Detective Inspector Menzies: “Did you set this up to make us look stupid. Planting an…”

The 6th Doctor:   “An? An what? Something beginning with a vowel? Something beginning with an A perhaps?”

Doctor Who, The Condemned 2008 Big Finish #105

Today the MSM finally discovered the Susan G. Komen story that’s I wrote about two days ago, and as you might guess the coverage was not only one-sided but on MSNBC was missing something:

Here is a clip of Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray on Andrea Mitchel:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(I thought Mitchell’s “where ‘we‘ should go from here was telling”)

The show was followed by Tameron Hall’s show News Nation which had Barbara Lee who went through a list of all the great things that Planned parenthood does (no video is available yet).

On both of these shows the guests expounded on all the wonderful things that Planned Parent does, however they seemed to miss something, something that accounts for 91% of their business of their dealings with pregnant women, something beginning with an A.

For some reason Planned Parenthood’s primary business Abortion is that which can’t be named.

Language is very revealing. You can always tell when someone is losing an argument by the arguments they use or do not use.

That’s why although I disagree with Megan McArdle on abortion I can at least respect her for this:

Though I’m pro-choice, I don’t share the outrage that was roiling my Twitter feed this morning. It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision. Since I think this is a very tough issue on which reasonable people can disagree, I can see why the federal government, and private foundations, would decline to fund their operations.

I guess we must conclude from their choice of words that Andrea Mitchell’s and Tameron Hall’s guests know how to count too.

Update: Apparently our fiends on the left are not big on the free choice of Susan G. Komen.

Update 2: What was that I said about math?

Nevertheless, since cutting ties, Brinker announced that Komen’s donations have gone up in the last two days — by 100 percent.

“Our donations are up 100 percent in the past two days. With all of the emotion around these issues — which we understand, we get emotional too, we do this every single day of our lives,” Brinker said, explaining that they do not make decisions to be popular, they make them to fight cancer.

Like I said, the math doesn’t lie

Update 3: I should have said that 91% of pregenant woman who go to Planned Parenthood have abortions rather than 91% of their business, but to ignore the Abortion business in planned parenthood is to ignore the slavery in the south pre-1860

The second in my series of the GOP candidates for president

Newt Gingrich Former Congressman from Georgia, Former Speaker of the House

The Case for:

1. Leadership: Newt Gingrich is a leader, he presents a dynamic image of leading from the front to take the county where it should be.

2. Conservative History: Newt Gingrich was the leader of the GOP when they successfully took the house after over 40 years in the wilderness, at a time when the very concept of a Republican house was a joke to people.

3. Congressional Success: Gingrich has two decades in congress and two terms as Speaker of the House under his belt. He is intimately familiar with how bills get passed and how the congress works. This is mighty handy when you want to get your agenda passed and moreover he has an actual record of success on Welfare reform and Budget issues that this administration can’t match.

4. Passion/Endurance: Newt Gingrich is a fighter, there is no question that he is not intimidated by either the media or the left and would be willing to fight back against any attack as he demonstrated against Nancy Pelosi just last month.

5. Knowledge: Gingrich has encyclopedic knowledge about so many issues it’s hard to keep up with him. He can not only articulate issues, but the history and the philosophy behind them.

6. Base appeal: Gingrich has established a connection with the base of the party (see 1-4). He has managed to be outside of the party apparatus long enough to be able to reject the status quo that the establishment is defending. An important issue with Tea Party voters. His hits on the media excites and motivates the activists needed in a general election

7. Ideas: Newt Gingrich is an creative ideas machine at a time when creative ideas are necessary to solve huge problems.

8. Blunt Speech: Newt Gingrich’s willingness to say certain things aloud that everybody knows but nobody wants to say on subjects like Israel is not only refreshing, but there is a strength in such things (See Ronald Reagan “Evil Empire”).

The Case Against:

1. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac: No matter how you slice it or name it, Fannie and Freddie was buying Gingrich’s clout there is no credible way to argue otherwise.

2. Flip Flops: Here is something you don’t hear on Gingrich as much but Newt has been on a lot of different sides on issues. From Climate Change to the mandates for Obamacare Newt has been on the wrong side of a lot of issues including the Hoffman vs Dede race in NY.

3. Personal Issues Gingrich’s multiple affairs, divorces and marriages play very poorly with the religious, and speaks to character. Ironically the media that still celebrates Bill Clinton will not give him a pass on this. His explanations and apologies have been inarticulate.

4. PITA: People who have worked with Newt simply don’t like him, and we’ve not talking about the people who were on the other side, we are talking about the people on his own side. When your own side forces him out of leadership, that tells you something. When so few people who know him support him that tells you more.

5. Temperament: Gingrich has proven himself easily distracted if rubbed the wrong way. Gingrich charged like a bull at a red cloth when baited by the Romney campaign going all negative and off message not once but twice. There is no reason to believe that this would not be repeated in a general election.

6. Ethics Probe/scandals: Gingrich was the subject for a long ethics probe and in the end did pay a fine. The media in a general election will go long on those charges and fines.

7. Organization: Gingrich while begin generously funded by a superpac has not managed to build a strong organization nationwide to compete.

8. Polarizing figure: Gingrich is in many ways a “larger than life” figure. In many down the ticket races you will see Democrats running against Gingrich allowing them a distraction from their own attachment to Obama.

Exculpatory evidence: The record shows the ethics probe was pretty weak (even CNN declared it so in the end). Strong effective leaders often ruffle feathers. The personal issues of his marriage are old news and he has expressed contrition for them and as a former GOP leader it is natural he would support any party member no matter how liberal.

Conclusion: Newt Gingrich has his risks but he is a high reward choice. When he is on nobody does it better. He is one of the most persuasive people on the stump or in a debate. He is tough enough and nimble enough and spontaneous enough with a phrase (Food stamp president) to devastate Obama. Newt can be high maintenance. His personal life and baggage will hurt but that stuff is old and will have to be reintroduced to voters in the Obama age. Any election that is about the record of Barack Obama is a loser not only for the administration but down ticket, the strategy will be to turn the larger than life Gingrich into the issue and hope to distract the voters from Obama, and Newt from his message. That is their best card since Newt’s strong successful record on economy and budget combined with his ability to articulate it should be devastating contrast to Obama and the left in 2012.

My Biggest fear: Gingrich’s lack of discipline combined with his huge paper trail both in office and writing, makes it really easy to set a trap for him and a compliant media would certainly do their best to set that trap and exploit it. If Newt takes the bait it could turn the campaign in a weekend.

My Hunch: I suspect in a general election Newt has the best shot. He can not only match Obama in hope and change but can point to an actual record to pull it off. He is also the best positioned to take advantage of the “do nothing congress” strategy by pointing to his record during the Clinton years. As long as Romney keep baiting him away from that message it’s moot.

My advice to the Gingrich Campaign: Positive, positive, positive. The trick is to be explicitly positive while hitting Romney implicitly. Make your case on your record, on your ideas, make sure any attack is on Obama, don’t even mention Mitt. Close with something like: “This is the case for Conservatism and against Obamaism, It’s the winning case I will be happy to make to the American people and its a case that my opponents in the race can’t effectively make. It not only skewers Romney on his inability to connect it highlights your presentation advantage over both Santorum and Paul.

Played itself out yesterday as Andrew Sullivan went after his Mormonism talking about a Mormon “mask“.

Ann Althouse is unimpressed:

Imagine some friend of yours told you something like that about some other religious group. Test it with every religious group can think of, referring to political candidates that you like and dislike. Hold yourself to a neutral standard. Are you satisfied with what you’ve put out there?

Via Glenn who links to the South Park episode on Mormons and the end quote thereof,

As I said yesterday, our friends on the left who made a big fuss concerning how southern evangelicals will judge Mitt Romney over his religions will continue to hit Romney over it (if nominated) right up to election day.

This is one basic rule: It doesn’t matter how “moderate” any GOP candidate is, said candidate will be painted as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, religious fanatic.

Since the same brush is going to be pained by the left and their allies in the MSM you might as well not worry about religious or social views, in fact I’d nominate someone who not only hold social conservative views but can articulate them. I wonder who that might be?