GOP clutches its pearls after Hillary Clinton calls them out for extremist views on women’s reproductive rights


So let me get this straight . . . Donald Trump, the Triumph the Insult Comic Dog of the Republican Party — whose entire campaign is based upon insulting his sixteen opponents, the media, every demographic voting bloc in America, and anyone else unfortunate enough to have crossed his path today — is entitled to say the most outrageously offensive things he wants and the media will eat it up, giving him free airtime to air his boorish insults on the network news.

But Hillary Clinton says one mildly offensive (to some) comment, that just happens to be true, and suddenly it’s a “scandal” for which she should apologize?

The clear media double standard here is that IOKIYAR, but not if you are a Democrat.

The New York Times reports, Hillary Clinton Likens Republican Views on Women to Those of Terror Groups:

TalibanAt a rally in Ohio on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton scolded Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest. She hit former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood. And she criticized Gov. John Kasich of Ohio for banning public financing of some rape crisis centers.

“Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world. But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States.”

Calling such policies out of date and out of touch, Mrs. Clinton dared her rivals to face mothers who caught breast cancer early because of screenings and girls who did not get pregnant because of access to contraceptives that were made available through government funding.

Charles Pierce at Esquire says that Hillary Clinton Has Run Out of F*cks to Give. Good for her, Clinton has had a tendency to be too cautious because of the Clinton Rules of reporting.

Republicans, who have been terrified to criticize “The Donald” for his outrageously offensive racist and misogynist  comments, were quick to clutch their pearls and to feign outrage over Clinton’s comment:

“For Hillary Clinton to equate her political opponents to terrorists is a new low for her flailing campaign. She should apologize immediately for her inflammatory rhetoric,” said Republican National Committee Press Secretary Allison Moore.

Hmmm, I don’t recall Allison Moore clutching her pearls and demanding that Donald Trump apologize to Latinos for his racist comments, or to FAUX News anchor Megyn Kelly for his sexist comments. Pretty selective outrage from you, Ms. Moore.

And if Ms. Moore wants to talk about a “flailing campaign,” let’s talk about J.E.B.(!) Bush, whom Clinton singled out for his war on Planned Parenthood, an organization that both his father and grandfather supported. J.E.B.(!) posted on Twitter:

Screenshot from 2015-08-28 15:28:24

I don’t know J.E.B.(!) , would that be the pro-life Forced Birthers from Operation Rescue who maintain a “hit list” of abortion providers and clinics, who have bombed abortion clinics and who have assassinated abortion doctors, and the anti-abortion Foes Who Dive for Discarded Records in Abortion Clinic Dumpsters in search of information to violate patients’ medical privacy and to post their information online? Anti-abortion violence is considered to be a form of domestic terrorism by the U.S. Department of Justice, J.E.B.(!) Not that you care.

When the GOP candidates for president kowtow to the views of the most extreme militant wing of Christian Right anti-abortion Forced Birthers, then Hillary Clinton is speaking the truth. She has nothing for which to apologize.

It is the GOP candidates for president who should apologize for pandering to the most extreme militant wing of Christian Right anti-abortion Forced Birthers.


  1. Steve,

    For some reason there is not a “reply” button on your 10:47AM post.

    As someone who refuses to equate screaming sidewalk counselors with violence, you apparently think that people like Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder were just benign individuals who just happened to object to legal abortion procedures.

    And yes, the Republicans condone and seek the support of these terrorists, Mike Huckabee in particular. Didn’t he agree with a paternally raped 11 year old girl being forced to bear her unwanted child?

    How would you feel if one of your loved ones had an unwanted pregnancy, had to have an abortion for personal/medical reasons, and had to run a gauntlet of screaming holier than thou protesters? Their screaming in someone’s face may not (arguably) be violent but they would love to provoke a violent response so they can be “martyrs”.

    Inciting and condoning violence is just as bad as the violence itself. And the Republican candidates make a point of pandering to those people.

    Oh, and when replying to my posts there is no need for personal insults, just the facts please, Of course if insults are all you have…

    • Yes, there is a limited number of replies that can be made (I think it is five) and then you have to do what you did.

      I will be honest with you, I have no idea who Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder are. But since you call them terrorists, tell me when they murdered someone? Or maimed someone? Or physically assaulted someone? And if they did, and they are known to law enforcement, when were they arrested and tried for their terrorist acts? I suspect I already know the answer because you have made up your very own definition of “terrorist”. But as I keep saying: Words have meaning. They don’t mean what you want them to mean. Neither you nor Hillary can change the meaning of the word “terrorist” because it suits you. It may sound good to say it, it may feel good to say it, but it is a lie! And that is all it is…

      I don’t engage in straw man arguments because it is pointless to do so. The “what if your Daughter blah! blah! blah!”, or your Mother, or your Wife, etc., is usually presented in lieu of a legitimate argument and is more of a distraction than a discussion point.

      ”Inciting and condoning violence is just as bad as the violence itself.”

      I’m not certain why you threw this out there. Which Republican candidates have been inciting and condoning violence? How do they “pander” to “those people” that do? This is the first time you actually addressed the issue at hand, to wit, the Republican Candidates are terrorists where women’s health care (codespeak: abortion) is concerned. Yet you offered nothing but a throw-away line.

      I didn’t hurl personal insults toward you. What I said was not gratuitous in nature and was not intended to hurt your feelings or diminish you in some capacity. I don’t do that. What I did was give you my honest assessment of your analytical abilities based on what you had written. You took the words “terrorist” and “violence” and reinterpreted their definitions, stretching them to cover something inappropriate. You also made a false and silly comparison between being yelled at and being killed, implying they are comparable, among other equally dumb comparisons. You continued that with this message. I mean you no ill will and am not trying to insult you. I am simply questioning some of your reasoning.

