GOP’s ‘war on women’ continues in Nebraska
State Sen. Deb Fischer came out of nowhere yesterday to become Nebraska Republicans’ nominee for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Ben Nelson. By my count, she’s the first woman to be nominated for Senate or governor by either major party this year — although several female incumbents will almost certainly be renominated when the time comes, such as Democrats Kristen Gillibrand of New York and Maria Cantwell of Washington, and several female challengers are strong possibilities to capture nominations, including Republicans Linda Lingle of Hawaii and Heather Wilson of New Mexico.
If we add each party’s nominations for Senate and governor from 2010, we get 11 Republican women and 14 Democratic women — 10 Republicans and eight Democrats if we don’t include incumbents. (These figures don’t include Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who lost the 2010 GOP Senate primary but won the general election as a write-in Republican.) Which can only mean one thing if follow liberal logic:
In the “war on women,” there sure are a lot of double-agents!
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
264 comments Add your comment
The GOP Women Just Go With The Tide
May 16th, 2012
4:57 pm
@Dusty
May 16th, 2012
4:53 pm
4:47
Believe it. It’s the truth. Even you know it.
***********************************************************
IT AIN’T A LIE IF “YOU” BELIEVE IT.
I DON’T.
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheheehehehee
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
5:05 pm
GOP Fake Woman 4:57
There is not one thing that I mentioned that hasn’t been verified. Google is your friend. Start with Cindy Sheehan.
When you get over your heehees (Tourette’s syndrome) you would do better to find the truth. Right now, you are trying to ignore it. Go ahead. Won’t change anything.
MarkV
May 16th, 2012
5:10 pm
“Obama has raised the national debt to three trillion.”
If only that were true!
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
5:16 pm
MarkV 5:10
Present the figures when Bush left and present the figures on the national debt now under Obama.
Until then, you are up the river without a paddle.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
5:26 pm
Still waiting for Becky to post even one link to a post of mine demonstrating racism or bigotry.
Cue the chirping crickets.
You lose, Becky.
Pizzaman
May 16th, 2012
5:31 pm
So! nominating a woman means your not at war with women. No wonder most of us don’t understand republicans!
Rockerbabe
May 16th, 2012
5:35 pm
Just because a woman won the primary and is the GOP candidate for Senate, does not mean, that she, if elected, would do anything to better the lot of women in this country. GOP women are opportunities in the worst way. They will not get their hands dirty in the fight to improve women’s roles and leadership in our political system, but if an opening does occur, they fell entitled to get t he position without having to work for it or help other women advance in any way shape of form. GOP women have little respect for other women, their needs, wants or their lot in life. I do not vote republican, even if there is a women on t he ticket. A Judas is just that a Judas. . . I for one, will not support women who do not support me.
MarkV
May 16th, 2012
5:44 pm
Dusty @5:16 pm
Either check your numbers, or learn the difference between “to” and “by.”
Happy boating without a paddle!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
5:50 pm
Dusty: MarkV 5:10, Present the figures when Bush left and present the figures on the national debt now under Obama.
———————
Not being a Democrat, I don’t fear facts. Allow me to help brother MarkV:
Debt held by public:
September 30, 2000: $3.4 trillion (couldn’t get the number for W’s first day in office)
End of Our President Bush’s administration: $6.3 trillion
After three-plus years of the Obozo regime: $10.9 trillion
http://www.treasurydirect.com/np/npgateway
Heckuva job, Obozo.
MarkV
May 16th, 2012
5:54 pm
@5:50 pm
It is no surprise that the clown cannot read.
Rafe Hollister
May 16th, 2012
5:59 pm
Just because a woman won the primary and is the GOP candidate for Senate, does not mean, that she, if elected, would do anything to better the lot of women in this country.
You have put the tail on the donkey with that statement. The Dems think helping women in the country, can only be done by the big overstuffed inefficient government. Their happiness is government making their lives easy, and they willingly trade their freedom for security and financial support. They want a government that gives them free stuff, free birth control drugs, free job training, free time off work, free support for their children, free healthcare for their children, free legal help to file their discrimination complaints, and new laws giving them preferences in hiring and being promoted.
Conservatives see things differently, especially Republican women. We think the most important and essential thing that will help women is a thriving economy, low taxes, a strong national defense, and equal opportunity for all. Conservative women do not complain that they pay more to have their blouse laundered than men pay. They take on life as it is, not as some charlatan politician promises it can be. Many of the conservative women do not want the government to be in their life more than necessary. They want to spend time with their families and friends and be left alone to enjoy their freedom.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
6:05 pm
Dusty asked you to provide some numbers, MarkV, and since I knew just where to find them I’m happy to help out.
