Oh, the embarassment! CNN "contribtuor" and Akinapologist Dana Loesch is falsely implying that the "Democrats want to control women." From Big Government:
Democrats are desperate to change the subject from their losing battle on Medicare to government control of health. GOP Senate Candidate Todd Akin made a ridiculous comment regarding his opinion on rape and abortion after which Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill and the DNC claimed that Akin wants to control women's bodies. This coming from the woman and party who championed Obamacare, a law that will legitimately control all women's bodies, and men's bodies, too.
Claire McCaskill invited Uncle Sam into the doctor examination rooms of millions of American women by championing Obamacare. This isn't her opinion, it's not "misspeech,"she made it law.
This, of course, is a big fat 5-star lie by Loesch. In fact, the PPACA benefits women.
Thanks to Erickson and Loesch, CNN today is associated with a radical position on the Akin story that outflanks anything even Fox News commentators are saying about the controversy.
This is the price CNN continues to pay for wanting so badly to be connected with representative of the right-wing press. Perhaps in search of shields to protect itself from the incessant whines about "liberal media bias," CNN's decision to legitimize the strange views of Loesch and Erickson remains a deeply misguided one.
Akin's comments about women not really being in danger of becoming pregnant during a rape because their bodies instinctively "shut that whole thing down" were so outrageous that many conservative commentatorsquickly condemned him, even demanding Akin step down as the Republican candidate challenging Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Some very prominent Republican politicians have also spoken out.
But not Loesch and Erickson. The CNN bloggers defiantly came to Akin's side, with Loesch claiming he had simply "failed a soundbite" trying to express a "medical statement about rape." And besides, Erickson argued Democrats are guilty of far worse crimes, like passing health care reform.
From Erickson last night: And Loesch:That kind of yeah-but spin is not only juvenile, but it's completely irrelevant and embarrassing to watch. (Erickson even tried reviving an old falsehood about Obama supporting "infanticide" in order to advance his Akin spin.)
BOTH Erickson and Loesch need to be sent packing from CNN!
Today, I found out that Dana Loesch is still playing her bullying games at her foes on twitter, and the main targets were Adam Shriver (@stlactivisthub) and Milwaukee Mayor (soon-to-be possible Governor of Wisconsin) Tom Barrett (@barrett4wi).
Loesch's smears of Adam Shriver:
MMfA reject (now a JV Johnson Blogger) obsessed with @brandondarby . Same Johnson Blogger who silently sanction racial slurs at presser.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 31, 2012
Same Johnson Blogger who tried desperately for years to get hired at MMfA, now works with Boehlert's arch-enemy. cc @brandondarby
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 31, 2012
Knock knock! Who's there? Scott! Scott who? Scott Walker's leading in the polls and his challenger failed Milwaukee! Ok so not a joke.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 30, 2012
Sorry, Ms. Loesch! Kleefisch is NOT grassroots, and neither is Koch Bros. puppet Scott Walker!
If #WI recalls are successful, they'll recall Jindal next. Abuse of the recall function becse they disliked election results. #Rally4Rebecca
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 29, 2012
Typical fascist bullshit.
"Divide and conquer," like how Barrett divided, conquered employment in Milwaukee? 56% adult males unemployed bit.ly/L0iMA3#widebate
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 1, 2012
Barrett thinks holding private sector working families to promises made btwn politicians and union bosses is "fundamental right." #WIdebate
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 1, 2012
BLS just slammed Barrett on his jobs numbers, btw. 230k jobs created last year, BLS confirmed. #WIdebate
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 1, 2012
Nope, Walker caused the LOSS of jobs.
Barrett loves Milwaukee so much, he raised unemployment for adults males to over 50% bit.ly/L0lGoq#WIdebate
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 1, 2012
She even got in a dig or two at Gennette Nicole/P.J. Nicolatore (@NicoleGennette).
Creepy middle-aged man fronting as a woman named Nicole still obsessed with teenage @m_mcaulay . #ew
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 26, 2012
Barrett spent the entire debate deflecting. Wow. #WIdebate
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 1, 2012
Nope, your BFF Walker ducked and dodged questions like a typical Rethuglican. Tom Barrett, on the other hand, was honest and direct in calling his lies out.
It was in response to my piece published last night on the media's choice to ignore the death threats against Rush Limbaugh by way of progressives's newest anthem, "Kill Rush."
Boehlert was too quick to spin without actually checking the facts. What's that date? March 6? Considering Facebook doesn't post the current year date, it's March 6 of this year, meaning just a couple of weeks ago.
Eric was wrong on two counts: the song was posted to Youtube in 2011, NOT in 2010. Also, did you see that at the bottom?
They went back and tagged "Sandra Fluke" on their video. Boehlert's spin is that the video was posted in 2010 (it wasn't) and that it isn't in response to Limbaugh (they made it so).
The song was originally recorded in 2010, not 2011 or later. Yet another pathetic example of Boehlert Derangement Syndrome displayed by Loesch.
Boehlert, on twitter, took down Loesch's distortion of the dates:
Myspace is still around for bands like the ironically named Detente, oh, excuse me, DÉTENTE (ne faut pas oublier l'accent Français!). A quick scan of their Facebook profile shows they formed around when I was in kindergarten, got a touch of secondhand glory by opening for bigger bands (like Megadeth) in those groups's infancy, and then those bands went on to actually, you know, write good music and sell records. Bands like this are why people hate metal, most of which is structurally complex and difficult to play well. DÉTENTE has scored the most attention they'll ever receive in their lives (sadly, none of it will translate to album sales) because of a song they've written called "Kill Rush."
Yup. I am calling for the demise of all members of the shitty metal band calledDetente. Oh yeah, I’m “dead” serious. Just as serious as they are for calling for Rush Limbaugh to be killed. They even wrote and performed a song advocating it. Well, what goes around comes around.
Funny thing about the left, Detente will be excused for exorcising their 1st Amendment rights, I will probably be labeled a hater, dangerous, an advocator of violence, hell, I might even get a knock on the door from the police or FBI. But when the left does it, “that’s different.” Well you know what? It’s not different. It’s time for us to take off the kid gloves and slap those leftist bitches in to submission. I’ve had enough of their crap, it’s time for pricks like this to pay the piper.
And how about those leftist jackasses at Facebook and YouTube? Whenever some whiney leftist complains, the content is taken down and the user is banned. But as long as a leftist does it, it’s okay. Including advocating murdering someone. Hypocrisy and double-standards, that’s all the left is.
Typical far-right bully this blogger is by wanting to kill people for having the audacity to criticize Rush Limbaugh.
Yet another day in the office for Breitbart.com hacks like Dana Loesch, Dan Riehl, Lee Stranahan, and others to lead the Media Matters Derangement Syndrome attacks. One of Loesch's henchmen, Dan Riehl, blogged in Big Journalism and falsely accuses "MMFA of assaulting Dana Loesch's right to free speech."
If there's anything shameful in what only antisemitic Media Matters apparently still feels is an ongoing Sandra Fluke debate, it's the way antisemitic Media Matters continues it's un-American, Soros-funded war on free speech in America.
While they may be especially focused on coming for the Jews in certain areas, anyone on the Right is ultimately fair game for the crew at antisemitic Media Matters. As far as they're concerned, antisemitism is just fine, but if one dares speak out against a leftist policy of Barack Obama's, all bets are off and they will lie and stretch any truth to silence you.
Antisemitic Media Matters posts an audio clip of Dana Loesch's FM radio show. Listening to it, Dana talks about many associated topics. In between she discusses the left's war on religion by attempting to force the Catholic church to purchase and distribute birth control. That's the heart of the matter and little more. Among several other related remarks, Loesch suggests House Speaker John Boehner "just got out of the tanning bed, he's a little bit dizzy," going on to ask if Boehner is "an agent for Obama." Now, are we supposed to take that literally, as Media Matters would suddenly like us to with regard to pretty typical talk radio comments on Sandra Fluke? No, of course not.
What Media Matters is actually engaged in is a grossly un-American hate campaign to silence critics of the Left, Media Matters itself and Barack Obama. Such campaigns are as dirty and malignant and un-American as one might find on the Internet, or elsewhere. They deserve to be condemned, marginalized, if not wholly ignored, and little more. It's that they always come in a purely political context that makes them as pathetic, as they are un-American. If Media Matters, a reportedly bizarre and erratic David Brock and Eric Boehlert had their way, only those who agree with them would be allowed to speak in America. Now, back to your bunker, boys - and take merry little band of paid storm trooper hacks along with you.
No, Mr. Riehl, Loesch's "free speech" hasn't been assaulted because MMFA was right to call her out onherconstantattacksagainstSandra Fluke. And for the 10,000th time, Eric Boehlert and MMFA are NOT "Anti-Semitic."
MMFA:
Amid the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke, CNN contributor Dana Loesch has aggressively pursued the right-wing campaign to bully the Georgetown law student. After announcing that she would call Fluke "whatever I want," Loesch has called Fluke a "nympho" and used her radio show and posts at Big Journalism to claim that Fluke "embarrass[ed] herself and her sex by ... discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges."
From KFTK's The Dana Show:
Fluke Also Testified About The Need For Access To Contraceptive Medicine After A Woman Was Raped.
From Fluke's testimony:
One student told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered, and she assumed that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health. As one student put it, "this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs." These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they're not burdens that male students must shoulder. [Fluke testimony via Media Matters, 2/23/12]
For the truth about Sandra Fluke's testimony, click here
Loesch Falsely Accused Fluke Of "Discussing About How She Has A Huge Inability To Control Her Sexual Urges." Loesch addressed the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's misogynistic attacks on Fluke during the March 7 edition of her radio show, saying:
LOESCH: As the mother of sons, if I had a daughter who decided to embarrass herself and her sex by going before members of Congress on national television and discussing about how she has a huge inability to control her sexual urges, and thus needs a bailout, she needs individuals to pay higher insurance premiums so she can have free contraception at her university at which she is going by way of public funds apparently, that would to me would be more embarrassing than the act of what she's doing being called out for what it is listed as in the dictionary. That's just the hard truth of the matter. Back in the days when women acted better in public, and they didn't go and discuss about how they had an absolute insatiable sexual appetite that needs a thousand dollars a year in order to prevent pregnancy, people did that because there was a consequence to talking about your sex life to such an extent publicly on national television. And apparently all those inhibitions are out the window. Nothing is sacred anymore and thus nothing is attractive or alluring, because everything is trashy, and I think Fluke's testimony before members of Congress has contributed to that. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/7/12]
Loesch: Fluke Was "Embarrassing Herself Before Congress By Testifying That She Simply Cannot Stop Getting It On." In a March 2 Big Journalism post Loesch wrote:
More have admonished Limbaugh's description of Sandra Fluke than admonished a 30 year-old woman embarrassing herself before congress by testifying that she simply cannot stop getting it on and her inability to control her urges constitutes infringing upon everyone else for a bailout. [Big Journalism, 3/2/12]
Loesch: Fluke "Wants To Be Able To Be As Promiscuous As She Wants To Be." During the March 2 edition her radio show, Loesch responded to a caller who said that Fluke should "change her career and go work at the Mustang Ranch out there in Vegas," and said:
LOESCH: Oh my gosh. That could be -- you know, I'm telling you, she's worried about money apparently instead of going and asking for the government. But see that's -- and, Mike, I appreciate your call -- it comes down because she doesn't want to have to pay her own bills, because she's an independent woman. She's an independent woman like that Destiny's Child song, but she doesn't want to take care of all of her own business, because that's what independent women do. Independent women expect the government, which is characterized as the old cartoon Uncle Sam, to take care of their financial needs. She wants to be able to be as promiscuous as she wants to be, and all of the accoutrements that go along with that, she wants those to be financed by the government, because that's what independent women do. [KFTK, The Dana Show, 3/2/12]
Loesch: Fluke Is "Doing It More Than She's Studying In Law School. ... They Act Like They're Nymphos."
On her radio show, Loesch said of Fluke: "She's doing it more than she's studying in law school. Is that why our -- is that why law sucks lately? Is that why we're having such a problem in our courts?" Loesch also said, "They act like they're nymphos. That's what they act like." [KFTK, The Dana Show, 2/28/12]
His book correctly explained how Fixed Noise exploited their gullible viewers (or at least a decent portion of their viewership) into believing that "Barack Obama is a Muslim."
Mackenzie Weiniger at Politico:
President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”
Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.”
“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying.
Sean Hannity addressed Obama’s reference to Fox News on his radio show Monday, saying it “sounds like the president is very angry behind the scenes, very angry.”
And, Hannity said, he wasn’t surprised Obama decided to pin the blame on Fox. “Now this is a guy who claims he never watches cable news and then he’s making this broad sweeping statement that’s false,” Hannity said. “You always have Fox and talk radio to fall back on when all else fails,” Hannity added.
Bret Baier, the host of Fixed Noise's Special Report,misleadingly stated that "there were no examples of our hosts saying Barack Obama is a 'Muslim.'" Totally false, as several FNC/FBN personalities (including Baier and his program) have questioned Obama's faith and alleged that he was a "Muslim", a "fake Christian," or even "[Godless] atheist."
Here are at least a few examples of FNC/FBN commentators disparaging Obama's religion:
Special Report On Obama: "Islam Or Isn't He?"
During a June 2009 segment, Special Report aired a quote by Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough, in which he talked about how Obama "experienced Islam on three continents" and spent part of his childhood in Indonesia with a Muslim father. Special Report included this question above the quote: "Islam Or Isn't He?" [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 6/3/09]
On Fox, Donald Trump Claimed Obama's Birth Certificate "Maybe ... Says He Is A Muslim."
On The O'Reilly Factor, frequent guest Donald Trump said:
TRUMP: Listen, I have a birth certificate. I have my birth certificate. And in fact, they said the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough. So I actually got the one from the Health Department, which is the perfect one. Because they were saying the one I gave yesterday wasn't good enough, so I got the other. People have birth certificates. He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that. Or he may not have one. But I will tell you this. If he wasn't born in this country, it's one of the great scams of all time. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 3/30/11]
Fox Hosted "Conservative Comedian" Who Claimed Obama Is "Faking" Being Christian.
Fox & Friends hosted "conservative comedian" Brad Stine, who said of the president: "If Santorum doesn't want to question his Christianity, I will, because he's not really part of that." Stine continued, "why can't Obama be slammed for faking [Christianity]?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/20/12]
On Fox, Lars Larson Claimed Obama "Bows Down To Leaders Of ... Muslim Countries And Then He Disses Easter In His Own Country."
On Fox News' America Live, guest host Shannon Bream stated: "The president and White House often seem very frustrated about these polling numbers that come out that show a significant amount of Americans question the president's faith and wonder whether he's truly Muslim, even though he says again and again he is a Christian." She then asked: "So is it fair for the White House to take a little heat that he didn't step up and be more vocal on Easter?" Radio host Lars Larson stated that Obama "is paying more attention" to Muslim holidays.
Fox Nation Promoted Coulter's Claim That Obama Is An Atheist.
On September 1, 2010, Fox Nation promoted a column by Ann Coulter claiming that Obama is an atheist, using the headline: "Obama Is Not A Muslim, But...." [Fox Nation, 9/1/10]
Fox & Friends Pushed False Smear That Obama Attended A "Madrassa." On the January 19, 2007, editions of Fox & Friends First and Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade, along with co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, spent several segments advancing a false report that then-Sen. Barack Obama was raised a Muslim and attended a madrassa, or Islamic school, as a child in Indonesia. At one point, Doocy asked: "When people find out this stuff, they're going to go, 'Why didn't anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised as -- spent the first decade of his life raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends Firstand Fox & Friends, 1/19/07]
From the 03.19.2012 edition of FNC's Special Report With Bret Baier:
Enter hack Dana Loesch: At her Big Journalism blog, she says Corn's assertions are "misleading and distracting from the fact that the Obama and Dems are failures."
