Lily Salter's Blog, page 1000
September 25, 2015
The most bizarre GOP primary ad so far: Conservative challenger suggests she’ll shoot moderate Republicans, or something
RINO: Republican In Name Only. With Republican intra-party bickering reaching inane levels and the cuckservative slur gaining popularity as the insult du jour, I guess being tarred as a RINO isn't the worst thing that could happen to an incumbent House Republican -- unless of course your Tea Party challenger cuts an ad declaring she's "hunting RINOs" before she takes aim and fires off a shotgun. Mother Jones' Tim Murphy first uncovered this gem of a campaign ad by North Carolina conservative activist, Kay Daly, that aired in the Raleigh market during last week's GOP debate. The 30-second jampacked ad is a doozy, complete with gratuitous swipes at feminists, same-sex couples, and undocumented immigrants but it's target is embattled North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers. Elected to Congress during the 2010 Tea Party wave, Ellmers has been dogged by conservative furor since leading a group of mostly Republican women in blocking a 20-week abortion ban earlier this year. She also irked conservatives with her refusal to support a bill undoing President Obama's executive actions on immigration. Ellmers has faced tough primaries in the past, most recently in 2014, before going on to beat her conservative challenger and defeat "American Idol" winner Clay Aiken in the general election -- but this time her challenger is swinging for the fences. The ad, narrated by a man who charges that "this feminist" (referring to Ellmers) is a RINO, is Daly's first ad of the 2016 campaign but makes quite the impression. The ad features a number of unflattering photos and screengrabs of Ellmers, while running down a litany of her alleged heresies. Ellmers, the ad goes on to charge has “voted to let homosexuals pretend they are married” and “voted to fund Obamacare and to raise the debt ceiling twice to pay for abortions in D.C. and fund Planned Butcherhood." The ad also charges Ellmers “voted to let convicted child molesters stay in America.” At the end, Daly appears with a shotgun and turns to the camera to declare, “I’m hunting for RINOS” before asking, "care to join me?": Daly, a former North Carolina GOP spokeswoman, seemingly has devoted her entire campaign website to bashing Ellmers' record as a conservative. But her website does mention that she counts Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito as “friends," along with noting endorsements from the likes of Alan Keyes and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson. Daly is not Ellmers' only primary challenger. As Mother Jones notes, "Her top primary challenger, a former county GOP chair named Jim Duncan, is neck and neck with her in fundraising."
David Vitter’s Louisiana nightmare: He’s losing his race for governor — and he has only himself (and Bobby Jindal) to blame
The Bobby Jindal experiment began in 2008. For most left-leaning Louisianans, Jindal’s election as governor wasn’t great news, but neither was it terrible. Awkward and amateurish, Jindal nevertheless appeared smart and competent. Most people (myself included) assumed he’d do a reasonably good job. As the country now knows, Jindal is a deplorable hack with a near-heroic incapacity for shame. His record of failures in Louisiana is spectacular and too long to catalog here (If you’ve got the time, I noted a few back in May). What’s interesting now is the race to succeed Jindal. For months, David Vitter, the unchaste Republican senator, was considered the frontrunner. Which is not terribly surprising. Louisiana is a red state. The demographics, particularly after Hurricane Katrina's displacement of African American voters, heavily favor Republicans. Vitter, despite his penchant for prostitutes, seemed to be coasting to the Governor’s mansion on money and name recognition alone. But that’s no longer the case.There are signs that Jindal’s transcendentally awful tenure (his approval rating at home is hovering around 32%) may result in the election of a Democratic governor in Louisiana. Vitter, for all this ethical issues, was easily re-elected in 2010, but that was a landslide year for the GOP and Vitter wasn’t running away from a Republican governor’s calamitous 8-year record. Not so today. Vitter is in serious trouble, and his desperation is increasingly obvious. According to a poll released this week by Public Policy Polling, Vitter’s brand is badly damaged. He’s now viewed unfavorably by 51% of Louisianans and by 44% of Louisiana Republicans (both numbers have risen considerably in the last year or so). The most shocking numbers, however, are the head-to-head results between Vitter and the lone Democratic candidate, John Bel Edwards. As of now, Edwards lead Vitter 50/38 among likely voters, almost a complete reversal of the numbers a year ago. This is great news for Louisiana Democrats. Vitter, whose clumsy cocksmanship has become a national punchline, would be a disaster for Louisiana as governor. For the unfamiliar, Vitter was the target of the famous “D.C. Madam Scandal.” As the senator himself confessed, he committed “serious sins" as a member of the House of Representatives -- including soliciting prostitutes twice during House votes and finagling FEC regulations to use campaign money to pay off legal fees. The Vitter camp's worry about these problems is showing in its campaign tactics. Vitter can’t run on his record (personal or otherwise) and, thanks to Jindal, the Republican brand is too toxic to lean on in the state. So Vitter (who, incidentally, is from the same district as David Duke, the former Klansman and Louisiana state representative) has decided to dog whistle to his white nativist base instead. The disgraced senator has focused primarily on two non-issues: fomenting outrage over New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s proposal to relocate Confederate monuments and on wildly exaggerated claims about food stamp fraud in Louisiana. In a state with an eroding coastline and crises in health care and higher education, this is what Vitter is talking about, and everyone knows why. As Louisiana blogger Lamar White noted, “David Vitter apparently believes that, in order to win, he must appeal, once again, to white racists.” It’s too soon to say whether Vitter’s racist gambit will work. But most observers agree that his lumbering campaign is a sign of desperation. James Carville, whom I recently spoke to about the race, is surprised at how poorly Vitter is doing. Carville, who returned to Louisiana several years ago, says “Vitter is having a rougher time than I expected.” “His sex scandal is probably the third reason people don’t like him,” Carville concluded. “Although they don’t get along, Vitter has the stench of Jindal on him. He’s also from Washington [at a time when anti-establishment sentiment is high]. And then there’s the atmospherics of the sex scandal, which are always a problem for Vitter.” Vitter, regrettably, may still win this election, if for no other reason than that the demographics benefit him. He also has considerably more money than any of the other candidates. So far, Vitter has spent most of his time attacking his two Republican rivals. His strategy, as Carville pointed out, is “to get in a runoff with Edwards.” (All candidates compete in an October 24 "jungle primary," and if no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the top two finishers advance to a November 21 runoff.) If that happens (and it seems likely), Vitter will be more than competitive, especially if the supporters of the other Republicans flock to him over Edwards. Whatever happens, the strength of the Democratic candidate in this race says something significant about Jindal and Vitter. It shows how uncommonly bad Jindal’s reign as governor has been. So bad, in fact, that disdain for Jindal is the one thing the preponderance of Louisianans share at the moment. No matter how fast he runs away, Vitter still smells of Jindal: They’re from the same party, the same part of the state, and they’ve had similar career trajectories – clearly that’s not lost on voters. Vitter’s foibles also reveal how weak a candidate he really is. It turns out that Louisianans notice (however reluctantly) when a moralizing family values conservative is caught whoremongering on the public’s dime. And that, if nothing else, is encouraging. 
