By Bob Cesca: I’ve made this confession before, but it bears repeating given the subsequent quote from Michele Bachmann.

When I was in high school, I was a very serious Republican. In fact, I was the founding president of my high school’s Republican club. In addition to that, I used to be the conservative voice of the opinions section of the high school newspaper and often sparred (in print) with fellow journalism geek named Carl. It was Carl who gets partial credit for my transformation into a liberal Democrat.

Is Palin only pro-life in theory?

Here’s how he did it.

It was one question during a debate about abortion. One interrogative sentence. I remember exactly where Carl and I were standing in the library when he asked me this question: “If your girlfriend got pregnant, what would you do?” Almost without thinking, I replied, “It would be her choice to make — ohhhh.” I had admitted to being pro-choice without realizing I was pro-choice until that very minute. And of course, being intellectually honest, I conceded the point to Carl.

With that one question, Carl had ignited an epiphany of sorts that led me to liberalism. Naturally it should be “her choice.” It was so obvious. What was I supposed to do? Hold her hostage and force her to birth our (rhetorical) child? Her body, her choice. (Entering college the following year and learning more about life, politics, science and the world in general continued my liberal awakening.)

Since then, in every political item I write, I always strive to create that one point like Carl had in 1989 — the most incisively salient point possible that could potentially stir a similar transformation in conservatives who read my stuff. If nothing else, that is my primary goal as a writer and blogger: to either create a similar question, or to provide ammunition for readers to do the same thing.

However, there’s one aspect of this story that’s an important “x factor” in the equation. In order for conservatives to experience a similar epiphany, they have to possess a spark of intellectual honesty. They have to be able to admit to their inconsistencies and concede to reality. Sadly, many conservatives are so wrapped up in a sports-franchise view of politics they refuse to acquiesce a point or to even recognize the barrage of empirical truths karate-chopping them in the face.

Take Michele Bachmann, for example. She’s easily one of the most far-right conservatives in Congress in addition to being a radical anti-choice “pro life” zealot. She claims to be anti-choice since the age of 16 when the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. She voted against funding Planned Parenthood, she supports 14th Amendment (personhood) rights for unborn fetuses thus criminalizing abortion and she introduced legislation to force women seeking abortions to listen to the sound of the fetal heartbeat. Just about as extremist as they the come.

And yet she said this on Meet the Press yesterday:

BACHMANN: What we want is women to be able to make their own choices [...] We want women to make their own choices in healthcare. You see that’s the lie that happens under Obamacare. The President of the United States effectively becomes a health care dictator. Women don’t need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money, that way they can make their own choices for the future of their own bodies.

She literally admitted to being pro-choice on national television. She might still be anti-abortion, in the sense that she thinks abortion is vile, but she said she’s in favor of allowing women to choose what happens to “their own bodies.”

Sound familiar? When pressed about reproductive healthcare, just as I was at the naive age of 18, she snapped into the only logical answer: women should be given total latitude over their personal medical choices.

Michele Bachmann is pro-choice.

The only other option is to say no, women shouldn’t have any choice in their healthcare options — and that would sound ridiculous coming from someone who claims to be a small government conservative. And yet so many conservatives fail to see this glaring hypocrisy: they support small government, they’re against the government interfering in healthcare, and yet they’re mandating transvaginal procedures and telling women what they can and can’t do with the contents of their reproductive organs. Total hypocrisy and a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

While we’re here, Sarah Palin admitted to the same thing several years ago during her infamous interview with Katie Couric.

COURIC: Palin says she makes no apologies for her pro-life views and opposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.

PALIN: I’m saying that personally I would counsel that person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in.

“Choose” means the same thing as “choice,” no? And by saying that she would counsel someone to “choose” implies that she’s in favor of it — “pro,” if you will.

Earlier in the 2008 campaign, Palin said:

“We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.”

