David :
There is more than one way to skin a cat. 
 
Take the contraception issue. Why it is an issue at all completely escapes  
me.
The cost of birth control pills per month is maybe $ 10.  If a woman  wants 
them
it is zero problem to get them and pay for them.  There should be no  
problem
for Republicans to make this point and re-frame the issue in terms of
individual choice. There simply is no hardship in this case, anyone
can afford $ 10 a month.
 
Instead, as usual, Republicans frame the issue in terms of religious  
principles
that most women don't want to hear. That is, they may well be willing to  
hear out
religious viewpoints, but in this case they think it is irrelevant and  
beside the point.
 
About abortion, sure, I hear you,  and generally I am opposed to  abortion.
OTOH, exceptions are warranted   --not only my opinion but those  of
I think the clear majority nationally--  in cases of rape,  incest, medical 
danger
to the life of the mother.  Age  may be another factor in cases  where
a girl has reached puberty really young and is still a child herself.
 
But many ( most ? ) Republican social conservatives take a hard line
and refuse, on principle , to allow for any such exceptions. Quayle  was
a prime example. 
 
Granted, for those who have "hard line" convictions, OK, that is their  
choice.
But for the  party  to take a hard line position is  crazy  --if getting 
elected
is supposed to mean anything.
 
For starters. 
 
Women also care a lot about health issues and child care.
 
Billy
 
======================================
 
 
 
 
 
 
4/8/2012 9:32:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]  
writes:

If the priority of women is abortion and  contraception, then the former 
precludes Republicans. And the election of 2010  shows that being pro-life 
precludes Democrats. The contraception non-issue has  been energized by the MSM 
and the Democratic party (but I repeat myself) as  being anti-woman, when 
it is really about not forcing religious institutions  to do things against 
long standing principles. REAL separation of church and  state in the 
direction the founders intended. 

I would hope that women  would be intelligent enough to see through that, 
but I must have a higher  opinion of their intelligence than is warranted. 
Evidently there's a lot of  Sheeple there.  

Yes, I know how that sounds, but with years of  disappointment one gets 
that way. 

David

  _   
 
"Free  speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by 
definition,  needs no protection."—Neal  Boortz 



On 4/8/2012 11:12 PM,  [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])  wrote:  
 
4/8/2012 8:44:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])  
 
 
 
I  kinda think it  will take more than the wives of registered Republicans 
to  do
what needs to be done. This is a  perennial problem for the GOP.
The party would win every election if  women didn't vote.
But they do, and they trend Democratic,  typically,
by 10 points or more.
 
Can't someone in the RNC employ a  sociologist who makes
women's issue his or her # 1 priority  to consult on political positions
and women's feelings ?  Its like  the GOP has almost no interest
in women's views of issues.  

You can't win elections with only the  votes of men.
By now the Republicans should have  gotten the message.
Except that they still are mostly  clueless.
 
Billy
 
------------------------------

 
 
 
 
My  wife is more for Mitt Romney than I am.  

David


  _   
 
"Free  speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by  
definition, needs no protection."—Neal  Boortz 



On 4/8/2012 8:56  AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])   wrote:  


Salon
 
 
Republicans just don’t get it 
 
As the GOP continues to repel women voters,  can you blame President Obama 
for opening his arms to greet them?
Joan  Walsh


 
 
Just as Mitt Romney was making _the case to  Newsmax_ 
(http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/05/459182/mitt-romney-addresses-women-problem/?tw_p=twt&;
mobile=nc) , that paragon of journalistic integrity, that the so-called  
Republican war on women is entirely concocted by Democrats, Republican  Scott 
Walker was quietly _signing a law_ 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html?1333728572)
   that 
repealed Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement law, which made it  easier for women 
to seek damages in discrimination cases. Driven by  state business lobbies, 
the repeal passed the GOP-dominated Legislature  on a strict party line 
vote, and Walker signed it, with no comment,  Thursday afternoon. 
President Obama, meanwhile, was hosting a White House  summit on women and 
the economy Thursday. Predictably, Republicans  howled that the president is 
merely courting another “interest group”  and playing politics. There was 
no doubt some politics at play during  the summit; at one point participants 
chanted, “Four more years!” 
But really, when Republicans are repealing equal pay  laws and proposing 
federal budgets that disproportionately hurt women,  as well as restricting 
funding for contraception, who’s playing politics  with women’s issues? 
When GOP poster boy Scott Walker is repealing equal-pay  protections for 
women, why shouldn’t Obama remind us that he signed the  Lily Ledbetter Equal 
Pay Act? Since the Ryan budget repeals  “Obamacare”  and slashes Medicaid 
and Medicare – both of which  disproportionately serve women — is it unfair 
to talk about how the  Affordable Care Act provides cost-free contraception, 
preventive care  like mammograms and Pap smears, and outlaws charging women 
more for  insurance? 
Yes, it’s an election year, so everything the president  does will be 
scrutinized for its political agenda. That’s fine. But I  continue to find it 
hilarious that Republicans insist that their  troubles with women are the fault 
of nasty Democrats. Contraception  aside, they’re the ones cutting programs 
for women and repealing equal  pay protection. To Newsmax, Mitt Romney 
again complained that Democrats  are distorting the GOP position on 
contraception. And again I say:  Democrats didn’t crusade to defund Planned 
Parenthood. 
Democrats didn’t  introduce personhood legislation that would outlaw certain 
types of  contraception. They didn’t propose the Blunt amendment that would 
have  allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for contraception as 
well  as any health care treatment they don’t approve of. 
I wrote the other day that concern about  contraception isn’t the only 
issue driving the _GOP’s widening gender  gap_ 
(http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/mitt_romneys_fooling_himself_about_women/singleton/)
 . 
But a recent USA Today poll found that  women in swing states say their 
_number one issue_ 
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/this-election-will-be-all-about-women/255355/)
   is women’s health care (men say 
deficits and the economy), and that  makes an interesting point: Women see 
contraception as an integral part  of their overall health care – as it is. We 
know that most women who use  the pill, for instance, use it for a health 
reason other than  contraception only. Republicans are the ones fetishizing 
birth control  and putting it outside the boundaries of women’s health care. 
Mitt Romney and the GOP just don’t get it. Everything  about the way they’
re approaching these issues is  backfiring.
-- 








-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to