« Right Wing
May 7, 2008
Schlafly Reiterates View That Married Women Cannot Be Raped By Husbands
Last year, Phyllis Schlafly spoke on the campus of Bates College where , among other things, she “belittled the feminist movement as ‘teaching women to be victims,’ decried intellectual men as ‘liberal slobs’ and argued that feminism "is incompatible with marriage and motherhood." She then went on to top herself by claiming that a married woman cannot be sexually assaulted by her husband, saying:
"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape.”
Needless to say, those views caused a bit of controversy … controversy that has now reemerged at Washington University in St. Louis when school officials decided to honor Schlafly with an honorary doctorate:
Washington University's decision to bestow an honorary degree on conservative political activist and author Phyllis Schlafly has stirred outrage among some students and faculty.
Opponents of Schlafly's honorary doctorate formed a group on the social-networking website Facebook and had 1,023 members as of Monday evening.
Apparently the students don’t think that Washington University should be honoring an immigrant-hating, UN-detesting, evolution-fighting, court-stripping, conspiracy-theorist anti-feminist hypocrite who blames the Virginia Tech massacre on the English Department – go figure.
But the university isn’t backing down … and neither is Schlafly, who granted an interview to a Washington University student newspaper where she complained that the protesting students have “too much extra time” on their hands and reiterated her view that wives cannot be raped by their husbands:
Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?
I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.
Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?
Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.
So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-
Yes, I certainly do.
Posted by Kyle at 3:51 PM | Permalink
April 22, 2008
Dusting Off the Dirty Playbook
It looks like the man responsible for 1988’s infamous Willie Horton ad is back and has his sights set on Barack Obama:
Starting Tuesday, a group of conservative activists led by Floyd Brown, author of the famous Willie Horton ad used so effectively against Michael Dukakis in 1988, will begin a campaign to tar Obama as weak on crime and terrorism, a strategy that aims to upend Obama's relatively strong reputation among Republican voters.
…
Brown's new ad focuses on a 2001 vote by Obama in the Illinois Senate to oppose a bill that would have expanded the use of the death penalty if the perpetrator of a crime belonged to a gang. The links between Obama's vote on that issue and the deaths of three Chicago resident's are indirect and tenuous, as is the further connection the ad draws between the issue of Obama's position on the death penalty and the issue of international terrorism.
Time reports that the ads will be funded by a PAC called the National Campaign Fund “which had $14,027 in the bank at the end of March,” which probably explains why Brown is focused on creating the “most Internet-intensive effort for an ad debut ever” and hoping to gin up free media coverage to make up for the ad’s lack of funding, much like Mike Huckabee did, or at least tried to do, with his campaign ads (it is worth noting that Ari Berman of the "The Nation" reports that Brown's efforts are being "run by Bruce Hawkins, a former field organizer for Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson who recently worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa.")
And speaking of free advertising, it looks like a pastor in South Carolina is trying make a name for himself by suggesting that Obama might secretly be Muslim:
Pastor Roger Byrd of Jonesville Church of God put the sign up which reads "Obama Osama humm are they brothers?"
Pastor Byrd says the sign is not meant to be racial or political but rather to make people think. "His name is so close to Osama, I have a feeling he might be Islamic therefore he doesn't recognize Christ," Pastor Byrd said.
Of course the ad is not political and was merely designed to make people think … that Obama is a Muslim and possible a terrorist.
Posted by Kyle at 4:16 PM | Permalink
April 14, 2008
An Armey of One
Just last week we were fondly reminiscing about the battle that raged for several weeks back in 2006 between Dick Armey and James Dobson that, in many ways, embodied the tensions that existed, and continue to exist, between the economic and social conservative wings of the Republican base.
While that particular clash eventually subsided, the underlying issues did not go away and they seem to have resurfaced in recent weeks, again thanks to Armey's seemingly unprovoked attack on the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins over the latter's suggestion that John McCain ought to announce that he will appoint a "family czar" in order to appease the so-called "Values Voters" FRC and the like claim to represent.
