|

Republican spokesman: It borders on unpatriotic to complain about the war on women

From time immemorial, Republicans have been pretending that they’re more patriotic than thou.

And now a spokesman for the Republican National Committee is arguing that there’s something unpatriotic about the complaints among Democrats concerning the so-called war on women.

The guy says “war” is a grossly inappropriate metaphor for the imagined offenses against whiny women, especially “when there are millions of Americans who actually have engaged in a real war.”

Apparently, he thinks his fellow Republicans don’t throw around the W-word quite so casually.

But, of course, he’s wrong about that, as we see HERE:

[T]he RNC spokesperson is just pushing his luck when he says the “war” metaphor itself is offensive, bordering on “unpatriotic.” …[T]his is the same Republican National Committee that’s complained about Democrats waging a “war on Appalachia,” a “war on coal,” and launching a “trade war with Mexico.”

But we can go a little further with this. Poking around Mitt Romney’s campaign website, for example, we see the likely Republican nominee expressing concern about Obama waging a “war on the entire coal industry,” a “war on carbon dioxide,” and a “war on the Catholic Church.” Romney has also said the Obama administration has launched a “war on free enterprise” and a “war on religion.”

Share:

3 Comments

  1. I can’t believe that a woman would post this comment. You don’t want health care and rights, fine, just stop restricting the rest of women in this country. The word here is restricting, that means taking away my rights and my daughters and granddaughters rights. Rights that our foremothers, starting in Seneca Falls in 1848 fought their whole lives for. Last time I looked, this was a free country. You talk about woman’s rights in Egypt or the lack of rights, sister we have all those rights here in case you don’t know it. I’m a democrat and I resent your assertion that I or any other is responsible for what happens in Egypt or would be in favor of such restrictions. You’ve been watching too much fox.

  2. Luke Fredrickson

    Any religious institution that wants to take advantage of the public marketplace has to play by laws that sepercede their religious dogma. These laws protect the public from businesses that attempt to force their moral teachings on us through the corporations they own. Most Catholic-owned businesses already recognize this fact and willingly elect to provide contraception as part of their health plans.

    To make these policy decisions on what rules all businesses must follow, we elect government representatives. Last I heard, President Obama was elected to do this by a decisive majority of Americans. Bush did the same thing with his Faith-Based Initiative, reasoning that in electing him the voting public wanted more involvement from religious groups.

    The fact of the matter is that the Holy See has chosen to enter into the public realm, catering to non-believers and generating profit. Churches (the actual places of worship) are of course exempt from these laws, as they can employ only believers in their religion. However if their BUSINESSES do not want to follow the law of the land they can leave the public marketplace and stick to running churches – they could use a bit more focus on (and supercision in) this effort anyway.

  3. Luke Fredrickson

    All religious institutions running businesses must follow the same rules PJ. You must be brainwashed somehow to insinuate that Liberals don’t support enforcing these laws on Muslim mosque-owned businesses (there are a lot, BTW). Find some evidence, or admit that you rely on “messed up logic”.

Leave a Reply

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

CAPTCHA Image

*

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>