Martha McSally takes on ‘war on women’, tightens her race
posted at 4:41 pm on October 29, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham
Retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally, running as a Republican in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District, put the Democrats’ “war on women” message into perspective at a campaign event last week. The nation’s first female combat fighter pilot, McSally hasn’t taken kindly to being cast as part of Republicans’ alleged “war on women,” especially when Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s PAC decided to go after her with a kitchen-themed attack ad she called “overtly sexist.”
I’ve seen critiques of her comments from the left, which contend the truly heartbreaking circumstances of women elsewhere should not preclude criticism of circumstances at home. True, but what McSally is doing here is more than deflection. She’s positioning herself among those who have fought for women’s rights, here and abroad, and she’s got more claim to that position than most candidates. She’s also recognizing what it’s taken national Democrats too long to see— that women voters are not solely focused on abortion policy or Lilly Ledbetter, but on their livelihoods, their checkbooks, and making things work for their families in tough times.
Barber, formerly an aide to Rep. Gabby Giffords who was injured Jared Loughner’s attack on the congresswoman, is vying to keep the seat he won in a special election. The district is a swing district, and after redistricting is almost equal parts Republican, Democrat, and Independent. Most have considered chances of a GOP victory in the seat low, thanks in part to the tremendous good will Giffords and Barber maintain in the district, but McSally has insisted the race is tighter than conventional wisdom suggests.
Political analyst Stu Rothenberg offered some supporting evidence Friday when AZ-2 went from a rating of Democrat Favored to Lean Democrat in his ratings system.
The national press also took notice late last week, with a very positive Washington Post profile of McSally, which calls her “feisty and funny, blunt and occasionally profane,” with “obvious relish for blazing the most difficult trails.” The writer picked up on these anecdotes, which both made me laugh:
When former Republican senator Rick Santorum took a stand against women in combat during his presidential bid, McSally went on television and said she “wanted to go kick him in the Jimmy” for saying that.
She went to a private lunch earlier this month to persuade an elusive donor to give to her campaign. “And I didn’t even have to give the pitch, because he said right away he was going to give me $2,500,” McSally recalled. “You know what I said? Are you married? Not because I wanted to date him! Because I wanted to know if he had a wife who could max out, too!”
The whole thing is worth a read. Barber’s campaign had Giffords’ husband Mark Kelly go after McSally in the wake of the article, which again suggests it’s closer than Democrats would like.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here
Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
The other difference is the police and other government agencies don’t typically have cops just walk into the store to buy something. They usually buy in bulk on a contract that goes through the Request For Proposals (RFP) process where the manufacturer or a wholesale distributor provides bids on what they will sell to the agency and for what price.
Besides, if it’s a gun store in a place like NY – he already can’t sell those weapons locally, so he’s not likely to have anything in the store anyway.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM
“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.
J_Crater on February 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM
I’d bet Romney’s $10k that violent crime rates go UP in the areas where law-abiding citizens’ gun rights are violated.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM
But apparently Obama and his illegitimate NLRB can tell private companies where they may and may not build plants, witness Boeing. Every time somebody says but but but something-or-other can’t happen, I just laugh. Then groan.
Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Evidently, some ammunition companies are also refusing to sell to government – both because of 2d Amendment issues, and because of concerns about the quantity of ammunition some national government organizations are acquiring.
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Who’s doing this though?
Can’t find a comprehensive list anywhere. Jazz???
Also, from what I HAVE seen of the list, they’re mostly all small time companies – many I’ve never even heard of. So unless we see some big names join this list – S&W, Remington, Winchester, Colt, etc – I don’t see this causing much impact to the government entities they’re targeting.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Perhaps not. However, “the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s and WILL use their guns, without hesitation, to execute these crafted laws.
And by the way, “the cops” don’t function based upon law … they function upon chain-of-command orders.
Carnac on February 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM
I don’t recall which ammunition companies were cited. I seem to recall the information was on a firearms blog/forum. (Which I will never be able to find right now.)
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM
I was hoping if Hot Air is going to post a thread on this topic, they would have a link to an actual comprehensive list somewhere.
I have the same problem with Fox News – way too many articles referring to photos or other things – but they don’t include the relevant photo or even links to it or other items.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM
here you go:
blog 1
blog 2
Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM
.
If you believe LEO’s are Nazi’s willing to follow any order handed down the chain of command, you know nothing about LEO’s.
In my experience, they are MORE tuned in to the failings of politicians than your average person because they live with the “unintended consequences” politicians generate.
Please spare us your OWS, gramatically challenged ““the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s” nonsense.
I have never met a LEO/Mil who wanted to be on the wrong side of 100:1 odds – and 95% of both groups have NO illusions about what it would be likeif some jacka$$ politician ordered them to confiscate legally owned weapons.
PolAgnostic on February 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM
I think it depends on the cops themselves and where they are.
My county sheriff has publicly stated he will NOT enforce any laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. Some of the city cops I’m not so sure about – although most of the cops I’ve known personally would more likely be on our side (us “gun nuts” that is) of this issue.
However, if you look at comments made by some chiefs/sheriffs from places like Baltimore and Chicago, I get the impression they seem to be very willing to run out and start confiscating weapons – from law-abiding citizens – probably not so quick from the gang-bangers who are the actual problem.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM
if the LEO’s don’t like it .. vote the b*stards out that crafted this “law”
conservative tarheel on February 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM
oh and you can add Barrett to the list.
conservative tarheel on February 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Thanks for posting those lists.
However, now that I’ve seen the lists, they confirm my concern that this is mainly an advertising gimmick for the little guys who depend on the pro-gun civilian customer base. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of it. But I doubt these companies are major sources of weapons and equipment for government agencies – who typically buy in large quantities via RFP. So this will have little to no impact unless the big boys jump in. Until S&W, Remington, Glock, Winchester, and other big manufacturers/distributors get in, it’s kind of a hollow gesture – or perhaps a hollow point (ok – bad pun, couldn’t resist ;) ).
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Not going ot happen with Remington. That’s owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a notoriously left-wing company. They also own Bushmaster, DPMS Firearms, Marlin (owned by Remington),and Advanced Armament Corporation, all of which were organized under the umbrella of Freedom Group, which, last I checked, Cerberus was trying to dump after Sandy Hook. Don’t know if they succeeded, though.
totherightofthem on February 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Darn – I should have looked that up before I bought my Marlin .22. I had one back in HS and it was a decent little rifle, and they’re cheap, so I got another for target plinking. I guess I should have paid a bit more and got the Ruger.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM
It just means the cops won’t get special deals for being cops
Sounds good to me
Feel sad for the good cops, if a couple years down the road, their bosses are buying them buffoon guns from the ‘bend over’ manufacturers willing to issue Bloomberg approved non hurtful weapons
entagor on February 26, 2013 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3