This Democrat called his opponent anti-woman. You have to watch the response.

110617_gary_peters_ap_328
Democrat Rep. Gary Peters of suburban Detroit is normally a very strong campaigner. But he’s having a tougher time than expected as he tries to win the Senate seat of retiring Democrat Carl Levin.

To help him sagging poll numbers, Peters thought he would bring back the “war on women” campaign tactic that proved very successful for Democrats in 2012.

Surely you remember the faux “war or women.” This is where feminists and Democratic candidates went before tv cameras and aired commercials asserting that if Republicans like Mitt Romney won women would somehow be unable to purchase contraception anymore.

What?!?

The Pill has been readily available at every corner drug store for over 50 years. Contraception has even been subsidized by state and federal governments for decades.

No political candidate has suggested making the Pill illegal.

We expect politicians to lie, but the “war on women” attack has got to be the most disingenuous political attack of the last 50 years.

If you don’t favor forcing businesses to offer contraception as a free benefit to employees, then somehow you are “anti-woman” and you want to make contraception illegal.

It’s a total lie. But it worked in 2012. So Gary Peters went for this attack and called his opponent “anti-woman.”

The only problem? Gary Peters’ opponent is a woman.

And Terri Lynn Land refused to let this garbage attack go unanswered. She pounced on Peters’ nonsense talk with a very clever ad of her own.

Bravo, Terri!

As a woman she is a natural person to push back against this nonsense attack. But men running for office also need to realize that you simply can’t ignore an attack just because you think it’s preposterous. Just ask President Michael Dukakis what happens when you allow a baseless attack go unanswered.

In a normal year, a Senate race in Michigan would easily go to the Democrat, given the blueish nature of the state. But this year might just be the perfect storm for the GOP. They have a Republican governor who looks strong for reelection. Turnout in midterm elections tend to favor the GOP. The Democratic president and his signature law remain unpopular. The Republican candidate has high name ID throughout the state (she improved the DMV’s customer service quite considerably in Michigan).

And this ad shows, she’s got some moxie.

Republicans need to win six seats to remove Harry Reid and the Democrats from control of the United States Senate. Those chances improve when they force Democrats to defend more of their seats. The Democrats weren’t counting on having to campaign strongly in Michigan, but now they have a barnburner on their hands.

16,643 views

Categories:Senate 2014

27 thoughts on “This Democrat called his opponent anti-woman. You have to watch the response.

  1. Kevin says:

    Is the author of this article familiar withe the concept of the Straw Man?

  2. Zac Davis says:

    Where was the relevant Catholic analysis in this article?

    Isn’t this website CatholicVote and not RepublicanVote?

    1. Joshua Mercer says:

      Pro-life organizations as well as pro-life candidates for public office received an onslaught of accusations for being anti-woman or engaging in a “war on women.” Catholics, because they care to save unborn children from abortion, should push back against these attacks and point out how wrong they are.

    2. Ellen says:

      Dems, by their own “pro choice” policies, are anti-Catholic, so the answer to Mr. Davis’ question is… Republicans are the only party that are supportive of Catholic beliefs and tradition, so there is your answer, Mr. Davis.

      1. morganB says:

        You paint with a broad brush, Ellen. You may be correct saying that the GOP/TP follows Catholic dogma. Their litmus test for political candidates reveals that alignment. You may get a different picture when studying the remaining Republican voters… like me.

        I consider myself to be pro-life… all life. the vast majority of Republicans take a similar position on abortion… it should be legal, safe and rare. No matter what the right says, the decision must be made by the woman, her doctor and her family. Most agree that the three exceptions are valid. Rape, incest and protecting the mother’s life. Republicans like GW Bush and Rudy Gulianni take this position.

        You may want to change your 4 inch brush for an artist wand.

        1. Joshua Mercer says:

          George W. Bush had that position, but not Guiliani. In fact, Guiliani supported legal abortion in all 9 months, including partial-birth abortion.

  3. Mary Frances says:

    A war on women in Michigan? The city of Detroit is a war zone – period – but not on women. Women in MI have more children out of wedlock than I’d guess just about anywhere. Their children are neglected and subjected to a life of their mothers choosing. More children go un-immunized in MI than ANY OTHER state in the US (vaccinations are FREE!) and the crimes committed against children, neglect being the primary source of the victimization, are outrageous. Women in MI are and have been on a war path of their own for a long time and the liberals supporting this ignorance with handout after handout needs to be stopped.

  4. morganB says:

    I agree the Democrats have identity problems. However, the Republicans dwell far too much on social and dogmatic issues. As the elderly woman in the commercial said “show me the beef”. Pope Francis uttered something similar by asking us to move toward the poor and away from issues like contraception. He also asked his Bishops to “leave their opulent mansions and seek out the homeless in the streets”. Very much as did Mother Teresa did in Calcutta.

    We must ask if there truly is a war on women… if so, how does that war manifest itself?

    One may agree that a woman seeking an abortion in Texas must undergo an ultrasound and pay for it herself, even if she or her doctor don’t want it. Some would say that the new Texas law empowers a woman. I say the opposite.

    The Paycheck Fairness Act has become a political football and few know who is ahead.
    Republicans, say the bill is simply a Democratic ploy to distract from the disappointment of Obamacare; that it’s been against the law to pay a woman less than a man with similar experience in the same job since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Problem with the 1963 EPA is it hasn’t worked. Anybody trying to downplay that fact will alienate women and are doomed to political failure.

    If Terri Lynn Land says she stands up for women, let her show how. Terri Lynn Land on remarks she made in 2010 that women are “more interested in flexibility in a job than pay.” How does any woman accept that silliness?

    1. Joshua Mercer says:

      Barack Obama talked more about social issues in his 2012 campaign than Mitt Romney did. By a mile.

    2. Ann says:

      I can accept that “silliness,” because I worked in HR for almost two decades and witnessed real women making real decisions. Flexible hours, and the ability to balance work and home life often trumped the raise and promotion. As someone who ran the compensation stats for a national laboratory, I can also tell you that women had pay parity with men–until they took maternity leave, sometimes extending it on an unpaid basis to the max allowed by policy. Then, while they fell behind with regard to men of similar hire dates, they remained at par with men of equal *actual* experience and similar competency rating… which is exactly how the gender-neutral algorithm we used was supposed to work. Also telling, the bell curve for competency ratings were pretty evenly distributed across men and women. The pay issue is a huge red herring, because not one single American has ever thought they were paid enough. There are billionaires out there who think they’re underpaid. It’s very easy to stir the pot, and you can twist the data to tell anything you like, especially in the murk of the liberal media. (One of my favorite quotes: “Tortured data will confess to anything.” Wish I could remember who said it.)

      1. Joshua Mercer says:

        Excellent comments, Ann. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

      2. morganB says:

        Thank you, Ann. I don’t want to belabor this, but please tell me if and how the term “glass ceiling” applies to American women in the current workplace? I still get the feeling that you and Joshua think there is no problem either with women receiving equal recognition with pay and promotions. My wife was a manager in IBM and was fully cognizant of unfair pay… herself included.

    3. JD says:

      Way to force your opinions on others, and whoever doesn’t agree with you is a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc., right? There is value to FLEXIBILITY which can be measured in monetary terms. Since having kids, I personally am torn between flexibility and more pay. In essence, I will trade off consistent pay for flexible pay and time. So, count me in as being in favor of that “silliness.”

    4. Deacon Chris Schneider says:

      Catholic, being that, accepting that, living that, is beyond democrat, republican, nationality, race, color, special needs… recognizing such is another step closer to Christ through the Holy Spirit. Catholic, what that is is already well defined in Scripture and concisely within the CCC… everything else is straw.

  5. Ray Wilson says:

    This is awkward because I agree with the thrust of this article — but I almost choked when I saw reference to the “unanswered baseless attack” on Michael Dukakis. I was a Massachusetts Democrat and criminal justice professional in the middle of the Horton affair. Nothing baseless about it. If you meant something else, never mind….

    1. Joshua Mercer says:

      No I think the Horton attack was a legitimate attack. (Though, I think the TV ad should NEVER have been aired. They were making the point about his reckless furlough policy quite well without the ad.)

      No, what I meant was the attack Bush waged on Dukakis over the Pledge of Allegiance. I disagree with Dukakis over the constitutionality of the Pledge, but I at least understand his argument. (I’m not even that big on the Pledge myself). Here’s a story where I think Bush’s rhetoric was over the top: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/25/us/bush-intensifies-debate-on-pledge-asking-why-it-so-upsets-dukakis.html

Leave a Reply

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

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>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.