Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, October 1, 2016

Why should women vote for a party that’s actively working against their needs and interests?

On Monday, the GOP released a report detailing its “Growth and Opportunity Project,” a new initiative that explores reasons for the party’s November defeat and posits strategies for winning future elections. If it wasn’t evident before, it is now abundantly clear that the Republican establishment officially attributes its November loss to a failure in style, not substance. The 100-page report details the party’s inability to effectively communicate its policies and priorities to women, immigrants, young people, and people of color. It largely ignores the possibility that what motivated the majority of American voters, and in particular women, to give President Obama a second term was an aversion to the GOP’s outdated vision for the nation.

Acknowledging that Obama won the single women’s vote by a “whopping 36 percent,” the report’s authors suggest ways the party can be more inclusive of this critical voting bloc: Making a better effort to listen to female voters; fighting against the Democratic rhetoric against the “so-called War on Women”; doing a better job communicating the GOP’s policies and employing female spokespeople to do it; and using Women’s History Month to “remind voters of the Republican’s Party historical role in advancing the women’s rights movement.”

I’m glad they specified “historical” role in advancing the women’s rights movement, given that their current role seems squarely focused on rolling back women’s rights. It’s encouraging that GOP strategists in Washington want to spend more time listening to women voters, but there is no indication that Republican lawmakers will respond to that feedback. As Rachel Maddow said on her program this week, while Beltway leaders are “preaching about how to appear more reasonable to the womenfolk among us,” Republican governance has become a competition – a race – “to see who can get the most extreme the fastest.”

And a race it is.

This week Andrew Jenkins of RH Reality Check reported on some of the most recent Republican efforts to chip away at women’s access to care:

Arkansas just passed a bill banning abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, while South Dakota just passed a bill to expand its 72-hour waiting period, which was already one of the longest in the country, in a state with only one abortion clinic. The North Dakota Senate just approved a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, the most restrictive in the country. And in Kansas, a state House committee just passed a 70-page bill that defines life at fertilization and requires that physicians lie to their patients.

That’s not all.

Republicans in Texas remain hard at work leading national efforts in steamrolling access to women’s health care. Previous budget cuts and funding restrictions have already closed more than 50 clinics and are making it more difficult, if not impossible, for nearly 200,000 women to access care. Last week the Texas Senate Education Committee moved a bill forward that would ban Planned Parenthood and other organizations from providing sexuality education in schools, and the governor recently promised to advance a 20-week abortion ban.

In Wisconsin, four Planned Parenthood clinics closed as a result of a GOP-led ban that prevents the organization and other clinics from receiving state funds. In Oklahoma, a major Planned Parenthood facility closed after the state’s department of health cut off funding through the WIC program, forcing low-income women to go elsewhere to obtain vouchers for themselves and their children. Last month, Republicans in Michigan introduced a bill that would require women to get a vaginal ultrasound at least two hours before obtaining an abortion.

  • Why do these articles keep ignoring North Carolina, which just passed a bill that would require ultrasounds before an abortion and require the attending doctor to sit in a recovery room with the patient for three hours after the procedure – making it impossible for any doctor to perform more than two in a day.

  • tiredofitall

    I give up. The republicans are for less intrusive and smaller government until they want to have a woman have a probe inserted into her vagina so everyone can look at the pictures. They are either sick or perverse. If this happened on the streets, against a women’s will, we would call it rape. Let’s have the republican men consent to an anal probe to see if they are full of bullshi….. before they run for office.

    • july860

      I think that is a wonderful idea!

    • dtgraham

      Love that anal probe thing tiredofitall. That’s funny. Great line and even better idea.

    • Jill49

      Maybe the repubs should also update their law that the male that caused the unwanted pregnancy should be required to have a vasectomy.

      • docb

        Listening does not historically mean taking action by repubs..If they get the votes they will revert right back to obstruction and denigration of all the groups..women, immigrants, unions, African American..

        Their platform proves the point..They are changing nothing but the verbiage!

    • ralphkr

      There might be a problem with an anal probe for Republicans. Do you REALLY think that both the probe and Ryan’s head would fit at the same time?

    • Erik Nash

      What’s really frightening is that the way this is starting to look and sound (just my opinion)rape might just become legal.

    • 1bythebrooks2

      Why are repubs so concerned about something that has been legal since the early 70’s? Just how far back do they want to take this country in the concerns for women, minorities, the poor, LGBT, etc. Apparently, WAY back!

  • july860

    I couldn’t stop laughing long enough at first to leave a comment. “Talk to women” “try to convince them the repubs are fighting for them”? At first I couldn’t believe my eyes. Are they serious????? At the rate they are alienating women they will have no one to talk to. However, I know there are schlubs that listen to this rhetoric and bullshit and believe it.

  • dtgraham

    Arkansas caught my eye initially, and I thought that this is where the rubber is finally going to hit the road on this issue, but I wasn’t aware that Kansas and North Dakota had also gone that far.

    Let’s face it, women will continue to make choices in various ways and you are not going to stop abortion. The national shock will sink in when people start seeing women, from certain states, doing prison time for having an abortion at 7 or 13 weeks, or from merely taking the morning after pill.

    A ban is worthless without penalties and the repercussions of preventing the implantation in the womb of that 3rd person, who supposedly appeared the night before, are going to be serious. What happens to women who defy the government on this is something that the political right never, ever wants to talk about. They’re actually doing it.

  • The reason the GOP is likely to fail in its efforts to attract women, gays, and ethnic minorities is their record and what they are proposing as solutions for decades of overt gender and ethnic discrimination. It will take a lot more to convince those who have been relentlessly attacked and demonized for decades than just say, we are the new Republicans, we promise to be more subtle in the future in the pursuit of our goals, if you vote for us. Victims don’t need subtlety, they need the truth, facts, and evidence their nemesis has changed for the better.
    The GOP has catered to the aspirations of white males for years, and that is the only constituency they are likely to have for years to come.

    • Catered to the white male…..The GOP has catered to the rich, no matter the color or gender, and to the lowest instincts of the uninformed and unenlightened white male. Not, certainly, every white male.

  • Marjani

    When they grow up and become relevant to what is happening in 2013 instead of 1813, let us know. Until then, this is fodder for great big snores.

  • stcroixcarp

    Why won’t republicans ever talk about the responsibility that men have in causing abortions?. All pregnancies are caused by men, wanted or unwanted. Shouldn’t the man who caused the pregnancy that is aborted have to face some penalties too? And what about those Prince Charmings out there who threaten their wives and girlfriends into having abortions? I would love to see billboards along freeways featuring studly men captioned, “Only you can prevent abortions–one Vasectomy at a time.” Or ” Abstinence–the cure for abortion.”

    • WhutHeSaid

      Be careful what you wish for. A pregnancy may take two people (normally), but it is the woman who carries the child and suffers any complications. There are enough people who want to take away the right for the woman to chose what happens to her own body without inserting the male into the mix (no pun intended). If we are to honor the woman’s right to decide for herself the fate of her own body, then we cannot at the same time make the male accountable for the results of her free choice. Such a thing would immediately lead to the ability of men to force their desires upon the woman’s personal choice over her own body — a major step backwards.

      • stcroixcarp

        This is exactly what the men of the GOP are trying to do now. In recent times a good number of them have engaged highly publicized irresponsible sexual behavior and women and kids suffer as a result. My point is that men need to start behaving in a sexually responsible manner. If we really want to stop abortions, we shouldn’t be trying to make them illegal, but safe and extremely rare. This means being mindful and respectful and careful in our sexual behavior. Both men and women need to do this. Birth control should be available to everyone of child bearing age and we should encourage our boys and girls to use it EVERY TIME. As much as I am troubled and saddened by abortion, sometimes it is the only merciful thing to do.

    • plc97477

      Both of therm are great ideas.

  • The problem is that many GOP don’t like abortion. They don’t wano allow it, thus putting them in conflict with many women.
    They got some women voters.

  • When Republicans speak about furthering the reach and appeal of their party, it is almost always in terms like “marketing” and “branding.” They are so caught up in corporate-speak and robotic business parlance that they seem to have completely forgotten — and it shows very prominently — how to believe in government as public service for the common good. Until they get past conventions, position papers, nominees, primaries and elections as just opportunities to discuss their “brand” they are doomed to the slippery slope. They will not become irrelevant — gerrymandering and rigging voting laws will see to that in red House states and governorships — but the merits of their argument will have scant chance of gaining traction. At this rate they may never be much more than an impediment to the policies that most Americans want and need. Sadly — but good for the nation, as it keeps these totally contradictory Republican ideologies naked for the world — even the party’s own leaders don’t even recognize, or can’t articulate, what their inherent problems really are.

  • empiremed

    Married women vote overwhelmingly for Republicans (56% to 31%) That’s because they’re smarter and more mature.

    • july860

      No, its because their husbands tell them who to vote for.

      • empiremed

        Like I said, they’re smarter, they listen to their husbands. Let’s see…most men vote Republican, the ones that can support themselves and not look to government to take care of them. And most women that can get a man vote Republican. That just leaves the Demos with a bunch of cry babies looking to the government to give them what they want.

        • july860

          Uh, yeah, okay…

          • empiremed

            Glad you agree!

        • maryinbama

          People like you are the best spokespersons for the GOP that the Democrats have. You just cannot keep from pissing women off.

          • empiremed

            No one is going to change your mind. The fact that I’m right pisses you off. I’m sorry you’re so offended. The facts are most married women vote
            Republican. You must wear the pants in your family. Does your husband
            squat to take a piss?

          • maryinbama

            Lol! My husband is much more masculine than some whiny little thing who feels threatened by women. College educated women are more likely to vote Democrat.

          • deardiary

            He (empiremed) is kind of obsessed with people “pissing”.

        • chino49p

          Empiremed
          Actually it is the repub led states that use the most goverment hand-outs as you would call them. And repub voters recieve most of that. The problem is that repub policies make for a poorer populace that in turn looks to the goverment for help.
          Its just a stupid thing, being and voting against your own best interest & then complaining about the results that your votes led to.

          • empiremed

            Regardless of your red state blue state theory, conservative men and women do not cry to the government. They look to themselves and God to support them. They vote for freedom from government. Demos look to the government as their God.

          • metrognome3830

            You write more intelligently than Lana Ward, but you still say the same stupid things.

          • empiremed

            Just try thinking logically for a change. Be independent, quit relying on the government, you’ll feel a lot better about yourself.

          • Independent1

            Quit relying on the government? If that’s what you want, start writing to the GOP legislators of Red States and tell them to stop cutting budgets and state services so fast that they’re throwing hundreds of thousands of their residents onto welfare and food stamps. From our government’s own listings, during normal recessions, (including the 5 just previous to the 2007-2009 disaster) states usually promote job growth and end up creating around 1.5 million jobs; whereas during this lastest recession, because of the nefarious actions of Red State legislatures, states succeeded in losing over 700,000 jobs – the vast majority of them in red states. Also, fact is that more than 70% of food stamps go to Red States, Also,15 of the 18 states that suck the most welfare from Washington are red states, in fact, the 8 states that suck the most welfare dollars from Washington (all of them getting more than $2 in welfare for every dollar they sent to Washington in taxes), are all southern Red States. While in contrast, all 8 of the states that not only send the most tax dollars to Washington and are basically supporting the nation, getting less than .80 back in welfare for each tax dollar they send to Washington, are all Blue States. Another telling fact at just how incompetent GOP legislators are in Red States, is that 8 of the 10 states with the most people living below the poverty level, are all Red states, and of the 50 states, red states clearly lead the nation by a wide margin in having residents living in poverty and needing some kind of welfare.

            If anyone needs to start thinking logically and get their head out of the wrong place, IT’s YOU!!!

          • empiremed

            If you think most of the welfare recipients in the red states are Republican, you’ve lost your mind. Republicans put in a work requirement that Obama took out. The Demos are just pumping more money down there in an attempt to buy the votes in those states too. And I do not watch Fox News. I get my info. from various places on the net, like this one. The reference to Obamaphones came fron the Drudge Report.

          • Independent1

            You claim you don’t listen to Faux News but that’s a blatant lie – you constantly parrot lies and distortions that only come from Faux News. Obama did not do any such thing as remove any work requirements for welfare folks. That was just one more Faux News lie. And government reports that show which states get the most welfare dollars and which ones have the most people living in poverty don’t lie – the only one who lies is you in trying to make excuses for the totally incompetent red state governments. Republicans know absolutely nothing about how to run a state or federal government. They showed that clearly in the late 1920s early 1930s when they drove America and the world into the gread depression, the showed it again under George Bush when they almost did that again, and they’ve shown that by driving America into a recession every time the party has someone in the presidency.

          • empiremed

            I speak the truth. If you can’t handle it, that’s your problem. Why do you think what I say comes from Fox News? Do you watch it? I make no excuse for incompent state governments, although I think it’s great what Scott walker has done. Demos use tax money to buy votes in both red and blue states. Neat trick since it’s not even their money.

          • Independent1

            I certainly do not watch Faux News, I don’t own a TV set to watch it – and certainly wouldn’t watch it if I could. But when you do enough posting on Yahoo and the National Memo, and right-wing wackos after right-wing wackos such as yourself constantly spout the same drivel, it’s pretty obvious where it’s coming from. And I really feel sorry for you if you truely believe the lies and distortions that you’re constantly spewing, because that’s exactly what they are: lies and distortions. Not one of your comments has been the truth – you’re constantly distorting the facts.

          • empiremed

            How about this article from the Washington Post about Obama gutting the welfare requirement:

            The 1996 welfare reform law required that a portion of the able-bodied adults in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program — work or prepare for work. Those work requirements were the heart of the reform’s success: Welfare rolls dropped by half, and the poverty rate for black children reached its lowest level in history in the years following.

            But the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them. In place of the legislated work requirements, the administration has stated, it will unilaterally design its own “work” systems without congressional involvement or consent. Any state will be free to follow the new Obama requirements “in lieu of” the written statute.

            The administration has provided no historical evidence showing that Congress intended to grant the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or any part of the executive branch the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. The historical record is clear and states the opposite; as the summary of the reform prepared by Congress shortly after enactment plainly says: “Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.”

            The members of Congress closely involved in drafting this law have asserted that Obama’s action contradicts the letter and intent of the statute. For 15 years after welfare reform was enacted, no waivers of work requirements were issued by HHS. No such waivers were discussed because it was clear to all that Congress had never provided the department with such waiver authority.

            What is it that the administration’s July guidance suddenly seeks to change? At the core of the 1996 law are “participation rate requirements” that ensure that 30 to 40 percent of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in any of 12 different “work activities” for 20 to 30 hours per week. The administration would exempt states from this requirement and encourage them to operate under alternative performance measures. For example, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said that to bypass federal workfare requirements, a state would have to “move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.”

            At first blush, a 20 percent increase in “employment exits” sounds impressive. But what does it mean? In the typical state, about 1.5 percent of the TANF caseload leaves the rolls each month because of employment. To be exempt from the federal work requirement, a state would have to raise that number to about 1.8 percent of caseload. This is a minuscule change; as the economy improves, this small increase will occur automatically in most states. Moreover, states keep imperfect employment records of those leaving TANF; many states could easily achieve the required increase through modest improvements in recordkeeping alone.

            But here’s the kicker. States have kept statistics on employment exits for decades, and they have always been meaningless as a measure of success. Welfare caseloads always have routine turnover; the larger the caseload, the greater the number of exits, simply because there are more people in the system. Historically, the number of employment exits rises as the caseload rises and falls as the caseload falls. The count of employment exits is at best pointless; at worst, it is a reverse indicator of limiting welfare dependence.

            For example, according to the metric of employment exits, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children system was a whopping success: Caseloads soared and the number of employment exits nearly doubled. By contrast, the post-reform TANF program has been a failure, because caseloads fell and employment exits declined. This is why, when the 1996 reform was drafted, the count of employment exits was deliberately excluded as a success measure. It is inherently misleading.

          • Independent1

            Well, Here’s an article also from the Washington post that says in the second paragrah : “the Obama administration is not removing the bill’s work requirements at all. He’s changing them to allow states more flexibility, but the principle that welfare programs must require recipients to move toward employment aren’t going any anywhere.”
            If you read the article you’ll see that what the Obama administration is doing is improving the TANF program.

            As I said in my comment: Obama “gutting the work requirements from the welfare program” is simply NOT TRUE!!!

            To hear conservatives tell it, the Obama administration is using its executive power to effectively repeal the Clinton administration’s signature welfare reform law. Gov. Terry Branstad (R-Ia.) – who was also governor when Clinton signed that bill into law – declared that it was a smashing success “and now we see this administration trying to gut it. I think it is illegal.” Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney says that Obama wants to “strip the established work requirements” from the bill, and John Boehner calls the move “a partisan disgrace.”

            One man’s gutting is, of course, another man’s tweaking, but in this case, the Obama administration is not removing the bill’s work requirements at all. He’s changing them to allow states more flexibility. But the principle that welfare programs must require recipients to move toward employment isn’t going anywhere.

            Here’s what’s happening. George Sheldon, the acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), sent states a memorandum inviting them to submit applications for waivers from certain aspects of the TANF law. The stated intention is to allow states more room to try programs that promote employment for welfare recipients in the face of the recession. The actual language is rather strict and rules out a number of potential waiver applications. For example, the memo states, “The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.” Translation: people who aren’t on TANF because they didn’t meet the work requirements aren’t going to get bailed out here. Proposed waivers also must include concrete methods of evaluating performance, and set standards that the new programs must meet for the waiver to continue.

            The sort of changes allowed by these waivers, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ LaDonna Pavetti argued in a blog, could have a significantly positive impact on TANF’s ability to usher people into jobs. She explained that TANF’s work requirements are often phrased in terms of “activities,” which include not just employment but unpaid work and internships, job searching, etc. “The outcome measure isn’t what you want, which is employment rather than activities,” she argues. The waivers will make it easier for states to target employment rather than activity participation, so people stuck in unpaid work or spending months on a job hunt aren’t counted as successes and denied aid.

            The changes also could help reduce red tape, Pavetti says. “There are these extremely strict reporting requirements so staff spend an extraordinary amount of time just counting beans,” she explains. “They aren’t able to give people the attention they need to actually help them find jobs.” The waivers could exempt states from those reporting requirements, freeing up social service workers to actually help those in need.

            Welfare experts frame the change as a slight walk-back from the stringent changes to the work requirements established in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). The waivers don’t return the program to the level of flexibility between the initial passage of welfare reform and the DRA’s passage, they say, but it moves in that direction. In that way, though, the changes move the law closer to what most people think of as “welfare reform.”

          • empiremed

            Like your article states “one man’s gutting is another man’s tweaking.” The truth is Obama, without consent of Congress, relaxed the “definition of work” in qualifing for welfare. This went as far as “looking for work” was
            considered working. “Looking for work” could be as easy as making a phone call and who can prove you didn’t. The bottom line is welfare rolls have skyrocketed under Obama. He was just clever enough to do it in a way that gave him “plausable denyability.” He is buying votes with taxpayer money. And again, I do not watch Fox News. The only T.V. I’ve watched recently has been The Blble on the History Channel.

