Obama Uses The Media As Surrogates To Attack Mitt Romney's Faith And Family

The Obama administration knows it cannot launch personal attacks on Mitt Romney's faith or family. However, given that President Obama has a very cozy relationship with the media in which 19 journalists and media executives either work in the administration or in political groups connected to the White House, its not surprising that some people believe that the Obama administration is using the media as a surrogate or proxy to attack Mitt Romney in ways that they do on their own.  

Now that the general election has started, the media wasted no time in going after Mitt Romney. In a multi-pronged attack, they went after his religion and his wife. When it comes to Mitt Romney's faith, the media has intentionally mislead its views on the facts about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The most egregious example is Larry O’Donnell's offensive and dishonest description of how the LDS Church got started: 

Not surprisingly, it took a Mormon Congressman from Idaho, Represenative Raul Labrador, to call out MSNBC to its face for allowing blatant religious bigotry to be spewed on the air: 

The media is obsessed with Mitt Romney's faith not because they are intrigued or fascinated by the religion but they think that they can use people's unfamiliarity about the Mormon religion as a way of turning voters away from Mitt Romney. However, that strategy won't work because people are seeing right through the media and know that this isn't news reporting but a propaganda campaign against Mitt Romney. 

A few days after the media went after Mitt Romney's faith, they decided to get ever more personal with Mitt Romney by inviting DNC advisor Hilary Rosen to come on CNN to talk about how both candidates are trying to win the female vote: 

Here's the full quote from Hilary Rosen:

With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their family and the like.  But he doesn't connect on that issue, either.  What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.  Guess what?  His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.  She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why we worry about their future.

After Hilary Rosen's comments, Ann Romney quickly responded and did not hold back either on twitter and on television interviews: 

 

Despite the massive negative response from the media and news commentators, Hilary Rosen doubled down on her comments before she finally offered a faux apology:

“Let’s put the faux ‘war against stay at home moms’ to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen. In response to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail referring to his wife as a better person to answer questions about women than he is, I was discussing his poor record on the plight of women’s financial struggles. Here is my more fulsome view of the issues. As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.”

However, Rosen's half hearted passive-aggressive apology may not be enough to undo the damage that may have occurred with female independent and democratic voters. As a result, the White House is doing damage control by trying to distance themselves from her as fast as possible. Yet, it is impossible for them to do so because Hilary is well connected to the Obama administration.

Last year, it was revealed that Obama planned on attacking Mitt Romney's faith but that idea was immediately ridiculed. However, a year later and with the hopes of their plans for Mitt Romney has faded from public memory, we see the media going after Mitt Romney's faith. Its also not surprising that the close triangular relationship between Obama, the media and Hilary Rosen has resulted in an attack on Ann Romney.

The quiet but orchestrated attacks on Mitt Romney are starting to back fire on Obama especially when it comes to the trying to win the female vote. As a result of Hilary Rosen's comments, she has made it harder for the Obama administration to attract female voters because women are very much in tune with the economy whether they are stay at home mothers  or work outside of the home. Women are very aware of how the national economy affects the economy of the home because they are the ones who typically, but not always, balance the checkbook, buy the groceries, gas up the car and pay the bills. 

In the end, Hilary Rosen's attempt to make Ann Romney look like she is out of touch with women across this country only exposed how out of touch Hilary, and by extension, the Obama Administration,  is with women. 

Misogyny Within Liberalism

If you thought the bipartisan feminist outrage towards Joy Behar's sexist comments toward Sharron Angle has hit its peak, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The anger from women both on the left and the right has reached a new boiling point.  

Today, a left leaning website, Gawker.com has published a vile and despicable article about Christine O'Donnell in which an anonymous writer talks about his one night stand with her. Liberal and conservative feminists are extremely furious at the website for publishing the article. Even the liberal National Organization for Women (NOW) is horrified by the article:

"Sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate's political ideology.

Today the tabloid website Gawker published an anonymous piece titled "I Had A One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell" that takes the routine sexual degradation of women candidates to a disgusting new low. NOW repudiates Gawker's decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O'Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.

NOW/PAC has proudly endorsed women's rights champion Chris Coons, O'Donnell's opponent in the Delaware Senate race, and finds O'Donnell's political positions dangerous for women. That does not mean it's acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.

NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different. Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O'Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won't stand for it."

I rarely agree with NOW but they're 100% correct in calling this a "new low" in misogynist literature.

