Thu Dec 15, 2011, 08:25 PM
McCamy Taylor (15,275 posts)
Newt's Female Trouble [View all]
I was going to call this one “Newt’s Women Problem” but that has already been used---by about a million Google hits including a two day old piece from the Atlantic here:
which asks the question “Will conservative Republican women support Newt?”
Be honest, though. When has being an adulterer with a pretty trophy wife ever cost a Republican the nomination? The corporate media anoints a candidate, and the GOP base holds its nose and votes for him.
Newt’s real female trouble will begin in the general election, when he is scrutinized by all the women who are not used to doing as they are told. We know what Newt thinks about women. He likes them young and pretty and healthy---no cancer, no MS. What do women on the left think about Newt?
One of Newt’s first acts, upon talking control of Congress, was to deny funding for the Violence Against Women Act, which had been passed in the previous Congress. Newt only capitulated after NOW brought 250,000 women to protest this action.
Now, what kind of man does not want to end violence against women?
NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) gave Newt a failing score when it comes to reproductive freedom, citing his 72 (out of 74) anti-choice votes and his vote to end Title X, the federal family planning funding program.
That can't be right! Wasn't Newt the one who vowed to end welfare---and stop the nation's single women from having babies? How did he expect to do that if they had no access to birth control? Sounds like pretty bad planning to me. Or just plain meanness.
Speaking of welfare reform , here is what one woman had to say about Newt in 1994:
"He attacks the most powerless segment of our society - young women and children. Of course, this group doesn't form PACs or contribute to the coffers of our erstwhile congressmen, therefore they're safe to victimize. He proposes to allow them only two months of welfare. If they don't find employment in those two months, he would have their children torn away from them and put in orphanages.
"Newt would make Charles Dickens' character Ebenezer Scrooge look like a saint. I can only hope Newt will one day be visited by the spirit of compassion. Undoubtedly he won't listen. After all, the spirit of compassion neither belongs to a PAC nor puts money in his pocket."
Surely Newt did not threaten to attack the American Family by forcibly taking away their children and putting them into homes. Did he? From 1994:
"Resurgent Republicans in Congress under Newt Gingrich are breathing new life into an idea whose time most people thought had already come and gone.
"They want to bring back orphanages and other forms of state-supervised residences to care for the illegitimate children of young women who would be cut from welfare rolls under their proposals."
That’s right. Newt wanted to break up families and send the tots to orphanages for the crime of having poor parents. Not abusive parents. Not negligent parents. Poor parents.
Am I surprised? Not really. Newt left his first wife, because she was too old, ugly and diseased (cancer) to be a presidents wife. He broke the news to her when she was in the hospital recovering from surgery. He did not pay child support, forcing his ex-wife and kids to seek charity from their church. Newt’s one great virtue may be that he is no hypocrite. He does not just preach misogyny and hatred of children, he lives it.
If Newt is the GOP nominee, I expect to see women flocking to the polls next fall to cast their vote against him. Bad for Newt, good for us, since it mobilizes the Democratic base.
1 replies, 814 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Newt's Female Trouble [View all]
|McCamy Taylor||Dec 2011||OP|