« | »

Boxer: Sick GOP Don’t Like Their First Wives

From the Washington Examiner:

Dem Convention becomes anti-Akin affair

By Paul Bedard | Wed August 22, 2012

With an eye on Rep. Todd Akin’s "legitimate rape" comments and the GOP’s mad dash away from the sinking Missouri Senate candidate, the Democrats are turning their upcoming presidential convention into a pro-choice assault on the Republicans with the help of major abortion supporters.

Just as the Akin crisis was reaching a crescendo, the Democrats on Wednesday announced that three starlets of the pro-choice movement will be featured at the convention, an event that will now drive the liberal charge that the Republicans are anti-women.

Which makes them officially ‘the party of death and taxes.’

Democrats said that they will feature Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student whose plea for federal birth control funding drew the ire–and a subsequent apology–from Rush Limbaugh.

Remember how they laughed when we said Ms. Fluke was a Democrat operative?

What’s more, the Democrats are expanding their list of women ready to assail the GOP on women’s issue, adding Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski and actress Eva Longoria to the list that already includes Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

John Kerry is a woman?

Democrats led by party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz believe that the Akin controversy–and his refusal to leave the Missouri Senate race–has revived their chances of winning a majority of women in the presidential race, key to re-electing President Obama. On Wednesday, for example, the party turned their homepage over to the affair with the headline: "The GOP is dangerously wrong for women." And with a devilish move, they included pictures of Mitt Romney, running mate Paul Ryan and Akin.

"Romney, Ryan, Akin and the GOP want to take women back to the dark ages," the Democrats add.

‘Dark ages’ sounds racist to us.

And speaking of haters, we have this bouquet from Madam Senator Barbara Boxer, via the San Jose Mercury News:

Boxer: Akin is the symptom, but Ryan and Romney are the disease

By Josh Richman | Wed August 22, 2012

SAN JOSE — Rep. Todd Akin’s controversial comments about rape and abortion aren’t just for Missourians to mull in their Senate race — they’re typical of a mindset that pervades and perverts the entire GOP, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer said Tuesday.

Apparently the Madam Senator thinks concern for the unborn is perverted.

"It’s deeper than one Republican congressman — it goes all the way to the top of the Republican ticket," she said. "The truth is there’s a war against women, and it’s not going to end until we all say at the polls, ‘That’s not the country we want.’"

Boxer, D-Calif., used her previously scheduled speech to Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte at San Jose City Hall to try to ensure that the furor over Akin’s comments tarnish presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. "The mainstream of the Republican Party is now extreme on women’s health," she said.

"There is a war against women, and Romney and Ryan — if they are elected — would become its top generals," Boxer said, urging the audience to remember the days when desperate women and girls died in botched, back-alley abortions. "We cannot go back." …

"Let’s be clear: All rape is forced," Boxer said. "All rape is violent."

Even statutory rape? (And this woman is in the Senate.)

The Republican Party platform calls for banning all abortion, with no exception for rape or incest, she said. And Ryan, she said, has opposed women’s access to birth control.

Notice how the article fails to note that these are blatant lies.

"Where’s the outrage by Mitt Romney?" Boxer asked. "There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding. Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives; I don’t know what it is." …

For the record, Democrats don’t seem to like their first wives much, either. Kerry’s killed herself. And the Kennedys have a pretty bad record as well. And we won’t even mention John Edwards. But this is that new higher tone, the increased civility that the Democrat Party lectures us on so often.

Still, why is it that we hear so much about this non-existent ‘War On Women,’ and nothing about the all too real on the unborn, on children, both male and female?

Here is a timely reminder as to who are actually the extremists on the subject of abortion, via The Weekly Standard:

Obama Says He’s ‘Pro-Choice’ on Third-Trimester Abortions

By JOHN MCCORMACK | Wed August 22, 2012

The Washington Post reports that President Obama is running his reelection campaign as a "culture warrior," trying to cast his opponents as extremists on such issues as abortion in the case of rape and requiring religious institutions to pay for contraception. But could Obama’s own extremism on abortion come back to bite him?

During a 2003 press conference, Barack Obama indicated that he thought abortion should be legal in all situations, even late in pregnancy:

OBAMA: “I am pro-choice.”

REPORTER: “In all situations including the late term thing?”

OBAMA: “I am pro-choice. I believe that women make responsible choices and they know better than anybody the tragedy of a difficult pregnancy and I don’t think that it’s the government’s role to meddle in that choice.”

In another interview, Obama said: "I voted no on the late-term abortion ban, not because I don’t recognize that these are painful issues but because I trust women to make these decisions."

Which sure sounds like Mr. Obama would support partial birth abortions. (Which, I guess should come as not surprise, given his earlier support for infantacide, while in the Illinois Senate.)

Of course, this is also the same Barack Obama who said in March 29, 2008, that he didn’t want to see his daughters "punished with a baby."

But, remember, it’s the Republicans who are the sickos.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, August 23rd, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Boxer: Sick GOP Don’t Like Their First Wives”

  1. agimarc says:

    For those of us who are survivors of the Divorce Wars, the reason there are second wives and second husbands is usually because one or the other don’t like one or the other any more. Boxer continues to demonstrate that she is among the dumbest members of the US Senate (along with Patty Murray). Akin if elected will be able to give both of them a run for their money unfortunately. Cheers –

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Boxer assumes that because real men don’t like her, she draws the incorrect conclusion it must be that there’s something wrong with the men. This is typical leftwingbat thinking.

    A mirror has another purpose and is completely objective, Barb.

    In fact, metrosexuals and gay men gravitate to feminazis like moths to a flame. They like to be told what “real” women want by them. However, the gay men probably have a better inkling of what real red-blooded American women want vs. what the feminazis think they want. They’re “funny that way” (Not that there’s anything wrong with that).

    These so-called “liberated” and “in-control” women really hate the conservative women who are happy, well-adjusted, decent human-beings and that’s always been a mystery to me. The only answer I can come up with is that they really hate themselves and cannot function without the hate. It’s at the core of their being.

  3. JohnMG says:

    “Call-me-Senator-I-worked-so-hard-to-get-this-title” reminds me of a Mark Twain quote wherein a bitchy old woman said he was a scoundrel and if she were his wife, she’d poison his coffee.

    Twains reply; “And if I were your husband, I’d drink it.”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      ‘Twas Churchill and Lady Astor.


    • JohnMG says:

      Got that from a book on Twain’s life written shortly before his death. Twain spent a few years abroad, including London, and I’ve seen this attributed to him as well as Churchill, whom Clemens pre-dates. Not that it matters that much either way–the sentiment fits this situation perfectly. ;-}

  4. Anonymoose says:

    Agreed, Rusty. Radical feminists have a problem with men or normal hetero relationships, and they never think it might just be them. It looks like “the war on women” will be one of the big themes in this election, they cure can’t run on the economy, leadership, or much else. And sadly it seems like all they have to do is say “GOP doesn’t like women!” and all the independents and liberals are lining up to spew venom.

    I think what drives radical feminists crazy about women like Palin or Ann Romney is that their whole mindset revolves around taking on the male establishment, carving out a place for women, and having all the same perceived advantages as men. The idea a woman could be happy in a traditional female role in a marriage *and* still be successful and accomplished without “sticking it to them” simply flies in the face of all they want to see and it drives them up a wall.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I’m reminded of a Star Trek, Next Generation episode where a female admiral goes on a witch hunt against Captain Picard. After all is said and done, and at the height of the hearing, she screams, “I’ve brought down bigger men than YOU, Picard!” which broadcast to the panel that her motives were entirely vendetta-driven.

      There are many people like that, let alone feminazis.

      I still say, and perhaps this notion was triggered by something I read from Sun Tzu, that people are motivated by their must basic, guttural instincts. Fear, Pride, Shame, Envy and especially anger. Call them the seven deadly sins, whatever. But I find that at the base of most people’s behavior is a primal emotion that moves them. Holder, Pelosi, Obama….clearly, to me, are angry people and that visceral hatred of anything that they can pigeonhole into their dysfunctional emotion-set motivates them to take action in a very petty, childish and primal way. You know, like the seven year old overturning the checkerboard.

      I identify this because I’ve worked for many people who behave in this manner. The management of the great big corporation I work for act similarly. Most employees feel rather trapped. However, it also seems prevalent in industry nation-wide at this point, which I chalk up to a failing of parents and our education system that allowed petulant, know-it-all bullies to progress to management and then executive roles.

      I’ll further submit that nature doesn’t like it. Thus the problems we face. No, don’t misunderstand. I’ve no problem with women in positions of great responsibility and power but I DO have problems with ANYONE who can’t handle same. And in the military and corporate America, I’ve seen my share of the peter principle only it’s gotten much, much worse.

      Why? Because instead of people choosing who to promote on a merit-based set of criteria, they now also have to promote on “the politically correct” as well as the “in-crowd” and then personal likes/dislikes play a much bigger part than they ever used to. You don’t hear much about the CEO telling the newly promoted VP, “I put you here, not because I like you but because you do a hell of a job. You see what needs doing, get it done and that allows the company to succeed.” Nope.

      This is where I have to pick a bone with Rush. Rush espouses that business is in business to make money and anything they do that’s counter to that harms the bottom line. Well, businesses do that to themselves all the time. The “son-in-law” jobs, the exec VP who are kids of the CEO, the deals cut that harm the efficiency of company management because of family politics or money-leverage or who-has-dirt-on-whom, etc. Happens all the time. Human nature as well….been around for thousands of years. Can’t eliminate it and it takes people of strong character to curb it.

      I also have noted that over the years, people in high positions of responsibility seem to lack cynicism. The kind of cynicism that makes them go to a car dealer and would prevent them from getting fleeced. They seem so wrapped up in “moving up” in their station at their career that they do not notice the pettiness, the childishness the tomfoolery. This is both good and bad. Good for them because they also never seem to get mixed up in the fray of it while at the same time, they seem immune to recognizing when someone is buttering them up, being patronizing or riding their coattails.

      In my own case when I tried to talk to a “higher-up” and explain my position on something, he thought I was being political and just trying to cover my a**. He assumed that I was like everyone else he’s surrounded by and kissing his a** so I didn’t get in trouble. If I had known that at the time, I would have been more plainly spoken. But then, with that particular individual, who’s a wimp anyhow, his poor judge of character and who he chooses for friends demonstrates that he’s an idiot and solely politically motivated so, naturally, he assumes everyone is politically motivated.

      It’s why I keep saying, “We are Rome”. Or, “SPQR” (snidely) when I find something going on that wreaks of politics.

      Seems the one constant in the human condition. Get what you can for yourself. Cozy up with those who can protect you and make you feel secure. Then look down your nose at others who “aren’t like you”. Party, laugh, live a false bravado, make fun of others, flaunt your power and wealth and to hell with everything and everyone else.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »