Just a month ago, in his latest "Meet the Press" appearance, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was asked his party's focus on the culture war, including an Arizona bill that would have "put women in an uncomfortable position where they'd have to say to their employers why they wanted contraception." Host David Gregory ultimately asked, "Do you think that there is something of a war on women among Republicans?" Take a look at the response.
Asked if there's a Republican war on women, McCain didn't say, "Of course not; that's absurd," he said, "I think we have to fix that." The Republican senator conceded the reality of the situation, implicitly acknowledging that his party had gone too far.
Contrast these comments with what McCain had to say today.
In their ongoing push to close the gender gap, Republicans are dispatching their 2008 presidential nominee to blunt the accusation that they're waging a "war on women." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lit into his Democratic colleagues Thursday for lobbing the charge, calling it "imaginary" and "phony."
"My friends, this supposed 'war on women' or the use of similarly outlandish rhetoric by partisan operatives has two purposes, and both are purely political in their purpose and effect," McCain said on the Senate floor, according to prepared remarks. "The first is to distract citizens from real issues that really matter and the second is to give talking heads something to sputter about when they appear on cable television."
Well, which McCain is correct? The one in March, who conceded his party had gone too far and said it should "fix" the problem, or the one in April, who insists there is no problem?
As for the substance, there's nothing "imaginary" or "phony" about Republican proposals restricting contraception; cutting off Planned Parenthood; requiring state-mandated, medically-unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds; forcing physicians to lie to patients about abortion and breast cancer; or fighting equal-pay laws.
On "Meet the Press," McCain said, "We need to get off of that issue in my view." A month later, I think the senator should have taken his own advice.
Leave a Comment:
Years ago I admired the man ... now I think he's an embarrassment and I don't care if at one time he showed courage under fire. Today he's totally lacking in courage just so he can hold onto his party's support.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. This is how the GOP "fixes" the problem... by pretending it doesn't exist.
Leave it to an elderly, wealthy, white, conservative male to tell us there's no war on women...he may just as well have called us 'hysterical'
>_<
Seems like he is "fixing" the problem. Denying the problem should work very nicely.
Can we get a House and Senate majority of women and start legeslating "men's issues" and deny that we are waging a war on men?
First thought: How can a man with daughters support such things? Second thought: He knows he has enough money and influence to buy his way around these laws if they ever threaten HIS family.
From the State of Arizona we apologize for such a series of rants from one of the most uninformed and useless Arizonians in the State next to the other idiot Kyl who wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the butt. And lets not forget the "queen of the death panel" our governor "Witch Brewer" But she'll be okay because "Sheruff Joe" has her back. All of these liars could share the same cell. No one in Baja. Arizona "southern Arizona" would give a dime to save their butts...............
I like Ledbetter in spirit. Just have one question:
I want to hire two data entry people.
It's grunt work. From salary requirements submitted with resumes, I negotiate 10 bucks and hour for one worker and 12 for another, Everyone else cost more.
If the guy gets 10 and the woman get 12, I'm fine.
If the woman gets 10 and the man gets 12, can I be sued?
Not concern trolling here. Could this happen? Same work, different pay, isn't that what I'm not allowed to do? Even if I'm ignorant on the subject (and I'll get flamed, I suppose), the specific remedies for such a common scenario are rarely explained in presentations of praise for the Ledbetter Act and it would be good policy to do so.
"In effect, the Act takes a broad view of the employment practices that trigger the limitations period under Title VII. There will certainly be litigation over the meaning of "other practices", but the law's application to straightforward pay discrimination claims is clear. Employees will still face obstacles to enforcing their substantive rights against pay discrimination – lack of knowledge of disparate pay or its causes, cognitive obstacles to the quick perception of discrimination, as well as fear of -- and insufficient protection from – retaliation. But the Ledbetter Act makes sure that employees are not additionally hampered by the Court's crabbed interpretation of Title VII's already-short limitations period." from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html
I'd say substitute the word 'woman' for 'black man' and see how the perception changes.
I'd say if there were evidence that they were equally skilled and the female was paid less for no apparent reason, then you might have to worry. if you have a pattern of paying women less than similarly qualified men, then you might worry about being sued. But if it is truly a matter of skills and apparent, not opinion it might be viewed as acceptable.
....you cannot file for pay discrimination on the basis of gender unless you can provide some evidence that gender is the reason for your pay discrepency. If you are paying someone 10$ because of experience and someone else $12 because of experience then this is a legally accepted means of pay discrimination. However if you are paying one person $10 because it's a female or a male and another person $12 because it's a female or a male then you are discriminating based on gender, which is not a legally protected means.
Businesses will always face law suits regardless. Just because you are "facing suit" doesn't mean you will be found guilty. It is incumbent upon the person bringing the charges (the plaintiff) to prove their accusation is correct. The Ledbetter law does not change this. What the Ledbetter law accomplishes is that if you find out you are being paid less than your male co-workers (and, presumably, you have equal experience and equal time at the company) you can then file a discrimination claim and have it go to trial. Trial =/= guilt.
Seriously people: you are innocent until proven guilty.
As the great Senator from Alaska said, if you don't think the Republicants have a war on women, go home and ask your wives and daughters. Regardless of your views on Roe V Wade, to keep a woman from getting essential preventative healthcare, to take away from planned parenthood to pay for the student loan issue, shows how quickly they will throw women under the bus. When the common senses is to prevent abortion, give birth control, yet they don't even want to do that, they move completely away from the basic republicans who were all ready in office, now they vote with party to assure not having a tea party candidate to upstage them. This is Bullying, in the most public forum. With the cuts they are making in low income programs such as snap, and planned parenthood, this is actually cruel. It's like they're putting women on a microscope and seeing how they will react, and if we just lay down and take it, then by god, we deserve every drop of injustice they pour from the fount of hypocracy.
I think the whole Republican party is suffering from Alzheimer disease. They simply don't remember what they said before and don't realize that there is a record of what they said. At least that could be the excuse. It sounds better than they are just natural born idiots.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if that were true? Alas, alack (and Alaska), I think their 'dementia' is willful.