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
ld
May 16th, 2012
7:59 pm
The national debt was NOT anywhere near the same huge monster when the “great” depression hit and it did not start during two wars;
the war spending helped bring us out of the depression at a time when the the national debt did NOT compare to the 2008 debt;
and Roosevelt succeeded in no small part by putting people back to work on infrastructure projests at a time when the rich paid more in percentage of taxes.
The circumstances were very different.
Hope springs eternal that Obama has learned something this last four years.
I have no doubt that Romney knows more about how the economy works; I just believe that he would, as he always has, work it for the investor class rather than the employee class.
when banks were NOT bailed out by two presidents
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:01 pm
A one inch screen does not work well for a four inch comment hurriedly typed.
The last line was supposed to go after “2008″ debt. mea culpa.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:03 pm
ld
Me afraid of talking about Bush? That’s a new angle for the anti-Bush league. They had rather say “Bush did it” than eat. But they don’t want any objections to their prejudice.
In no way are you different. You try the libertarian angle while pointing backwards.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:03 pm
While I doubt Romney’s instinct is to fight against women’s rights, the reality is that, if elected, he will likely be beholdin’ to the “values voters” — likely no GOP candidate can get elected without them — and will want to be re-elected.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:07 pm
??
“pointing backwards”?
There is a “cause and effect” argument for any issue and “cause” is usually before effect; however, beyond that, I do not intend to point backward.
I do not accept the label “liberal”; I’m way too pro gun, among other things, for the libs to claim me. I am “progressive” on many issues, including some economic issues — I certainly oppose ALL bailouts, including those “homeowners” that “bought” more home than they could afford.
It is the “values voters” that want to go back to before Roe v. Wade.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:08 pm
different from?
Aquagirl
May 16th, 2012
8:09 pm
All gabbed out?
Well, your “walk in the rye!” witticism did render me temporarily speechless.
Actually I did run out of words the other day after a protracted squabble over polling methodology and statistical benchmarking at Jim Galloway’s blog. I admit this makes the “Oblama and yo mamma!!!” style exchanges here look much, much more inviting. Along with feeding myself feet first into an industrial wood chipper.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:09 pm
Except specifically with regard to cause and effect, I see no benefit in rehashing a prior presidency.
saywhat?
May 16th, 2012
8:09 pm
Aquagirl- it is impossible to aim low enough, or be literal enough with sad, scared, confused conservative posters who live here at wingfields,. We all know Kyle voted for Gingrich, the stupid person’s idea of what a smart person looks like, and he is the closest thing to an intellect among the conservatives here. You can bet that anytime one of them uses the word “fact” in one of their posts, they are either lying, or more frequently, just completely wrong, because like good little sheep, they believe the lies they have been told by their masters. Exposing them to concrete proof of their mistake does no good. Conservatism has been scientifically shown to be the result of lazy thinking, a knee jerk reaction by people who don’t have the time or ability to really think for themselves.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:12 pm
wood chipper sounds like an ouch
Some of the more ardent shredders on this site — the ones that ignore arguments for which they have no counter-argument — leave at the first indication of logic.
MarkV
May 16th, 2012
8:13 pm
Dusty @7:20 pm
There is no way to reason with people who do not want to use reason.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:14 pm
saywhat
Many people do not seem to know the difference between “opinion” and “fact”. I accept each comment as “opinion” — only some have any root in “fact”. Others seem to fall out of la la land.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:15 pm
ld
In reference to Obama you say “the circumstance were different” referring to Roosevelt and Truman. That’s true. Times then may have been worse in other ways than present circumstances.
Then you say hope springs eternally that Obama has learned something in four years.
As far as I can see, Obama has stopped learning and gone “electing”. But you can’t start from scratch and turn out an expert. He hasn’t even make it out of apprenticeship.
I suggest that he go back to Harvard and teach public speaking. Now that he can do…. with the aid of electronics..
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:15 pm
ld
In reference to Obama you say “the circumstance were different” referring to Roosevelt and Truman. That’s true. Times then may have been worse in other ways than present circumstances.
Then you say hope springs eternally that Obama has learned something in four years.
As far as I can see, Obama has stopped learning and gone “electing”. But you can’t start from scratch and turn out an expert. He hasn’t even make it out of apprenticeship.
I suggest that he go back to Harvard and teach public speaking. Now that he can do…. with the aid of electronics..
