I am told that there is a war being waged against women in this country. I had no idea I was such a reprehensible human being, but as a registered Republican, apparently I am one of the people in political fatigues, prosecuting this war. Who knew?
Now that I think about it, wasn’t it the left that lectured the rest of us that we were to dispense with martial metaphors in politics in the aftermath of Tucson? A rule for thee but not for me, it seems. But I digress.
So how did this war start? It seems to be that Rush Limbaugh — the man who was appointed by the left (not the right) as our spokesman — is a magnificently misogynistic malcontent intent on maligning my mother (and all other women as well). It also seems that one particular Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, doesn’t like birth control very much.
That, it seems, is enough to speak for the entire movement and constitute a “war.”
Pay no mind to the fact that Rush’s influence over the Republican Party is a Democratic talking point, not a reality, and that Santorum was so unappealing to Republican primary voters that he, as the supposedly conservative option, was unable to come close to beating the very moderate Mitt Romney. No, what matters is that a flood of press releases and ivory tower speeches from Democrats say that we are at war.
But when all the rhetoric and nonsense is stripped out, the picture we are left with in reality is very different. The left, you see, seems to have some dirty laundry of its own.
Enter Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen, who just insulted basically every stay-at-home mom in America. With classic arrogance, she claimed that Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, shouldn’t talk about women and the economy because she “hasn’t worked a day in her life.”
Staying home and raising five sons is apparently neither respectable work nor something that qualifies one to talk speak issues that impact women. Apparently to Rosen, all women are the same. Anyone who does not fit her preferred archetype — metropolitan, single, working women without families, it seems — is invalid and unqualified. And here I thought we were to be tolerant and understanding of lifestyles different than our own.
But more important than ignorant bloviating — so bad it had to be rebuked by not one but two senior advisors at the White House — is actual policy.
To hear the left tell it, opposing a federal government mandate that insurers provide free contraception is the preeminent women’s issue of our time. What else could be as important?
Here’s a thought: perhaps policies that actually affect how women live their daily lives? Things like being able to afford living expenses, being able to provide for their families and being free to make their own choices about what to do with their lives. Things like taking more and more money from women by constantly trying to raise taxes, making it harder for women to be providers, mothers and entrepreneurs?
The list is long. Democrats in Maryland tried to raise the gas tax. Democrats in North Carolina and Washington tried to raise the sales tax. Democrats in California are trying to raise the state’s income tax to the highest in the nation. Democrats in Connecticut already pushed through the largest tax hike in that state’s history. Democrats in Illinois increased income taxes by 66 percent.
And that is to say nothing about the disproportionately large share of job loss suffered by women in the three years of the Obama administration.
In Maine, the story is no different. Decades of Democratic rule have pushed taxes upward at every level of government, making lives harder for both women and men. Now, when an attempt is made to ease that burden, it is opposed by those same Democrats.
Let’s be honest — the idea that any large scale political movement of any kind in this country truly has a motivation to wage a “war against women” is preposterous. We all — Democrats, Republicans and everyone else — want what is best for our mothers, sisters and daughters. It is usually a good idea to assume good faith.
But good intentions aside, one side of the political spectrum is standing in a house made of glass and throwing a very hard rock. For a party with such an atrocious record on the most basic, tangible kitchen table issues that most affect women’s lives, that takes some guts.
Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.



It would be so much better if you would do your research before wasting valuable column space. True to form, you have once again shown that you are ignorant of your topic. It almost isn’t even worth arguing about. But guess what, Matt? A lot of moms don’t have the luxury of staying at home with their kids, as I’m sure many would like to. Most moms have to work full-time and raise their kids full-time, often by themselves. Let me make it simple for you: Hilary Rosen is a working mother, Ann Romney is a stay-at-home mother, and Ann Romney is not struggling economically.
The perception that only women who earn a paycheck work, and are able to provide informed, intelligent observations and analysis, is what is at issue with Rosen’s comments. Even if Ann Romney worked, her life would not be like, say, mine. She could afford a nanny, someone to handle housework, to make meals. She could take vacations, afford to keep her car repaired–she wouldn’t be worried about the cost of gas and the length of her commute.
The truth is that women who stay at home work–a lot. They do not spend their time watching soap operas and eating chocolates. They are not lacking in skills or intelligence. Liberals had no problem with Obama or Clinton consulting their wives. What is the difference with Ann? Is she not intelligent? Articulate?
The difference is that Ann, unlike most American mothers, doesn’t have to work because she is wealthy, and by all accounts has never held a job, meaning she has never had an employer that paid her a salary, and has no experience in what most people would consider “the workplace.” Rosen has already apologized and said she didn’t intend to disparage stay-at-home mothers.
What else do you want? Do you deny that most working mothers are struggling economically, or that women don’t deserve equal pay? If Republicans are so much for women and stay-at-home moms, I am waiting to see them support legislation for the Family Leave Act and equal pay. And obviously both Michele Obama and Hilary Clinton built up their own full-time careers over several decades.
You miss the point. Staying home to raise a family is work. It just happens to be unpaid work. If staying home with children is not work, then the whole childcare industry is full of people not really working; and chefs and dishwashers and laundries–they are full of non-workers too. Experience in “the workplace” covers a very broad area.
I did hear that Rosen apologized, and I graciously accept her apology.I think many families–whether they have working women, or at-home women, are struggling economically. I also think President Obama’s administration has made things worse for those families. I think women deserve equal pay,but I don’t think the government should mandate this based on what they consider equal. Government mandates have a way of backfiring on the people they intend to help. (As an example of this: Once the federal government accepted “organic” standards, industry was free to exploit the loopholes while still being able to label food “organic” while others, who truly use sustainable, organic growing practices are pushed out of the market.) As a woman, I want the pay I negotiate with my employer.
No one said raising a family isn’t work.
Hilary Rosen did.
Right. RGA must be truly bankrupt if they have you tweeting for them.
Mr. Gagnon is perfectly entitled to have a political day job and write a column, just as David Farmer is as well. As long as he discloses his political efforts, it’s perfectly appropriate.
My main criticism of the column is that it doesn’t consider broader evidence on policy and women’s well-being. Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act; these were the first bills signed by Presidents Obama and Clinton. It is the Democratic party that is interested in policies that allow for greater flexibility for women’s lives, which better enable them to work or stay home. And the idea that tax rates are responsible for women’s work decisions has no basis in any study. Rates were higher in the 1950s than anytime in the last 30 years yet far more women work outside of the home now.
It should be noted that the total workforce participation rate is much higher now, (while everyone is wringing their hands over “unemployment”) than in the ’50s, but families are less financially secure. Working more and more for less…
Not tax “rates”, but doesn’t tax “policy” favor those who place their child in a daycare setting, over those who choose to care for them at home? (The tax credit defrays the cost of the former but not the latter.)
As a matter of FACT, luvGSD, Ann Romney DID have a full time job, with a paycheck, before she married Mr. Romney. So, you shouldn’t take Hilary’s extreme radical thoughts to heart, as your own. You should do your research before you make an extreme radical fool of yourself.
Q. What does the GSD stand for? Grossly Stupid Debate?
Oh, BTW, I think it is extremely ironic that Hilary was hired as a media consultant to teach Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to tone down HER rhetoric.. Too funny for words!
Really, what was it? She married in 1969, their first child was born in 1970. By the way, are you insinuating that being a full-time mom is somehow less than a “full-time job, with a paycheck”?
The topic was economics. So no, she didn’t. She even clarified her remarks later. Why are you punishing her for something she didn’t say and doesn’t believe? And you call others sneering and arrogant.
She probably thinks it’s unimportant work…as if stay-at-home moms are under the spell of their male oppressors. I really thought that brand of feminism went out in the 90s.
Why do you think she thinks that? Rosen is raising a family herself.
…and you know that isn’t what she meant! You are just spinning the truth!
Often employers, especially those who employ the “working poor”, hold a most of the cards in any “negotiation”.
The terms/standards surrounding how employers and employees wield market power in any negotiation is appropriately decided via democratic processes.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the way government has handled the way companies have gone after the cache, and the profit potential of the term “organic” — just one example of an area in which large companies purchase government power that should have protected those very small farmers.
…but that doesn’t mean we should not decide such things democratically; that we should surrender our civic power to that of some imaginary “invisible hand”. We need more democracy in the workplace; labor standards decided via democratic processes.
And a lot of families can’t afford a thousand dollars a month per month per child for day care, let alone the additional costs of raising children in a two earner household. It only makes sense if the second earner earns more than they would spend for things like that.
For many families the only way they CAN raise kids is to stay home… you have three kids, the pre-school/daycare bill would be outrageous and staying home is the only option.
Ann Romney didn’t “need” to stay home from a financial perspective, but she chose to because she wanted to be there to raise her kids. The sneering, arrogant attitude from the left about that choice, the assumption you can’t make that decision unless you are some kind of tycoon, and the insistence that isn’t work is the height of sanctimonious hatemongering.
By all means, continue to whine that I didn’t “do my research”… but ask yourself, if you believe what you do, why so few can afford to stay home? Think the price of gas, price of food, amount of money taken from their paycheck, amount of money paid in sales and property taxes, increased cost of premiums for health insurance due to new mandate after new mandate, might have an awful lot to do with it?
You inadvertently made my point for me. Thanks for playing.
So are you for or against a “sneering, arrogant attitude”? I look forward to when the GOP supports free day care, or at the very least tax deductions for day care, as well as the Equal Pay and Family Leave Acts, and ERA, so that women can be as free as men are to choose their course in life. Until then, I’ll vote Democrat.
Oh, I see. You get your orders from your employer, the Republican Governors Association. “Tell Obama Moms Do Work!” Never mind. (Sickening.) I believe they call that double-dipping.
BDN, is this what you’re paying for?
I don’t know Matt, I think your reaching a bit. I think it’s more probable that Mrs. Romney choose to stay home so she could oversee the Nanny, the Cook, the Maid, the Butler, the Groundskeeper, and the Poolboy.
Matt these people aren’t even on the same planet we are financially speaking. That is why it is so disengenuous when Mitt Romney states “I ask my wife what women in America want”. She may be able to tell him what NBA team owners wive’s want, or NASCAR owners wives, but not wives of people like you and me.
I disagree. Ann Romney’s assessment of what this woman wants is much more on target than Michele Obama or President Obama.
Your simply restating my argument for me, Niether the Obamas nor the Romney’s are in any way in touch with the common people of this country. They live in a bubble of the uber rich and powerful, and have no contact with the reality that is the USA. For you to place your faith in either one of them is naive.
The Obamas used hard work and high IQs to get where they are. Romneys used their old family trust systems to get where they are.
Hey Matt look at the bright side. At least this article is getting some response unlike the last one you did. I think that only had one comment didn’t it?
Seriously? I am consistently the most commented on writer on the opinion pages… sometimes I write columns that I know aren’t going to generate much discussion, none the less. It happens. Is this a serious comment?
No more serious a comment than the insulting diatribe of right wing propaganda you espouse; if you truly believe you are the most commented writer on the opinion page than your self importance is as inflated as the propagandist hyperbole you spew.
Not only was it a serious comment it was also a truthful one as well.
You might be “most commented on”, but there is a difference between infamy and fame.
As I posted initially, his essays are so ill-informed they’re hardly worth commenting on. Now that we see he’s just repeating what he is paid to tweet for the RGA, everything he writes here is basically meaningless.
“And a lot of families can’t afford a thousand dollars a month per month per child for day care, let alone the additional costs of raising children in a two earner household.”You think that’s how people make the decision about whether to stay home? Only somebody already reasonably well off has the OPTION of staying home. The rest find a relative or friend or friendly acquaintance and leave the kids with them during the day. If they have no one, and they don’t want to leave their kids alone all day, they end up on welfare, where they will be demonized by surrogates for the Republican Party.
