Let's ask GOP pols about birth control

The question of where they stand on the issue of contraception is the one most Republican candidates don't want to hear.

Their answers run the risk of alienating either conservative religionists or the vast majority of the American people.

All them Muslims are the same, ain't they?

Archie Bunkerism reigns supreme among Republican presidential candidates.

Steve Benen takes a look at the problem.

Is Bush finally facing the music on Iraq?

In Monday's edition of The New York Times, it's reported that senior Bush administration officials, faced with a growing rebellion among Senate Republicans over the war in Iraq, are considering strategies for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The paper says that such talks previously had been expected no sooner than September when military commanders and U.S. diplomats in Iraq are scheduled to report on the war situation, but the deteriorating political situation in Washington and across the country have made discussions more urgent.

Senate Democrats, emboldened perhaps by growing public pressure for impeachment of both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and by increasing unrest among Republicans over the war, are likely to make a new push this week for troop-withdrawal timetables.

This is shaping up as Bush's summer of discontent, and it's not yet three weeks old.

Dr. Frank's here with disturbing news

The latest Gallup Poll shows that most Republicans don't believe in evolution.

Yipes! Even The Rascal didn't think the situation was that bad.

Gallup's Dr. Frank Newport has the numbers here.

How can this be?

The latest Fox News poll shows that more Republicans than Democrats approve of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing.

Well, that's because antiwar Democrats are disappointed in the recent vote by Congress to approve funding of the Iraq war without setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Another surprise in the Fox poll is that almost half of the Republican respondents consider Democrat Barack Obama "honest and trustworthy," and two-thirds of them consider him "likeable."

Another backdoor arrangement?

The Rockford Register Star reports today that Winnebago County State's Attorney Paul Logli, a Republican, will not seek re-election to that post next year and likely will run for a circuit judgeship.

The paper also says Circuit Judge Gerald Grubb, another Republican, will retire on Aug. 1 and will be replaced by an appointment made by Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas, yet another Republican.

The paper further reports that Deputy State's Attorney Chuck Prorok, a Republican, is interested in seeking election as Logli's successor.

You can see where this is going, right? The stage would seem to be set for the appointment of Logli to Grubb's job as judge and the appointment of Prorok to Logli's job as state's attorney. That way, the two of them can run as incumbents in next year's election. Incumbents, of course, almost always have a great advantage at the ballot box.

This kind of thing is called backdooring. It's an arrangement whereby a person fills an elected post by political appointment rather than by election and then presents him- or herself to the voters bearing the title of the office (as in Judge Paul Logli, if that's what happens in this case).

Stuff like this is a Republican tradition in Winnebago County politics, especially with respect to judgeships and the state's attorney's office. It happened on several occasions in the 1970s and '80s. Indeed, it was by appointment, not election, that Logli first became state's attorney in 1986.

Hypocrisy on abortion

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen, but I'd like to see a questioner at one of these so-called debates among Republican presidential hopefuls dig beyond the surface with regard to the pro-life posturing by some of the candidates.

For example, Mitt Romney, who used to be pro-choice, now says he's against abortion except in cases of rape or incest. I don't understand that.

If abortion is immoral because it's the taking of innocent life, how does the morality change in a case of rape or incest? Is the fetus in such a case somehow not innocent?

The hypocrisy on that point arises from purely political considerations. Most people shutter at the thought of a woman having to bring a fetus to full-term in a case of rape or incest. And most politicians are loathe to buck majority sentiment on the matter. So much for the sincerity of their pro-life positions.

Another question: If a fetus is a person, and abortion is the unwarranted killing of that innocent person, why don't any of the pro-life candidates favor a law under which the mother would be charged with murder?

The answer to that question, of course, is that taking such a position likely would be political suicide. Most Americans don't want women who get abortions to be prosecuted as murderers.

Nor, it seems to me, is there any consistency of logic in making an exception for an abortion to save the life of the mother. In his book "Papal Sin," author Garry Wills argues: "If the fetus and the mother have equal status as persons, the natural and not the inflicted death should be preferred," if you're going to be morally and logically consistent about it.

Then, too, the candidates should be required to square their anti-abortion positions with the belief among some folks -- orthodox Catholics, for example -- that the so-called morning-after pill is an abortifacient. Are any of these pols willing to call for a ban on morning-after pills? Are they willing to call for murder charges against women who take such pills? If not, why not?

In fact, the politicians should be required to explain in detail their opinions on just when life starts and when, if ever, it's permissible to end such life and what penalties should be imposed for violations of any limits that are enacted into law. Questions like that would prompt most Republican candidates, I'm sure, to squirm and dance and tie themselves into ideological knots.

Slogans instead of strategy

In today's Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman offers a nifty little review of the Republican record of cutting and running.

What global warming?

Oh, you mean the global warming that requires immediate action, according to a vast majority of Americans (including even 60 percent of Republicans).

Increasingly, the global warming deniers among us find themselves isolated as a weird little band of kooks.

Even Frank Luntz, a Republican spinmeister who once encouraged the deniers, has come to recognize the disturbing reality of the situation.

Tommy says something stupid

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, whose candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination has been a secret to all but the most politically-minded of Americans, managed today to diminish his already miniscule chances.

In a speech to a Jewish group, Thompson approvingly referred to a centuries-old negative stereotype of Jews. He later apologized, but the remark could not be dismissed as a mere slip of the tongue.

Atrios has the story.

What I don't understand about Thompson is why he thinks his bid for the White House is worth the bother. Absent the most unlikely sequence of events imaginable, he isn't going to make it. Maybe he sees himself as a dark horse candidate for the vice-presidential nomination on the basis of geography and his Catholicism.

Typical Fox News watcher: Duh!

A new poll shows that regular viewers of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" and regular readers of newspapers are more knowledgeable on national affairs than are regular watchers of the Fox News Channel.

Moreover, survey results showed more Republicans than Democrats in the least-aware group of respondents.

Of course, readers of The Rockford Rascal are far too few to have been included in the poll, but they doubtless would have acquitted themselves well.