There is a currently 9 page thread about picking a new GOP chairman to replace the non-irreplaceable Charlie Webster. It is wonderfully sweet. The discussion is, basically, about why they lost and what needs to change, but all the answers show a blissful ignorance about what parts of the Republican Party so many people find objectionable.
Take Thrasybulus, for instance. He says the GOP lost because it is talking about social issues like abortion.
Then he goes on to show just HOW CRAZY he is on the abortion issue.
Most modern abortions are sought in order to prolong the period available for recreational sex. And of course avoid buying a new wardrobe or to increase disposable income.
Please, please explain to me how in an age of birth control pills, people seek abortions to “prolong” the period “available for recreational sex.” Abortions make a poor method of birth control, as I’m sure anyone who ever had an abortion might tell you.
And implying that women don’t want to have kids so they can avoid the travesty of having to “buy a new wardrobe,” well, that isn’t condescending at all. Surely these idiotic women aren’t worried about feeding, housing, educating, and caring for children who will require an enormous commitment. No, they are just concerned about clothes. Because they are women. Women like clothes.
He goes on:
A current trend is to abort to get the “right” sexed designer baby. Islander is right on when he mentions that while men, even husbands, have no say, they certainly will pay.
An attack that might resonate with a secular, but increasingly weary society, is to say abortion is usually a sleazy creepy thing to resort to, but we’ll shut up about it if you will just publicly declare the reasons for your abortion, and the father will be required to sign off. If he won’t sign off and has the ability to raise the child, he gets the child. Won’t pass right away, but it will surely cause some consternation on the Left, and open some minds. Black men under the age of 25 are the most anti-abortion group in the USA…
This is one cockamamie bit of thinking. Let us go over it in detail.
1. It is trendy to abort children to get a “designer” baby. Despite being of an age where all the people around me are having babies, I have yet to hear anyone speak of even considering an abortion to control the sex of their child. I guess I’m not as in tune with the culture as a guy who goes by “Thrasybulus.”
2. Make women publically declare their reasons for any particular abortion. Need I discuss why this would probably not be so popular with the female voters?
3. Men have no say in the abortion decision but, due to some feminazi plot, might still pay child support on kids they don’t want. Wow.
Ok, reader, please remember that this thread at AMG is a discussion about how to win. As in, lets improve the Republican brand among women by, say, letting women’s angry ex-boyfriends have the option to force them to either carry a child or force an unwanted abortion. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Women will love that! And if the boyfriend says he doesn’t want the kid, but the woman still has it, well then that guy just has no responsibility for that child’s care. How could that possibly go wrong?
Thrasybulus is sure that if Republicans pushed this idea, it would “cause some consternation on the Left” and “open some minds.”
Uh, no. It would be like Todd Akin’s crazy statement, but times ten. Any politician not dependent on nursing assistants to feed him mushed carrots would run from such a plan, immediately. It is ludicrous. Full on crazy.
And then there is Bob Emrich, the leader of the losing campaign to continue marriage discrimination. He responds to someone saying that the social issues of abortion and gay marriage are losers in Maine with this:
I disagree, Ryan. You are generalizing according to bias. Marriage won more votes than Romney.
Look at the Maine legislature.
In 2009, marriage won. Did you and others proclaim it to be a winning issue then?
More than 50% of Americans are now pro-life and the highest gains were among young people.
The problem is not with the issues but in treating the issues as unimportant.
Apparently, no one has ever showed Bob the graph showing the change in public approval of gay marriage over time. Or he doesn’t understand it. Or, he is a religious bigot who is so blind to reality that he can’t see the plain truth in front of him. Pick one.
Lastly, the thread includes some general discussion of whether to pick Rich “Are you going to finish that barrel of lard?” Cebra or Beth O’Connor for the new chair position.
I saw elsewhere on AMG that Beth O’Connor, in her losing bid to retain her Maine statehouse seat, was outspent 20-1 by her opponent.
So Republicans are thinking of choosing for their party leader someone who could not win their own election, could not organize or raise funds, and frequently posts crazy shit on AMG. Yes, that will be a big improvement from Charlie Webster.
It all makes me smile.