DOWNLOADS: (146)

PLAYS: (1116)

Embed

From this Monday's Andrea Mitchell Reports, Rep. Marsha Blackburn did her part to make sure that the Republican party remains the "stupid party." I don't think remarks like this are going to help them much with making inroads with women and minority voters.

GOP Congresswoman: I Opposed Domestic Violence Bill Because It Protected Too Many Groups:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Monday openly admitted that she opposed the latest reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) because it included protections for LGBT, Native American, and undocumented victims of domestic violence.

In an appearance on MSNBC, Blackburn pointed out that the latest iteration of the law protects “different groups” and thus dilutes funding for straight, non-Native American women with the proper documentation:

When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.

Domestic violence is domestic violence, period. And there is no way to justify Blackburn’s suggestion that some victims of this violence are more deserving than others. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (140)

PLAYS: (1123)

Embed

As TPM noted, it seems John McCain decided to do his part to keep the Richard Mourdock debacle in the news cycle. After the Romney campaign said they still support Mourdock, McCain threw him under the bus on CNN this Wednesday.

McCain Helps Push Romney’s Mourdock Headaches Into Day Two:

If Mitt Romney was hoping the Richard Mourdock story he’s deeply entwined in would go away fast, he apparently didn’t get the memo to one of his top surrogates.

Just as Democrats and the Obama campaign began amping up their effort to highlight Romney’s ties to Mourdock after the Indiana Senate candidate uttered his claim that pregnancies caused by rape are “something that God intended to happen” — and Romney and the Republicans worked to put the moment behind them — John McCain sat down with CNN to throw a wrench in the Republican effort.

Last week, McCain was in Indiana campaigning for Mourdock, who won the Republican nomination by beating the man McCain backed, veteran Sen. Richard Lugar.

Asked if he’s still backing Mourdock following his rape comments Wednesday, McCain instead backed far away from him.

“It depends on what he does. I think it depends on what he does,” McCain said. McCain said that “if he apologizes and says he misspoke and he was wrong and he asks the people to forgive him,” the Arizona Senator would get behind him again. Read on...

What's so disingenuous about this is, as Blue Texan noted here, Mourdock and his ilk were just saying what they -- and the clear majority of Republicans -- believe. This was more than just some "stupid" remark. It's their policy and part of their party's platform.

DOWNLOADS: (181)

PLAYS: (855)

Embed

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio did his best to try to spin the fact that Mitt Romney has consistently had some really extreme stances on birth control and the availability of contraception and on abortion for some time now on this Sunday's Meet the Press. He also tried to whitewash just who would be allowed to discriminate and refuse to cover the cost of contraception if the Blunt Amendment, which Romney supported, had passed.

Rubio Develops ‘Romnesia’ While Trying To Explain Romney’s Position On Contraception:

Last week, President Obama joked that some Romney surrogates are suffering from “Romnesia” — an ability to forget the candidate’s old positions on major campaign issues, in favor of his new positions. On Sunday, during an appearance on Meet The Press, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was presenting severe symptoms of that condition, spending a good portion of his interview trying to explain how Romney’s stances on contraception and abortion have not changed and ignoring the campaign’s efforts to to obscure Romney’s record on women’s health issues.

For instance, Rubio tried to sweep under the rug Romney’s support of the Blunt Amendment, a measure that would have allowed employers with “moral objections” to deny contraception coverage to their female employees. He also refused to say if Romney would “sign a bill that banned abortion,” as the former Massachusetts governor had promised during a GOP primary debate in 2007 [...]

Not only would the Blunt Amendment prevent women from gaining access to abortion, but Romney has also pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act writ large. Doing so, would eliminate provisions that require insurers and employers to offer contraception coverage without additional co-pays. Romney’s pledge to defund Planned Parenthood would also significantly weaken women’s access to affordable contraception. Romney and Paul Ryan have both supported personhood amendments — on the state or federal level — that would outlaw all abortion, as well as some forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization.

Nothing to see here you silly women. Let's move along now and talk about the economy. It seems Rubio was determined not to have ABC's This Week be the only show where he helped Mittens alienate female voters just before the election this Sunday.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (201)

PLAYS: (1593)

Embed

From this Wednesday evening's Democratic National Convention, activist Sandra Fluke laid out the stark choices we face when it comes to women's reproductive rights in the upcoming election.

Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn't hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman. Because it happened in Congress, people noticed. But it happens all the time. Many women are shut out and silenced. So while I'm honored to be standing at this podium, it easily could have been any one of you. I'm here because I spoke out, and this November, each of us must do the same.

During this campaign, we've heard about the two profoundly different futures that could await women—and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past. Warnings of that future are not distractions. They're not imagined. That future could be real.

In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won't stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party. It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don't want and our doctors say we don't need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve help, and which don't. We know what this America would look like. In a few short months, it's the America we could be. But it's not the America we should be. It's not who we are.

We've also seen another future we could choose. First of all, we'd have the right to choose. It's an America in which no one can charge us more than men for the exact same health insurance; in which no one can deny us affordable access to the cancer screenings that could save our lives; in which we decide when to start our families. An America in which our president, when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters—not his delegates or donors—and stands with all women. And strangers come together, reach out and lift her up. And then, instead of trying to silence her, you invite me here—and give me a microphone—to amplify our voice. That's the difference.

Over the last six months, I've seen what these two futures look like. And six months from now, we'll all be living in one, or the other. But only one. A country where our president either has our back or turns his back; a country that honors our foremothers by moving us forward, or one that forces our generation to re-fight the battles they already won; a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn't apply to our bodies and our voices.

We talk often about choice. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to choose.

DOWNLOADS: (99)

PLAYS: (494)

Embed

From this Tuesday evening's Democratic National Convention, Lilly Ledbetter gave one of the more rousing speeches of the night and got in a few zingers on Mitt Romney:

Good evening, I'm Lilly Ledbetter and I'm here tonight to say: What a difference four years make!

Some of you may know my story: How for nineteen years, I worked as a manager for a tire plant in Alabama. And some of you may have lived a similar story: After nearly two decades of hard, proud work, I found out that I was making significantly less money than the men who were doing the same work as me. I went home, talked to my husband, and we decided to fight.

We decided to fight for our family and to fight for your family too. We sought justice because equal pay for equal work is an American value. That fight took me ten years. It took me all the way to the Supreme Court. And, in a 5–4 decision, they stood on the side of those who shortchanged my pay, my overtime, and my retirement just because I am a woman.

The Supreme Court told me that I should have filed a complaint within six months of the company's first decision to pay me less even though I didn't know about it for nearly two decades. And if we hadn't elected President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court's wrongheaded interpretation would have been the law of the land.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (213)

PLAYS: (1793)

Embed

Regardless of the right's continued attacks and insults against activist Sandra Fluke, I for one and happy to see such an articulate and smart young woman speaking out for women and their issues at this year's Democratic National Convention.

As MSNBC's Ed Schultz, who caught up with Fluke on the Monday evening before the convention pointed out, the Republican National Convention wasn't exactly a big hit and didn't move the needle for Republicans with women, or with anyone else for that matter, and he asked Fluke what she thought of their event.

Fluke is exactly right that women don't care about who gets put on the podium at these events. They care about the policies. We didn't hear anything mentioned at the Republican convention about women's health care, equal pay, reproductive rights, or violence against women. We got a vice presidential candidate with an absolutely horrid voting record in that regard and who wants to do things like change the definition of rape. And from the speakers, lots of empty platitudes about how much they love women, but not much else or much evidence to support that assertion when you take a good look at their policies and their platform.

I think we can say that Fluke's presence, among others who will speak as well, proves Bill Kristol's theory wrong that Democrats aren't going to focus on social issues during the rest of this presidential campaign. Schultz gave Fluke a chance to respond to Bill O'Reilly disgusting remarks that the convention was going to drop condoms from the ceiling when Fluke spoke and as usual, she kept it polite and classy with her response. I can't say the same for O'Reilly. He seems to have the maturity of about a 12 year old boy.

DOWNLOADS: (113)

PLAYS: (547)

Embed

Lawrence O'Donnell took apart the myth in his Rewrite segment this Monday evening that there's an ounce of difference between the views of Paul Ryan and Todd Akin on abortion and exceptions for rape and the life of the mother. But despite the fact that their policy positions are nearly identical, Todd Akin gets treated as a loon while the media continues to treat Paul Ryan with great deference.

I agree with him and it's not just the abortion issue where he's given too much deference. How anyone with the monstrosity of a budget he came up with that makes the deficit worse and goes after the poor and elderly and most vulnerable in our society as some "policy expert" on the budget is beyond me.

DOWNLOADS: (285)

PLAYS: (4058)

Embed

First we've had these clowns doing their best to try to downplay Todd Akin's remarks on abortion and rape by comparing it to a gaff by Joe Biden as we saw from hate monger Tony Perkins the other day. Now we've got some GOP operative from South Carolina named Wesley Donehue – the likes of which or his bow tie I've been fortunate enough not to have watched before this Saturday – apparently doing some consulting work for Todd Akin, and trying to compare Akin's remarks to the now infamous "Dean Scream."

Thankfully Howard Dean was right there to shoot down the false equivalency on this Saturday's Weekends with Alex Witt where they were discussing the Republicans Akin problem, woman problem and their upcoming convention:

DEAN: The problem with the Akin remark is Akin is not an outlier in the Republican Party. Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate voted for the same stuff that Akin voted for, which is outlawing abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest. This is not exactly a pro-woman party and it shows by the ticket, so I think this is a problem for the Republican Party everywhere, not just Missouri.

After being asked how things were going for Romney as we head into the convention with his racist “joke” and Akin's remarks and whether he should have seen “the backlash coming,” Akin consultant Wesley Donehue responded.

DONEHUE: Listen, first off, Mitt Romney... he likes to joke around. I was watching a special on MSNBC where his sons say, listen my dad likes to joke around and sometimes those jokes don't come across the way they need to. I think it was a very human moment for him, just like it was a very human moment for Todd Akin.

I want to go back to what Gov. Dean said. You know, I think trying to label our party as anti-woman because of one comment is insane. I mean look, Gov. Dean's entire presidential campaign was ruined because of one moment. That's like saying the “Dean scream” crazy moment was indicative of the entire Democratic Party. He lost the presidency because he looked insane. That didn't mean the entire Democratic Party was insane because of one moment. That was absolutely a ridiculous comment!

Host Alex Witt stood back and allowed Dean to reply.

DEAN: I think that's silly. I lost the Democratic nomination because I came in third in Iowa and I was supposed to come in first. That was the problem. And I also think it's not very nice to George Bush to say I would have kicked his butt as well. We don't know that. But leaving all that aside, the fact of the matter is Todd Akin is not an outlier.

Boehner's bill which Ryan voted for and all the Republicans in the House or virtually all the Republicans in the House voted for is exactly what Akin said. (crosstalk) No exception for rape. No exceptions for incest. This is a party that doesn't value women and that's just a fact.

DONEHUE: And you're a party that doesn't value life. (crosstalk)

DEAN: They voted that way again and again and again (crosstalk). It's in the Republican Party platform. So I think this just makes this a party a very hard sell for women.

Donehue has the the feigned indignation game down pat and tried to defend the Republicans with a version of I have one black friend, or in this case, we elected a woman who is a minority to be a governor and some black Congressmen, therefore we can't be sexist or prejudiced, or racist.

Dean did a nice job of pointing to their policies and the fact that they seem like they'd be a whole lot comfortable living in the '50's... as in the 1850's. He also made note of the fact that when you look at their ranks like those delegates filling their convention floors, it's almost all white whether they've got some diversity at the top as figure heads or not.

I don't know what Akin is paying this guy, but whatever it is, it's too much. I was waiting for him to stick out his tongue and wave his fingers next to his ears and say "I know you are, but what am I" before this was over. He was no match for Dean when it came to trying to make his party's case on women's issues or to defend Akin. Trying to pick a fight with Dean with a ridiculous, childish false equivalency is no argument.

DOWNLOADS: (209)

PLAYS: (1347)

Embed

It looks like Sarah Palin isn't the only one desperate to get another Republican into the Missouri Senate race after Todd Akin has refused to step down. From this Wednesday evening's Hannity on Fox, Ann Coulter lashed out at Akin, calling him a "selfish swine" who "is going to hurt the Republican party" and suggested that someone needs to start a write-in campaign to get another name on the ticket.

These Republicans really get nasty when things don't go their way. Hannity and Coulter proceeded for the rest of the segment to play a major game of false equivalencies and projection and started carping about that evil non-existent "liberal media" giving President Obama, Bill Maher, and Joe Biden a pass. And they took turns bashing Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Anthony Weiner as part of the Democrats' "war on women," because we all know anything they've done in their personal lives, no matter how long ago, is exactly the same as the House Republicans passing hundreds of bills that go after women's reproductive rights, birth control, medical coverage and health care.

Of course we all know what Akin is really guilty of, which is allowing the general public to get a full view of the fact that what used to be considered extremists are now the "mainstream" of the Republican Party. They've been taken over by the TeaBirchers and have been happy to have their votes, but don't care so much for any sunshine on their views being allowed.

DOWNLOADS: (80)

PLAYS: (426)

Embed

From this Tuesday evening's Out Front with Erin Burnett, Rep. Marsha Blackburn did her best to attempt to backtrack on the Republican Party's extreme views on abortion in the wake of the Todd Akin dust up and their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney along with the rest of the Republican establishment throwing him under the bus. The one problem for Republicans is they just passed an extreme right wing party platform in the run up to their convention this year, and Blackburn had a lot of trouble defending what she just voted on here.

Keep in mind this is the same woman who was a co-sponsor of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" which as Nick Baumann at Mother Jones wrote about here, would have redefined rape and that language was only withdrawn after plenty of public outrage over what the House Republicans had passed.

And Blackburn just came from voting for, once again, the Republicans including a "Human Life Amendment" as part of their party's platform before doing this interview which you can read a bit about here. Blackburn tried to pretend that the states could make provisions for the life of a mother when questioned by Burnett about the platform, but from my reading, I don't see anything that allows the states to do anything but make the law more restrictive, and not the other way around.

So it would appear to me that Blackburn is lying here when she pretends that Republicans do not want to ban all abortions with no regard for the life of the mother, or for rape or incest and that Burnett allowed her to get away with some massive hypocrisy when pretending she's not on exactly the same page as Todd Akin, who they're trying to drum out of the race because he dared to tell the truth about what these people actually believe and unfortunately for them, the national media is paying attention. And because, more importantly to them, that exposure might cost them a senate seat and worse. They're really not enjoying the sunshine on their extremism. I say it's long, long overdue.

Transcript below the fold and if I'm missing something on this "Human Life Amendment" and whether it would allow the states to make provisions to protect a women not allowed at the federal level as Blackburn tried to assert here, someone please let me know, but I'm not seeing it in any of the material I've read on it.

Continue reading »