What amazes me is how very few people are troubled by how much of the sexist and misogynist statements have come from liberals. Not all liberals are misogynist, of course, yet a disturbing pattern is emerging. Even a liberal woman such as Kirsten Powers has noticed this trend and has listed a few examples of liberal sexism towards conservative women.

The widespread notion that liberals are open minded, tolerant and accepting of people who come from diverse backgrounds is starting to fall. People have assumed that feminism was a cause that was primarily championed by liberals. They used to oppose discrimination against females, not engage in it. They used to demand respect for women, not demean them. Liberals were once fond of explaining that women were free to express their opinion on issues, but now they are required to support certain causes in order to be "authentic" women. Democratic Representative Janis Baird Sontany explains that "you have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.”

However, a new trend may be starting. This is the second time that feminists, specifically liberal feminists have gone to defend conservative women. We maybe witnessing an awakening among left leaning feminists. They are realizing that liberalism has abandoned feminism. Feminists might be starting to see that if liberal men, women and organizations are willing to smear conservative women such as Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnel; then they were never a feminist to begin with. To denigrate conservative women is really a manifestation of sexism towards women in general. One liberal blogger explains this point by stating that "sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere." 

Thus, liberals aren't just tearing down conservative women, but all women.

In fact, feminsts may be realizing that modern liberals have only been paying lip service to their cause. They might be waking up to the fact that liberalism is more concerned about advancing their agenda than promoting respect and kindness towards all women. Some may realized that the 2010 elections have merely exposed the misogyny and sexism that has been growing within liberalism for a long time now.  

Some feminists like Tammy Bruce, have come to that realization a long time ago: 

"As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda." 

As feminists begin to realize that liberalism has abandoned feminism and developed little respect for women, they may realize that conservatives have embraced feminism. 

Women are free to be stay at home mothers or become the next Governor of California or the next senator from Nevada or a female talk show host. But most importantly, women are to be respected and honored as she pursues her chosen path in life, expresses her thoughts and feelings and become the women she desires to be.

More Female On Female Misogyny: Joy Behar & Sharron Angle

Men and women can be victims of sexism by the other gender. However, it also occurs between people of the same gender. Sometimes, women themselves are the biggest offenders of sexism towards other women. I explored that topic earlier and its worth revisiting again. 

Recently, Joy Behar, one of the commentators on the television show "The View," called the Republican challenger to Harry Reid, Sharron Angle, a "bitch" who should go to "hell." Watch the clip below:

The interesting thing about this event is that feminist groups from both the left and the right end of the political spectrum are outraged over Joy Behar's sexist comments:

Amy Siskind, president of the feminist group The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller she was appalled by Behar’s language calling it sexist and insulting.

“I think the remarks are completely and utterly unacceptable and I think she should — by tomorrow — be on the air with an apology to Sharron Angle and to the women of this country,” Siskind said. “The ‘b-word’ has no place in our national dialogue, and especially when she was using it in a very pointed way here to demean another woman.”

The president of a more conservative women’s group, The Kitchen Cabinet, Sonja Eddings Brown, was similarly distressed by The View co-host’s language, chalking her sentiment up to politics.

“We thought Joy Behar was a classier act than this,” Brown wrote in an e-mail to TheDC. “What is it that makes conservative women, who work inside and outside of the home, such a threat to liberal women like Joy? What has Sharron Angle done to deserve being described so profanely by Ms. Behar?”

Sharron Angle had a different response to Joy Behar's sexist comments. The female candidate kindly sent Behar some flowers along with a note that read, "Joy, Raised $150,000 online yesterday. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Sharron Angle." Apparently, Joy was surprised Sharron Angle's show of kindness.

I find this fascinating because liberal and conservative women were so quick to condemn Joy Behar for her comments; yet, Meg Whitman got a different response from feminists when she was called a whore by Jerry Brown's wife. In that situation, conservative women were outraged whereas liberal feminist were split on their outrage over Mrs. Brown's comments. The local chapter of NOW was troubled about it but ultimately called Meg Whitman a "political whore" whereas the national organization was upset by Mrs. Brown's comments and declared that anyone who uses that term ought to be fired.

Anyone care to explain the difference why feminists on the left and the right were united in their outrage against Joy Behar yet divided in on Mrs. Brown's sexist statement?

Update 10/28/10: Joy Behar apologizes to Sharron Angle for calling her a bitch. See the video below: