No one here thinks the GOP should give an inch in gun rights. That's not the issue at all. What is at issue is a party that is increasingly out of touch with all, but a small base of its supporters. No matter your personal religious beliefs, it is political suicide to refer to women in the way many Republicans did during the 2012 elections. It is just plain stupid.
Abortion is the law of the land. Gay people are gaining mainstream acceptance daily. Each day, minorities become more and more of a factor in elections.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the GOP give up its core values. However, I believe many, many Republicans are quick to blur the line between church and state. There would be an outcry from Republicans if another religion besides Christianity was pushed to the same degree by Democrats (ir anyone else). Additionally, because the GOP is more homogeneous than the Democrats, it has been easier to manipulate by big business and special interests.
The GOP needs to get off the gay and abortion issues and focus on WINNING an election. It's cliche, but you simply cannot legislate morality and the sad truth is every successive generation becomes more permissive.
Abortion is the law of the land. Gay people are gaining mainstream acceptance daily. Each day, minorities become more and more of a factor in elections.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the GOP give up its core values. However, I believe many, many Republicans are quick to blur the line between church and state. There would be an outcry from Republicans if another religion besides Christianity was pushed to the same degree by Democrats (ir anyone else). Additionally, because the GOP is more homogeneous than the Democrats, it has been easier to manipulate by big business and special interests.
The GOP needs to get off the gay and abortion issues and focus on WINNING an election. It's cliche, but you simply cannot legislate morality and the sad truth is every successive generation becomes more permissive.
The GOP was supposed to be the "Party of the Constitution", they are as far from it as the Democrats are. The only real differences between the two parties are issues like, gay marriage, abortions, legalizing drugs, and maybe a little bit of gun control.
Seriously, the rest is the same. They both support NDAA, they both support the Federal Reserve, they both support violating civil rights(Patriot Act), they both support war for no good reason(Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, etc...), they both support bad foreign policy(The idea that occupation of someone else's land is alright for us, but not alright for them.), they both support no fiscal culpability (They spend with no concern for a budget or the deficit), they both support illegal immigration, (Democrats for votes, Republicans for cheap labor)... Seriously, if the first four things I listed have any influence on your vote... YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG! Pick a candidate who supports the Constitution!
Also, if one of those first four things I listed has an influence on your vote, remember this, they are all "natural rights of man", so if you think some of them can be removed but not others, you are no different than the gun grabbers. They also believe some natural rights should be taken away, they just have a different list.
Seriously, the rest is the same. They both support NDAA, they both support the Federal Reserve, they both support violating civil rights(Patriot Act), they both support war for no good reason(Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, etc...), they both support bad foreign policy(The idea that occupation of someone else's land is alright for us, but not alright for them.), they both support no fiscal culpability (They spend with no concern for a budget or the deficit), they both support illegal immigration, (Democrats for votes, Republicans for cheap labor)... Seriously, if the first four things I listed have any influence on your vote... YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG! Pick a candidate who supports the Constitution!
Also, if one of those first four things I listed has an influence on your vote, remember this, they are all "natural rights of man", so if you think some of them can be removed but not others, you are no different than the gun grabbers. They also believe some natural rights should be taken away, they just have a different list.
Care to expound on this? (bolded)
I agree with you on the rest, but I seriously don't remember a single instance of the repubs denigrating women in any way. Now the media did what they do and spun it that way on multiple occasions, but reality was far different in context.
Is this enough evidence? I'm not being snarky, it's just impossible to deny the GOP gaffe on winning women voters.
Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Steve King, Roscoe Bartlett, Tom Smith, Jim Buchy, Roger Rivard, Linda McMahon, Joe Walsh, John Koster
Rep. Tod Akin (R-Mo.) argued against a woman's right to have an abortion, even in the case of rape. In an interview conducted in August, he said, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
When Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, spoke at a healthcare hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, she advocated for expanding access to birth control. Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh interpreted her statement like this:
"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
Today, CNN commentator and right wing blogger Erick Erickson defended Limbaugh, explaining that while Rush’s comments were indeed “insults,” they were nevertheless justified, because after all, the previously unknown woman had testified that she “wanted the tax payers to pay her to have sex.”
Santorum supporter Foster Friess on MSNBC just now said in his day, "gals" put aspirin between their knees. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/santorum-backer-suggests-women-use-aspirin-between-their
On October 23rd, 2012, about two months after Todd Akin's comments, Richard Mourdock, the Indiana State Treasurer and 2012 Republican Senate candidate, became embroiled in a similar controversy when he stated that pregnancy from rape was "something god intended".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012
^^^ The funny thing about the story Books tells here is that weeks after Akin's comments about the magical qualities of lady parts to fight off rape sperm, other Republicans were still defending the idea. All it did was cost them the Senate.
Who the hell are these guys? lol
I thought you were referring to the "binders full of women" Romney deal. The media tried to spin the hell out of that and there was ZEEEERRRRROOOOOO truth in what they were trying to imply.
And the Rush quote? Yea that was over the top, but you gotta admit her "story" is pretty pathetic. To poor for condoms, so we taxpayers have to supply them for her? Ahem...Hey Sandra! :finger:
The longer Rush tells his dirty stories about the babes, the better I like it.
Like I said outside of a few nutcases the Republican war on women is all about us not wanting to pay for fun. Anytime a Republican puts their foot in their mouth the media is all over it but a Dem can get away with having sex with underage hookers and the MSM will not say a word.
A couple of interesting studies I have seen recently. 69% of Republicans do not care what a woman does with her body as far as contraception or abortion, as long as tax payers money is not used for it. 63% of Republicans have no problem with gays having the same rights and responsibilities as straights, it just needs to be called something other then marriage because marriage is a religious institution.
Similar threads
