Why Did Conservatives Lead the Attack on Todd Aiken?

Todd Aiken, recently nominated to face Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in November, gained national notoriety when he said that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant.

It was certainly an odd thing to say.  But did it deserve the condemnation showered upon him by prominent conservatives and outlets such as Ann Coulter, Shawn Hannity and National Review Magazine?

Here’s the language that caused the furor:

          “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare.  If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body had ways to shut that down.

          But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something.  I think there should be some punishment but the punishment should be on the rapist but not attacking the child.”

With Senate control at stake, one expects liberals to pounce on Republicans for being, they assert, insensitive to the trauma of rape and hostile to women.  So President Obama’s criticism of the Senatorial nominee on those grounds at a White House press conference was hardly a surprise.

But why are those on Todd Aiken’s side of the political divide joining in the political assault?

One may disagree with a “no-exception to abortion opposition even in the case of rape or incest” policy.  But it is a sincere pro-life position held by about 20% of the population.

Todd Aiken, a six term member of Congress, is no neophyte.  Referring to “legitimate rape” suggests there’s another kind deserving of less sympathy or compassion for the victim.  He should have known better.  His remarks were awkward to say the least.

But he’s also a respected member of the House majority who co-sponsored with Representative Paul Ryan the pro-life “Sanctity of Human Life” bill, and he has apologized for his remarks.

I don’t recall Democrats calling for the Vice President’s head for his “y’all” remarks.

Apparently panic has set in on the right.  There is great fear now that Aiken will cost the GOP its chance for a majority in the Senate.

Karl Rove, former Bush political advisor and head of a major conservative PAC, has announced that it will no longer support Aiken, a pledge apparently designed to cause Aiken to drop out so that a replacement candidate could face Senator McCaskill.  To date, that threat has not succeeded since Aiken has refused to step down

However, a poll taken in Missouri a few days after the avalanche of criticism indicates that the worry may be over-wrought.  His margin over incumbent Senator McCaskill had slipped but he was still ahead.  That suggests that his prospects will improve once the intensely negative publicity fades. 

It is unbecoming, indeed, for conservatives to be so willing to cast a comrade aside just because he has now made himself an easier target for his foe.  Loyalty should matter, particularly to those on the right.  Yet it seems that liberals are displaying that character trait more readily than our side.

Another point for conservatives to consider.  Aiken received the support of 36% of the Republican primary voters.  Is it not possible that, if he is forced to abandon the contest, they will feel robbed of their choice and might not  support his successor in retribution?

Final note.  The threat by Rove and others such as the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and the RNC to cut off funding is a bluff.  Since Aiken has refused to bow out, he remains the GOP candidate.  Conservatives will support him financially anyway because a new Republican Senator from Missouri is probably essential if a GOP takeover of the Senate is to occur. 

Is This the Worst Presidential Campaign Ever?

Probably not.

In 1828, Andrew Jackson was accused by supporters of John Quincy Adams of murder and adultery.  In turn, Jackson’s campaign charged Adams with being a “Yankee,” intended as a slur since it meant, then, a Northern storekeeper who cheated his customers.  He was also accused of procuring sexual favors (“pimping”) for diplomatic contacts.

But, according to long-time political journalist Brit Hume, who has covered ten presidential campaigns, the present campaign is the worst he has ever seen. 

Campaigns in recent years have certainly been increasingly hard-edged.  Perhaps it began in 2000 when George W. Bush won the presidency in the Electoral College, with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court, despite losing the popular vote. 

To be sure, one can’t accuse Democrat Walter Mondale of having run a mean-spirited race against GOP president Ronald Reagan in 1984, or Republican Bob Dole of having made vicious attacks against incumbent Bill Clinton in 1996.

But even since 2000, presidential candidates have operated within certain boundaries.  For instance, 2008 Republican nominee John McCain disavowed a South Carolina GOP ad attacking Barack Obama’s long-time association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the seemingly anti-American cleric from Chicago. 

How about this year?

Mitt Romney blasts the president by exaggerating the immediate effects of his executive order giving states more discretion in imposing welfare work requirements (although it’s eventual demise is most likely what Obama wants).

And the chief executive accuses the Republican of wanting to “end Medicare as we know it” - which is true except that unless Medicare is changed, demographics will compel its death.

Fairly standard campaign rhetoric, that.

But things have turned personal:

*A deputy head of the Obama campaign accuses Romney of

“maybe” having committed a felony because his name appeared on an SEC filing for Bain Capital after his active involvement had ceased.

 *Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader, claims that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years while at Bain (the information was based on an “anonymous source”).

 *Vice President Joe Biden – in what was evidently his attempt at humor – told a mostly black audience of campaign supporters: “Look at their budget and at what they’re proposing.  Romney wants to let the – he said in the first hundred days, he is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, Unchain Wall Street! [pause]  They are going to put y’all back in chains.” [laughter]

 *A political action committee supporting President Obama creates a TV ad that implies, quite falsely, that Bain Capital, under Romney, was responsible for a person’s death. 

[Romney and his campaign are not blameless for the ugly nature of politics this year, but calling the president “angry and out of touch” is hardly comparable.]

Sadly, for those who believe that campaign combat should be constrained by a sense of propriety, these outrageous remarks have generated neither apologies from those who uttered them or, more tellingly, have they been disavowed by the president. 

Why not?