I sense a feeling of spagetti-noodle strategy from Axelrod and Plouffe. They've thrown a number of possible bogeyman into the realm of public discourse to see what would stick. It was Bush, then Palin, then Fox News, then the tea party, then the phantom "War On Women," then Palin again, now we're back to Fox and the race card. The only people who cared about Barack Obama's ethnicity during the campaign was the Barack Obama campaign.
On TeaNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, "contributor" Dana Loesch was spewing a number of falsehoods regarding the Violence Against Women Act, including the defense of fellow St. Louis nutjob Phyllis Schlafly.
From the 03.15.2012 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront:
BURNETT: All right, John Avlon is with us. (INAUDIBLE) Elise Jordan is a former speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice also joins us and Dana Loesch, CNN contributor -- all right, great to see all of you with us. Let me start with you Dana. It is something everyone thought would be over by now. I mean and it was interesting, he was actually talking about Newt Gingrich (INAUDIBLE) I wouldn't want to presume to tell Newt Gingrich what to do, but I thought it would be over by now. And you know sort of it seemed like he was saying that maybe Newt should get out although he didn't directly say it. DANA LOESCH, EDITOR, BIGJOURNALISM.COM: Well there are a lot of individuals, Erin that are wondering whether or not Newt Gingrich should get out of the race. But at the same time, I was having a conversation with a friend a little bit earlier and we were discussing how the primary is a really good racket because the longer you stay in the longer you can really push to get higher speaking fees and maybe book deals and so on and so forth, but at this time, the delegate math. I just don't know if Newt Gingrich can make it happen, where it concerns delegate math. The fat lady is definitely warming up and everybody's been talking about this proverbial fat lady for a long time now. But it is -- you know it is different because the Super Tuesday this primary cycle, we had like 10 contests, but the Super Tuesday back in 2008, there were like 20, 21 contests -- BURNETT: Right. LOESCH: -- so it is scheduled a little differently and it feels a lot longer. BURNETT: Well I think Elise we've all learned a lot of lessons, whatever your political party may be about how to not schedule a primary season. What about this video though that the Obama campaign is putting out? Seventeen minutes, Tom Hanks narrated, Academy Award winning producer, a real image of a documentary, even though of course it is a campaign ad. (CROSSTALK) ELISE JORDAN, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well I think it's pretty striking that the message seems like it's going to be disaster averted. Nothing really bad is happening in contrast in '08, where it was change you can believe in. And this video, he paid you know 300,000 for it. I think back in '08, someone in Hollywood would have done it for free. And I think that he's just very different phase in terms of how his supporters are getting behind him. BURNETT: Kony's video has 100 million plus views, John Avlon. Will President Obama's video get that many views? AVLON: The bar has been set. I'm going to say no in terms of that. I mean look this is a highly produced campaign video. Elise (ph) makes an interesting point though is that this is actually saying that wow, storm clouds were coming, we averted a disaster. It's not a narrative of triumph. It's a narrative of what could have been much worse. BURNETT: All right. Let's talk about this issue about women. I mean this is becoming a bigger and bigger conversation and now of course you've got the act -- the violence against women act that Senate Democrats want to put forth legislation from 1994. They say it's finally time. Elise they, at the time, it was broadly bipartisan. Now, there are some Republican opposition to parts of it including would-be immigrants allowing you to say well if you're being used, you could get a visa. Republicans don't like that. (CROSSTALK) JORDAN: You can take it one of two ways, anti-women or anti- immigrant, whichever way you want to see it because their opposition is towards 5,000 u-visas (ph) that are given to the worst victims of domestic violence and those -- that's you know how many visas were given last year, they're up to 10,000 that can be given a year. It's a very small percentage of the nearly 5,000 visas we give a year. BURNETT: Right. JORDAN: So they can say yes, it's about immigration, but really I think it's just this backlash against women that we're hearing a rhetoric that just really isn't very helpful. BURNETT: Yes, Dana, I mean how can justify voting against this bill? LOESCH: Well -- BURNETT: I'm not saying you would. I'm asking you hypothetically. (CROSSTALK) BURNETT: I'm sorry if it came out that way. (CROSSTALK) LOESCH: No, well I mean this is -- this is -- I think it's very brilliant maneuvering on the part of Senators Leahy and Schumer because they realize this is where they need to take the conversation in order to appeal to their base, but the problem is as Senator Grassley had pointed out is that you know in the past this had been unanimously approved, the reauthorization of this. I think it was back in like 2006 I think was the last reauthorization. But because of all of the provisions tacked onto it and Grassley, Senator Grassley's concern, his chief concern is that there are no safeguards listed this time with this. I mean you know definitely people don't like to see violence against women and I know Phyllis Schlafly has a really good op-ed about this, about the act itself over at TownHall.com. But Grassley's concern was that there is no safeguards and this -- it is very easy to commit fraud in this system. There are no safeguards with this, the definition is very loose, it's very broadly defined and so the amendment that Grassley had put forward was to kind of -- was to remedy this. BURNETT: John Avlon, I mean does it make sense to keep the immigration part in? I mean regardless of what you think about the issue, I think it's outrageous that someone was offended by it or not. We should be able to pass the violence against women act without having it turn into a conversation about contraception or immigration or whatever it is that may be your sticking point. AVLON: That's right and let's be clear. I mean this is a political maneuver by Democrats, but it's a very smart one. BURNETT: Right. AVLON: There's a bill that had broad bipartisan support in the past to some proposals that are now controversial. And the fact that it now includes same-sex couples is one of the things that some conservatives find very, very troubling and offensive. But you know the question is whether Republicans are going to let that agenda drive them into this trap in effect and let this narrative deepen because it's been -- it's a part of a pattern and that's the point I think Democrats are trying to surf off of. From Planned Parenthood fights on down, this narrative exists because it reflects a fissure, a fault line within the Republican Party. BURNETT: It seems to show, Elise, too that the Republican Party -- we talk about why the Obama administration has put out a 17-minute video, because they think they have lost control over their narrative. The Republican Party certainly seems to have lost control over the women's narrative. JORDAN: Definitely and I think what Rush did, his comments were so harmful to the entire health care debate to Republicans philosophical opposition to Obamacare and what -- by using that kind of vitriolic language, it just -- it totally destroyed -- it made the whole argument against for having Obamacare more attractive. BURNETT: All right, well thanks very much to all three of you. We appreciate it. Well you have heard the slogan, if you see something, say something. Well now a few police departments across the country like in Grapevine, Texas are taking the campaign to a whole new level. Take a look at this.
Loesch, was lying as usual.
On her blog at Big Journalism, she baselessly accused "Democrats of starting a new war on women" and "playing games with WAWA."
A batch of new polls released this week confirmed the Democrats's worst nightmare: the majority of Americans strongly disapprove of the way in which the President is handling the economy and gas prices. The findings were a blow to a party that for weeks has pandered to women with the trumped-up bogeyman of an all-white male Republican party who wanted to gobble up all their birth control pills. The fabricated War on Women failed, and failed hard. Not ones to give up easily, Senators Schumer and Leahy devised another tactic: playing checkers with the Violence Against Women Act.
The reauthorization of the VAWA is unanimously approved every year since the it was passed in 1994; the latest reauthorization was in 2006. This year there is resistance and Democrats are anxious to exploit the resistance from Republicans. Why is the GOP resisting? The language of the VAWA has remained the same throughout both Republican and Democrat congresses, except now. Democrats trotted out Sandra Fluke because the visual of President Obama verses a bunch of religious folk wasn't the bestoptic, but a woman against the progressive stereotype of a Republican was. (Rhetorical: is it "War On Women" to present them as victims and use them for messaging?) Unfortunately, Fluke didn't work out because a woman complaining of an annual $1k birth control bill when $9 per month birth control exists at places like Target and Costco doesn't cut a sympathetic figure. The polls cited above prove that the strategy to deflect from the economy didn't work, the attempt to frame radio talk host Rush Limbaugh as the "de facto leader of the Republican party" (rhetoric that's been around since I was in high school) failed and now his ratings are at an all-time high.
Democrats are now in damage control mode. The NYT assists by burying poll numbers; David Axelrod appeared on CNN last night prior to my appearance, wherein he parroted the "de facto" talking point and tried to portray Mitt Romney, the most moderate Republican in the race who was formerly vehemently pro-choice, as part of the "War On Women." It was a deflection from Erin Burnett's question: if he planned to petition the Obama super PAC to return the $1 million dollar donation from Bill "c*nt," "tw*t" Maher (his words, not mine). Axelrod declined, saying that Maher was "different," which apparently makes it OK. The difference is that Maher is a progressive and donated a million dollars.
Their message should focus on the shock of why Democrats, who claim to so strongly care for the well-being of women, would dare use federal assistance to victims of domestic violence as a political pawn? The answer is, of course, to score points in a battle to keep the public's attention off of their incumbent's abysmal record.
No, you lying little fartknocker, it's the REPUBLICAN Party that's using VAWA as a political pawn, NOT the Democrats. People like Loesch and her cronies are attacking Sandra Fluke for trivial reasons.
Until this year, the Violence Against Women Act(VAWA) was the poster child for bipartisanship. First passed in 1994 under the leadership of then-Senator Joe Biden, it garnered overwhelming support when it was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005. Now, however, it too has become politicized, a casualty of the culture wars. Although the legislation to reauthorize VAWA (S 1925) still has bipartisan sponsors, it was recently voted out of committee in the Senate 10-8 on a strict party-line vote and final passage is by no means certain.
This year's reauthorization bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), seeks to ensure that VAWA includes protections and services for all victims, regardless of who they are or what their abusers look like. It addresses the unique needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) victims, and those of immigrant victims, foreign brides, and Native women residing on tribal lands. All these populations have, thus far, been denied the full power of VAWA.
LGBTQ people encounter domestic violence at the same rate as the general population, yet a survey by the New York City Anti-Violence Project reported that in 2010 nearly half were turned away from domestic violence shelters and more than half of LGBTQ survivors were denied orders of protection.
Immigrant women without legal status are especially vulnerable to abuse, since going to the authorities carries with it the risk of deportation while the abuser may go free.
Finally, the bill would increase access to justice for Native women living on tribal lands. The numbers are stunning. Native women are 2.5 times more likely than other U.S. women to be battered or raped. One-third of Native women will be raped in their lifetimes. Two-fifths will experience the tragedy of domestic violence. And, their legal situation greatly complicates their access to justice. VAWA reauthorization would give tribes the authority to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence-related crimes when the abuser lives or works in the jurisdiction of the tribe, or is the spouse or intimate partner of a tribe member. It is time to close the gaps in the law to ensure that rapists and abusers cannot commit crimes against Native women with impunity.
Reauthorization of VAWA is imperative. The costs to victims and their families and to society are too large to ignore. Opponents of VAWA are trying to make its renewal part of an ongoing culture war in which the needs of women have been buried in an avalanche of rhetoric that devalues women's lives in the service of an ideological, partisan agenda.
The GOP is desperate to try anything to appease the ultra-right base of the party, which will hurt them come general election time.
That kind of yeah-but spin is not only juvenile, but it's completely irrelevant and embarrassing to watch. (Erickson even tried reviving an old falsehood about Obama supporting "infanticide" in order to advance his Akin spin.)