Not surprisingly, Armey thinks the idea is idiotic and is not shy about saying so:
Think about that for a moment: A federal bureaucrat to oversee families. I'm sure Perkins would find a way to claim he's just there to give America's families a helping hand, that he's promoting our country's precious faith and values. But as Ronald Reagan said, the most frightening words in the English language are, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help." If there's anything our families don't need, it is Washington mucking around in their lives. Could anyone imagine a less conservative idea?
…
There are all sorts of problems with Perkins' notion, but the biggest one right now is that no one even knows for sure what a family czar would actually do. Every time Perkins has brought it up, he's brushed quickly over the topic, as if he doesn't want to discuss what it means. That's probably because it is a political stunt and not a serious policy idea.
Armey goes on to basically say that Perkins and his allies are power hungry and that he’s not even sure that Perkins ought to be claiming to be a conservative and cites Perkins’ support of Mike Huckabee as evidence:
[Perkins threw] his support behind Mike Huckabee, a candidate whose conservative credentials were anything but solid. By supporting a politician who governed in large part by taxing, regulating, and moralizing, he made his own declarations of conservatism subject to doubt.
It is not everyday that we come to the defense of Tony Perkins but in this case, it is simply untrue that Perkins ever supported Huckabee. In fact, Perkins’ repeatedly pledged neutrality on the GOP primary race, though there was plenty of speculation that he preferred Mitt Romney, and his failure to back Huckabee was a constant source of irritation to the Huckabee campaign.
For his part, Perkins himself doesn’t seem particularly fazed by Armey’s attack, dismissing him as “grumpy” and saying that Armey’s “disregard for the importance of strong families is shocking.”
It is safe to say that the relationship between Armey and the Religious Right has undergone something of a transformation since he left office. His relationship with the FRC seems especially strained and it is difficult to imagine that they’ll ever be able to get back to the good old days when Armey “met with us every single week. His staff is available to us when we go there, so it has been a close relationship. Over the years he has been the defender of the family."Posted by Kyle at 4:24 PM | Permalink
March 26, 2008
McCain’s Secret Speech
It is no secret that John McCain prides himself on being a straight-talkin’ maverick and that the media eats it up, which is why his cozying up to the likes of Rod Parsley and John Hagee received so little coverage. For that matter, it is probably also why McCain’s recent speech to the Council for National Policy received so little attention … well, that and the fact that the CNP is notoriously secretive and limited press access to his address.
But now, several weeks after the event and with absolutely no fanfare, the CNP quietly posted a transcript of his remarks on their threadbare website and while McCain would most certainly deny that he addressed the gathering with any attempt to pander for their votes, he certainly did a lot of telling them what they wanted to hear.
McCain offered up a litany of issues the Right cares about on which he completely shares their views: federal spending (too high), taxes (bad), dependence on foreign oil (also bad), the border (too porous), Iraq (a success) and, most importantly, judges:
I want to just mention a couple other things with you very briefly. Judges. I am proud to have played a role in the appointment of two of the finest judges I think that may have ever been appointed to the United States Supreme Court in Justices Alito and Roberts.
I commit to you, as I have for many years, I will appoint, nominate Judges to the United States Supreme Court who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.
McCain then opened the floor to questions and assured those in attendance that he intends to use his campaign to “articulate a strong and conservative vision for the future of this country” and bring the party together. He also reiterated his pledge to secure the borders, defeat terrorism, fight the Fairness Doctrine, control health care costs, and “change the culture in America to respect the rights of the unborn.” He also promised to throw his weight behind efforts to prevent gays and lesbians from being treated equally when it comes to marriage:
ATTENDEE: Senator, we are from Ohio, and in 2004, many say that the marriage amendment made the difference for Bush. This coming election, you are going to have - Florida is already on the ballot. Arizona is more than likely going to be on the ballot, and California. Will you openly support the marriage amendments in those three States?
SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, sir. And as I say, I am proud to have been the honorary chairman of our effort last time, which was narrowly defeated, as you know, because there was a misinterpretation of the language, and we are going to clear that up. I think we can win it this time.
McCain’s “straight talk” reputation is based, at least implicitly, on the assumption that he tells it like it is and won’t hesitate to tell audiences things they might not want to hear. But so far in this campaign, McCain has addressed three purely right-wing audiences (the CNP, the Values Voter Summit, and CPAC) and each time he has used the opportunity not to demonstrate his “maverick” ways but to humbly seek their support by constantly reminding them of the principles and positions they share, touting his conservative record, and all around telling them what they want to hear.
Posted by Kyle at 5:03 PM | Permalink
March 13, 2008
Be Careful How You Pray
From their start as the “Moral Majority” through their as the “Christian Coalition” and all the way up to the “Values Voters” who supposedly returned President Bush to office in 2004, Religious Right leaders has long claimed the exclusive right to speak for people of faith in the political arena. In order to bolster that claim, the Right has developed an entire repertoire of attacks against those who might dare to disagree: complaining about perceived anti-religious bigotry, warning that Christians are under constant attack, demonizing and disrespecting other faiths, and accusing Democrats of attempting to dupe faithful Americans into abandoning the only political party that represents a “truly biblical worldview.”
Normally, such attacks were directly solely against Democrats, but they started to get used against Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith when he showed up on the presidential scene. The Right, not knowing know how to react to a Republican candidate who did not subscribe to a faith with which they were comfortable and familiar, began to flail about, giving rise to all sorts of speculation about whether rank and file right-wing voters could ever support such a candidate, allegations that other candidates were exploiting the issue for political gain, worries that Romney’s unique beliefs would somehow hijack the Right’s traditional messaging … even allegations that a vote for Romney was “a vote for Satan.”
Eventually, Romney was compelled to deliver a speech reminding voters that a religious test for candidates and office holders was prohibited by the US Constitution and proclaiming that “no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. “
The speech didn’t accomplish much and Romney was eventually forced to drop out of the race – and now the Right has been able to get back to what it does best: attacking Democrats.
Amid the strong showing that Barack Obama continues to make in the Democratic primaries, we have begun to notice that Obama’s proudly declared strong personal faith appears to be rankling some on the Right who see his talk of faith as a threat to their perceived hegemony and have begun striking back by attacking not just his positions or policies, but the nature of his faith itself.
Routinely, right-wing commentators have been attacking Obama’s church and declaring that his “Christianity [is] woefully deficient.” Just last week, Rob Schenck did an entire segment on Obama’s faith, suggesting that he might really be a Muslim despite the fact that he identifies himself as a Christian and even questioning Obama’s claim that he “[prays] to Jesus every night, wondering why he would “pray to Jesus” rather than “pray to God in Jesus’ name.”
Apparently, the mechanics of Obama’s personal prayer and his understanding of the Trinity are of great concern to people like Schenck and Mychael Massie who seem to think it is now acceptable to encourage voters to oppose a candidate or office holder based solely on how he or she exercises their personal faith:
Suffice it to say that his comments are objectionable on many levels, not least of which is because the fundamental construct for prayer is given in Matthew 6:6-9, and nowhere in same does Jesus say to pray to "Him." In fact, nowhere in all of Scripture are we told to pray to anyone save God Almighty Himself.
In Philippians 2:9-11, Paul writes that while God has given Jesus a name above all names, and that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and that every tongue should confess Him as Lord, this is done to the glory of God the Father. Paul, in verse six of the same chapter, writes that, "…in everything, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be known unto God." He doesn't say make them known unto Jesus.
Is it possible Obama doesn't understand the meaning and order of the prayer the Lord instructed us to pray in Matthew 6:6-9? Does Obama presume Paul didn't mean what he said? Or does he place his biblical literacy above him whom God inspired? Perhaps Obama just doesn't understand the true nature and order of the Triune God – allowing that is the case, then it is incumbent upon him to revisit the definition of devout.
