“Let’s be clear here: Women are not an interest group…. They’re half of this country.”
“If you truly values families, you shouldn’t play politics with a woman’s health.”
Word.
“Let’s be clear here: Women are not an interest group…. They’re half of this country.”
“If you truly values families, you shouldn’t play politics with a woman’s health.”
Word.
I hereby submit, for your consideration, the following, as our nation’s best contribution thus far to the sheer horror that is #HugGate :
“I have HAD IT with these motherhugging hugs on this motherhugging plane!” #Imeanwhoisflyingthisthinganyway
— Lex Alexander (@lexalexander) March 8, 2012
BWAAAAhahahahahahahahahaha! /gasps for air/ HAhahahaha! Ha! Heh. Whew! /wipes tear from eye/
(Technically, @lexalexander tweeted this last night, but I’m new to this whole embed-a-tweet thingie and am only just now catching up. Please do forgive!)
Master political tactician Lee Atwater once said that “anyone who gets more than a 35-percent negative factor can’t win an election.”
In the 2012 Republican presidential contest, Mitt Romney is that person.
According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 39 percent of adults in America view Romney very or somewhat negatively, compared to 28 percent who view the former Massachusetts governor very or somewhat positively.
“If his negatives are 35 percent and his positives aren’t at least 5 percent higher,” Atwater believed, “it’s politically fatal1.”
Far from a polling fluke, the NBC/WSJ survey has remained fairly consistent over the past six months. In fact, the only significant difference between this year’s results and the same poll’s findings in 2008 is that Romney is disliked more now, as the frontrunner and presumed nominee, than he was in ’08 as a third-place finisher in the GOP primary.
In January, 2008, Romney earned a 28 percent positive review from poll respondents—the exact same positivity rating recorded in this month’s poll. His negative responses, however, have jumped 7 percentage points since 2008, from 32 percent to 39 percent.
The question is, will Atwater’s axiom hold true? Is Romney’s political fate doomed?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: The President of these United States is a feminist. It would also appear that he is a really nice guy.
President Obama called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who testified at a House contraception hearing. Rush Limbaugh recently had harsh words for Fluke, calling her a “slut.”
…“It’s not over,” the sheriff said during the hour-long event. “This investigation is not over.”
The good news is that at least some members of the Sheriff’s own party, the Arizona GOP, are distancing themselves from the filth:
Conservatives are sounding like a celestially-fervid flock of Chicken Littles over President Obama’s plan to reduce the U.S.’s nuclear weapon stockpile by as much as 80 percent.
And for good reason.
As Ronald Reagan knew well in the 1980s—because his wife kept him informed of all inter-galactic current events—20,000 nuclear warheads may have been enough to bomb every sovereign nation on the globe 100 times each, but it wasn’t nearly enough to thwart an alien attack!
Now that the stockpile is in the process of being reduced to 1,550 nuclear weapons, the threat has been compounded.
Convinced that President Obama’s contraception battle with the Catholic Church is not a “short-term tactical blunder” but yet another example of the president’s “strategically shrewd” long-game, conservative-turned-Dem-loving-ratiocinator Andrew Sullivan this week dabbled in a potentially promising career as a conspiracy theorist with a column at The Daily Beast that shocked Washington insiders and rubes, Democrats and Republicans, Obama-bots and Birthers alike.
The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base….And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.
Not only did the right-wing establishment walk right into it, their constituents turned out en masse to vote on it, handing three presidential primary victories to the rigidly conservative and proudly orthodox Catholic Rick Santorum.
Is it therefore impossible to assume that President Obama expected that such a hot-button issue would effect turnout among conservatives, and therefore timed the contraception ruling in order to boost Santorum’s odds of besting the only candidate with even a remote chance of beating Obama in November, presumed nominee Mitt Romney?
When the Republican Party’s promiscuity police stood toe-to-toe with science—arguing, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that contraception increases sexual indiscrimination—they won. Democrats sat on their unprotected thumbs as “abstinence only” replaced “sex education” in our nation’s schools.
It was not realistic or pragmatic. It wasn’t even remotely effective, despite the millions of taxpayer dollars spent teaching it. It was faith-based advocacy, the imposition of one’s religious views on an entire populace. And it was made into law via legislation supported and funded by Democrats. (Hence the common “spineless” prefix used when referencing the Democratic Party.)
And then there was Barack.
Posted in Lady Bits, Nicholas Wilbur, Obamaganda, War on Women
Tagged Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Catholic Church, contraception