Republican War on Women (RWoW)

This deserves a thread of its own.

Google the phrase.

  1. Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women

    pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

    Stop the Republican War on Women. Redefining rape. Attacking the right to choose. Belitting victims of violence. The Republicans are on a rampage attacking 

This is quite clearly a freighted political catchphrase, intended so by sources like MoveOn and HuffPo.  Like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” it is intended to limit discussion of issues based on impugning motives.  Scott has been trying to make that point.

If we could define the Republican War on Women as the sum of these actions:

a failed conservative move to cut off U.S. government aid to Planned Parenthood + the Komen decision, since reversed + the attempted but failed roll back of contraception under employer health plans + the all male panel called to testify + the G’town student who was called a “slut” by Limbaugh + Santorum’s money guy’s “aspirin between the knees” comment + the vaginal insert sonogram, since abandoned in VA + the R opposition to extending the funding under the Violence against Women Act + personhood laws (thanks, Ashot), we could probably still talk about the cumulation without calling it war.

We could see it as R strategy to appeal to a fundamentalist base, that has become a bolder strategy as more and more of the active voting base of Rs claim fundamentalist religious principles, which often go far beyond the antipathy to abortion that many non-fundamentalists share.  We could see that fundamentalist faith actually does put women in a secondary role – this is true in all the Abrahamic religions.

We could see that some of the individual issues that have been tarred as part of the RWoW don’t derive their impetus from pandering to fundamentalist religion.  For example, some may derive from the desire to cut the budget.

We would not be surprised that moderate women would have no sympathy for any of the items I listed, and would be moving away from the Rs, unless some other set of issues took priority for them.

IMHO,  resisting the shorthand RWoW is worthwhile just in order to keep the issue conversation alive.  I think the same is true of other uses of the word “war” in a catchphrase intended to inflame emotions – like the WoD and the WoT.  It also cheapens the meaning of the word, fwiw.

193 Responses

  1. Why isn’t my paragraph spacing showing up on the published version?

    Like

    • Mark:

      I started to look at your post in the editor, but it said you were already editing it, so I got out. If you can’t fix it, let me know and I will give it a go.

      Like

  2. My last post on the other thread should be moved or copied here. I’d do it, nut its tedious to do so on my phone. The crux of it: if social issues aren’t driving women away from the GOP, but polling shows women shifting support to the dems & BHO, what’s causing the shift?

    TMW says there’s no change from 2008. Is this election already over?

    Like

  3. Scott, I would be grateful for the paragraph edit.

    Like

    • Mark:

      I’ve tried to fix it, but none of my changes stick. I think it might be because you are still editing it? If you can close out of it, I may have more luck.

      Like

  4. I’m guessing this is the one you wanted transferred over here, Brian:

    bsimon1970, on April 5, 2012 at 10:25 am said: Edit Comment

    Perhaps I was mistaken about there being one poll. I recall hearing the 18 point figure, for a Gallup poll cited in this story:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0403/Gender-gap-daunting-for-GOP-Why-women-s-vote-is-key

    The story also mentions a 20 point gap in a Pew poll. Another story at the Monitor cites a 13 point gap in favor of BHO in VA. The linked story also notes a poll on Congress in which women have switched back to favoring dem control.
    All this would be troubling to me if I were rooting for the GOP in November. Having said that, the reporting that attributes these gains to the recent flare-ups over social issues may be confusing correlation for causation. I haven’t seen anything yet that proves the latter.

    Again, if I were rooting for the GOP, that last bit would be cause for alarm. If women aren’t moving because of social issues, why are they moving?

    Like

  5. Brian – judging from my youngest daughter’s response, the social issues are going to increase turnout among young women.

    All my daughters are surprised that I am going to throw my vote away on Gary Johnson, most likely, but my son is not.

    LMS – I am real glad you returned. Question: would you accept my short list as indicative of what you refer to as RWoW? Is there more? Not suggesting that isn’t enough, of course… .

    Like

  6. This is quite clearly a freighted political catchphrase, intended so by sources like MoveOn and HuffPo.

    I don’t view it that way at all. Does that diminish anything I’d have to say on the matter?

    Like

  7. Mark. You are not throwing your vote away. When it’s time to stand and be counted you either say your fine with the bipartisan concensus on WoT and WoD or not. You can fix access to BC or education or other social ills outside of government.

    Ask your daughters if endless and/or drone warfare and police state tactics are the price they’re willing to pay for the welfare state. Cause that’s what D vote is. Vote R and you get less welfare.

    Like

  8. Mark, your short list is fine as far as it goes. When I have more time I’ll come up with a more extensive list. I’m not ready to concede that “War on Women” as a catch phrase is inappropriate or conversation ending. That seems a little too convenient to me among this crowd, sort of “moderate for thee, but not for me”. I don’t mean you personally of course.

    Like

    • lms:

      That seems a little too convenient to me among this crowd, sort of “moderate for thee, but not for me”.

      I don’t understand. Can you explain what you mean by this?

      Like

  9. Anyone who wants to discuss how any of this is a Republican war on women can discuss it with someone other than me at this point. It isn’t a claim I respect or have any further desire to entertain. So don’t expect me to defend anything.

    And I don’t care if anyone feels invalidated by that statement.

    Like

  10. QB- I think you’re views on this are pretty clear at this point.

    You could argue that the personhood laws being pushed in many states are part of the War. I didn’t see that on Mark’s list.

    Like

  11. QB: I appreciate the honesty. I don’t feel at all invalidated, nor do I feel you need to defend yourself in any way.

    My view that the Republican War on Women is “quite clearly a freighted political catchphrase” is simply that it’s a matter of opinion. MIA has decided that it is, but that is opinion, not fact. He is welcome to his beliefs, but “quite clearly” they are not held by all or this discussion wouldn’t be happening.

    Like

  12. My opinion is that it would more properly be called the Republican Politicians’ War on Women, since (other than an anti-abortion plank) I doubt that many, if any, of Mark’s list with ashot’s addition are official GOP positions.

    But the Party leadership isn’t doing itself any favors.

    That’s just my opinion.

    Like

    • ‘Goose, there is a constituency of those who worry themselves sick thinking the rest of us are going to hell. Santorum is especially preachy to them, and that constituency, which includes perhaps millions of females, is not so much R or conservative as it is fundamentalist. At least, it seems so to me. Next Thursday I am going to KBH’s farewell tribute luncheon in Austin. I doubt whether she will touch on this, but if she does, I will report.

      Like

  13. TMW – From bsimon’s CSM article:
    ” If Obama is to win, he will need a big women’s vote to offset an expected deficit in the men’s vote.”
    And suddenly there is a “Republican war on women?”. What a stunning coincidence!

    Is the expected deficit in the men’s vote possibly due to the Democrats War on Men (DWoM)…he asks sarcastically? I find this funny inlight of the fact that in one of my first posts I got blasted for using the term ‘wealth redistribution’ because, and I quote, “This use of provocative terms makes debate nearly impossible.”

    Like

  14. Mark:

    The post has been fixed…paragraph breaks are in.

    Like

  15. Thanks, Scott. Just read your email, as well.

    Like

  16. Mich:

    My opinion is that it would more properly be called the Republican Politicians’ War on Women…

    I think it would more properly be called the Republican war on liberal policies. Indeed, but for a couple of the examples provided, it could probably be narrowed even further to the Republican war on abortion.

    Certainly, however, if the goal is to rhetorically demonize republicans rather than accurately identify what is actually going on, “war on women” is undoubtedly a more effective approach.

    Like

    • if the goal is to rhetorically demonize republicans

      That’s always my goal! Fortunatly they often handle that on their own.

      Like

  17. Dave:

    I find this funny inlight of the fact that in one of my first posts I got blasted for using the term ‘wealth redistribution’ because, and I quote, “This use of provocative terms makes debate nearly impossible.”

    Hah! I’d forgotten about that one.

    Like

  18. I agree with the argument that the subject at hand is essentially a branding exercise form the left, designed to fire up the base. (Unusually for Dems, it seems to be working.) I don’t see, on the Republican side, a specific attack or war that targets women, but a focus on social issues that have a significant impact on women moreso than men. While I understand why women feel like they’re under attack, I think that’s an affect of the policy proposals, not a design.

    Like

  19. Dave! – mcurtis was the source, right?

    Brian – what do you think of my notion that this is an appeal to fundamentalist voters, regardless of gender?

    I agree with you and Ashot that the focus on these issues has far more impact on women. Men still get to run away from their unwanted babies, and still want unprotected sex b/c it “feels good”. Adoptions for all the unwanted kids are still a dream. Many social issues seem to affect women more, in that light.

    BTW, I have always had a high regard for the church related adoption agencies that give an unwanted child a real chance.

    Like

    • Mark:

      Men still get to run away from their unwanted babies, and still want unprotected sex b/c it “feels good”.

      Do you think it easier for men to run away from their unwanted babies today than it was, say, 50 or 60 years ago? Also, while the desire for unprotected sex has surely not changed, do you think it is easier for men to demand/get unprotected sex than it was 50 or 60 years ago?

      I don’t have any data to back it up, but my sense is that the answer to both is yes. If it is, I wonder why that would be.

      Like

      • Scott:

        Do you think it easier for men to run away from their unwanted babies today than it was, say, 50 or 60 years ago? Also, while the desire for unprotected sex has surely not changed, do you think it is easier for men to demand/get unprotected sex than it was 50 or 60 years ago?

        Obviously those are difficult to answer, but would I agree with you. Child support payments make it hard to walk away completely clean and you can end up in jail if you don’t make those payments. But obviously society is more accpeting of premarital sex, casual sex and single mothers than in the past.

        As for the second question, contraception is easier to come by and there is less stigma associated with it. But I doubt that overcomes the proliferation of casual sex that I’m guessing has occurred over the last 50-60 years.

        Like

  20. ” I think it would more properly be called the Republican war on liberal policies. Indeed, but for a couple of the examples provided, it could probably be narrowed even further to the Republican war on abortion.”

    Abortion is not a liberal policy; maintaining freedom in the form of safe & legal access to abortions is.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      Abortion is not a liberal policy

      True enough. It is a medical procedure. But I’m guessing everyone (except you?) understood that I meant liberal policies regarding abortion. My apologies if you were genuinely confused.

      Like

      • My apologies if you were genuinely confused.

