The Continuing Awfulness Of GOP's Effort To Reach Out To Women
As has been noted, at times art imitates life and at other times life imitates art. This is one of those latter times, when what was purported to be a "Women and Colorado's Future" debate among Republican gubernatorial candidates seemed like nothing more than a Saturday Night Live sketch ridiculing the awfulness of the Republicans' continuing failure to reach out to women voters in any meaningful way. And that is actually the most polite thing I can bring myself to say about it: it seemed like satire, but (sadly) it wasn't.
The event was co-hosted by Colorado Christian University and the Women of Centennial Institute. The debate was to take place in three segments, one of which was a panel of actual women asking the candidates questions. Sounds reasonable enough? Well, it quickly took a turn for the worse. In fact, it's hard to accurately count the ways it became so awful. Watch the video clip if you don't believe me.
The emcee begins by stating that the moderator failed to "implore the ladies" on the panel to come up and seat themselves onstage at the panel table. He followed this up with: "It's so much more ornamental if the three... four of you would be on the stage with the four of us." After calling out the women on the panel by name and inviting them to come up on stage, he paused and said "we were supposed to have a little of the Dating Game theme..." which did indeed soon begin to play over the loudspeakers. As the music swelled, the moderator tried to be funny, by announcing "Bachelor One, Bachelor Two, and Bachelor Three." This was right before he felt it necessary to tamp down any possible eruption of female hormones by admitting "actually their wives are all here tonight."
As I said, it's really hard to know where to begin deconstructing what is so horribly wrong with all of this. I supposed The Dating Game is a good a place as any. Since, of course, it's such a hip and up-to-date reference (the show originally aired from 1965-74). Way to appeal to that younger female demographic, Colorado GOP! The entire motif is truly awful, though, since someone obviously thought "if there are women sitting on the stage with our all-male candidate panel, it'll be more ornamental -- just like if they were on The Dating Game!" This, quite obviously, is the limit of imagination for Republicans, when it comes to seeing women on a stage. They must be up there trying to snag a husband (goes without saying, right?), so let's make it more fun for the little dears, and more like a game! That'll be sure to appeal to women voters, right?
The disrespect this shows for both the women on the panel and the women voters of Colorado is vast and unfathomable. This, after all, was a debate titled "Women and Colorado's Future" -- the entire debate's theme was supposed to be women voters' concerns. However, what followed was a debate seemingly designed to ignore most issues important to women voters: "topics such as reproductive health care, equal pay, personhood amendments, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and childcare weren't brought up. Instead, the candidates faced questions about which women they admire, job creation and oil drilling."
Now, opining about which women they admired (I haven't listened to their answers, but I'm willing to bet that at least one cited Maggie Thatcher) is informative in some small way, and women do indeed care about important issues such as the economy and (especially in Colorado) oil drilling, but the glaring lack of discussion around any issues specific to women voters' lives was stunningly conspicuous in its absence.
Of course, allowances should be made, considering this was a Republican debate given to a Republican audience, with women on the panel chosen (assumably) by Republicans. In other words, Rachel Maddow probably wasn't on the ballot for picking the candidates to be on this panel. So it's probably a good thing they didn't ask any female-specific questions. One of the panelists was quoted in the article saying "she feels like Democrats pander to political concerns she doesn't possess, expressing a problem with 'being appealed to under the belt.' " She went on to further comment: "As if my vote could be bought with free contraception."
That excuses reproductive health care, personhood amendments, and sexual harassment from the list, since all could be considered (in the genteelist term possible) as being "under the belt." But even that doesn't exclude equal pay, domestic violence, or childcare from being discussed.
