearly is not your intent, but that appears to be the result of using the term. The same things happens to me when I read some of QB’s opinions. I read them and just decide not to engage because of the nature of the comments.
You just have to decide if you want to change how you express your feelings in order to not “turn off” some people. Or you can continue to express exactly how you feel in terms of your choosing and accept that some people will decide not to engage in a debate with you. FWIW I don’t think anyone is being unreasonable here.
LikeLike
If Republicans really are alienating women, what will be the electoral consequences for them? How much worse among women will Romney have to do to either validate or refudiate (see what I did there?) the assertion? Remember, McCain lost to Obama among women 56/43, so how much more of a drop would it take? I don’t think Obama loses, regardless of a “war on women by men and, er women” since the last unprimaried Democratic incumbent that lost was Grover Cleveland in 1889.
Will Republican’s lose their House majority over it? What if they don’t? What if they take control of the Senate? How will we determine the outcome of this war?
LikeLike
Well, I guess the problem then is that my characterization of what has transpired in the last couple of years across the country as a “War on Women” is just not resonating with you guys. Okay. Any way you could be wrong? Does the fact that women have risen up in places like Virginia, Georgia and even Arizona in the last couple of months and been able to block some of the crap that state houses have tried to pass resonate as a battle at all?
Honestly, this place has gotten too restrictive for me I’m afraid. I feel like if I don’t tow the moderate line I’m in “big trouble mister”. Or maybe my perspective changed over the last month………………….who knows? I need to evaluate my priorities again. I didn’t really come here to argue over semantics…………………
LikeLike
lms:
Any way you could be wrong?
I suppose. Any way way you could explain why opposition to your views on certain issues amounts to a “war on women”, but opposition to contrary views held by other women on those same issues does not amount to a “war on women”?
Does the fact that women have risen up in places like Virginia, Georgia and even Arizona in the last couple of months and been able to block some of the crap that state houses have tried to pass resonate as a battle at all?
Sure. I see nothing wrong with calling it a “battle”.
Honestly, this place has gotten too restrictive for me I’m afraid. I feel like if I don’t tow the moderate line I’m in “big trouble mister”.
Yesterday I was told that something I said (it still isn’t clear what) was “bullshit”. I wonder if I should feel the same way.
I didn’t really come here to argue over semantics
I’m wondering what difference, if any, you see between your objection to the term “pro-abortion” and my objection to the term “war on women”.
LikeLike
It is an implicit statement about the motives of people who hold certain political opinions, suggesting an animus towards women,
Or she’s just borrowing a phrase commonly used in politics and elsewhere to refer to a broard range of conservative social initiatives largely impacting women. Obviously you interpret the phrase to suggest animus and I’m sure often the term is used with animus. However, not only is it possible that lmsinca doesn’t mean what you say above, but I think her comments refelct that she doesn’t.
I also think it’s disingenious to claim lmsinca’s use of the phrase ends conversations when lmsinca clearly is happy to discuss the matter even if you’re unlikely to convince her she is wrong and that there is no war on women being waged by Republicans.
LikeLike
ashot:
Or she’s just borrowing a phrase commonly used in politics and elsewhere to refer to a broard range of conservative social initiatives largely impacting women.
I don’t think it is an either/or. It could be, and probably is, both. Certainly, however, I think it would be difficult to argue that the phrase “waging a war on X” does not imply animus towards X.
However, not only is it possible that lmsinca doesn’t mean what you say above, but I think her comments refelct that she doesn’t.
Which comments lead you to conclude that the phrase is not intended to imply the existence of an animus towards women?
I also think it’s disingenious to claim lmsinca’s use of the phrase ends conversations when lmsinca clearly is happy to discuss the matter…
The discussion that it ends is any rational discussion of the topics that lead to the charge itself. Can we really have a meaningful and civil discussion about abortion if, by simply opposing it, I can reasonably stand accused of “waging a war on women”? I think not. The phrase assumes and implies that the very opinions/positions that lead to the charge, or the people expressing those opinions/positions, are not reasonable.
LikeLike
” I guess the problem then is that my characterization of what has transpired in the last couple of years across the country as a “War on Women” is just not resonating with you guys.”
Its the resonation (or lack thereof) that is the problem. Repubs may not intend to “wage a war on women,” but if that’s the perception, its also the reality.
The Pew poll seems like a huge jump in a small period of time & may prove to be an outlier.
LikeLike
What, in the pew poll, has changed since 2008?
LikeLike
” What, in the pew poll, has changed since 2008?”
Seems to me that if current polling patterns match 2008, WMR is toast.
LikeLike
Bsimon, what in the Pew polling has changed?
LikeLike
What, in the pew poll, has changed since 2008?
I think the polls have gone back to close to the 2008 numbers. However, the piont is that following Obama’s election in 2008, women started defecting to the Republican side, but are now returning. If we’re going to look at the polls, I would think we would want to look at teh 2008 numbers, then 2010 numbers and the current numbers to see if there was a shift, then a shift back.
The question is why has there been a shift back, so your point is different from the one lmsinca and I are making. If you are making a different point, that’s fine, but I just want to clarify what point I am trying to make.
LikeLike
Scott, I wasn’t the one who said whatever you said was bullshit, so I think that’s unrelated to our discussion.
I’m not going to go back and read my objections to the term “pro-abortion” but if I remember correctly we ended up having a rather frank discussion about how we (all of us) were going to define the terms going forward during the Planned Parenthood/Khomen incident. I don’t believe this discussion has followed the same pattern.
Your objection to the term “war on women” is noted. I just don’t think you should necessarily dismiss whatever point I’m trying to make because I used a term you object to. The entire point of my original comment is that in about a month Romney has lost double digit support among women, the under fifty, educated crowd. Apparently these same women supported him at one point, or maybe I’m just crazy. I find that rather significant and while I didn’t claim it was solely because of Republican’s “War on Women” or “Culture Wars”, I think it’s tough to deny that women in general, certainly not all, are a little sick of the pre-occupation Republicans seem to have on reproductive issues.
Perhaps Romney will figure out a way to separate himself from some of this in time for the election.
LikeLike
lms:
Scott, I wasn’t the one who said whatever you said was bullshit, so I think that’s unrelated to our discussion.
It is related only in that, if my perfectly civil challenge to you causes you to think this place is “too restrictive”, the rather uncivil challenge to me ought to probably make me feel even more so.
I don’t believe this discussion has followed the same pattern.
Indeed it has not. When you objected, I explained that I was not intending any negative connotations through my use of the term, and said I was happy to avoid using it going forward in deference to your objections.
I just don’t think you should necessarily dismiss whatever point I’m trying to make because I used a term you object to.
I agree. And I didn’t dismiss your point. I didn’t remark on your point at all, other than to challenge the existence of this war on women.
I think it’s tough to deny that women in general, certainly not all, are a little sick of the pre-occupation Republicans seem to have on reproductive issues.
Perhaps. Although, if we are framing the issue in those terms, perhaps one might say that Republicans are suffering because of the preoccupation that women in general, certainly not all, have with reproductive issues.
LikeLike
“I’ll spare you the full list of every bill in every state, but the policy offensive is, well, offensive. Restricting contraception; cutting off Planned Parenthood; state-mandated, medically-unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds; forcing physicians to lie to patients about abortion and breast cancer; abortion taxes; abortion waiting periods; forcing women to tell their employers why they want birth control, going after prenatal care, possible abortion permission slips … this is no minor policy initiative.”
From this piece.
LikeLike
Ashot, I think we all agree that the electorate in Presidential election years is substantially different than in non-Presidential years. If that is the case, then is a comparison to 2010 particularly illuminating? I suggest looking at 2004 and 2000. Also, the difference in married vs. unmarried women as well as the change in those two groups over the last 20-30 years.
I think what we’ll find is an increase in unmarried women. That demo votes strongly D, but generally only votes during Presidential election years. Married women tend to be more Republican and vote in more elections. Given that context, there really is no increase in Republican’s “loss” of women, just changes in election demographics.
In my opinion this is being used to drive a narrative to energize the Democratic base.
LikeLike
McWing:
In my opinion this is being used to drive a narrative to energize the Democratic base.
That is hard to fathom. 😉
LikeLike
” Bsimon, what in the Pew polling has changed?”
TMW, my earlier comments were based on recent reports of a recent poll showing WMR’s numbers vs Obama falling. It may or may not have been Pew. As I noted, the reported numbers seemed to show a rapid & somewhat drastic fall, particularly among women. Being one poll, its smartest to treat it as an outlier unless/until other polling suppports that trend. 2008 polling isn’t relevant to that subject (BHO v WMR).
LikeLike
Perhaps I was mistaken about there being one poll. I recall hearing the 18 point figure, for a Gallup poll cited in this story:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0403/Gender-gap-daunting-for-GOP-Why-women-s-vote-is-key
The story also mentions a 20 point gap in a Pew poll. Another story at the Monitor cites a 13 point gap in favor of BHO in VA. The linked story also notes a poll on Congress in which women have switched back to favoring dem control.
All this would be troubling to me if I were rooting for the GOP in November. Having said that, the reporting that attributes these gains to the recent flare-ups over social issues may be confusing correlation for causation. I haven’t seen anything yet that proves the latter.
Again, if I were rooting for the GOP, that last bit would be cause for alarm. If women aren’t moving because of social issues, why are they moving?
LikeLike
Troll:
What, in the pew poll, has changed since 2008?
Fewer undecided women. The decrease in the number of undecided women mirrors the increase in BHO’s support versus the GOP front-runner. Dudes seem to like WMR less than either McC or BHO too.
McC and BHO are both more “manly” than WMR is, IMO.
LikeLike
BHO is many things, but manly most definitely is not one of them.
LikeLike
If that is the case, then is a comparison to 2010 particularly illuminating?
It depends on what we’re trying to illuminate. I’m arguing there has be a recent trend of women dropping their support for the republican presidential nominee and supporting Obama. To the extent that 2010 data shows women supporting republicans at a higher percent than currently it would support a claim that a shift has occurred. It obviously wouldn’t be conclusive.
The other data points would be interesting too as they may show that this is a historical trend that occurs every Presidential election cycle. That would obviously tend to show the shift, if there is one, has little or nothing to do with recent efforts to make abortions more difficult to obtain. Althought that would not be conclusive either.
I think what we’ll find is an increase in unmarried women. That demo votes strongly D, but generally only votes during Presidential election years.
But are they only polled during election years? We aren’t dealing with voting data, we’re dealing with polling data so I don’t see the relevance of the fact that they tend to only vote in Presidential elections. Also, why do unmarried women vote strongly D? Is one of the reasons because they think Republicans are waging a war on women? If so, then it isn’t just a narrative.
LikeLike
Scott
The more you challenge the term “War on Women”, the more inclined I am to continue using it. Maybe I’m not as nice as you and willing to concede to an objection of yours the way you were with mine…….lol
Anyway, if you won’t address my point because you don’t approve of the term and I’m going to continue using it anyway, I guess we’re experiencing a stalemate.
Now that even Mark’s trying to get me to drop it I probably should, but I really don’t want to. If feels like a War on Women to many of us, so I’m sticking with it for now. And honestly, I hope Republicans suffer at the polls because of it. How’s that for partisan?
LikeLike
You guys can admit it though, you missed me right? Haaaaahaaaaaa
LikeLike
Then there’s this article that indicates it’s not any alleged war on women that alienates women from Republicans, it’s War in general and social welfare policies.
That article makes a lot of sense given that, as Scott has pointed out, there are plenty of women who oppose abortion.
LikeLike
From bsimon’s CSM article:
” If Obama is to win, he will need a big women’s vote to offset an expected deficit in the men’s vote.”
And suddenly there is a “Republican war on women?”. What a stunning coincidence!
LikeLike
And suddenly there is a “Republican war on women?”. What a stunning coincidence!
As Mark’s post points out, it also seems to coincide with a litany of conservative social legislation impacting abortion. Maybe state legislatures are constantly passing those sorts of laws, I don’t know for certain, but another explanation is that it’s an election year.
Based on the other CSM article, if the shift has been caused by anything recent(as opposed to being what always happens) it probably has more to do with Republican wanting to cut back on social welfare programs.
LikeLike
lol qb. It’s nice to be back. I’m sure you missed me while I was gone, if you noticed.
I have been missing a lot myself. I am very, very busy with work and other crises and don’t have much time but for hit and run.
You are welcome to talk about a war on women all you want as far as I am concerned.
I just have no interest in discussing it and giving it credence.
LikeLike
BHO is many things, but manly most definitely is not one of them.
Guess that makes WMR downright feminine. Not that there is anything wrong with that …
LikeLike
Guess that makes WMR downright feminine.
Lol yeah, whatever you say.
Sarah Palin could probably kick O’s rear.
LikeLike
Oye….They both appear to be good husbands and fathers so they both seem plenty manly to me.
LikeLike
Sarah Palin could probably kick O’s rear.
Then she should have no problem with WMR.
Not sure why you’re equating ass-kicking with masculinity as I’m positive Michi could kick both our asses while wearing her knee-length boots.
LikeLike
Not sure why you’re equating ass-kicking with masculinity as I’m positive Michi could kick both our asses while wearing her knee-length boots.
You probably are sure of that.
LikeLike