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:16 pm
MarkV
your “reason” for gettin’ your panties in a wad today?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
8:18 pm
ld: The “war” is not against “women” but against the individual liberty of women
——————
And what liberties do you believe anyone is trying to withold from women? Obviously one liberty would be the ability to have unrestricted abortion–I’ll stipulate to that and so there is no need to repeat that part of your argument.
What else ya got?
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:19 pm
Wow! It’s gone double. Thanks, but I don’t need that.
It’s that lala land, ld. You know. From whence you came.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:19 pm
Dusty
Before I could vote for Romney, I’d need some indication of the direction in which he wants to lead the country. Romney has already said that he could not say what he would do or he could not get elected.
I have no particular dislike for Romney — unlike the other GOP candidates; however, as of now, a vote for him would be buying a “pig in a poke”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
8:22 pm
I’ll take the pig in the poke over the pig we have in our White House.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:27 pm
As far as I can tell, those that call the multitude of laws and proposed laws cited as being a part of the “war” on women’s individal liberty seems centered around reversing Roe v. Wade and/or making the right of abortion too costly humiliating difficult and time consuming an option to be a real option.
The issue of COST includes insurance related issues. The “war” on religion is, in my view, a seriously fake issue. The church war on individual liberty has always existed because the church is about defining what people can do and go to heaven and cannot do lest they go to hell.
There are only a few (Catholic) polititions ons that even hint they oppose the right to use/purchase contraception — that is likely not something that will ever really be an issue–at least not in my lifetime. Even most Catholic women overwhelmingly support that choice.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:29 pm
Lil’ is back?
A “pig in a poke” is an “unknown”– I was NOT calling anyone a pig.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:30 pm
A “poke” is a sack.
To buy a sack of something without seeing what is in the sack is buying a “pig in a poke”.
Aquagirl
May 16th, 2012
8:30 pm
it is impossible to aim low enough, or be literal enough with sad, scared, confused conservative posters who live here at wingfields
Yes, but visiting a thought-free zone is quite restful on occasion. No think! Just talky! and more louder, more good!
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:32 pm
Ahh welcome back, Aquagirl.
You just needed the sharp repartee that reigns here!
Poor babee! Got mad and left Galloway, huh? Those rascals. Probably liberals, doncha think?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 16th, 2012
8:35 pm
Sorry for not hanging around for your every words, ID, but the brush pile in the back yard called.
For someone who is allegedly “progressive” (a term used specifically by liberals because THAT term has been taken over by kooks), you sure do focus on manufactured issues.
Fact: There is a war against abortion on the right.
Fact: There is no war against women’s reproductive rights.
Fact: There is no concerted effort by the GOP to limit access to contraceptives, nor to make them more expensive than they already are.
Fact: The term “access”, much like “progressive”, has been hijacked by the left to mean “taxpayers need to help me get this” rather than “make this available to me”.
Fact: Anyone who claims that Romney hasn’t said what he would do if elected is either lazy or a liberal. Or both.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:35 pm
Lil’
Your trite “arguments” — name calling, ridiculing that which you cannot logically dispute — do seem to have the clear echo of a la la land; however, since I have never directly experienced that place myself, I’ll choose to believe you know first hand what it’s like.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:36 pm
access to me means legally available w/o unnecessary “values voters” impediments
saywhat?
May 16th, 2012
8:37 pm
“Yes, but visiting a thought-free zone is quite restful on occasion. No think! Just talky! and more louder, more good!”
_________________________________________
Exactly my reason for coming here now. I have pretty much long since given up trying to have any kind of reasonable adult discussion here. Thats what Bookman’s is for (and why some unmentioned people have been banned from there).
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:37 pm
I’ve heard Romney do a lot of backtracking, too, so it becomes a matter of which of his statements are the real Romeny.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
8:38 pm
So…you can’t think of any liberties other than abortion that Republicans are trying to withhold from women?
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:38 pm
ld
There you go again. Romney speaks almost every day explaining his views. But you don’t know what they are. That libertarian streak of yours if getting wider and wider. On no, could it be…..liberal???? Oh noooo….If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it might be a…………Yes?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
8:39 pm
When “progressives” speak of “access”, they mean “access to the wallets of people who work for a living”.
Dusty
May 16th, 2012
8:41 pm
Say what??? Adult conversation?? With you?
Surely you jest!
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:43 pm
I, personally, think the term “war” is overused.
“War” on: drugs, poverty, terrorism; religion, etc.
Having failed, to date, to overturn Roe v. Wade, those of the “values voters” ilk ARE trying to make it more difficult, time consuming and expensive to “choose” abortion as an option. If you are unaware of this, you have NOT been paying attention.
Requiring tests, waiting periods, counseling, etc. are all a part of this and there are laws and proposed laws popping up in most, if not all, states in this effort.
I would not have chosen the term “war” but I do understand what those that choose that term mean–all out political legal effort to impede the right to an abortion that, supposedly, has been a legal choice since Roe v. Wade.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 16th, 2012
8:44 pm
Saywhat, there are two people over at Bookman’s capable of intelligent discussion, and the host and you aren’t them.
Aquagirl
May 16th, 2012
8:47 pm
there are two people over at Bookman’s capable of intelligent discussion, and the host and you aren’t them.
Bitter, table for one!
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:47 pm
Are you a progressive? If not, you cannot speak for them.
I consider myself a “progressive” on some issues, yet I speak only for myself.
All of my comments, like all of yours and everyone elses, are just opinion. If what Kyle posted was supposed to be “fact” it would likely be considered”news”– not just a blog.
One major difference between us is that I know the difference between opinion and fact and you do not appear to or, at least, are unwilling to acknowledge that there is a difference.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
8:50 pm
ld, tell us something we don’t know. Everyone here, to my knowledge, agrees that most Republicans are doing all they can to restrict or ban abortion.
Is that all there is to this contrived War on Wimmmmeeeenn?
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:52 pm
When Romney finally decides what he believes firmly enough to not backtrack on any of statements w/i a couple of weeks, then, maybe, I’ll, once again, begin to listen.
Of the GOP candidates, Romney is only one of the two that seemed to have a degree of common sense with intelligence. The rest seemed like flakes.
ld
May 16th, 2012
8:53 pm
Give tyrants an inch and they will take a mile.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 16th, 2012
8:53 pm
Id, if you don’t like my facts, you are free to debunk then with alternative facts you possess.
And considering yourself something in direct opposition to your stated views is just creepy.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
8:54 pm
ld: Are you a progressive? If not, you cannot speak for them.
———————
You don’t seem to have a problem speaking for conservatives, values voters, and Catholics…
ld
May 16th, 2012
9:00 pm
If one law were proposed, that is an attack on women’s liberty. The ongoing effort every state to propose law after law after law is why the attack on this right is deemed, by some, to be a war.
Again, “war” an overused word, but that you are incapable of comprehending the “slipper slope” nature of it does not speak well of your common sense.
Because I am a non-believer, this seems more like a church “war” on individual liberty and an effort to end any pretense of separation of church and state to me rather than a “war” on women–but I did not name this anti-freedom effort–I only acknowledge the existence of it by the name others have given it.
ld
May 16th, 2012
9:01 pm
I voice my opinion of their nature based upon their actions; I speak for no one except myself.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
May 16th, 2012
9:02 pm
And that is different from my observation of “progressive” behavior….how, exactly?
ld
May 16th, 2012
9:03 pm
TI
FYI: putting the word “fact” before your stated opinion does not make it a “fact”.
Rafe Hollister
May 16th, 2012
9:05 pm
“slipper slope” ? Did you mean slippery slope?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 16th, 2012
9:08 pm
“FYI: putting the word “fact” before your stated opinion does not make it a “fact”.
Once again, you are free to debunk any of them with alternate facts of your own, Id.
Yet for some strange reason, you simply complain about the wording rather than finding facts which dispute mine.
I wonder why that is . . . .?
ld
May 16th, 2012
9:09 pm
“conservatives” want to conserve–that is the root of the word.
“progressives” want to make progress–that is the root of the word.
I was choosing to agree with YOU that liberals seem to want government (taxpayers) to provide (specifically healthcare–birth control pills) for them, cradle to grave. It is still just an opinion.
ld
May 16th, 2012
9:14 pm
Requiring a waiting period is impeding the right to choose abortion because there are so few abortion providers it raises cost.
Requiring counseling when none is wanted does the same thing.
Requiring tests does the same thing.
Anything healthcare that could be accomplished in one visit but, because of some “values voters” law, cannot legally be accomplished in one visit can require an explanation to an employer as to what “proceedure” requires more than one visit. This can have a negative effect in numerous ways beyond co$t.
Raising the cost of an abortion is an impediment to abortion as an option and, in some instances, may well make it cost prohibitive–as I am reasonably certain it is intended to be.