Jesus Himself references God the Father as "His God" and "my God." At no time and in no place does Jesus say pray to Him, but rather in John 16:14-28, He instructs the exact opposite.
So word to the wise: if you consider yourself a Christian, you’d better bone up on the details of how to pray properly because otherwise the Right is going to accuse you of being a posturing, ignorant phony whose faith is fundamentally illegitimate.
Posted by Kyle at 10:13 AM | Permalink
March 11, 2008
Bush Gives Shout Out to Dobson, Limbaugh
President Bush addressed the National Religious Broadcasters Convention and vowed to veto the Fairness Doctrine if it ever reaches his desk: "We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas ... But I'll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I'm going to veto it."
Posted by Kyle at 3:54 PM | Permalink
March 7, 2008
McCain Courts the Council for National Policy
Fresh off his endorsements from John Hagee and his stumping around Iowa with Rod Parsley, John McCain’s outreach to the Right appears to be picking up steam:
FOX NEWS HAS LEARNED that in New Orleans on Friday John McCain makes a major speech to the influential and little known Council for National Policy. The CNP is an umbrella organization of influential social and religious conservative groups.
What is the Council for National Policy, you ask?
The council was founded in 1981, just as the modern conservative movement began its ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early Christian conservative organizer and the best-selling author of the ''Left Behind'' novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming, was a founder. His partners included Paul Weyrich, another Christian conservative political organizer who also helped found the Heritage Foundation.
They said at the time that they were seeking to create a Christian conservative alternative to what they believed was the liberalism of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Back when it first formed, the CNP was linked to the Iran-Contra scandal though, most recently, it generated media attention after many of its members threatened to bolt the GOP if Rudy Giuliani won the nomination. Despite the organization’s penchant for secrecy, they are perhaps best known as being the organization George W. Bush addressed back in 1999 where he reportedly promised to appoint only anti-abortion-rights judges to the Supreme Court and then both he and the CNP refused to release the audio tape of his remarks.
Fox News reports that, unlike Bush’s address, McCain’s will be released but that remains to be seen, since the CNP has never been particularly interested in openness or transparency:
Three times a year for 23 years, a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country have met behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference, the Council for National Policy, to strategize about how to turn the country to the right.
Details are closely guarded.
''The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before of after a meeting,'' a list of rules obtained by The New York Times advises the attendees.
The membership list is ''strictly confidential.'' Guests may attend ''only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee.'' In e-mail messages to one another, members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks.
…
The secrecy that surrounds the meeting and attendees like the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly and the head of the National Rifle Association, among others, makes it a subject of suspicion, at least in the minds of the few liberals aware of it.
…
The membership list this year was a who's who of evangelical Protestant conservatives and their allies, including Dr. Dobson, Mr. Weyrich, Holland H. Coors of the beer dynasty; Wayne LaPierre of the National Riffle Association, Richard A. Viguerie of American Target Advertising, Mark Mix of the National Right to Work Committee and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.
While there is no mention of McCain’s appearance before the group on his schedule or website, it seems that the McCain camp realized that sneaking off to woo the Right might undermine his reputation as a straight-talkin’ maverick and decided to clue the press in ahead of time in an effort to avoid the sort of controversy that plagued Bush back in 2000:
CNP does not publicize its meetings, speakers or agenda, but the McCain campaign informed the press of his agreement to address the council. As a result, reporters following the McCain campaign deluged the council with requests for coverage.
"We agreed the press could sit in a separate room and listen to the speech and the questions and answers," a CNP official said, speaking anonymously because the rules of the council forbid officials or members to speak by name in public.
Posted by Kyle at 12:56 PM | Permalink
February 13, 2008
Checks, Balances, and Wiki
Phyllis Schlafly has been a towering figure on the Right for more than four decades: inspiring Barry Goldwater’s foot soldiers with “A Choice Not an Echo,” founding the Eagle Forum and leading the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment, and continuing to rail against supposedly “activist” judges standing in the way of her agenda.