        I don’t think he was confused, but I think it’s fair to make that distinction if you’re going to describe the items listed by Mark as a war on Liberal policies. Republicans often tout themselves as defenders of freedom, so I quite liked how bsimon articulated the liberal position as a defense of freedom.

        Like

        • ashot:

          I don’t think he was confused

          I don’t either.

          …but I think it’s fair to make that distinction if you’re going to describe the items listed by Mark as a war on Liberal policies.

          I wouldn’t categorize the clarification as “fair” or “unfair”, just unnecessary. There was almost certainly no confusion about my meaning, so no need to point out that abortion itself is not a liberal policy.

          I quite liked how bsimon articulated the liberal position as a defense of freedom.

          It might have made some sense had I framed the issue in an equally partisan manner, say, for example, if I had described it as a Republican war on the murder of unborn babies or some such But, of course, I didn’t. I identified the issue in a straight-forward, non-partisan way, simply calling it abortion. So really he was just taking the opportunity to gratuitously inject a partisan description where it was otherwise absent.

          I suppose that might appeal to some people.

          Like

        • I suppose that might appeal to some people.

          Well, as I stated a moment ago, I do enjoy rheorically demonizing Republicans, so….

          So really he was just taking the opportunity to gratuitously inject a partisan description where it was otherwise absent.

          You think the statement “maintaining freedom in the form of safe & legal access to abortions is” a liberal policy is a partisan statement?

          *after the fact edit…should read “partisan description”?

          Like

        • ashot:

          You think the statement “maintaining freedom in the form of safe & legal access to abortions is” a liberal policy is a partisan statement?

          Of course. Whether or not getting a legal abortion maintains freedom or subverts it is the very core of the controversy surrounding it.

          Like

  21. ” what do you think of my notion that this is an appeal to fundamentalist voters, regardless of gender?”

    I think that’s broadly accurate, in that there are a lot of socially conservative women out there.

    Like

  22. “I f Obama is to win, he will need a big women’s vote to offset an expected deficit in the men’s vote.”

    Technically true, but given that women vote in higher numbers than men, the task may not be as difficult as implied.

    Like

  23. ” But I’m guessing everyone (except you?) understood that I meant liberal policies regarding abortion.”

    It is unlike you to be so casual about the meanings of words.

    Like

  24. I’m bringing this over.

    If Republicans really are alienating women, what will be the electoral consequences for them? How much worse among women will Romney have to do to either validate or refudiate (see what I did there?) the assertion? Remember, McCain lost to Obama among women 56/43, so how much more of a drop would it take? I don’t think Obama loses, regardless of a “war on women by men and, er women” since the last unprimaried Democratic incumbent that lost was Grover Cleveland in 1889.
    Will Republican’s lose their House majority over it? What if they don’t? What if they take control of the Senate? How will we determine the outcome of this war?

    Like

    • 58-41 would be significant, I guess.

      Who was the guy who criticized your history recitation? Someone we know?

      Like

    • Right now polls have Obama winning the female vote 60/40. I thought the CSM article also said more women vote than men so I think it is a big deal. One of the CSM articles also said women voted for Republicans in 2010 and now don’t think Republicans should run Congress.

      All that said, absent exit polls where women say it was the Republican War on Women that made them vote D, I don’t think we can determine the outcome.

      Like

  25. ” So really he was just taking the opportunity to gratuitously inject a partisan description where it was otherwise absent.”

    Actually, I was following the framing I used for the Republican focus on social issues; that they’re not targetting women by design, it just happens that the social issues that rouse the base disproportionally affect women. The common characterization of liberals as being pro-abortion is similarly inaccurate. If your shorthand that liberals are for abortion is close enough, because we know what you meant, perhaps the same rule should apply to the Republican war on women.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      If your shorthand that liberals are for abortion…

      You are imagining things. I used no such shorthand. I referred to the “Republican war on abortion”.

      I could have said, I suppose, “legal abortion” and preempted this silliness, but, alas, I didn’t. As it was, I actually had originally written “abortion on demand”, but edited it out before posting because I know that some liberals take offense at the phrase, and I didn’t want my point to sound partisan. How stupid of me.

      Like

  26. “58-41 would be significant, I guess.
    Who was the guy who criticized your history recitation? Someone we know?”

    Mark, was this for me?

    Like

  27. ” Will Republican’s lose their House majority over it?”

    To soon to tell, of course; but its looking like GOP strategists should be considering that possibility.

    Like

  28. Ashot, given that D unprimaried incumbents dont lose, can we still use that as a metric? Will the Republican men and, er, women war on women effect control of the House? Senate? What’s our lesson if R’s keep the House and take the Senate?

    Like

    • can we still use that as a metric?

      Well, I sort of said no already because women appear to care about other things more than abortion. Actually to be more accurate their opinion differs from men more in areas other than abortion. If you buy into the CSM article that women care more about war and social welfare issues, then the Republican War on Women is really the Ryan budget and maybe an increased liklihood of a war with Iran if a Republican is elected.

      Like

  29. I think the Pew poll showed a 56/38 Obama Romney split on all women. I didn’t notice what the internals were though, I’m gonna look it up, could have an effect.

    Like

  30. ash

    All that said, absent exit polls where women say it was the Republican War on Women that made them vote D, I don’t think we can determine the outcome.

    I think I already indicated that the war that shall not be named (lol) may or may not be responsible for the slide in the polls and also that there are other factors, one of which I think I mentioned yesterday, fear over reversal of ACA with nothing to replace it. Anyway, I’ll quit with the RWoW for now if it’ll make everyone happy. I may come up with something better though.

    Also, I’d like to clarify something, are we not allowed to be partisan from time to time, the site seems sort of sterile to me sometimes when everyone’s bending over backwards to be polite and politically correct. Is that just me or does anyone else feel that way sometimes? Where’s the passion?

    Like

    • Is that just me or does anyone else feel that way sometimes? Where’s the passion?

      I don’t think it’s for lack of passion. I think the primary reason it feels sterile at times is that posters here are intellectually honest and therefore emphasize accuracy. That and we’ve had a few dust ups that have led people to be gun shy. It has gotten a bit more heated lately and thankfully, posters, Scott in particular, have chosen not to escalate when presented with the opportunity to do so.

      Like

  31. ” You are imagining things. I used no such shorthand. I referred to the “Republican war on abortion”.”

    Lovely reduction of context. You first called it a Republican war on liberal policies, then shortened to Republican war on abortion, which clearly means you are categorizing abortion as a liberal policy.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      which clearly means you are categorizing abortion as a liberal policy.

      Abortion, as you prompted me to clarify, is no kind of policy at all. It is a medical procedure. So what should have been clear is that I meant something other than abortion itself. Had I left my original inclination unedited, ie “abortion on demand”, this currently silliness would have been avoided, as that is indeed liberal policy. But, in an effort to avoid liberals taking offense, I deleted the on demand part. I guess that was a mistake. Again, sorry if you were genuinely confused.

      Like

  32. “What’s our lesson if R’s keep the House and take the Senate?”

    Voters are schizophrenic?

    Like

  33. Well, the Pew poll is All Voters or Registered Voters so the data about women and their impact on electoral chances are utterly meaningles and should be diregarded. I don’t even have to bother with the D/R/U or M/F split.

    On to USA Today / Gallup. Hopefully it will contain useful info of likely voters, if not, it tells us nothing and should be dismissed.

    Like

  34. ash

    Maybe that’s why I’m thinking this place isn’t really for me anymore…………I like a good dust up sometimes. I must have missed the heated part while I was sick. I’m happy if the rest of you are enjoying ATiM though, it’s informative if nothing else, and that’s always a good thing.

    Like

    • I think there have been fewer dustups because the place has been less busy. I don’t post as often, you, michi and okie hardly post. Kevin was gone for a while.

      Like

  35. BTW, I’m out for today, have family on their way over………………g’nite all.

    Like

  36. Yikes, the USA Today / Gallup is of Registered Voters. We really can’t take it seriously and indicative of anything.

    Is there any credible evidence that women are abandoning the Republicans? I haven’t found any yet.

    It’s hard not to see the publishing of this data as narrative building for political purposes rather than a serious attempt at discerning the interest of the voter, no?

    Like

  37. Thanks Mark!

    No one, as far as I know, has criticized my history recitation.

    Like

  38. Yes, it is somewhat sterile.

    A number of us have been too busy to contribute much of anything.

    But, speaking for myself, I also tired of melodrama and accusations.

    I am surprised to see you suggest that there are too few dustups, lms. I like to argue as much as anyone, but I can’t say that vigorous argument has been a positive experience lately or that there seems to be a lot of opportunity for it. I’m really not into the roller coaster ride thing.

    Like

  39. MIA – mcurtis was the source, right?

    Correct.

    MIA – Men still get to run away from their unwanted babies, and still want unprotected sex b/c it “feels good”. Adoptions for all the unwanted kids are still a dream. Many social issues seem to affect women more, in that light.

    Ahhh…I can hear the strains of “Paradise By the Dashboard Lights” in my head as I type this. Arguably men get to run away from their babies…i would venture substantially less so than years past. But how exactly do unprotected sex and adoption affect women more than men? I submit that the only social issue that affects women more than men is a child that is unwanted by the father and wanted by the mother.

    Like

  40. lms:

    the site seems sort of sterile to me sometimes when everyone’s bending over backwards to be polite and politically correct…Maybe that’s why I’m thinking this place isn’t really for me anymore…………I like a good dust up sometimes.

    Well, color me extremely confused. If it seems that people around here are walking on eggshells worried about being politically incorrect, i think you can credit that in large part to your reaction the last time we actually had a real dustup. It seems we have to walk an extremely fine line to keep you happy.

    There’s been two very different approaches here to your “war on women” claim today. One, from qb, was to dismiss it out of hand as simply unworthy of respect and undeserving of consideration. Despite my considerable sympathy for that view, I actually tried to treat your claim as at least respectable enough to challenge. Apparently neither of these is to your liking.

    So what do you want, lms? You want me to be impolite and politically incorrect about it? You want a dustup? Just let me know, because I can be plenty offensive if that is what you are looking for.

    Like

  41. Mark,

    This does not really address the charge of the RWOW but Senators Snowe and Bailey have both addressed the issue this week…the issue being..whether it’s a war or simply perception…the R’s have an ever increasing problem attracting Women voters.
    Snowe said…paraphrasing..taking us back to the 1950’s….I “believe” her remarks were directed more towards Santorum.