The Bobby Jindal experiment began in 2008. For most left-leaning Louisianans, Jindal’s election as governor wasn’t great news, but neither was it terrible. Awkward and amateurish, Jindal nevertheless appeared smart and competent. Most people (myself included) assumed he’d do a reasonably good job. As the country now knows, Jindal is a deplorable hack with a near-heroic incapacity for shame. His record of failures in Louisiana is spectacular and too long to catalog here (If you’ve got the time, I noted a few back in May). What’s interesting now is the race to succeed Jindal. For months, David Vitter, the unchaste Republican senator, was considered the frontrunner. Which is not terribly surprising. Louisiana is a red state. The demographics, particularly after Hurricane Katrina's displacement of African American voters, heavily favor Republicans. Vitter, despite his penchant for prostitutes, seemed to be coasting to the Governor’s mansion on money and name recognition alone. But that’s no longer the case.There are signs that Jindal’s transcendentally awful tenure (his approval rating at home is hovering around 32%) may result in the election of a Democratic governor in Louisiana. Vitter, for all this ethical issues, was easily re-elected in 2010, but that was a landslide year for the GOP and Vitter wasn’t running away from a Republican governor’s calamitous 8-year record. Not so today. Vitter is in serious trouble, and his desperation is increasingly obvious. According to a poll released this week by Public Policy Polling, Vitter’s brand is badly damaged. He’s now viewed unfavorably by 51% of Louisianans and by 44% of Louisiana Republicans (both numbers have risen considerably in the last year or so). The most shocking numbers, however, are the head-to-head results between Vitter and the lone Democratic candidate, John Bel Edwards. As of now, Edwards lead Vitter 50/38 among likely voters, almost a complete reversal of the numbers a year ago. This is great news for Louisiana Democrats. Vitter, whose clumsy cocksmanship has become a national punchline, would be a disaster for Louisiana as governor. For the unfamiliar, Vitter was the target of the famous “D.C. Madam Scandal.” As the senator himself confessed, he committed “serious sins" as a member of the House of Representatives -- including soliciting prostitutes twice during House votes and finagling FEC regulations to use campaign money to pay off legal fees. The Vitter camp's worry about these problems is showing in its campaign tactics. Vitter can’t run on his record (personal or otherwise) and, thanks to Jindal, the Republican brand is too toxic to lean on in the state. So Vitter (who, incidentally, is from the same district as David Duke, the former Klansman and Louisiana state representative) has decided to dog whistle to his white nativist base instead. The disgraced senator has focused primarily on two non-issues: fomenting outrage over New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s proposal to relocate Confederate monuments and on wildly exaggerated claims about food stamp fraud in Louisiana. In a state with an eroding coastline and crises in health care and higher education, this is what Vitter is talking about, and everyone knows why. As Louisiana blogger Lamar White noted, “David Vitter apparently believes that, in order to win, he must appeal, once again, to white racists.” It’s too soon to say whether Vitter’s racist gambit will work. But most observers agree that his lumbering campaign is a sign of desperation. James Carville, whom I recently spoke to about the race, is surprised at how poorly Vitter is doing. Carville, who returned to Louisiana several years ago, says “Vitter is having a rougher time than I expected.” “His sex scandal is probably the third reason people don’t like him,” Carville concluded. “Although they don’t get along, Vitter has the stench of Jindal on him. He’s also from Washington [at a time when anti-establishment sentiment is high]. And then there’s the atmospherics of the sex scandal, which are always a problem for Vitter.” Vitter, regrettably, may still win this election, if for no other reason than that the demographics benefit him. He also has considerably more money than any of the other candidates. So far, Vitter has spent most of his time attacking his two Republican rivals. His strategy, as Carville pointed out, is “to get in a runoff with Edwards.” (All candidates compete in an October 24 "jungle primary," and if no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the top two finishers advance to a November 21 runoff.) If that happens (and it seems likely), Vitter will be more than competitive, especially if the supporters of the other Republicans flock to him over Edwards. Whatever happens, the strength of the Democratic candidate in this race says something significant about Jindal and Vitter. It shows how uncommonly bad Jindal’s reign as governor has been. So bad, in fact, that disdain for Jindal is the one thing the preponderance of Louisianans share at the moment. No matter how fast he runs away, Vitter still smells of Jindal: They’re from the same party, the same part of the state, and they’ve had similar career trajectories – clearly that’s not lost on voters. Vitter’s foibles also reveal how weak a candidate he really is. It turns out that Louisianans notice (however reluctantly) when a moralizing family values conservative is caught whoremongering on the public’s dime. And that, if nothing else, is encouraging.