“Liberals in this country know that they don’t have the hearts of the American people…so their game plan is to take their issues to the courts,” said Schlafly at the Conservative Political Action Conference, repeating a theme she’s been talking up for years. What was new this time was that she brought her son, Andy.
Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, may seem like an unlikely candidate to be a right-wing spokesman—even if, as his mother felt the need to say, he attended Harvard Law School. But the AAPS is hardly just a boring professional society; it’s a far-right splinter from the American Medical Association dedicated to opposing abortion and government-funded health care. And Andy Schlafly has already made a name for himself on the Internet, first as a defender of creationism on a USENET discussion group and then as an instructor of right-wing politics for Eagle Forum University.
But what really made Andy Schlafly an electronic celebrity was his quixotic fight against Wikipedia, the user-compiled online encyclopedia. Decrying Wikipedia’s “liberal bias,” Schlafly founded Conservapedia, which quickly became a laughingstock for its bizarre agenda and shoddy execution on subjects such as animal origins, homosexuality, and basic facts.
Mr. Schlafly believes that the judiciary, like Wikipedia, has a liberal bias. He called upon the CPAC crowd to pressure John McCain on the issue, to make “sure we’re not fooled by the next Supreme Court nominee.” McCain, of course, promised to nominate judges like Roberts and Alito, but “that’s not good enough,” according to Schlafly, who called on McCain to set up a right-wing panel to select candidates for the judiciary and get assurance on their far-right bona fides. “[We] don’t want judges who say it’s unconstitutional for a teacher to lead class in prayer,” said Schlafly—but most importantly, “[we’re] looking for the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Ultimately, Schlafly was pessimistic about the chances for more right-wing nominees in the next few years—but he had a plan: court-stripping. Merely by writing into legislation a clause taking away the court’s jurisdiction, Schlafly asserted, Congress can keep the federal courts (and Americans’ basic rights, apparently) “under its thumb.”
Schlafly said court-stripping would be “essential to the life issue,” complaining that judges have a habit of delaying the enforcement of newly passed abortion restrictions—ones that push the boundaries of reproductive law—while the legality of such laws is being considered. Schlafly encouraged lawmakers to include in such legislation a provision telling courts to take a hike.
When a child is misbehaving with a toy, Schlafly said, “You take the toy away from the child. When the court is abusing its authority, you take that authority away.”
Of course, the judicial branch is not a child, and Congress is not its parent. Simply editing checks and balances out of the picture—like Conservapedia’s creative rewrite of a “biased” democratic encyclopedia—does not actually change reality.
Posted by Ezra at 3:02 PM | Permalink
February 12, 2008
'Run, Newt, Run' (?!)
How finicky were the activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference? Romney, McCain, and Huckabee each bent over backwards to cater to the far-right sentiments of the audience, but the speaker who got the most “presidential” reception was Newt Gingrich.
“Hillary and Obama talk about real change—Newt Gingrich delivers real change!” trumpeted David Bossie of Citizens United in introducing this “one-man think tank.” Bossie’s “only regret,” he said, was that Gingrich was not a candidate for president. (Bossie, incidentally, was forced out of his job investigating the Clinton Administration for House Republicans by then-Speaker Gingrich in 1998, but the two have apparently made up, working together on Gingrich’s “Rediscovering God” DVD.)
Rather than take the podium immediately, Gingrich spent about five minutes shaking hands with the cheering audience as bombastic march music blasted in the background. The only thing missing was a balloon drop.
“Run, Newt, run!” someone shouted. “Run for president!” cried another.
No, Newt Gingrich was not jumping in to save these poor right-wing activists from John McCain. (Sorry, Michael Reagan.) In fact, Gingrich said they have an “absolute requirement to support the Republican nominee this fall.” Instead, Gingrich played the role of a medicine-show man—telling the crowd they have a serious condition and he has just the elixir to cure what ails them.