    But I’m here Mark simply to give you this heads up before your luncheon with KBH.
    Perhaps you’ve seen this..if not..here you go…

    http://thehill.com/video/senate/217547-gop-sen-hutchison-defends-planned-parenthood-rips-rick-perry

    Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) on Thursday defended Planned Parenthood and criticized Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for excluding the organization from the state’s healthcare program.

    “I think Planned Parenthood does mammograms, they do so much of the healthcare, the preventative healthcare, and if they’re doing that, then we need to provide those services, absolutely,” Hutchison said

    Like

  42. BTW IMO I basically agree with Troll…this Presidential election will be decided by the economy. It’s difficult to unseat an incumbent from either party barring some major economic or FP flareup

    I’m sure it’s also been pointed out that Obama had a huge lead over McCain with women in 08…however that lead seems to be growing! Same deal with the Hispanics…Obama won them last time..McCain under performed GWB in this group and that margin is also widening. Saying Obama had those constituencies last time and it’s no surprise he has them again is tantamount to saying..Obama put together a coalition that produced a rout in 08..and that coalition is not only still in place but it’s growing.

    Which leads to the real question in my mind…again with credit to Troll for already bringing it up…what does all this mean for the down ticket races…that’s where the action is most important.

    Like

  43. It’s not so much a War On Women as it is Pandering To Religious Fundamentalists, many of whom are women as well. That the views of hard-core social conservatives do not sit well with feminists or post-feminist women does not surprise me in the least.

    It does not strike me as a strong strategy but is what the Republican base is demanding.

    Like

  44. My objection here is that generally the females on this board apparently are not allowed (without much recrimination) to frame issues the way they see them But that is allowed and accepted for the right leaners.

    Like

    • okie:

      My objection here is that generally the females on this board apparently are not allowed (without much recrimination) to frame issues the way they see them But that is allowed and accepted for the right leaners.

      Please, okie.

      You are “allowed” to do whatever you want. The real problem seems to be that you want to be able to frame things as you please without being challenged. To use yello’s terms, you apparently want us to roll over and accept whatever rules you dictate without any negotiation. Sorry, but that isn’t going to happen. You can indeed frame away, but if you do so in a partisan, questionable, or patently illogical way, expect to be “soundly slapped”.

      And speaking of questionable framing, this has nothing to do with gender, and it is tiresome to have things framed yet again in this woe-unto-women manner. The notion that I am giving a free pass to, say, FB or bsimon or yello, to frame issues in any objectionable way they want, but I don’t allow “the females on this board” the same privilege has no foundation. It seems to me that the problem isn’t so much that you get treated differently here as a female, but rather that you expect to be and are not. On certain issues, you seem to expect us to defer to and accept your “female” sense of things (state mandated rape, war on women) without question, and when we don’t it upsets you. That’s expecting special treatment, not equal treatment. Sorry, but that, too, isn’t going to happen, at least with me. There’s no ladies tees on my golf course of equality. (h/t mcwing)

      As for whether those of us on the right are given a free pass to frame issues unchallenged, I’m probably not the best judge, but I’d expect that your male comrades on the left might take issue with that. And, frankly, if you think our framing of a given issue is questionable or partisan or illogical, but you let it pass, isn’t that on you? If you think we are trying to steal a base, call us on it. If you choose not to, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to then complain that we aren’t being challenged. Of course, there is a difference between being able to solidly refute a challenge and not being challenged at all. So there is that, too.

      Like

  45. Frame away, okie. Most debates are won or lost in just negotiating the rules.

    Like

  46. yjkt, it was already framed and soundly slapped.

    Like

  47. For Okie –

    RUK, it came up as the banner advert in chrome when I accessed the KBH remarks.

    Like

  48. Noted, Scott.

    Like

    • My objection here is that generally the females on this board apparently are not allowed (without much recrimination) to frame issues the way they see them But that is allowed and accepted for the right leaners.

      The problem is that you (collectively) treat any disagreement with you as illegitmate, dehumanizing, invalidating, etc. And “disagreement” as I use it there includes any failure to accept your terms of “debate,” including accusations of defending rape.

      That’s precisely what happened in the last good dustup. We were asked to defend the Virginia ultrasound law, and the thoughtful responses to that were met with a stream of accusations along the lines of “You are defending state-mandated rape,” and declarations that, in effect, men by definition cannot have any legitimate opinions, because for us to have any makes you feel invalidated.

      Now it is again War on Women. Seriously, frame away all you want, but look elsewhere for someone who wants to play Charlie Brown to your Lucy. I have a wife, mother, sister, daughter, and all the rest. I have no use for a debate that consists of my being told that I am part of a War on Women, which is then, as a bonus, going toe end in my being told that my having an opinion hurts women’s feelings and isn’t legitimate.

      If all that amounts to not “allowing” you to frame an issue, then I plead guilty, and with a completely clear conscience.

      Like

  49. Mark

    Somehow I missed that link but wow…it hit me pretty hard and sort of does settle my mind on this issue. BTW Is the D party in Texas as routed and ineffectual as the D’s here in Florida…they’re actually talking about running Sink again geessh.

    Anyway Mark thanks ever so much for providing that link. It clarified my thoughts on this subject like no poster or pundit has done.

    Listening to the young lady on that video made me realize. If Governor Rick Perry and the R’s get their way and defund Planned Parenthood and say 100,000 women don’t get mammograms or pap smears because of that decision…what if some of them die because of lack of early detection? Would those ladies be casualties of a “war” or simply casualties of politics.

    After reading all of your cogent, thoughtful replies I’m saddened greatly by this entire thread! While we are arguing semantics and political strategy, decisions are being made that will literally cost women their lives.

    IMO I don’t care whether you call it a war or not…but I love the ladies…I don’t want to any of them die…NEEDLESSLY!!!

    I don’t want any of them humiliated NEEDLESSLY with totally unnecessary medical procedures because religious beliefs are trumping the law of the land.

    Like

  50. I think I agree with the fundamentalist/pandering to the base explanation for the legislative and verbal attacks on reproductive issues we’ve seen over the last couple of years. Like yello, I doubt it’s been the best strategy for Republicans but whether the polling numbers hold and Democrats capitalize on the swing of women remains to be seen.

    I don’t think I’ll use the term WoW again as it seems not to have been very well received, although from my perspective and a lot of especially young women I know, that is the perception. Whatever, I’m all for keeping the peace.

    I’ll be back when I have a more neutral and less hackle raising subject to discuss.

    Like

  51. Mark

    Moribund indeed. That’s the perfect word to describe Florida D’s as well. There is no new blood…no dynamism in the leadership…they waste any grass roots energy…it’s all pretty pathetic.

    BTW Mark….may I gloat a bit? We now have twice as many concealed carry permits issued as you guys. I don’t know though we may be cheating….it might just be an urban legend or myth but there are some who claim that Florida issues permits to folks out of state. I went to the State website and still can’t confirm or deny that meme…hard for me to believe that Florida would issue mail order permits.

    Like

  52. RUK – Listening to the young lady on that video made me realize. If Governor Rick Perry and the R’s get their way and defund Planned Parenthood and say 100,000 women don’t get mammograms or pap smears because of that decision…what if some of them die because of lack of early detection? Would those ladies be casualties of a “war” or simply casualties of politics.

    I have not listened to the clip (and can’t at work). That said, should Gov Perry double or even triple every Texan’s taxes in order to not only fund Planned Parenthood, but to fund every other woman focused health center that may not be getting funding, increase the amount spent on reseasch for breast and uterine cancer, provide free screenings? Maybe the Gov should just raise the taxes and give the money to women so that they have as much ability to save lives as humanly possible. I know these are sarcastic questions but the point is that the basic argument of “if it saves just one life, it’s worth it” is BS. If that were the case we would all be driving around at 25MPH in Nerf cars. There are tradeoffs, limited resources, risk based analysis, opportunity costs, numerous other options, imperfect knowledge, tests and mechanisms, unknown science, incorrect science, as well as personal and political beliefs all at play. Does that mean that if I don’t support funding for Planned Parenthood, I am declaring war on woman or that I want woment to die? Of course not. I have a mother who is a breast cancer survivor. I have a daughter and a wife. Perhaps not surprisingly I have friends that are women. None of this makes me unique. I have a brother who has muscular dystrophy. People in my family have prostate issues, heart issues, thyroid issues, alzheimer issues, arthritis issues, among other things, If I move to Texas, can the government take care of their every need too? If we can save just one life….

    Like

  53. “I don’t want to any of them die…NEEDLESSLY!!!”

    well, since LMS wanted to spice things up.

    perhaps progressives should put their money there instead of recall campaigns and other democratic reelection efforts. put it toward something productive. What’s Obama’s war chest — all of it donated, right? that buys a lot of pap spears, BC, and even abortions.

    Like

  54. NoVA:

    Oddly enough, this was in today’s WaPo.

    Like

  55. Nova

    I ask this respectfully but isn’t your post what is known as a straw man? We have to work within the system we have…the system as it’s currently constructed makes heavy use of Planned Parenthood. Because of religious beliefs some have attacked Planned Parenthood. Do you deny that pulling funding for Planned Parenthood would literally lead to more women’s deaths for lack of early diagnosis? Do you have an answer that saves these womens lives. Because honestly NOVA..we are talking life and death here…not libertarian or progressive principles…just sayin’

    If you have a better way…besides the standard libertarian we’re all on our own…I’m all ears..or actually eyes since it is a blog……

    Like

  56. Dave…

    Let me see if I understand the gist of your argument…because we can’t save all the women from death we shouldn’t worry about those we can?

    Wow…one little anecdote that is reflective of my attitude….A man was walking on the beach and hundreds and hundreds of starfish had washed up on the beach…they were stranded and condemned to death because the tide would not return in time to save them. The man saw a little boy hurling the starfish back into the water. “What are you doing?”, he queried. The little boy said, “I’m saving the starfish”. The man retorted, “Why that is silly, there are thousands of starfish on the beach you can’t save them all!”. “Nope”, said the little boy, “But I can save this one…and this one and this one..and this one…and this one…

    Because we can’t save everybody is hardly and excuse to not save those we can!

    Like

  57. “Oddly enough, this was in today’s WaPo.”

    Link is dead.

    Like

  58. Scott, your comment of April 5 at 6:25pm reads like a veiled threat. “You want me to be impolite and politically incorrect about it? You want a dustup? Just let me know, because I can be plenty offensive if that is what you are looking for.” How very much in the ATiM spirit of you. Not.

    “It seems we have to walk an extremely fine line to keep you happy.” Excuse me, but if you have a personal beef with lms, please take it offline.

    Like

    • msjs:

      Scott, your comment of April 5 at 6:25pm reads like a veiled threat.

      I guess you will read things as you want to, but it was as a request for clarification on lms’ comment which reads to me like an invitation for more confrontational commentary.

      Excuse me, but if you have a personal beef with lms, please take it offline.

      I don’t have a beef with lms, but I’m guessing that you are totally oblivious to the irony in having posted that as a public comment.

      Like

  59. “If you have a better way…besides the standard libertarian we’re all on our own…I’m all ears..or actually eyes since it is a blog……”

    If pap smears and mammograms are valuable, why wouldnt someone scrape and save every year to pay for it themselves? What would it cost, the equivalent of a years worth of cable?

    And what's wrong with "You're on your own"? Other than you don't like it?

    Like

  60. And what’s wrong with “You’re on your own”? Other than you don’t like it?

    I look at other countries and I see health outcomes comparable to what we have in the US at a lower per capita cost. I’d like that to be available to all our citizenry.

    I understand not everyone feels that way. I’m not going to label those opinions as “wrong” but I choose to feel differently about it.

    Like

  61. Troll

    It’s Good Friday so I really don’t wish to sound judgemental..holier than thou or any of that horrible stuff…let me say this as carefully as I can…

    75% of our nation is Christian…we constantly refer to ourselves as a “Christian nation”

    And so Troll you’ll have to ask yourself…”Am I my brother’s Keeper?” If you are not Christian then you get a pass.

    Perhaps you’ve never heard of John Bradford…few have…but most have heard the saying he is famous for uttering in the mid 1550’s in England…
    “There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford” as he watched a prisoner being carted off to the gallows.

    I’m keenly aware..even though I no longer call myself Christian..that “There but for the grace of God go I”.

    I’ve picked up milk on dairy farms here in Florida. Farms that were staffed with Mexican labor…most legal..some not. They worked their backsides off at very strenuous jobs. They are sometimes packaged double wides two and three families at at a time while their employers deduct an absurd amount of money…yeah let them move back to Mexico where they’d be even more impoverished eh?

    Sorry Troll but IMHO…There but for the grace of God go you…it’s a pure accident where your fathers’ sperm met your mothers egg…you did nothing to deserve that good fortune….these folks are not wasting money on cable…they do not have cell phones.

    Bottom line Troll is I answer that question Am I my brothers keeper differently than you. And I’m acutely aware because of my life experience and the fact that my father a bookie won a big card game that moved me from an impoverished tough town to a town of privilege and one that valued education. My favorite cousins growing up visited me recently…they still drop N bombs and they have perhaps a half dozen teeth left between them…but I still love them…I realize very clearly…That there but for the grace of God go I…I could still be stuck in Newport Kentucky…just one simple bit of fate…a card game…made it all possible.

    Like

  62. MsJS

    I look at other countries and I see health outcomes comparable to what we have in the US at a lower per capita cost. I’d like that to be available to all our citizenry.

    I love your mix of common sense and compassion. May I quibble a bit though…if as you stated, our outcomes were comparable to these “other” countries it would be bad enough that we paid too much for it and didn’t make it available to others…but it’s actually worse..admittedly this link is four years old…but do we think our healthcare system has improved dramatically since then? Perhaps gotten better? Remained the same….well let’s hope it’s improved dramatically!!!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/us-deaths-rankings-idUSN0765165020080108

    France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking

    (Reuters) – France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday.

    If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.

    Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they did.

    They called such deaths an important way to gauge the performance of a country’s health care system.

    Nolte said the large number of Americans who lack any type of health insurance — about 47 million people in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government estimates — probably was a key factor in the poor showing of the United States compared to other industrialized nations in the study.

    “I wouldn’t say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don’t, I think that’s the main problem, isn’t it?” Nolte said in a telephone interview.

    Like

  63. I agree with your basic idea, Mark, that the RWOW as a term may be rhetorical overreach. Though it may be a shorthand that works well for many just as the War on Terror did, it also may be so hot and essentially meaningless that it obscures the actual issues. I don’t know what might pack an equivalent punch, but it’s clear there are many current attacks on issues and causes that directly affect women, including the latest, Scott Walker’s signing the meaure to undo Wisconsin’s Equal Payment Protection Law. It’s pretty hard not to read that as anti-woman.

    Like

    • abc:

      Scott Walker’s signing the meaure to undo Wisconsin’s Equal Payment Protection Law. It’s pretty hard not to read that as anti-woman.

      Actually is seems pretty easy to me.

      According to the analysis of the legislative reference bureau:

      Under the current fair employment law, a person alleging discrimination in
      employment or unfair honesty or genetic testing may file a complaint with the
      Department of Workforce Development (DWD) seeking action that will effectuate
      the purpose of the fair employment law, including reinstating the employee,
      providing back pay, and paying costs and attorney fees. In addition, the fair
      employment law permits DWD or a person who has been discriminated against or
      subjected to unfair honesty or genetic testing to bring an action in circuit court to
      recover compensatory and punitive damages caused by the act of discrimination or
      unfair honesty or genetic testing after the completion of all administrative
      proceedings before DWD and the Labor and Industry Review Commission
      concerning the violation. If the circuit court finds that a defendant has committed
      an act of discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing, the circuit court must
      order the defendant to pay to the person discriminated against compensatory and
      punitive damages in an amount that the circuit court finds appropriate, subject to
      certain limitations, as follows:
      1. If the defendant employs 100 or fewer employees, $50,000.
      2. If the defendant employs more than 100 but fewer than 201 employees,
      $100,000.
      3. If the defendant employs more than 200 but fewer than 501 employees,
      $200,000.
      4. If the defendant employs more than 500 employees, $300,000.
      This bill eliminates the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages to
      persons who have been discriminated against in employment or subjected to unfair
      honesty or genetic testing. Under the bill, DWD may still award to such a person
      back pay, costs, and attorney fees.

      So, in fact, the law itself is not being “undone”, but rather one aspect of it, the awarding of certain damages, is being undone. And the law actually applied not just to women, but to anyone alleging discrimination. So, even if one views the repeal of this one aspect of the law as pernicious, it seems a considerable stretch to characterize it as “anti-woman”.

      BTW, does anyone know what “unfair honesty” means?

      Like

      • The logic of these bogus litmus tests laws is always the same: if you don’t support each new law that makes it easier for the certified oppressed class member to sue and/or the penalties and damages to be imposed, you are waging war against the oppressed class.

        Thoughtful it isn’t. Manipulative it is.

        Like

  64. Hi, abc, good to see you. Will you be able to be with us for the book discussion next weekend? I truly enjoyed Suite Harmonic!

    Like

  65. Hi abc. I’m looking forward to the book discussion even though I don’t know how many of us there will be. I haven’t been able to finish it yet but don’t want to hold anyone else up so I say we go forward. I’m really enjoying it but couldn’t do it justice the past month or so. Laying on the couch watching every re-run of Law and Order known to man was more my speed. According to my kindle, I’m about 35% done, but I should be able to read quite a bit this week.

    I’ve already agreed to use another term, or no term I guess, for what’s happening across the country legislatively and rhetorically to reproductive and possibly other rights of women, but I do think it’s interesting that the term goes all the way back to the Reagan years. It wasn’t as if I picked it up from DKos or something, right?…..lol

    Like

  66. but I do think it’s interesting that the term goes all the way back to the Reagan years. It wasn’t as if I picked it up from DKos or something, right?

    Imagine that.

    Like

    • lms: but I do think it’s interesting that the term goes all the way back to the Reagan years.

      okie: Imagine that.

      Imagine that, indeed. Who would have ever guessed that liberals would be using politically and emotionally freighted terms as propaganda as far back as the ’80s?

      Like

  67. Hmmmm. Evidently even a Republican Senator feels that there is a RPWoW:

    From her perspective as a Republican, Murkowski said she can’t understand why some in her party have raised reproductive rights as an issue.

    “It makes no sense to make this attack on women,” she said.

    And earlier:

    “I think what you’re sensing is a fear, a concern that women feel threatened, that a long settled issue might not be settled,” Murkowski said.

    She cited things like conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about a female Georgetown University law student, which Murkowski called “offensive, horribly offensive.”

    “To have those kind of slurs against a woman … you had candidates who want to be our president not say, ‘That’s wrong. That’s offensive.’ They did not condemn the rhetoric,” Murkowski said. (emphasis mine)

    Homer, Alaska news

    Like

    • Mich:

      Evidently even a Republican Senator feels that there is a RPWoW:

      Evidently even a republican senator is capable of spouting nonsense.

      Like

  68. Hi, okie–glad you liked it. I’m planning to be here.

    You’ve been sick, lms? Hope you’re OK. All my useful hours have been packed for the last month, but it’s good to know you’re all still talking here.

    Btw, 150 years ago tonight, men were drenched on the battlefield at Shiloh.

    Like

  69. Hi, abc–so good to “see” you! I’m enjoying “Suite”, although I’m not as far into it as I’d like to be (been working too hard for the last couple of months) and I’ll be here for the discussion. I think about you every time I see my Kindle. . . “Suite Harmonic” was my very first download!

    Till next weekend, wishing you a wonderful week.

    Like

  70. Hi, Michi!

    Like

  71. So, dustups are lacking. Taking a few comments above:

    abc said:

    I don’t know what might pack an equivalent punch, but it’s clear there are many current attacks on issues and causes that directly affect women, including the latest, Scott Walker’s signing the meaure to undo Wisconsin’s Equal Payment Protection Law. It’s pretty hard not to read that as anti-woman.

    No, really it is quite easy. It was a “remedy” to a mythical problem. Pay discrimination is still against the law (both federal and state), and women still have all the remedies they did three years ago. This law only tilted the process by bringing lawsuits into state court and imposing additional penalties. In truth, it was nothing more than another political act by Democrats to throw red meat to their partisans and set up yet another bogus litmus test. The left has been after the holy grail of enforcing societal “comparable worth” for years, and laws like this are little more than a back-door means toward that end, which is itself part of what we could fairly call a war on reality.

    ruk said:

    Bottom line Troll is I answer that question Am I my brothers keeper differently than you.

    No, you just define being your brother’s keeper as voting for big government and redstribution policies. You vote other people’s money to help your “brother” instead of actually being your brother’s keeper. I for the life of me can’t see how you fail to recognize that this is the real difference between you and all the “heartless” conservatives you constantly berate.

    Because we can’t save everybody is hardly and excuse to not save those we can!

    The same is true of the cute little starfish story. You aren’t the boy on the beach. He is saving starfish. You are just advocating a government program to save starfish.

    Moreover, your story establishes no principled answer to how many starfish one must try to save or why it is “wrong” to save 5 instead of 10, when you can be just as roundly criticized for saving 10 instead of 15. It is an exercise in moral vanity.

    michi said:

    Hmmmm. Evidently even a Republican Senator feels that there is a RPWoW

    Murkowski is not just a RINO but a nitwit. That she is part of this foolishness only reinforces its foolishness afaiac.

    If you want to talk about who is waging war, we could always talk about the left’s long-running war against men, boys, family, society, values, and reality itself.

    Like

    • qb:

      Corked me again.

      Like

      • Corked me again.

        Only because you take more time to write careful comments. I just draw and fire, hitting whomever is in the way.

        Like

    • QB, the WI Fair Employment Act was broader and more plaintiff friendly than the TX Human Rights Commission Act in many ways. I do not know from news stories what was gutted, but here are the major differences I was aware of from general employment law background. TX explicitly protects the federal suspect classifications while WI added at least sexual orientation. I say “at least” b/c I think there was “protection” for ex-cons and off-site drug use in the WI scheme, too. Most striking, an employer is defined, in TX, as one with more than 15 employees. WI included employers of ONE! WI had a “generous” damage provision.

      I would not jump to characterize the change as anything but pro-employer until I knew what part of the act actually changed. Any limit to state court jurisdiction in labor law is pro-employer.

      As for the reporting, I would be curious as to whether the protections were narrowed for gender, only, or if other “classes” were given less protection, too.

      I pulled up the “old” WI statute here. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/111.pdf

      I assume subchapter II was amended by the repeal of something. If only the protection for gender was narrowed, then I would think that was a gratuitous shot at women.

      I say that because from the employer side there would be a ton of stuff I’d want to change in that WI statute, but plain vanilla gender pay discrimination would not make my list.

      Like

      • Scott, your comment clarifies what has changed. It appears not to be a gratuitous shot at women.

        “unfair honesty” was coined to describe the use of genetic testing to disqualify a person from a job based on a genetic disposition. I suppose it could mean anything a plaintiff’s lawyer could argue was a fact that an employer used against an employee where that fact did not affect job performance. For the small employer, a genetic predisposition that affected insurability would be the issue that caused a non-hire, I think.

        Like

        • Mark:

          It appears not to be a gratuitous shot at women.

          Did you really expect it might be? I had a some trouble tracking down objective information about this Wisconsin law, as virtually every article I could find on it was framed with the “attack on women” narrative. Obviously there was a concerted political/media effort to portray it as such. But I had little doubt that this wasn’t an accurate framing. In this day and age truly gratuitous shots at women, particularly by politicians and lawmakers, are exceedingly rare, even as accusations of such shots become more and more common.

          I am always highly dubious of any claims about laws or lawmakers being “anti-women” because, in these modern times, it is both extremely bad politics to discriminate against women and extremely good politics for women to claim victimhood.

          Like

  72. if you don’t support each new law that makes it easier for the certified oppressed class member to sue and/or the penalties and damages to be imposed, you are waging war against the oppressed class.

    The profit motive at work. Any time money is used to assess damages or punish, there will be a lot of smart people working to find new things to “punish” others for, and a wide and varied rationale for why it is justice they seek, rather than cash.

    But it’s the money.

    Like

  73. BTW, does anyone know what “unfair honesty” means?

    That’s what happens when anyone makes a valid criticism about me.

    Like

  74. If you want to talk about who is waging war, we could always talk about the left’s long-running war against men, boys, family, society, values, and reality itself.

    But I’m not sure these are “wars”, per se. Some lefties (erroneously, IMHO) may feel that traditional gender roles have negative aspects that need to be softened or altered. This is a desire to change things in a positive way, or “improve” things, not a war on men and boys (generally). Those who want to expand the definition of family aren’t conducting a war on families . . . they just want them to be inclusive of more non-traditional family units, for, in their opinion, the greater benefit of all.

    Similarly, those who are supposedly conducting a “war on women” are often (a) not singling out women in the particular thing so characterized, and (b) working to protect something, like the lives of the unborn, from their point of view, and not conducting a war on women because of a deep desire to twirl their Snidely Whiplash mustachios and chortle.

    Like

  75. I think I understand now; anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion(s) is spouting nonsense and is a nitwit.

    Got it. Thanks for the clarifications.

    Like

    • Mich:

      I think I understand now; anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion(s) is spouting nonsense…

      Unfortunately it seems you don’t understand.

      I think anyone who talks seriously about a republican war on women is spouting nonsense. Just because I think people who disagree with my opinion of this alleged RWoW are spouting nonsense does not imply in any way that I think people who disagree with me in general are spouting nonsense. Your conclusion is an example of a composition fallacy.

      Like

  76. Coming to a Death Panel near you:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

    I gaurantee that yearly Pap tests will be eliminated by Death Panels too. I guess it’ll be the Democratic Death Panel’s War on Womyn.

    Like

    • McWing:

      Coming to a Death Panel near you:

      That is a very interesting article. According to US census data there are 21.9 million women between the ages of 40 and 49. This means that, if these recommendations are ever followed or incorporated into any ACA-like health care laws (ie coverage of mammograms is mandated only for those over 50), assuming bi-annual screenings, nearly 11 million women a year could be denied coverage for this aspect of women’s health care. The number of women (170,000 over 5 years) that would have ostensibly been effected by the Komen Foundation’s (now-reversed) decision not to fund Planned Parenthood breast cancer screening pales in comparison.

      Recall the outrage over the threat to women’s health that was displayed during the Komen brouhaha? I shudder to think of the reaction that is sure to follow in the wake of this recommendation which, based on the numbers, represents a monumentally larger threat to women’s health and is surely a good example of the on-going war on women.

      Like

  77. Troll, perhaps you can explain how any of those links might constitute a Dem “War on Womyn.” Once again, the links you posted do not appear to me to support your statements.

    Like

  78. If you want to see a Democratic War on Women, just start with the catalog of vile, sexist attacks by them on Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.

    Check out Michelle Malkin’s archives for a good starting place.

    Like

  79. qb, I won’t be checking out Malkin’s archives, but in the first place I don’t consider political campaigning a war on women in the sense a discussion was attempted here. This is just piling on and another way to denigrate any opinion that Republican policies and enacted legislation are against the best interests of many women. In the second place, I think you would be hard pressed to characterize many of the criticisms of Palin and Bachmann as sexist rather than honest criticisms (excluding comments on their physical appearance, which I think are uncalled for).

    Like

  80. Scott, I think you are missing an important distinction that the Death Panel (let’s be sure we get that term in here even if it is a propos of nothing) recommendation is based on consideration of scientific evidence whereas the Komen brouhaha was pure politics.

    You guys now are venturing into the truly nonsensical, and I believe you know better.

    Like

    • okie:

      …is based on consideration of scientific evidence whereas the Komen brouhaha was pure politics.

      Yes, the Komen brouhaha was indeed pure politics, but you would have been hard pressed to get any of the PP defenders to admit it at the time. Back then it was framed strictly as a women’s health issue. How dare Komen put women’s health in jeopardy!

      As regards this new recommendation, do you seriously think that economics, which is to say politics, did not play a part? Despite the fact that the recommendation is supposedly based strictly on weighing the risk of having a mammogram vs its benefits, quite literally the only risk mentioned in the entire article was that “A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety.” Seriously? This is the big risk that outweighs the possibility of catching cancer sooner? I wonder exactly how one measures this “anxiety” risk. And if the further tests which cause this anxiety are known to be “unnecessary”, why not simply stop doing those tests?

      I’d guess that there is almost zero chance that the $ cost of the procedure was not a, if not the, driving determiner. From the article:

      The guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually.

      Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to.

      Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.

      But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. Grades are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a private nonprofit organization, and one measure is the percentage of patients getting mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40.

      How interesting that just as the costs of health care have become the dominant political issue of the day, a government body suddenly discovers that the risk of “anxiety” over potential secondary tests triggered by mammograms outweighs the risk of actually having breast cancer (only if you are younger than 50, of course) and just by coincidence the government will now be able to justify changing medicare rules to save money. How long, do you suppose, until it does just that?

      Don’t get me wrong. With the government increasingly using my tax dollars to pay for the health care of other people, justifying $ costs versus benefits is certainly welcome. It might even make economic sense to push the age even higher. As I have said many times, if the government is going to take over health care, I don’t just welcome the proverbial Death Panels, I demand them. But I won’t pretend that their decisions and actions are divorced from politics.

      On a completely different note, this issue is a good example of why the notion that ACA will save money by mandating preventative health care ought to be viewed with much skepticism.

      You guys now are venturing into the truly nonsensical

      Certainly no more nonsensical than the notion of a War on Women.

      Like

  81. qb, I won’t be checking out Malkin’s archives, but in the first place I don’t consider political campaigning a war on women in the sense a discussion was attempted here.

    I’m not surprised you aren’t interested, but to me is only shows that your whole concept of a “war on women” is nothing but a rhetorical effort to privilege your view of what is good for women, which is in reality a left-wing policy agenda rejected by many women as well as men.

    You don’t speak for all women. You for sure don’t speak for many women I know, who are outspokenly opposed to the policies you advocate as exploitive, dehumanizing, violent, death-celebrating, and unequal. So calling it a War on Women is nothing but demogogic rhetoric. You are waging an ideological war for a left-wing political agenda. Calling it a War on Women helps make is sound like your side isn’t seeking contested political advantage at best and radical policies at worst.