  2. Republiscum use a sophisticated form of institutional violence to terrorize. One of the best example was a louisiana republican party memo talking about the positive effects of not funding repairs to the new orleans levees to voter turnout in democratic areas of new orleans. you can look it up on the internet.

    • What the heck is “institutional violence”? Do we have secret Republican death squads that come in the night and make people disappear? Are there special Republican thug squads that show up with axe handles to bust people’s skulls? Of course there aren’t, so what is “institutional violence”?

      Surely you are not serious when you present the example of not repairing levees in New Orleans as an example of “violence”? WHERE IS THE VIOLENCE?!?!?!? Even though that action was poorly thought out and certainly underhanded, there was no violence involved. Period. End of statement.

      As I keep saying: Words have meaning. They don’t mean what you want them to mean. Hillary can’t change the meaning of the word “terrorist” because it suits her. It may sound good to say it, it may feel good to say it, but it is a LIE! And that is all it is…

      • They certainly can change the meaning of words Steve. Look at how they have changed the definition of marriage along with baby, climate, scandal, racist, etc. and the classic, according to Bill, is.

        • “They” can do it, I agree. But it is done as “we” (the speakers of the language) collectively begin using the words differently. It takes a little time for new definitions to be accepted. The meanings of words DO NOT change immediately because a politician decides to use hyperbole and deliberately misuses words to attack her opponents.

          However, I do want to thank you for reminding me that, in the big picture, definitions of words can and do change over time.

  3. Wrong steve! Republicans are terrorists. They go after sick women and children who can’t fight back! Remember when jan brewer were not funding needed access operations so she could fund more tax cuts for the rich and people were dying pleading for their operation until the media reporting of their deaths got to hot for even republican terrorist! Remember the little mexican-american baby dying in maryvale hospitals emergency waiting room for over 8 hours because the parents had no health insurance or the mexican -american teenager with a burst appendex was told she just had a stomach ache so they didn’t have to treat her at a mesa hospital. This happened all the time here for many years when when we were the only state without medicade. A little blue eyed blond boy needed an operation some years ago and was on tv begging for his life the leaders in the legislature told the doctors to let them know when it was to late for the operation so they could say they were for it without having to pay for it. anyone remember little tommy tunuta? A doctor was fired because he refused to put died of numonia on the death certificate of an indian baby who die of starvation and the arizona supreme court ruled that it was legal to order the falsification of legal documents since the doctor would not have been prosecuted for falsifying document. When I was young teenagers came to or door selling christmas cards in july heat to try and pay for their mothers operation. Republiscum terrorists you betcha!

    • When was the last time a Republican set off a car bomb in a farmers market, killing dozens and wounding even more? When was the last time that armed Republicans stormed a Hotel killing killing and wounding as many people as they could before they were killed or managed to get away? When was the last time a Republican wore an explosive vest into a crowd blowing it up and killing and maiming dozens of people? When was the last time a Republican hijacked an airplane and steered it into a skyscraper killing thousands and wounding even more? You get my point?

      When call a Republican a terrorist. you trivilialize what the word means. You may feel satisfied and even clever at the comparison, but it is a false equivalency. It is also very hard to take you seriously when you try and establish such a comparison because if you are serious, then you lack critical thinking skills.

      There is a world of difference between a terrorist who kills and maims, and a policy wonk who doesn’t have the same political philosophy that you have. Words have meaning, and the fact Hillary made the statement tells me that she is feeling a little desperate. She knows it is wrong but she needs to get something out there to take the attention away from all of her other screwups.

      • So Steve, you believe the examples you cited are all that encompass terrorism?

        According to Merriam Webster terrorism is: “The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”

        Seems that would qualify the fringe elements of the forced birth crowd and their pet politicians as terrorists, wouldn’t it?

        • No, it wouldn’t. Republicans have not used violence to force women to do anything. Some Republicans have used the political process to try and change laws in the arena of abortion and related topics, but none of them have ever used outright violence in pursuit of partisan politics.

          • You don’t consider the forced birthers at abortion clinics who scream in the faces of vulnerable women terrorists? Verbal terrorism is just as insidious as the physical variety.

            But then on the other hand the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court considers the screaming “in your face” forced birthers, trying to intimidate clinic clients, to merely be benign sidewalk counselors, so I can see why one might believe that they’re not terrorists. By that logic even Eric Rudolph and Operation Rescue weren’t terrorists before he and at least one OR associate started bombing clinics.

            Bottom line is these people have no business interfering in the private decisions of others and will go to any length to impose their “religiously fueled” beliefs on those same others. You know, like ISIS.

          • ”Verbal terrorism is just as insidious as the physical variety.”

            No it isn’t. Being shouted at is NOTHING like being killed or maimed. I am surprised you would even suggest they are the same. It tells me that you lack basic reasoning skills and certain have no critical thinking ability.

            And you have wandered far afield anyway…the issue is Hillary calling Republican candidates “terrorists”. Cite for me a single instance where a Republican has killed or maimed another human being with the goal of furthering their political agenda. “These people” to whom you refer have nothing to do with a political party. And even for these extremists, there is no valid comparison to ISIS. In the world of ISIS, there is no arguing about abortion or women’s health. In their world, if a woman is pregnant, she carries the baby to full term or she is killed. Of course, if she pregnant by a man other than her husband, she is killed. If she is pregnant and unmarried, she is killed. If a woman is found to be engaging in sex with anyone other than her husband, she is killed. That is the ISIS solution to the issue…THAT is terrorism.

  4. I realize that extreme hyperbole is your stock in trade, but I find it hard to believe that even you think the comparison to terrorists carries any water. If you do believe it, then your ability to make legitimate comparisons is way out of whack and calls into question most of what you write.

Comments are closed.