The Bobby Jindal experiment began in 2008. For most left-leaning Louisianans, Jindal’s election as governor wasn’t great news, but neither was it terrible. Awkward and amateurish, Jindal nevertheless appeared smart and competent. Most people (myself included) assumed he’d do a reasonably good job. As the country now knows, Jindal is a deplorable hack with a near-heroic incapacity for shame. His record of failures in Louisiana is spectacular and too long to catalog here (If you’ve got the time, I noted a few back in May). What’s interesting now is the race to succeed Jindal. For months, David Vitter, the unchaste Republican senator, was considered the frontrunner. Which is not terribly surprising. Louisiana is a red state. The demographics, particularly after Hurricane Katrina's displacement of African American voters, heavily favor Republicans. Vitter, despite his penchant for prostitutes, seemed to be coasting to the Governor’s mansion on money and name recognition alone. But that’s no longer the case.There are signs that Jindal’s transcendentally awful tenure (his approval rating at home is hovering around 32%) may result in the election of a Democratic governor in Louisiana. Vitter, for all this ethical issues, was easily re-elected in 2010, but that was a landslide year for the GOP and Vitter wasn’t running away from a Republican governor’s calamitous 8-year record. Not so today. Vitter is in serious trouble, and his desperation is increasingly obvious. According to a poll released this week by Public Policy Polling, Vitter’s brand is badly damaged. He’s now viewed unfavorably by 51% of Louisianans and by 44% of Louisiana Republicans (both numbers have risen considerably in the last year or so). The most shocking numbers, however, are the head-to-head results between Vitter and the lone Democratic candidate, John Bel Edwards. As of now, Edwards lead Vitter 50/38 among likely voters, almost a complete reversal of the numbers a year ago. This is great news for Louisiana Democrats. Vitter, whose clumsy cocksmanship has become a national punchline, would be a disaster for Louisiana as governor. For the unfamiliar, Vitter was the target of the famous “D.C. Madam Scandal.” As the senator himself confessed, he committed “serious sins" as a member of the House of Representatives -- including soliciting prostitutes twice during House votes and finagling FEC regulations to use campaign money to pay off legal fees. The Vitter camp's worry about these problems is showing in its campaign tactics. Vitter can’t run on his record (personal or otherwise) and, thanks to Jindal, the Republican brand is too toxic to lean on in the state. So Vitter (who, incidentally, is from the same district as David Duke, the former Klansman and Louisiana state representative) has decided to dog whistle to his white nativist base instead. The disgraced senator has focused primarily on two non-issues: fomenting outrage over New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s proposal to relocate Confederate monuments and on wildly exaggerated claims about food stamp fraud in Louisiana. In a state with an eroding coastline and crises in health care and higher education, this is what Vitter is talking about, and everyone knows why. As Louisiana blogger Lamar White noted, “David Vitter apparently believes that, in order to win, he must appeal, once again, to white racists.” It’s too soon to say whether Vitter’s racist gambit will work. But most observers agree that his lumbering campaign is a sign of desperation. James Carville, whom I recently spoke to about the race, is surprised at how poorly Vitter is doing. Carville, who returned to Louisiana several years ago, says “Vitter is having a rougher time than I expected.” “His sex scandal is probably the third reason people don’t like him,” Carville concluded. “Although they don’t get along, Vitter has the stench of Jindal on him. He’s also from Washington [at a time when anti-establishment sentiment is high]. And then there’s the atmospherics of the sex scandal, which are always a problem for Vitter.” Vitter, regrettably, may still win this election, if for no other reason than that the demographics benefit him. He also has considerably more money than any of the other candidates. So far, Vitter has spent most of his time attacking his two Republican rivals. His strategy, as Carville pointed out, is “to get in a runoff with Edwards.” (All candidates compete in an October 24 "jungle primary," and if no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the top two finishers advance to a November 21 runoff.) If that happens (and it seems likely), Vitter will be more than competitive, especially if the supporters of the other Republicans flock to him over Edwards. Whatever happens, the strength of the Democratic candidate in this race says something significant about Jindal and Vitter. It shows how uncommonly bad Jindal’s reign as governor has been. So bad, in fact, that disdain for Jindal is the one thing the preponderance of Louisianans share at the moment. No matter how fast he runs away, Vitter still smells of Jindal: They’re from the same party, the same part of the state, and they’ve had similar career trajectories – clearly that’s not lost on voters. Vitter’s foibles also reveal how weak a candidate he really is. It turns out that Louisianans notice (however reluctantly) when a moralizing family values conservative is caught whoremongering on the public’s dime. And that, if nothing else, is encouraging.
Fox News’ Shepard Smith thinks Leonardo DiCaprio painted the “Mona Lisa”
Leonardo DiCaprio wears a lot of hats: celebrated actor, influential environmental activist, founding member of the pussy posse, not to mention that weird newsboy cap he tries to rock sometimes. One hat he has not donned, however, is that of 15th century Renaissance painter, something that Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was a little confused about when he credited DiCaprio with painting his namesake Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" on his newscast yesterday. Watch: https://twitter.com/StevensonErin/sta... C’mon, Shep -- you should know that Leo only paints French girls. (And the occasional Sports Illustrated model, probably). 
Leonardo DiCaprio wears a lot of hats: celebrated actor, influential environmental activist, founding member of the pussy posse, not to mention that weird newsboy cap he tries to rock sometimes. One hat he has not donned, however, is that of 15th century Renaissance painter, something that Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was a little confused about when he credited DiCaprio with painting his namesake Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" on his newscast yesterday. Watch: https://twitter.com/StevensonErin/sta... C’mon, Shep -- you should know that Leo only paints French girls. (And the occasional Sports Illustrated model, probably). Leonardo DiCaprio wears a lot of hats: celebrated actor, influential environmental activist, founding member of the pussy posse, not to mention that weird newsboy cap he tries to rock sometimes. One hat he has not donned, however, is that of 15th century Renaissance painter, something that Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was a little confused about when he credited DiCaprio with painting his namesake Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" on his newscast yesterday. Watch: https://twitter.com/StevensonErin/sta... C’mon, Shep -- you should know that Leo only paints French girls. (And the occasional Sports Illustrated model, probably).
Leonardo DiCaprio wears a lot of hats: celebrated actor, influential environmental activist, founding member of the pussy posse, not to mention that weird newsboy cap he tries to rock sometimes. One hat he has not donned, however, is that of 15th century Renaissance painter, something that Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was a little confused about when he credited DiCaprio with painting his namesake Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" on his newscast yesterday. Watch: https://twitter.com/StevensonErin/sta... C’mon, Shep -- you should know that Leo only paints French girls. (And the occasional Sports Illustrated model, probably). Leonardo DiCaprio wears a lot of hats: celebrated actor, influential environmental activist, founding member of the pussy posse, not to mention that weird newsboy cap he tries to rock sometimes. One hat he has not donned, however, is that of 15th century Renaissance painter, something that Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was a little confused about when he credited DiCaprio with painting his namesake Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" on his newscast yesterday. Watch: https://twitter.com/StevensonErin/sta... C’mon, Shep -- you should know that Leo only paints French girls. (And the occasional Sports Illustrated model, probably).
Carly Fiorina’s despicable Planned Parenthood lies have gotten even worse
We know that Carly Fiorina blatantly lied to the whole country about her performance as head of Hewlett Packard in the GOP presidential primary debate a couple of weeks ago. Every fact check has proven her recitation of events to be false. This is part of a pattern. In that same debate when she bizarrely combined an answer about Iran with the Planned Parenthood controversy, she also challenged Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with a straight face, to watch a video showing "a fully formed fetus on the table its heart beating its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." This claim was also thoroughly fact checked and proved her to be lying. None of the videos produced by the hoaxters who made the Planned Parenthood videos showed what she described. But instead of apologizing or just quietly dropping the subject, Fiorina's Super-PAC has created an ad featuring some footage like that she described in a bold doubling down on the falsehood: RH Reality check describes it this way:
A doctored video is being used to defend GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina's false statements about a doctored video...
The video, according to a fact-check from Planned Parenthood, splices together five different video and audio sources from [the deceptive anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress]: an interview with a former tissue procurement technician, Holly O'Donnell; a photo of a Pennsylvania woman's stillborn son that was used without permission; a video from a discredited anti-choice archive called the Grantham Collection; audio from a secret video of a doctor in Colorado; and audio from a surreptitiously recorded phone conversation with a man who works at another independent health-care organization in California.
The deceptive ad ends up showing a "fully formed fetus" with "legs kicking" (a stock image), an unrelated and completely out-of-context audio quote about a "heart beating," and a mention of harvesting a brain.The Grantham Collection is an anti-abortion archive which uses photos of still births or miscarriages, among other things, to deceive people into believing they are viewing aborted fetuses. According to Mother Jones, the group even claimed that a photo of basic medical tongs is an image of the tool used to pull apart the limbs of an aborted fetus.This stuff is so ghoulish you have to wonder what kind of person would spend their time making up such fantasies. In response to a request for comment on the veracity of the video, Fiorina's campaign didn't take a strictly legal approach and say they have no relationship with the Super PAC and therefore cannot comment on the ad. Her campaign spokeswomen Sarah Isgur Flores replied to an inquiry from Mother Jones via email:
"Carly is a cancer survivor and doesn't need to be lectured on women's health by anyone. Over their long and factually incorrect letter, Planned Parenthood doesn't and can't deny they butchering babies and selling their organs [sic]. This is about the character of our nation."Actually, Planned Parenthood does and can deny "they butchering babies and selling their organs." It is simply not true. Dave Weigel at the Washington Post wrote:
Other campaigns have climbed down from similar claims about the videos. Fiorina and her allies have done no such thing. Three days after the debate, CARLY for America -- the PAC that legally has to keep its distance from Fiorina's actual campaign -- put together a video that spliced the candidate's answer with different clips. The viewer, hearing about the controversy but unaware of the original videos, might think that Fiorina nailed it.That would be the idea. And it's working. Think Progress interviewed some of her fans in South Carolina this week and they absolutely believe that Planned Parenthood is videotaping the butchering of babies to harvest their brains because this wonderful woman told them so.
Cleveland, Ohio resident Carol McDowell, who came to Fiorina’s event while on vacation in Charleston, said Fiorina’s debate performance really “won us over” — pointing to two of her friends. “I loved the Planned Parenthood response that she had. The things being done today — it’s gone way beyond just abortion and it needs to stop.”...
The message resonated with women in South Carolina. “Look, I got my first set of birth control pills from Planned Parenthood a long time ago,” said Lazar, who added that she is actually pro-choice. “I have nothing against them, but they should not be selling baby parts. As a country, we shouldn’t be doing that.”It's hard to believe anyone running for president believes she could get away with such blatant deceptions but never say Fiorina doesn't have scads of chutzpah. She has refused to admit that she made a mistake and her Super PAC is now trying to cover her original lie with yet another lie. And even pro-choice GOP women are believing her. It's enough to give you a migraine. All the women quoted in that article said they believed women should have access to birth control and other reproductive health services. But they seem to have convinced themselves that women easily can access it elsewhere. This is not true. There are no alternative clinics for these women to use and you can be sure the Republicans in Congress will never approve any funds to build more. The last we heard, they were shrieking about repealing Obamacare and GOP governors were refusing to even take free money from the federal government to cover their citizens who qualified for Medicaid. These clinics are often the only time women see a health care provider for years. According to the LA Times, the CBO reports that 650,000 women would lose some or all access to needed health care if Planned Parenthood were defunded, and it would actually increase federal spending by $130 million over 10 years to cover whatever scattershot health coverage these women would find. A fair portion of that would go to covering the medical expenses of children of unplanned pregnancies which is the real purpose of doing this although those nice GOP women in South Carolina don't seem to realize it. Carly Fiorina is positioning herself as the anti-abortion warrior in this race, even going so far as to support a government shutdown over this issue, which puts her in the Ted Cruz faction. But it's important to remember what the big funders have actually hired her to do in order to understand why she's chosen this particular crusade on which to stake her campaign: Her job is to be the anti-Clinton and neutralize the Democratic advantage with women. They've admitted it. Indeed, she's putting it right up front in her campaign literature:
“On her card, it’s talking about how she’s trying to refute the war on women,” Charleston resident Mary Smith told ThinkProgress, pointing to the brochure Fiorina’s campaign gave to attendees. “She’s definitely trying to help us ladies out.”
Charleston resident Phyllis Lazar agreed, saying that “it would be amazing to have her up against Hillary Clinton because then they couldn’t sit there and use that ‘war on women’ stuff.” The New York Times wrote last month that many Republicans are looking at Fiorina as “the party’s weapon to counter the perception that it is waging a ‘war on women.’”
How exactly she will do that — aside from just being a woman — was less clear to Smith and other women in the audience. When asked to define the “war on women,” Smith said the Democratic Party likes to attack the GOP for trying to take away women’s reproductive rights and access to birth control. “I don’t really see any of that happening,” she said.You can see how confused these women are. They are Republicans but they also believe in reproductive rights. The only way they can reconcile these two things is to believe the lying Carly Fiorina instead of their own lying eyes. And it's easy to understand why they might do that. It's almost impossible to believe anyone could tell such a dramatic tale with such conviction if it weren't the truth. But that seems to be her special talent. The sad thing is that those women wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton in any case. All these big money funders are accomplishing with this phony campaign is helping to destroy an organization that has helped millions of people for many decades get affordable health care. And I doubt that most of them care one little bit about that one way or the other. It's just a means to an end for them. It's life changing for the women who will suffer for it.We know that Carly Fiorina blatantly lied to the whole country about her performance as head of Hewlett Packard in the GOP presidential primary debate a couple of weeks ago. Every fact check has proven her recitation of events to be false. This is part of a pattern. In that same debate when she bizarrely combined an answer about Iran with the Planned Parenthood controversy, she also challenged Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with a straight face, to watch a video showing "a fully formed fetus on the table its heart beating its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." This claim was also thoroughly fact checked and proved her to be lying. None of the videos produced by the hoaxters who made the Planned Parenthood videos showed what she described. But instead of apologizing or just quietly dropping the subject, Fiorina's Super-PAC has created an ad featuring some footage like that she described in a bold doubling down on the falsehood: RH Reality check describes it this way:
A doctored video is being used to defend GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina's false statements about a doctored video...
The video, according to a fact-check from Planned Parenthood, splices together five different video and audio sources from [the deceptive anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress]: an interview with a former tissue procurement technician, Holly O'Donnell; a photo of a Pennsylvania woman's stillborn son that was used without permission; a video from a discredited anti-choice archive called the Grantham Collection; audio from a secret video of a doctor in Colorado; and audio from a surreptitiously recorded phone conversation with a man who works at another independent health-care organization in California.
The deceptive ad ends up showing a "fully formed fetus" with "legs kicking" (a stock image), an unrelated and completely out-of-context audio quote about a "heart beating," and a mention of harvesting a brain.The Grantham Collection is an anti-abortion archive which uses photos of still births or miscarriages, among other things, to deceive people into believing they are viewing aborted fetuses. According to Mother Jones, the group even claimed that a photo of basic medical tongs is an image of the tool used to pull apart the limbs of an aborted fetus.This stuff is so ghoulish you have to wonder what kind of person would spend their time making up such fantasies. In response to a request for comment on the veracity of the video, Fiorina's campaign didn't take a strictly legal approach and say they have no relationship with the Super PAC and therefore cannot comment on the ad. Her campaign spokeswomen Sarah Isgur Flores replied to an inquiry from Mother Jones via email:
"Carly is a cancer survivor and doesn't need to be lectured on women's health by anyone. Over their long and factually incorrect letter, Planned Parenthood doesn't and can't deny they butchering babies and selling their organs [sic]. This is about the character of our nation."Actually, Planned Parenthood does and can deny "they butchering babies and selling their organs." It is simply not true. Dave Weigel at the Washington Post wrote:
Other campaigns have climbed down from similar claims about the videos. Fiorina and her allies have done no such thing. Three days after the debate, CARLY for America -- the PAC that legally has to keep its distance from Fiorina's actual campaign -- put together a video that spliced the candidate's answer with different clips. The viewer, hearing about the controversy but unaware of the original videos, might think that Fiorina nailed it.That would be the idea. And it's working. Think Progress interviewed some of her fans in South Carolina this week and they absolutely believe that Planned Parenthood is videotaping the butchering of babies to harvest their brains because this wonderful woman told them so.
Cleveland, Ohio resident Carol McDowell, who came to Fiorina’s event while on vacation in Charleston, said Fiorina’s debate performance really “won us over” — pointing to two of her friends. “I loved the Planned Parenthood response that she had. The things being done today — it’s gone way beyond just abortion and it needs to stop.”...
The message resonated with women in South Carolina. “Look, I got my first set of birth control pills from Planned Parenthood a long time ago,” said Lazar, who added that she is actually pro-choice. “I have nothing against them, but they should not be selling baby parts. As a country, we shouldn’t be doing that.”It's hard to believe anyone running for president believes she could get away with such blatant deceptions but never say Fiorina doesn't have scads of chutzpah. She has refused to admit that she made a mistake and her Super PAC is now trying to cover her original lie with yet another lie. And even pro-choice GOP women are believing her. It's enough to give you a migraine. All the women quoted in that article said they believed women should have access to birth control and other reproductive health services. But they seem to have convinced themselves that women easily can access it elsewhere. This is not true. There are no alternative clinics for these women to use and you can be sure the Republicans in Congress will never approve any funds to build more. The last we heard, they were shrieking about repealing Obamacare and GOP governors were refusing to even take free money from the federal government to cover their citizens who qualified for Medicaid. These clinics are often the only time women see a health care provider for years. According to the LA Times, the CBO reports that 650,000 women would lose some or all access to needed health care if Planned Parenthood were defunded, and it would actually increase federal spending by $130 million over 10 years to cover whatever scattershot health coverage these women would find. A fair portion of that would go to covering the medical expenses of children of unplanned pregnancies which is the real purpose of doing this although those nice GOP women in South Carolina don't seem to realize it. Carly Fiorina is positioning herself as the anti-abortion warrior in this race, even going so far as to support a government shutdown over this issue, which puts her in the Ted Cruz faction. But it's important to remember what the big funders have actually hired her to do in order to understand why she's chosen this particular crusade on which to stake her campaign: Her job is to be the anti-Clinton and neutralize the Democratic advantage with women. They've admitted it. Indeed, she's putting it right up front in her campaign literature:
“On her card, it’s talking about how she’s trying to refute the war on women,” Charleston resident Mary Smith told ThinkProgress, pointing to the brochure Fiorina’s campaign gave to attendees. “She’s definitely trying to help us ladies out.”
Charleston resident Phyllis Lazar agreed, saying that “it would be amazing to have her up against Hillary Clinton because then they couldn’t sit there and use that ‘war on women’ stuff.” The New York Times wrote last month that many Republicans are looking at Fiorina as “the party’s weapon to counter the perception that it is waging a ‘war on women.’”
How exactly she will do that — aside from just being a woman — was less clear to Smith and other women in the audience. When asked to define the “war on women,” Smith said the Democratic Party likes to attack the GOP for trying to take away women’s reproductive rights and access to birth control. “I don’t really see any of that happening,” she said.You can see how confused these women are. They are Republicans but they also believe in reproductive rights. The only way they can reconcile these two things is to believe the lying Carly Fiorina instead of their own lying eyes. And it's easy to understand why they might do that. It's almost impossible to believe anyone could tell such a dramatic tale with such conviction if it weren't the truth. But that seems to be her special talent. The sad thing is that those women wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton in any case. All these big money funders are accomplishing with this phony campaign is helping to destroy an organization that has helped millions of people for many decades get affordable health care. And I doubt that most of them care one little bit about that one way or the other. It's just a means to an end for them. It's life changing for the women who will suffer for it.
Kim Davis breaks from Democrats, declares herself Republican mere hours before a Family Research Council gala in her honor
Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk and professional opportunist Kim Davis announced on Friday that she was switching her party affiliation to the GOP because, in her words, "the Democratic Party left us a long time ago." Davis is correct, inasmuch as her views on same-sex marriage stopped developing when she embraced evangelicalism a few years/husbands ago, whereas from President Barack Obama down, the Democratic Party's position has continued to evolve. "My husband and I had talked about it for quite a while and we came to the conclusion that the Democratic Party left us a long time ago, so why were we hanging on?" she
Conservatives rejoice over John Boehner’s resignation: “Treated other Republicans like jackasses”
Embattled House Speaker John Boehner announced his surprise resignation from Congress this morning and conservatives who have hounded him for nearly his entire five-year reign as speaker took to Twitter to express their unabashed joy. Matt Drudge was particularly brutal: https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/sta... https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/sta... https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/sta... But nearly all of conservative twitter was thrilled by the breaking news: https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status... https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status... https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/sta... https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/sta... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... https://twitter.com/RMConservative/st... https://twitter.com/AnnNan/status/647... https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/statu... And the longtime faithful over on the #FireBoehner thread didn't hold back their glee one bit: https://twitter.com/ChristiChat/statu... https://twitter.com/RaymondSmith54/st... https://twitter.com/geoffcaldwell/sta... https://twitter.com/jimcc66/status/64... The 2016 candidates reacted with only a bit more reservation: https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status... https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status... https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/64...
September 14, 2015
Welcome to the un-Democratic Party: We need more debates — for everyone’s sake
On Aug. 6, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced the party's debate schedule. It included six dates, of which only four would take place before the critical February primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. Compared to the robust 2008 schedule—when the candidates had already engaged in 10 debates by Sept. 9—it seemed oddly sparse. Nor did the dates themselves make much sense. The first, on Oct. 13, would take place after the New York voter registration deadline, meaning that the state's independents would be too late to vote in the primary if a particular candidate swayed them. The third was scheduled for Dec. 19, the last Saturday before Christmas—a perfect date, provided you wanted nobody to watch. And there was a bigger problem—although the number of "sanctioned" debates was the same as 2008, the DNC had instituted a strange rule back in May. In what became known as the "exclusivity clause," Schultz dictated that any candidate wishing to participate in the six DNC debates would have to forgo all other debates. In other words, anyone appearing in a non-sanctioned debate, where Clinton and Obama had done battle over and over in 2008, would be barred from the main event—a massive, prohibitive punishment. The cries of conspiracy started immediately, and gained intensity when the schedule was finally released last month. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been one of Hillary Clinton's national campaign co-chairs, and Politico recently called her "one of the last loyalists sticking with Clinton in 2008." She had a front row seat as Obama mopped the floor with her candidate in that primary, and perhaps the memory lingered. If nothing else, she knew how the public stage helped Obama overcome a significant early deficit, and was critical to his eventual victory. Eight years later, Schultz found herself in charge of the debate schedule, and her new rules seemed specifically designed to safeguard Clinton's candidacy. Just as in '08, Clinton began the campaign with a huge lead on her rivals, and Schultz's detractors saw the debate restrictions as evidence of a lesson learned: Deprive candidates like Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley of publicity and air time, and you protect Hillary from the "next Obama." Whether this collusion was real or imagined, it was hard not to see the practical benefit to Clinton, and Schultz did herself no favors by staying mum on the rationale for the exclusivity clause. To many, it looked like she had blatantly neutered the debate process, and the ingenuity of her tactics, along with her stubborn silence, only increased the rage. The candidates themselves protested immediately. Sanders had argued for more debates in a letter to Schultz in June, and he greeted the August announcement with frustration. “I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the debate schedule announced by the Democratic National Committee,” he said. But it was Martin O'Malley who swung the biggest hammer, railing against the DNC at a campaign stop in Iowa: "To those in Washington who think they can limit the number of debates that we’re going to have before the Iowa caucuses, can circle the wagons and close off debates: I think they’re going to have another thing coming when they talk to the people of Iowa." And it was O'Malley who brought the rebellion to a new level, dedicating most of his speech at the DNC summer meeting in Minneapolis on Aug. 28 to the topic. "This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before," he said, at the climax of a 15-minute tirade that brought Debbie Wasserman Schultz into the crosshairs without once mentioning her name. "We are the Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party. As many Twitter users noticed, the immediate reaction from Schultz was less than warm: 
(Schultz apparently told O'Malley he had no class.) The topic was broached again during the procedural portion of the meeting, and Schultz reiterated her absolute authority, refusing to let the matter come to a vote. Texas Democratic chair Gilberto Hinojosa later described the farce to a constituent in an email that was posted on Reddit:awkward pic.twitter.com/pAQs8WiW40
— Elliott Schwartz (@elliosch) August 28, 2015
I have received numerous emails on this. The matter of the limited debates was brought to the floor of the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minnesota by one of the DNC members. This DNC member made a motion to overturn the decision on the debates. Immediately after he made the motion, another member of the DNC, raised a point of order on the motion. The Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, sustained the point of order and ruled that the issue of the number of debates and the times of the debates was solely a matter for the Chair to decide and not for the DNC as a body.Paraphrased: This is my call, and to hell with everyone else. O'Malley's appearance was effective in galvanizing the rage of his supporters and, more important, Bernie Sanders' supporters. When Schultz sat down with CNN's Jake Tapper for a segment that aired Tuesday, it was the first topic she had to address—in no small part because Tapper had been shoved in that direction by an army of angry advocates on social media. Tapper came out swinging, and posed the question: Will you allow more debates? See if you can make sense of Schultz's reply, which is worth reprinting in full to showcase the strange, elusive logic:
"Well we're really thrilled that our candidates are coming at our debate process with energy and enthusiasm and looking forward to them. As we established the process that we were going to go through to lead to six debates to have sanctioned debate process so we could make sure that there was some control...it means that we are going to make sure that our candidates are going to commit to participating in DNC-sanctioned debates...one of the bits of advice from a number of my predecessors was that it was important to make sure that the debate calendar doesn't get out of control. It's critical during the campaigning process particularly in the early primary states that our candidates have a chance to be in those retail settings where Iowa voters, New Hampshire voters kick the tires..."It's almost not worth parsing her response, since it's so obviously a dodge, but let's make a good-faith attempt: Is she saying that the number of debates in 2008 was costly, somehow? It certainly didn't cost the Democrats anything, because, as Tapper pointed out, Obama went on to win the general election. The only person that was truly hurt by the debates was Hillary Clinton, and Schultz watched from the sidelines as her candidate slowly hemorrhaged a huge lead. And maybe that's the entire point—avoiding a repeat of history. The interview devolved from there. Schultz continued to sidestep all of Tapper's direct questions, as she'd been doing for months, retorting with pointless comebacks like, "debate is not the only way in which you can reach a voter," and refusing to answer the simple question of why. Instead, she reiterated the idea that debates somehow cost the candidates campaigning time—this despite the fact that every single candidate has all but demanded more debates. Including Hillary Clinton. On Saturday, speaking in New Hampshire, Clinton declared herself open to more debates, saying, "I debated a lot in 2008, and I would certainly be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if they decide to add more debates. And I think that’s the message that a lot of people are sending their way." Even if more debates is the exact last thing Clinton wants—and that's a reasonable guess, considering her current lead and the bad memories from '08—she smartly realized that the appearance of a co-conspiracy with Schultz and the DNC was exactly the last thing she needed, particularly when voters already doubt her honesty. That move deprived Schultz of a key public ally, as did former chair Howard Dean's comment to the Washington Post that he disagreed with the exclusivity clause. But the really shocking twist came on Wednesday, when DNC vice chairs R.T. Rybak and Tulsi Gabbard posted a note on Facebook actually calling for more debates, along with the abolition of the exclusivity clause:
"We believe that the DNC’s decision to limit Presidential candidates to 6 debates, with a threat of exclusion for any candidate who participates in any non-DNC sanctioned debate, is a mistake. It limits the ability of the American people to benefit from a strong, transparent, vigorous debate between our Presidential candidates, as they make the important decision of who will be our Democratic Presidential nominee."Rybak and Gabbard are two of the nine chief officers listed on the DNC's website, and these felt very much like the first rumblings of a palace coup. Since then, all parties are doubling down—O'Malley has outright accused Schultz, by name, of rigging the process for Hillary Clinton, and Schultz has refused to move an inch. Now, she's totally isolated at the top, taking flack not just from struggling outsiders in the presidential race, but from her own organization. What meager support existed in her own party has withered, and the debate restrictions stand exposed for what they are: A unilateral decision utterly lacking in justification. The only question that remains is whether Schultz can barricade herself inside the castle walls, withstand the heightened scrutiny, and survive until February.
