Kate Havard of the Weekly Standard attended the caucus. She reported that one woman, Jodi Salyers of Texas, emerged from the caucus saying: "I didn't realize how anti-birth control, how anti-women, period, the Republicans are until today."
Anti-birth control? Is that really part of the Republican platform? Not last time I checked.
Never mind reality, the DNC Women's Caucus was led by Nancy Pelosi, Valerie Jarrett, and a slew of other speakers who were bent on talking nonsense in order to ramp up some Obama love among the double-x chromosome crowd in Charlotte. Truth was no obstacle for them.
Pelosi told attendees that Republicans "are not even pro-birth control." That got me thinking: What does it mean, exactly, to be "pro-birth control?" Does that mean you're OK with oral contraception, condoms, etc? Or do you have to go further to meet Pelosi's qualifications? Do you have to treat every abortion as if it were a political victory in order to qualify as "pro-birth control?" It kind of looks that way, if you listen to Pelosi. According to her dumbed-down logic, opposing abortion is the same thing as being "not pro-birth control." She doesn't seem to think voters will notice there's a difference.
Pelosi also let everyone know that Republicans don't love their mothers and wives. "I love hearing how they loved their mother and loved their wife and all of that," she said. "I'm interested to hear how they respect women's decisions to determine the size of their family, if they choose to have a family." So, according to her, if someone opposes abortion in any form, perhaps even partial birth abortion, then he or she may not love his or her mother -- again, that seems to be the implication of Pelosi's dumbed-down pitch to women voters.
I haven't seen logic stretched this thin since the 90s, when feminists told us that Bill Clinton's biggest problem was that he loved women "too much."
After Pelosi finished, the Democratic National Committee's Vice Chair of Voter Registration and Participation Donna Brazile got up to make her dumbed-down pitch. She compared Republicans to segregationists: "They want to relegate women to the back of the bus." On the other hand, Democrats "don't have to pretend to love women." In context, it seems like Brazile is saying that being pro-life is the moral equivalent of being a racist.
Stephanie Schriock of the pro-choice group EMILY's List said Republicans want to take women backwards, "so far back that we'll be in the kitchen." So if you don't like to cook, you had better vote for Obama. Mitt "the throwback" Romney demands three square a day.
Finally, First Lady Michelle Obama got up and told women they should vote for her husband because Obama believes women are "capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our healthcare." Again, another dumbed-down sentiment. For Michelle Obama, apparently, believing that the unborn babies, whether male or female, have some claim to life that's worth considering has nothing to do with one's views on religion or biology, and everything to do with believing women aren't "capable" of making choices.
Democrats seem incapable of campaigning in a way that doesn't insult voters' intelligence.
These days, in the Democratic Party, being pro-life makes you no better than a racist, and having any qualms at all about abortion is supposed to be the same thing as judging women "incapable." Are these really the best arguments pro-choice Democrats have to offer? I expect not. But how would anyone know for sure, since all we've heard so far is patronizing, disingenuous rhetoric? If Democrats have serious arguments to make concerning why women should support Obama, you haven't heard them in Charlotte this week.
Nathan Harden's new book, Sex & God at Yale: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad (St. Martin's, 2012), was recently named a New York Times Editor's Choice Pick. He is Editor of The College Fix.