The GOP has been telling us for years now that there's no racism in America anymore (except anti-white racism) and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dupe living on the "liberal plantation." You can see the success of that in the massive black vote Republicans are able to run up in every election.
Since that talking point is working so well for Republicans, Rand Paul figures it'll work even better with The Ladiez:
Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that Democrats are failing in their attempts to frame the GOP as a party that wages a war against women.He likes this talking point so much he also also used it on Meet the Press:
"The whole thing of the 'war on women,' I sort of laughingly say, 'Yeah, there might have been -- but the women are winning it,'" the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN's "State of the Union." He said women have made great strides and, as an example, now make up more than half the students at medical and law schools.
SENATOR RAND PAUL (R-KENTUCKY):... This whole sort of War on Women thing, I’m scratching my head because if there was a war on women, I think they won. You know, the women in my family are incredibly successful. I have a niece at Cornell Vet school and 85 percent of the young people there are women. In law school, 60 percent are women. In med school, 55 percent. My younger sister is an ob-gyn with six kids and doing great. You know, I don't see so much that women are downtrodden. I see women rising up and doing great things. In fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women really are out-competing the men in our world.A successful guy in a suit -- a guy who, moreover, got where he is on Daddy's name -- gets up on national TV and says, "Hey, every woman I know is doing just fine": do average people relate to that? Average women who are struggling with a crap economy as well as sexism?
... The women in my family are doing great, and that's what I see in all the statistics coming out. I have, you know, young women in my office that are the leading intellectual lights of our office. So I don't really see this, that there's some sort of war that's, you know, keeping women down....
Some will, I suppose. Some hear complaints about sexism and think, "Are you telling me I can't succeed in a man's world?" But those are women who, if they vote, are likely to vote GOP anyway. Rand is supposedly doing outreach for a 2016 presidential campaign in which Republicans need to pick off voters from Democratic voting blocs. This isn't going to get it done.
Bonus quote from Meet the Press:
DAVID GREGORY, HOST: But my question about whether you think it's appropriate for the Party, key figures in the Party to be talking about women, women's health, women’s bodies and the role of the federal government related to those things.Ick! Ladyparts!
PAUL: I try never to have discussions of anatomy unless I'm at a medical conference.
Maybe in 2020 these guys are finally going to acknowledge that Leave It to Beaver is off the air? Lose the squeamishness, boys. We all have HBO.
Also:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday accused former President Bill Clinton of "predatory" sexual behavior, saying he used the Oval Office to take advantage of Monica Lewinsky.Did you know about this Clinton thing? I never read about it! Why did the press bury this story? Why wasn't this in any of the papers at the time?
"I think, really, the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this," Paul said on NBC’s "Meet the Press." "He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that and that is predatory behavior and ... we shouldn't want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office."
Yes, Rand, really, this is what you want to do: attack a guy with a favorability rating of 66%-71%, depending on the poll. Genius move.
15 comments:
I don't understand why the Republican party thinks that it makes nonsense of the charge that they are "waging a war on women" to say "women are winning." Sure--in every war there are winners and losers. That doesn't mean the war wasn't fought. The point of the argument that the Republican Party is waging a war on women is that htey are the fucking Nazis, and we are fighting this war with them to win. And we will win it, of course! But that doesn't mean we aren't at war. It means we are at war.
Ditto for the war on women. Its not an absurdity and its not hyperbole and its not some made up slogan like, say "shock and awe" or "family values." Its a fact and you can see how frightened they are of its power as a propaganda tool that they continaully express their shock and disgust with it. When you are explaining and excusing, you are losing, and they know it.
That's the problem - they CAN'T just "Leave it to Beaver!"
They have to poke and prod and probe - and not in any way women might actually enjoy it, may I add.
So whatever Bill did means his wife Hillary is....?
Get back to us on that War on Women, Rand.
Why the hell would an eye doctor discuss anatomy at a medical conference?
Being a leading intellectual light in Rand Paul's office is faint praise indeed.
"The whole thing of the 'war on women,' I sort of laughingly say, 'Yeah, there might have been -- but the women are winning it,'"
Right, right, that's why women make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes for doing the exact same job. That's why Hilary and Michelle's looks are constantly, scurrilously slammed. That's why more single mothers are apt to exist below the poverty line than single fathers.
But since HIS wealthy sisters and their classmates are living just dandy then, well gosh, there's NO more inequality.
of course.
What a toad (not to diss toads, mind you).
Ten Bears - Well, he is self-licensed...
"Why the hell would an eye doctor discuss anatomy at a medical conference?"
That was actually the first thing that came to mind for me, too, but then I realized the eyeball is part of our anatomy. So good for him to finally be able to throw out a line that he's probably been hoping to use for a year. I just wonder who he stole it from.
There is no war on women and Hillary can't be president because her husband....
Yes I think Bill abused his position (power)with regard to Monica and he deserved what he got. Yes he's a manipulative user of women (a sexual predator)liar and a narcissist.
And for the record I think the same of JFK.
LIKEWISE I'd be just as incensed if it was my son.
It wasn't that long ago our son's and daughter were that age and green as grass
When all is said and done I believe in equity between people and I don't condone accept that young men or women are fair game for such abuse/ sport.
Nor do I accept that it is a 'privilege of power' or because One can!
Keep in mind the pre frontal cortex ( decision making part isn't mature until 26ish). I've seen far too much lasting damage from such behaviour.
NB I'm not a moralist per se just humanistic. It's simply the same as exploiting those in Bangladesh for effective slave labor to fund say a Mansion in Hollywood or the Hamptons.
But as a reason HC shouldn't be POTUS that is utterly absurd.
Bill Clinton is/was an old cock hound. But, at least, he was our cock hound.
Monica was 21+, and known as "The Stalker" for her relentless pursuit of the president.
And I think that few recall that Monica's big complaint to Linda Tripp was that WJC refused to have sexual relations (as defined at that time) with her. But do recall tha,t for that reason, the GOP Congress attempted to redefine "sexual relations" to include "fooling around".
Monica got what she wanted. Maybe not as much as she wanted, but she got what she wanted.
I hear that fucking Retard Tucker Carlson wants to raise the voting age because kids today can't read (a menu). I am one of the generation as well as one who first voted at 18... because the common consensus was if we were old enough to fight in wars we were old enough to vote. Monica was free, white and 21, and chose to suck Bill's dick.
I don't want to hear anymore about it.
No fear.
Ten Bears
" old enough to fight in wars old enough to vote"
Really? Is there such an age? Since when is maturity and or sound judgement been determined by an ( any age?
Why do you think the forces want 18 year olds to 26 YO and not older people to be front line fighters(in wars)?
Hint it's not because of their fitness or mental capacity? Just visit a vet support group and see the consequences.
They're easy to manipulate(er... motivate) and condition.
Seriously Old friend you can understand an 18- 26year old's reasoning/choices?
Clearly I envy you in that you had perfect children.
I'm still struggling to understand why my double degreed daughter now 28 married her husband who's 28 going on 14 ...the family refer to him as "squirrel!" in that he has the attention span of the dog in the movie. If it's Shiny well you get the picture!
As a battle weary old(ish) person I'm in favor of sending the old er politicians to fight wars and old men simply grow up and stop exploiting people's naivety to delude themselves that their studs or cougars.
Post a Comment