Mike Huckabeeamaniac.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/mike-huckabee-women_n_4653426.html

I assume The Huck thought he was making a cogent point. I think he might just be losing his frigging mind.

That might be the craziest thing I've heard a republican politician say since the "a woman can't get pregnant via rape" and "legitimate rape vs. women lying" stuff we had to suffer through back in the last general election.

Why republicans continue to think they can talk to women like they are dogs (in heat, apparently) is beyond me. To paraphrase the bible, the fear of women is the beginning of wisdom.

“We have defined the concept of libido as a quantitatively variable force that could serve as a measure of proceses and transformations occurring in the field of sexual excitation. We distinguish this libido in respect of its special origin from the energy which must be supposed to underlie mental processes in general, and we thus also attribute a qualitative character to it...We thus reach the idea of a quantity of libido, to the mental representation of which we give the name ‘ego-libido,’ and whose production, increase or diminution...should afford us possibilities for explaining the psychosexual phenomena observed.”

"The ego libido is, however, only conveniently accessible to analytical study when it has been put to the use of cathecting sexual objects, that is, when it has become object-libido. We can then perceive it concentrating upon objects, becoming fixed upon them or abandoning them, moving from one object to another and, from these situations, directing the subject's sexual activity, which leads to the satisfaction, that is, to the partial and temporary extinction, of the libido.” Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, 83.

Libido can't be "controlled," it can only be "directed" (unconsciously) and temporarily extinguished.

“The functional importance of the ego is manifested in the fact that normally control over the approaches to motility devolves to it. Thus in its relation to the id it is like man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength while the ego borrows forces. The analogy may be carried a little further. Often the rider, if he is not to be parted from his horse, is obliged to guide it where it wants to go; so in the same manner the ego is in the habit of transforming the id’s will into action as if it were its own.” The Ego and the Id, 19.

Huckabee lies and misleads as much as any other grifter; he's like Limbaugh, only he's laid a layer of down-home preacher manliness to hide his true nature.

Here's another opinion piece on Huckabee's insightful comments on how the Republican party is fighting a war for women…not to have to make their own choices.

"Republicans keep taking the bait when talking about contraception. It wasn’t too long ago when Democrats found themselves playing defense on third-trimester abortions and so-called partial-birth abortions; Republicans were winning the abortion argument more often than losing it back then. But now it’s Republicans playing defense when the terrain becomes about contraception. At this point, the GOP should realize, if you are talking contraception, you don’t have a chance to convince some suburban and independent women to listen to your messages on other issues like the economy and education. It’s just like the problem the GOP has with Hispanics. They can claim Hispanics are more likely to be with them on issues like education and social policy but because of the rhetoric on immigration, many Hispanics are simply tuning out the GOP and not listening to them on the other issues."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/24/22429842-first-thoughts-huckabee-f...

The Republicans are acting so badly, even their political opposition are offering advice...

http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/avoid-women-label.html

"Republicans Acting Badly" -- it should be a tv series?...

7: It is. Watch C-SPAN.

Hmmm...

Here's another opinion piece on Huckabee's insightful comments on how the Republican party is fighting a war for women…not to have to make their own choices.

Ladies, let us tell you 'bout your ladyparts. We only do it because we care.

Perhaps The Huck unluckily had Ezekiel Ch. 23 for his randomly chosen nightly devotional bible reading the night before giving this speech and it was still on his mind.

Yeah - that could be it.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ezekiel-Chapter-23/

>10 Jesse_wiedinmyer: "Ladies, let us tell you 'bout your ladyparts, without using icky words like "vagina" which makes us uncomfortable. We only do it because we care."

Fixed that for you.

I can't believe you typed the V-word.

I'm not in Michigan, so it's okay.

If you check with Oprah you will find the proper word is vajayjay.

"The abortion rate among American women declined to its lowest level in more than three decades in 2011, according to a new report released Monday that is widely considered the country’s most definitive examination of abortion trends. . .
But the decline in abortions, the researchers said, appears in part to reflect the growing use, especially among younger women, of nearly foolproof long-term contraceptives like intrauterine devices. It may also reflect the impact of the recession and economic uncertainty, which can lead to fewer pregnancies, births and abortions, according to the authors, Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman.
The authors concluded that anti-abortion laws had only a minimal impact on the number of women obtaining abortions during the study period." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us/abortions-declining-in-us-study-finds.html?...

What this indicates is (1) the anti-choice hysteria that is driving more and more draconian restrictions and invasive procedures vis-a-vis women's reproductive decisions is empirically misguided and (2) the refusal to provide health care coverage for birth control is a self-defeating strategy for the forces which seek to reduce the number of abortions.

>16 theoria: the refusal to provide health care coverage for birth control is a self-defeating strategy for the forces which seek to reduce the number of abortions.

Shocker.

the refusal to provide health care coverage for birth control is a self-defeating strategy for the forces which seek to reduce the number of abortions.

That would probably be because reducing abortions isn't their primary goal. Their primary goal is getting women to stop having sex in ways that they disapprove of.

>18 StormRaven:
". Their primary goal is getting women to stop having sex in ways that they disapprove of."

That and keeping them from competing in the work place.

As long as they are pregnant they will not be stealing jobs from men.

>20 Arctic-Stranger:
Exactly !

Birth control is empowering.....can't have that.

This may be off subject but somehow I don't think so. Rand Paul just lobbed a hit in Hillary Clinton's direction regarding Bill's behavior regarding Monica Lewinsky.....
Women are not the sum total of the man they choose as a partner. Nor is their primary purpose to be defined by that partner's actions. Although it would seem that some men still see them as such.

The actual comments:

"I would say his behavior was predatory, offensive to women," Kelley Ashby Paul, the senator's wife, told Vogue magazine.

"Someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office? Really. Then they have the gall to stand up and say Republicans are having a war on women? So yes, I think it's a factor. It's not Hillary's fault," Paul told NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

Asked whether her husband's scandal should affect the former Secretary of State's chances if she decides to run for president, Paul said "sometimes it's hard to separate one from the other."

Let's break this down, shall we? Clearly, given the relationship, President Clinton's behavior wasn't offensive to at least one woman. (And most of the women I knew were more outraged at Ms. Tripp's behavior.) Even at the time, it was noted that powerful men often have affairs with younger, more attractive women. This has always been true, and applies to all parties.

Then we have the obligatory 'Oh, it's not Hillary's fault; but his actions are clearly a reflection on her.' i.e. since Hillary couldn't stop her husband from straying, that means her fitness to be President is questionable. So, if a male's politicians wife ran out on him, would the same apply?

Mind you, I don't support Hillary for President personally; but I think making female politicians appendages of their husbands (even capable political husbands) shows a type of thinking even less appealing to women than philandery...

22: Note also that this is an attempt to counter current allegations that the Republican party is engaged in a war on women by pointing to a nineteen year old incident. If your response to "Republicans are currently waging a war on women" is to say "But one guy on the other side who hasn't held power in over a decade did something untoward almost two decades ago" then your position is pretty weak.

A good start to straightening out such discussions would be to jettison the phrase 'war on _____'.

18> It's true: women are having too much sex, too much fun.

"Republicanism: The haunting fear that a woman, somewhere, may be happy."

(Freely stolen from H.L. Mencken)

26 lqarl

> 26

Not stolen but paraphrased.

Women should NOT "vote Republican"!...

#28

Not sure that's a paraphrase; but reasonably sure that Mencken (wherever he might be) wouldn't mind.

Uncle Sugar wins this round:

"The University of Notre Dame must provide birth control to employees and students, after a federal appeals court ruled Friday — a move the school says will force it to violate its religious beliefs.
In a blow to religious colleges and universities across the country, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago denied Notre Dame's request for an injunction to the ObamaCare birth control mandate that requires the school to provide coverage for contraception.
The injunction would have given Notre Dame a temporary reprieve from the birth control mandate, as the Roman Catholic school challenges the rule in court. But the appeals court ruled 2-1 that the school will have to comply with the rule, even before it hears the court's final decision.
The court found Notre Dame "has not yet shown that there is a substantial burden" in complying with the birth control mandate."

"This comes after the Obama administration extended an olive branch to religious institutions. President Obama offered a compromise so that religious groups could let their insurance providers handle the birth control provisions. But Notre Dame and a handful of other religious schools argue this is inadequate because they would still be complicit in providing contraception coverage." http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/198972-court-r...

31: In a decision written by Posner no less. I think the opposition to the contraception mandate is doomed at this point.

Yeah, I was surprised (but pleased) to see Posner on the majority side.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how a requirement to offer certain services to certain employees is burdensome. The employer can't require that employees belong to a certain religion, and can't interfere with what they do outside of work.