I’m a Progressive; I’ve made that choice. Not afraid of being poor, my decision was never in doubt.
I didn’t care for the comment made about Ann Romney. The fact that she has never, herself faced the financial concerns that loom so large in women’s lives doesn’t mean she is incapable of understanding — I just don’t believe she does.
Eleanor Roosevelt never suffered from the financial strain on the poor, but empathized very deeply. I wish Mrs. “I don’t consider myself rich” was blessed with that same quality…
As for the “staying home is a luxury” nonsense… perhaps you should have “done your research”:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/stay-at-home-motherhood-isnt-a-luxury-census
You actually have it massively backwards. Upper class, highly educated women are the ones who tend to be able to afford to work, because they make enough money to make it worth it (basically what I was saying before)… while it is the less well to do families that are much more likely to see the woman (or man) stay home out of economic necessity.
No one who has seen my son’s pre-school bill would argue that two people working is an economic benefit, unless your income is substantial.
Right. Stick to tweeting for the RGA.
From the article you cite :
“The data, though, don’t support the impression that staying at home is a luxury. A detailed 2010 studyby two Census Bureau sociologist, in fact, found the opposite: While stay-at-home motherhood has become less common over time, the women who stay at home are increasingly those whose low education means they can’t earn enough money to making working outside the home worthwhile.”
So you get an “F” for reading comprehension.
He understood it perfectly well, actually. He all but repeated it.
Our tax, and social welfare policies incentivize the poor to keep their subsistence-level jobs at all costs.
Before becoming a “Radical Homemaker” at 29, I worked in Economic Development, or “chasing smokestacks and throwing taxpayers’ money at them”… I have seen the strain on working poor families with one or two incomes; employers wielding their disproportionate market power to spare themselves the inconvenience of accommodating family-friendly labor standards; latchkey children and basic needs unmet — placing employers that DO at a significant disadvantage. I’ve seen the fear that keeps the working poor from even approaching a negotiating table… These decisions, that affect people’s lives are being made very un-democratically by corporate power run-amok. Our labor standards assume everyone has a wife at home! A more democratic (small “d”) manner of setting labor standards would be a Godsend to women and families.
At least Bush had sense enough to fear destitution en masse, by expanding food stamps and some tax credits for poorer Americans. Today’s Republicans? “Let them eat cake!”
Though, technically, poor, we raise vegetables, fruit, nuts, eggs, meat maple sugar, etc. and strive for optimal self-sufficiency. Our clothing, and one car are worn out, but we hold no revolving debt. We happily pay our taxes. I have no patience when those of the most prosperous generation in our history tell me we cannot “afford” the level of public wealth and infrastructure; especially education for K-12 and higher.
A Progressive with a Libertarian streak, I don’t want to be oppressed by big government OR big business. Though I am not a Democrat, I find that Republican administrations tend towards the worst of all worlds. I hold a much more egalitarian world view. They not only spend more of MY tax money, but on all of the wrong things — corporate welfare/tax incentives; while gobbling up our “commons”; OUR wealth, in a modern-day “enclosure” movement that impoverishes us all.
This is bass ackwards, neighbor. People don’t stay home out of economic necessity, they work out of necessity. Fewer each passing year are able to elect to stay home to raise their children. Your claim is disturbingly out of touch with the realities of the day.
Most moms work now and have to pay childcare expenses. This reduces their disposable income but they still need the money to make ends meet. Even if they net only a few dollars an hour, they need to continue to work.
Three decades of wage stagnation have resulted in fewer stay at home parents. That is the economic reality. Just to maintain a home, cars and basic needs, most families require two incomes. The social fallout from this trend is disturbing. One of the major reasons our children are not performing as well in schools relates back to this trend.
Unless wages begin to move higher (a conservative nightmare) families will be left weakened by the need to have both parents working. This is what laissez faire and greed at the top have brought us.
Great you can afford an expensive pre-school. Most working parents are forced to rely on local, no-frills child care delivered at the cheapest price they can find.
Thou protesteth too much. If the GOP valued women as much as it says it does, why are there only 20 GOP women in Congress (VS 45 Democratic women), and why has the number been steadily reduced? Why would the GOP schedule a hearing on women’s health and not invite a single woman to testify? Why would three female Republican Senators describe the GOP’s push for restrictions on contraception as an “attack on women’? As a husband and a daughter’s father I most certainly believe that the GOP has been systematically working towards making the lives of women more difficult. Reduced availability of contraceptives equals more unwanted pregnancies, in and outside of marriage. Almost all pregnancies have unavoidable economic consequences. Restrictions on abortion equal fewer options for women to control their economic circumstances. Describe the impact of the GOP’s current ideology on women’s lives any way you want but it isn’t exactly positive.
I should not be paying for anyone else’s contraceptives. Period. Getting pregnant is the responsibility of the woman and not an overburdened taxpayer. Two words: personal responsibility.
So the man has no responsibility?
And I thought the insurance company was paying for the contraceptives, which everybody who pays insurance pays for. And don’t insurance companies cover Viagra, Cialis, etc,?
Let’s think about this…
You’re not paying for anyone else’s contraceptives. Educate yourself before you post.
You are not “paying for someone else’s contraceptives”. The patients themselves, and perhaps their employers are paying insurance companies handsomely to provide prescription drug coverage.
See–this is what years of Democratic pushing of abortion and contraception as the core women’s issues lead to–even a good conservative such as ChumbyP here sees pregnancy as a woman’s problem. She didn’t get pregnant by herself.
Really? The Democrats are responsible for Chumby’s ignorance? And here he was touting “personal responsibility.” Oh the irony!
Women have been degraded by political speech, loudmouths on the radio, and family planning haters. All familieswant to provide for thechildren they care for.
The million dollar question is: what would the GOP have to gain by alienating over half of the electorate? Women’s difficulties today are not because of the Republican party.It is because they have put their faith in Democrats, who offer them abortion and government-subsidized programs. And too many women are willing to accept that as equality.
But, I sense they will wake soon and realize the Democrats are not offering them what they truly want. Women want freedom, prosperity, the ability to make decisions for themselves and their families without government interference. Republican women are brave and bold, and not afraid of personal responsibility.
I agree with you that that’s what women want, but your claims that Republicans have a monopoly on those offerings is so erroneous. I don’t think you get to be the one to define what those terms mean either, especially if you’re going to do it in unfounded and partisan blanket terms.
The “war on women” is about nothing more than mobilizing the Democratic base–that is, people who refuse to take responsibility for their personal, social, and economic situation; some of whom are women. People who have their act together, be they men or women tend to vote Republican. They’re playing on peoples’ insecurities to advance an agenda that takes power from the people and consolidates it at the federal level. More like a war on free Americans.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2F18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html&h=qAQFddn6c
“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not berestrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”. ~Betrand Russell
Matt, this is a classic straw man argument. There’s been a gender gap since 1980 when the Republican party decided to stop support passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, which it had supported for 60 years. Compared to men, women support more spending by the government and higher taxes on upper income people. Economic issues are more important to women than contraception, but women care about birth control more than men. And women place health care and education as higher priorities than men do.
All of these are stable, long-term opinion and vote preference patterns, although the groups of women most strongly supportive of Democrats now are college-educated women and women under 30.On Ann Romney, I’ll suggest you read Ann Romney, class, and the mommy wars: http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2012/04/12/maine-politics/ann-romney-class-and-the-mommy-wars/
Nice piece Amy. I won’t comment on it, though, as I don’t wish to reveal my name via FaceBook. Is there any way you can include Disqus comments on your blog?
Thanks.
Re: the commenting — It’s a Bangor Daily News blog and they set up the options. If you want to ask someone there, you could go to http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/contact/ go to the Newsroom section and contact someone involved in the digital/on-line operations.
Heaven forbid you be public about your comments while attacking writers and commenters who are forthright about who they are.
Proving once again how well you understand women. I notice you haven’t addressed my comments addressed to you. Explain why you are tweeting for the RGA and writing here on the same subject, aka double-dipping.
(Please note my previous reply to this comment was removed.)
Sure there is a gender gap, but I think Matt is pointing out that women believe the Democrats are helping them, when the facts show the Democratic policies are holding women back.
This is not patronizing women either, any more than when commentators point out that the lower income people tend to vote against what said commentator says is their best interest–such as voting against taxes on the rich.
Charlie Webster, who is not always an eloquent guy, put it very well: “Working people in Maine – whether they drive a truck, work at Wal-Mart, hammer nails, or raise children – can count on Maine Republicans to keep our eye on the ball”
For too long, Republicans have let it be said that they are against the working people, women, racial minorities. The truth is Republicans are for freedom and prosperity for all people, regardless of income, gender or race.Republicans are not interested in playing the Mommy wars, or the race card, or the class warfare. Those issues distract from the real issues: economic prosperity, freedom and responsibility, the pursuit of happiness. It will take some time to get the message out, but it is getting out.
The gender gap has only existed since 1980? Are you fracking kidding me? Failure to support something that never existed as law somehow created a gender income gap?
As I’m discussing politics, I’m referring to the gender gap in voting.
Right, because the Democrats have really made the ERA a priority, right?
As I remember, the ERA died because it just never garnered the public support–even after several attempts at passage.
It had majority support in the polls, but it’s very hard to get three-quarters of the states to ratify constitutional amendments. Interestingly, the Republican party was the first support an ERA when it was first discussed, back in the 1920s.
“Ann Romney, Class and the Mommy Wars” ..spot on.
Women were brutally judging each other over the choices they make in raising their children LONG before this Romney/Rosen tempest-in-a-teapot.
In too many instances, poverty lies in EVERY choice. …shameful in democratic society.
I don’t think it is fair to mischaracterize what someone has said and then castigate them for a belief they don’t hold.
In regard to the strategist Rosen, the topic was what women are concerned about in political terms and it was stated that economics are primary for them. In context, Rosen’s point was that Romney hasn’t had a wage earning job. That’s not to say that raising children is easy or unimportant. Why would Rosen be saying that in a discussion about economics?
This author is smarmy. Spending too much time in Washington it seems.
You can say what you believe Rosen’s “point” was all you want. The fact is what she said and how she said it is on video. Saying, “Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life!” is just plain mean and a democratic strategists attempt to marginalize a political opponent. To assume a stay at home, non-wage earning mom has no idea about economics and how it relates to women is absurd. If we extrapolate your view, we could say that Obama has never stayed in a real job very long so how can he relate to the economics of jobs in America. His record will eventually reveal the answer.
Context matters.
And here is that context:
http://youtu.be/0vrE7DG1OWc
Just another example of the sheep using a phoney argument
to keep away from the stuff they are hiding from. I say the
libbers dislike women. They didn’t vote for Hillary did they?
They must despise women for sure. What a joke. Feed the sheep
and they will follow.
An aggressive male stance.
A defensive, passive response.
A trite, uninspired response.
Always fun to take one line out of context and run with it. For those with an interest to see the entire question and answer from Hilary Rosen on the Anderson Cooper 360 show, watch:
http://youtu.be/0vrE7DG1OWc
The main point is Hilary’s hypocritical statement that, because Ann “never worked a day in her life,” Ann couldn’t possibly be aware of the economic conditions of working women. Does anyone else find it ever so ironic that Mr. and Mrs. Obama claim knowledge of these conditions only because they go around the country talking to “real folk”. Note the numerous instances of Obama referencing “Joe from Jersey,” or “Martha from Cincinnati” who have told him of their horrible plights. At know point has Mr. Obama said he knows about the stuggles of Americans because his wife is a lawyer.
Ann Romney is no less “educated” in this regard than the Obamas. And she has gained her knowledge in exactly the same way. To say she knows nothing of the economic situation of working women is patently ridiculous, unless you admit the same is true of the President and his wife.
Both the Obama’s worked as lawyers before Barack became president. Michelle Obama also worked in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor, and as Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development.
But certainly, it is well known that any president lives in a bubble, without any chance to meet with regular people.
Which is why it is so very stupid for Obama to say, “People like me don’t need the tax breaks.” There are only a handful of people like him, former Presidents of the United States of America. He has it made for life financially, but he acts like he is just like anyone else making over $200,000.00. Yet he has the nerve to declare that people who make over $200,000.00 don’t need the the extra money that he wants them to pay in taxes! My stay at home wife who is a mom is very aware and at times concerned about making all ends meet financially even though we exceed the threshold that Obama thinks is enough.
But it’s only the money over that 200,000 mark (or 250,000 for married couples) that would be subjected to the tax increase. So, yes, someone like Obama who made ~750,000 last year doesn’t really need a tax cut, especially if comes at the cost of extending something like the payroll tax cut.
That’s a mere place to start his argument that pokes fun at statements about women’s lack of rights. He is mainly blowing off about how ridiculous he thinks women’s claims of discrimination are. Of course he is right about the dichotomy of Hilary’s statement.
On a phone call with reporters, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was asked if he supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which allows women to sue their employers for back wages if they do not receive equal pay for equal work. “We’ll get back to you,” was the response from Team Romney.
oops
Matt Gagnon must be living under a rock these days to have missed these republican volleys in the War on Women:
1. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, . . . By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states. . . .
Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html
2. legislators in 13 states have sponsored right-wing “Personhood” type bills,
http://www.resolve.org/get-involved/personhood-bills-and-ballot-initiatives.html
3. Legislators in 13 states have introduced 22 bills seeking to mandate that a woman obtain an ultrasound procedure before having an abortion.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-11/news/sns-201204111215usnewsusnwr201204090410debate.women.baapr11_1_gop-war-ultrasound-bill-poor-women
and from Moveon.org:
A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”
In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working. And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool. And hey, it’s not just kids, it’s the elderly, too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens. Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
It was but five minutes work to find, cut, and paste this evidence of the war on women – about the time it took for Matt to trot out his comments maligning Hilary Rosen for mentioning the fact that Ann Romney has never worked (outside the home) a day in her life – hardly the go-to gal for information on the economic reality of being a woman today.
According to your view of womanhood, all we care about is abortion and government handouts.
Sorry, this woman is not buying it. Ms. Romney is right on. I care about an economy that provides decent jobs so that families can afford to make the best decisions for themselves–including being able to afford to have a parent stay home to raise the children.
I am tired of women’s interests being defined by whether we can have easy abortions or not.
Unfortunately, Mrs Romney is not running for president. Mr. Romney is and he is touting policies that will make life more difficult and less financially secure for women and families. .
Bush’s policies made my life less difficult and more financially secure. Three years of living under Obama’s leadership have left me financially insecure, which has greatly complicated my life.
Please don’t pretend that policy effects are felt immediately. The global economic downturn of 2008 had nothing to do with Obama beyond his capacity as a Senator.
Here is one specific area where Obama’s policies have hindered my financial security: A couple years ago, they passed credit card reform. Obama and the Democrats were going to save us all from those evil credit card companies. The result? My interest on my cards went up by as much as 10% in the three months before the reform was to take effect–for no reason at all, except that companies were responding to the impact the law would have on their ability to raise rates after the bill went into effect. Since then, my credit limits have been lowered–no card out there is offering the type of rates I had in 2008.
Now that gas prices are remaining high, heating oil is remaining high, as is propane and electricity, and food prices keep edging up–I could really use easy access to some reasonable credit. But both access and reasonableness are no longer out there.
Note: I have never paid a credit card bill late, nor do I have any bill in collections or any other financial blemish.
So there is one policy effect felt immediately by this woman. I’m curious to know if there are other women out there who find themselves is a similar position in relation to access to reasonable credit?
That’s not Obama though, that’s your credit card company. The companies were engaging in the same practices prior, but now they’re better regulated.
You aren’t feeling this as a woman, you’re feeling this as a person. This is separate from women specific issues.
May I add also in Oklahoma, they just passed a bill that would make it legal for a doctor to lie to a pregnant woman about the health of her baby. So a doctor may withhold information, mislead or even blatantly lie to a
pregnant woman and her partner about the health of their baby if the
doctor so much as thinks that fetal test results would cause a woman to
consider abortion.
Obviously, they worry about us unethical women! Let’s not even think for a second that a pregnant woman may want to know all the information she can get in order to prepare for a baby with serious birth defects. I can’t even believe this can be legal – witholding important information because you are worried the other person may not have the same “morals” as you. Sickening! It’s malpractice and it’s now legal in Oklahoma.
Oh, and also in Wisconsin, a (Republican) state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing
single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor
in child abuse and neglect. So, while they want women to have children and not use contraception or have an abortion, if you have one and you are not married, you are a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect!
Unfortunately, there are many women in the U.S. who have declared war against themselves. I speak of those women who intentionally have babies without husbands or committed partners in the picture. That situation guarantees poverty, both for the mother and the child. I am NOT speaking of women who are widowed or divorced & are therefore single mothers.
As a paid Republican propagandist you would think that no one takes this hack’s views seriously. Guess what no one does. The space he takes up with this disinformation is a waste of ink.
One woman’s single comment hardly compares to several years of Republican efforts to deny women basic health care with the reasonable expectation that women will die because of this republican effort.
If the truth be known, the Republicans are running scared because most women support Obama and this is the GOP’s chance to dispel the notion that Republicans are responsible for the war on women! Gagnon talks of Dems spinning the truth…what is HE doing?!! Hilary Rosen ‘s question to Mrs. Romney was misconstrued…the point is that Mrs. Romney, unlike the majority of us, HAD a choice. Wish all women did! But reality is that we don’t. We are forced to work outside the home to make ends meet. Mrs. Romney did not have to experience how hard it is to work outside of the home and then come home to work again (parent). And because of that fact, Anne Romney does not have the experience to speak for her husband regarding the economy…now THAT is the truth!
Bangorlib said: “If the truth be known, the Republicans are running scared because most women support Obama”
BL, do you have this dream every night? Women are smarter than you give them credit for. “The Won” might have had the wool pulled over their eyes, in 2008 but their eyes are open, now. Please join them and smarten up?
I agree…women ARE smarter (than men) and that is why there are so many that support Obama over any GOP candidate! Polls DO show President Obama winning the support of women by double digit margins over Mitt Romney. So I respectfully suggest that you “smarten up”! Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about!
Just in case you don’t believe me, here’s a link to educate you on how strongly women support Obama: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/women-boost-obama-romney-abc-poll/story?id=16109262#.T4ioEdWnfkc
Obama led Romney 57 to 38 percent among registered female voters
surveyed, the president’s largest margin among women to date, according
to Langer Research Associates ( pdf), which produced the April 5-8 poll for ABC
So, this is by far the most disingenuous, contorted opinion piece I have read anywhere in a long time. Sure raising taxes could be considered an attack on all, however you will notice she went to the straw man of Rush instead of talking about the real legislation being passed across the country that are directed attacks on women’s rites. It has even moved past “reproductive rites.” Wisconsin just repealed the equal pay act. How is it possibly appropriate to say women should not get equal pay for doing the same job?
Agreed. This is the most poorly written opinion piece I’ve seen in a long time.
You may not identify with Rush, et al., and have disowned him, but too many conservatives do.
The limousine liberals identify Limbaugh as the face of the Republican party. Nowhere have you seen him touted as that by Republicans.