Don’t fear the facts presented.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:08 pm
“iggy” is an *d*ot.
The “war” against women — an effort pursued by men since cave men, by force, took women from other cave men for purposes of sex — was well under way as the three majority religions of the world were formed. The men that formed those religions — wrote the “hearsay” words, edited and published the texts upon which they are based — made sure there were provisions in the religious dogma that could be interpreted that women should be subservient to men.
Most of the tyrants of this world have been men. Even today, in the more “primitive” mindset nations, men that yield to kings and clergy insist on controlling the women in their lives.
IF women actually launched this “war”–which I dispute–it has been a fight for freedom of women over tyranny by men. The FIRST battle was the first rape–and EVERY rape since has been a part of the battle.
It is the GOP that has been working to overturn “Roe v. Wade”–a case of involving the right of a raped woman to abort a child borne of rape. This was the first modern history battle in the “war” of men against women. It is, therefore, the GOP that is continuing the LEGAL aspects of the ancient and ongoing “rape” war of men against women started before human history–men fighting to control the “reproduction” ability and rights of women.
Women were not even considered the people that were free according to the US Constitution circa 1776–they could not vote or own property. Women did not get the right to vote in the USA until the twentieth century. Individual women’s battles and victories aside, the right to vote is, arguably, the first “battle” of the “war” that women, as a gender, have, here in the USA, actually “won”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
6:12 pm
Poor ld, stuck in the past.
Move on.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 16th, 2012
6:16 pm
“It is, therefore, the GOP that is continuing the LEGAL aspects of the ancient and ongoing “rape” war of men against women started before human history–men fighting to control the “reproduction” ability and rights of women.”
Id, can you just face reality and proclaim the GOP opposition to abortion, and not include the whole “reproduction ability and rights of women”?
No one is trying to take away the latter, ID, and you know it.
Quit the global hyperbole and focus on the actual target – abortion.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:18 pm
The difference between “liberals” and “progressives” is that
“liberals” want abortion and birth control free
“progressives” want abortion and birth control available and affordable–without all the legal barriers and the costs associated with them that the “conservatives” want to impose along with the rest of the religious dogma they want to impose on this nation.
The “conservatives” want to conserve the status quo:
The “conservatives” want children to be indoctrinated with a fear hell–they want the “values voter” parents that are too ignorant and/or too busy going to their Sunday social club and/or are too ignorant or lazy to put forth the effort to teach their children the cause and effect of right from wrong to be able to use the “carrot & stick” (heaven & hell) of religion to do that. AND, more importantly, the TRUE moneyed leadership of the GOP want to use religion to get the “values voters” to go to the polls and vote contrary to their own best economic interests.
or afraid to be able to use the carrot and stick of religion to
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:20 pm
oops did not delete “or…to”
Rafe Hollister
May 16th, 2012
6:21 pm
ld
Most of what you said is true, but you lie through omission. Democrats have contributed to the war equally as well, by keeping women enslaved on their plantation. They control women with their nanny state free stuff mentality, and their paternal attitude toward women. They constantly preach to women that, you owe us, we take care of you. Most women are very capable of taking care of themselves and their families, if government would get out of their way.
saywhat?
May 16th, 2012
6:21 pm
What a sad sack effort by the host.
Using his logic- “Hitler wore socks, and people claim he was a fascist dictator. But wait! I wear socks, and I’m not a fascist dictator. Ergo, Hitler was not a fascist dictator!”
NEXT!
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
6:36 pm
Thank you, Lil Barry
You answered the suggestion I left for Mark V who seems unable to give direct answers. You gave the information I requested.
It is no secret that President Obama has enlarged the national debt greatly. Some people cannot face facts. Or maybe they came here from Greece. They still cannot face reality there just like some people here cannot face it either..
See ya’ later….
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:39 pm
TI…
To the REAL issue:
Abortion is opposed because there are those that believe life is “sacrad” — in the religion sense — and that live begins prior to birth.
I’m waiting for the polititions that profess this belief to offer every retired person receiving Social Security a check for nine months back pay before I actually believe they sincerely believe this.
I’m also waiting for all those that profess this belief that “life is sacrad” to totally, irrevocably and in all circumstances to denounce the death penalty.