          • Independent1

            You obviously don’t read very well, the article indicates that the current policy was creating far too much paperwork, so employment counselors we’re having a hard time finding the time to actually locate work for people. In another article from the Heritage Foundation, it was pointed out that since some changes were made to the program during the Bush years, that the current program was simply not working, and people were doing exactly what you described in your comment – counselors were so caught up with red tape that theydidn’t have the time to actually help people find jobs so they were granting benefits to people who weren’t really looking for work. By relaxing some of the rules red tape, especially during a recession when work counelors had such a heavy workload, it’s freed up the counselors so they have more time to actually oversee what the people are really doing that are looking to them for help in finding a job. Basically, the way TANF was currently structured tt had been turned into a useless program.

          • empiremed

            I read just fine, and I have made a living out of reading people as well. You need help, serious help, or else your blind hatred is going to consume you. All Republicans are not evil greedy people as Demos are not. People are not liars just because they disagree with you. I have justified my beliefs with backup. I believe Obama is buying votes through the welfare system, you don’t, fine. I believe he or his advisors are smart enough to get away with it with some people, you don’t, fine. But, you really need some help, find God, find Jesus, or something, but get help.

          • chino49p

            empiremed
            You must be one of those faux news parrots. You poor things wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked you in the face in the noon-day sun. Its not anyones theory, its a fact that repug states and thier repug voters use more government handouts than democrat states. And again, the reason is that repug policies put more people in the position that they need government help.
            You repugs have proved time and again that you know nothing of the real God of Love. Your god is hatred, money, hypocrisy, and sadism. You poor thing.

          • empiremed

            It is not fact that conservatives use more government handouts. What’s your scource?

          • Independent1

            Sorry empiremed but you’re wrong. If you took one minute to do a search on states that get the most welfare dollars you’d find that 15 of the lealding 18 states sucking welfare dollars are all red states. And if you did a search to see which states lead the nation in people below the poverty level, you’d find that 8 of the top 10 states leading the nation with people living in poverty are all red states. Just like I’ve said in the past, you’re the most blindsighted, shortsighted individual I’ve encountered on these postings. You have absolutely not one ounce of common sense!!!

          • I think empiremed is a paid GOP poster, everything he post is straight from Fox not News or the Republican handbook on how to make lies believable.

          • Independent1

            I agree completely, he’s nothing but a Faux News parrot.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            But have you looked at some websites, like the Tax Foundation Blog and State Master? Some websites have that DC, Maine, Rhode Island, Guam and California listed as having the largest number of people on welfare [with 3-6 out of 100people listed as the reference]. Most of the other states have 1-2 people per 100 people on welfare. Gee- that’s really not statistically significant. Other websites list DC, California, New Mexico, Alaska, Pennsylvania all in the top 15 states of welfare recipients. Let me see now……no one website wants to agree on blue vs. red states and welfare………..how can ANYONE really know? Of course some states give more in taxes than the get from the Federal Government. That is common sense – some states are nicer to live in [weather wise] and have a hell of a lot more people living in them paying tax dollars. Let’s face it, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of this argument. Statistics can be skewed to make them just about anything you want them to be. Why can’t we all take care of the people around us instead of arguing over who is supposed to do it? The Churches used to do it – can’t rely on that anymore. Friends used to do it – now they are too poor. Family used to do it – now familes are fragmented and many won’t take care of each other. I don’t need someone to tell me how to donate my money. I am perfectly able to do that on my own. I am sick and tired of seeing folks having child after child that they can not afford, and expecting someone else to take care of those children. While they sit on their behinds and do NOTHING to earn a living for that child. All ages, all walks of life, all races included!!!!!!

            I have an idea! If you have one child on the government dime, then you are on birth control (mom AND dad) until you get your feet back under you. And maybe, just maybe, it would be nice if someone showed those people HOW to get their feet back under them. In other words, that someone CARED enough to take an interest in a stranger and help them. In any event, why do we have millions of people on welfare having millions of babies they can’t support??? WHY???????

        • SueTX

          This married woman happily voted for President Obama both times. My husband didn’t the first time but didn’t hesitate to vote for him for the second term. And yes, we support ourselves with hard work, and give as generously as we can to our church and various charities.

          I was once a registered Republican, Concerned Women of America, et al member….never again. For that matter, I used to be staunch pro-life. This past election cycle and watching the bloomin’ idiots and their “legitimate rape” and personhood nonsense changed that viewpoint forever. Our household is pro-choice now.

          Try again, empiremed

          • empiremed

            Yes, that man was an idiot. But, if you were swayed that easily I don’t think you were ever stauch pro life. Therefore I have a hard time believing anything else you wrote. That is a life in there.

      • Independent1

        Empiremed, as usually you like to skew the statistics, Romney DID NOT take 56% of the marriied women’s vote to Obama’s 31% (if so, who got the other 13%? ), the actual numbers were 53% for Romney to 46% for Obama. Obama won the total women’s vote by 55% to 44%. Virtually every issue you raise is total nonsense. Like the GOP and Romeny you like to try and win arguements based on lies and distortions rather than the truth.

      • Inthenameofliberty

        Ha! So not the case with the Democratic and Republican women voters that I know. Their husbands would never dream of telling them what to do!

    • Any woman who votes Republican is out of her mind. The Republican politicians do not care about women except for what we can do for them. Any “middle class” citizen who votes for them is out their mind. They do not care about the “middle class” except for the fact that we keep the cogs of their business machines going so that they keep making more money. It’s time for people to start reading between the lines and getting minds of their own, especially women-married or not!

      • empiremed

        You’re completely out of your mind. Have you ever looked into what Republicans donate and contribute out of the goodness of their hearts?
        They just don’t go crying to the government to get what they want.

        • Independent1

          That’s pure BS. Republicans don’t donate to charities out of the goodness of their hearts – they don’t have any hearts. If they did, they wouldn’t be constantly calling for budget and tax cuts knowing full well that in doing so they’re putting greater struggles into the lives of millions of Americans that can use a helping hand. The primary reason Republicans donate to charities is because they know it may give them a tax deduction that can often help them cut the taxes they pay to next to zero … just like scumbag Romney, the world’s second most useless human being next to George Bush jr.

          • empiremed

            I know a lot of good people that give out of the goodness of their heart regardless of how much taxes they pay. Did you know, according to the IRS, the top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes even after their deductions. And the bottom 50% pay only 3% of total income taxes. Rommey gave $4,000,000 to charity out of $17,000,000 in income. I’m sure you think that was just to get a tax deduction.

          • Independent1

            The only thing your comment about the 1% paying 39% of the taxes goes to prove is the enormous income disparity between the haves and have nots. Of course the 1% is going to pay a large portion of the nations tax bill because they colleclt such a large percent of the income – especially when you’re talking about individuals. Do you realize to belong to the 1% you had to make over $380,000 in 2011 – thats almost 8 times what they say an average American makes – and 380,000 is at the bottom of the scale. On a net worth basis, the average 1% has an 8.3 million net worth, which is 69 times what an average American’s net worth is. And I’m suprised your so gullible as to believe that what Romney published as tax returns for 2010 and 11 are even remotely representative of his true tax returns. Any lamebrain realizes that Romney gimmicked those two returns to make his returns look at least acceptable to the American public. And you’re right, I definitely believe that Romney only contributes to charity because the gets a big tax break from doing so. He’s the second most useless human scumbag on the planet next to George Bush Jr.

    • maryinbama

      Not THIS married woman.

      • empiremed

        Does you husband squat to take a piss?

    • deardiary

      I think it’s fair to characterize people over 70 as mature. It’s the smarter part I disagree with.

    • deardiary

      I think it’s fair to characterize people over 70 as mature. It’s the smarter part I disagree with.

      • empiremed

        You just showed your level of intelligence, or lack thereof

        • deardiary

          Why yes I have, as have you.

    • wrong, they only vote Republican because they are bullied into voting for them most of the time. And since most Republicans like to trade in their older wives for much younger women, most Republican married women aren’t that old.

      • Independent1

        Aren’t that old and obviously not very smart. Americans that would vote for two snakeoil salesman that are nothing but hellbent on turning America into the first nation governed by corporations are not only not very smart, they’re totally dellusional, totally lacking in common sense and so shortsighted that they can’t even see when the political party they’re voting for is trying to destroy them.

  • Do republicans think they will direct women where to go as if it is the cowboy in the field directing cows??? No way. Please go away.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The reason the GOP won’t attract politically savvy, intelligent women? “Male Voice.” Every smart woman looks at any speech and all she hears is a male voice. Even Palin and Bachmann speak in masculine, albeit shrill, harpy voices as directed by King Norquie. Smart men today know women don’t “need” them. Women just “want” them. Smart men realize it’s better to be “wanted” than “needed.” Men may be attracted to needy women until they begin to feel strung out by the obligation need implies. What the GOP bossy bois want is to lord it over women by making women’s lives as close to dependent as it was in the plantation days of Pre-Civil War. Sorry…not when women are paying their own way. The GOP stupids and mental midgets of the right don’t get this. You don’t lay down the law to women who pay their own way in life. You stand back, admit they are equal to your own independence and take advantage of the benefits of life with an independent woman who isn’t a clinging vine or a noose around your neck. The GOP bully bois hate a nanny state and yet, do their level best to create it by trying to make women MORE, not less, dependent on a man. Until these guys see themselves as women do, they are as ignorant as a newborn babe.

  • The new GOP report also suggested that Republicans “talk about people and families, not just numbers and statistics.”Translation: “Name, shame, and blame all those uppity wimmims!”

  • I’ve been saying and writing for more than a year that the GOP are bigoted bastards. Bigotry includes sexism, racism and the suppression of the rights of same-sex couples. Bigotry happens to the one of the 10 Tenets of the Republican Party. Another Tenet is incompetence, which is why these GOP fascist morons will continue to hemorrhage female voters with their stupid “backdoor” abortion bans, trying to allow insurance companies to deny contraception coverage and the ultra-fascist and unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds in order to get an abortion. BTW: fascism is another of the GOP’s 10 Tenets…

  • I missed any mention of the Lily Ledbetter Act enforcing equal pay for equal work, which Repubs voted against in droves. Certain Repub lawmakers are enabling rape, by calling the pregnancy caused by rape as an act of god. They are endangering women’s lives by insisting that women carry guns to prevent rape. They give tacit approval to the slut-shaming and victim-shaming that their media talking heads spew daily, as well as reducing the women who are in office to their attractiveness, hairstyles and clothes. There are significant Repub groups that oppose contraception, which allows women to enter the job market with the assurance that they can control the schedule of their births…. I can add much more, about religious views of women as submissive to men, refusing to take guns away from abusive partners leading to women’s deaths… come on, they are medieval on the subject of women.

    • metrognome3830

      It’s interesting that Mitch (Pretty Boy) McConnell has seen fit to criticize Hillary Clinton’s looks. Apparently there are no mirrors in his house.

  • Landsende

    When the republicans talk about gun control they scream the government is trying to take away their rights but when it comes to women’s rights they pass legislation to take away women’s rights and make them second class citizens. Until they realize women are tired of them saying one thing and doing another smart women will vote against republicans.

    • empiremed

      What rights are they trying to take away from women? And don’t say abortion, their
      is another persons rights to consider in that case.

      • Landsende

        The right to decide what to do with my body, the right to take contraception, the right to be paid the same wages as men, the right to be protected under the law against discrimination, harassment or rape. While I don’t believe I would ever have an abortion I have never been raped or been in a situation where the father has taken off or in order to support my children because i can’t afford day care I have to depend on welfare and food stamps which the republicans want to cut. I’ll bet your one of those people that scream the loudest about people on welfare and your taxes being used to support them. You feel you’ve done your part by refusing to allow women to have an abortion and saved that child. To bad you feel like the women and children are on their own afterwards. Maybe if you pushed your legislators to vote for a jobs bill, a raise in the minimum wage and companies to provide day care women wouldn’t feel their only option is abortion or welfare.

        • empiremed

          Like Obama, you have created a straw man to beat up on. No one has proposed taking away any of those rights from you except abortion. No one has propsed taking away welfare, just having a work requirement when they are able. I only scream about welfare when the recipients sit on their asses, not when they really need it. You listen to way too much propaganda about evil Republicans. Wake up, think for yourself.

          • dtgraham

            Oh? How about fighting to allow employers to keep from covering contraception in their benefit plans?

          • empiremed

            It may be against the employer’s religion. Buy your own contraception. No ones stopping you. You liberals aways have your hand out.

          • Well empiremad why is it alright for employers and the Federal government to pay for Viagra(which it has been doing since 2004) for men when it only helps one problem that men have. But not birth control especially the pills that help at least six other medical problems that only women have including preventing cervixal cancer and are not used as birth control but treatments for the women’s medical problems. If an employer and the government pay for the Viagra so a man get it up and stay hard they should also pay for women’s birth control most of which helps with problems only women have. If you pay to help a man’s sexual life then you should pay to help save women’s lives which as I have many birth control products and are used by women whose hubands were clipped because of female health problems.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            Maybe men should buy their own viagra…..anyone ever investigate how much money that would save on health care? No? Go figure.

          • empiremed

            I am a man and I agree. Buy your own contraception and your own viagra. Stop putting your hand out!

          • Landsende

            Have you not read Paul Ryan’s budget that would cut welfare, k-12 education funding, unemployment benefits, tuition funding and issuing vouchers to buy Medicare and Medicaid which we have already paid for and any other program that will help the poor or middle income. Republicans voted against raising the minimum wage, the Lily Ledbetter Act, and voted against the Violence Against Women Act. As for listening to propaganda I read and listen to multiple news sources and realize that some of them slant their reporting to push their agenda and ratings so take what they say with a grain of salt and make up my own mind. I even admire some republicans like Jon Huntsman and used to like Mitt Romney until he started flip flopping on all the issues. I’ll give you the same advice you gave me….wake up and quit listening to Faux News and Limpdick and start thinking for yourself.

          • empiremed

            I don’t watch Fox News. My sources are from various places on the net.
            It seems you’re just another liberal that’s always looking to the government to take care of you. I believe it much better to be independent, take care of your own needs and then do what you can for others voluntarily without intrution from government. Do not force anyone else to give up what is theirs, let them give on their own.

          • Landsende

            I have never received any benefits from the government except for Social Security which I paid into for may years and saved and invested wisely because Social Security by itself is not enough to live on. When my son and daughter were laid off from their jobs I supported them until they were able to find another job. They never received unemployment benefits or food stamps. I don’t look for the government to take care of me or my family as long as I am able to help them. Can you say the same of your family. Have they never received tuition help or any other kind of benefits. Hurray for you if they haven’t because you and I are more fortunate than the people that need help through no fault of their own. The difference is I don’t begrudge them the help while you do.

          • empiremed

            I am basically in the same situation as you. I nor my family have ever taken any benefits from the government. But you’re wrong, I do not begrudge people that genually need help getting it. But I do begrudge those that take it simply because its there. I believe demos pump more and more money in the system just to buy votes. Do you really think people should be given free Obamaphones…come on.

          • Landsende

            According to Fact Check the so called Obamaphones were actually a program called SafeLink signed into law by GWB and is not paid for by taxpayers but by the phone companies. As for Dems buying votes I’m sure they do by championing programs for the needy just as Republicans do by championing tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

          • Landsende, the safe link was signed into being when Reagan was President and land lines were given to the elderly and so on. What Bush 2 did was just the cell phones to the original program.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            Oh – it is paid for by the people, not the cell phone companies. Ever look at your bill? The tax is RIGHT THERE, for all to see. You are paying for people to have free cell phones. It is the right of the phone company to make you pay for it since you are well-off and can afford the phone. I am not exactly sure why more people don’t know this. Fact check is not always correct. Unless you tend to believe everything you read on the internet. I don’t think that you do. You are too well-articulated to be someone like that. So, go look at your bill. The charge is there, if you have a cell phone. It’s called the Federal Universal Service Charge. Congrats! We’re winners to providing free cell phone service to people who can lie and pay for it themselves! Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Makes me angry. Like Empiremed, I don’t begrudge anyone who truly needs the help. But when I see examples around me of people milking the system because our government has so little oversite to these ‘FREE’ programs, I am an unhappy person.

          • Landsende

            I like Fact Check because it’s nonpartisan and try to have my facts straight before I comment. Yes, we do pay the Universal Service Charge and there are some that receive the cell phones that shouldn’t but they also go to seniors on fixed incomes, women escaping an abusive situation and handicapped people. I would much rather pay the few dollars it costs me each month to help those people than give tax breaks to companies like GE that paid no taxes or oil companies that are charging $4 or more for a gallon of gas while earning record profits.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            Well, I would be a whole lot happier if humans could be trusted not to take what is not meant for them. I like helping people that genuinely need it. What I am, is tired of being taken for a ride by dishonest people who ruin it for everyone else. I am so tired of it.

          • Safelink started when Reagan was President and land lines were provided to the elderly and the needy with children in their homes. The cell phones were added when George Walker Bush was President in 2004. You say that you don’t get you news from Fox not News but your quote about Obamaphones is the exact words Fox not News uses when talking about the Safelink program Also have you ever heard of the Welfare Reform Act that was passed in 1996, check it out and you will find that a lot things you think you know about people on welfare isn’t true either. There is work involved when a person gets welfare. No I have never been on welfare, never got food stamps, I have drawn unemployment twice in my life because of Reganic economics and Bush 2 two tax cuts. .

      • /there is no third person invovled in abortion, there is no life until the biological matter that is deposited in a woman’s womb until the matter has been for around 5 months there is no heart, there is no brain when egg and sperm mate, there is none when it it a prozone, nor iis there life in a fetus until days before it starts forming into a baby, so all you jugheads that call abortion murder need lessons of how a baby is made in a woman’s womb maybe you will understand that a life is not being murdered biological matter isn’t being allowed to became alive not an actual person. Also how many unwanted or unplanned for children have you ever adopted after it is born. IF you are like most so called Pro lifers all you care about is making a woman carry unplanned, or un wanted or death causing bioliogcal matter for nine months and have a baby after that you care less if the child lives or dies, all you want is for that matter to become a born baby and then you walk away willing to let it die a slow death from not having enough to eat or negelect or abuse, you got it born that is all that matters, let the mother and baby die now for all you care.Also women’s bodies perform what dr’s call natural abortions because of problems with either the matter, the woman’s womb or health even of fully formed babies because of a problem with the pregnency, are you calling that murder also when the woman can’t stop her own body from aborting the baby matter or even the baby before the time the woman is to give birth.

        • Independent1

          Let me add, not only do they obviously not care about what becomes of a baby once it is born, by constantly pushing to cut taxes and budgets that might in any way help in supporting people in need, they’re also always wanting to start wars at the drop of a hat, thinking nothing of sending these babies that have grown up into a needless war that ends up killing thousands of them. Republicans are the biggest hypocrites on the planet, totally devoid of anything resembling godliness. Yet they run around in their total delusion believing that what their preaching has something to do with God, not even being aware that their nothing more than Satan’s henchmen.

        • empiremed

          Does this mean you’re against late term abortion? At what point does it become murder?

          • Inthenameofliberty

            Your second question is the profound one. I don’t know that anyone really knows. I certainly don’t have that answer. That is between a woman and her doctor.

          • empiremed

            I don’t think the woman or the doctor has the right to play God. What would the baby say if they could vote? It is helpless, innocent life.

    • deardiary

      I’m disappointed the GOP Autopsy Report didn’t include the one obvious thing that would’ve won the 2012 election: Repeal women’s suffrage.”

  • Mark Forsyth

    No use talking to those who refuse to acknowledge the problem.How can they fix it if they can’t or won’t see it?