Obama campaign’s appeal to women is condescending

According to news reports, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg told President Obama’s campaign that his polling numbers among women dropped so steeply after last week’s debate because he didn’t “speak to single women” and reassure them that he’s concerned about their issues. In post-debate polls, the president’s support among women has declined quite a bit. I’m skeptical that one debate caused such a cratering of support, but apparently the Obama campaign is doubling up on its efforts to speak to women and criticize Romney and the Republicans as being hostile to women in their stances.

However, their appeals are condescending, and in my opinion, more likely to backfire and turn off people of faith. Here’s an example: At George Mason University last Friday, Obama accused Romney of joining the far right in supporting a bill in Congress that allows employers to deny contraceptive insurance coverage to employees. The president said, “I mean, think about that — your boss telling you what’s best for your health and safety.” 

If you listen to the Obama campaign, you’d think the bill was designed by Pat Robertson and supported by alumni from Bob Jones University. You’d also think the bill was a deliberate slap in the face to all women. Of course, all that is nonsense. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (here) has bipartisan support. It has 224 supporters in the House, a majority, including co-sponsor, Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski. The chief supporter is Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. (Read)

Another supporter of this “far right” legislation is liberal, pro-choice, Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut. In a recent column, Rep. Johnson eloquently states why she supports the same rights of conscience, referring to its U.S. Senate version:

The Affordable Care Act for the first time in our history gives the federal government the right to mandate the benefits of a national insurance package. All plans on the exchanges and all employer plans, including those self-insured by an employer, will have to provide at least these benefits. Although the Affordable Care Act includes a narrow exception for places of worship, it does not include the full religious rights language of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor reflect the thinking on this subject of strong pro-choice senators such as Sens. Kennedy and Moynihan. If the administration mandated coverage of abortion in a bill without a conscience clause, the issue would have been joined clearly.” (Read)

Trying to trash religious freedom and paint it as anti-women is ham-handed and desperate. It will backfire if the Obama campaign keeps pushing it.

 

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Obama campaign’s appeal to women is condescending

  1. Midwinter says:

    It does indeed have bipartisan support. Of the 224 supporters, a whopping 10 of them are Democrats!

    I point this out because we’ve so lowered the bar to claim that something is “bipartisan” that the term only applies anymore to its most technical definition; if one member of the other party supports it, it’s bipartisan.

    • Doug says:

      That it only has 10 Democrats speaks poorly of the current Democratic Party, which has moved so far into extremism that subsidizing someone’s sex life should be the responsibility of taxpayers and businesses, even if personal religious beliefs dictate otherwise. … I believe in obeying the law, and if this is the law today of course we follow it. I understand many people oppose paying for wars — through taxes — that they personally oppose. But defense spending, support it or not, can be defended as a necessary expense. How can anyone rationally argue that taxpayers should partially fund sex, whether it’s contraception or Viagra?

      • Midwinter says:

        “the current Democratic Party, which has moved so far into extremism”

        Patently absurd.

        “subsidizing someone’s sex life should be the responsibility of taxpayers and businesses, even if personal religious beliefs dictate otherwise”

        I’ll see you NRO hyperbole with a reasonable explanation from NPR from August. Yes. The Democratic Party is so extreme that the administration has agreed to look for a compromise.

        “I understand many people oppose paying for wars — through taxes — that they personally oppose. But defense spending, support it or not, can be defended as a necessary expense.”

        You conflate wars and defense spending there. Not the same thing.

        Anyway. This is an incredible non-issue obviously designed to throw a little red meat to the base (and the Catholics) before the election. The admin is aware that they need to figure out a way to solve this issue. They’re apparently looking for a compromise.

      • Ian says:

        How can anyone rationally argue that taxpayers should partially fund sex, whether it’s contraception or Viagra?

        I would much rather subsidize someones birth control than subsidize the birth of the child. Just the costs of the delivery are astronomically higher than the costs of avoiding an unwanted child born to immature parents.

  2. Mark Anderson says:

    Gosh, lets see, explain to me how to tell a woman that you want to take over control over her body and have her vote for you?

  3. Ian says:

    THIS is condescending? Assuming that every American that wants to go to college has the option of borrowing money from their parents is condescending.

  4. Dovie says:

    The Tea Party billionaires have duped lots of men into believing that they are in “the group”. Joke is on you guys.

    I’m very well aware that they (you) feel the demise of the US is related to women having the vote. That’s a really good reason that I don’t like them.

  5. Decider says:

    Doug’s characterization, for women, that the Administration is being “condescending to women” allows that he thinks women do not have HIS clear-eyed, male dominated, vision of the truth. That women need guidance in judgement and also need an ‘enlightened with testosterone’ priesthood forebearance when it comes to recognizing male deception and evil machinations.
    With all do respects, that argument is LOSER everywhere — but of course, not in Utah or with the Taliban . . . .

  6. laytonian says:

    Subsidizing someone’s sex life?

    Why Doug — you’re right out of the Rush Limbaugh handbook!

    1 – We are talking about insurance that WE WOMEN PAY FOR. Your Viagra is covered; why not our doctor-prescribed “birth control” medication?

    2 – Are there any women in your life? If so, do you know anything about gynecology? As the owner of a vagina and uterus, I am very aware of the use of “birth control” hormones to extend a woman’s child-bearing years. I am also aware how such drugs are commonly used to regulate periods, to assist in fertility problems.

    3 – Demeaning? Demeaning is Mitt’s various explanations of his policies.

    You know what? It would make sense if you Mormons would ADMIT you’re voting for Mitt because of his religion.
    When I was growing up, my Democratic mother voted for Ike, because he was Presbyterian.
    I understand the pride of having a president “like you” — and YOU should also understand how important it is to have a President NOT like you.

    Give it a rest. Admit you hate Obama because you’re a right-winger who can’t stand to look at the man. Grieve for Palin, McCain….and hopefully, Mitt — the creep who demeaned our Olympics venue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>