    Part of that radical agenda is the imposition of your values on the rest of us. There’s no other explantion for things like the vitriolic attacks on SG Komen for a decision not to fund another organization that doesn’t comport with its values. The ideology that construes this as part of a “war on women” is just plain totalitarian at heart. That’s what all this war on women nonsense comes down to: you want to impose your radical values on everyone else, and if we don’t comply you start the accusations.

    I think you would be hard pressed to characterize many of the criticisms of Palin and Bachmann as sexist rather than honest criticisms (excluding comments on their physical appearance, which I think are uncalled for).

    If you haven’t seen the routine sexist insults of conservative female candidates and public figures by many of the same people on the left who beat the drum for “women’s issues,” then I would say you’ve just been looking the other way. All that ugly, vile rhetoric is quite enlightening about who “really” speaks for women, whether or not you want to recognize the connection. Again, I’m not surprised you don’t want to look.

    Like

  82. Btw, this statement is incorrect:

    Like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” it is intended to limit discussion of issues based on impugning motives.

    Those terms are perhaps clumsy ways of expressing a general policy commitment to combatting something that essentially everyone agrees needs to be combatted.

    This War on Women slur is a partisan attempt to demonize political opponents as hating half of the human race.

    It is utter nonsense and intended to offend and polarize.

    Like

    • QB – WoD is a bipartisan political catchphrase that is used to steamroll opposition to winnowing away at the 2d, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments in the name of law and order. It is also used to steamroll opposition to the funding and financing of large paramilitary operations in South America and to keep them secret.

      WoT was originally a bipartisan political catchphrase that was used to steamroll opposition to winnowing away at the 2d, 4yh,5th and 14th Amendments in the name of national security. It also was the justification for the biggest most unwieldy bureaucracy in the FedGov – DHlS. It was also used to cover as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan could stand on its own without the catchphrase, and I think the invasion of AFG preceded the catchphrase, in time.

      RWoW is a partisan catchphrase, as many of us have agreed, but it intends to stifle opposition by branding just as the other misnamed “wars” have done.

      I come at the Patriot Act and the NDAA from the same direction as NoVAH and JNCP. They are full of bipartisan demonizations of the rights we once held dear. When I compare RWoW to WoT and WoD I am not praising it. If you think the WoD has been a trillion dollar effort to reduce drug abuse in America, you would be mistaken. If you think the WoT has been used to justify all manner of huge costs that are not related to the threats posed by Al Quaeda and its ilk, you would be correct.

      They are all hyperbolic descriptions, QB, for political effect.

      Like

      • Mark:

        The invasion of Afghanistan could stand on its own without the catchphrase, and I think the invasion of AFG preceded the catchphrase, in time.

        Bush first used the term War on Terror in his September 20 speech following 9/11, well before Afghanistan. I think it is wrong to suggest that the term was coined as a way of steamrolling opposition to winnowing away rights, even if you think it was ultimately used in such an effort. It was coined in an effort to identify the global military effort that the administration was contemplating and which would be our response to the 9/11 attacks. Our response was going to be a war-like response, but the absence of a national target, and the unique nature of the opposition, required a new term. War on terror was it. I never particularly liked it much, and it certainly became a slogan used to justify the passage of many things, but it was clearly coined in an effort to identify a real, foreign policy effort, not just as a way of framing a debate about constitutionally questionable laws.

        Like

  83. Comment withdrawn.

    Like

  84. Whew boy, more Republican War on Womyn!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/06/law-school-refuses-to-hire-professor-who-embraces-politics-the-rest-of-the-faculty-despises/

    I may have to rethink my position on this, I honestly thought it was a cheap political device to rally the base to Obama. But after this story…

    Like

  85. Okie

    I think it’s safe to say you’re barking up the wrong tree. Conservatives really don’t like liberals much and I think you can double that for liberal women. Remember the stories I told from last summer and my daughter’s adventures working in Midland, TX? In particular I’m thinking of the one where she wore a baseball cap to a sports bar with the guys from work and their 17 year old girl friends……..lol

    Like

    • lms:

      Conservatives really don’t like liberals much and I think you can double that for liberal women.

      This conservative likes liberals and liberal women just fine, lms, including even you. Politics isn’t the determining characteristic of my personal feelings towards people. I just don’t have much patience for the routine attempts to play the gender card.

      Like

  86. lms, yes, I will quit barking. Some will never appreciate the irony of their own comments.

    I don’t remember the story, maybe I missed it.

    Like

  87. Scott

    Even me? And I just don’t have much patience for the routine attempts to ignore issues of gender that are important to some of us here. Funny, we’re the ones having to walk on egg shells. I’m sure I can find something of interest to talk about next week though.

    Have a nice weekend all, I’m out for the festivities and to finish planting my garden, only four weeks late this year……………………..

    Like

    • lms:

      Even me?.

      Yup, even you, despite your attempt to portray me as having something against women.

      And I just don’t have much patience for the routine attempts to ignore issues of gender that are important to some of us here.

      I haven’t ignored them. In fact I have engaged you on them, trying to get you to justify your claims. You of all people should know that I will engage you on just about anything. The problem isn’t that I ignore the issues that are important to you. Indeed the real problem is that you want me to accept without question your spin on these issues as so-called gender issues, and I am more than happy to challenge that spin.

      Like

  88. Scott/lms: If this site wants women to comment, IMHO the conservatives here need to rethink the tone of their comments on “women’s issues.” OTOH, if this site wants conservative women to comment here, they should carry on and find some conservative female commenters (which apparently they are unable to accomplish).. The fact that every single current female commenter has been alienated is not coincidence.

    Like

    • okie:

      If this site wants women to comment, IMHO the conservatives here need to rethink the tone of their comments on “women’s issues.”

      I’m not at all sure how our tone could be construed to be any worse that the tone represented by accusing republicans of waging a war on women. Again, okie…goose and gander. I’m not gong to grant you the double standard that you apparently desire. Sorry.

      Like

  89. Conservatives really don’t like liberals much and I think you can double that for liberal women.

    Ridiculous.

    I have very close friends who fit that description perfectly.

    But then they don’t tell me that I am part of a war against women and all the other heartless, greedy, etc., rhetoric. Perhaps that is the difference.
    .
    And I just don’t have much patience for the routine attempts to ignore issues of gender that are important to some of us here.

    I haven’t seen anyone ignore issues. But you treat any disagreement with your pronouncements as personal attacks and denials of the “validity” of your opinions.

    It is tedious.

    Like

  90. Scott, I’m just sayin’. Obviously, take it or leave it as you wish.

    Like

    • okie:

      Obviously, take it or leave it as you wish.

      You are the one announcing preconditions for your participation, not me. Your offensive framing of these “women’s issues” isn’t driving me away. So, really, it is your choice to make, not mine.

      Like

  91. Mark,

    I don’t think GWOT or WOD were coined as ways to demonize opposition to infringement of rights. That became an argument about the programs, but they were just coined as clumsy ways to say “We are really, really serious about defeating these things.”

    Not many would have disagreed after 911 that a more concerted, comprehensive response to terrorism was needed. Calling it a War on Terror was inaccurate in my opinion mainly because Terror isn’t a someone but a something.

    Like

  92. lol, scott. “The fact that every single current female commenter has been alienated is not coincidence.” Your lack of capacity for self-examination speaks volumes.

    Like

  93. Lol, I was accused on this site of advocating for mandatory rape for trying to examine the substance of the Virginia ultrasound law and showing that it was misrepresented.

    We all were. Okie even pulled the ol’ point of personal privilege move on us.

    Now we told we need to watch our tone in response to “war against women” rhetoric.

    Give me a break. This discussion has jumped the shark. I’m sorry I bothered at all.

    You are just looking for reasons to take swipes, okie. You did it at PL the other night. I have no idea why, but it’s pretty obvious at this point.

    Like

  94. “Lol, I was accused on this site of advocating for mandatory rape for trying to examine the substance of the Virginia ultrasound law and showing that it was misrepresented.” This statement is false, so please quit propogating it (not the first time you have brought this up recently). First, nobody individually on this site was accused of anything. Second, some of us were a bit ahead of you when we started commenting on the VA legislation. At first, when the commenting started, transvaginal ultrasounds were required. You were just late to the party.

    That said, that dustup obviously is not yet behind us.

    Like

    • okie:

      This statement is false, so please quit propogating it (not the first time you have brought this up recently). First, nobody individually on this site was accused of anything.

      On February 21, at 2:24 you said: “I have now read all day while a group of men justified state-sanctioned rape.”

      Who were you referring to? Was qb not a part of this “group of men”? Or are you making some Clintonian distinction between accusing someone “individually” and accusing someone as part of a group?

      Like

  95. And, qb, I’m not sure what you refer to, but if you want to inject PL comments here, you -probably are in a world of hurt.

    Like

  96. I asked last time and I’ll ask again, if a female commentor here states something related to a woman’s issue, should the male commentors who disagree with the statement remain silent? This is a serious question.

    Again, a serious request, if disagreement of the statement is allowed, please provide some example responses. For example, Lms listed some legislative initiatives that she found objectionable that we’re ultimately defeated. If I didn’t think those legislative initiatives constituted a Republican War on Women, what would be some responses that would not alienating?

    I’m not trying to sound like an asshole but what I’m hearing is that any disagreement with a female commenter on a woman’s issue is by definition disrespectful and alienating. Is that the case? I don’t think it is but Scott, QB and I can’t seem to be able to disagree without pissing the females off in regard to women’s issues.

    Like

  97. Look everyone, we’ve gone so far from the original comment and complaint now that unless everyone wants to go back and read this thread and the one I originally made the comment in, I think we’re just making shit up now. I for one give up. It’s not worth talking to you guys when you’ve already made up your minds that we’re trying to get you to agree with us (we’re not that stupid), accusing all of you of being women haters along with heartless greedy bastards or something. I must have missed those comments.

    The original had to do with polling and whether some women who previously supported Romney had fled for Obama. My original hypothesis was that perhaps the RWoW might have something to do with that. It took me awhile, because about three of you jumped down my throat for using that term and I tend to get stubborn when cornered, but I did withdraw the term, not that any of you’d notice.

    Anyway, I think Okie’s right you guys enjoy this place more when we’re not here agitating you, and even though at least one of you might have missed me while I was sick, I think it’s best, if for my own sanity, I either stick to recipes and gardening or tell jokes. I’m good at those things, except for maybe the jokes, but I promise to practice.

    Like

    • lms:

      …accusing all of you of being women haters along with heartless greedy bastards or something. I must have missed those comments.

      Not sure how you could have missed the woman-hater one, since you are the one who said it (emphasis added):

      Conservatives really don’t like liberals much and I think you can double that for liberal women.

      but I did withdraw the term, not that any of you’d notice.

      I noticed. But then I also noticed that you wanted to get into the history of the term, and your sisters-in-arms didn’t seem all that keen to let it go either. Why do you expect us to drop the subject if you guys want to keep it going?

      Anyway, I think Okie’s right you guys enjoy this place more when we’re not here agitating you…

      That’s just silly, but in any event please don’t pretend you are doing whatever you are going to do for our sake.

      Like

  98. Lms,

    Please see my above questions. I think we could use a demonstration of allowable dissent that does not demean or alienate. For example, if we do not agree that there is a RWoW, how can we write it? I’m not being patronizing here, I really am clueless.

    Like

  99. qb–This stirs my interest: “You don’t speak for all women. You for sure don’t speak for many women I know, who are outspokenly opposed to the policies you advocate as exploitive, dehumanizing, violent, death-celebrating, and unequal.”

    As these outspoken women aren’t here, should we rightly assume you are speaking for them? If so, it’s very chivalrous, though perhaps my view is colored by my reading Jane Austen earlier.

    Like

    • No, abc, I don’t claim to speak for other people except within narrow conditions, but I surely come closer to speaking for some women than you or the other plum girls do. As we have noted before, it is odd that many women appear to be part of this war on women.

      Like

  100. abc, thanks. I do want to point out that, although qb’s rant was directed to me, I never have purported to represent all women.

    Like

  101. lms@3:50pm — +1

    Like

  102. Are my questions offensive? It’s honestly not my intent. I’m not being obtuse.

    Like

  103. Questons, no. Obtuse link, yes.

    Like

  104. Scott, this is really tired. I reiterate, current discussion is on another topic, but whatever. If you want to bring this up forever, I would reargue it if I thought it was wowrthwhile.

    Like

    • okie:

      If you want to bring this up forever, I would reargue it if I thought it was wowrthwhile.

      I’m not interested in re-arguing the issue, although I will if you want to. I am, however, interested in how you justify accusing qb of making a false statement in light of what you undeniably did say.

      Like

  105. I’m under the impression that some or all of the female commenters think that we know we are being purposefully demeaning and alienating. I for one am not trying to be, that’s why I’m asking my questions.

    Okie, do you think I am purposefully obtuse? If so, what would be a non-demeaning and non-alienating way of disagreeing with you and of demonstrating my sincerity?

    Like

    • George, I for one think your questions to Okie are appropriate. I think LMS made it clear she was willing to drop the RWoW label so she could get a discussion of whether Rs think they are gaining or losing women voters an whether they see a connection to these issues they have been raising. Issue by issue I am sympathetic to the view that women’s reproductive medicine and health is a legitimate health concern not to be singled out for disapproval or defunding framed around abortion, which is legal, but with restrictions.

      That is to say, there are no comparable men’s health issues and thus women must feel singled out by this approach.

      If a small gov conservative doesn’t like any funding and sees this as simply a partial victory, that does not sit well with D and moderate women, obviously, because they have been singled out.

      So my “advice” to women was to see the nature of the matter as one that has to do with fundamentalist religion beyond anti-abortion. And I think ABC and LMS responded in a positive way to that.

      I am guessing recognition by a small gov conservative like yourself that these issues are singly about women’s health while you think all public health funding except the VA should be cut way back would get them to see this as a liberal conservative issue in your eyes rather than a women’s health issue, per se.

      Just a guess. I could have this way wrong.

      Like

  106. Wow. I’m just done with this crap. If conservative males here wan to proclaim “victory” on that basis, yay.

    Like

  107. scott, I’m out. No discussion necessary.

    Like

  108. Sorry McWing, I wrote a lengthy response and our internet went down temporarily before I was able to post it. I’ll just say that accusing me of being part of a propaganda campaign and that there is no worthy discussion that can ensue after using the term RWoW makes is tough for me to figure out exactly what I’m supposed to say next. You guys can disagree with the term and the facts as I perceive them all you want, I think that’s called a dustup. And as usual I conceded on the term so you guys won anyway…………what’s the problem? I will say bringing in Death Panels and misspelling “womyn” probably doesn’t encourage discussion.

    I was interested in learning more about what you found out when you looked into the polling but couldn’t find any substantiation there and by then I was out of the conversation so wasn’t inclined to ask for clarification. You guys act like you have to be careful what you say around us even though you say whatever you want, when from our point of view, the opposite is true, we’re the ones who are being discouraged from talking about certain subjects. That’s why I said, I’ll just stick to recipes, gardening and jokes.

    Like

  109. Conservative echo chamber. YAY, we WON!!! Congrats, no mind the factual expense.

    Like

    • okie:

      Conservative echo chamber. YAY, we WON!!!

      No one has asked you to go and no one is chasing you away. If you leave it is on you, not anyone else.

      no mind the factual expense.

      An interesting thought, given the, er, facts surrounding your claim that qb’s statement was false.

      Like

  110. “And as usual I conceded on the term so you guys won anyway…………what’s the problem? I will say bringing in Death Panels and misspelling “womyn” probably doesn’t encourage discussion.”

    Why concede the term if you think it’s appropriate? I wouldn’t. I have a feeling that your frustration began either right there or in having to defend what seems self evident to you.

    My sarcasm was in response to an earlier comment that you made in which you stated that using RWoW was un-PC but you didnt care. Or something to that effect. That was my perception anyway.

    Like

  111. I have more to respond, particularly about polling and and the media framing it was, I think, intentionally conducted for. Unfortunately I have some stuff to do so I’ll post it later.

    Like

  112. mark, what precisely questions do you think are appropriate/not?

    Like

  113. I’m out. Thanks all.

    Like

  114. Lms, here’s my first comment on the polling:

    “Interesting similarities for women and Republicans in 2008 and today.

    “Overall, women strongly supported Senator Obama over Senator McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain).”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/janiceshawcrouse/2008/11/14/womens_voting_patterns_in_election_2008/page/full/

    “And now, President Obama is leading Mitt Romney by an alarming 20 points (58% to 38%) among women, prompting many in the media to giddily prognosticate about Republicans’ inability to win female voters.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/blame-republican-men-gender-gap-article-1.1055398

    In what way does the Pew survey show a demonstrably worsening position Republicans regarding women than 2008?

    http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/29/the-gender-gap-three-decades-old-as-wide-as-ever/

    Like

  115. My second comment on polling and the electoral impact of the media and Democratic narrative of the RWoW,

    Ashot, I think we all agree that the electorate in Presidential election years is substantially different than in non-Presidential years. If that is the case, then is a comparison to 2010 particularly illuminating? I suggest looking at 2004 and 2000. Also, the difference in married vs. unmarried women as well as the change in those two groups over the last 20-30 years.

    I think what we’ll find is an increase in unmarried women. That demo votes strongly D, but generally only votes during Presidential election years. Married women tend to be more Republican and vote in more elections. Given that context, there really is no increase in Republican’s “loss” of women, just changes in election demographics.

    In my opinion this is being used to drive a narrative to energize the Democratic base.”

    Like

  116. I share an affection for all of you even though some of you, especially one of you has every right to detest me.

    I agree with the ladies…as Gomer said..surprise surprise surprise.

    But I don’t expect my opinion to carry much weight here…I view myself as a guest and appreciate you guys even letting me post here…I’m not a regular and certainly not one of the founders or Admins.

    FWIW A bit of perspective…On the “other blog that shall not be named”..there is an admitted progressive slant…bias if your perspective is conservative. That blog freely admits so at the entrance portal. It’s not a total echo chamber as some very fine minds like jnc, john, mark and others still contribute. It is however undeniably left leaning.

    I come here as a visitor and find just the opposite…not an echo chamber…but a definite conservative slant. I say this not in criticism but simple observation.

    For me personally this has been a great thing and I thank you all for letting me even be involved at all. I now understand what Q.B., Troll, Scott and others felt at that “other blog”. Although I wish to quickly add you all have impeccable manners compared to the “normal” blogs I see on the internet.

    I always respected Scott and others who visited “the other blog” as people who were making a genuine effort to see what “the other” side was thinking and talking about.
    I’ve long felt a twinge of guilt that I hadn’t bothered to do the same. Now at ATIM I feel I have finally found a place to examine the conservative thought. Thanks!

    Ladies…I feel your pain…again IMO it all comes down to our life experiences…it’s genuinely hard to empathize with the discrimination those of you ladies who are my age( or close..yeah lmsinca I’ll ALWAYS be two years older lol) have felt most of your lives…I certainly can’t…but I can and do sympathize. I haven’t walked a mile in your shoes…but I have seen the struggles many of you have endured walking that mile.

    Like

  117. Another of my comments with link to the article,

    “From bsimon’s CSM article:

    ” If Obama is to win, he will need a big women’s vote to offset an expected deficit in the men’s vote.”

    And suddenly there is a “Republican war on women?”. What a stunning coincidence!”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0403/Gender-gap-daunting-for-GOP-Why-women-s-vote-is-key

    Finally, I went and looked at the Pew study and the Gallup / USA Today poll. They were polling All Adults in one case and a combination of All Adults and Registered Voters in the other. i decided not to look any further in the internals as neither of these types of polling will tell us anything about any electoral consequences. Those that actually vote in a Presidential election are much, much different. I cannot find any logical reason why, less than 8 months away from the Presidential election, polling is done with these type of samples rather than Likely Voters. So the reason I believe they were conducted and used is to help the Obama administration win re-election by driving media coverage of a supposed RWoW. Low info voters have heard repeatedly, due to the intentional introduction of these polls, that there is a RWoW and take away a belief in it.

    Like

  118. Troll, IF this pans out after checking other sources, thanks. But you have used up your credibility with me.

    Like

  119. The upshot of all of my reading is/was that I can find no evidence that women are leaving the Republican party in droves. There is a trend that has been going on since the 70’s that single women tend to vote more Democratic than married women. That trend has not changed nor, as far as I can find, has it recently accelerated. There has been an increase in Single Women vs married women for the last several decades and as a result there are more women overall that are voting Democratic.

