70 thoughts on “The New Women Of The GOP”

  1. “I think, or at least hope, that Texas and Colorado finally put a stake through the heart of the idiotic fake “war on women.””

    Oh you KNOW better than that……

    To the progs, these women are either insane, misguided or just plain evil; in much the same fashion that a Conservative african-american is an Uncle Tom oreo.

    Doesn’t matter that it was the republicans who appointed the first female african american to the Sec. State position. To acknowledge that would interfere with the narrative.

  3. 89% of the GOP House members today are, indeed, white men (vs. 48% of the Democrats). What’s the percentage in the newly elected Congress?

    The “war on women” argument is about policy, particularly around abortion, birth control, and equal pay. As long as the GOP positions on those topics are unpopular with most women, the “war on women” argument will live on. The GOP will now control 66 or 67 state legislative bodies, a modern record. That seems sure to translate into even more legislation to restrict abortion and contraception.

    On the bright side there are now 100 women in the House and Senate, also a record. That’s up 50 or so in the last 20 years. At this rate Congress will reach gender balance in another 70 years.

      1. They’re not unpopular with most women. They’re unpopular with single women.

        Women get married and suddenly stop caring about planning their reproduction or being paid equally? That can’t be. Or maybe you’re saying that it’s female GOP candidates that are unpopular with single women?

        1. I’m just going on polling. Sorry to burst your bubble, don’t want to get into an extensive discussion on why married women might favor a party that doesn’t seem to be at war with them.

          1. I’m just going on polling.

            Sorry, Rand, I’m not following your point. Jim said GOP positions are not popular with women. You said they’re not popular with single women. I asked how married vs single status could possibly matter. You apologized for ‘bursting my bubble’, but I don’t see what bubble is being skewered by a few female candidates winning in some local elections. Jim’s point stands, the ‘war on women’ is about policy, not the gender of candidates.

          2. the ‘war on women’ is about policy, not the gender of candidates.

            You wouldn’t know that from all the abuse that conservative women get from leftists.

          3. Jim’s point stands, the ‘war on women’ is about policy, not the gender of candidates.

            It might be Jim’s point, but it is still stupid. I’m sure Dems think the “war on women” is about policy and not gender. However, Wendy Davis, who campaigned exclusively on Democrat women’s policy issues, received less votes from women did her Republican challenger. Same thing for Mark Udall in Colorado. That’s the polls talking, which is Rand’s point, and it stands as a pretty strong validation of Rand and a rebuke of Jim’s point being useful.

          4. I’m just going on polling

            I think you’d have trouble finding a poll that shows most women supporting the GOP platform position on abortion:

            Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

            I.e. abortion as murder, with no exceptions. Gallup shows that position polling at about 20% of all adults, men included.

            On abortion the GOP is out of step with most voters, men and women, but it’s particularly out of step with women.

          5. David wrote: the ‘war on women’ is about policy, not the gender of candidates.

            Rand replied: You wouldn’t know that from all the abuse that conservative women get from leftists.

            I think you just made David’s point. Conservative women don’t get flak because they’re women, they get flak because they’re conservative, and have policy positions opposed by most women.

          6. They don’t just get “flak.” They get misogynist abuse. I think it’s possible to criticize someone’s political views without calling them stupid c**ts, but apparently not for many leftists. I guess it’s OK with them, because conservative or Republican women aren’t really women.

          7. Not only are the Democrats the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, they’re the party of killing unborn babies.

          8. Not only are the Democrats the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, they’re the party of killing unborn babies.

            They’ve repudiated slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK, and even elected Catholic and black presidents (and nominated a Jew for VP), but yes, the Democrats are today the party of legal abortion. And most Americans, especially most women, think that abortion should sometimes be legal.

          9. They’ve repudiated slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK

            Jim, we know you lie, but we’re not ignorant of history. The Democrat Party is the party of Bull Connor and Robert Byrd, which is the same as noting they enforced Jim Crow laws until the end and voted a Exalted Cyclops to the Senate for 5 decades. That’s not a repudiation. That’s called affirmation.

        2. “being paid equally”

          If you think this is real, then your opinion isn’t worth listening to.

          Oh, unless we’re talking about Democratric Congressmen, who actually DO pay their female staffers about 65-70% of what their male staffers make.

        3. Name the people who are interferring with a woman who wants to control her reproduction. I want actual names of real people.

    2. As long as the GOP positions on those topics are unpopular with most women, the “war on women” argument will live on. The GOP will now control 66 or 67 state legislative bodies, a modern record. That seems sure to translate into even more legislation to restrict abortion and contraception.

      As Gallup clearly shows, there is not a majority of women who are pro-choice, it is evenly split. The pro-choice side has in fact, been dropping.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

      The democrat party’s insistence that pro-choice is pro-woman is myopic and self-centered. As long as the democrats think that most women agree with NOW, they will continue their war on women, because, surprise, many women are against abortion.

      1. “The democrat party’s insistence that pro-choice is pro-woman is myopic and self-centered. ”

        Yes, but that is intentional. Only Democrat positions are allowed to be pro-woman and anyone who doesn’t hold a Democrat position isn’t really a woman. This is the part of the War on Women that Jim leaves out, where women who express unsanctioned thoughts are labeled gender traitors who deserve the nastiest of insults and who’s children are fair game. It is about creating in-groups and out-groups.

      2. As Gallup clearly shows, there is not a majority of women who are pro-choice, it is evenly split.

        According to your link women are 50% pro-choice and 41% pro-life. That doesn’t seem like an even split.

        1. It’s not that simple. Many “pro-choice” women oppose late term. The majority of people don’t believe in completely unrestricted abortions. Those who do are the extremists.

          1. The GOP position on abortion isn’t that there should be some restrictions, it’s that it should be treated as homicide. That position doesn’t have close to majority support among voters, much less among women voters. It would be political malpractice for Democrats to not point that out.

        2. You really want to parse it this way?

          18-34: 50/40 (pro-choice/pro-life)
          35-54: 48/46
          55+: 44/50

          It appears women get more pro-life as they get older. And it looks very close to being evenly split for women over 35. My point still stands.

          2. Indeed. Particularly for women over 55, who are extremely unlikely to have to make the choice (if there is one available) in any event for obvious biological reasons. “No choice for you, young ‘un!”

    3. the “war on women” argument will live on.

      I hope so. It is arguable that Wendy Davis would have lost Texas anyway, but she also lost the vote from women. Mark Udall got a nickname pushing the notion of “war on women” and that worked out exceptionally well for Cory Gardner. Stay stuck on stupid, Jim. We certainly expect nothing greater from you.

      They’re unpopular with single women.

      I don’t even think that’s true.

    4. Actually, Jim, you really proved the point.

      The 3 ‘issues’ you brought up are used by the Dems in false attacks/ads against the GOP. These are then repeated by outlets like ABC/CBS/NBC and NY TImes and Wash Post. The only problem – they are not at all true.

      First, abortion is about 50/50, and changing more to against (especially partial birth). Also, it is only an issue for one in 6 voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx), with so many other items rating higher.

      Second, birth control is even more of a red herring. Like Larry J said above, please list the SPECIFIC national politicians who oppose birth control. We won’t hold our breath.

      Lastly, the ‘equal pay for women’ is the shining example of false accusations and endless pinocchios from raters. First, the white house already doesn’t follow the idea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/male-female-pay-gap-remains-entrenched-at-white-house/2014/07/01/dbc6c088-0155-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html).

      Nice try, but these ‘issues’ are now being shown to be false and the problem you have is that elections like these show just how much the president and other liberals are being protected by the MSM, who are either not covering the news or outright lying.

      1. First, abortion is about 50/50

        Support for the GOP position on abortion is more like 20-80 (see above).

        Second, birth control is even more of a red herring.

        Numerous national GOP politicians want IUDs and morning-after pills to be treated as forms of abortion. The GOP more or less unanimously opposes requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. Neither position is popular with women.

        Lastly, the ‘equal pay for women’ is the shining example of false accusations and endless pinocchios from raters.

        When the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act came up for a vote, the GOP was 4-36 opposed in the Senate, and 3-173 opposed in the House (the Dems were in favor 57-0 and 247-4). Again, if you go by polls as Rand suggests you discover that American women have a different position than the GOP.

        2. Support for the GOP position on abortion is more like 20-80 (see above).

          Actually, see above from “Jon” to see you are wrong on that point. Also, you completely igonred the point that Abortion is way down on the list of ‘things to fix’ in the country, even among liberal women (as shown in my link above). Sorry, but abortion is simply a knee-jerk response from a Democrat who has lost in every other REAL subject.

          Numerous national GOP politicians want IUDs and morning-after pills to be treated as forms of abortion. The GOP more or less unanimously opposes requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. Neither position is popular with women.

          First, you failed to name ONE person, so you lose again.

          But, to address your straw-man, you simply need to re-read what you wrote. There is NO reason for insurance companies to cover birth control. If women can’t afford it (birth control), but can afford health insurance, they can simply choose the one who covers it (and many don’t, GOP sanctioned or not or pay it themselves). For the really poor, most of this would be covered by their EBT cards (yes, they need to choose birth control instead of cigarettes, candy, soda, chips, etc).

          When the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act came up for a vote, the GOP was 4-36 opposed in the Senate, and 3-173 opposed in the House (the Dems were in favor 57-0 and 247-4). Again, if you go by polls as Rand suggests you discover that American women have a different position than the GOP.

          Where did you address that the White House, run by President Obama, has a horrible record of paying less to women than men? You didn’t.

          I don’t care that you come here and spout nonsense, I just care that you can NEVER back it up and keep changing the subject when you are shown to be wrong (which is pretty much every time you post here).

  4. I know that’s Mia Love in the middle. I don’t know the other two by name, but the one on the left is a real cutie.

    And that needs to be made into a bumper sticker.

    1. “A real cutie?” Objectifying already! These women are all sock puppets for the white male capitalist plutocrats, they’re either bought or they’ve been drawn into the GOP anti-people cult.

      [clearing of throat] All that above is supposed to be a joke about what certain circles think. Trouble is that it’s too close to the truth about what they think.

    2. “the one on the left is a real cutie.”

      It’s Elise Stefanik. Washington Country Club Republican. Graduated from Harvard, immediately got a job as a domestic-policy wonk in the Bush Administration. Worked in DC until 2012 when she moved back to NY State. Lived in daddy’s vacation house and worked for daddy’s plywood company while she planned her bid for Congress. She also led the team that prepared Paul Ryan for the VP debate in 2012. You remember how well that went.

  5. At the state level, a fiscally conservative West Virginia woman (endorsed by the NRA) beat a 2-term Republican incumbent in the primaries (by 66 percent) and went on to crush the Democrat attorney that ran against her in the general, 63 to 30. I’d keep an eye on her, especially in three more years when she’s old enough to buy beer.

    [url=http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04/west-virginia-elects-americas-youngest-state-lawmaker/]WSJ link[/url]

  6. I didn’t know Mia was running again this year. I’m not a Republican, but I’m glad to hear she won this time around. My little sister lives in the same town, and my parents had been to a political meeting/rally where she spoke back in 2012, and were really impressed (but they live in the next district over, so couldn’t vote for her last time).

    Of course some of the articles about her win are pretty obnoxious. Acting as though it’s a big surprise that those racist/misogynist Mormons would vote for a black woman. Kind of pisses me off. Writers who want to characterize the LDS church that way ought to at least bother meeting some Mormons and seeing how racist they are (hint: they’re not).

    ~Jon

      1. No more so than Condelessa Rice. She’ll likely be demonized as an Aunt Jemima non-woman because Mia is black, female, and conservative. Such people go completely against the Narrative and therefore can not exist, or so we’re supposed to believe.

      2. I think you need a different dagger to kill the narrative that the right sees women as “lovely” symbols rather than full human beings. While you admire Ms. Love’s looks, and rickl asks for a bumper sticker, the percentage of women in the GOP House caucus doesn’t seem to be growing.

          1. There are as many or more non-white-men in the GOP caucus as there will be in January, about 25 of them. Mia Love doesn’t change that — no single person could. The fact that you think her election dramatically changes things is unintentionally revealing.

          3. “A dagger through the heart” is pretty dramatic language for an event that doesn’t really change things. The “old white men” trope remains as true as it was before Love’s election.

    2. Trying to make sense out of the mainstream press narratives is pretty futile.

      Mormons vote Republican instead of supporting the party of Jefferson Davis, so… racists! Also, if Mormons aren’t racist, how come none of the Osmonds were black?

      It probably goes down hill from there.

      1. IMO, it is due to four things. 1) People have looked down on Mormons since their beginning because of polygamy. 2) At one point in their history, they were not welcoming to blacks. They couldn’t join the church or be priests or something like that. This was during a time where the country as a whole and the Democrat party were not as welcoming as should have been either. 3) Mormons are Christians. 4) Romney, Glenn Beck, and some other prominent voices to the right are Mormon.

        It should be interesting to see how Democrats react to polygamy becoming legal now that we no longer have a cultural definition of marriage. Judging by all the crazy cults and communes started by Democrats, I think they will embrace it. Bill Clinton will have ten maybe twenty wives to keep him occupied when he returns to the White House.

  7. As amply demonstrated….so much that Jim knows is true…is wrong (h/t/ RR). One hope this political nuking might cause him to start questioning what he knows and where he goes for information.

    But whether or not he does that, is really irrelevant. I do hope though that the larger Lib/Prog population gives pause and maybe a second thought. But judging from the angst I see out there in blog-land, I doubt that will happen.

    1. Remember when Jim told us that the government shutdown was the fault of the Republicans, and it was going to destroy them in the midterms. Yeah, he and Nancy were wrong about the House flipping back to the Democrats.

      And lets not forget about that other news on election day; apparently the Fast and Furious information is not executive privilege, and Congress was right to hold Holder in contempt.

      1. Leland, the floodgates will now open. With control of both houses of congress, the GOP can move forward aggressively and successfully on a myriad of investigations that were stonewalled by the Dems.

        The carnage will be legendary

        1. That’s what they said in 2010. It isn’t as if the Senate had the power to stop the House from investigating everything under the sun — for the last four years there have been about a dozen House committees running investigations. And so far those investigations have yielded exactly zero indictments and zero resignations of top-level officials.

          1. “And so far those investigations have yielded exactly zero indictments and zero resignations of top-level officials.”

            ….thanks to the stonewalling and mysterious disappearance of evidence. The point is that a lot of that will be gone.

            As usual, you present the inaccesibility of the evidence as proof.

            Very stupid.

          3. The point is that a lot of that will be gone.

            Why? What has changed that will result in those investigations suddenly, after four years, getting somewhere?

      2. Remember when Jim told us that the government shutdown was the fault of the Republicans, and it was going to destroy them in the midterms. Yeah, he and Nancy were wrong about the House flipping back to the Democrats.

        No, I don’t remember writing that the Dems would take back the House. The president’s party almost never wins House seats in the midterms. I suspect that you’re making things up, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.

    2. to start questioning what he knows and where he goes for information.

      What I knew before Tuesday was that the Republicans were overwhelming favorites to win the Senate — and they did! Clearly I need to find new sources of information….

      1. “What I knew before Tuesday was that the Republicans were overwhelming favorites to win the Senate — and they did! Clearly I need to find new sources of information….”

        Clearly you don’t know a nonsequitur when you utter one:

        The fact that you know obvious things like 1+1 = 2 doesn’t mean you know anything about quantum mechanics.

  8. I get the impression that the Gender Gap may have taken some beatings, and will be taking even more as the statist chickens come home to roost and all but the stupidest, most brainwashed Eloi women (the kind Baghdad Jim might find hot) realize Big Brother is screwing them, too; but that right now it still is alive and well. Republican policies, to the extent that are anti-statist and pro-freedom, may indeed be unpopular with the rank-and-file female voters. In my experience, women tend to be the Socialist Sex. I get an angry reaction every time I say this–usually from women State-humpers, interestingly enough. The more pro-freedom the woman, the more she has to ruefully acknowledge it.

  9. Numerous national GOP politicians want IUDs and morning-after pills to be treated as forms of abortion. The GOP more or less unanimously opposes requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. Neither position is popular with women.

    Is this the majority of republicans? Many democrat politicians want to ban coal. Many democrats want to eliminate the 2nd amendment. Neither of those opinions is popular with Americans. You can’t make a broad brush statement like that.

    Opposing insurance companies requiring to cover birth control is not an anti birth control position. You know this. It’s about freedom of choice for businesses. I know you and MSLSD want to make it a woman’s issue, but it isn’t. In fact, it wasn’t even an issue in this election.

    1. Many democrat politicians want to ban coal. Many democrats want to eliminate the 2nd amendment. Neither of those opinions is popular with Americans.

      You’re exactly right, those are positions that aren’t popular (especially in some states), which is why Republicans work hard to tell voters about Democrats’ “war on coal” and efforts to restrict guns. That’s completely fair, as are Democrats’ efforts to tell voters when Republicans have unpopular positions on abortion, contraception and equal pay, i.e. the GOP “war on women”. These are arguments about public policy.

      Opposing insurance companies requiring to cover birth control is not an anti birth control position. You know this. It’s about freedom of choice for businesses.

      I never hear Republicans complaining about requiring insurance companies to cover vaccinations or annual physicals or colonoscopies. The fact that they only complain about the requirement to cover birth control is proof that their opposition isn’t about “freedom of choice for businesses”, it’s about birth control.

      1. Ah BS Jim. You’re making strawmen arguments. The only reason birth control is an issue is because Sandra Fluke thinks paying for it herself is absurd, and by the way, she lost her election bid too.

        And let’s remember who is really against freedom of choice:
        “And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.” – Barack Obama

      2. Still unable to provide a single name. Generic birth control pills were widely available for less than $10 a month but that wasn’t good enough – it had to be “free” for some strange reason.

  10. There are as many or more non-white-men in the GOP caucus as there will be in January, about 25 of them. Mia Love doesn’t change that — no single person could. The fact that you think her election dramatically changes things is unintentionally revealing.

    No, minorities are finally leaving the plantation and joining a group that wants everyone in this country to be prosperous. They’re learning that they’ve been duped.

        1. The GOP didn’t win because they won over minorities, they won because they did even better than usual with white voters and older voters, the groups who most reliably turn out for midterm elections.

Comments are closed.