She’s “proud” of Bristol’s choice — her “decision.” If she was truly anti-choice and anti-abortion, she would have done what anyone would do if another life was in danger of possibly being killed: she wouldn’t have allowed Bristol the decision-making latitude and forced her to have the baby — with or against Bristol’s will. Pro-life dogma mandates that the mother has no choice in the matter.

During a “pro-life” fundraising dinner in 2009, she admitted to considering the option of aborting Trig when she received the results of her amniocentesis. She said she made the “good decision to choose life.” Again, a choice. She talked about girls making “the choice to let the child live.” Literally the word “choice.”

She’s in favor of having the right to choose, which, by definition, is pro-choice. If she was truly against women having the choice, she would have said something like, “I had no choice but to have Trig. Choosing wasn’t any part of the equation.” The very fact that she had an amniocentesis showed that choice was a factor. If the Palins were truly pro-life, the health of the baby would be irrelevant. They should simply have the baby and let the chips fall where they may.

Ultimately, conservatives have totally missed the reasonable position regarding abortion. Instead of banning choice (Palin and Bachmann are clearly against banning choice), conservatives should be making it easier for women to choose “life.” They should be pushing for totally free healthcare, and in some cases job support, housing and food, for pregnant and post-natal women — and their children. If the health and life of the fetus is so important, then caring for that life should be priority number one for conservatives. But they’d rather make the “choosing” process wrought with government intrusions and harrowing mandates with, in the case of working class women, absolutely no means of birthing a child without going broke in the process.

I’m sure there are many other examples of self-proclaimed “pro-life” conservatives admitting to supporting choice. The challenge, again, is to get them to concede that they admitted to it. That’s a much more grueling mountain to climb.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Chez Pazienza: I moved into a new place in Los Angeles over the weekend. My decision to ultimately put down roots here was the somewhat unexpected culmination of three-and-a-half years spent wandering the wasteland in the aftermath of the break-up of my marriage; since everything went to shit, I’ve pretty much lived out of a suitcase and just moved from place to place, content not to have anything in my life that could be deemed stable simply because my ex-wife taught me in unequivocal terms that nothing is stable, even if you think it is. But you’ve gotta take a chance again at some point, and I’m finally ready to do that.

I bring all of this up because, given that I’m starting over completely from scratch, I don’t own a TV at the moment. I’ll probably be picking one up over the next couple of days, but for the time being my apartment is mercifully devoid of white noise — which is really all television is anymore, particularly the cable news and election season punditry that my job requires me to pay an at least perfunctory level of attention to.

So, no, I didn’t see Sarah Palin host NBC’s Today show this morning. And I have no doubt that I’m all the better for it. That being said, I don’t need to have seen it to know exactly how it played out and to understand that putting Palin’s stupid ass in front of a camera in a desperate attempt to fend off a threat from a rival network and generate a few extra ratings points while creating a headline or two is really the final nail in the coffin of the once mighty NBC News department. Admittedly, every time I think NBC News has sunk to the lowest point possible — airing the video manifesto of Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho, exactly as he’d wanted; using news resources and programming to promote its crappy prime time shows and to cross-promote other NBC-Uni networks; making the “N” in NBC stand for “nepotism” by hiring the kids of every big name at the network and every shithead politician in America over real journalists; giving Al Shapton a show, etc. — its team of crack surveyors astonishingly finds new depths to plumb. Inexplicably giving air time to a woman who’s not only proven herself over and over again to be an intellectual featherweight but whose entire vaudevillian shtick involves the ceaseless demonization of media outlets like NBC — there’s just no excuse for that. Not from an ostensibly serious and responsible news operation, one interested in imparting information to the public rather than being little more than another engine for asshole reality TV “celebrities” to ply their wares.