Republicans know their poll numbers with single and young women are terrible. They are actively trying to reach out to these demographics, in the hopes of not losing them forever to the Democrats. This is a major reason why Republicans are holding debates with titles like "Women and Colorado's Future." But going through the motions only exposes what Republicans really (and demeaningly) think on the issue of women. Which goes something like this:
"Democrats are being mean and trying to unfairly paint Republicans as waging some sort of 'War On Women,' when we really love and cherish women, deep down in our hearts. We strive to protect women from themselves by passing dozens and dozens of laws which interject government between them and their doctors -- for their own dear, sweet good, of course. How can we show women voters how deeply we care about them? Let's have a debate dedicated to women! Yeah, that's a great idea. Brilliant! Oh, and for a full one-third of this debate, let's actually let women ask the questions! Wow -- that's pretty radical, right there! Plus, it'll be so much more decorative and downright ornamental to have some actual women on the stage with the three male candidates. But they might be embarrassed to be in such a spotlight, so we'll make it more fun for them by playing the theme music to one of those daytime game shows women love to watch. Since it might seem so mentally challenging for members of the fair sex to ask important political questions, we'll make it more relaxing for them by pretending it's The Dating Game, where young women ask numbered bachelors questions about where the grooviest place to go on a first date is. That'll show women we're in tune with their concerns, right? Since the concept of voting is so stressful for women, it'll be much easier if we frame it as choosing a possible husband -- something they'll be sure to relate to. But, of course, we don't want anyone to get too emotional, so we'd better point out that all three of them are already married -- don't want to confuse the poor dears, after all."
As I stated, it is tough to even plumb the depths of the awfulness of the Republicans' continued failure in their efforts to reach out to women voters. While most Republicans' attitudes towards women's issues can be summed up simply as "returning to the 1950s, when women knew their place," their new attempts to speak of women and the future have moved them up to "returning to the 1960s, and those modern women on The Dating Game." That is progress of a sort... I guess. But it quite obviously isn't moving fast or far enough. The Huffington Post article about the debate ends with a telling overview of the campaign between the Republicans and current Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper:
Colorado's primary is set for June 24. An April Quinnipiac University poll found Hickenlooper leading each of his potential Republican opponents by wide margins, largely because of his support among women voters as well as independents.
At the risk of attempting to move the Colorado Republicans all the way up to 1970s cigarette ads, perhaps what they really need to hear is: "You've got a long way to go, baby."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Here's the major problem with this issue..
It gives the Right an opening..
Every time a Democrat says something about the "War On Women" all a Republican has to do is point to Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Wiener, Bob Filner and Bill Clinton..
Now, I see your point.. This is about policy not personality..
Do you think that matters to Joe Sixpack?? Do you think that Joe and Jane Sixpack are going to say to themselves, "Well, ya know, it's the policy that is important.."???
Of course not.. All Joe and Jane are going to think to themselves and talk to their friends about is the fact that Democrats go on and on about how they are on the side of women, yet they have a dozen times accused rapist as their leader..
You see the point??
This is NOT a winning issue for Democrats because the MINUTE they say "women" the FIRST thing that pops into your average American's mind is "Bill Clinton"...
And it's only going to get worse until Hillary decides to announce that she is not running..
Michale
I mean, look at the things that you list that are important to women.
Reproductive Health Care
Equal Pay
Personhood Amendments
Sexual Harassment
Domestic Violence
Childcare
Let's tackle those one by one..
Reproductive Health Care and Personhood Amendments are kinda synonymous..
And yer, right. Democrats lead the pack there..
But the next FOUR??
Equal Pay?? Sexual Harrassment?? Domestic Violence?? **CHILD**care???
Obama's White House pays women less...
FAIL
The Republicans are ON THE CHILDREN's side. Democrats want to kill unborn children.
FAIL
On Domestic Violence/Sexual harassment... Bill Clinton
EPIC FAIL...
Of the FIVE items you list, Democrats are only on the side of women in ONE of them....
In other words, Democrats only support women 20% of the issues they care about..
The GOP support women in the other 80%...
Do you see why this is such a losing issue for Democrats??
Because, when you look past the glitzy and glamorous sound quips, the FACTS are that Democrats are WORSE for women than Republicans are...
Michale
To their credit, they made sure Tom Tancredo was not at the event :)
BTW, CW. Samantha Lachmann's original article on HuffPo is terrible.
It consists of the video and a GOP talking point without talking about any of the absurdity inherent in this attempt. "Ornamental"? I mean really. Wow.
Thanks for doing the follow-up analysis that I'm really surprised wasn't in the original article.
-David
It consists of the video and a GOP talking point without talking about any of the absurdity inherent in this attempt. "Ornamental"? I mean really. Wow.
"Have a nice day.."
"DON'T tell ME what kind of day to have!!!"
:D
Michale
David,
BTW, CW. Samantha Lachmann's original article on HuffPo is terrible.
Shocking. Positively shocking.
Shocking. Positively shocking.
"There is mimicry and there is mockery. And THAT was definitely mockery"
-Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Yesterday's Son
:D
Michale
Actually, Michale, that was a little bit of both.
:-)
At least give the GOP credit for TRYING to reach out to women voters...
The Left won't be happy until every American things and acts EXACTLY as the Left does..
So much for 'diversity', eh??
Michale
Actually, Michale, that was a little bit of both.
I stand corrected..
Just can't resist interjecting Trek quote at the drop of a dime.. :D
Michale
Michale,
What movie is Shocking. Positively shocking. from?
Naw, it was the mockery part.. :D
Michale
The Left won't be happy until every American things and acts EXACTLY as the Left does..
Don't blame me for the grammatical error..
I am a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac...
I lie awake at night wondering if there is a Dog...
:D
Michale
All I am saying is that ANY group that would tolerate dozens of accusations of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape against one of it's leaders has absolute NO MORAL STANDING whatsoever in pointing out another group's treatment of women..
To put it into it's proper context, it would be as if the Republican Party were to complain about how Democrats treat illegal immigrants..
It's ridiculous that borders on, then CROSSES the border into ludicrous...
"Peter?? Oh, he was borderline for a while.. Then he crossed the border..."
-Egon Spengler, GHOSTBUSTERS II
Michale
The Republicans are ON THE CHILDREN's side. Democrats want to kill unborn children.
i was following your reasoning on a number of other points, but that one is too gag-worthy not to point out. to reach that conclusion logically requires both the underlying presumptions that an egg/embryo/fetus is a child and that favoring a woman's right to choose constitutes wanting there to be more abortions. a substantial plurality of people may believe those things, but neither is even close to an established fact.
many people (usually a majority depending on how the poll question is asked) believe that a fetus is not a child. in many ways a fetus is more like a goldfish than a child. i'm not advocating the killing of goldfish en-masse, but i'm not protesting for the unalienable rights of goldfish either. the second premise is even less likely to be true than the first. many people want abortions to be less frequent while still supporting the woman's right to make that decision herself.
even if one were, for the sake of argument, to accept those suspect premises, the conclusion would still be far from assured. As CW pointed out in wednesday's column, abortion is a conflict between the rights of various people, including the rights of rapists to procreate with any woman they are able to impregnate. therefore, even if we were to call a fetus a person, an anti-abortion position would be taking that person's side as allied with the rapist and against the woman he raped.
JL
David [3] -
Yeah, I always hesitate when essentially re-writing an article from elsewhere, but this one seemed to call for it. THe original article did point out the facts, but you're right, it didn't express the outrage I felt when I saw that video clip. So I decided to add my own thoughts.
I'm glad, because doing these re-writes is kinda lazy journalism in a way, but if I feel there's more to be said, then I go ahead and write it. So it's good to hear this kind of feedback.
:-)
-CW
Michale -
Here's the choice actual women see:
One political party with some badly-behaving characters who fights for their rights.
One political party with some badly-behaving characters (David Vitter would top my list, but there are many others) who actively legislates against their rights.
The choice is pretty obvious, which is why the GOP is losing young and single women in droves. Because they're not stupid, and they don't get distracted by individual scandals -- they look at "what have you done for me lately" in terms of policy, instead.
Glad to have cleared that up for you. If you'd like to make a case "Democrats push legislation X, Y, and Z, which hurts women or strips women's rights," then we can talk. Because when we talk apples and apples, the parties' differences are clear.
:-)
-CW
Joshua,
We're talking spin, not logic or facts.
Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception..
They have a right to believe that way.
As much as you or I would like to believe otherwise, this country was FOUNDED on those kinds of christian beliefs..
So, the "spin" that the GOP is on the side of children (born and unborne) has as much "logic" as the spin that the GOP is engaging in a war on women...