California Governor Jerry Brown uses Twitter to school Ben Carson about the reality of global warming
California Governor Jerry Brown chided Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson over the weekend for statements he made regarding climate change. "I hope you've enjoyed your visit to the Golden State," he began, before noting that Carson recently said:
I know there are a lot of people who say "overwhelming science," but then when you ask them to show the overwhelming science, they never can show it...There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused. Gimme a break.That, evidently, is something that Governor Brown isn't willing to do, as he included with his letter a flash drive "with the complete United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 'Synthesis Report,'" which "assessed over 30,000 scientific papers and was written by more than 800 scientists, representing 80 countries around the world, who definitively concluded that 'human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans." The governor added that "[t]his is just one of thousands of reports authored by the world's top scientists on the subject," and that "[t]hese aren't just words," because "[t]he consequences are real." "Climate change is much bigger that partisan politics," Brown concluded. Read the entire letter below via the California governor's official press office on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GovPressOffice/st... Governor Jerry Brown chided Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson over the weekend for statements he made regarding climate change. "I hope you've enjoyed your visit to the Golden State," he began, before noting that Carson recently said:
I know there are a lot of people who say "overwhelming science," but then when you ask them to show the overwhelming science, they never can show it...There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused. Gimme a break.That, evidently, is something that Governor Brown isn't willing to do, as he included with his letter a flash drive "with the complete United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 'Synthesis Report,'" which "assessed over 30,000 scientific papers and was written by more than 800 scientists, representing 80 countries around the world, who definitively concluded that 'human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans." The governor added that "[t]his is just one of thousands of reports authored by the world's top scientists on the subject," and that "[t]hese aren't just words," because "[t]he consequences are real." "Climate change is much bigger that partisan politics," Brown concluded. Read the entire letter below via the California governor's official press office on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GovPressOffice/st... Governor Jerry Brown chided Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson over the weekend for statements he made regarding climate change. "I hope you've enjoyed your visit to the Golden State," he began, before noting that Carson recently said:
I know there are a lot of people who say "overwhelming science," but then when you ask them to show the overwhelming science, they never can show it...There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused. Gimme a break.That, evidently, is something that Governor Brown isn't willing to do, as he included with his letter a flash drive "with the complete United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 'Synthesis Report,'" which "assessed over 30,000 scientific papers and was written by more than 800 scientists, representing 80 countries around the world, who definitively concluded that 'human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans." The governor added that "[t]his is just one of thousands of reports authored by the world's top scientists on the subject," and that "[t]hese aren't just words," because "[t]he consequences are real." "Climate change is much bigger that partisan politics," Brown concluded. Read the entire letter below via the California governor's official press office on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GovPressOffice/st...
Ted Cruz doesn’t need your liberally biased facts: The Planned Parenthood shutdown fight shows a movement at war with reality
The ability of the Republican Party to sabotage its polls and electoral prospects by clinging to narratives built on the hysterical voices shrieking nonsense through conservative minds like Santa Ana winds blasting across the vast desert wastelands of California will never cease to amaze. Think back to the 2012 presidential campaign. In a campaign speech in July of that year, President Obama made the following statement: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—
you didn't build that.
Somebody else made that happen.” To anyone with two functional brain cells to rub together, Obama’s meaning was clear. Despite what go-it-alone, self-made conservative he-men like to say about their successes being the product of nothing but their own Herculean efforts, the reality is often the opposite. It takes nothing away from an individual’s hard work to acknowledge that a flourishing business or career or family rises on the work done by others to build a society’s foundations in order that future generations might thrive. To conservatives, this meant that Obama was an anticolonial Kenyan socialist who hated the free market capitalism that makes America great. Six weeks after the president made those comments, the Republicans build their entire national convention around refuting their own phantom interpretation of Obama’s comments. Conservative figures spent four days belittling the president’s remarks from the dais of Tampa’s convention center, which ironically had been built not with private funds by a real-estate mogul, but with tax money contributed by millions of Florida taxpayers. Someone ask President Romney how that went over. Fast forward almost exactly three years, to Republicans on the verge of leading a government shutdown over another fact-free assertion: That Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of healthcare for the underprivileged in America, is selling off the organs of aborted fetuses for scrap. The controversy started in July when activists for anti-abortion group the Center for Medical Progress began releasing undercover videos they claimed showed Planned Parenthood executives colluding to sell tissue harvested from aborted fetuses to research labs for huge profits. PP countered by pointing out that fetal tissue donation is perfectly legal, and that the only money the organization handles is reimbursement for the cost of shipping tissue from clinics to research labs, a practice allowed by law. Subsequent investigations by at least five states of their Planned Parenthood clinics found no violations of the handling of fetal tissue. An analysis of both the videotapes and the raw footage released by the Center for Medical Progress indicated that, despite claims to the contrary, the allegedly unedited source tapes had in fact been edited, with no indication of what might have been taken out. Not one witness has stepped forward to corroborate the tales of the tapes, which is hard to believe if the disgusting butchery described had actually occurred. Otherwise, one has to believe that the thousands of workers at PP and tissue research facilities across the country are all in on this get-rich scheme despite its stomach-churning nature. In short, the whole controversy is garbage. This has not stopped Republicans. First they subjected Planned Parenthood to the “kangaroo court” of Congressional hearings that mostly provided House members the opportunity to grandstand. Any evidence or testimony that might contradict the narrative that PP is an organization of psychopaths getting rich by selling off baby parts as if they were stripping a fleet of ’59 Thunderbirds was not allowed anywhere near the hearing room, lest it inject a dose of reality into the proceedings. The hearings went on in conjunction with talk of shutting down the government at the end of September if Republican leaders try to pass a short-term funding bill that includes money for Planned Parenthood. The organization gets about $500 million a year from the feds. Conservatives in Congress and their allies in the right-wing media want that number to go to zero or they will…hold their breath until they turn blue, I guess? The extreme right wing, led by figures like Ted Cruz, is spoiling for this fight, convinced despite all evidence, both present and historical, that the Democrats and President Obama will be blamed if federal agencies are shuttered and more World War II veterans can’t get into the memorial on the Washington Mall. Those polling numbers that show otherwise? Lies. Other polls that indicate a majority of the American people don’t want to see Planned Parenthood stripped of its funding? That just means the lamestream media hasn’t really reported this story. You know, the story that has been reported in every major media organ for two months now. Here we come back to one of the most singularly frustrating aspects of governance in the Obama era. It’s one thing to disagree on the role of government in our society – we’ve been doing that since Publius was writing the Federalist Papers. But how can our country function when one half of the ruling political class bases its strategies and policies on nothing but the phantom voices in their heads? The answer is, we can’t. If we’re lucky, the candidacy of Donald Trump will cause a Republican Party split big enough to reconfigure the GOP into something resembling a functional organism, purged of the fanatical elements and composed of people who understand that no disagreement is worth turning off all the lights. If we’re not that lucky, we’ll keep limping along like a dying carnival where half the rides aren’t working. But like the 2016 primary campaign, it will at least be a hell of a show.
