ATTITUDES & ABBOTT BEHIND BRUTAL ABORTION STUNT

The Abbot supporter behind the LA hit

What's the Texas connection behind the instantly infamous "Abortion Barbie" stunt that even the Abbott campaign (but not Abbott himself) denounced?

Kolten Parker at the San Antonio Express-News and Wayne Slater at the Dallas Morning News have provided tantalizing glimpses. But there's more to the story... 

Parker unearthed the Texas connection through some sharp reporting in "Conservative Midland woman funds 'Abortion Barbie' posters in Hollywood." 

Kathryn Stuard told the San Antonio Express-News she donated an undisclosed amount to conservative street artist “Sabo” to create the posters.

“It hits people with the truth,” said Stuard, 53. “The artist is very edgy… I do support (Greg) Abbott but the campaign had nothing to do with these (posters).”

But then, after Parker published his piece, Stuard publicly requested a correction via Twitter where she goes by "#DUDE! I'M#BOSSY!!

"I said I helped fund the artist's ongoing project. I never commissioned or asked him to do this 'for me.' Please correct."

How Parker found her

Did Parker misrepresent Stuard's involvement? Was she something of an unwitting party here? She supported "ongoing work" but not this specific, tasteless prank. Can you really blame a patron of the arts when a beneficiary of their largess steps over the line? 

Parker responded to defend his work. "I see no reason for a correction, nothing is inaccurate and the info is attributed correctly. Am I missing something?" 

He also provided an email from the prankster (see right) that pointed to his benefactor. It also provided the needed clues to track her down to Texas from her otherwise obscure name on the posters. 

With this, Stuard immediately backed down from her request for a correction. But I still had some questions. So I tweeted her.

INTO A TWITTER TIZZY:

A cordial discussion until...BURP! 

Unfortunately, Twitter isn't well-designed to handle a back-and-forth, especially with more than two people involved. Let's unpack this.

Basically, Stuard continued to distance herself. How is it that her name ended up on all of the posters? A misunderstanding. "I did not ask for any approval or review. They are his expressions He is the artist"

Then, an associate - apparently the person who connected Stuard to Los Angeles - jumped in. More about "Bossy Rock Princess" ("Rock Prin" on Facebook, but let's just call her BRP) and her expletive-laced "style" later.

"Thanks for being our voice"

Now, the problem here is that Stuard's statements and actions elsewhere seem to contradict this. On Facebook, she said "I donated to get these up. Have had press calling this afternoon." A friend replied "Wow. Thank you for being our voice...Hope it doesn't backfire on Abbott."

I posted this for her response (see right). Still, in the back-and-forth, she insisted that there was an arms-length relationship here. 

I donated. Gave money. No ROI... Just like if you had a message I liked I'd donate to your cause. To support artist so he can get his work out. It's always a secret. Ya don't know....All I knew it was art going up where she was speaking....

Let's take her at her word. 

Blasted out all through the day on Twitter

But what about her hands-on work promoting this once it was out? As the posters hit the streets Thursday morning, Stuard was hammering away all day on Twitter marketing it. "Look what went up all over LA!" she declared, over and again, including an image of the posters and the prankster. She posted this some twenty-seven times in the hours after it hit the street, with innumerable other postings to promote it. She did not, however, disclose her direct connection.  

Now, looking back in her Twitter feed, it seems that she made other contributions to the effort. On May 16th, she put out a call for general support, then a very specific pitch. She retweeted BRP's message "Need funds to plaster Los Angeles with posters when #AbortionBarbie comes to town next week!"    

WHY THE BACKPEDALING?

The May 16 pitch

Given all this, it's hard to imagine a greater level of commitment short of helping put up the posters herself. Still, there was no direct connection until Stuard confirmed it when she spoke to the reporter that afternoon. The back backpedaling started after Parker's story hit the street, when it became clear that the Texas connection with funding from an Abbott supporter would be of great interest - and concern.  

Also, it is worth noting that Stuard had received negative feedback during her promotions. Some conservatives didn't think that was appropriate. "Benghazi Sentinel" wondered "Do little girls need this?" 

