How stupid is Trent Franks?

Maybe not as stupid as you think.

Yesterday, Rep. Franks (AZ) drew a lot of criticism for a speech he made in support of a bill he is sponsoring to shorten the latest date at which a woman could get an abortion. In his comments on the bill, he said something stupid about rape which drew a lot of moans about how Republicans just can't resist going there. However, in this case, the tempest might work to his advantage. It creates a distraction so no one notices that he's lying about what the bill says.

Franks defended not allowing a rape exception into his bill by saying:

"Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject- because you know the, the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low, but when you make that exception, there's usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case, that's impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation, and that's what completely negates and vitiates the purpose of such an amendment." 

Most people who commented on it focused on the phrase "the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low." With this, they said, he crossed the Akin line and showed himself to be a medically illiterate boob. Today, he issued the the standard "I phrased my very important point badly" defense and the controversy is all the fault of baby-killing Democrats. He says the very important part of his statement was what came after that phrase.

What he said next is pretty confusing, so let's take a second to unpack it. His arguement goes like this: A) rape exception clauses usually require women to report their rape within 48 hours, B) all women who have been raped do report their rapes within 48 hours, C) all women who have been raped make the decision to terminate their pregnancy before the end of their second trimester, D) it is "impossible" for any raped women to still be pregnant after six months, E) therefore there is no reason to have a rape exception. There are a lot of things wrong with this logic.

First, it's not logical. Jump straight from A to E. Rape exclusions require "this" and, if "this" happens, there is no reason for a rape exclusion. But, if there is no requirement, how do we know "this" will happen. Simple, it's required by the rape exclusion, therefore we don't need the rape exclusion. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Next, look at B-C-D and the ridiculous impossibility of it. It is "impossible" that there would be a woman who wouldn't report her rape. Is he kidding? I've never seen a study that didn't say the majority of rapes go unreported. Okay, maybe that's not what he meant. Maybe he only meant C-D. It's "impossible" that there would be a woman who was confused and hadn't made up her mind before she was faced with the point of no return, the end of the third trimester.

Maybe, we should cut him some slack on the "impossible" logic. Clearly, he was exaggerating in an attempt to manipulate his audience, the American people. At some point or another, everyone uses exaggeration to win an argument. We can see what he really meant at the beginning part of his statement, the controversial part. The number of raped women who are still pregnant at the end of the first trimester is "very low." He made that clear in another part of his statement, "To say that we wait until then, to say that there's a rape or incest involved, is waiting too long."

Then again, maybe we should not cut him any slack. His real argument is that women who can't make up their mind by then have "wait[ed] too long" and don't deserve compassion. His real argument is not that the exception is unnecessary. If that was the case, what harm would do to put it in? He claims Democrats are raising the rape issue to distract from the real issue. If adding the exception would deprive the Democrats of their argument, wouldn't the politically canny thing to do be to have put that exception in in the first place? Of course not. He does not want an exception under any condition. The real issue for him is to make it impossible for women to get an abortion. Period. In a away, he needs the Democrats to make a lot of noise about compromise to cover the fact that he's a no compromise extremist.

If that sounds like it's giving him too much credit for cleverness, consider this: all this noise about rape is distracting from his big, bald-faced lie. Let's go back to his original statement"

"And in this case, that's impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation..." 

And his clarification:

"The rape thing was something the Democrats injected. I never would have dealt with that issue. Our bill doesn't deal with that because it's the beginning of the six month."

His bill isn't about a ban after six months. His bill is about pushing the ban from twenty-four weeks--which is actually five and a half months--to twenty weeks which is just over four and a half months. He lied in his original statement and in his clarification, he repeated his lie.

Trent Franks might not be the Machiavelli of the Southwest, but he is clever enough to use a controversy to cover his deception. We should give him credit for being a clever liar.

Note: I rewrote the beginning because the lede was buried to far down the page.

About that Congressional Reform Act

It's bullshit.

 Lately, some of my more conservative and non-political friends have been circulating this silly amendment proposal.

It has been around since at least 2009 and pops up again every few months. Some versions include term limits and the claim that kids of congresscritters don't have to pay back their student loans. The lat one I received had a prologue about how the 26th amendment was passed in just a few months and how, if you just sent it twenty of your friends, it will be law before the next election. The latest version says Warren Buffet proposed it. Warren Bufet did not propose it. I'm not sure where it came from, but it's made up of a mish-mash of misconceptions, outdated information, and just plain weirdness.

1. "No tenure" What does that mean? Congress doesn't have tenure. We can vote them out at any time, but we need to take responsibility for our own votes and do it if we don't like what they are doing. Democracy belongs to those who show up.
2. Congressional pay ends when the job ends, just like any job.
3. Members of Congress do pay into Social Security. They have since 1984.
4. Repeat. They do participate in Social Security. Just like everyone else (except the very rich).
5. Congress participates in the same retirement program that other federal employees do. It's based on a formula of years served and pay grade. There is no special fund.
6. According to the 27th Amendment, Congress cannot vote itself a raise. What it can do is vote the next congress a raise. If we don't like it, we have the responsibility to let them know our disapproval, either by voting them out or by deluging them with letters, petitions, and phone calls. Since the 27th Amendment was pased, Congress has voted raises roughly once evry four years.
7. As with their retirement program, Congress participates in the same program as other civil servants. They don't have a special program of their own and they do have to pay into the program.
8. Congress does have to abide by the laws they pass. Some version say they are specifically immune to sexual harrassment laws. They are not. Do you think that Congress could pass a bill saying rape or murder is a crime unless one of us does it? Of course not. And if they tried they would be laughed out of the Supreme Court.
9. This line is in every version of this that I have seen, and I have no idea what the original author had in mind here. Does this mean that members of Congress can't buy a house or car or get married? Those are all contracts.

98% of you won't forward this. You suck.

They are not the same

Yesterday, disgusted over Boehner telling Obama that the time he requested to address Congress just wasn't convenient, I posted on Facebook:

I have never seen a president treated with as much disrespect by the other party as Obama by the Republicans. Not Nixon by the Democrats. Not Bush by the Democrats. Not even Clinton by the Republicans. It seems there is no bottom to how low the modern Republican Party will go.

I received some "likes" from the usual liberal suspects. I also received some surprisingly tough pushback from friends who I think would all call themselves independent. All of them forcefully argue that Democrats are just as bad a Republicans. One says Bush had it tougher. Another said " The bile ... oozes out about equally from both sides of the aisle." I tried to clarify several times that I'm not talking about pundits, talk radio, or some guy with a blog. I'm talking office holding politicians and republican Party officials. I offered this as evidence:

• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a Republican mayor and party official sending around pictures of a watermelon patch replacing the White House lawn?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a member of Congress shouting "you lie" during a presidential address?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a member of Congress calling the president "God's punishment on us" as leo Berman did?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of members of Congress questioning the president's citizenship or encouraging those that do?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a member of Congress calling the president "an enemy of humanity" as Trent Franks did?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a member of Congress saying of the president that they are "very concerned that he may have anti-American views” as Michele Bachmann did or un-American as Trent Franks did?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of members of Congress saying the President leads a “gangster government” as Steve King and Bachmann did?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a governor saying a presidential contender "pals around with terrorists?"
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a member of Congress saying the president should be impeached even though he can't think of a reason why as Michael Burgess did?
  
• What is the Democratic eqivalent of a member of Congress comparing the president to Hitler as Paul Broun has done? For decades that has been the hallmark of extremist political commentary.

You might have noticed that I have no patience with arguments based on a false equivalency. The behavior of the two parties is not the same and hasn't even been close since the early nineties. Again, there have always been nuts in the streets, but before about '92 both parties kept them at an arm's length. For the last two decades, the Republicans have been embracing their worst extremists and legitimizing them and the Democrats have not.

I'm going to throw this open to a new audience. Understand, I'm not looking for people to gang up on my friends, I really want to know how equal you think it is. If you know someone with a good argument for equal nastiness from the Democrats, I'd like to hear it. Give me examples. Are there equivalent cases of Democratic Party officials and office holders treating a Republican President the way Republicans are treating this Democratic President? Feel free to go back through both Bush's, Reagan and even Nixon.

Dear e-mail forwarder, you have been lied to

This e-mail, obviously, has been floating around since before last Monday, but some are still sending it around. A very sweet friend of ours forwarded it to us in the middle of the week.

Dear Mr. President,

I heard you say you will not guarantee SS checks if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Why is it the scare always has to do with SS, Medicare, & our Soldiers pay? Why not stop your pay, your staff, or Congress and the Senate to save more money for our country? Why use Seniors, Soldiers, & our Needy as examples? Take the money from those who take no risks and reap the benefits!! Instead of threatening to withhold Social Security, VA and disability payments of people who really need the money.... Lets hold the paychecks of all house & senate members, then see how fast they resolve the debt ceiling crisis !!!!!

If you agree re-post this & keep it going across the whole USA.

Thank you

I hate this kind of crap, not just because it's full of lies--as this one is--but also because it's predatory. People who start these letters prey on the emotions and good will of people who are frustrated by news they hear that only reveals half of a story and in only revealing half, distorts the complicated reality beneath. Government is confusing. The rules are obscure and hard to understand even by the primary actors themselves (sometimes especially by them). That's why it's easy to lie to people who don't spend their lives studying these things and who don't have the time or background to educate themselves on the deep background of every story in the news. That's why it's easy to lie to people using common-sense sounding phrases that fit on a bumper sticker. That's why the liars prosper.

Dear e-mail forwarder,

I know you mean well, but you have been tricked and lied to. Our government doesn't work that way. The United States is a country of laws. We have laws that prevent the president from using the Treasury as a political weapon. We have laws that prevent the president and his appointees at the Treasury from deciding which bills they feel like paying and which they don't.

The Treasury is required by law to pay the bill in the order they arrive. The first bill in gets paid first. The last bill in gets paid last. The President does not have the power to say, "move this bill to the front of the line and that bill to the back." If the Treasury doesn't have enough money to pay all the bills, they start at the front of the line and pay until they run out of money and the rest don't get paid. If the payroll bill for the President and Congress arrives first, they get paid. If the bill for the Border Patrol arrives last, we start laying off guards. That's how it works.

President Obama was speaking the truth when he said he couldn't guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on time. Defense Secretary Gates was speaking the truth when he said he couldn't guarantee that military paychecks would go out on time. Anyone who says they could have pushed those bills to the front of the line is lying to you. That's how it works. The United States is a country of laws and the law says the Treasury pays the bill in the order they arrive.

According to the Republican House leader, John Boehner, President Obama and the Democrats gave them 98% of what they wanted. That wasn't enough for the extremists who have taken over the Republican Party. They threatened to crash the government unless they got 100%. Obama gave, and gave, and gave to see that those checks would go out on time. When radical rightists tell you it would have been Obama's fault if the government had crashed and the checks stopped, they are lying to you.

The person who forwarded the lies to to you is probably a good person who cares about the truth. And the person who sent it to them is probably a good person who cares about the truth. But somewhere up the line, that e-mail was born in a nest of lies, confusion, and someone's desire to keep you scared and angry. They're counting on the fact that you're too busy trying to pay your own bills to stop and try to read seventy years worth financial law. They're counting on it.

If you believe that the truth is more important than lies send this back to the person who sent you the lies. They deserve to know. Ask them to keep it going across the whole USA.

Thank you

I know that this kind of push-back is usually a waste of time. Mark Twain wrote, "A lie can run around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants." While I'm over here helping the truth get it's pants on, six more lies have left the starting gate. But pushing back feel better than wringing my hands and doing nothing and maybe, just maybe, I can help one friend get out of the way of the galloping lies. That would make it worthwhile.

Hurricane Gustav Heads for the Gulf

Hurricane Gustav hit the southern coast of Haiti today and is pointed at the oil and gas producing coasts of Louisiana and Texas. For the last few months Republicans and conservative talking heads have been falsely claiming that hurricanes Katrina and Rita didn't spill a drop of oil and that off shore oil rigs can ride out hurricanes unscathed. I wonder how many of them would like to demonstrate their confidence by watching Gustav from a rig. After all, Gustav is only about half the size of Katrina, so it should be, as they say, a breeze.