I haven’t heard NBC make half-assed excuses in an attempt to defend its decision to put someone like Palin on the air, but I have to assume that that’s because by this point anyone with a brain has given up and moved on, content to leave NBC News President Steve Capus to giddily wallow in the cesspool he’s created. What’s interesting, though, is the transparent train of thought that went into the decision to give Palin a platform on NBC at the same time ex-Today show host Katie Couric was staking out space over at Good Morning America. In keeping with, again, NBC’s diminishing of its news programming to the status of the ultimate reality TV show, the network suits obviously figured that putting Palin opposite Couric would be the ultimate grudge match, seeing as how Couric legendarily embarrassed Palin on national television a few years back by, you know, asking her questions about what she liked to read. Today show execs saw an opportunity to create controversy and buzz by staging a clumsy rematch on the airwaves and they grabbed onto it with both hands, thoroughly sublimating the fact that by acknowledging Palin’s lingering resentment toward Couric they were implicitly agreeing that Couric may have done something wrong — that the anger Palin feels at being made a fool of is somehow justified and can be blamed on anyone other than her idiot self.

It’s shameful that NBC put Palin on the air. Shameful, but not unexpected — not from NBC. As someone who worked for the network for years, it’s painful to admit that I’d rather not have a TV than have one that gives me access to such deplorable news product.

Although, hey, for one hour Donald Trump wasn’t the most grotesquely opportunistic right-wing reality TV star being given a platform and a paycheck by NBC — so, bravo, guys.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

How Close did Palin get to Power?

By Ben Cohen: The HBO movie detailing the rise and fall of Sarah Palin, ‘Game Change’, should be required watching for anyone with a passing interest in politics. The script was apparently vetted extremely thoroughly and is very accurate. Knowing that, it should strike the fear of God into every citizen of the world. While it has been almost 4 years since the election, the film is most certainly well timed. As the next batch of GOP hopefuls jump through the hoops, there was never a better time to remind everyone just how flawed the US election machine really is.

Regarding the film itself, Julianne Moore’s physical depiction of Palin is uncanny. It is her portrayal of the former Alaskan Governor’s bizarre personality that makes for  the most compelling watching. Moore nails Palin’s strange speech pattern, her deeply flawed psyche, and alarming vulnerability. Coupled with a brilliant script, the movie works as a great piece of historical storytelling. It leaves the viewer with the lasting impression that the poor woman really had no idea what she had gotten herself in to. Despite her cattiness, her relentless and unnecessary assaults on Obama, you are left feeling sorry for her. Palin comes across as a pretty decent person who tried her best to cope with a completely unwinnable situation. She had just given birth to a disabled child, had a pregnant teenage daughter and another child in Iraq, then was thrust into a national campaign where her severely limited intellectual capabilities were tested to the extreme. She should never have accepted the position as a running mate to McCain, but in fairness, she didn’t really understand what it meant to begin with.

The movie rams home the reality of modern politics – that substance, experience and qualifications count for nothing while image, advertising and stage craft means everything. ‘Game Change’ should act as a lesson in how dangerous modern politics can be. A woman who thought that the Queen of England made military decisions and had no idea what the Federal Reserve did was almost propelled into the most important office on the planet. While Palin comes off badly in the movie, the people around her (campaign manager Steve Schmidt in particular) are the real criminals. They allowed an incredibly dangerous situation to arise, and in the process changed the nature of the Republican party for good. Palin’s faux populism and incredibly nastiness at times was encouraged by the campaign team, paving the way for the Rick Perrys, Herman Cains and Michele Bachmanns of Presidential politics. They didn’t bother to vet her properly, then didn’t kick her out once they discovered she knew absolutely nothing about politics on a national or international level. Their behavior was truly atrocious and anyone involved with her selection should be barred from having anything to do with politics ever again. Sadly, we’re seeing the same process repeated again, and thanks to the rise of Sarah Palin, we still face the prospect of a candidate with no business in running for office come close to the White House.

‘Game Change’ is an important piece of film making as it brings back to life a critical point in Presidential political history. It works as a reminder and a warning – this happened once, and it can happen again.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below: