More Mitt Romney surrogates hit back on “war on women” rhetoric

posted at 5:58 pm on April 11, 2012 by Tina Korbe

All day long, press releases have poured into my inbox from the Mitt Romney camp with subject lines like these: “Kelly Ayotte: Women hardest hit by failed Obama policies” and “Cathy McMorris Rodgers: President Obama’s policies are not working for women.”

Such releases confirm: We are now officially in the throes of Barack Obama’s war with GOP women. I’ve gotta say: I’m relieved to see we’re defending ourselves. At some point, enough was enough. Scarcely anything has so angered me as the suggestion — implicit in the phrase “GOP war on women” — that we as Republican women are somehow less capable of recognizing and working for what is best for ourselves than are Democratic women. It seems never to have occurred to President Obama or to liberal women that to say the GOP is waging a war on women is to say that GOP women are waging a war on themselves. Why, why, why would we do that?

As Ayotte, McMorris Rodgers and others have pointed out today, we have good reasons to be Republicans — and they don’t all have to do with reproduction, which is an important part but not the whole of our lives as women. I’m republishing their statements in full here. Excuse the outright shilling for Mitt Romney and focus on what these women highlight about Obama’s damaging effect on women’s economic prospects.

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte:

President Obama refuses to address the fact that women have been hit hardest by his failed economic policies. The poverty rate among women is the highest it has been in nearly two decades, and women have seen massive job losses during his presidency. President Obama’s proposals for higher taxes and more regulation will do nothing to bring our economy back. Women deserve a president who will ensure that they have the opportunity to prosper. Mitt Romney will create an economic environment where women, and all Americans, will be able to find lasting employment.

Former Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey:

If President Obama wants to talk about a ‘war on women,’ he should start by looking at his own economic policies. It is clear that women have become the biggest casualty of the Obama economy. Women account for more than 92 percent of the jobs that have been lost on President Obama’s watch. That is simply inexcusable. We need a president who will make sure that women have the opportunity to prosper. The Obama presidency has set women’s economic security back twenty years. No amount of political spin or sideshows can hide that fact.

Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers:

For more than three years, President Obama’s disastrous economic policies have wreaked havoc on women in the workplace with record levels of unemployment and the highest poverty rate in nearly two decades. Now the President has doubled down on his record of failure by proposing even more regulations and more taxes that will make it more difficult for women to find jobs. Mitt Romney supports pay equity for women and, as president, will do what President Obama has not – implement pro-growth economic policies that will allow women and all Americans to finally get back to work.

California Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack:

Barack Obama talks a good game on women in the economy, but the facts don’t back him up. Women in the Obama economy are facing hardships of historical proportions. Unemployment among women is at record levels and the number of women in poverty has risen to a near-two decade high. Everyone knows that President Obama has presided over massive job losses during his term. What they may not know is that women account for the vast majority of those lost jobs. All the Obama Administration has to offer is more of the same. Simply put, women cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama.

Now, having done my PR duty and with all due gratitude for and agreement with these statements, I offer this caveat: It’s great to see GOP women defending themselves, but it’s not necessarily as great to see Romney use this as a campaign strategy. As long as Romney is hitting Obama on the economy within the “war on women” context, he’s still playing defense — but he’s going to have to act like the next president if he wants the American people to recognize him as the next president. What does he want to talk about? What’s first on his agenda? That’s what he needs to play up — and not with any transitional phrases like, “Obama wants to talk about a war on women … “


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Thank you.. Because common sense should tell you that monetary support trumps birth control everyday!

melle1228 on April 11, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Sorry to say, but it won’t be enough . . . Mitt Romney is the wrong person to make the argument in any case.

Pragmatic on April 11, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Pragmatic on April 11, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Yeah sweetheart, yeah.

cozmo on April 11, 2012 at 6:05 PM

“Both congresswomen (Mack and Rodgers) voted against the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 — which empowers women to seek restitution for pay discrimination — and both voted against the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have made it easier for women to fight pay inequality.”

Great surrogates.

Mmm...Burritos on April 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Pragmatic on April 11, 2012 at 6:04 PM

I know a good bridge you can jump off of.

rubberneck on April 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM

As long as Romney is hitting Obama on the economy within the “war on women” context, he’s still playing defense

Eh? You mean Romney is turning the war on women nonsense into a tool to beat up on Obama with about the economy? Sounds like he’s spinning it to his advantage rather than playing defense.

Dead Hand Control on April 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Now, having done my PR duty and with all due gratitude for and agreement with these statements, I offer this caveat: It’s great to see GOP women defending themselves, but it’s not necessarily as great to see Romney use this as a campaign strategy. As long as Romney is hitting Obama on the economy within the “war on women” context, he’s still playing defense — but he’s going to have to act like the next president if he wants the American people to recognize him as the next president. What does he want to talk about? What’s first on his agenda? That’s what he needs to play up — and not with any transitional phrases like, “Obama wants to talk about a war on women … “

Seriously, Tina? Look, one of the biggest complaints about George Bush was that he didn’t fight back when attacked. Romney has been accused of waging a war on women (along with the rest of the GOP). He is fighting back. And weren’t conservatives wringing their hands over Romney allegedly being a wimpy RINO who doesn’t have the stones to take on Obama?

He is perfectly capable of playing both defense and offense, and he is laying out his “agenda”. This is a really silly criticism…

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:08 PM

watching the left react desperately when their own tactics are used against them makes me smile.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM

If President Obama wants to talk about a ‘war on women,’ he should start by looking at his own economic policies. It is clear that women have become the biggest casualty of the Obama economy. Women account for more than 92 percent of the jobs that have been lost on President Obama’s watch. That is simply inexcusable.

Where did she get THAT statistic from? Do we really know that 92% of the jobs were lost by women, which would mean that jobs lost by women outnumber those lost by men by 11 to 1?

If that could be proven, it could be devastating to Obama’s idea of promoting women’s welfare, but it sounds too bad to be true.

Steve Z on April 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Steve Z on April 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Are Obama’s job policies hurting women?

In an effort to fight back against Democratic claims of a Republican “war on women,” the Republican National Committee has rolled out a new and startling fact—that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men.

We found this statistic surprising because we had been under the impression that men had fared worse than women in the recession. So do the RNC’s numbers add up?
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.”

If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:

TRUE BUT FALSE

When you see that WAPO is doing everything they can to attack the stat and the best they can come up with is true but false, it must be a pretty good figure.

Dead Hand Control on April 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Tina, absolutely agree with your take on this. Rmoney™ is going to have to keep his eye on his end of the deal. The rest will have to be taken up by, well the rest of us.

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

So all the people who said Romney wouldn’t attack Obama were wrong? Or does it only count if he babbles about birth certificates, college transcripts, and black panthers?

Client Number Nine on April 11, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Romney needs to stop getting himself sucked in to Barack’s BullSh*t Game of the Day.

Key West Reader on April 11, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Of course is it a Republican war on women. It is just like conservatives hate blacks. First you have to define women, and define black. Blacks are people are dark skin color that live on the Democratic plantation. Ergo if you don’t live on the Democratic plantation you can’t be black. According to this logic (ahem) Alan West, Thomas Sowell, well actually any person of dark skin that has a conservative bent is not a real black person.

So what they mean is that a conservative, good looking, successful, non-male person can not be a women. Well not a real women. Real women first of all live on the Democratic plantation (see DWS) and can recite robotically all Democratic talking points without any reference to the actual conversation. Real women hate men, especially white men and non-real black men.

So you see only conservatives can have a war on women. To understand you just have to think crazy talk for a moment.

odannyboy on April 11, 2012 at 6:20 PM

True conservatives complain that Romney won’t take on Obama. Romney takes on Obama. True conservatives complain.

Wtf.

Swerve22 on April 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I’m a woman and even I’m sick and tired of hearing about women.

moonsbreath on April 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM

So all the people who said Romney wouldn’t attack Obama were wrong? Or does it only count if he babbles about birth certificates, college transcripts, and black panthers?

Client Number Nine on April 11, 2012 at 6:17 PM

I would say “nice try, but it’s gonna take a lot more than rehashed talking points about that stuff.”

Seriously, those topics are dead horses because John Q. Public is too stupid to give a darn about them. He could’ve been born on Mars, slept through every class, and promoted to Grand Kitty and it wouldn’t matter.

MelonCollie on April 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Another day. Another distraction. Thanks Hotair.

Mmm...Burritos on April 11, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Romney needs to stop getting himself sucked in to Barack’s BullSh*t Game of the Day.

Key West Reader on April 11, 2012 at 6:19 PM

You’re right. It’s hard to believe how political campaigns get caught up in this kind of rhetoric, whether it’s the War On Women or War On Religion. Most voters, especially independents, are focused much more on the economy.

bayam on April 11, 2012 at 6:25 PM

He is perfectly capable of playing both defense and offense, and he is laying out his “agenda”. This is a really silly criticism…

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Tina, there is no war on women by the GOP. It’s seriously disgusting that you even dare address this issue. You only provide them fodder….

ladyingray on April 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM

True conservatives complain that Romney won’t take on Obama. Romney takes on Obama. True conservatives complain.

Wtf.

Boy, it’s almost enough to make a man think that the “True Conservative” opposition to Romney isn’t entire grounded in rationality or something.

Esoteric on April 11, 2012 at 6:31 PM

As long as Romney is hitting Obama on the economy within the “war on women” context, he’s still playing defense

Exactly!! Doing well on a battlefield that Obama chose is all very well and good, but it’s NOT good enough to win the war. Mitt needs to force Obama to fight in Mitt’s battle space of choice! Nobody ever won a duel with a good parry….you win it with a thrust that reaches straight to the heart!

Lew on April 11, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Control the dialogue. That’s the game.

FlaMurph on April 11, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Seems more likely that Obama’s own thuggery and ineptitude are no match for Romney’s clean image and business experience.

America wants a President, not a community organizer.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The subtext is also noteworthy. Republican (especially Conservative) women are easy on the eyes and serve as a stark contrast to the equine hags on the Left. For being “victims” of war Republican women look like what you would want as the advance guard of a victory parade.

EMD on April 11, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Nicely done, Tina. Also implicit is the Democrats’ vulgar reduction of women to their wombs. The equivalent would be to say men only care about the little blue pill.

John the Libertarian on April 11, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Tina, there is no war on women by the GOP. It’s seriously disgusting that you even dare address this issue. You only provide them fodder….

ladyingray on April 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Wow. You’re thick as a brick. That is not at all what I said. Not even close. But hey, continue on with your fool’s errand, trying to find fault with my comment (without being able to articulate what it is you object to, to boot).

I see others^^^ are echoing my reaction to Tina’s complaint, so I look forward to your responses to them too – just for the entertainment value.

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Glad to see Romney is answering back. I want to see him rip Obama’s policies to shreds. I want Romney to NOT pull punches and NOT hold back.

If Romney hits Obama as hard as he hit the “conservatives” in the primary, I won’t hesitate to vote for him.

He has to EARN this vote from THIS woman. And I LOATHE Obama’s pandering to women. I find it insulting and demeaning.

karenhasfreedom on April 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM

True conservatives complain that Romney won’t take on Obama. Romney takes on Obama. True conservatives complain.

Wtf.

Boy, it’s almost enough to make a man think that the “True Conservative” opposition to Romney isn’t entire grounded in rationality or something.
Esoteric on April 11, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Ding.Ding.Ding.

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM

For being “victims” of war Republican women look like what you would want as the advance guard of a victory parade.

EMD on April 11, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Here’s to hoping Tina is in that parade.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM

eh, romney strategy is to pivot from the contraception,abortion and other social issues which the left painted as “war on women” and focus on obama economic legacy.
good!

nathor on April 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM

The subtext is also noteworthy. Republican (especially Conservative) women are easy on the eyes and serve as a stark contrast to the equine hags on the Left. For being “victims” of war Republican women look like what you would want as the advance guard of a victory parade.

EMD on April 11, 2012 at 6:39 PM

THIS!!!! I am going to be a female chauvinist conservative here, but man, those libs on tv (with a few exceptions like Kirsten), are just so unattractive and angry. I think they are unattractive and angry because they have no satisfying personal life because they don’t understand that men RUN from unattractive and angry women. Who needs that in their lives and homes?

Yeah, I went there.

karenhasfreedom on April 11, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Excuse the outright shilling for Mitt Romney and focus on what these women highlight about Obama’s damaging effect on women’s economic prospects Tina Korbe.

A shill, plant or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or she is secretly working for.

It’s easy to excuse Tina Korbe for using a word whose meaning she doesn’t understand. What’s harder to excuse are the continuing attempts to undermine Romney.

Basilsbest on April 11, 2012 at 6:46 PM

If there’s a “War on Women”, one look at Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will tell you Democrats are on the losing side.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It’s official! Hot Air is now gearing up for Santorum 2016. Expect a Paypal link to help retire Rick’s campaign debt to appear in the header in the next day or so.

Mr. Arkadin on April 11, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Eh? You mean Romney is turning the war on women nonsense into a tool to beat up on Obama with about the economy? Sounds like he’s spinning it to his advantage rather than playing defense.
Dead Hand Control on April 11, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So all the people who said Romney wouldn’t attack Obama were wrong? Or does it only count if he babbles about birth certificates, college transcripts, and black panthers?
Client Number Nine on April 11, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Oops, you get a Ding.Ding.Ding too:)

Tina, absolutely agree with your take on this. Rmoney™ is going to have to keep his eye on his end of the deal. The rest will have to be taken up by, well the rest of us.
Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Can someone translate this for me please? Or perhaps Bmore can rewrite it? Seriously, I haven’t got a clue what this means.

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:50 PM

This silly war on women thing beggun when Senator Whintorum attacked women who prefer to work in a job and not in the kitchen, then Whinetorum said women shouldn’t be fighting in the war (or something to that effect) and then the contraceptive debate. Now that Whinetorum is out this issue needs to go.

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM

begun.

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:54 PM

but it’s not necessarily as great to see Romney use this as a campaign strategy. As long as Romney is hitting Obama on the economy within the “war on women” context, he’s still playing defense — but he’s going to have to act like the next president if he wants the American people to recognize him as the next president.

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM

begun.

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Fuhgetaboutit!

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Of course my take on this quote would use my trademarked name for him. Rmoney™

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Oh and in case that isn’t clear enough. Defense is a losing strategy.

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Savy?

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Bye!

Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Oh and in case that isn’t clear enough. Defense is a losing strategy.
Bmore on April 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Offense and defense is a winning strategy.

Toodles!

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 7:08 PM

What does he want to talk about? What’s first on his agenda? That’s what he needs to play up — and not with any transitional phrases like, “Obama wants to talk about a war on women … “

Can not remember how many time McCain did very similar things.

Romney can not talk about his agenda. Every time he tries it is just Obama lite. Tax the rich by eliminating Charity deductions instead of increasing their tax rate is a great example.

But his son tells us the real reason.

Matt “Obama is doing a great job”.

Baring an act of God Romney is Obama lite. He still hates Republicans far more than Democrats and only loves Republicans that are really Democrats.

Steveangell on April 11, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Baring an act of God Romney is Obama lite. He still hates Republicans far more than Democrats and only loves Republicans that are really Democrats.

Steveangell on April 11, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Except with Romney, no Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarret, David Axelrod, Eric Holder, Turbo Timmy Geitner, Joe Biden, David Plouffe, et al…

PLUS, Romney has NEVER been an affirmative action community organizer. He actually had a job and worked for a living.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Kudos to the women in the clips for speaking up, and props to Tina & Hot Air for this post.

However, a little pushback is in order in that I respect them if they are calling folks to united behind Romney, unlike Tina’s point.

Maybe Tina & Hot Air should get cut some slack, since they’re likely still going through Santorum withdrawal.

But I have a feeling the ABRs who post here are going to get further unhinged over the next few months.

22044 on April 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Except with Romney, no Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarret, David Axelrod, Eric Holder, Turbo Timmy Geitner, Joe Biden, David Plouffe, et al…

PLUS, Romney has NEVER been an affirmative action community organizer. He actually had a job and worked for a living.

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM

You would ear your words on the part I left except Romney has no intention of winning. He just is making sure Obama gets a second term.

Mitt is the worst Candidate ever.

Steveangell on April 11, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Mitt Obama is the worst Candidate ever.

Steveangell on April 11, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Fixed it for you.

How much extra cash do you send the IRS each year because it’s only “fair”?

Roy Rogers on April 11, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Matt “Obama is doing a great job”.

False. This is what he said.

“I’m not here to talk about President Obama,” Matt said in the television interview. “I think he is great. I’m here to talk about my dad and what he would bring to the country.”

He was just being polite. I’m not so polite. You are deranged and dishonest.

Here’s the link to Matt Romney’s statement.

Basilsbest on April 11, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Nice move to send out the fairer sex surrogates on this one. There really are some pretty cool people lined up to get Romney’s message out there. People like Chris Christie and Paul Ryan–people that have already shown some talent for taking Obama down a notch or two. Should be an interesting summer.

Dee2008 on April 11, 2012 at 7:40 PM

But I have a feeling the ABRs who post here are going to get further unhinged over the next few months.
22044 on April 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM

The unhinged ABRs on this site will continue their mendacious attacks on Mitt until it’s clear that he’s going to be President. They will then claim credit for dragging him across the finish line. When Romney governs like a conservative they will claim it’s because they held his feet to the fire.

Basilsbest on April 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

You would ear your words on the part I left except Romney has no intention of winning. He just is making sure Obama gets a second term.
Steveangell on April 11, 2012 at 7:30 PM

But of course! Romney is the real Manchurian Candidate. His entire career has been crafted for this moment! His father must have met with The Communist Party of Mexico and planned the whole thing. George Romney was but a placeholder for Mitt, who was weaned on the mother’s milk of the Communist Manifesto, and he and his comrades are finally prepared to take over the world, with Obama as their puppet. (Insert Evil witch laugh)

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Seriously, Tina? Look, one of the biggest complaints about George Bush was that he didn’t fight back when attacked. Romney has been accused of waging a war on women (along with the rest of the GOP). He is fighting back. And weren’t conservatives wringing their hands over Romney allegedly being a wimpy RINO who doesn’t have the stones to take on Obama?

He is perfectly capable of playing both defense and offense, and he is laying out his “agenda”. This is a really silly criticism…

Buy Danish on April 11, 2012 at 6:08 PM

This +100000

I’m am so tired of people harping on Romney for what they perceive as his weaknesses. The guy is fighting back in a way NO other GOP contender was. People complained the McCain didn’t fight so when Romney does what do they do? Complain…. Hey Tina, if you knew anything you’d be working on a campaign not sniping at it from the sidelines….

tpw on April 11, 2012 at 8:34 PM

And for the ABBR’s out there. If you don’t like the guy fine and if you don’t vote him fine but I’ll hold you responsible for what Obama does to this country in the next four years….you guys are class A morons…..

tpw on April 11, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Control the dialogue. That’s the game.

FlaMurph on April 11, 2012 at 6:34 PM

…the Media controls the dialogue.

KOOLAID2 on April 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

But I have a feeling the ABRs who post here are going to get further unhinged over the next few months.
22044 on April 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM

The unhinged ABRs on this site will continue their mendacious attacks on Mitt until it’s clear that he’s going to be President. They will then claim credit for dragging him across the finish line. When Romney governs like a conservative they will claim it’s because they held his feet to the fire.

Basilsbest on April 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

…not really something to look forward to…is it?

KOOLAID2 on April 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM

that we as Republican women are somehow less capable of recognizing and working for what is best for ourselves than are Democratic women.

No, Tina. He’s saying that GOP women are a fifth column — overtly working against the interests of women overall.

Of course, when 50% of those aborted are female, and 30% of those aborted are black, we certainly can make the reverse claim that Mr. Obama is leading his own war on women — nothing like a snip snip to the spine to fix everything, right?

unclesmrgol on April 11, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Thank you, ladies for pointing out how Obama’s negative economic policies hurt those who are most vulnerable. The same thing is true for the poor and minorities. Wealthy whites are the last people affected by economic downturns, which is why Obama’s Hollywood support remains strong.

Everyone else wants actual solutions to real problems, not a manufactured narative.

talkingpoints on April 11, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM

begun.

Falz on April 11, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Try began.

S. D. on April 12, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Calling them “Mitt Romney Surrogates” in this thread not a real good idea Tina…

Bradky on April 12, 2012 at 6:59 AM

Because raising kids isn’t nearly as hard as a Chicago machine provided, make work job that was eliminated the very day Mooch left Chicago for Washington.

MNHawk on April 12, 2012 at 7:49 AM