It’s as if no misdeed can be conceded lest Romney be emboldened to attack the chinks in the campaign’s armor.  If so, the toleration of such misconduct can be viewed as merely tactical and not reflective of how President Obama “really” views such out-of-line utterances. 

But then, maybe Obama and his campaign don’t see it that way at all.  If the other side is seen as an enemy, not just as an opponent, the ruthless will give no quarter to the foe.  [All’s fair in love and war.]

As examples such as those noted above mount in the campaign, it is increasingly difficult to avoid the second possible explanation as the more plausible one. 

Regardless, the Obama campaign is making a big mistake in failing to acknowledge the obvious.  Some voters will undoubtedly recoil from a candidate whose campaign insists he can do no wrong.

Why Paul Ryan?

… Because the Romney campaign had reached the firm conclusion that the Governor, on his own, is unable to redirect public – and general media’s – attention back to the state of the economy, and President Obama’s inability to fix it.

Rather, the Obama campaign and its plentiful supply of media friends have largely succeeded in shifting the public’s focus from the President’s failings to Romney’s faux pas and political insensitivity.

In a campaign, it is usually ineffective – and defensive – to lament, as the Romney campaign has done repeatedly, that the Obama campaign is  distorting the truth and engaging in scurrilous lies.  Alas, those tactics have been working, as recent national polls suggest.

So rather than picking a dependable, experienced, somewhat colorless, mainstream conservative like former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty or Ohio Senator Ron Portman (both said to have been on the VP shortlist) who would not make waves, a forty-two year old congressman from Wisconsin with big ideas was the selection.

Ryan, who in seven terms has risen to the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee, is an intellectual heavyweight and is inarguably the GOP’s fiscal guru.  However, he fails, in my view, to meet Governor Romney’s oft-cited prerequisite for VP selection:  Be ready on Day One to assume the presidency.  Ryan’s experience is legislative, not executive.  Of course, the same was said accurately about Barack Obama in 2008, and he has proven that the wariness was warranted. 

Further, Congressman Ryan does not have the three years business experience that Romney said fatuously should be an additional Constitutional requirement (beside age and birthplace) for eligibility to be President.

So political calculations were clearly paramount in Congressman Ryan’s selection, and a game changer it may well be.  Certainly now, it will be considerably more difficult for the Obama campaign to generate interest in its attacks on Governor Romney’s social and business activities to the exclusion of the president’s dismal economic record.

Paul Ryan is the author of a comprehensive economic plan calling for changes in Medicare eligibility, tax rates and Medicaid funding.  Previously, Mitt Romney has pledged his full support (called The Path to Prosperity, details of the plan can be found at (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf).

Of course, we all know that liberals will trot out the usual responses whenever efforts are made to bring federal spending under control:  “Widows and orphans are at risk, the poor will be left to starve, etc.”

That’s okay.  Such attacks have already lost much of their political potency as Americans become increasingly aware of our nation’s undeniably alarming  fiscal plight.

Judging from his campaign posture prior to Ryan’s selection, Romney and his advisers believed that the sad state of the economy alone would be enough to ensure a November triumph.  But the campaign underestimated the effect that Obama’s no-holds-barred, Chicago-style attack machine would have on his standing in the polls.  In addition, his own political ineptitude is apparently incorrigible (e.g., photos on the candidate on vacation aboard a jetski!).

I don’t doubt Romney’s sincerity regarding the value of executive experience in his running mate.  But like John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin four years ago, politics was the determining factor.  Since a candidate cannot affect policy if defeated, that’s hardly unreasonable. 

Let’s hope it does the trick.

Liberals Get Fried Over Chick-fil-A (Do Liberals Really Support Free Speech?)

You’ve heard the liberal hysteria over the audacity of a private company’s head declaring that he favors traditional, not same sex, marriage.  There are now calls for the Chick-fil-A’s head to be placed on the proverbial chopping block.  Mayors of San Francisco, Chicago and Boston, for instance, have pulled the welcome mat for the fast food company, threatening to deny business permits. 

How interesting – and telling.  Such liberals (and there have been some notable exceptions) will brook no disagreement with their approval of homosexual marriage which even President Obama did not support until his recent (political?) conversion.  Because, apparently, the issue is now settled in such minds, no disagreement can be tolerated.  Rather it must be punished.

What arrogance!

On one level, the reaction from the left has been silly.  Governmental attempts to hinder a private company from conducting business based on social views of its leaders is blatantly illegal.  Because that fact is so obvious, one can confidently say that the proponents of this action weren’t serious.  They were merely trying to curry political favor with gay and lesbian constituents.

Yet, on another level, such conduct is upsetting.  Is it conceivable that twenty years ago, political leaders of any persuasion would have had the nerve to attack a business whose leader expressed a view on a controversial subject?  Respect for differing views ought to be a given in American society. 

Of course, no political persuasion has a monopoly on intolerance or self-righteousness.  But I do think that experience tells one that its practitioners are more often found on the left.

I have no problem with people boycotting businesses that use profits to support ideas they don’t like.  And Chick-fil-A does support traditional marriage campaigns.  But there’s a difference between citizens boycotting a product and governments (local, state or federal) threatening private businesses because of the owner’s beliefs.

Can anyone imagine a conservative mayor trying to bar – or discourage --  Starbucks from opening a shop within city limits because its CEO Howard Schultz supports gay marriage?