I’m also waiting for all those that profess this belief that “life is sacrad” to oppose war for any reason–to embrace “turn the other cheek” as was taught in Sunday School and Bible School.
I’m also waiting for those that believe “In God We Trust” and thou shall not kill to stop supporting the taxpayer purchasing of the most powerful military in the history of humanity. War kills more than combatants–it “murders” innocents.
Unless and until these “values voters” that profess to believe that “life is sacrad” do all the above, they are hypocrites.
A fetus is only “potential” life unless and until it can be born and survive without massive medical intervention–as was the time when the Bible was written–when Jesus was born as Mary’s child.
I, personally, believe that the USA must have a strong military to defend our freedom and that some people just “need killin”. I, however, am a non-believer. I do know that, while life is precious and has value, so does liberty; therefore, some lives being lost to preserve individual liberty for all the rest of us is a very reasonable price to pay. The loss of “potential” life is NOT more of a loss than the loss of the individual liberty of female half of the population.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:41 pm
TI..
“no one”?
WRONG.
Some polititions do oppose abortion for ANY reason, including rape, incest and life and/or health of the mother and I DO KNOW THAT. If you don’t, you have not been paying attention.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
6:42 pm
P.T. Barnum had something to say about the war on women and suckers.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
6:43 pm
Some polititions do oppose baby-killing for ANY reason
—————-
Fixed.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:43 pm
I do acknowledge that the “war” on woman is NOT limited to GOP men against women; however, few Democrats want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It is the Republicans that have campaigned on this issue for decades; therefore, the “legal” “war” on woman is theirs. The Dems have some turncoats, too. In fact, there are some brainwashed women on the wrong side of this issue as well.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:45 pm
Lil Barry..
A FETUS IS NOT A BABY. An egg is not a baby. A fertalized egg is not a baby.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:45 pm
If YOU want to get “fixed”, have at it.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:47 pm
Lil Barry
WHY do you oppose abortion? Is life, in your view, “sacrad”?
MarkV
May 16th, 2012
6:50 pm
Dusty @6:36 pm
Dusty, what just has happened in our exchange was a classical example of one of the things that are wrong with these discussions on the blog. People do not check what they have written, and when they are reminded, do not pay attention.
When you wrote “Obama has raised the national debt to three trillion,” I answered “If only that were true!” as a gentle reminder that you had not written what apparently you had in mind. The meaning of what you have written would be, naturally, that if the national debt were raised TO three trillion, it would now be three trillion. Therefore my “If only that were true!”
But instead of understanding that I did not attack what you wanted to write (that Obama has raised the national debt BY three trillion), only what you had actually written, you ignored that. And then the clown writing under the moniker LLB saw another reason to attack me, and made a fool of himself. Typical.
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:53 pm
Rafe
The difference between “liberal” and “progressive” is that “liberals” want stuff “free” (”there is no free lunch”) while “progressives” want abortion, birth control available and affordable–as in without all those tests and other legal impediments that make it take more time and cost more money.
The “conservatives” who have, to date, been unable to get Roe v. Wade overturned are just trying to put abortion out of the price range of most of the poor. Being somewhat cynical when it comes to conservative hypocrisy (see above comment), the moneyed investor class of the GOP leadership (that can affort to go abroad for and abortions) are a lot more interested in keeping competition for unskilled and semi-skilled jobs high to keep wages low. It is my belief that this is the same reason for the first “amnesty” and ongoing cowardice of the GOP — that had both houses of Congress and the White House for SEVEN
ld
May 16th, 2012
6:55 pm
(7) Bush years to do anything about either abortion or illegal immigration. They’d rather have these two “wedge” issues than a solution for either problem.
The Dems are guilty of some hypocrisy on their own pet issues as well, but those issues are not the subject of today’s discussion.
Hillbilly D
May 16th, 2012
7:05 pm
To believe in a “War On Women”, first you have to believe that all women hold the same opinions and views. We all know that’s not true.
Most of the women that I know personally, in my corner of the world, hold views that are 180 degrees from the people who talk about a “War On Women”.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:07 pm
oops
sacred
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:11 pm
The “war” is not against “women” but against the individual liberty of women–women’s rights–it is a “war” if you believe men want to dominate women (even those libs and progressive men that do would not admit it but likely do); however, there definitely exists a “struggle” of independent minded women for individual liberty that has not yet been joined by the women in “your neck of the woods”–the “follower” class that follow one religion or another.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:17 pm
“a rose by any other name”.
war or struggle?
To some, the “struggle” seemed to be “won” by the right to vote. Roe v. Wade was an acknowledgment of individual liberty of women. Those that have “pursued” every effort to impede the right guaranteed by Roe v. Wade are making “war” on that right and, therefor, “war” against the rights of women.
There does NOT exist, to my knowledge, any effort to REQUIRE abortion. Most people would denounce such actions, even for the insane and/or addicted. It is NOT the women that insist on individual liberty that are making “war”.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:19 pm
Well, I see that TI and Lil Barry cannot “argue” with logic and fact and have abandoned the discussion when it becomes impossible for them to stay on topic and becomes obvious that, on this issue, they do no more than spout platitudes and irrelevant nonsense.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
7:20 pm
Mark V 6:50
You cannot win an argument only on semantics. You knew exactly what info I wanted but you tried to remove yourself from facing the truth.
You know Obama has raised the national debt. But you’d rather talk about “to” and “for”. That is called dodging the truth any way you put it.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:25 pm
Dusty
Obama is economically inept; however,
the reality is that it is harder to get out of an economic hole when so very much income must go to pay interest on a prior debt, when war obligations make spending NOT optional, when the debt calculations now include two wars fought “off book” during the prior administration, when ill-advised tax cuts during time of war that were SUPPOSED
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:25 pm
…to expire have not, etc.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
7:28 pm
ld 6:55
You stop liberals here talking about Bush and I will do the same.
If opinions vary from the subject offered by Kyle, let him decide about restrictions. I believe this blog has his name at the top. He’s quite capable of being the director. We don’t need another one.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:33 pm
Dusty,
When you complain about the current economy and assign blame, that the blame is shared is relevant.
Aquagirl
May 16th, 2012
7:33 pm
But instead of understanding that I did not attack what you wanted to write (that Obama has raised the national debt BY three trillion), only what you had actually written, you ignored that
I started to say something about that, but then realized….It’s Dusty. Even if her eyeballs drift anywhere near your 6:50 post, she still won’t get it.
You have to be extremely literal with these people and aim really low. Wry humor whooshes over most heads here.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
7:39 pm
ld
Obama is economically inept. quite true. And it is hard to get out of a hole. But other presidents have done it and this one cannot. He does not have the ability, the experience or the admistration to make good, advisable changes.
Then you go undercover about the “war debits, etc etc” and did a good job of not mentioning Bush. You just blamed everything on him. Way to go!
I doubt that you will have the courage to walk away from an inept president. You will still be making excuses for him at election time.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:39 pm
Five times I’ve tried to make this point but must be using some word not allowed after hours.
The current president does not get a free pass from me; however,
blaming only the current president for the current state of the economy is like blaming a doctor for the expiration of a patient when another doctor has just amputed all four limbs without doing anything to stem the bleeding.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:41 pm
No president has ever before faced an economic whole this big with obligations and threats this huge. There is plenty of blame to share — specifically including both sides of the aisle in both houses of Congress.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
7:46 pm
AquaGirl 7:33
We know. We know. You aim very low because you shoot from low levels.
And MarkV has wry humor? You need a walk in the rye! But….
Where have you been? You haven’t been over here sqawking much lately. All gabbed out?
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:48 pm
In the last election I voted for every libertarian I could find on the ticket. I am and have been for decades registered as an independent voter. I have sometimes voted for the Republicans and I have sometimes voted for the Democrats.
Because of the US Supreme Court, I’m strongly leaning toward “holding my nose” and voting for the Dems this time because keeping the current fellow will likely be the only way to protect the core right guaranteed by Roe v Wade and the best chance to reverse the effects of the Citizens United ruling by the Roberts Court. The pr*ck Santorum candidacy has awakened the “thumpers” and the Dems are a better chance to keep some separation of church and state. Not that it will make much difference in Georgia — I expect Romney will get all Georgia’s electoral votes. I wish there was a viable alternative to the major parties.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:49 pm
not “whole” but “hole” –the whole economic hole is huge.
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:51 pm
Dusty, if “B” + rymes with tush were my “man”, I’d be ashamed to talk about him, too.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
7:51 pm
Poor ld,
Never heard of Roosevelt or Truman to mention a few president with big problems. Just all of a sudden, Obama is the only one.
The sad truth is facing us. Obama is not capable of handling big problems. Too bad you ignore the obvious.