It's gut-check time for America's conservatives. Just how far to the right do they really want to go?
So Paul Ryan is the Republican nominee for vice president, and immediately the Democratic party began pointing out his plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system, an idea that is deeply divisive, particularly among seniors in swing states like Florida. But Paul Ryan's plan concerning Medicare is not the most worrisome of the positions he brings to the Romney/Ryan ticket. No, the biggest albatross he hung around Mitt Romney's neck is that of his stance on abortion. From The Hill:…
Article comments
26 - STM
Rosey: "Sort yourself out mate..."
That's a little bit condescending Chris. I'm shocked.
Not ...
So where are we now with this? Is it, you can have any view you like, but if I disagree with it, I have to sort myself out?
Come on ...
27 - Glenn Contrarian
Lynn -
Look up the rates of teenage pregnancies by state - those of red states are generally HIGHER than those of blue states. If Dems didn't care about teaching positive lessons, then the blue states' rates would be higher.
Furthermore, which states are more likely to NOT teach sex ed in schools? You got it - red states!
28 - Christopher Rose
Stan, where we are is you are overlooking massive state abuse of civil and human rights in the name of the law whilst mocking an entire nation.
I'M shocked...
29 - Dr Dreadful
If the US was that desperate to get their hands on Assange don't you think they'd simply have asked the craven UK government to hand him over directly when they had the opportunity?
Sure, the Swedes had first dibs and would have been hacked off, but what could they have done about it? Closed down all the Ikeas in the UK and the US?
30 - STM
Crhris: "Overlooking massive state abuse of civil and human rights in the name of the law ..."
What rubbish, Chris. You are talking through your nether regions, which of late seem to have experienced an inordinate amount of passing traffic in that regard.
The bloke is looking at sexual assault charges in Sweden because two women have claimed that he assaulted them.
He has been through a standard extradition process requested by another European country. It's worth remembering that the Swedes have a different legal system and investigators need to question Assange in person. For extradition to occur, they need to present a compelling brief of evidence to Britain. It's unlikely the content of any of that has been made public.
Assange was a) released from custody in Sweden while initial invesigations were continuing, and allowed to travel to the UK; b) Released on bail while the extradition process was happening. He's run away from that, meaning that those who put up his bail money now likely forfeit it.
If the US had wanted to grab him, they could have done it any time over the past few years BEFORE this belw up.
I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories. I, like millions of others, hold that he needs to go to Sweden to answer the rape allegations - but he won't because he knows that under their laws and their bizarre rape legislation he faces criminal charges and thus a stretch (possibly).
But he's at no more risk of being deported to the US from Sweden than he was in Britain.
The whole thing's a crock and people who like to believe in this kind of nonsense have been totally sucked in by tghe supposed web of intrigue spun around it, most probably because it suits a loony left agenda (and no, I'm not a conservative).
Like anyone - you, me, the bloke next door - if you get extradited on a criminal matter by another nation, you generally need to go and front up and answer those allegations.
The fact he hasn't in my book says a lot.
The other part of this picture: How would anyone in their right minds expect the British government to suspend its own legal process in the face of serious criminal allegations from another country just for Julian Assange, who in this instance seems to think he's someone rather special??
This is a non-story. The only real part of this story is that Julian Assange has been accused of sexual assault (he deserves presumption of innocence, however), has jumped bail, refuses to play by the rules (obeying his agreed-to bail conditions) and now has a veritable army of loony left nutters buying into the idea that four western governments (at least) are conspiring to have him sent to the US where he might face the death penalty (which the US has publicly denied over and over. Even the rather liberal Hillary Clinton has publicly denied it).
It all sounds increasingly paranoic to me.
Oh, and on Britain's decision to extradite? How could they not; rape is a very serious allegation; imagine the next time the British wanted to extradite someone from Sweden on similar charges, having failed to abide by agreed-upon international law to do the same thing. Fat chance ...
Wake up and smell the steaming brown stuff.
This is a non-story in regards to anything but a bloke facing serious criminal charges and who refuses to obey the law (which he agreed to obey when he was granted bail while the case was heard; if the Brits were so bad, why did they agree to his bail?) and have those issues addressed.
The fact he is who he is is largely irrelevent. That's what sickens me about this whole thing, and the idea among the Assange nutters that it all goes way beyond that.
It's increasingly paranoic nonsense.
Although, I will concede that just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
In this case, however, I don't believe they are.
Except for the small matter of a sexual assault allegation.
31 - STM
Doc, nice to hear your voice of reason on this. Of course, I believe you are 100 per cent correct.
The Ecuadorians now need to hunt around for a large diplomatic bag so they can smuggle him out of Britain. Or put in an extra shower at Knightsbridge.
Meanwhile, under the scenario being presented by the Assange nutters (and Chris) there is a serious danger the CIA will be working very, very hard among its own notoriously corrupt, on-the-payroll officials to have Julian grabbed (for a hefty price!) in Ecuador and secretly flown by shadow jet to a location in the US where he'll be waterboarded, loaded with trumped-up charges, tried by federal prosecutors under the thumb of government, at a trial where the jurors will have been coerced, and the judge while sentencing him to a life term for treason (after secretly revoking his Aussie citizenship and making him a US citizen) to discourage anyone else from exercising their right to free speech by publishing juicy government secrets, and then once he's in jail he'll mysteriously suffer an early demise at the hands of a hugely violent and large prison belle who just happens to be his cellmate.
Or, he could go to Sweden, answer the allegations, be found to have no case to answer ... and in the worst-case scenario, do a couple of years there, max.
Actually, the more I think about this, the more I'm certain that the Ecuadorians are actually in league with the US, and this has been engineered as a fail-safe way of orchestrating getting Assange to the US with no allies losing face. Don't put your house on corrupt South American government officials not taking the big bucks from nefarious US sources when it's on offer.
Why has no one thought of this previously, or have they???
Curioser and curioser ...
32 - Deano
I'm not sure the US would gain very much from prosecuting Assange (who, having seen him on some interviews, is very intelligent but a bit of a preening asshat).
My impression is that US and other governments have had a shocking realization that they need to lock up the cupboards at night a bit better. So yes, it probably doesn't hurt that Assange is feeling all paranoid and hunted and is whining about it on the media, as that will discourage others from repeating that bit of mischief, but at the end of the day, beating down Wikileaks and hanging Assande realistically won't put the genie back in the bottle.
Stolen info can easily be disseminated and duplicated across the internet in the matter of few clicks, whether it is through a Wikileaks or other methodology. You need to focus on leak prevention, it will get you further then trying to clean up the aftermath. Going after Assange has the value of setting an example, but that just means the next time it happens, the purveyors will take care to preserve their be anonymous status or work through media cutouts instead.
33 - Igor
@3-Clav,
Clearly, the Ryan stunt of saying that the decline of Medicare will fall on the under-55s and not the over-55s is just a divide-and-conquer strategy to get oldsters to vote against the interests of youngsters. It is the worst kind of ageism. When those youngsters reach retirement they will discover an empty bag, a bag emptied by their seniors and reckless speculators and war mongers.
There is no GOOD reason for doing this except for political expediency of the radical right who want to progressively chip away at ALL social programs, thus further impoverishing the USA and it's citizens.
I suppose that they propose to dump a wheelbarrow full of vouchers on each person instead of doing their job, which is to take care of workers contributions to retirement and not foolishly spend that money on stupid vanity wars, nor for politicians to curry favor with rich and reckless speculators in hopes of getting highpay jobs after leaving office.
34 - Igor
I can understand Assange being fearful since it looks like the USA has gone completely bonkers and become an international rogue nation, what with their arbitrary assassinations and drone executions, etc., even of US citizens.
And that's with a Democratic president, whom one might have expected to be less militant!
If Romney is elected in a couple months we can expect that abuses against US citizens, like that kid soldier, Bradley Manning, as well as a mere foreigner (heavens to Betsy!) like Assange will become more abusive.
I suppose that is part of Assange's calculation.
And Sweden is a lot easier to push around than GB: witness their utter compliance with Nazi demands in WW2.
35 - Glenn Contrarian
Looks like what happened with the Missouri congressman Todd Akin - "Women's bodies have a way of preventing pregnancy in case of illegitimate rape" - reinforces what I stated in my article...especially since he also co-sponsored the bill that would have outlawed nearly all abortion.
Yes, conservatives, this is your choice. Sadly, none of the BC regular conservatives seem willing to stand up for what THEIR side wants to do with the rights of women.
36 - Glenn Contrarian
And it looks like Todd Akins has some on the Right who AGREE with him!
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association on Monday insisted that Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) was right to claim women could not become pregnant from “legitimate rape.”
“What Todd Akin is talking about is when you’ve got a real, genuine rape. A case of forcible rape, a case of assault, where a woman has been violated against her will through the use of physical force where it is physically traumatic for her,” Fischer said on his radio program.
Gee, didn't we recently hear that it was the LEFT that was just filled to the brim with hateful rhetoric?
37 - Glenn Contrarian
And here's a list of conservative cognoscenti who agree with Todd Akin:
1. Erick Erickson. The RedState honcho and CNN contributor excused Akin’s scientifically illiterate remarks as simply “inarticulate” and then accused President Obama of being pro-infanticide, saying: “the people horrid by Todd Akin’s remarks are, I’m sure, thrilled to have a President who defended infanticide. I’ll take Todd Akin’s inarticulate remarks over an infanticide supporter any day of the week.” Somewhat ironically, Erickson is now claiming that Akin will withdraw from the race.
2. Tony Perkins. The head of the Family Research Council said “we support [Akin] fully and completely” and that “I think that Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here.”
3. Chris and Dana Loesch. The conservative commentary power couple both lept to Akin’s defense. Chris claimed that “what [Akin] said was medically correct” while Dana wrote that Akin’s comments were less bad than his opponent Claire McCaskill’s record by “any real standard of measurement.”
4. Bryan Fischer. The American Family Association’s “director of issue analysis” straight-up defended Akin’s position, tweeting “Todd Akin is right: physical trauma of forcible rape can interfere w/ hormonal production, conception.”
5. Marjorie Dannenfelser. The head of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony list said that “We are proud to support Congressman Akin,” but later backtracked, amending her statement to “Congressman Akin has been an excellent partner in the fight for the unborn.”
6. Glenn Reynolds. The popular pundit and law professor simply wrote “BY THE TIME I NOTICED THIS STORY, IT WAS OVER, but Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks pale in comparison with Whoopi Goldberg’s.”
The BC conservatives are intelligent - except for maybe Dan the Avowed Racist - so that's their choice: do they really want the GOP in charge when there are idiots like those listed above who are now part of the GOP mainstream and are no longer exiled to what used to be the abyss of the Far Right?
38 - Glenn Contrarian
And of course the Fox News coverage of Todd Akins' so-called "misstatement" (which it was NOT) was, shall we say, underwhelming.
39 - Dr Dreadful
If I ever get the chance, I'll be asking one of these clueless halfwits who argue that forcible rape is somehow different from other kinds of rape to explain how windy hurricanes are different from other kinds of hurricanes.
40 - Igor
Todd Aikin, by his own words, has revealed himself to be one of the most ignorant people in the USA. More ignorant than the most backward hillbilly in the most backward and remote areas of Appalachia, more ignorant than the most belligerent and deprived teenager in Americas bursting inner city slums, yet he is close to joining the select group of 100 senators who will decide what is best and proper for 310 million USA citizens.
And what is shocking is that there are many Americans who will gladly vote for him!
41 - Dr Dreadful
Apparently Rep. Akin has now gone on record to clear the air.