    Again, I cannot find any substantiation that women are leaving Republican’s in a rate higher than has been the historical norm, nor can I find any evidence that the media and Democratic framing, that there is a RWoW is having any electoral effect. That is why my conclusion is that it is done intentionally to help with Obama’s re-election.

    Like

  120. “Troll, IF this pans out after checking other sources, thanks. But you have used up your credibility with me.”

    Well, I’m flattered that I had any credibility with you previously, thank you. Where do you think I have lied or intentionally deceived you that has destroyed any credibility I had with you?

    Like

  121. Lms, this is your initial statement:

    “Thanks Ash. I hadn’t read her piece yet. There’s a lot going on with the women’s vote this cycle I think. Republicans haven’t done themselves any favors. I don’t think it’s just contraception of course but taking the culture wars back 40 years hasn’t helped them and now with ACA hanging in the balance, even those of us who weren’t particularly crazy about the law are getting nervous. Republicans don’t seem to have an alternative solution to any of the problems that sparked reform in the first place and if we go back to status-quo pre ACA, I think women will coalesce around Dems in hope if nothing else. I know on just a personal level our own daughter will lose her PCIP insurance which has been both expensive for her and us but also has promoted a certain level of peace of mind that will disappear instantly.”

    Like

  122. And this is Scott’s response to it:

    “lms:

    but taking the culture wars back 40 years hasn’t helped them

    Huh?

    Republicans don’t seem to have an alternative solution to any of the problems that sparked reform in the first place…

    “Alternative solution” implies that the Dems have forwarded a solution. What they have forwarded is certainly reform, but it solves little or nothing.”

    Like

  123. Lms’ response to Scott:

    “Huh?

    Honestly Scott, you guys missed this the first time around a couple of months ago, and I’m not about to rehash all the negative impressions Republicans in state houses across the country have on the majority of under 50, educated women. You can believe the polling or not, your choice.

    And the solutions I was referring to in ACA, the ones making people nervous about reversing, are the ones that have helped small businesses, people with pre-existing conditions, young adults who fall into that gap between college and working full time, liability caps etc. I realize and have conceded the law hasn’t done much to lower health care costs but it has done something to help at least thousands of Americans. Not everyone thinks in terms of how to fix such a huge problem that seems virtually unsolvable, but rather, they think in more personal terms.”

    Like

  124. Lms,

    I don’t understand what I interpreted to be your hostility to Scott’s “Hunh.” Especially the reference to “Honestly Scott, you guys missed this the first time around a couple of months ago,”. I understood Scott to be asking about your comment about “taking the culture wars back 40 years.” I, along with Scott apparantly, thought this comment came out of left field and I didn’t blame Scott for asking you to justify it. It seems that things went downhill from there.

    Like

  125. Troll, it came with the territory but you abused it IMO Bye.

    Like

  126. Okie, thank you for relaying your opinion. I hope that it is a temporary bye, and not a permanent one. If I helps I won’t engage any of your future comments.

    Like

  127. Permanent bye. Thanks for the nonsense offer. lol

    Like

  128. Well okie, it was a sincere thanks, a sincere wish and a sincere offer. I understand though, that I have destroyed my credibility with you and understand your reluctance to believe me. I hope you have a great Easter.

    Like

  129. Withdrawn . . . again.

    Like

  130. Sorry McWing, I don’t have time to read all your links tonight, already past my curfew. I can sure see how I was really over the top with my language and accusations now that you’ve quoted me so many times though. I really need to be more moderate because obviously when you read between the lines I’m a pretty nasty piece of work.

    Night all, see ya Monday…………………………………

    [Clarification Edit]: This comment was largely in response to McWing’s 6:34 when he called this comment hostile.

    “Honestly Scott, you guys missed this the first time around a couple of months ago,”

    It may not have made sense to them, but hostile it isn’t.

    Like

  131. “It may not have made sense to them, but hostile it isn’t.”

    Thank you for the clarification. I was wrong in my assumption then, so any of the crap that I spewed later was based on a wrong assumption. For that I apologize and regret that I did not ask for clarification.

    Like

  132. “Do you deny that pulling funding for Planned Parenthood would literally lead to more women’s deaths for lack of early diagnosis?”

    According to wiki: “Planned Parenthood has grown to have over 820 clinic locations in the U.S., with a total budget of US $1 billion”

    $1 billion. budget dust. What this tells me is that’s it’s a joke to the political classes whether you think PP provides a vital service or not. If you want to ensure the organization remains viable I would remove any and all public funding from it. If people truly care the funding will be available. Keeping it as is ensures the organization is just a political football — which is exactly what both sides want it to be. It’s a wonderful fundraising tool and talking point — for [your politician of choice]. “Send my your $$ and we’ll pull public funding from these abortion factories!” “Or I need your support to maintain access to vital health care for women!”

    If we can’t come up with $1 billion — voluntarily — then what’s the point. But that the point isn’t it. keep us at each others throats fighting for scraps while they laugh at us. and believe me — the are laughing at us.

    If I’ve learned anything in DC — it’s this. Politicians care about you to the extent they can extract a vote, money and power from you. Full stop, end of story. People who are truly interested in making the world a better place do not seek public office. They find something productive to do.

    IINM, President Obama’s goal is $1 billion. So all those donations pouring in to Obama’s re-election could fund PP for a year. And you’ve guaranteed the money will be spent as intended — saving women’s lives. Funding Obama (or politician of your choosing) guarantees nothing.

    From my perspective, why wouldn’t you call the GOPs bluff? pull the funding and remove the organization from the political realm. Make them get on TV and decry a “private organization using private dollars” to provide health care. Then they don’t have a card to play, other than the political losers of actual bans of BC and/or abortion.

    I fully believe — have to — that the American people are good and generous. Given the opportunity, they will step up in their own way. Not all will opt to fund PP. but enough of us will.

    Like

    • nova:

      People who are truly interested in making the world a better place do not seek public office. They find something productive to do.

      That’s quotation of the day material, that is.

      Like

  133. People who are truly interested in making the world a better place do not seek public office. They find something productive to do.

    Wow…a statement not only breath taking in it’s sheer cynicism..but also painting with a pretty broad brush….brush..nah..a roller!

    Like

    • RUK, would you think it was an acceptable generality if it were limited to people who pursue elective office?

      I personally know public officials – not elected ones – who really try to make a difference. I think Robert Gates had an extraordinary public career and never lost track of priorities. Condi Rice and Jim Baker were admirable public servants. Several of our Surgeons General have been, too, and most federal judges, of any persuasion are really smart and enlightening and working for justice.

      But there is something different about most [admittedly not all]candidates for public office, even at the School Board level.

      Like

  134. Elected — I meant elected.

    Like

  135. Mark

    RUK, would you think it was an acceptable generality if it were limited to people who pursue elective office?

    I’m not sure I accept the basic premise that folks interested in making the world a better place would not pursue “elected” public office…but I do accept the generality that many who have been elected to public office certainly do not care about making the world a better place and if you’ll allow me a caveat I will also acknowledge that many who started off with the best of intentions became corrupted by the money and power. I certainly accept the old saying about power corrupting…and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

    My caveat is that IMO the farther up the food chain you go the more Nova’s quote applies…but the more local the office the more genuine the person serving. I have spent some time now in our city’s politics. I’ve served on the Planning Commission…appointed now by three different Mayors..not really political though, the city has difficulty finding qualified people who will sit through sometimes tedious meetings, and citizens who will do their homework and read analysis provided by staff.
    BTW Mark…working with our city staff has been an eye opener…speaking just from my narrow perspective of St Petersburg, our staff has been incredible, they are highly motivated, very professional and like me they share a true love of our city. They really care!

    I worked on the steering committee of a Mayoral candidate…she lost in a hotly contested election. The man who won still reappointed me to the PC…I think he respected my effort and I certainly respect him even though I worked for his opponent. I wish that politics could be this way nationally as well as locally but I’m not a pollyanna or so naive that I do not realize the nuggest of truth in Nova’s statement.

    I think at a certain point a politician does become free to “work for the people”…certainly lame ducks at all levels have been known to “do the right thing”.

    I just found the statement a little broad…I don’t believe all “lobbyists” are scoundrels like Jack Abramoff…I absolutely respect NOVA”s integrity…just as I have some difficulty with the legal profession I don’t dismiss everybody as “ambulance chasers”.
    I respect you very much Mark and of course I have friends who are decent, caring human beings who are attorneys.

    Sorry to go so long with that answer.

    Like

  136. “I don’t believe all “lobbyists” are scoundrels like Jack Abramoff”

    You like me because I’m a scoundrel. There aren’t enough scoundrels in your life.

    Like

  137. NOVA

    LMAO….I am the original scoundrel!!!

    BTW how about that rant Torts got off against you guys? Here in Tampa the sportswriters brought up his rant against Ken Hitchcock of the Flyers during the Stanley Cup run when he uttered his famous “Shut yer yap”.

    They pointed out Tort’s hypocrisy in going after your players..he derided Hitchcock for going after Lightning players because Hitchcock didn’t lace up the skates and go out there with them….uh Torts..isn’t that pretty much what you just did?

    Tort’s is abrasive, but I’m prejudiced because he brought us the Stanley Cup…BTW Bylsma is not exactly a shrinking violet either.

    Like

  138. NoVA:

    You like me because I’m a scoundrel. There aren’t enough scoundrels in your life.

    Stop that. My hands are dirty.

    ruk:

    How about that Stamkos kid?

    Like

  139. It’s too bad they fined him. But I’m assuming they didn’t so because of what he implied about he league and not anything about the Pens. The same guy threw a water bottle at a fan in DC a few years ago.

    Could you imagine Stamkos with a team around him.

    Like

  140. Mike and Nova

    We’re going to have an excellent team around him next year…all the injuries this year gave us a great look at some young talent. Yzerman rocks

    Now laugh at me guys as I state the obvious…we are a goaltender away from being playoff bound again…seriously…we will have a great team…but with mediocre to poor goaltending who will know it.

    Agree Nova about Tort’s fine…I think he just rubs the league the wrong way..but if we’re all honest he’s great for hockey…and absolutely perfectly placed in New York home of the abrasive fan..why not an abrasive coach.

    When he was in Tampa we liked him…respected him…but he was a little too over the top for our conservative tastes.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

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

%d bloggers like this: