Karen Hughes, former advisor to GW Bush, and someone I never liked, has some advice for her Republican colleagues.
"And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue," she wrote. "The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of ‘legitimate rape.’"
Interesting strategy for intra-party enforcement at least. But…1) threats aren’t a viable strategy, and 2) I notice she just wants them to shut up, but not a word about changing their actual odious policies. I know I’d rather that all politicians were forthright about what they propose to do.
Cross-posted from the Lounge:
More Republicans who have such a winning strategy when it comes to women’s issues:
Mother Jones link.
Check out the photo of this smarmily smiling dunderhead.
Yeah, I agree with #1 and was thinking much the same thing. Her solution to miscues on a topic that often involves violence is more violence? That’s the kind of lack of self-awareness that may be preventing them from coming up with viable strategies. [Thinks of Bobby Jindal’s “stupid party” remarks.]
Ms. Hughes, pardon me for pointing this out, while your outrage is absolutely justified, it would be more to point to inform your colleagues that the attitudes they hold are utterly wrong, and they need to actually think for once, and change those attitudes. You might also point out that those misogynistic attitudes lead them to loathsome behaviour, making and enabling laws which make things more and more difficult for women, especially in cases of rape. Thanks ever.
Hey, I don’t want to distract from this conversation so I’ll make this short and hope PZ may signal boost on this .
It is relevant, and may lead to the arrest and conviction of an unprosecuted rapist in my home state of NM.
Thank you everyone who reads this.
Right, because other than the occasional unfortunate rape comment, everything coming out of today’s Republican party is perfectly logical and sensible.
Caine @3:
Yes, this.
In addition to their quixotic attempts to repeal Obamacare, and their endless attempts make second-class citizens of women, Republican policies regarding employment are making things more difficult for women.
John Boehner recently said that jobs and the lack thereof will be a major talking point for Republicans during the 2014 elections. He plans to blame Obama. He thinks voters will ignore details like the fact that Republicans have obstructed job-creating programs. In the meantime, it is in his interest, and in the interest of Republicans in general to make sure that the economy does not recover more dramatically, and that job seekers can’t find a job. Boehner is working to keep the picture as bleak as possible.
Hence, no extension of unemployment insurance, a policy that disproportionately affects women. And this is a policy guaranteed to slow economic growth and job growth.
We’ve already discussed Republican attacks on programs like food stamps, with the cuts hurting women and children disproportionately.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/creating-the-wrong-economic-incentives#break
My interpretation is that she’s more concerned about the poor PR/harm to the cause than the actual harm to women. In other words, she wants them to be better at being vote-grubbing hypocrites. Definitely a case of fixing the wrong problem, from an outsider’s perspective.
If her message of STFU extended to their private lives, I’d call it a net positive – it’s hard to pass on BS if you don’t talk about it.
Cross posted from the Lounge:
Oh, FFS, another “panel of 12 men” getting ready to tell women what to do — not nice, not right.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/house-gop-kicks-off-2014-_n_4563303.html
If you don’t want to visit the dreaded HuffPo site, you can read most of the same info on the Maddow Blog:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/congressional-gop-renews-abortion-focus
Also cross posted from the Lounge:
Here’s the NARAL Pro-Choice America analysis of the new bill Republican men are proposing (H.R. 7 is the bill number — top priority for 2014!).
I really don’t see any reason to slander Neanderthals like that, do you?
@Lynna #10:
Is it possible for a conservative to become yet more hateful and evil?
OK, don’t answer that…
… “The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of ‘legitimate rape.’”
Apparently the mothers of “The college-age daughters” think the incomprehensible oxymoron “legitimate rape” is a OK?
At least she suggests that Neanderthals had language.
Well, keep in mind that the Republican party is pretty well packed with mostly christians. According to modern xtian thought, it is much about about what you say rather than what you do. Going to heaven is just about praying and not so much about your deeds.
And with that thought in mind, it actually puts things very well in perspective on how the Republican party continues to remain successful. It isn’t about what they do, it is about what they say which is very much like prayer. There aren’t many christians left that actually follow their hero’s footsteps (Jesus).
monitor note
birdmike@4,
Best to repost, with more detail if you like, in Thunderdome, the thread where nothing is off-topic.
I clicked on PZ’s link looking to read the entire article. I was surprised to find there wasn’t much more to it. I’d hoped that maybe Ms Hughes’ comments were expanded on or discussed in greater depth, but such was not found. It’s like HuffPo decided to simply report what she said and some of the context behind it. Thankfully, they provided a link to Ms Hughes’ opinion column. Of course there wasn’t much more meat to that either.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83632_Page2.html
She attributes the GOP losses in the 2012 election to communication mistakes.
“Legitimate rape” was one such communications mistake? If it and other comments about rape hadn’t been uttered by Republicans, it would have helped their chances at winning?
I wish I could say that wouldn’t have been the case but far too many people focus on tone rather than substance.
My response to Karen Hughes:
“No, Ms Hughes. The problem is not with communicating. Your fellows communicate pretty well. I can see, quite easily, how they feel about blacks, hispanics, immigrants, LGBT, and women. It’s right there in what they say. In other words, a big part of your party’s problem is *what* they say, not how they say it. Another problem they have is a severe lack of empathy. You all care so little for anyone other than the important white people. Your disdain for others is going to seep out when you don’t give two shits for the “little people”. Horrible comments about rape are going to happen as long as your fellow Republicans continue refusing to listen to what people are saying and why. There was no shortage of explanations about why the various rape comments from Republicans were wrong. Did they listen to any of them? No. Do they understand why their comments were wrong? No. Did they educate themselves to ensure that next time they speak on the subject, they’re better informed? No.
Ask yourself-and them-why that’s the case. “
If Republicans would like to be liked by women and minorities, they just need to stop being so Republican.
Despite trying to fix the wrong problem, if they take this sort of thing to heart, it could be a good thing. Republicans stop talking about things they don’t understand, most of them wouldn’t have much to talk about anyway. Maybe then all the parties can shift back to the left because the “I’m more conservative than you are” contests can stop.
Ah, pipe dreams…
cswella:
I disagree.
The problem is with their beliefs. These beliefs lead them to enact legislation that oppresses women (and other minorities). Not talking about their beliefs does not mean they’ve changed their minds. Until they change their minds, they are actively hurting women.
A long time ago (but not really long enough) when I was working at the state capitol in Sacramento, one of our enlightened legislators argued against a measure making spousal rape a crime. “If I can’t rape my wife,” he objected, “then who can I rape?” He wasn’t just making a tasteless joke. He was actually upset about the measure and encouraged his colleagues to vote against it.
Speaking of GOP candidates making asinine comments about rape:
@22: See also post number 1.
@10: No chance of passage, of course, they’re just preaching to the primary election choir. Kind of like Senate Democrats with their hopeless unemployment extension bill. Neither would ever get through the other house, although the latter would at least get signed if passed.
It’s interesting seeing yet another Republican blasting their fellow party members for saying what the actually think, not for thinking it.
Trebuchet:
Oops.
Also, D’oh!
In Maine, “one Republican candidate has decided to wear his domestic violence conviction as a badge of honor.”
Once again, the GOP persists in seeing its current electorability challenges as a communication and marketing issue, not a policy issue. This is SOP for a party whose policies are becoming unpopular. The end results will not be good for them.
I only have a basic grounding in biology which has been greatly enhanced and expanded by reading this and other blogs and paying some attention to the commentary. (I should note that in my high school
freshman biology class all discussion of evolution was omitted and that was in about 1966.)
Two things. I am interested in why you assert that threats don’t work. I agree they don’t but
just exactly why is an important thing to know. The second is more obvious, the only course available to the republicans is to hide their agenda. None of them have ever once considered that it might be wrong on some level. They are believers. So obviously, even bold faced lies about their intentions are all to the good because the only good is for them to achieve their goals. Nothing else matters. For the most part it appears they will say or do anything to advance their goals no matter how egregiously false or dishonest.
I don’t think I need to recount the number of ways in which their single minded intent on irrational aims
has led to massive death, suffering and deprivation. One day the tide will turn.
As Churchill said, KBO.
she is probably correct they would probably win more elections if they stuck to the patriotic pablum and posturing script that politicians like Reagen managed to follow. There was a pol. who could keep to the script.
There are thankfully very few that can pull that off.
They just can’t help blustering and showing off their moral superiority.
Lets hope that they just keep talking and talking
uncle frogy
Threats on occasion effect a change in outward presentation; they do not affect motivation.
As if the term “family values” hadn’t already been sufficiently dragged through the mud, let’s add spousal abuse.
I think what she wrote was an expression of anger at her colleague’s offensive stupidity, rather than a logical critique or attempt to get them to change said values. The latter approach is certainly more helpful, but I think she’s entitled to the former too.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/how-not-appeal-women-voters
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/tea_party_senate_candidate_compares_being_prengant_to_having_cancer/
Ken Buck’s campaign pitch for 2010 included “vote for me “because I do not wear high heels.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/male-senate-candidate-vote-for.html?hpid=topnews
This is the same republican party that had to put out a memo telling its politicans how to feign empathy for the unemployed: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republican-memo-empathy-toward-unemployed
Please tell me the H. stands for Head…
So I assume that he rejected all anti-cancer therapies? After all, when you kill cancer, you’re killing a living being.
If he didn’t want to keep it, he could always give it up for adoption.
Lynna #33
When I come here on my phone (no adblock), I’ve been seeing ads saying “Electing Politicians won’t work” . These are paid for by Ben Pollock for Congress.