The employer doesn't even know if employees are going to take advantage of birth control or abortion services. It's none of their business.

An employer telling me I can't use my health benefits to get contraception always seemed to me like them telling me I can't spend my paycheck on snacks, guns, condoms, or whatever else they don't like.

Something somewhat similar and AGAIN in the name of religious belief.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/politics/arizona-brewer-anti-gay-bill/index.html

Not sure why they felt the need to draft a law ? It would be naïve to believe that employers do not discriminate, especially smaller business.....too heavy, not good looking enough, Black or noticeable gay but to draft a "stick it in your face law" is just plain stupid.
The problem is that there is no end to the issues people will use to discriminate, although a business is different than a church (which is debatable in some cases)

I guess I will never understand why some people care so much about what others are doing in their lives......especially when it comes to things that do not directly affect them. Birth control pills are here to stay...statistically most "religious" women use them. Wouldn't surprise me one bit of the top executive of a business refused to provide insurance with contraceptive care while his wife is taking the pill.

#36

'Conservative' business leaders seem to have a different take on this bill; hey, it's all well and good to save money via discrimination, but this law could affect our bottom line in a negative way, so it's bad.

(Conservative principles? Hey, we're here to make money, not cling to principles.)

Well it does set businesses up for potential confusing conflicts, doesn't it? If it is Apple policy not to discriminate, but the State Constitution says their employees can refuse to provide tech support to the local LGBT Center "for religious reasons", then the company finds itself in the middle of a legal mess, because guess who would get sued?

Soon Arizona will issue heterosexual ID cards.

I guess at this point in time Jan Brewer can veto all she wants but the fact that it has taken her so long to "think" about what is "best for the state of Arizona" tells us that she will veto but wishes she didn't have to. Jan Brewer is going to do what is best for Jan Brewer. This is a reprehensible law with far too many ramifications to imagine. As a thinking person, a person with any type of moral compass, the immediate response would be a veto, over and done with. As a politician and a bigot, this is a hard nut to crack.

Schadenfreudesquely I sort of kind of would like to see Jan Brewer sign the bill.

I really enjoyed the Evan Mecham era in Arizona. In contrast Gov. Brewer has not been consistent in her right wing lunacy. Her acceptance of the Medicaid money in Obamacare was the actions of a sane person. What was up with that?

Arizona is apparently a desert filled with old white bigots - sort of like Flor-I-Duh but with less ground water.

I say give the motherfuckers what they want.

Governor Brewer is (like most politicians and many of us) trying to have it both ways.

By delaying the veto, she can appease those who want this law by claiming that she was 'threatened' by business interests who were holding the state's economy hostage, deflecting criticism (or so she hopes, I suspect). Businesses won't care about that, as long as the law is stopped.

>42 BruceCoulson:
Doesn't much matter does it ? Just the fact that she had to "think" about it, speaks volumes. Heard someone from the state of Arizona say that this entire debacle was a black stain on the state and every minute Ms Brewer spends thinking about this makes that stain just that much bigger. Needless to say the person speaking was not happy with the new law.

If Governor Brewer had immediately vetoed the bill, she would have made an enemy of most of the people who support this law; who are still voters, I might add.

If she DOESN'T veto the bill, she's going to anger the business interests who provide campaign money and those opposed to the law; who are still voters.

So, she's trying to appease both sides and retain their support. I'm not sure what else her 'thinking' might be saying.

Actually it doesn't matter if Brewer vetoes it and she probably will 'cuz she (probably) ain't running for election as she was in 2010 when she either signed 1070 or waited to be defeated in the gubernatorial primary.

The bill ("1062") will galvanize the Repub "base," in particular the religious righties who've been feeling bereft and neglected lately. A veto would simply "prove" to them the ongoing unending horror of "the liberal media" and make them set their Shirley Temple jaws and "Gosh o' golly!" get out and vote this late summer and fall.

If the LGBT community in AZ had real sense it would start a registration to vote drive -- after all NO DEMOCRAT IN EITHER LEGISLATIVE HOUSE voted for 1062 so don't tell me how there's "no difference" in the parties.

True three GOPpers in the state house of reps voted against and then three other GOPpists acquired buyer's remorse (one is from Mormon Mesa who is a co sponsor of the bill!) and are now "sorry,/so sorry,/please ac-cept (their) a-pol-o-gy."

Both McCain and Flake (proving the adage that even stopped clocks are right twice a day) are advocating a veto and the sports guys are fearful that the scheduled super bowl in Glendale next year may be in jeopardy IF...

>45 Michael_Welch:
She will veto it......she is just is playing games. Isn't that what it's all about anyway ?

Well "the game" is to "win" or at least do yourself the least harm possible.

So yeah I THINK Brewer will veto because she has nothing to lose politically IF she doesn't want to run for governor again. Then IF McCain doesn't run in 2016 (he may though after the state party censored him; that pissed him off) she might offer herself as "the NEW McCain"?

She thinks ahead you see; she ain't dumb...

In a step back and take a deep breath sort of way, it's hard not to see "right to discriminate" legislation like Kansas and Arizona have proposed as a last ditch response to the legitimization of homosexuality. The more extreme the measures sought, the more it underscores how much ground the bills' supporters feel they've lost.

Brewer vetoed it (just heard it on the radio) because it was legally indefensible, opening up the state to the expenses of defending a poorly written law. Plus I think she's tired of Arizona being the subject of boycotts.

>48 southernbooklady:

i've been trying to view it (and most of the anti-choice legislation happening) in that light. i just worry that we haven't moved quite far enough, and when these laws are contested in court, that there's still a strong-ish possibility that they'll be upheld...

Apparently a federal court ruled that Texas's same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. I have not had a chance to read beyond the headlines yet, so I am not well versed as to what is going on, but....TEXAS???!!!

50> It might help if corporations responded to anti-choice legislation the same way they've responded to discriminatory legislation versus LGBT in AZ.

# 51

A federal judge. And that one went down a bit earlier today... Decision is stayed pending appeal, though.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/texas-same-sex/

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over again that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage," said Abbott. "The Texas Constitution defines marriage as between one man and one woman."
Gov. Rick Perry, who is not running for re-election, offered even more forceful remarks, insisting that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "guarantees Texas voters the freedom" to decide on the parameters for marriage.
"Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman ..., and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens," said Perry, an outspoken conservative who ran for president in 2012. "... This is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box."

>52 theoria:

yes, i think it would. sadly, money talks. with the loudest and most convincing voice for many people.

"Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman ..., and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens,"

Governor Perry, I'd like to introduce you to Loving v. Virginia and Constitutional reality.

#56

I think you'd have to start by convincing them they actually lost the War Between the States, first.

In AZ where I live what became abundently clear last Wednesday evening when Brewer went on media to announce the veto was that the Janster had A LOT of "cover."

Not only as noted had McCain and Flake advised a veto but even three Repub legislators who had actually voted for it decided Well now maybe and announced regrets. ("If we had only known!")

But the BIGGEST "force with" Brewski was the Arizona business "complex" with 80 plus businesses advisng No Go that included Apple, American Airlines, Aetna and ESPECIALLY the tourist industry (all those empty motel rooms envisioned! quel horreur!) and the sports folks contemplating "the horror! the horror!" of the NFL deciding to "relocate" the super bowl scheduled for Glendale next year.

As per the libertarians' favorite prez Calvin Coolidge, AZ lives and breathes his "doctrine," namely that "the BUSINESS of America IS business" and don'cha forget it!

Barry Goldwater, the political icon of the state, was of course the scion of business folk (albeit Barry didn't "like" business as a profession and left it to his brother Bob) and as per Barry's dismissal of concerns about "gay" soldiers 20 years ago -- "it only matters if they SHOOT STRAIGHT" -- and his own somewhat lackadaisical attitude toward church going (born to an Episcopalian mother and a Jewish father), business trumps (with apologies to The Donald) religion in this state -- even the Mormon religion.

I had thought that the "gesture" would be enough, i. e., that the Repubs promoted the bill just to galvanize the religious right "base" and vetoing it would only make them moreso. But now I wonder if "the scales" as per Acts haven't "fallen from their eyes" and maybe they'll see how reduced their influence and power has become and perhaps in discouragement jus' "go fishin'" this late summer and fall when the elections come about?

Or am I only wishfully thinking?...

I think the republicans nationwide became convinced that the "religious freedom" to ostracize gays economically to their faces was a winner in terms of galvanizing the base to vote. Naturally they knew such laws would be thrown out by them there "liberal" courts, early on if not by SCOTUS.

But someone apparently didn't think this idea through thoroughly before charging ahead full steam. The law of unintended consequences grabbed them by the short hairs and shook them like a grizzly catching and eating a salmon.

So will they act more sane in the future? No, not if they follow their old pattern - and being conservative in outlook they damn sure will.

They will come up with some new horror tomorrow to inflict on the body politic. It would take a mind more elastic than even mine to accurately guess what it might be.

They still have the "suppress the vote" tactic to which they are still one hundred per cent committed, so look for them to quadruple down on that. As a shrinking minority that is about all they have left. That and those "second amendment solutions" which they apparently dream about day and night.

#59

Point of order; the current crop of 'conservatives' are anything BUT conservative. They are reactionary (at best).

> 60

Agreed. Reactionary and radical.

Teabagger republicans do not so much want to freeze things as they are but wish to go back to Dreamtime - when things were (in their imagination) as god intended and as they should always be.

The Good Old Days

aka the 'Happy Days Syndrome'.

Well "radical" is a better pejorative than "reactionary" unless maybe the return to "the good old days" involves an ante bellum south? Or "conservatives" like Eugene Talmadge and James "Old" Eastland?

The magical thinking involved here perhaps relates to oh let's say "Bolivarismo" in present day deteriorating in the face of great wealth Venezuela. It's an imaginary landscape that denies reality, in the US case that baby boomers are going to want MORE SPENDING as they age and not "less" and that younger folks ("millennials" in particular) find the ancient taboos of "race mixing" and "the love which has no name" rather bemusing if not totally irrelevant.

The Republican party threatens itself if it continues to be the party of Old White Men And "Their" Women; true the Democratic party hasn't much chops as the one that accomplishes things but it is at least "right" on all the major issues if not so effective at selling them.

Just as Obama in 2008 "excited" people as "the first black(-white) man" to have a good chance to be prez, Hillary (old white woman or no) I think will galvanize women to vote -- it's THEIR turn after all eh -- Democratic in even larger majorities. Maybe Hills could even run with Elizabeth Warren as a "double trouble" hmmm.

Liberals like myself are I admit "preparing" themselves for a bad year this year -- possibility of Demos losing the senate is "high" -- but hey that's what we got Obama for: if nothing else until the end of his term he can decide to rival Grover Cleveland as "Mr Veto."

But the times they are a-changin' and I think faster than most believe. Latinos will be hard and fast into the Democratic party along with women and young voters, most Jews and blacks and even in AZ I see a dare I utter it a coming "liberalization"! Wow!...

Don't start thinking Brewer has become a "liberal" -- she's just not as extreme -- nor is Arizona -- as say Texas is.

Stay tuned!...

> 65
Jan Brewer is a piece of work....her relationship to private prison systems and her immigration papers law is a crime.
Jan Brewer was just smart enough to make herself look like a "hero" in this case. She is as extreme or liberal appearing as it benefits her.
Any person with the tiniest bit of moral fiber would have been outraged by such a piece of legislation even reaching their desk. It should have been vetoed in a nano second. She waited long enough to "appear" to have given it some thought and then made herself a good person. BS

Well look obviously I'm NOT a "fan" of Brewer -- I didn't vote for her in 2010 although as typical per voters in AZ I can't quite remember who ran against her, ah! Yes it was Terry Goddard, son of Sam, a former Demo guv waay back in the mid 1960s, and Goddard was a "GOOD" candidate and the state'd be better off if he'd been elected.

But to give Brewski her due she backed a temporary one per cent sales tax hike that "saved" AZ from slashing more than it did slash from education and she also finagled the expansion of medicaid last year with real political skill. As I say she ain't dumb and after all she's a Republican eh but if she was going to be actually ELECTED (she got the job when Nappy bailed, leaving Demos in the lurch, for greener pastures; Napolitano's now making big bucks as head of the Univ of Calif system) in 2010 she HAD to sign SB 1070. Repubs were cranked enough over the sales tax increase hmm.

But in Texas you've got today SIX count 'em SIX candydandys challenging conservative GOPper senator John Cornyn in the primary because he voted to restart the government last fall. He isn't "Cruz enough" see. AZ isn't THAT nuts but that's because it has McCain, Flake AND Brewer, Republicans who HAVE to run statewide rather than in crazed districts. Statewide in Tejas however doesn't seem to help, get my drift...