Are Republicans REALLY that stupid? (retorical question)

Women should pay more, because they get testicular cancer, prostate problems, the dreaded Small Penis Syndrome. Oh, wait. . .

Even the He Man Woman Hater's Club was nicer to women than Rep. Price & Co. It seems that every day watching Republicans is a new day in "where they going with this one?"

"I don't think they attract women to their party. I think they repulse women."
.
I like the word choice. There is a certain attitude that only the word 'repulsive' is adequate to convey. Repulsive indeed!

THE ONGOING GOP CAMPAIGN TO DRIVE ________ AWAY

Who aren't they trying to drive away? Women, African americans, hispanics, gays. The only people they're trying to attract are bitter, old bigots and white supremacists.

On a few occasions, I have told very conservative women to STFU when they're talking. To their great shock, of course - and they demand an explanation/apology.

I tell them that their side of the aisle consistently, energetically, has always told women to STFU - and I just wanted her to feel at home.

The tape of the Republicans shouting down the Dem women should be played over and over and over, ad nauseam, in every marginal district in 2010. And then played some more, and more.

If the Dems are serious about winning elections that is. Oh, wait ...

Excuse me if I find myself somewhat compromised on this issue. Are you suggesting that smokers NOT pay a premium for health insurance? Are you suggesting that young female drivers pay the same premiums as their male counterparts? Are you suggesting a leveling of all insurance rates regardless of gender, age, behavior, etc? Or is this just picking and choosing the cases that suit your fancy? I could use some discussion that allowed a consistent position based on principle.

Well as i live and breathe... Steve's doin' the "Look over there! Bright Shiny Repugnant wimmin-haters!" distraction...

Saturday night did not exactly make the Dims god's god damn gift to wimmin folk.

And i know from self-inflicted dumbassery that ya dont need to be a republican old white guy from Texas to utter stoopid white male idiocy.

it was white male Dims who back-stabbed women on Saturday night...

I agree 1,000% with Basilisc in that the tape of the Repugs shouting down the Dem women should be played over and over. And all Dems should be IN FRONT of the cameras making this an issue. The Dems need to fight the Repugs and do so with some of the same tactics used against them. Get in front of the cameras and state all these discriminatory tactics and crap that they are pulling. Right now.

>"Women should pay more, because... "

Unfortunately, this is one of the rare cases where the rethuglicans are actually speaking truthfully... but there is more to the issue than insurance premiums.

There is a societal decision to be made about how inherent biological differences should be considered as a whole. This is all about risk pooling. The bigger the pool, the more levelling.

In a level pool, some will pay more than they 'should'... and some will pay less... in terms of health insurance this mostly means age and sex are considerations.

What the Republicans don't want to mention is that health insurance for older people would be financially un-obtainable.

What insurer in their right mind would insure someone over 60? What insurer would cover a newborn baby for the first year of life? Who would insure someone who has a chronic disease?

The republican ideal (in almost everything) seems to be that people should only pay for their own needs and services... f^&k the rest. The less level the pool is, the better they like it... this is why they always look for tax cuts on the wealty.

In the fantasy world of Ayn Rand this works out just peachy. In reality the outcome is different.

Surely you could have made a case for the outrageousness of Price's and Sessions' conduct without relying on another generalization-ridden, melodramatic Politico story. How does anyone read, much less quote, a phrase like "....the events of the last week offer harbingers of serious trouble ahead..." without rolling his or her eyes?

Also, given that 1 of 4 Dems voted for the Stupak amendment (and, yes, I understand that the bill simply could not have passed without it, and yes, much as I hate it, I hate the circumstance of totally uninsured women even more), this may not be the best moment for us to be smacking around another party for lack of female-friendliness.

Repulsicans?

The GOP was the first party in a generation to nominate a woman as their VP candidate. Then they had to listen to snide liberals deride Governess Palin's choice of clothes, her mothering, and private family matters. Liberals are against any women who don't fit into their cookie-cutter feminist mold. Smart women know this and vote GOP.

Al, I object. Try talking that one down.

Moaning about Republicans is a waste of time and a diversion from the real problems, which lie squarely within the Democratic Party.

And when Democrats code into their bill the Stupak Amendment I don't think they're winning the female vote either

Hey, thanks for reminding me of the shout-down on Saturday. What was the alleged reason the GOP House felt that women representatives shouldn't be allowed to speak when recognized?

WTF?

Republicans are driving women away? You mean it was the Republicans that forced the House to pass the Stupek-Pitts Amendment?

I've always thought it was the Democrats who would eventually kill off a woman's right to choose -- I was right.

