Romney’s Approach to Women Voters – Is He Clueless?


This is a special Mother’s Day Pink Flamingo rant and rave, dedicated to the abject stupidity of the Romney campaign.  Enough is enough.  Fools have been made of the whole GOP defending Ann Romney’s right to be a stay at home mom.  I don’t even know why anyone is making a big deal over this – except that Romney can get some traction and take a little attention from his pathetically doomed to fail flip-flopping campaign.

Mitt Romney is losing, big time, with women, The Pink Flamingo included.  For those who don’t understand why, this should say it all.  The man doesn’t comprehend that women want the same thing as men.  I don’t think the Hilary Rosen flap is going to make a bit of difference, not in the long run.  I think, eventually, it will only serve to hurt Romney.  When he ran Bain Capital only 10% of his workforce were women.  He said he couldn’t find women who had enough executive experience to run with the big dogs.

The Pink Flamingo was going to drop the whole Romney woman thing, then I saw this abjectly deplorable ad that is being run supporting super-mom, Ann Romney.  Pardon me while I puke.  This is deplorable.  There’s no point to it.  It makes no sense, other than to say that women who stay at  home and raise five boys with five nannies, servants and fuzzy bunny slippers are better than those of us who have chosen not to stay at home and not to have kids. It is insulting.

Romney keeps repeating the canard that 92% of the jobs lost since Obama has been in office are women’s jobs.  It’s just plain old not true.  Only 39.7% of jobs were lost by women.  The rest were lost by men.  One wonders if Clueless is capable of telling the difference between men and women.

“…Although Romney’s specious statistics were designed to scare women into thinking that the Obama administration has somehow vaporized huge numbers of women’s jobs while leaving men virtually unscathed, that’s hardly the reality. Of all the jobs lost since 2007, only 39.7 percent were held by women; more than 60 percent were held by men. The recession has been terrible for everyone, and it hit women’s jobs somewhat later than it hit men’s jobs, but it’s not as if anyone escaped unscathed….”

Such a muddle has been made of the whole gender issue, thanks to the idiots of the RNC and the GOP House,

“...Yes I did!” Fugelsang replied. “Hey, I’m sorry, but they’re doing it to women, it’s relevant, it’s political and it’s moral to bring it up. When you’ve got Governor Scott Walker repealing the Equal Pay for Women Act on Good Friday with minimal media coverage, women in Wisconsin can’t find out if they’re being paid less than men for the same jobs, the Democrats have a point. But as long as they keep using a violent expression like war on women they can’t complain that the GOP is trying to turn it against them.”…”

Daily Beast

If Mitt Romney were really not all that clueless about women, why is his campaign treating Sarah Palin like dirt?

“…Then there’s the way Romney handles questions about his message to women; conservative Republican women say he has to work do to on that front.Virtually every time, Romney answers by invoking his wife of 43 years, and reports what’s she’s told him about what women want.

“She reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy, and getting good jobs for their kids and for themselves,” Romney told the Newspaper Association of America on Wednesday. “They are concerned about gasoline prices, the cost of getting to and from work, taking their kids to school or to practice and so forth after school. That is what women care about in this country, and my vision is to get America working again.”…”

Barack Obama has taken then gender gap and blown it up over Mitt Romney’s perfect hair.  He has an 18 point lead over Romney.  That’s almost insurmountable. How does Romney respond?

Raw Story

If ever there was a perfect example as to why this man is a disaster if he is nominated, it is the fact that his campaign is calling it a Dem war on women.  You can accuse the Dems of a heck of a lot of stuff, but not a ‘war on women’. Lord have Mercy the man is clueless and tone deaf.

“…”I think males were disproportionately hurt by employment losses in manufacturing and especially construction, which is particularly male-dominated. A lot of job losses in those two industries had already occurred before Obama took office,” he said. “Industries where women are more likely to be employed – education, health, the government – fared better in terms of job loss. In fact, health and education employment continued to grow in the recession and in the subsequent recovery.  Government employment only began to fall after the private economy (and private employment) began growing again.”

Betsey Stevenson, a business and public policy professor at Princeton University, also pointed out that “in every recession men’s job loss occurs first and most, with unemployment rates for men being more cyclical than those of women’s.”

She added that many of women’s job losses have been government jobs — teachers and civil servants — which have been slower to come back because they require greater government spending.

So have Obama’s policies been especially bad for women?

Said Stevenson: “I don’t think you could point to a single piece of evidence that the pattern of job loss: men first then women, is due to the president’s policies. It’s a historical pattern that has held in previous recessions.”…”


“...Romney continued his freshly hatched campaign strategy of trying to turn women against Obama by declaring the president to be the real political enemy of America’s female electorate.

“He’s lost 800,000 jobs during his presidency and by the way, do you know what percentage of those jobs lost were lost by women?” Romney said. “Over 92 percent of the jobs lost under this president were lost by women. His polices have been really a war on women.”

Fact-checkers have attacked Romney’s 92 percent charge, noting that the same pattern has existed in previous recessions and isn’t specific to Obama. But that doesn’t mean Romney is likely to part with it any time soon….”

But, Romney thinks he knows what women want – more of his wife, Ann!  No, The Pink Flamingo is not making this up.  Is it possible that this man, this highly successful business man is just plain utterly clueless?


Mitt Romney continues to make mistakes as he panders through his way to the nomination.  Now, he’s letting his wife reach out to women.

“...She has, in fact, recently begun targeting women – a demographic Republicans desperately need – talking about the economy and jobs. “I wish Ann, my wife were here,” Mitt Romney told a crowd in Wisconsin Sunday, flagging her efforts. “She’s going across the country and talking with women. We have work to do, to make sure we take our message to the women of America.”…”

It’s official – I’m insulted.  I’m puzzled.  If the situation weren’t so critical, it would be almost laughable.  Does this man even have a clue about dealing with the real world?





Brent Budowsky says it well:

“…Republicans continue their war against pay equity for women, and Rosen does not change that. Republicans continue their war against contraceptives, and Rosen does not affect that. Republicans continue their attacks on women’s rights to bring lawsuits against discrimination. Republicans continue their vendettas against programs that improve women’s health. Republicans continue their attacks against programs that serve working women, poor women and their daughters and sons.

Ron Paul would probably secretly adore Rosen, for reasons his hero Ayn Rand and his idols the Austrian economists would appreciate: their shared adoration of the glory of the selfish, the cult of self-indulgence and the creed of greed in all forms.

As for Mitt Romney, he thinks this will help him, but it won’t. He already has the support of the 1 percent. Most of the 99 percent would think that Romney, Paul, Ayn Rand and Hilary Rosen are birds of a feather who join together and have much in common with each other, and little in common with the real women and real men of the real America….”

The other day, I was talking to an non-political person about her impression of Ann Romney.  She said something I wasn’t expecting.  “I don’t like the way she’s is trying to meddle and campaign as if she were a policy maker.  She’s not.  She’s a candidate’s wife.  I don’t vote for candidate’s spouses.  I don’t like them meddling.

Case in point, the NRA convention.  I’ve never known of a political spouse addressing the convention, unless they were involved in guns, hunting, or gun rights.  Ann Romney does none of these.

The worst part of this, the Mitt Romney from this 1994 video is someone worth voting for. It’s not the Mitt Romney seen today. That’s what makes me so mad.

What is so ironic, if Mitt Romney would stop flip-flopping, and live up to his past, he could win this election.  What he said in this clip is excellent.  It certainly does not have anything to do with this crap that James Tarento wrote the other day.

“...In truth, anti-momism was the very heart of “The Feminine Mystique.” Friedan’s argument was that motherhood and homemaking were soul-deadening occupations and that pursuing a professional career was the way for a woman to “become complete.” She agreed with the midcentury misogynists that a stay-at-home mother was, in Friedan’s words, “castrative to her husband and sons.” But she emphasized that women were “fellow victims.”

The book might as well have been titled “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” Today, of course, she can, and because feminism has entailed a diminution of male responsibility, she often has no choice. As we’ve noted, an increasing number of women are choosing domestic life, finding it a liberating alternative to working for a boss. But to do so requires a husband with considerable means.

Fifty years ago, Ann Romney’s life would have made her just a regular woman. Today, she is a countercultural figure–someone who lives in a way that the dominant culture regards with a hostile disdain. And she has chosen to live that way, which is why Hilary Rosen, as an intellectual heiress to Betty Friedan, regards her as a villain rather than a victim….”

THIS is why the GOP is going to lose in November.  It is because of Neanderthals who are taking advantage of a situation to continue to promote their antiquated views about women.  You won’t hear any of them writing the following:

“…Unequal policies hurt families. Unequal wages for women add up to huge hits on families. For example, the typical woman loses a whopping $431,000 in pay over a 40-year career.

Women still earn just 77 cents on the dollar compared to men doing the same work, despite the passage of the Pay Equity Act more than 50 years ago. Even the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill President Barack Obama signed, was still opposed almost unanimously by Republicans — including many now involved with the Romney campaign….”

Then again, people like the once respected Tarento now work for a media empire that favors hard-core Randian economics.  They are supporting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who, with the stroke of a pen, did away with equal pay for women.  I guess they really do think women are second class citizens.



2 thoughts on “Romney’s Approach to Women Voters – Is He Clueless?

  1. If Romney’s campaign is “doomed to fail” then why is he leading in the polls right now…? You did a lot of work on this piece; you could have at least done some checking first.

  2. Good comment. State by state, electorally, he’s in really deep trouble. I don’t give any credibility to Rasmussen, who is in the tank with Rove and FOX. Also, until the polls start putting Gary Johnson into the mix, they’re inaccurate. Johnson is pulling at least 16% here in NM. He’s doing extremely well in OK, where the whole state GOP nearly blew up yesterday over the idiocy of the Romney plants. There was at least one poll this week that has Romney way down with women.


Comments are closed.