NOW: Brown win in Massachusetts result of sexist oppression, or something
posted at 2:55 pm on January 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
It doesn’t take long for people on the Left to blame bigotry for their electoral losses, does it? NOW blasted Massachusetts voters for their sexism after the shocking defeat of the Democrats and the loss of the seat controlled by Kennedy men over the last 50 years:
[NOW President Terry O’Neill] said the “male-dominated Democratic Party” is not doing women any favors by bringing in anti-abortion zealots,” slamming Nelson and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who amendment to restrict abortion coverage in the House health bill passed minutes before the final vote.
“Women are clearly harmed” by these lawmakers, O’Neill said. “Shame on the male-dominated Democratic Party for supporting them. They hold themselves out as the party that is women-friendly; well they’re not acting like it.”
“And that has a lot to do with why Martha Coakley lost this election,” O’Neill alleged, explaining the Democrats’ loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat with an argument that few others have made.
Few others have made it because it’s only slightly less irresponsible than blaming the supposedly racist imagery of pickup trucks. For that matter, it even more nonsensical when one considers the fact that (a) Coakley won the primary over Michael Capuano and his Y chromosome that O’Neill thinks is so highly prized in Democratic Party leadership, (b) she has already won one state-wide election to the AG position, and (c) Coakley committed so many gaffes in a one-week stretch that even Joe Biden had to envy her.
Just like Olbermann’s hypocritical rant, O’Neill can’t seem to accept that the agenda of the Democratic Party has gotten so radical that even Bay Staters have begun to rebel against it. And that’s particularly ironic, considering that her main motive in talking to Raw Story was to demand that ObamaCare be killed in Congress — just like Scott Brown:
As Democrats weigh options for health reform following a major setback in the Massachusetts election, the nation’s leading womens’ rights group blasted the legislation as “beyond outrageous.”
The National Organization for Women (NOW) harbors deep concerns with the Senate health legislation, and exclaims that “women will be better off with no bill whatsoever.”
“The Senate bill contains such fierce anti-abortion language, and there are other problems from the point of view of women,” NOW’s President Terry O’Neill told Raw Story in an interview.
O’Neill said NOW “will not support candidates in 2010 if they vote for it.”
Let’s walk through the logic of this for a moment. O’Neill says that the bill damages the standing of women and that her organization will not support any Congressional incumbent who votes for it. Scott Brown campaigned explicitly to kill the bill, even calling himself the 41st vote and signing autographs with the number ’41’ alongside. Coakley, on the other hand, campaigned explicitly on supporting the bill that O’Neill opposes, which means that according to O’Neill, Coakley wouldn’t have gotten her vote in 2010.
In this case, if one attempts to follow this logic, then Brown should have gotten the NOW endorsement (especially since he’s moderately pro-choice) — and O’Neill should be thrilled that the candidate who best represents NOW’s position on the biggest domestic policy issue won the election.
Oh, right, I forgot. Brown has that pesky Y chromosome, which is apparently all O’Neill really opposes.