If women think they can trust the Democrats with their fundamental rights they are fools -- and they are not.

Al may be an idiot to think that women are in the Republicans camp because of Palin (then why did 56% of women vote for Obama? Kerry only got 51% of women.)

But the fact is that by supporting the continuation of two wars (women are overwhelmingly against increasing troop levels in Afghanistan), and by trading a few votes for Stupek-Pitts, the Democrats have demonstrated a total disregard for the opinions of their women supporters -- a disregard that is only surpassed by their disregard for the opinions of gays.

Sessions may have been ham-fisted in articulating this, but, to be fair, his point isn't anti-female in intent so much as it is pro-free market. I assume that the point he was making is that the free market in insurance, left to itself and free of regulation, is the most efficient mechanism for allocating the cost of medical insurance--by charging higher premiums for people with higher risk profiles.

I disagree with the theory, but it's not "anti" any group in intention. However, one aspect of regulation of the health insurance market would be to prohibit insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristics--age, gender, race, etc. Such prohibitions in effect spread the cost of the increased risk that may result from one of these characteristics among everyone in the risk pool. This may not be as "efficient" as pricing premiums based on such characteristics, but it may be more "fair".

Unfortunately, the Republican Party doesn't seem to want to have a nuanced discussion about which regulations are appropriate and which are not; they seem to want to do away with any regulation of the insurance market (with the possible exception of outright fraud). Their push to eliminate state barriers to out-of-state insurers is nothing more than an attempt to get rid of state regulation of the insurance market.

It's not Debbie Wasserman Schultz that should be scolding the GOP, however, not when she's supported a bunch of Blue Dogs over more moderate-to-progressive candidates in her own party.

Sorry to burst your bubble Al, but Palin was rightly derided because it was obvious that she was in no way ready to be one old man's heartbeat away from the presidency. Her nomination was a transparent, cynical ploy to pick up disaffected Clinton supporters. McCain heard "mavrick" (turns out narcissistic is more like it) from his advisers and the young, attractive packaging sealed the deal. No man with an identical record of public service would have been considered for a nanosecond.

And there is no cookie-cutter feminist mold. That you think so indicates just how dysfunctional and out of touch with reality the GOP has become. That said, all of us, including Democrats, have much work to do to even begin to understand the devaluing of the feminine in our culture/society. Too many (we women included!) are nearly entirely blind to it.

The assertion that Republicans are intentionally trying to drive away women is absurd.

Many Republicans do believe that human life begins at conception - including the lives of women. Many Republicans do believe that honestly earned property should not be confiscated by the government for social programs - including the property of women. Many Republicans do believe that the US should have a strong military to defend the safety of its citizens - including the safety of women.

If some women do not support these policies, then they may voluntarily choose other political ideologies, but they were not driven away.

I would think that women of integrity and insight would support such policies.

The assertion that Republicans are intentionally trying to drive away women is absurd.

Absolutely correct. You want women's votes, just as you want black and Latino votes. You guys just aren't going to modify your bigotry and sexism to get them. And then you whine in bewilderment about how no one except white men votes with you in any number.

"this may not be the best moment for us to be smacking around another party for lack of female-friendliness..."

Thank you SS. I've seen this written a thousand times since it passed, "I'm pro-choice but..."

Just what the FUCK does that mean?

Please, please tell me the Dems have the brains to run WOMEN against the objection-shouters? The campaign ads write themselves.

Sadly, this type of rhetoric is typical of what type of leadership the Republicans offer these days. Women should be outraged. Men should be outraged!

Everyone should help out the Democrat running against Sessions in 2010. The guy's name is Grier Raggio and his mother is one of biggest women's rights leaders in Texas history. He has a fundraising driving going through 7pm Monday: http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/22993

While Republicans scored a pair of impressive electoral victories in New Jersey and Virginia...

Hmmm...49 percent in N.J.

Yes, a sweeping mandate not seen since LBJ's 61 percent in '64.

Al, I object. Try talking that one down.
Posted by: Bob M

Al may be an idiot to think that women are in the Republicans camp because of Palin...Posted by: Joesbrain

Sorry to burst your bubble Al, but...
Posted by: FC

Why do you people insist on arguing with a parody troll? Are you really so dense that you don't understand Al's shtick?

Why do you people insist on arguing with a parody troll?

Why do you insist on obsessing about people talking to a parody troll? Are you really such a control freak that you can't just zoom past it?

I too am confused by the Stupak amendment. We don't need republican votes in the House, so which Democrats were demanding this PoS? We need to identify and shine a bright light on these assholes and force them to defend their pathetic position on this issue.

I'm tired of playing defense.