Barack Obama thinks women are idiots.
Time will tell if he’s got a point.
Here’s the deal: Obama’s poll numbers aren’t good. Oh, the media is doing its best to spin it (with measures that seem desperate and slapdash), but the economy is still miserable (especially if you’re not too big to fail), the unemployment rate is “Down” to where the Administration said it wouldn’t go above if we passed Porkulus, and that’s through the grace of the fact that no Mullah in Iran has yet walked to the shore at the Strait of Hormuz and skipped a rock across the water, sending tankers scurrying for cover and pushing oil over $200 a barrel. Yet. And even so, this is the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression – largely because of Obama’s policies.
People have been cooling on “The One” pretty much since inauguration day.
And The One needs to get that enthusiasm going again.
And so what better to take peoples’ minds off their miseries and rile the (female) troops?
“Republicans want to take away your contraceptives!”
Notwithstanding the fact that, as Romney noted in December when George Stephanopoulos incongruously broached the subject in a debate, the subject has never come up in GOP circles. Period. It’s a non-issue to the GOP.
No matter. The media is in lock-step behind the Administration’s meme that the GOP wants to outlaw contraception. The theatrical “walk-out” of Democrats from Darrel Issa’s hearings was a classic bit of Goebbelsian theatre; while the useful idiots in the media (in this case, the gleefully dim Amanda Terkel at Huffpo) called the hearings “about contraception” they were in fact hearings on the constitutionality of mandating that religious groups offer contraception against their beliefs.
Catch that? The Democrats don’t even need to hijack Republicans’ meetings themselves. The mainstream media will do it for them, after the fact.
At any rate, that’s Obama’s message to female voters: “Never mind the economy; never mind the unemployment rate; never mind the fiscal catastrophe waiting for you, your kids, and their kids; and above all, don’t believe your lying ears when the GOP mentions that they’ve never said word one about taking anyone’s contraceptives away. Look! Boogeyman!”
Women, in Barack Obama’s world, are not just dim little dolts; they seem to think that women are intellectual slaves to their reproductive systems.
Women, in Barack Obama’s world, are not just dim little dolts; they seem to think that women are intellectual slaves to their reproductive systems.
A large cohort of the women I attended college with saw the world in those terms. From what I can surmise by my Facebook feed, a lot of them still do.
George Carlin told a related joke about this topic, but I won’t work blue in your comments section.
It’s more than time for Republican’s to stop trying to please the Obamabots that dominate the media culture. It’s been pointed out that this whole issue of banning contraceptives started with Clintonista cum “Journ-o-List” George Stephanopoulis dropping a question out of clear blue sky on Romney regarding banning contraception. Wasn’t an issue then or now – but it does serve as a useful distraction to the doubling of gasoline/diesel prices, persistent unemployment above 8% (with 2 million people ‘whisked away’ from the workforce just to keep the number ~8% for 2012), food prices rising into the stratosphere and our debt rating headed towards ‘junk’ status. Perhaps some conservative reporter (one of the 2%) will out of clear blue sky ask if Obama thinks the states have the right to ban bacon. Then a month later, conservatives should call for a requirement that Mosques, Synagogues, Halal butchers and Kosher delis must provide bacon and other pork related products to their employee’s. Then when Jews & Muslims claim some (as the New York Times editorial page put it) kokamamie 1st Amendment right to the freedom of religious beliefs, they can be asked why they want to ban bacon.
PS: Did you hear/see where Nancy Pelosi claimed that 98% of Catholic women use birth control? No fact check, no follow-up question – just a nodding along by the supposed speakers of truth to power.
For as long as I have been following politics…lets say since 1982, the whenever a Democrat needs a boost, he/she tells the old folks that the Republicans want to get rid of social security. And it often works.
What you say above is the new version of that. And I have to say that I see signs of it working. Interesting how far the world has changed when women will vote for the candidate that is promosing them free birth control.
Chuck – ask the oldsters and soon to be oldsters you know if they know that in Greece there are 10 grandparents for every 4 grandchildren. With “free” birth control, abortifacients and abortions, how long do they think there are going to be enough people here to pay in to Social Security so that the fund has money when they retire?
Interesting how far the world has changed when women will vote for the candidate that is promosing them free birth control.
It’s part of liberal reverse-o-world, Chuck. The essential element of womanhood is not giving birth to and nourishing children, it’s not giving birth to and nourishing children, even to the extreme of killing them in the womb if need be. Look at the perversion of the phrase women’s health. An unwanted child is health issue? In those dark days of yore, if a women was unable to conceive it would have been considered a health issue.
Hi Mitch; it’s been too long since I’ve stopped by to provide the balance and fact checking you seem to lack from time to time.
No, this is not about shiny objects, unless you count the packaging for birth control and condoms as that?
You’d be surprised to find just how many Catholic-affiliated entities, like colleges, hospitals and charities, not only provide contraception and even abortion and sterilization benefits, but have been doing so for years. The figure I’ve heard most often is roughly 70 – 80% of them do so and have done for decades – usually dating back at least to the 70’s, often earlier.
And as to the fuss about Obama waging war on religion? Most states have some similar provisions regarding providing coverage and benefits, and many Republicans – like Mike Hucakbee when he was governor, have signed nearly identical legislation into law, from REPUBLICAN legislatures, as the Obama legislation. He was not the only one. The Republicans and other conservatives pioneered what Obama is doing, and this fuss is either because conservatives don’t know their history, or are trying to do a quick revision of it when the truth no longer serves their purposes.
The fuss is a farce, it is the most offensive hypocrisy from the right. There is no war on religion, any more than the 98% of women who are Roman Catholic and use artificial birth control are waging war on the church.
Preventive and wellness care IS appropriate for public health policy. Not having unlimited children or control of the timing of children IS essential. Contraception gives a woman control over her own body, and over her life choices. And contraception is not unique or specific to women either; it is equally a male concern.
Contraception, allowing for planned families, is essential to developing nations. Where there is the ability to plan, there is the ability to reduce poverty, improve education, and economic growth and development typically follow. Women are no longer slaves to reproduction, with control, they are far better able to participate in decisions, in the economy, and in every aspect of their lives.
I for one have no interest in going back to the dark ages pre-contraception, and I have no interest in watching Rick Santorum trying to set women and famlies – and men too! – back into a dark age. Shame on you.
Maybe someone should notice that it was when Santorum took this line that he lost so very badly in PA; it is deservedly unpopular – and his position, and the position of any other conservative who spews the position that there is a war on religion or religious freedom is a liar, who either knows better, or should know better.
There are plenty of legitimate points of argument between the sides of the political spectrum. THIS is NOT one of them.
Take a good look; none of the conservative candidates are terribly popular with the right, and even less popular with the rest of us. Your turn out numbers in every state should tell you that.
it’s been too long since I’ve stopped by to provide the balance and fact checking . . .
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
*whewwwwwww*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
First off, no, it HASN’T been too long. You could have waited another 10 years, and it still wouldn’t have been a long enough hiatus from your unique brand of self-important, navel gazing, insanity-soaked twaddle.
Second off, you couldn’t fact check a kindergartner’s coloring project.
Third off, you’re about as balanced as David Hasslehoff when he’s sprawled out on the floor eating a burger.
Dog Gone stops in and proves the theory put forward by Mitch’s post ……….
Doggie claims there is no war on religion. Doggie is once again wrong. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will now ordain homosexuals who are living with their “partner”, in direct contradiction of the Bible they supposedly preach. There most certainly is a war on religion, as long as that religion is Christianity.
Merry Christmas, anyone?
Dog Gone doesn’t know what FACTS are.
They are not a list of talking points.
They are formed by consensus.
They are not created by authorities.
They are always subject to dispute.
Yeah, Kermit, they think that they need to update the message of the Living Word. Maybe if they are good they’ll get an invite to the Whitehouse and a pat on the head.
tl;dr
Pingback: Obama To Women: “Look, Little Ladies! A Shiny Object!” « Hot Air
DG,
Long time no see!
No, this is not about shiny objects, unless you count the packaging for birth control and condoms as that?
Sure, why not?
You’d be surprised to find just how many Catholic-affiliated entities, like colleges, hospitals and charities, not only provide contraception and even abortion and sterilization benefits, but have been doing so for years. The figure I’ve heard most often is roughly 70 – 80% of them do so and have done for decades – usually dating back at least to the 70′s, often earlier.
Right.
So what?
“Some Catholics” don’t set the church’s doctrine – the Vatican does – and even less do their decisions bind every other Catholic.
This is the logical fallacy of the “Middle Ground” – the idea that the “Right” position on a subject is the one between the two cases at hand. It’s just not true.
Onward:
And as to the fuss about Obama waging war on religion?
Strawman. It’s not about a “war on religion”; I’m not aware of a single prominent commentator on the subject who’s used the term, and even if there is, the subject is about “freedom of religion”.
Given what a bunch of absolutists Democrats claim (erroneously) to be on the other parts of the First Amendment – speech, assembly and press, and the bit about “separating” Church and State – it’s kind of funny (but not in a funny way) how lax and ignorant they, and you, are about what freedom of religion is.
Next:
Most states have some similar provisions regarding providing coverage and benefits, and many Republicans – like Mike Hucakbee when he was governor, have signed nearly identical legislation into law, from REPUBLICAN legislatures, as the Obama legislation. He was not the only one.
OK, DG. You sort of answered your own question there, but I’m guessing you don’t know how.
Let’s see if you can twig it. I may throw in a subtle hint or two to see if you can figure it out. If you do, you’ll be way ahead of Debbie Wasserman-Schlutz and Nanci Pelosi:
What do the various governors of the various states involved have in common?
Think about it.
Onward and upward. Or something.
The Republicans and other conservatives pioneered what Obama is doing,
In each case, you are omitting key context. The entire premise is completely wrong.
None of them FORCED a Church to do anything against their doctrinal or ethical will. Obama does.
End of tangent.
Let’s see if we can get to something interesting here:
The fuss is a farce, it is the most offensive hypocrisy from the right. There is no war on religion, any more than the 98% of women who are Roman Catholic and use artificial birth control are waging war on the church.
Two strawmen in one paragraph. Good job, where “good” means “depressing”.
“War on religion” – ibid.
And the “98% of Catholic women” (that’s Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ line, which you seem to take at face value) referred to people who use it at some point in their lives, not at any given moment – and given its source, it’s likely as not bullshit) get to make an individual choice. That’s between them, God, and their relationship with their church’s temporal laws.
This is about religious organizations retaining religious freedom – not about they or government forcing individual choices.
With all due respect, DG, this is Logic 101. It’s really difficult to take this argument seriously.
OK, next:
Preventive and wellness care IS appropriate for public health policy. Not having unlimited children or control of the timing of children IS essential.
Fine, and for the billionth time, nobody’s argued against anyone’s personal choice in the matter – and that you continue to imply it completely upends your supposed commitment to “fact”. For lack of a better term, it’s a lie.
This isn’t about individual choices. It’s about religious groups protesting a ham-fisted, authoritarian ingress into their group belief and doctrine. No different than requiring Moslem schools to offer pork on the menu.
And before you jump, inevitably, on the wrong meaning of that (presuming you reply at all, which, let’s be honest…) I specified Schools, as opposed to individuals, for a reason. If you continue to blur the distinction, it’ll be either because you really don’t understand the difference – which happens – or your are so rhetorically wedded to the misleading, abusive chanting point that fact really doesn’t matter to you.
Contraception gives a woman control over her own body… <;/i>
…and if you can’t name a significant conservative who is a party to this debate that has said anything about removing personal choice, and said it in strict relation to this issue, then you should just concede the point that you’re arguing a fallacy and move on.
Speaking of moving on…:
I for one have no interest in going back to the dark ages pre-contraception, and I have no interest in watching Rick Santorum trying to set women and famlies – and men too! – back into a dark age. Shame on you.
No, Dog Gone. Shame on you for participating in a fundamentally dishonest perversion of the rhetoric around this issue.
Maybe someone should notice that it was when Santorum took this line that he lost so very badly in PA…
Wait – I’m just a simple dumb conservative, so hep me out here.
Was Santorum in the Senate discussing the Obama Administration’s overreach?
Or is he actually implementing Obamacare?
Or are you trying to draw a parallel between his conservative Catholic personal views on the subject and his loss in an anti-Republican wave election long before Obamacare was even proposed in Congress?
None of the three choices bode well for the perception that your argument has any logic to it, but there they are.
Finally…:
There are plenty of legitimate points of argument between the sides of the political spectrum. THIS is NOT one of them.
Ah. If you say so. I guess that settles it.
Take a good look; none of the conservative candidates are terribly popular with the right, and even less popular with the rest of us. Your turn out numbers in every state should tell you that
FACT CHECK: GOP turnout in Minnesota was double what it was for the DFL.
That’s one of the downfalls of getting all your “facts” – every last one of them, ever, from what I’ve been able to divine – from approved “progressive” “fact” mills. You only get the half (third? quarter?) of the story they want you to mindlessly pass along.
Which is your choice – go to it!
But chanting points make for lousy debates.
Just saying.
When I grow up I want to be a fact checker. Sounds easy.
Ms. Magazine seems to think Dog Gone’s “fact check” is BS:
Ordeals like the one Prieskorn suffered are not isolated incidents: They could happen to a woman of any income level, religion or state now that Catholic institutions have become the largest not-for-profit source of health-care in the U.S., treating 1 in 6 hospital patients. And that’s because Catholic hospitals are required to adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services—archconservative restrictions issued by the 258-member U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Because of the directives, doctors and nurses at Catholic-affiliated facilities are not allowed to perform procedures that the Catholic Church deems “intrinsically immoral, such as abortion and direct sterilization.” Those medical personnel also cannot give rape survivors drugs to prevent pregnancy unless there is “no evidence that conception has already occurred.” The only birth control they can dispense is advice about “natural family planning”— laborious daily charting of a woman’s basal temperature and cervical mucus in order to abstain from sex when she is ovulating—which only 0.1 percent of women use.
You can tell propaganda by the use of adjectives. “daily charting” becomes “laborious daily charting”, and “restrictions” are not only “conservative” but “archconservative”
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2011/treatmentdenied.asp
A “fact check” by the WaPo that will never be mentioned by liberals:
The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html
The claim was stupid to begin with. What, even 80 year old Catholic women use birth control?
To be fair, I think Wasserman-Schlutz said “at some point during their lives”.
To be honest, I suspect even so that the figure was pulled from her ass anyway.
She knows that nobody in the media ever “FACTCHECKS” Democrats anyway.
Pelosi’s remark that “98 percent of Catholic women, I am told by all of you, use birth control to determine the size and timing of their families.” came days after the same information was presented by three of the largest media players: the NY Times, NPR, and the WaPo itself, all on Feb. 10 or Feb. 12.
I’ve looked at the three stories (NY Times, WaPo, NPR). None of them say where they got the 98% number from, yet they all used that number at just about the same time, in stories on the same topic. I’d bet serious money that the 98% number was dispatched to these news outlets by a pro-choice group in a bulletin or a PR brief. The people at NPR, WaPo, and the NY Times were too biased to check the quality of the information, and too embarrassed to say “Hey! We’re using promotional materials emailed to us by Planned Parenthood (or whatever) to write our objective news stories!”.
Stand back, while I pack DG’s “facts” back up from where she pulled them out:
“Catholic-affiliated entities, like colleges, hospitals and charities, not only provide contraception and even abortion and sterilization benefits, but have been doing so for years. The figure I’ve heard most often is roughly 70 – 80% of them do so and have done for decades – usually dating back at least to the 70′s, often earlier”
Bzzzt. 90% of these “affiliations” are no more than a Catholic name. Most of the orders of nuns that started and ran the colleges and hospitals DG is talking about packed in ther habits for greener retirement pastures long ago. And none of them were ever under the control of the church.
‘There is no war on religion, any more than the 98% of women who are Roman Catholic and use artificial birth control are waging war on the church.”
Brace yourself Bridgit, this is going to hurt:
“THE FACTS
The 98 percent figure first appeared in an April 2011 study written by Rachel K. Jones and Joerg Dreweke of the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes reproductive health and had started as an arm of Planned Parenthood.”
“But while the study says that 98 percent of “sexually experienced Catholic women” have “ever used a contraceptive method other than natural planning,” the data shown in the report does not actually back up that claim. In fact, a supplementary table in the report, on page 8, even appears to undermine that statistic, since it shows that 11 percent of Catholic women were using no method at all. That has led to criticism of the statistic.”
“THE BOTTOM LINE
If a statistic sounds too good to be true, be wary. Judging from the examples above, the media has gotten it wrong. The journalistic shorthand has been that “98 percent of American Catholic women have used contraception in their lifetimes.” But that is incorrect, according to the research.”
“The shorthand is not what our statistic shows since we only looked at women aged 15-44 who have ever had sex,” Jones said.”
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/139588653.html
You may now wattle your freshly re-compacted colon the hell back under the rock you’ve been living under.
GaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Penigma’s Chihuahua returns to SitD for schooling.
Hi DogGone, nice to see you stop in to post a comment. I was thinking about you the other day and was hoping that you were well…
*facepalm*