That's why spin is so subjective. It could be ANYTHING anyone wants it to be...
It's like god's will.. or global warming..
It's ANYTHING and EVERYTHING... :D
On a completely unrelated note that I am sure we'll cover this weekend..
How bad a luck is it for Obama and the Democrats to have this huge VA scandal blow up on Memorial Day Weekend...
I mean, ya just gotta shake yer head and say, "WOW... What are the odds??"
Michale
i was following your reasoning on a number of other points,
You were!??? Awesome!!!! :D
Michale
One political party with some badly-behaving characters who fights for their rights.
What would the Left's reaction be to a Republican who says that sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape is "just characters behaving badly"??
I think we would both agree that the Left would go bat-shit crazy...
One political party with some badly-behaving characters (David Vitter would top my list, but there are many others) who actively legislates against their rights.
There is a BIG difference, a HUGE difference between patronizing hookers and sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape...
As I am sure you would agree...
If you'd like to make a case "Democrats push legislation X, Y, and Z, which hurts women or strips women's rights," then we can talk. Because when we talk apples and apples, the parties' differences are clear.
Again, it's in the spin...
The Mayoral Race of BumFuq California, remember?? :D
What it all boils down to is this..
Democrats will NEVER have the moral high ground on this issue until they kick Clinton to the curb the way they did Filner, Weiner and Spitzer.....
Objectively, you know I am right...
Michale
The choice is pretty obvious, which is why the GOP is losing young and single women in droves. Because they're not stupid, and they don't get distracted by individual scandals -- they look at "what have you done for me lately" in terms of policy, instead.
Character counts..
A LOT.....
Michale
Democrats will NEVER have the moral high ground on this issue until they kick Clinton to the curb the way they did Filner, Weiner and Spitzer...
Which is not to say that Democrats won't be SUCCESSFUL in their spin..
There are a LOT of low-information voters who would vote Democrat, even if the Party fielded Jeffery Dahlmer, William Gacy or Charles Manson..
But, speaking from a MORAL or ETHICAL perspective, Democrats will NEVER have the moral high ground as long as Clinton is the... ahem.. titular leader of the Democratic Party...
Michale
There are a LOT of low-information voters who would vote Democrat, even if the Party fielded Jeffery Dahlmer, William Gacy or Charles Manson..
Present company excepted, of course... :D
Michale
as long as Clinton is the... ahem.. titular leader of the Democratic Party...
hehehehehehe That never gets old!! :D
Michale
CW [16] Follow Up
The reason why pointing to Dem men who screw up has no traction wrt the women's vote is simple. "All men are scum" {Frank Zappa}.
While not completely true, women know that slimy men exist across the board. Put together any decent sized group of men and a percentage of them will be slime (in the sense we mean here: sexist-ish, misogynist-ish, etc).
It's also why men like Vitter don't influence the larger "women's vote" issue, either. On the other hand, GOP and Dem policies can and events like that described in this article almost definitely do (see the reaction to Issa's "War on Religion" committee meeting for another example).
S2,
While not completely true, women know that slimy men exist across the board. Put together any decent sized group of men and a percentage of them will be slime (in the sense we mean here: sexist-ish, misogynist-ish, etc)
That doesn't explain why the Left worships Bill Clinton yet castigates the Right for this alleged "war on women"...
Only ONE explanation explains that..
Ideological enslavement...
There is a word that describes the malady perfectly...
JONESTOWN
Michale
Methinks you missed the point of my statement.
Glad to hear some talking points nonsense, though, thanks for playing.
Methinks you missed the point of my statement.
By all means, do enlighten me...
Because it seems you are saying that all women think men are scum, but they are going to vote Democrat anyways because Republicans are evil..
Glad to hear some talking points nonsense, though, thanks for playing.
Well, Friday IS "talking points" day, eh??
:D
Michale
It's also why men like Vitter don't influence the larger "women's vote" issue, either. On the other hand, GOP and Dem policies can and events like that described in this article almost definitely do (see the reaction to Issa's "War on Religion" committee meeting for another example).
Now, with THIS, you seem to be agreeing with me...
But I might be missing the point.. :D
Michale