"It's a smack in their (Liberals) face," she replied. 

"That's really over the top and seriously wacky...hate to be the mother who has to explain this stuff," he answered.

Then, there was her Facebook friend's concern, "Hope it doesn't backfire on Abbott."

Now, Stuard had a compatriot throughout this entire experience, and certainly during our Twitter exchange. 

The Princess doth protest too much, methinks

BRP's part here is telling. "Attacking an innocent citizen funding art cuz u can't tie it to Abbott or GOP PATHETIC" 

First, "an innocent citizen funding art"? Stuard knew this was a donation for negative messaging against a political opponent. She had made her opinions about Wendy Davis plain in rehashes of the fracas about her biography in January. And now? She'd paid "...to plaster Los Angeles with posters when #AbortionBarbie comes to town..."

And "can't tie to Abbott or GOP"? Stuard did that herself the moment she identified herself as an Abbott supporter. What's worse, her friend thanking her for "being our voice," while having concerns for the campaign's exposure makes the connection clear. Is the prank's "message" some aberrant attitude, or does it reflect views embraces by Abbott's supporters? Tellingly, the Facebook post disappeared shortly after I posted it.  

WHERE STUARD SURPRISES

All that being said, Stuard should not be dismissed altogether as some blind ideologue. Instead, she's an example of the ills Far Right ideology has brought to the cause of good governance.  She is not a media professional. She's an occasional blogger and introduced herself online last year as a "Stomping Mad Mom in Midland." A mother of five, in fact. 

Now she finds herself unexpectedly in a media frenzy. I don't imagine that this attention was exactly what she was hoping for, much less expecting.Reading Wayne Slater's take in the Dallas Morning News (“Abortion Barbie” posters depicting Wendy Davis as a pregnant Barbie doll appear in Los Angeles), I found myself wondering about her opinions. He quotes her as saying “...If we’re going to have abortion, can’t they just be safe?” 

Now, that last intrigued me. Does she actually have a nuanced view on abortion?

So I Tweeted her about this. Here initial reply wasn't promising.

"I'm certainly not in support of unsafe, non hospital privileged clinics. Hear of Gosnell?"

But I persisted. I pressed her again. "Gosnell is a criminal. We're talking about LEGAL abortion. So you are pro-choice?"

Then she surprised me. 

Was it possible that we could find common ground?

"We agree? REDUCING abortion requires good public policy/health. Attempts to "end" or ban not helpful/realistic.

Her reply?

Now, what if we really do stay planted in reality?  What if we start trusting public health to public health professionals and physicians with health care....and set aside ideology to focus on best practices, practical solutions and positive outcomes? 

Here's where today's radicalized GOP runs into problems. Traditionally, conservatives have operated in the realm of reality. What to do when radical politics and practicality intersects? The reality is that Kathyrn Stuard is NOT the stereotypical anti-abortion activist that some would see her as. Is it possible for Stuard to see that the stereotype she has of Wendy Davis isn't accurate, either?  Is it possible to set aside labels and look to practical solutions for reducing unwanted pregnancies - and with them, abortions - even if they come from Texas Democrats?

THE "BUT THEY DO IT, TOO" EXCUSE

Now, let's look at this from a different angle. Is there some way that Stuard's prank can, somehow, be justified? 

In our back-and-forth, Stuard repeatedly attempted to justify her actions by citing what she sees as the equally abhorrent attacks on Greg Abbott for his handicap. She suggested that I look them up. Well, I have already written about that, particularly in regard to James O'Keefe's part in cooking up these "offences" by doctoring footage. As Jonathan Tilove reported in the Austin American Statesman:

...the most egregious edit of all is the placement of the hacking laugh. In the video released by O'Keefe, it comes when the "old woman" says "he's in a wheelchair." But in the raw footage, it comes five seconds later, with the exchange about Abbott's hair.

