Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said in an interview on Friday that mandatory ultrasounds for women hoping to get an abortion was “just a cool thing.”
During the interview with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Walker defended a bill he’d signed in 2013 that required women get the ultrasounds.
“The thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea,” Walker said. “Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids’ ultrasound and how excited they are, so that’s a lovely thing. I think about my sons who are 19 and 20, and we still have their first ultrasounds. It’s just a cool thing out there.”
He also lauded the bill’s effects.
“We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information, that more people if they saw that unborn child would make a decision to protect and keep the life of that unborn child,” Walker said.
The rules of Twitter are simple: you have 140 characters to connect, debate, and communicate with people you’ve never even met. But someone needs to explain to Ohio State Rep. Andrew Brenner (R-Powell) that the rules of Twitter doesnot mean you can call someone’s private phone number to complain about a tweet.
Talk show host Dana Loesch and her husband Chris were in the middle of vacation, and, like most people on vacation, found it hard to stay off Twitter. Chris soon found himself in a heated debate with Brenner and his wife over Glenn Beck’s announcement that he would deliver trucks of supplies and toys to 60,000 migrant children on the border. (For the record, the Brenners equated Beck’s act with amnesty towards illegal immigrants, while Chris simply said that the pundit was acting charitably as a private citizen.)
Yep; normal, run-of-the-mill Twitter debating. And then this happened:
Are you not an elected official @andrewbrenner ?? Why are you calling my husband on our vacation to yell at him on immigration? SERIOUSLY
It’s unclear how Brenner got Chris’s number, or whether the two of them were on close terms before this went down. Nor is it clear whether the Brenners realize how insane it is to call people they barely know on a private number because they didn’t like a tweet of theirs, as an observer pointed out:
CNN’s abandonment of news to climb in bed with the tea party has turned into an epic disaster as the network has lost 52% of its viewers.
In a month where all three cable networks had ratings declines, no one did as badly as CNN. The network lost 52% of their total viewers (Run, Anderson, run. Imagine what a Cooper/Maddow primetime could do for MSNBC). Wolf Blitzer’s The Situation Room was down 46% in total viewers and 61% in the demo. How bad for have things gotten for CNN? In my recent travels, I passed through four airports, and not a single one had CNN on. The channel that I have been seeing more public televisions tuned to is The Weather Channel. Yes, even the weather is more interesting than CNN.
CNN’s problems started when the network bosses got the bright idea that they should try to copy Fox News, and move to the right. After climbing into bed with the Tea Party Express and hiring far right wingers Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch led to the current ratings disaster, what would you expect CNN to do?
If you said hire more right wingers and conservatives, congratulations, you are qualified for an upper management position at CNN. The network’s latest hire, Fox News cast-off Margaret Hoover, let the cat out the bag, “Executives at CNN have been looking for fresh faces and new talent with conservative perspectives, and in the end, offered me an opportunity that was too good to pass up. Indeed, competition, that sturdy pillar of capitalism, is alive and well in the cable news industry.”
Despite the fact that their network is dying because they hired a bunch of conservatives, executives at CNN are looking to hire… more….conservatives.
This week, a Virginia state House committee overwhelmingly approved a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound before they can have an abortion. Because the majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, many women would have to undergo an invasive procedure “in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced,” as Dahlia Lithwick explained last week.
CNN contributor and Andrew Breitbart blogger Dana Loesch, however, sees no problem with a law that effectively legalizes state-sponsored rape, saying the procedure is no different than penetration that occurred during consensual intercourse that “resulted in the pregnancy,” as Little Green Footballs reported:
LOESCH: That’s the big thing that progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth. […] There were individuals saying, “Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.
Unfortunately, such a radical view isn’t unique to conservative talking heads like Loesch. According to Lithwick, an unnamed Republican delegate made the same argument in support of the bill, saying women consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”
It took CNN from Sunday evening or Monday morning until Wednesday to decide tosuspend Roland Martin for his homophobic tweets during the Super Bowl. The network’s decision to act sets a standard that they have some basic values that apply to their contributors’ public statements not only on CNN but elsewhere. But does this standard apply only to Roland Martin?
“Here is a story to make you laugh for the day…An Occupy DC protester was shot by stun gun yesterday afternoon,” [Erik] Erickson said on his radio show on Tuesday. “Watching a hippie protester get tased just makes my day.”
CNN’s official position was that “CNN contributors’ views are their own.” In fact, we have to figure that’s the sort of thing CNN hired Erickson to say, since by the time they hired him he had a long record of statements like, “The nation loses the only goat f*&king child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter’s retirement.”
It’s not just Erickson. Just a month ago, Dana Loesch used her radio show to say, “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too.”
Then, too, CNN’s position was that “CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.”
But by suspending Martin, the network has accepted ownership of Erickson and Loesch’s public statements on their radio shows, Twitter accounts and in other venues. Even if they don’t want to retroactively apply a new standard to months-old statements, just this week—days after Martin’s offensive tweets—Loesch suggested that the NAACP’s Ben Jealous must have been “inebriated” to have said that voter ID laws suppress the black vote.
CNN would not directly address the decision to suspend Martin while not suspending Loesch and Erickson, though a CNN executive did tell me over email that the network was looking to “raise the bar” on professionalism.
How low does CNN’s bar have to be set right now to keep allowing Erik Erickson and Dana Loesch over it? Or does the network have some justification for why Erickson and Loesch are exempt from notions of professionalism?