The Issue is not just Mr. Romney and Bain Capital, but the people that back him and will follow him into the Administration – just look at the two Republican/Tea Party Senate candidates that project a dinosaur mentality on the knife issue of pregnancy from rape and think what Romney would do to the US Supreme Court. One wonders what woman could still vote for him and research comes up with the uneducated white woman – just think of Sarah Palin who is also an ex-Governor.
THE WORLD IS CRYING FOR THE US – THIS ELECTION IS TELLING EUROPE TO GET ITS ACT TOGETHER BECAUSE THE US MIGHT NOT BE THERE TO HELP LEAD ANYMORE.
Richard Mourdock’s opposition to abortion in cases of rape has given Democrats an opening to paint Republicans as extremist.
Rape Remark Jolts a Senate Race, and the Presidential One, Too.
Published by The New York Times: October 25, 2012
WASHINGTON — The incendiary topic of rape and abortion re-entered the 2012 campaign Wednesday and threatened to singe Mitt Romney after an Indiana Senate candidate’s comments that pregnancies conceived by rape should not be aborted because “God intended” conception to happen.
Mr. Romney has been reaching out to female voters and has spent weeks trying to distance himself from the most uncompromising positions of many Republicans on abortion. But the comments by Richard E. Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer and Tea Party-backed candidate, gave President Obama’s campaign a new opening to tie Mr. Romney to his right flank on social issues.
In a Senate debate on Tuesday night, Mr. Mourdock tried to distinguish himself from two opponents who also oppose abortion by explaining that he does not support allowing abortions in the case of rape.
“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” he said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
The comments put Mr. Romney in a difficult position. The Mourdock campaign had released an advertisement on Monday that featured Mr. Romney looking directly into the camera and endorsing Mr. Mourdock, a boon to the Republican in a race that has remained close in part because Senator Richard G. Lugar, whom he defeated in the Republican primary, has refused to campaign for him. Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, said Mr. Romney disagrees with Mr. Mourdock, but the campaign did not ask him to remove the ad.
Other Republicans reacted more strongly. Representative Mike Pence, a Republican favored to be elected Indiana’s governor, urged Mr. Mourdock to apologize. Aides to Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, who is locked in a difficult re-election campaign, said Mr. Mourdock’s statements “do not reflect his thinking at all.” Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, canceled her scheduled campaign appearances with him. Senator John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 presidential nominee, told CNN on Wednesday night his continued support of Mr. Mourdock depended on “if he apologizes and says he misspoke and he was wrong and he asks the people to forgive him.”
The Obama campaign sought to exploit the opening, as did virtually every Democratic campaign for Senate, pressing a message that the Republican Party is out of step with female voters.
President Obama “felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women,” Jen Psaki, the president’s campaign spokeswoman, told reporters on Wednesday morning. Ms. Psaki called it “perplexing” that Mr. Romney had not demanded that his ad be taken off television. He supports allowing abortion in the case of rape, incest and when the health of the mother is at risk.
At a news conference in Indiana, Representative Joe Donnelly, Mr. Mourdock’s Democratic opponent, pressed his case that Mr. Mourdock is too extreme for the Senate.
“I am pro-life, but this controversy is not about pro-life,” Mr. Donnelly said. “It is about Mr. Mourdock’s words and his continuation of extreme positions.”
Republicans in Washington hoped that the anti-abortion tilt of Indiana would insulate Mr. Mourdock from much political damage. But the controversy fed into the argument that Mr. Donnelly and other Democrats have been pressing ever since Mr. Mourdock’s stunning victory over Mr. Lugar.
The nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report moved the Indiana contest from one that leaned Republican to a pure tossup, a new headache for Republicans who once saw recapturing the Senate as a layup.
That easy path was lost months ago, when Representative Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for a Senate seat in Missouri, suggested that “legitimate rape” could not produce a pregnancy. Republicans pressured Mr. Akin to drop out of the race, and when he did not, they cut ties to him.
This time, with 13 days to go until Election Day, Republicans tried to protect Mr. Mourdock. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the party’s senate committee, said that Mr. Mourdock’s position was no different from that of Mr. Donnelly.
“Richard and I, along with millions of Americans — including even Joe Donnelly — believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous,” Mr. Cornyn said.
Crucial Subset: Female Voters Still Deciding.
Published by The New York Times: October 24, 2012
DERRY, N.H. — Emmakate Paris was a one-woman tornado the other day, whipping through the racks at the thrift shop here, hunting for clothes for her children and one special item for herself: a green suit. For Halloween, she wants to dress up as Tippi Hedren in the Hitchcock movie “The Birds.”
Halloween is a small indulgence in a life that Ms. Paris, 41, said was consumed by worries — “about the kids, insurance, vacation, school, taxes, the price of gas, everything.”
She voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but is now torn. Mr. Obama has not lived up to his promise, she said. “My husband and I both have to work full time, and we’re just getting by.”
But she is not thrilled with Mitt Romney either. She said he would set women back because he did not understand their needs.
“Women worked so hard to get where we are today and to take our rights away from us is — no,” she said, shaking her head.
Behold the coveted female swing voter of 2012. She has slipped a rung or two down the economic ladder from the soccer moms of the more prosperous 1990s, as indicated by her new nickname —waitress mom. Rather than ferrying children around the suburbs in minivans, she is spinning in the hamster wheel of a tight economy and not getting ahead.
The intense competition for the female vote was underscored Wednesday as both presidential campaigns seized on a remark by Richard E. Mourdock, the Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, in a Tuesday night debate that pregnancy is “something that God intended to happen” even if it is the result of rape.
Mr. Romney, who had just made an ad for Mr. Mourdock, quickly distanced himself from the statement, while the Obama campaign just as quickly suggested that it reflected the backward thinking of Republicans and said that if elected, they would pose a danger to women’s health.
The quadrennial obsession with winning over female voters can sometimes lead to mythmaking. Pollsters now question the validity of soccer moms as a distinct voting bloc; the term came into vogue in the 1996 presidential election but vanished soon after, to be replaced by the equally dubious post-9/11 “security moms.”
Whether or not the term “waitress moms” endures, it defines a distinct demographic: blue-collar white women who did not attend college. And they are getting a lot of attention from both campaigns as the presidential race barrels toward its conclusion because even at this late date, pollsters say, many waitress moms have not settled on a candidate. They feel no loyalty to one party or the other, though they tend to side with Republicans.
“Blue-collar women are most likely to be the remaining movable part of the electorate, which is precisely why both campaigns are going at them as hard as they are,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster, who is advising Priorities USA, a pro-Obama “super PAC.”
About 9 percent of all voters in 2008 were white women without college degrees who had an annual household income of less than $50,000, according to exit polls.
So when the candidates talk about women, which they do a lot these days, the waitress moms are top of mind. Mr. Obama, for example, is now discussing abortion and birth control not as a matter of controlling one’s own body but as “a pocketbook issue for women and families,” as he said in the recent town-hall-style debate, noting that many women rely on Planned Parenthood not just for contraceptives but for referrals and screenings.
A recent Romney ad featured a young woman telling her newborn: “Dear Daughter. Welcome to America. Your share of Obama’s debt is over $50,000.”
Clearly economic issues are front and center for women here in this blue-collar town in Rockingham County, which Mr. Obama won in 2008 by less than 1 percent of the vote.
Michelle Trulson, 39, actually is a waitress (not all waitress moms are waitresses, of course, nor are they all mothers). She works a second job too, as a lab technician. Fearing that Mr. Romney would undercut her efforts to provide for her family — and end financing for Planned Parenthood — she supports Mr. Obama.
“I’m a single mom,” she said. “I’m not on welfare. I do work. I don’t collect food stamps. But my kids need insurance, so they’re on Medicaid and I don’t want that messed with.”
“I’m a woman, so obviously I believe in woman’s rights,” she said but added that the economy was her overriding concern and Mr. Romney would do better at creating jobs.
While women in general have historically supported Democratic presidential candidates, working-class white women without college degrees are among their weakest links. Mr. Obama lost them to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008, and to John McCain, the Republican, in the general election.
But Mr. Obama won women over all because black and Hispanic female voters turned out in greater numbers than usual and supported him overwhelmingly, as did white college-educated women. As he seeks to rebuild a winning coalition in battleground states like this one, analysts say, he needs to keep his losses among waitress moms to a minimum.
“Women are the volatile vote at the end, particularly independent, non-college-educated, married women,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has long specialized in women’s voting patterns. Important as these women are to both campaigns, they are only one slice of the much sliced and diced female electorate. Pollsters tend to find women more interesting than men because women are more likely to be swing voters, while men usually make up their minds early.
Pollsters have found differences among women in all kinds of ways that seem to correlate with their voting habits. Unmarried women, for example, tend to vote Democratic, they say, while married women tend to vote Republican.
The multiple differences among women have created a kind of kaleidoscopic inter-gender gap, from which catchy labels sometimes emerge. Apart from waitress moms, there are now “Walmart moms,” a group defined by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm — and adopted by the retail giant — as any woman who has shopped at a Walmart in the last 30 days. They differ from waitress moms in that many have college degrees and higher incomes.
Actually, there is nothing about Walmart that pegs its shoppers as swing voters, said Will Feltus, senior vice president of National Media, which buys advertising time. Citing data from Scarborough Research, a leading market research firm, he said that a higher percentage of independent female voters was likely to be found at Lord & Taylor, T.J. Maxx and Macy’s.
The data yield other tidbits that could be useful to campaigns trying to reach independent women. Their taste in television programming, for example, runs to the daytime soaps, their preferred soft drink is Diet Sierra Mist, and their preference in wine is, fittingly, rosé.
“Groups of women simply don’t resemble each other anymore, which is really fascinating,” said Kellyanne Fitzpatrick Conway, a Republican pollster — whereas, she added, the gender gap between men and women had become fairly predictable.
“Mars versus Venus,” she said, “is a yawner.”
Why Right-Wingers Can’t Stop Saying Insane Things About Women.
A sign from Slutwalk NYC. - Photo Credit: Sarah Seltzer
Another week, another offensive comment about women, sex, consent and abortion. We’re getting numb to it by now; a candidate or public figure says something alarming that shows a basic misunderstanding of female anatomy, the nature of rape or the realities of abortion. Everyone gets upset, the person in question semi-backtracks, we realize how awful his policy agenda is, and then the next comment comes down the pipeline.
1. They really and truly believe this stuff . (They also don’t believe in the considerable evidence that refutes it.) For years, many vocal pro-choicers have been saying that the bulk of contemporary anti-choice ideology is more motivated by misogyny and the desire to shame and punish sexually active women than by concern for the potential life of an embryo or fetus–thus the lack of interest from this faction in childcare, education, maternal health, maternal leave policy, etc.
3. They’re in denial about the dangers women–and all of us–face . It’s no coincidence that Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment and Joe Walsh’s absurd claim that no pregnancies can be medically life-threatening are classic examples of making up facts to suit a preexisting argument. Mourdock’s comments, on the other hand, are another kind of denial, a paper-thin religious assurance that the bad things that happen are part of a plan. The reality is twofold: first, issues like rape, incest and life-threatening pregnancies are the kinds of complexities that make the case for legalized abortion for all women, because each person’s case and situation is different, because we can’t stand in each other’s shoes.