Bachmann's Amateur Hour

Whenever I wish to talk about politics, there is one person I turn to frequently.  In conversations with my good friend Shawn McElhinney, the subject of Michele Bachmann frequently comes up.  Both of us have always been in agreement that she would never be the nominee.  I believe she may have won the straw poll, but her political corpse will lay there.  Yet out of the interest of encouraging a wider debate, I advocated keeping her in the field, as I believed (at the time) she served a useful purpose and spoke to a constituency that, while I do not identify with them, they have a place in the Republican Party.

It has become harder and harder to maintain this position, especially in light of the past week's events.  First, let us do a recap.

In 2007, Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to issue an executive order, mandating the use of Gardasil amongst girls as young as 12 years old.  Gardasil is a vaccination against HPV.  An HPV infection can lead to cervical cancer, something which is very serious for women.  At the time, not much was known about Gardasil, and the idea of using an executive order to mandate an injection against a sexually transmitted disease was controversial.  Realizing a losing battle when he sees one, Perry withdrew the order, and went back to making Texas an absolute monster when it comes to job creation.  When his GOP primary challenger in 2009 tried to make this an issue, Perry apologized for the EO, and then went on to absolutely crush the Bush machine's hired gun to take him down.  (Precisely because the likes of Karl Rove saw in their intra-party rival a future presidential candidate.)

During the GOP primary debates for the Presidency, now presidential candidate Rick Perry has had the same line of attack come up again.  For the most part, this is a fair line of attack.  Even if I dismiss the idea that Perry was bribed by big Pharma to do this, when companies like Merck (the maker of the drug) donate to you (even if it is just 5,000 out of tens of millions of dollars raised), you have to answer those questions.  Mrs. Bachmann took this entirely legitimate line of attack and did what too many Tea Partiers (and social conservatives) do with a legitimate issue: demagogue it so hard you end up saying something colossally stupid.

Bachmann turned the issue into a full fledged crusade against vaccines in general.  She then made a whopper of a claim that the HPV vaccine Governor Perry wished to mandate caused mental retardation in innocent 12 year old girl taken to the CIA black site and injected with the latest biological weapon called Gardasil, or something.  Failing that, she then turned to stating the drug was unsafe, making it sound like after the CIA injected you with the latest doomsday device, people were dropping dead left and right.

There is absolutely no evidence for this.  Bachmann didn't care.  She saw a chance to smear an opponent, and took it.  In FDA studies, they have records of Gardasil being administered 35,000,000 times.  Out of those incidents, there were 1500 incidents that were deemed worthy of further investigation.  No conclusive evidence after rigorous testing was found that Gardasil caused these incidents.  Out of those 35 million injections, 68 deaths resulted.  That's essentially statistical noise, and the FDA confirmed that.  Not one of those deaths was related to Gardasil.  They concluded that the relevance of them being injected with Gardasil is as relevant as sweaters causing deaths because people die when wearing sweaters.  (Source)

Needless to say, the evidence is beyond non-existent for mental retardation as a result of the drug.  Mrs. Bachmann claims she heard it from someone during a campaign stop.  I'm going to go out on a limb:  there was no person she heard this from.  She relied on junk science and flat out made it up.  (The junk science being a thoroughly discredited study which claimed certain injections led to an increase in autism amongst children.)

The other concerns about the HPV vaccine (outside of the mandate) do have some weight, but I think ultimately fall up short.  One of the most popular concerns is that providing the vaccination encourages risky sexual behavior and experimentation amongst minors.

This sounds plausible.... in theory.  Cervical cancer tends to develop amongst those who are past their teenage years.  If we want to believe that teenagers are considering cancer decades later as a reason to keep their clothes on before engaging in carnal acts, sorry, that's an adult talking.  The flipside of this argument is that we need to keep the threat of cancer around to punish those who engage in risky behavior.  I know that's not what people mean, but care to offer an alternative that precludes it? 

This is different than funding contraception, abortion, and the like.  These activities do encourage risky behavior.  Why?  Contracting something like HIV or causing a pregnancy is a rather visible side-effect of the sexual act in the immediate sense.  At most, you've got 3 months before your deed becomes known, and consequences start.  The incentive against sex isn't an intellectual one here, it's entirely emotional, because it is so darn visible and apparent.  Subsidizing the elimination of these barriers will lead to more people engaging in the act.  In short, Gardasil could encourage risky behavior, but the evidence is extremely thin when one remembers the circumstances surrounding adolescence and the pressures of sex they face.

Megan McArdle brings up several salient points.  First and foremost, half of sexually active individuals, at one point in their life, are infected with HPV.  The majority of the time the infection is harmless and does nothing.  Yet all to often, something else occurs.  With such a high occurrence, this can't be dismissed lightly.  Can you guarantee, as a celibate to the night of your wedding, that your spouse has done the same?  What if they had a moment of weakness?  What if they amended their life and started living chastely?

Knowing these things, the issue of Gardasil isn't as cut and dry as those in Bachmann's camp wish to make it.  This long ago stopped being whether or not one should use EO's to carry out these things (a perfectly legitimate point, and something I agree with Perry's critics on), it has become a crusade against the facts.  Bachmann deserves the strongest of condemnation, and if she is written out of the Presidential race tomorrow, it will be too long.  We need to get back to real issues.  Make Governor Perry reconcile the mandate for Gardasil with his profession of belief in limited government, and if he would want such a mandate nationally.

The only thing left to wonder is if Minnesota has finished their redistricting, and if not, how can we redistrict Bachmann out of existence, so she no longer plagues the nation with her stupidity?    If a President Perry were a vengeful fellow, I would not doubt if he behind the scenes engineered a primary challenge, or tried to get her out of Congress.  I really don't think anybody could fault him for such an act.  Perhaps a President Romney should do so as well, if only to save himself from when she eventually implodes and damages his credibility.

Debate Wrapup

               I will confess before starting, I did not watch the Republican Debate as it happened on Thursday.  I was too busy with must see JV.  The only thing I love more than politics is Justin Verlander pitching.  Yet I’ve studied the debate and read commentary from all sides.  Here are my thoughts. 

                There were two winners in this debate.  First was Fox News.  Normally, people paint them as a talking points machine for the right.  Yet during this debate, the moderators forced the candidates into some very uncomfortable positions, and asked tough questions of actual relevance.  When Chris Matthews and the like moderate, they care little about the issues.  They care about making the GOP look bad.  In this debate, issues of relevance were front and center, both about the platforms of the candidates, and the candidates themselves.

                The second winner of the debate was Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Everybody knows he is getting into the race this weekend.  Since he isn’t formally in, he avoided all the carnage and bloodletting Thursday night.  He also was able to build up some nice dossiers on where the weaknesses of each candidate are.  Out of those who actually attended, the winner was Mitt Romney, for reasons I hope to explain later.

                Before that, I would like to tackle a few broad observations:

1.)     For the health of the Republican Party in the future, Ron Paul and his descendants to the fourth generation should be barred from all future Republican Presidential debates.  This is not simply because the Congressman advocates positions I disagree with.  It’s not even because I think at times he experiences paranoia in his worldview.  Whatever he wants to think, legalizing (not just decriminalization, a controversial but debatable stance) smack and prostitution not only has no place in the position of the Republican Party, but of sane American politics. Last night he went even further.  When asked about Iran and nuclear weapons, the Congressman expressed little problem with Iran having nuclear weapons.  That is an opinion beyond the pale of sanity. 

There are those who oppose military intervention in Iran.  (I’m one of them.)  Yet to say that the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon being no big deal is absurd.  He complains that they were no different than the Soviet Union.  Everybody knows there is a difference.  The Soviet Union was still concerned with rational things and rational power.  The very purpose of the Iranian regime (especially in those who currently have power) is not based on foreign policy realism, but rather revolution and chaos.  The Soviet Union wasn’t promising to wipe a country off the face of the earth, Iran is.  While we didn’t like India getting the bomb, we also resigned ourselves to that reality.  Why?  India isn’t a nation ran by theocrats promising genocide who directly support terrorists.  The idea Israel has nothing to worry about if Iran has a bomb certainly isn’t something the Israelis are buying.  Again, these positions are so far removed from basic sanity, they don’t deserve airtime on a Presidential debate.  He can go give a few speeches and win a few irrelevant straw polls, but the Presidency is for serious grownups.

2.)    There was a point in the debate where Republicans were asked to give a show of hands if they would reject a deficit reduction deal that involved a ratio of ten dollars of spending cut for every one dollar in tax increases.  Predictably, the candidates all battled to see who could raise their hand the highest.  I groaned for a few reasons.

The first reason is that they are lying through their teeth.  If they could balance 2012’s budget with that ratio, they would do it in a heartbeat.  I understand the need to pander to the base and give a few red meat speeches.  I even indulge in them myself at times.  Yet let’s not show we are blatantly blowing smoke.

You should respond to this issue as such:

Well I would say that is certainly a good starting point in negotiations.  In the past, future cuts have been promised in exchange for immediate tax increases.  Those future cuts never materialize.  I would ask Congress to rectify this situation based on recent precedent.

Speaker Boehner enunciated during the debt ceiling debate that any increase in the debt ceiling must be paired with spending cuts.  I would go one step further.  Any tax revenue for the year coming from tax increases must be paired with real immediate deficit reduction of a ratio of at least 3 to 1.  If you want to raise 20 billion in additional tax revenue next year, I want at least 60 billion in spending cuts.  Since I doubt Democrats will do that, then we offer them tax reform.

 This is not as hard as it sounds.  Eliminating just 75% of farm subsidies (which go to the richest 10% of farmers)would provide not only around 17 billion in revenue next year, it would also count as eliminating one of the worst forms of corporate welfare around.  Or we could eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for around 25% of taxpayers and save even more.  Be willing to give them this.  We have no business defending it anyway as conservatives who favor the free market.  Then say, okay, we’ve offered over 100 billion annually in new revenue, now give us a down payment on entitlement reform where we begin to means test Medicare and Social Security so millionaires are no longer treated like those who make 40,000 a year.

The art of negotiation is getting as much as you want for giving up as little as possible.  If Obama made such an offer, you call his bluff.  If he has nothing (and no Democrat would ever offer such credible spending cuts in today’s party!), then force them to prove why ending corporate welfare is a bad thing.  Use that to win re-election, then take credit for achieving real tax reform that ends corporate welfare, and lowers rates for individuals, while still being at worst neutral and at best a revenue raiser.  This is also how any Republican President would deal with Democrats, no matter what they said in that debate.

Now I would like to close with my individual assessments of the candidates performances, in order from best to worst.

1.)     Romney:  As long as he did nothing stupid, he was going to win this debate again.  He did nothing stupid.  Even gave a few good answers.  He looked like the one adult in the room.

2.)    Santorum:  He performed magically in this debate.  He demonstrated the absurdity of both Bachmann and Paul’s assertions on the 10^th Amendment by appealing to the views of the Founding Fathers as individuals who advocated morality just as much as anything else in their viewpoints.  Madison said the Constitution could only work with a moral populace, and Santorum explained why.  He reminded the Party of Lincoln that they should operate according to the spirit of Lincoln’s worldview.  His hammering Paul on Iran was great theatre.  Just a shame he is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

3.)    Gingrich:  Like always, Mr. Gingrich knows how to handle himself in a debate and a speech.  He is the smartest guy in every room, and he knows it.  He proved that with some of the policy positions in the debate tonight.  Yet try as he might to deny it, his campaign being a wreck is a valid question.  Gingrich can sink ships, but he has no clue how to sail them.  That is as true today as it was in 1994.  As a result of that, he is also irrelevant.

4.)    Pawlenty:  Is he finished?  Who knows?  I happen to think he won’t advance much farther, but he put in a relatively solid performance.  Some of his jokes were way too canned, but he showed he is willing to fight.  I wish he would’ve dropped the idea that it is Bachmann’s fault we had Obamacare, and instead asked the proper question:  Congresswoman, you claim you have led the fight against numerous Obama programs.  Can you find anyone in Congress outside of Michelle Bachmann who views you as taking leadership positions on these fights?  If he asks that question, sure, he gets viewed a jerk.  Yet people will forget his question, and focus on her answer, or lack thereof.

5.)    Bachmann:  She handled herself better than I expected under fire.  Yet I didn’t expect much.  She had to know eventually someone would question her on her paper-thin resume.  Her answers were to try and deflect the blame on others for their supposed sins.  That might work on Pawlenty.  That won’t work against the well-oiled very disciplined Romney team.  She also won’t be able to use it with credibility against Rick Perry, who has the charisma and bona fides of Bachmann amongst the Tea Party, but has actually accomplished something in his life in government.  She barely bested Pawlenty, walking away wounded.  If she loses the straw poll this weekend, expect the rest of the field to collectively finish her off.

6.)    Cain:  His line about people needing to learn to take a joke was a great line.  He is clearly having the time of his life running for President.  Good for him.  Yet that time is going to end soon.  He hasn’t shown any real maturation on ideas, and his statement about Romney’s Mormonism in the eyes of Georgia voters was colossally stupid.

7.)    Huntsman:  Dude, why the heck are you here?  I’ve yet to see one Republican supporter of Huntsman.  Actually, I’ve yet to see an American citizen who supports Huntsman who isn’t on Huntsman’s staff or family.  It isn’t that he is too liberal or too conservative.  Rather, everyone reacts to our candidacy the same way Sonny from A Bronx Tale related to life:  Nobody cares.

8.)    Paul:  Dude, just leave here, and never come back.

9.)    Charlie Sheen:  Ron Paul is stealing your gig, you better sue him.

10.) Barrack Obama:  The chances of Bachmann being nominated are now smaller, and they were already pretty small.  Good luck running on how good the economy is!