“There is something big happening in this country,” said Gingrich ominously. “We don’t understand it. We’re not responding to it. And we’re currently not competitive.”
I want to suggest to you—and I’ve spent a lot of time since 1999 thinking about this, and it’s part of why I wrote the book “Real Change” and tried to lay out, at American Solutions, a fundamentally different approach to how we thinking about solving our problems—I think there are two great lessons for the conservative movement since 1980. The first, which we still haven’t come to grips with, is that governing is much harder than campaigning. Our consultants may be terrific at winning one election. They don’t know anything about governing. And unfortunately most of our candidates listen to our consultants. And so you end up with people who don’t understand briefing people who don’t know so that together they have no clue.
Gingrich is hardly the first to suggest that anti-government politicians might not be the best at running a government. Still, it’s a little counterintuitive to hear Gingrich railing against “consultants”—after all, he has spent the last year on the periphery of the presidential race, pushing the kind of futuristic hokum that would make any consultant envious.
Under the mind-bending motto “Real change requires real change,” Gingrich has promised dispirited Republicans access to “the world that works”—something like Fedex, but with more 3-D animation. And as he did at the Values Voter Summit, Gingrich passed out copies of his inane polling data (e.g., a majority of respondents said yes when asked whether “we must defeat America’s enemies”)—which he now calls “The Platform of the American People.” Throw in a flashy web site and I’d say he’s in business.
In the end, though, Gingrich’s “real change” was just more red meat for the Right. His first example of “real change” was for Republicans in Congress to razz the Democrats by holding a symbolic vote on English-only every week during the presidential race. Following this path, said Gingrich, “we will win one of the most cataclysmic elections in history” in November. Now, the Right has found anti-immigrant sentiment to be a powerful bludgeon in recent years, but it’s hardly been an electoral winner. Is this really the “world that works,” or one of Gingrich’s “alternate histories”?
Posted by Ezra at 9:52 AM | Permalink
February 11, 2008
CPAC in Pictures
Perhaps nothing sums up the current state of the conservative movement like seeing a Hummer back into a limousine in the parking lot outside the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and seeing Mitt Romney beat John McCain in the CPAC straw poll on the question of “If the election were held today to decide the Republican Nominee for President in 2008, for whom would you vote?” despite having appeared at the conference only to drop out of the race. And while attendees were asked not to boo McCain, it didn’t stop them from doing so when he spoke … or whenever his name was mentioned by any of the other speakers.
Aside from the weirdness of Mike Huckabee basing his entire on speech on Phyllis Schlafly’s "A Choice, Not an Echo" despite the fact that Schlafly hates him and the sense of overwhelming despair at the possibility of a McCain nomination, the rest of CPAC consisted of typical right-wing fare, such as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily delineating the dangers of the Fairness Doctrine, warning that if Democrats take control of the White House and Congress, “there will be no stopping these people” who operate with a “neo-fascist mentality,” only to be followed by David Horowitz who ranted about “fair-minded” conservatives being oppressed by liberals who want to “exterminate us.” Or, as he put it, when liberals control the universities, they merely send conservatives to sensitivity training, but when “they control they state, they shoot you.”
But it wasn’t all fear-mongering. There was some good news too, such as the announcement by the National Black Republican Association that they were slowly becoming a force to be reckoned with, because last year their website received over one thousand visitors. Of course, the NBRA might be even more of a force within the GOP if their panels weren’t relegated to a tiny room at the back of the convention
Though the event appeared to be less-well attended than in previous years, there was no shortage of red meat for those in attendance, as demonstrated by the hundreds of convention-goers who lined up hours in advance to get in to hear Ann Coulter
But despite the seeming disarray of the right-wing movement at the present, there still appears to be at least one thing that can unify them in this country: hatred of Hillary Clinton
To see more photos from CPAC, check out our Flickr page.
Posted by Kyle at 12:19 PM | Permalink
Older Right Wing posts: