Getty Images
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) wants her party to stop its "attack on women."
To appreciate the trajectory of the Republicans' "war on women," take a look at Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) shift over the last month.
On March 1, the Senate narrowly defeated the anti-contraception Blunt Amendment, but Murkowski sided with her party and supported it. A week later, after hearing from some women in Alaska, the senator expressed regret for the vote.
Now, a few weeks later, Murkowski is less circumspect and more outraged. An Alaska paper had this report on the senator's concerns about reproductive rights and her party's agenda. (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip)
"I think what you're sensing is a fear, a concern that women feel threatened, that a long settled issue might not be settled," Murkowski said.
She cited things like conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh's remarks about a female Georgetown University law student, which Murkowski called "offensive, horribly offensive."
"To have those kind of slurs against a woman ... you had candidates who want to be our president not say, 'That's wrong. That's offensive.' They did not condemn the rhetoric," Murkowski said.
The senator added that she "will continue to support funding Planned Parenthood," and can't understand her party's recent efforts.
"It makes no sense to make this attack on women," Murkowski said. "If you don't feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters."
Murkowski may want to have a chat with her own Republican Party chairman, who this week described the GOP's attack on women as "a fiction," comparable to an imaginary "war on caterpillars."
Leave a Comment:
Thank You Senator Murkowski for speaking out and take a stance. Any woman that denies the GOPT is waging a war on women, needs their head examined. They have made a fatal mistake with this and ALL women in Congress should be outraged and speaking out on this. Women are voters and we are also people and we WILL NOT forget this, nor the ones who perpetrated this.
This the perfect opportunity for someone to ask....IF THIS IS NOT A WAR ON WOMEN....why does "stand your ground" not apply to battered women? We have to many Mothers and Wives of abuse that are inprisoned for STANDING THEIR GROUND AND REFUSING TO BE PUNCHING BAGS....Where is the NRA when theses women are in court? Somebody ask Romney if he will sign A Bill For Women's Right To Stand Their Ground? FREE BATTERED WOMEN FROM OUR PRISONS......
Well I guess she didn't get the notice that Ayotte, Haley and McMorris Rodgers got! OR since the GOP didn't support her in 2010, she is FREE to say what she thinks. Of course, Phyllis Schafly is down in Charleston decrying 'FEMINISTS!!!! They are not telling you the WHOLE story. It's not about ACCESS it's about WHO PAYS'! Ah yes Phyllis. And while you're shrieking the states will be undermining your ACCESS. You GO Lisa!!!
I suppose next you're going to complain about making you pay. Ever heard of insurance. You know that company you pay a premium to every month. I know the righties believe they souldn't have to pay for anything so their profits will be better, but most that have it would like it to pay when needed.
Sorry, Senator. Actions speak louder than words. It's great that you're saying this now, but you voted FOR the Blunt amendment. Are you just shaking the Etch-A-Sketch now, too?
It may or may not save HER seat, but I really wish she would just sit down and shut up and let the clowns hang themselves in the election. Seriously. And I also hope that Santorum keeps on keeping on (Newt & RP too for that matter). Let all their freak-flags fly, high and mighty in the wind so we can get them outta here.
Freak Flags, I love it!
I doubt very much that she "gets it". She goes with the blowing wind. Dont trust her flip flop, I bet she will vote yea again on blunt.
The "war on women" is a line the Democrats used solely for political purpose...and very well I might add.
This week the President gave voice to his view that women should be allowed to join Augusta National Golf club yet as the New York Times reported in 2009 the President played 23 rounds of golf before including a woman in the group. And the left got all bent out of shape because the first of two panels before Congress had no women but the next panel did. This is so hypocritical and clearly political it is hilarious!
robdon, Oh please, so you are going to try and deflect with the Presidents golf games back in 2009? I cannot believe "you" people. Still in the face of formidable evidence you deny. Continue on as we march to his re-election and it will be women who put him over the top! We've tried to tell you all, but the hardheaded GOPT never listens.
Amen to that sister Lynn!
Been a while since troll robodon has been on this blog, guess its time for him to publicly proclaim his total disregard for reality again. Robodon's usual trick is false equivalence, whatever the latest rethuglican outrage, robodon can find something that he thinks is an equivalent sin by a dumbocrat. Normally robodon's examples are like todays, totally uninspired as well as not being equivalent. Welcome back robo
Fred, take it easy on RobDon. Now that the right wing talking points have been established he’s REQUIRED to mindlessly regurgitate them regardless of the reality. Hence the term "Dittohead".
And I'll put you right there with Robdon for your "dumocrat" name calling. I'm a Democrat and far from dumb.
Showing your mindlessness. The term "dittohead" was not regurgitation of talking points but an abbreviated way for callers to tell Rush they enjoy his show and for him to keep up the good work. It had/has nothing to do with talking points.
As to false equivalences, you think it is okay for the President to take the position that women are equal and should be admitted into Augusta but to play 23 rounds of golf as President without including a woman. Sounds like he is all talk and no show to me.
I found it stupid to say if the House committee has two panels presenting information, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon, to include the women only on the second panel is sexist, purely partisan. Yet, you think playing 20 plus rounds of golf without including a woman a strong example that the President is for women's rights.
Wow... 20 rounds of golf before a woman was "allowed" to join in... That's CLEARLY an indication that President Obama has a deep rooted hatred of women... Why, I'm surprised he hasn't just gone ahead and cancelled the 19th Amendment...
C'mon RobDon, you can do better than that! It's like you aren't even trying anymore...
HighValor, you are correct and you are illustrating my point as well. To claim the House did not want to listen to women because the first panel had no women but the second panel did is ludicrous (just like saying President Obama played 20 rounds without one woman in the foursome). What, are all the Republican women at war with women, too?
The Republicans are not at war with women, the party just disagree with the Democrats on the issues...Republican women seem to think their party serves them well.
C'mon guys, PLEASE stop feeding this troll. Thank you.
keepintime, I'm not a troll...I'm a regular. Go back and look at my comments. I have no problem engaging in dialog with those with whom I disagree. It is the easy route to say "ignore them." It allows you to keep your view and beliefs unchallenged. Then again, maybe that is your goal.
OK, I'll play... Waiting for the game to start and I have a moment or two...
First off, as I see it, the ratio of male golfers to female golfers is greater than 20-1...( No I don't have a "link" or any empirical evidence to this claim, but just based on my personal observations, there are far more men playing golf than women)... So, using your equivalency model, if anything, President Obama is showing women preferential treatment!
See how easy that was? False Equivelency is so simple!
Now as to the hearings... Had Rep Issa just gone ahead and let Ms. Fluke speak at the initial hearing, no one would have heard word one about this event... To me, it was an act of stupidity on the part of the committee, discussing women's health issues without the input of someone who is directly affected having the ability to present their case in the preliminary meetings... Frankly, it's bad governance...
There is an attempt by elements of the government and outside sources who are seeking to restrict the rights of women to manage their own bodies... To say that this is not the case is flat out wrong...
Ok, that was fun! Play Ball!
HighValor, thanks for the good nature response. I think discussion should always be civil. Granted, passion and emotions have their place as well but have to be tempered so they do not getting in the way of solving problems.
My bat...lets go with your 20 to 1 ratio. Twenty-three rounds of golf with a foursome would mean at the most 69 individuals, even allowing for some repeats and some rounds without a full foursome, the 20 to 1 ration would mean he was not including women at the statistical ratio.
Now, to the substantive mistake. The House hearing was NOT on women health issues, it was on religious freedom NOT women health issues...as ABC reported:
The topic was irrelevant to the discussion (not irrelevant in general, just that the issue was if the government was crossing a religious freedom line or not...not whether women had a right to contraception) it just so happened that it was the contraceptive issue involved. Now, others can say it was about women health issue but that is not what the House called the hearing for...
RobDon - apologies to you are in order, and I do not have an agenda or goal where you're concerned. Please do continue to do what you do. On my word, I shall not interfere further.
keepintime, no apology needed. I do not see your comments as interference and I hope my comments always continue conversation and debate, not bring it to a stop. The best to you.
I'm here to also help dispel the myth that RobDon is a troll... I've read his posts before and he does a good job getting his points across... He is a provocateur,a flamethrower and does a decent job of it... And it appears he has fun with it, which I find amusing and refreshing on the Vine...
I also think he is wrong most of the time, but that's just my opinion... Hell, I've been wrong before... I even voted for Reagan... ONCE... and Perot twice... (Oh, if we'd only listened to that little Dwarf...sigh)
RobDon is a worthy opponent!...
OK, enough mutual admiration...
The golf thing... I find it a poor indicator of the President's attitude towards women... Face it, golf is a male dominated sport...And we don't know if he asked any female to join in or not... I just found it a funny thing to use as a analogy...
Now, the hearing thing is a bit more complicated... Religious leaders discussing the implications of the new health law as it relates to their belief systems... A point I would bring up is these groups are trying to impose their will upon those who do not follow their belief system, yet have taken no action against those who do... How many Catholic women have been excommunicated for using birth control?... Adulterers of both genders?... Divorcees?... Or any of the other myriad of "sins" that the church deems immoral and an affront to its very existence...
All in all it was poorly handled by the committee... Any discussion regarding womens health, regardless of any of the surrounding reasons to the contrary( It's a church thing, it's a constitutional thing, etc) should have a woman on the panel...You know, there are WOMEN in the clergy, too...
I going to propose that all businesses post in plain sight their political, religious and any other social affiliations for everyone to see... It should also be clearly stated on any employment application or job advertisement... You wouldn't want to work for or shop at a business that goes against your belief system, would you?
On this there is little doubt and we both agree. Kudos for finding the common ground.
In regards to businesses posting their political leanings, not sure it would be that easy. Whose, the boss, the board, the majority stockholder, etc? But, I get your point.
Perhaps, instead of women holding an aspirin between their knees, we should give the aspirin therapy to congress. That way they can thin out the blood in their brains ( oops, did I say they had brains) and start to think again.
With Republican ideas like defining the age of a fetus from the last day of menstruation (two weeks BEFORE conception), it should be mandatory for anyone seeking any elected office to take biology again, AND PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME. Or maybe we can get those Schoolhouse Rock people to make a "Where babies come from" video they can actually comprehend.
I hope for anyone who voted for the Blunt amendment that their political career is stricken with a "blunt" object. This was championed by the GOP and it's leader Rush (how many angels can dance on his head) Limbarf; let them reap as they have sewn.
*sown
sewn pertains to needles & thread.
HTH, carry on!
Yeah, oops.
I voterd up my own spelling error! Yea!
(: - )
I vividly recall reading the dearth certificate in 1962 of a woman who died alone who had attempted a self administrated abortion with a bent wire hanger.When will the madness just stop?
Brabara Bush said it best when she said it should be a matter for women and their physcians.
Perhaps the senator is proof that the Stepford procedure can be reversed? Just hoping.
Please do not let the GOP blow the smokescreen that their War on Women and Families is only about reproductive healthcare. It is also an ECONOMIC War.
They voted against the Equal Pay Act, have failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment and are trying to gut every single program that helps women and the elderly. The female earnings disadvantage consists of fewer opportunities for promotion and lower pay for the same work experienced by 75% of the women in this country . This disadvantage haunts women their entire lives. It affects their ability to feed their children, purchase decent housing, cover their educational costs and most importantly assure family health coverage. Further lower income for women means when it is time to collect their EARNED Social Security benefit it runs about 1/2 of the male benefits because it is based on lifetime earnings. 85% of SS recipients are women, most of whom are totally dependent on it for their income. The GOP is also trying to dismantle the earned benefits of Medicare and unemployment as well as Food Stamps, which are an essential foundation for poor families.
While the legislation attacking women's health is horrible and obviously pushes people's buttons - let us not fail to frame this within the even larger war that affects us economically.
You are so correct!
And afforable contraception is a major part of our economic opportunities also. Being able to decide the number and the timing of our offspring effects our ability to access education in order to make a living wage.
Is she wearing...A HOODIE?
The notion that women don't care about contraception because they care about jobs and family is ridiculous. Contraception is a family issue. Contraception is a jobs issue. Contraception is an economic issue. Contraception is a health issue.
While attempting to show that Romney connects with women, this line of argument only underscores his disconnect with women. Somewhere along the way republicans got it in their heads that contraception is all about sex. It's not.
Even if contraception was "just about sex" it is still infuriating. In fact, I find it ridiculous that the best argument against the rhetoric is that it isn't "just about sex". How ridiculous. They are trying to ban women from having sex is just as good as any argument. The GOP don't take any potshots at Viagra seriously, but they didn't like it when it was being argued whether or not insurance or medicare should cover it.
I'm willing to forgive--but not forget--Murkowski's recent history on this issue. Credit where credit is due. For now. I'm expecting she won't back up her words with actions, but I hope to be surprised.
So basically, NOW that have constituents have "given her hell" she's remembered that she too is a woman and is "outraged" by the lows that "her party" sank too? Too bad she didn't remember that before she voted!
It's time to take up The Equal Rights Amendment once again. Until we have ERA this nonsense will just keep coming up. I believe the current version also includes LGBT rights as well.
If there was a Freedom From Religion Amendment, we might avoid "Culture Wars" altogether
There is no need for a Freedom from Religion Amendment, the constitution is clear. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Such utter nonsense. There IS no 'war on women.'
Contraception is available EVERYWHERE - and EVERYBODY knows it.
Not a single human being is denying women access to contraception. If a woman wants to purchase contraception, she can go to the store and buy it - cheaply, I might add.
Such garbage....
Typical male chauvinist response.
Ah John - perhaps another day - we can have a conversation about saving souls vs. saving lives.
Oh - I hear that Corner won the Navy Pier project in Chicago - bummer.
If you are defining the war on women as related only to contraception, you have clearly not been paying attention.
Also, if a poor woman has to choose between feeding the two kids she's already got and paying for oral contraceptives, guess which choice is going to win?
Also also, if I'm paying for insurance coverage of my own -- which I am, and through the nose, I might add, as I'm a self-employed woman with a pre-existing condition -- there's no good reason on earth my insurance company should be able to deny coverage of contraceptives. I am not and never have been asking for taxpayer coverage, I want it from the insurance I am paying for MYSELF.
ah the rethug bubble at work, stay in your bubble johnlorican, you might melt if you come out of it into the light of reality.
johnlorican:
Have you done any more than watch GOPTV? The question isn't whether a person can obtain birth control at this moment; it is the question of whether women's health care, including birth control, will continue to be available to all, or whether your party's bizarre efforts will eliminate that. I realize your party has done all they can to turn the issue, as well as women's health, into a "garbage" issue in order to obfuscate what is happening. However, as a husband and father, I am not fooled. The current trend is intended to push women back to the '50's, and I doubt they will "keep their place" in the debate. Both men and women will be happy to remind you of that as the elections near.
Uh John, women can't just go to a store and buy it. It requires a prescription from a doctor. The GOP has not made it a secret that they are trying to dismantle Planned Parenthood which is where most women who don't have insurance go to get a prescription for it. Not only is a war on women, women having sex and also poor women. It is disgusting.
Are you trying to be funny? Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.
From St. Louis Today, March 31, 2012-- “The Senate passed a bill that would let employers deny health insurance coverage for birth control for employees who cannot prove a medical need for it.” On the same day, the House “passed a bill that would shield health care workers from participating in anything that conflicts with their conscience.” So if a woman can't give a satisfactory answer why she's on BC, she gets denied coverage and if she's been raped, and seeking an abortion, medical staff can refuse to help her. [ Doctors, nurses, medical staff as priest. ]
Kansas, among other states, with all the tries at personhood laws, would make it okay to legally deny some forms of birth control, as these laws tout that pregnancy begins at conception. Oklahoma, Mississippi, Colorado, etc.
Arizona lawmakers trying to legislate pregnancy two weeks before conception. They're trying to argue that you're pregnant before you have sex...which means any woman who's fertile who's menstruating would be considered pregnant. And if Roe V. Wade gets overturned, such laws might lead to any activity deemed abortive such as holding a job, eating certain kinds of food, taking certain kinds of medication. [ No abortions after twenty weeks is what they're seeking, if not outright bans on that in the first place. ]
Birth control costs: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/the-real-cost-of-birth-control- [ plus doctor visits, etc etc. ] It adds up as the Pill does not work for everyone. Women are now robots or machines or all the same biologically.
Pridemore, in Wisconsin, urging abused women to not divorce their spouses, but to remember what they love about them, which might help[ them get even more beaten up and dead that much sooner? ] ...and of course the single mothers are child abusers bill he co-sponsored with Republican Glenn Grothman.
Virginia's, and other states, ultrasound probing fixations. Idaho wishing to show abortion videos, actual medical procedures, to women seeking abortions.
And yet...there's no war on women in America right now or ever? Were you trying to be funny?
I don't know what you call "cheaply" but the first step is a Dr. visit. Minimum $290.00 plut lab fee's. Most contacetion runs between $90 and $120/ mo. I guess for you that's cheap. And please explain to us why an insurance co., which a person pays for, usually quite high premium, shouldn't pay. Do you beleive that a person shouldn't expect something for their money?
If women are required to pay federal taxes, then why can't some of that tax money go to Planned Parenthood for women's health matters?
If women pay a health insurance premium, then why can't some of that money go to contraception coverage?
Women are abiding by the rules, but are getting punked by the opposition. Whatever happened to the concept of a level playing field?
Johnlorican: I'll refer you to comment #9. Sums things up in a nutshell. We may be supressed, depressed, oppressed and any other "pressed," but we're sure as hell not STUPID.
You are kidding, right? Trying to be funny?
Arizona is trying to legislate that women are pregnant two weeks before they have sex. HB 2036. Pregnancy to be calculated from first day of last menstrual cycle of a woman. And Arizona of course with its employers can deny coverage of BC pills/methods for moral reasons grounds attempt at policy-making.
Personhood laws which would effectively curtail using birth control at all, as that would interfere with the rights of the unborn, even before they're conceived. Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Oregon, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, California all trying and trying and trying, among other states, to get personhood laws passed.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2010/08/27/the-real-cost-of-birth-control- [ you also need to add in costs of doctor visits, sometimes multiple doc visits if the BC method isn't working for whatever reason so the right dosage/fit can be made ]
In Wisconsin-- Pridemore urging abused women to stay with their spouses, to remember what they loved about them in the first place to prevent divorces. And the single women are child abusers bill he co-sponsored with Republican senator Glenn Grothman, which was struck down as unconstitutional.
Georgia, with HB954, would make it illegal to have an abortion after twenty weeks for any reason, because ' pigs do it all the time ', says Rep. Terry England. [ Women as livestock. Seriously?? ]
Tennessee-- Life Defense Act of 2012 [ HB 3808 ]-- would require the Department of Health to release more information on abortions, including the name of the doctor who performed the procedure and demographics about the women who received them. Rep. Mathew Hill wishes all this published for everyone to see.
And Pennsylvania with its HB 1077:would require a woman to--
- undergo a transvaginal ultrasound;
- view the results of the ultrasound–with the ultrasound screen turned toward her face;
- receive two personalized copies of the results (one for her doctor, one suitable for framing);
- deliver one of those copies to the doctor who will be performing the abortion; and
- wait at least 24 hours between ultrasound and abortion; although
- if she waits more than 14 days between ultrasound and abortion, she has to watch a state-approved video on fetal gestation.
Texas has something similar to the PA one. And does this list need to continue?
Sorry, I double-posted.
It's always fascinating to read these responses to my comments.
Ranging from the hypothetical 'poor woman who has to decide between feeding her children - and taking contraceptives' to a variety of state house bills dealing with issues of the preborn.
Good grief...!!
ANY woman - poor / middle-class / wealthy - can go purchase condoms (extremely cheap!), go to Planned Parenthood (even MORE cheap for all kinds of birth control), go see a doctor to get prescribed medication - and on and on.... Contraception is easily available for EVERYBODY!
Lisa Murkowski - a RINO if there ever was one - apparently wants to join the 'war on women' chorus of nonsense. She harps on Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke those names - but, like everybody else on the Maddow threads, completely ignores the heinous terms that women have been called by virtually every MSNBC host (past and present) for years. Our girl, Rachel, of course, has never called any of these idiots out for their comments - which shows what a red herring the 'war on women' nonsense truly is....
If you need a refresher course, liberal columnist Kirsten Powers gave a nice rundown last month on this subject:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html
@johnlorican
Please cite the medical example where:
will replace my oral contraceptives in treating my ovarian cysts?
I pay almost $700 a month in health coverage (this does NOT include dental or vision care) for my "pre-existing condition" of ovarian cysts. And, I was lucky to get any health coverage at all. Out of the five main health insurers I "shopped" for, two of those carriers denied me coverage over the phone when I began to answer their questions on my medical history (the other two denied me coverage one week after "investigating" my medical history.)
Secondly,
Your laughable answer is to refer me to the same Planned Parenthood that Republicans are trying to defund in almost every state of the nation and at the Federal level?
Finally,
I will not mince words with you. Simply put, you are a prevaricator.
Women should not have to depend on men to take action -- i.e., wearing a condom -- so we can protect OURSELVES. There is a safe, legal means we can use to do that, and we are paying for our own health insurance, so there is no reason AT ALL that coverage should be denied. None.
Absolutely. The fact that Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood is, of course, irrelevant. I don't want to fund that heinous organization because they're the nation's largest abortion provider.
Regardless, they ARE in business - and have been subsidized to the tune of approximately half a billion dollars every year - AND give out birth control like it's candy. They would do quite well without my tax dollars anyway. Sandra Fluke and her apparently 'helpless' crowd at Georgetown can take a bus if they're that desperate. The nearest PP is about two miles away....
Your ovarian cyst issue, of course, has nothing to do with a 'war on women.' It simply has everything to do with you - and insurance companies.
That is the whole problem when it comes to Votes, people vote not listening to their people back home, then after they vote. OH I AM SO VERY Sorry, it just doesn't cut it for me, once you voted you know what you are voting on, and how it will hurt women, or whom ever don't go back later and say sorry what you done is already done, and their is nothing you can do to take it back. Just a long list of people that are trying to save their butts for November. I can't even believe that another women would vote on something that could hurt thousands of other women, and I don't except what she says.
Murkowski is a Snowe clone. She should stop voting the way the party wants her to vote and listen to her constituents before she votes. Regrets do little to undo the damage. Murkowski won the seat despite losing her party primary to a Tea Party candidate. It is her own party that encouraged these Tea Party people. She owes nothing to the Republicans because she was elected on the strength of her own record. Now she can vote the way she sees fit to represent her constituents and not the party.
www.KeepRepublicansOutOfMyVagina.com
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Republican party has an issue with non-submissive women. It has been obvious for sometime that their racism is circa 1950's. And very very soon evangelicals will have to imagine a scenario of electing a Cult leader over a Christian.
When you consider the people who are vocally republican the only ideal they see to be able to vocalize is the idea of "smaller" government. But when you look at what they are against, it would take a fairly sizeable and domestically hostile government to enforce it.
Who are these people? And why are they so bent on the destruction of happiness, fairness, and light?
We always ask ourselves when we watch movies "Do the bad guys know they are the bad guys?" "Do they really think it through if they got what they wanted and would the world be worth living in?"
What I love about comments like this one is pointing out that the governors who stood AGAINST Civil Rights in the south in the 1950's and fought for segregation - were all Democrats....
....as in the same party that started the Ku Klux Klan in the 1800's.
Go look it up, Benet....
@Johnlorican. Actually you make an great point I wish more people would acknowledge. To be sure the eras have changed the complexion of both parties. For instance for all the accusations at Obama for being a socialist...in fact he is acting very much like a Reagan Republican. Yet the conservatives who call on Reagan's name would never allow him to be in their party as it currently stands.
So to be accurate to your point...the Republicans of today are racist the way Democrats used to be in the 50's
Benet, President Obama - within a week of taking office - demanded that we borrow almost a trillion dollars from China for the largest government spending bill of all time. Known, of course, as the 'stimulus' bill, it was a bill that nobody in Congress had an opportunity to read, since Obama demanded for its immediate passage upon taking office. Congress literally had a weekend to read that monster. We won't even talk about the health-care bill. As we ALL know, the economy has stunk since Obama took office. President Obama inherited an astonishing 9 trillion dollar debt - and under his leadership had added an additional 7 trillion dollars. Absolutely heinous....
President Reagan demanded that we reduce government and passed a HUGE bill slashing government spending the first year he took office. That bill set the tone for almost a decade of uninterrupted prosperity.
These two men could NOT have been more different in their worldview.
If Reagan were running for office, he'd win in a landslide.....
Your knowledge of history is both filtered and selective, are you a girl?
I'd like to point out that Mukowski is a woman, and as such her opinion on women's issues isn't nearly as important as a man's. That's what men in Congress and right-wing radio keep telling me, and what reason would THEY have to lie?
Right On, Freddie, action do speak louder then words... And her action is surely lacking..
And whats-up with the violence against women act legislation where do she stand, w/ party or w/ women? I haven't seem or heard any congress/senator women on the right, stand w/ dems. fight to get it passed.
Obama/Biden 2012
I give the gentlelady solid props for having the wisdom and courage to acknowledge her obvious mistake, and change her mind. We're talking about a republican, now, and when was the last time you remember that happening? You go, Lisa, and congratulations. I'm adding you to the very short list of GOP-types that I don't loathe. The only question is: why are you STILL a republican?? You're obviously so much better than that.
"...you had candidates who want to be our president not say, 'That's wrong. That's offensive.' They did not condemn the rhetoric,"
The acquiescence of silence...Sort of shouts, huh?
Nevertheless, she DID Blunt...CYA, girl...CYA.
Just an observation from someone who has been a part of this fight for a long time... If you think there isn't a long standing effort to suppress the rights and equality issues of women, ask yourself this question:
Why wasn't the Equal Rights Amendment ratified by the required 38 states?...
Just asking!
Because women already have equal rights. There was never any need for an amendment like that...
No, women do not have equal rights.
From Time magazine, Sept. 22nd, 2010.
Also from Justice Scalia,
From CBS News, January 4, 2011
Again, ever the prevaricator, John...
Women do NOT have equal rights.
Sheer nonsense.
Name ONE right a man has in this country that a woman doesn't have.
Scalia makes valid points. If you want to pass a law in your state about discrimination. lobby for the passage of a law. The problem, of course, with discrimination laws is the absurdity of the last few decades that we have witnessed.
Should a business be forced NOT to discriminate if they so choose? Should a restaurant that, say, only hires buxom waitresses ('Hooter's for example) be forced to hire men? Should a business owned and run by homosexuals be forced under law to hire non-homosexuals? I don't believe so.
Y'know, I got to thinking the other day.
I CAN'T join a Girl Scout troop a few miles away from where I live.
Why?
Well, I'm a male (sex discrimination!).....I'm too old (age discrimination!)......and I'd have to join a troop in my immediate area (don't know what the left would call that...'location discrimination?'). In one fell swoop, if I wanted to join that troop, I'd be discriminated against for three separate reasons. Is Gloria Allred going to come to my defense????
We now have a 'transgendered male/female' fighting for the 'right' not to be discriminated against in the Miss Universe Pageant. This is where the discrimination nonsense has gotten us....
Does anybody REALLY want to live in a pure 'non-discriminatory' society? I sure don't...
Rubber/Glue John (ever the prevaricator)
EQUAL PAY
And yes, I WOULD want to live in a "pure 'non-discriminatory' society"
But Republicans will ensure it will NEVER happen.
The thing that speaks loudest about the Republican party's position on women is their silence in the face of outrageous comments and actions against women. Murkowski was right to point out the lack of condemnation on the part of her colleagues in the GOP, especially those running for president. She should vote her conscience, not her party, as adherence to some of their "conservative" values is detrimental to her political career. She may have to resign from Republican politics if she can't realign herself with a party whose ideology she agrees with.
Where is her condemnation on ANY of the comments by Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, et. al?
For that note, where is ANY leftist's condemnation of these people if they're so 'offended' by the 'war on women?'
There IS none - because it's a made-up, meaningless non-issue. For Senator Murkowski to even respond to the Limbaugh issue shows how gullible she must truly be.
I truly find it ironic that leftists tried desperately to get Rush Limbaugh off the air, they thought they FINALLY had their opportunity for this to happen, they tried so hard to threaten advertisers......
.....and Keith Olbermann is the one who loses his job (!).
Hilarious....
Just realized it's not worth a cogent reply. Never mind.