I’m John Hutcheson and I don’t approve of your damn ads

I’ve long been a political junkie especially when it comes to elections. When others gripe about political ad overload, I’ve smirked in their general di-rection, because I have the stamina to burst through election day, all the way into the mother lode of returns precinct by precinct. Until this year that is…

I cannot begin to express how sick I am of the Corker v. Ford campaign. Corker knows that Ford doesn’t peddle abortion pills to school children. Ford knows that the illegal immigrants supposedly part of Corker’s work force were buried deep in a sub-contract. Corker early on promised not to bring Ford’s family into the fray, but when the going got tough, guess what. None of this is to say that either side approaches the angels on these issues, as much as each of them would like to proclaim their godliness.

Did you know that the United States is ranked 32nd in the world in infant mortality? Didn’t hear much about that in the campaign did ya?

An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

Did you know that over 46 MILLION American citizens are not covered by health insurance? Did you know that despite this lack of coverage these people still get sick, many critically so? Do you know who pays for their visits to the emergency room? I missed any scintilla of serious discussion on this issue.

The RNCC is happy to explain how Ford once went to a party sponsored by Playboy. Ford is more than eager to belittle Corker’s integrity on vague ‘tax’ problems. Thanks, but no thanks.

Oh sure, they say they are the RIGHT person, but any semblance of a serious plan for any serious issue is as rare as a White House staffer who admits they talked regularly with Ted Haggard.

Did you know that Corker ran over 12,000 freaking ads this year? I don’t know how many Ford ran, but as i remarked elsewhere, I don’t feel that my dreams are complete until one of the two candidates approve.

For once I’ll be glad the political campaign is over. One of the guys will obviously win, but in my mind, we’ve already lost.

Lunch update – 11/06 – Imagine my surprise when I checked the comment section for this post – a Mr. Douglas Johnson from the National Right to Life Committee responded to a post decrying the state of political advertising in the Ford v Corker campaign with…A POLITICAL AD of his own.

I was not trying to say that Ford was pro-life or pro-choice. The intent of my semi-rant was to complain about the shallow issue-avoiding nature of the political advertising in said campaign.

Obviously Mr. Johnson was googling blogs that mentioned Ford and anything about abortion because I can’t imagine him wasting his boilerplate material on a back-water blog like mine.

I would like to ask Mr. Johnson the same question I ask Pro-Lifers everywhere: Since you are so concerned with the life of the child from conception to birth, would you stand with me (and many others) in requesting more funding for the WIC program, and in researching why our infant mortality rate in the US is worse than some third world countries? Or, do you only care under the baby POPS???



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “I’m John Hutcheson and I don’t approve of your damn ads

  1. Well said, Hutchmo. I agree that the energy and money spent on these things could really change the world.

  2. While this may be beside your main point, for the record, Mr. Ford has (1) voted repeatedly to pave the way for licensing of the RU-486 abortion pill in the United States, (2) has voted to permit access to abortion for minors under quite permissive circumstances, and (3) has voted consistently in favor of repealing the Hyde Amendment and other laws that restrict federal funding of abortion, without regard to the age of the person seeking the abortion.

    During Ford’s tenure in the House, he was present for two roll call votes (in 1998 and 1999) on an amendment offered by pro-life Rep. Tom Coburn. The purpose of the Coburn Amendment was to prevent the FDA from approving a pending application to market the French abortion pill, RU-486. RU-486 is not the so-called “morning-after pill.” Rather, everyone agrees that RU-486 is indeed an “abortion pill” (i.e., a drug that kills a developing human during the first trimester).

    On both occasions, the Coburn Amendment passed the House, but on both occasions, Ford voted no. The Senate never voted on the amendment, which was under a veto threat from President Clinton, and it was never enacted. Thus, Ford’s position ultimately prevailed, and in 2000, the FDA approved marketing of the RU-486 abortion pill.

    So what about “school children”? Abortion clinics accept clients of all ages, and a substantial fraction of all abortions are performed on minors, including females of junior-high-school age and even younger. Since RU-486 was approved (due to the defeat of the Coburn Amendment, which Ford opposed), many of these abortions on minors are now performed with this abortion pill.

    Some states have laws that say a minor must receive consent from one parent, but these laws also must say (by decree of the Supreme Court) that every minor, of any age, has the option of getting a waiver from a state court, and once requested, these waivers generally cannot be denied or delayed. Tennessee has such a law — the minor must receive consent of one parent, or or a judicial waiver, before an abortion may be performed. However, the U.S. House last year considered a bill to deal with the question of whether parental notification or consent should be required when a minor crosses state lines to seek an abortion in a state other than her home state. Opponents offered a gutting amendment (the Jackson Lee Amendment) that would have authorized, among others, any “clergy person” to transport minors across state lines for abortions without notice to a parent. Ford voted in favor of the Jackson Lee Amendment.

    This amendment was defeated, and the bill passed (with Ford voting aye on final passage), but Ford’s vote for this killer amendment provides a snapshot of his real opinion about parental rights with respect to abortion. The Jackson Lee Amendment would have conferred parental authority, with respect to abortion, on (among others) anybody deemed “clergy,” including clergy-abusers, cult leaders, clergy in the employ of abortion providers, etc. To illustrate the absurdity of conferring parental authority on anybody with “clergy” status, I went to the website of the Universal Life Church and obtained ordination credentials for myself. (http://www.ulc.net/) It was free. I was not required to affirm any particular set of beliefs. Indeed, I was not required to answer any questions, except to provide a true legal name and address. The Universal Life Church credentials are legally recognized in every state. Do you think they give me the right to take your daughter for an abortion without your knowledge? I don’t, but that’s how Harold Ford voted. (Jackson-Lee Amendment, April 27, 2005, House Roll Call Number 142).

    So, then, does Ford want to “give the abortion pill to schoolchildren”? Let’s review. Ford voted twice to allow the RU-486 abortion pill to be marketed in the U.S. He got his way, and now it is often used to perform abortions on minor girls. He thinks these abortions should be allowed even without parental notification, if a “clergy person” (or a mother-in-law, or certain other non-parents) say it is okay.

    Since Ford has also voted for federal funding of abortion every time that issue came up, if he had his way, it would be the taxpayer paying for many of those abortion pills.

    Douglas Johnson
    Legislative Director
    National Right to Life Committee

    Summary of Ford’s 10-year record on abortion issues — 87% against the pro-life side — here:

  3. Quite a slippery slope, questioning clergy based on where they recieved credentials. Would one Christian sect feel that another’s “spiritual training” is somehow inadequate, and thereby questionable?

    Sorry I can’t let the framing that Mr. Johnson uses when referring to RU486. Calling the use of that pill an abortion is akin to saying that the death penalty is a retro-active abortion. There isn’t a “pro-life” advocate I know that has any credibilty with me, unless they also fight the dealth penalty with equal fervor. Lastly, on the notion that a parent/child relationship is alway available to minors seeking relief from a poor decision, I would argue that if said parent were available, said minor may have not found themselves in that position to begin with. I’m reluctant to be in the position of defending Ford, particularly since he tattoed that cross on his forehead, but in this vote, he showed that real world common sense should win out over ideology.

  4. Oh look. Isn’t that cute? A political ad in the comment section of a post decrying political ads!

  5. John, I share your disdain… I just don’t believe that either of us are angry enough.

    And I approve of your message!

  6. Wow.
    Hutch, Kat hit it on the head. You got a political ad in your threads.
    Here’s one too:
    I approve of Hutchmo’s message. Approve, approve, approve.
    You, my friend, have a Bass waiting for you next time I see you.

  7. Quite the comment. I wonder if right-to-life protests on your front lawn are really far behind. ;0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s