The Battle Over Women Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-12/battle-over-women-voters
Women cast nearly ten million more votes than men in the last presidential race. Their traditional preference for Democrats helped put President Obama in the White House. but the female vote swung to the GOP in 2010, giving Republicans congrol of the House. Now there are signs of another shift. Recent polls show Republicans have been hurt by the current focus on contraception, abortion and women’s health issues. This week the President’s re-election campaign plans to launch an intensified effort to mobilize female voters. Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women and Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the eagle forum, join Diane to discuss the battle for and about women.
Guests
Terry O'Neill
president, National Organization for Women.
Phyllis Schlafly
founder and president, Eagle Forum
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
...............
That is your response something about Hillary Clinton? George town college students are required to pay for and have health insurance. The faculty at Georgetown have the same requirement and have contraception covered, but students who also pay, can not. You are one sad responder. answer the question: why did Schlafly lie? She had the opportunity provided by Ms. Rehm, who obvisously would not argue with her, to tell the truth, but she LIED. Please explain.
Marcus Tullius wrote ........ what does this mean? Probably nothing. the person who really needs to respond to this thread is Ms. Rehm herself to explain why she did not challenge Schlafly on her lies. I wish radio talk show hosts would take their responsibility to their audiences seriously.
vageiger wrote:
"That is your response something about Hillary Clinton?"
-----------------------------------------------
Something? Hillary lied about being shot at. On the scale of bald face lying, Hillary's lie trumps whatever you presume Schafly to be lying about. Do lies from liberals not outrage you? It would seem if you were intellectually honest, you should condemn lying regardless of the political ideology of the liar.
vageiger wrote:
"I wish radio talk show hosts would take their responsibility to their audiences seriously."
-----------------------
On that we can agree. But DR is nearly 80. She gets confused. Most DR Show listeners feel that this is part of her charm.
Dude, I do not like Hillary, I am not all the enamoured with Obama and his killer drones, and on and on..... that does not obviate Schlafly of her LIES! Try as you might, Schlafly does not get off by the well they did it, so.... she was on this show and SHE LIED. Just because others lie does not excuse Schlafly's LIES! Good try to deflect, sorry ass, but does not work. Schlafly LIED!. Explain it.
Cute. go at age. No, she is as spry now as she was 20 years ago.
Waiting Tullius, waiting for an explaination of why Schlafly lied.
Thanks for reminding me why no one has heard for Phyllis Schafly for decades. I am surprised you did not challenge her over her insulting comment to the affect that single mothers by definition look for Uncle Sam to be their sugar daddy. I didn't like her when I was a Reagan supporter back in the 80s, and I can't believe she has resurfaced now. I guess it is appropriate however, since her views have once again become the raison d'être of the right-wing political establishment.
Sigh... guess I am not going to get one. What a surprise.
vageiger wrote:
"Cute. go at age. No, she is as spry now as she was 20 years ago."
-----------------------------------------
Spry? In March, 2007, Diane Rehm suffered severe and painful corneal burns when she sprayed perfume on her contact lens during a trip to Oklahoma City. Rehm said that she labeled the identical three-ounce tinted plastic bottles to show they held different solutions but that the labels became blurred and hard to read—especially without her lenses in.
In August and September 2009, filling in for the host, Susan Page of USA Today reported that Rehm was running across the street on Thursday when her heel got caught in the leg of her pants. As a result, Rehm tripped and broke her pelvis during the fall
I hate to inform you of this, but Father Time effects mental as well as physical dexterity. That includes DR.
Just so it is clear. Phyllis Schlafly lied on this program in saying 'she was paying" for Sandra Fluke's contraception. Schlafly does not pay for anyone elses contraception insurance, employees, or students pay, for their own insurance, and to try to have a say in what that covers only means saying they want a voice in what their money is paying for, not their university or employers. The US conference of Catholic CEOs (otherwise known as Bishops, who run businesses such as hospitals and universities funded with US taxpayer dollars) is trying to do is take their EMPLOYEE'S money and say it is theirs. Hence the Blunt amendment in the senate that attempted to say all EMPLOYEE money that pays for benefits if really THE CORPORATIONS to do with as they please, such as buy the cheapest usles health insurance they can. That is the real issue that Ms. Rehm refuses to address on her show or anyone else on all the networks as well as NPR. This is a sad state of affairs. Sorry folks, you are going to get ripped off.
wgalle wrote:
"Thanks for reminding me why no one has heard for Phyllis Schafly for decades."
----------------------------------------
If Limburger hadn't made derogatory comments about Fluke, Diane Rehm would never have heard of her.
Do you think Schafly invited herself on the show, or was it Diane's bookers who invited her?
And you still refuse to explain why Schlafly LIED on her program. Keep it up Tillious, blame someone else for Schlafly's LIES. Is someone paying you for this nonsense? I hope so. I wish someone would pay me for trying to set you and everyone else here straight.
vageiger wrote:
Dude, I do not like Hillary, I am not all the enamoured with Obama and his killer drones, and on and on
-----------------------------
What's your beef with Hillary and "killer drones?"
You are just not going to address the issue of why Schlafly lied are you? Sorry dude, I got work tomorrow, Rehm ain't goin' to come and explain and you just got BS about side poop to respond. G'night.
vageiger wrote:
"And you still refuse to explain why Schlafly LIED on her program. Keep it up Tillious, blame someone else for Schlafly's LIES. Is someone paying you for this nonsense? I hope so. I wish someone would pay me for trying to set you and everyone else here straight."
---------------------------------------
What's with all the Strung Und Drang about Schlafly? She doesn't have any political or cultural power. She is a private citizen. I have not seen your indignant posts when Diane's journalist guests routinely make factual errors on the Friday News Roundup. Leaving listeners with misinformation is Diane's stock in trade.
Sorry Marcus, I have excoriated the guests on this show who support Obamas murder with drones, and on Talk of the Nation, a show that really pushes war, I have also called on Rehm to be honest on this issue in the past. sigh... the lies just go on.... and Schlafly is just another liar. Why do you not address the fact that she lied? Why go after why I or someone else did not go after this or that.... why do you not accept thaty she lied and Rehm let her get away with it. that is the real issue. We are goin to get scdrewed by the corporations that sought with the Senate amendment by Blunt, to assert that OUR money is THEIRS. that is the real issue and it is going to just go by, and no one is going to say, hey, benefits are paid from employee money, not the corporations, but they will get contro of that as well, thanks to you and diane rehm. so congrats, the corporations win and the rest of us loose.... raise a glass and sing.... and put on another show that lets the corporations have their say, by proxy such as schlfafly or someone else, and get Tullious in the comments, saying the corporations should win.... sigh....
I've admired Diane Rehm for years, but I was incensed that she let Phyllis Schlafly get by with such outrageous nonsense today. The other guests were patient and professional in their efforts to correct the record, as guests should be -- it's up to the host of a show to call out lies and misrepresentations, and to ensure that they are countered. Why didn't Diane stand up to Schlafly? Surely she doesn't agree with those bizarre claims... does she?
Does she?
I find Phyllis Schlafly to be both repellant and fascinating.
How one woman can hate her fellow women so very much!
And the mental pretzels she must twist herself into to justify condemning the very people who have worked so hard for the freedoms she takes for granted today!
Hearing an interview with her is like stepping into a time machine and sharing a meal with Bull Connor.
Ms. Schlafly is truly the last gasp of a thankfully bygone era of a certain brand of hatred.
Honestly, I didn't know she was still around—I guess the misogyny speaking gigs pay well.
Thank you Diane for exposing this persons nonsensical views to the light of reality.
(although I was a little surprised that you let her get away with branding the innocent Ms. Fluke as a "kook")
Great show as always Diane!
Ms Dancy: stated
"Problem is, many faith-based institutions don’t want to give up providing health insurance because of the profits they would lose."
Not true Ms Dancy
Many faith based institutions are in the faith base business of caring for people (Christa San Rosa) big hospital corporations started by the Sisters of Charity. How about the Baptist and Methodist Hospital we have down here in South Texas? Many of these institutions provide health coverage for their employees.
And since when do you think their is big money in health insurance. It is only around 4% to 10% profitability.
I haven't read all 200+ comments, so I may be repeating, but I feel like having Phyllis Schlafly, a once-powerful force in the conservative movement, now with diminished speaking ability and comprehension skills at 87 years old, opposite this young, well-spoken and with-it women was unfair. When I heard her name I thought, "What? She's still around?" That's the point. She's not current. I don't want to sound ageist, and I am all for seniors continuing to work and contribute their entire lives, but the combination of guests made for weak conversation with frequent deviation from the real questions. Diane, why couldn't you have at least paired Ms. Schlafly with a younger counterpart? Or was this a deliberate attempt to weaken the conservative point of view? I sincerely hope not.
She was just letting Mrs. Schlafly dig her own grave, and make conservatives look ridiculous, in my opinion. (This is in response to Carol Kearns's earlier comment comment.)
Dear Meangreen: Thanks for introducing some actual facts into this discussion. But, as someone who has long worked for nonprofits, earning between 4 and 10 percent sounds pretty darn good. Don’t get me wrong. Non-profit organizations have got to make money somehow, if they are to be sustainable, and by developing as many profit centers as possible, they are able to fulfil their mission as charitable institutions. I support the work of faith-based organizations. They play a crucial role on our behalf in American society. But what I don’t get is how the rights and privileges of institutions – now matter how honorable they may be – trump the rights and privileges of individual citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Somehow I don’t think the framers had Catholic charities in mind with the First Amendment, but then, Obama, et al, apparently agree with you, not me, on this. -- Ms Darcy
JackWAMU wrote:
"I find Phyllis Schlafly to be both repellant and fascinating.
How one woman can hate her fellow women so very much!...I guess the misogyny speaking gigs pay well"
---------------------------------------------------------
You just won the Bill Maher hypocrisy award. It's Kosher to be a misogynist as long as your misogyny is directed towards a conservative women. Perhaps you should ask yourself how a man can hate a women so very much. While you are at it, ask how NOW can hate their fellow women who happen to be conservatives.
------------------------------------------
JackWAMU wrote:
"...although I was a little surprised that you let her get away with branding the innocent Ms. Fluke as a "kook")"
--------------------------------------------
Fluke is innocent? She must be the only adult human on the planet to manage that.
vageiger wrote:
"Just so it is clear. Phyllis Schlafly lied on this program in saying 'she was paying" for Sandra Fluke's contraception. Schlafly does not pay for anyone elses contraception insurance, employees, or students pay, for their own insurance, and to try to have a say in what that covers only means saying they want a voice in what their money is paying for, not their university or employers."
OK, I have only skimmed some of that, but what I grasp is that vageiger is arguing that because employers are paying for (at least a portion of) an employee's health insurance this is deferred income to the employee because otherwise, the employer would just be giving that additional money to the employee and the employee would be paying for the insurance completely themselves, ergo, it is the employee that is paying, not the employer, right? Do I have that right? I just want to make sure, before I deconstruct that argument.
I wish I had had an opportunity to call in (I listened to the podcast that evening); once Phyllis Schlafly talked about the Massachusetts Senate race (Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren) and that with a "Democratic Senate she couldn't get confirmed" I stopped trusting anything she said. The Republicans in the Senate prevented any vote on a director to the consumer financial protection bureau to the extent that the President had to use a recess appointment.
I don't mind hearing both sides of an argument so long as they are honest about what they claim as facts (I don't even mind if their facts are wrong (misguided?)). Her twist went far beyond "Spin" and has now convinced me to not pay attention to anything she, or her organization, puts out. I am even disappointed Diane didn't call her out on a lot of her statements of "fact".
Yes, the candidates need your vote in order to increase their chances of winning. And like EVERY politician, they will tell you what they think you need to hear in order to get your vote. You will be wooed, lied to, taken advantage of, and manipulated as this is the way of all things political. If you are looking to politicians to solve our Countries problems, I would submit you are looking in the wrong place. Politicians are chameleons who change their color to be all things to all people. Getting in bed with a politician, or a political ideology, is a dangerous proposition; you will get the short end of the stick as soon as your "needs" are no longer of value to the politician or party. As American's, we need to stop looking at our issues as if they need a political solution. If the issue is Women's health, we need Health Care Professionals to be providing the answers, not politicians. How the President of the United States or any other Government Official gets a say in what a woman can and cannot do with her own body is ludicrous! What's best or right for one person, may not work for another. That one party or the other is better for women is a red herring argument meant to appeal to your emotions and get a desired response, i.e. get your vote! You know what you need better than anyone else, and this is America, surely you can find it without waiting for a politician to give it to you! Free yourself from the idea that you have to get your solutions from someone else. Women are more than capable of leading, so why do you need a politician to be your mouthpiece? Put political ideology in the rear view mirror and make some real progress in solving your issues.
ecgberht - you have it right. Deconstruct away....