In other words, the headline on O'Keefe's release - which read Breaking News Video: Wendy Davis Supporters/BGTX Mock Greg Abbott's Disability - would have better read, Breaking News Video: Wendy Davis Supporters/BGTX Mock Greg Abbott's Hair.

 
Also, there's an essential contrast here between Davis and Abbott's responses to these situations. When it seemed that the inappropriate conduct from a Davis supporter was real, the candidate herself stepped up immediately to denounce it. Abbott, however, distances himself with spokespeople as he did with Stuard's prank. 

"It's not affiliated with our campaign and we find it appalling," said Abbott campaign spokesman Matt Hirsch as Slater reported. 

Are Abbott and his supporters truly appalled, or is this just public relations posturing?  

WHAT ABBOTT SUPPORTERS SAY AMONG THEMSELVES

We get another glimpse at the reality looking at Stuard's associate, the Los Angeles conservative that apparently connected her to this nastiness. While Stuard took time to courteously respond on Twitter, the same could not be said for her anonymous associate. 

Twitter devotee

"Bossy Rock Princess" was offensive, insulting and could not restrain herself from using the "F-Bomb." I had to ask "Bad case of Tourette's - or incapable of having a civil discussion?"

"Princess" is apparently part of the Twitter subculture. With over 77,600 "tweets" up...let's do the math. She posted her first in July, 2012. So she's been averaging just under 100 a day. Day in, day out, she cranks them out to over 22,000 followers.

Big audience of followers for this

Though it's hard to imagine she has time for much else, BRP did make an appearance on an internet radio station, "We are America Radio,"  following the prank. This is part of the same site where Stuard blogs. BRP comes on for the last half-hour to detail what happened, and what it represents. 

"It's time to stop letting the establishment decide how we want to run our campaigns and how we want to support our candidates. We can go bold, edgy in your face...." she says. What's especially noteworthy, in light of James O'Keefe's manufactured video about Davis' supporters, is the laughter here from the host:

All this comes down to the question I raised earlier: 

Is the prank's "message" some aberrant attitude, or does it reflect views widely embraced by Abbott's supporters? 

***

FOOTNOTE:

Unlike O'Keefe's claims about Davis' supporters, this is reality.  You can check the whole show, unedited, here on Soundcloud (the segment starts at 31:00. Listen esp. through to 33:15).

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

Twitter: @inanityofsanity

FRIDAY ROUNDUP: BABA WAWA & OUR AGE OF IRRELEVANCE

When life imitates art, we need Gilda most

Saying fare thee well to Baba Wawa

I'm tone-deaf to the fanfare for the end of Barbara Walter's run on television, from an era when news was of crucial importance to an age of irrelevance. I'd credit her with pioneering the irrelevance.

Did I miss something?

Walters never really did it for me. I don't think I was able to bring myself to sit through a complete interview she conducted. That's quite an accomplishment. Despite my personal distaste for Rush Limbaugh, I have spent afternoons listening to him, appreciating his talent as a broadcaster. But Barbara Walters? She seemed little more than a publicity gimmick, a tune-out. Maybe her early stuff on the Today Show was significant. By the time I knew of her, she was better known for spoof than substance. Gilda Radner played Baba better than she did.

Now, that being said, there is ONE thing I'd like to hear from Walters - her interviewed by the superb Terry Gross. Yes, a little "Fresh Air" - a clearing of the air - would be in order. How does this icon of the television industry explain the decline of her profession, how it coincides with her career? If at all possible, Gross has what it takes to bring us to such a momentous moment of truth. It would be quite something to see Walters pressed to the point where she'd come clean the way, say, Lee Atwater did.

Of course, that's all a fantasy. Once again paraphrasing Erich Segal, being Baba Wawa means never having to say you're sorry.

What if you threw a protest & no one showed?

Speaking of non-events in our Age of Irrelevance, today's "Operation American Spring" exposed the limited numbers and commitment of the Far Right crazies that should be little more than a sideshow in today's political theater. Of the tens of millions that were supposed to show in D.C. today, the actual number was, er, somewhat smaller.

This clip from this more hysteric than historic event is telling. How to explain the abject failure? Check the rap that starts at about a minute into it as this women tells of the flooding that trapped the multitudes nearby from making it. Raised on Fox News and the like, this person apparently thinks that any BS will suffice. Do you suppose it's odd that all those people, surrounded by rising waters, should go unnoticed elsewhere. It much be another conspiracy of the Mainstream Media to deceive the American People. 

Not an Amateur Hour contestant

Speaking of the failure of the mainstream media, I was shocked by the New York Times' Edward Wyatt's Judy Milleresque reporting on the FCC's giant step towards turning the Internet into a cable TV-like big media vehicle. 

James Hepburn beat me to the punch on Daily Kos with this, so let me simply affirm his observations. I had the same experience receiving the NY Times' summation the other day about the march towards Net Inequality, what will follow fast as Net Neutrality is abandoned at the request of the large media conglomerates. I read the Times' story and had this sense of cognitive dissonance. "Did FCC Chair Wheeler do an about-face?" I wondered, reading the lede. Wyatt first reported that

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.

Would it were so! Instead, his reporting is a grotesque misrepresentation of reality as easily debunked as the hordes of "patriots" trapped by phantom waters in our nation's Capitol.

Later, the Times apparently set out to sanitize this mess by rehashing the story into a tale about different ideas of "Net Neutrality:

Federal regulators appear to share one view about so-called net neutrality: It is a good thing. But defining net neutrality? That is where things get messy.

NOT SO FAST!

If there was confusion here, it seems to have been on the part of the reporter. What's incomprehensible is that Wyatt's no rookie. He has nearly TWENTY YEARS at the Times covering this beat. This isn't a new story, nor is it confusing. In fact, it's clearly defined - or should be to any competent reporter assigned to write about this.

Net Neutrality: not news to me

Looking back to an interview I had with Vinton Cerf back in 2001, the issues were already obvious:

CL: But the FCC does not have the same regulatory responsibilities over the Internet as it does radio and TV.

Cerf: That’s been a subject of some discussion and debate. (FCC Commissioner) Harold Furchtgott-Roth would agree with you. But others would say that it does and that, for now, they’ve just held off regulating to let the new medium grow.

We could have a good debate at NAB2001 (National Association of Broadcasters trade show) if we could get Michael Powell to come out. He’s going to be under pressure because of a kind of schizophrenia that strikes Republicans. They’re split between a desire for a hands-off regulatory attitude and a concern for content – an outrage over the fact that certain things are found on the Net.

CL: What about concerns about free, open access as media giants like AOL/Time Warner try to direct those online to its content?

Cerf: AOL/Time Warner will have to skirt that with some care. Otherwise, we’ll be moving back to the time when the movie studios owned the theaters and would only play what they had produced.

So I'm going to reach out to the ombudsman at the Times. Let's see what they have to say for themselves.

Finally, another suppressed story. Or is it repressed? The BIG news overlooked from Wikileaks is that, apparently we are NOT alone. That is to say, the space aliens have been a part of our lives for some time. Or, well, supposedly that's what the diplomatic cables are about, but maybe not.

Maybe Edward Wyatt should be reassigned to this beat to clarify the matter. Using the same talents that brought us the good news about the FCC, he could also make headlines the way Orson Wells once did in bringing The War of the Worlds to life.  

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com

THE MORALISTS AND MORALS OF "ENDING ABORTION"

Can we talk?

I've been mulling over the photo I choose to go with the piece I had published in the Texas Observer this week, an expanded, more detailed look at my entry here about the "shifting religious identity of Latinos. It's about Millennials becoming "unaffiliated" and what that means for politics. Given that Millennials are NOT into the culture wars at all, what to make of the "MY GENERATION WILL END ABORTION" signs I saw here? 

I took the picture back in January, at a rally protesting the Roe v. Wade ruling on the anniversary of that landmark decision. I'd happened in on that event almost inadvertently. I'd gone to a gathering - more like a reunion - of those who'd dressed in orange last Summer to stand with Wendy Davis. I showed up appropriately arrived, but didn't know that I was dressed to protest. The gathering turned into a march on the Capitol (it helps to read the details in invitations) to counter-protest. 

Where I stepped in

Normally under such circumstances, I would NOT have worn orange. Why? When it comes down to the confrontation, I prefer to be not clearly affiliated with either side. I like to engage people on either side without preconceptions - or hostilities. It's the journalist in me trumping the activist. Or maybe it's just my curious nature. I like to get behind the scenes and the labels.

This strategy proved quite revealing last summer when I was trying to sign in to testify against HB2. There was some computer glitch in the sign-up process, and so I commiserated with some of the folks dressed in blue looking to get in the cue, too. After some small talk, one of the women shared what she found so unsettling about "Team Orange."

"What scares me is how they're all-one with this. They're all totally agreed, and we aren't. We have a hard time holding things together here because there's different opinions. But we have to pull all that together because how can we stand up to them if we don't?"

Of course, I was thinking about how I might have heard the same observation about Team Blue from my fellow progressives earlier. And I knew all-too-well from my own heart the mixed feelings here. I am pro choice, not "pro abortion."

After that, it's been hard to look at these public shows of unity from the Religious Right and not remember they are not monolithic - not even about abortion. 

Now, looking at that picture, do any of the protesters I saw at the capital in January really believe that "My Generation will END Abortion" - or, if they do, what do they mean by that?

First, as many have observed, illegalizing abortion will not "end" it. So, morally speaking, what do you gain by trying to achieve that - especially given the collateral damage done to public health that we've seen in this campaign?

One way to understand this is the desire to separate yourself from what might seem as having anything to do with abortion. Illegalizing it, I would imagine, would remove any sense of even tacitly condoning it.

What about the moral status of such an intention, especially if it does not reduce the actual number of abortions whether legal or illegal? It seems that all you can accomplish here is the ability to wash your hands of any responsibility, to feel better about yourself.

And what of allied efforts from the Religious Right to demand "abstinence only" sex education and to limit access to safe, effective birth control? We all know that proper sex education along with access to birth control actually DOES reduce the number of abortions. So, by hampering these, don't the Religious Right advocates take responsibility for the outcome of their actions - morally speaking, that is?

I suppose you could argue that you aren't responsible if you do not know.

But when religious conservatives promote a program that runs counter to simple realities that are easily demonstrable - aren't they morally obliged to find out about the results of their actions? And if they find that, despite their intentions, their actions are INCREASING the number of abortions -

In judging your moral responsibility, what's more important - intentions or outcomes? What if you know that the outcomes are BAD, but persist in your actions, insisting that you have good intentions?

I don't know whether disagreements over these kinds of issues were what was threatening Team Blue's unity last summer. Before I could get that far, the registration system was fixed, we all signed up and went out separate ways - to our separate sides.

Still, I wonder if it is possible to have a calm, honest, reasoned discussion about the morality here. If so, what could possibly be gained? Another conversation with Team Blue members at the Capital protest in January makes me doubtful.

This time, I had some explaining to do as I waded into the sea of blue wearing an orange sweatshirt. When asked about it, I simply said the truth - I live in the neighborhood, and this is UT territory. Once over that hurdle, I struck up a conversation with one woman who, it turned out, was a noted activist in that community. Another activist walked up to introduce herself and simply assumes we were connected. They discussed their work promoting abstinence-only sex education.

"But what about the public heath studies that show they aren't as effective as other approaches?" I asked.

"Well, the problem is that birth control doesn't work as well as they claim it does," the well-known activist said. "I know. I tried it and it didn't work."

The other activist agreed. She, too, had many children. Several, it would seem, were unplanned. Then she had a sudden realization.

"I thought you knew each other," she said to her fellow activist.

"No, I just met him," she responded, looking at my orange seatshirt through fresh eyes.

With that, the conversation was over.

###

Tips? Suggestions? Ideas? Drop a line to carl (at) inanityofsanity (dot) com