Keith Ablow on “Fox & Friends”: Kim Davis decision will “open the floodgates” to polygamous marriage
On "Fox & Friends" Monday morning, Fox News' medical correspondent Keith Ablow argued that Kim Davis needs to "do what [her] job entails or quit," because "that's called America" -- but he also noted that her case highlights the way in which the federal government has "opened the floodgates" to polygamy. He began sensibly enough, saying that "if the law says you have to issue a marriage license and it's clear [that] 'there needs to be a license issued,' the fact that your religion may say otherwise shouldn't mean that you can keep your job." But "if you want the job, you've got to do what the job entails -- otherwise you quit. That's called America." Ablow continued, however, by pointing out that because the issue at hand is a conflict between state and federal authorities over who has the right to recognize marriages and what kinds of marriages can be recognized, "any court can now say, 'Well, polygamy, you've got to issue marriage licenses to three men and a woman, because I don't know how you deny that to people who say, "We're all in love."'" "So the floodgates are open," he continued. "Gay marriage opened those floodgates, marriage now will end up meaning anybody in love, and ultimately the Church, or a temple, or other religious groups are going to have to say, 'We want none of that.'" Ablow later mentioned that this is a clear case in which the Supreme Court overstepped its authority and effectively "made law," and that the judicial system will have to face the consequences of this overreach -- including the challenges from polyamorous couples seeking legal recognition for their relationship. He then continued his discussion from earlier, saying that if Davis knew she would have religious objections, she shouldn't have taken the position in the first place and should immediately resign. It's almost as if he felt the need to address polygamy not out of logical necessity but because of some other, greater obligation. Watch the entire segment below via Media Matters. On "Fox & Friends" Monday morning, Fox News' medical correspondent Keith Ablow argued that Kim Davis needs to "do what [her] job entails or quit," because "that's called America" -- but he also noted that her case highlights the way in which the federal government has "opened the floodgates" to polygamy. He began sensibly enough, saying that "if the law says you have to issue a marriage license and it's clear [that] 'there needs to be a license issued,' the fact that your religion may say otherwise shouldn't mean that you can keep your job." But "if you want the job, you've got to do what the job entails -- otherwise you quit. That's called America." Ablow continued, however, by pointing out that because the issue at hand is a conflict between state and federal authorities over who has the right to recognize marriages and what kinds of marriages can be recognized, "any court can now say, 'Well, polygamy, you've got to issue marriage licenses to three men and a woman, because I don't know how you deny that to people who say, "We're all in love."'" "So the floodgates are open," he continued. "Gay marriage opened those floodgates, marriage now will end up meaning anybody in love, and ultimately the Church, or a temple, or other religious groups are going to have to say, 'We want none of that.'" Ablow later mentioned that this is a clear case in which the Supreme Court overstepped its authority and effectively "made law," and that the judicial system will have to face the consequences of this overreach -- including the challenges from polyamorous couples seeking legal recognition for their relationship. He then continued his discussion from earlier, saying that if Davis knew she would have religious objections, she shouldn't have taken the position in the first place and should immediately resign. It's almost as if he felt the need to address polygamy not out of logical necessity but because of some other, greater obligation. Watch the entire segment below via Media Matters. On "Fox & Friends" Monday morning, Fox News' medical correspondent Keith Ablow argued that Kim Davis needs to "do what [her] job entails or quit," because "that's called America" -- but he also noted that her case highlights the way in which the federal government has "opened the floodgates" to polygamy. He began sensibly enough, saying that "if the law says you have to issue a marriage license and it's clear [that] 'there needs to be a license issued,' the fact that your religion may say otherwise shouldn't mean that you can keep your job." But "if you want the job, you've got to do what the job entails -- otherwise you quit. That's called America." Ablow continued, however, by pointing out that because the issue at hand is a conflict between state and federal authorities over who has the right to recognize marriages and what kinds of marriages can be recognized, "any court can now say, 'Well, polygamy, you've got to issue marriage licenses to three men and a woman, because I don't know how you deny that to people who say, "We're all in love."'" "So the floodgates are open," he continued. "Gay marriage opened those floodgates, marriage now will end up meaning anybody in love, and ultimately the Church, or a temple, or other religious groups are going to have to say, 'We want none of that.'" Ablow later mentioned that this is a clear case in which the Supreme Court overstepped its authority and effectively "made law," and that the judicial system will have to face the consequences of this overreach -- including the challenges from polyamorous couples seeking legal recognition for their relationship. He then continued his discussion from earlier, saying that if Davis knew she would have religious objections, she shouldn't have taken the position in the first place and should immediately resign. It's almost as if he felt the need to address polygamy not out of logical necessity but because of some other, greater obligation. Watch the entire segment below via Media Matters. On "Fox & Friends" Monday morning, Fox News' medical correspondent Keith Ablow argued that Kim Davis needs to "do what [her] job entails or quit," because "that's called America" -- but he also noted that her case highlights the way in which the federal government has "opened the floodgates" to polygamy. He began sensibly enough, saying that "if the law says you have to issue a marriage license and it's clear [that] 'there needs to be a license issued,' the fact that your religion may say otherwise shouldn't mean that you can keep your job." But "if you want the job, you've got to do what the job entails -- otherwise you quit. That's called America." Ablow continued, however, by pointing out that because the issue at hand is a conflict between state and federal authorities over who has the right to recognize marriages and what kinds of marriages can be recognized, "any court can now say, 'Well, polygamy, you've got to issue marriage licenses to three men and a woman, because I don't know how you deny that to people who say, "We're all in love."'" "So the floodgates are open," he continued. "Gay marriage opened those floodgates, marriage now will end up meaning anybody in love, and ultimately the Church, or a temple, or other religious groups are going to have to say, 'We want none of that.'" Ablow later mentioned that this is a clear case in which the Supreme Court overstepped its authority and effectively "made law," and that the judicial system will have to face the consequences of this overreach -- including the challenges from polyamorous couples seeking legal recognition for their relationship. He then continued his discussion from earlier, saying that if Davis knew she would have religious objections, she shouldn't have taken the position in the first place and should immediately resign. It's almost as if he felt the need to address polygamy not out of logical necessity but because of some other, greater obligation. Watch the entire segment below via Media Matters.
