“Meet the ‘pursuer of nubile young females’ who helped pass Arizona’s 1864 abortion law.” — Washington Post

- - -

We here at the GOP take values very seriously. We try to project a certain image to the public so that they’ll associate us with morality. So, it’s time for us to ask an important question. Is reinstating this misogynist 1864 law written by a child rapist bad for our brand?

Look, we know we’re the good guys. We’re the ones who made this great nation a safe haven for guns and bangable M&M’s. Still, one of the men who wrote this Arizona abortion ban law was married four, maybe even five times, and all of his brides were under the age of fifteen. Is that something we want people to think about when considering the Republican Party?

Sure, it’s clear we’re the party of family values because we hate Disney and support forced birth for women and girls. And yet, maybe we should think long and hard before getting behind a law written by someone who supported the South in the Civil War. For those whose education might be lacking thanks to our knowledge-averse policies, that means he backed the people fighting to maintain the institution of slavery. But would it be bad for the Republican brand to be connected with such a person? Weren’t we supposed to be the Party of Lincoln?

Republicans have always stood for embracing the highest ideals of America, like publishing Hunter Biden porn and mocking the disabled. Just look at how we treat immigrants to get an idea of who we really are. But what about a man who abandoned his teenage wife to go to Hawaii and marry another fifteen-year-old? Is he the right role model for this party?

It’s true that, as a political party, we’re not some greedy company or businessman trying to sell stuff just to make a quick buck. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have a brand. When people go to the voting booth, they’re going to choose the party that they feel best represents them and their interests. Now let’s imagine they’re a swing voter standing there thinking about this 1864 law, which forces rape victims to give birth, and which we’ve resurrected from the legislative graveyard. Is that something that will help or harm our image? Guess that all depends on our target consumers.

I dunno, sometimes it seems that our “pro family” party may have lost our way. Remember when we were the Party of Reagan, and people somehow associated that with us championing traditional American family values, even though Reagan was literally a Hollywood actor who had an affair with Doris Day and later sold arms to Iran? Those were the days.

Anyway, we can never go back, except if it’s to 1864, that is, and a law that was written by a man who had to resign after abducting and “marrying” a twelve-year-old girl. And we know we’re all a little worried about the Republican brand, but honestly, who on earth would judge us for the moral values of a nineteenth-century douchebag? That’s even more true today because, in the twenty-first century, we nominated, for the presidential ticket, a thrice-married adulterer who sexualized girls and bragged about sexually assaulting women. And we won!

It turns out we were worried for nothing. And remember—since then, our guy has been found liable for rape, so it’s almost like our voters don’t really care about morality. Come to think of it, for the Republican party, we’re right on brand.