MEMO: Why the Montana Republican Party Repulses Women

Montana Republican Party bosses say they have “no idea” why women aren’t running as Republicans.  Today, we bring them the answers.

Reason # 1: Dennis Rehberg

Dennis Rehberg does not being called out for who he really is.Let’s start with the man at the top of your ticket.   As we all know, one of the biggest challenges your party seems concerned with is coming up with a socially, and more importantly, legally acceptable excuse for raping women.

As an example of this, look at Congressman Rehberg’s vote to prevent certain situations from “counting” as rape. Up for debate was a bill to regulate who got to decide whether or not to have the rapist’s baby, Mother Jones via Think Progress reported. Women who were to be excluded from getting the choice: those who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, minors impregnated by adults, and women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator for fear of being murdered.  This would exclude abortions as an option for women who were raped in these circumstances (drugged and unconscious, 13 year old girls impregnated by 55 year old pervs, and women who keep still for fear of being murdered) from Medicaid coverage.

Dennis Rehberg was also busted pretending to support breast cancer awareness while voting to end mammogram coverage. (Note: A mammogram is a test for breast cancer.)  He opposes equal pay for women–the guy even flipped off a pregnant constituent.   Rehberg tried to end funding for Planned Parenthood twice in the last year. The  TEA Party Congressman cosponsored and of course voted for H.R.358, the “Let Women Die” bill. H.R.358 would force doctors to let women die rather than provide abortion care.

You GOPers already know that Foster Friess, the Wall Street billionaire bankrolling Rehberg, outraged millions for saying basically that women wouldn’t need contraception if we would just keep our slutty legs closed.

“Back in my days, [women] used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives; the gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

A little while ago Congressman Dennis Rehberg said the War on Women was “fabricated.”


Reason # 2: Rick Hill

Just last month, former Congressman Rick Hill, who is running in your GOP primary for Governor, endorsed legalizing insurance company discrimination against women.  This means insurance companies would be allowed to charge women more for health coverage, or to exclude women’s health needs like mammograms from coverage–which is currently illegal. He’s the subject of a recent television ad about how his first wife went public over the abuse and adultery she suffered though.

In 2000, Congressman Rick Hill criticized challenger Nancy Keenan for being a single woman without children. Keenan, a former teacher, responded by saying she “wanted to have children,” but was unable to because of a hysterectomy. She also noted: “nothing is more devastating when a doctor walks into the room and says you’ll never have children” [Great Falls Tribune, "Hill Unleashes First Campaign Volley," May 25, 1999]

Republicans never seem to mention Rick Hill’s voting record.  Perhaps that is because Hill voted in support of a $115 billion cut in Medicare – a program that helps mostly women (who live longer). Hill also curbed payments to hospitals that serve a large number of poor and uninsured people who would see Medicaid payments shaved by $15 billion, and cut $2 billion from health oxygen benefits to seniors and the disabled.  These cuts also predominantly impact women and children.  Women are usually the one’s who bear the burden of caring for aging parents and family members with disabilities. [HR 2015, Roll Call 241, 6/25/97]

 

Reason # 3: GOP Legislators

Welcome to the land of nutters, the Montana Legislature.

h/t RastaMon

Republican legislators have twice compared women to animals to convince each other to vote for anti-women bills. Coincidentally (??), your men in the legislature also openly posted pornographic images of women and animals on their Facebook pages.

During the 2011 legislative session, you Republicans tried to legalize insurance discrimination against women. You also tried to pass an entire slate of anti-woman bills. The fact that the bills were unconstitutional didn’t stop you. It got so bad that word on the street is one of the attorneys hired to draft the unconstitutional bills quit halfway through the session.  He later began a campaign for Congress–on the Democratic ticket.

One of the bills would have forced women seeking an abortion to undergo a mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound.  In other words, before she can get a abortion–which is her Constitutional right–she must be penetrated–with or without her consent–by an ultrasound wand in a procedure that serves no medical purpose whatsoever.  (No, the other kind of outside the tummy ultra-sound won’t work because it is too early in the pregnancy.)

There are, of course, many more reasons why the Montana Republican Party is repulsive to women, but when dealing with Republicans, it is best to give information in small doses, that you might digest it more easily.  At least now, you’ll have no excuse for pretending ignorance in the news.

 

Posted: May 15, 2012 at 7:15 am

70 thoughts on “MEMO: Why the Montana Republican Party Repulses Women

  1. lisa o'conner

    i wouldn’t be caught dead voting for any of these republicans. they have seriously gone off the deep end and seem proud of it. i think republicans hate women because secretly, their plan to “make things better” for them is to put and keep women down. that’s why they oppose equal pay – they don’t want to compete with us. that’s why they oppose birth control –they don’t want us to be able to control our own reproduction. a lot of similarities to the taliban actually.

  2. Anonymous

    Isn’t it anti-feminist to be pissed off at Rehberg for flipping off a pregnant woman, just because she was a woman?

    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

      I like how you switch meanings around there Eric.

      Anti Feminist = Rush Limbaugh, MtGOP, Denny Rehberg!

      Feminist is actually reserved for women only, who believe in the health, welfare,education, and equality of their sex.

      Pro Feminist= Men who believe women have have the same rights that they do for health, welfare,education, and equality of their sex.

      Real Men: See Pro Feminist

      1. Anonymous

        Anti (n): a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

        Feminist (adj): advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

        Rephrasing: Is being angry at a man for giving the bird to a female constituent, just because of her sex, anti-feminist?

        Granted that’s not a real question, it’s still important to point out that even for people who advocate for equal rights for women, society has ingrained simple gender-separation ideals into our brains that are pretty damn hard to evolve beyond. Even MTcowgirl has a hint (albeit a very small hint) of anti-feminist values in her/him.

        1. larry kurtz

          On the behalf of DCCC, Eric:

          …………………./´¯/)
          ………………..,/¯../
          ………………./…./
          …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
          ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
          ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
          ………\……………..’…../
          ……….”…\………. _.·´
          …………\…………..(
          …………..\………….\…

        2. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

          Spoken like a GOP Man Eric!

          You had to go to a dictionary, instead of listening to a womans take on it. That is exactly the problem with the Republican Party today. You just got finished proving you do not listen to people who are savvy about women…. AKA A woman!

          You also do the to the poor, college students, the elderly, and veterans. Now do you see why the GOP is out of touch!

          1. Lynn

            “Eric” is a single, dateless man I’ll bet, who is angry that very few women will give him the time of day

            1. Doug

              This is not the real Eric Stern, this is a fake like that guy who pretended to be Jay Stevens.

          2. Anonymous

            Norma, you’re obviously no Simone de Beauvoir, so I’d appreciate you saving your time by not giving me a lecture.

            Is it really hard to acknowledge the problems everyone faces with the fight for equality?

            1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

              WOO HOO! Now he thinks he is someone because he names a dead french feminist! A wonderful woman, in her time, but outdated today!

              And the answer to the second question is yes. This is what Representatives are supposed to do, represent the folks who vote them in, not corporations. 50% of the this states voting public is women. yet our GOP Representatives do not care to help their women voters? thats pretty dumbfounding don’t you think?

              Not only, do you NOT have a clue about feminism, you apparently do NOT understand the democracy or civics of today either.

              1. Anonymous

                I brought up Simone de Beauvoir, because she believed that even the most extreme leftist ideals put into practice did not and would never bring about change for women. She believed people needed to change the way they inherently think about women, not just enact policy.

                It’s not an issue of politics, it’s an issue the way people think. The only thing apparent from this back and forth is that you believe equality for women is a party line issue, sadly it’s not that simple.

                1. Rob Kailey

                  “Eric”, you’re grossly misstating the philosophy of Simone de Beauvior. She did indeed believe that politics as reflection of the way people think would bring change to that thinking. It’s something she stridently disagreed with Sartre about. Do you care to quote instead of misstate?

                2. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                  The first woman feminist who was well read in America by Woman was neither of your gentlemans choices. Mary Wollstonecraft was the first. Abigail Adams, was another, Elizabeth Cady Stanton authored a Declaration of Sentiments patterned after the Declaration of Independence. The first woman authors against Slavery and Booze, were actually women’s first real voices in America. Susan B. Anthony, Mother Jones, Ida B. Wells Just to name a few.

                  What really changed it for American Women was World wars 1 and 2. the Nineteenth Amendment after World War I; and the women’s liberation movement only after World War II. As 16 million American men went off to fight, women essentially took over maintenance of the U.S. economy. In more recent times Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique, is basically what started the womens movement in the mid 1960′s. Friedan co-founded NOW–the first and still the largest major women’s liberation organization. Montana’s very own Jeannette Rankin was a big part of that.

                  Necessity for change has always been a woman’s choice for changing the world. Sandra Fluke gave us the battle cry this time, and for the first time in 50 years. our enemy is again within our own boundaries… The Republican Party!

                  If Rankin was alive today, One of the most celebrated Republican woman, she would have changed parties to a Democrat.

                  1. Rob Kailey

                    First things first, arguing about who was well read in a country that didn’t offer women suffrage until 1920 is a little ridiculous. Someone trolled you. Please don’t play that game.

                    Second, I was simply disagreeing with “anonymous” about the writings of Simone de Beauvior. Claiming that was my “choice” of something or another is irritating. Kindly don’t do that.

            2. Cowgirl Post author

              You’re allowed to comment anonymously. You’re allowed to post contrary opinions. But you aren’t allowed to impersonate others.

                1. Hi-Liner

                  Remember, Republicans are going after Norma because they see her facts are a threat to their scam. Norma, if they weren’t scared, they wouldn’t bother trolling you. I never get the trolls myself. Must. Work. Harder.

                  1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                    They can’t troll me with real names, because they are afraid to be found out for the imbeciles they are…. within their own communities. Secondly, Trolls don’t bother me, they are only tools of scared people who are being found out daily.

                    Thanks Hi-Liner, Its good to have people who are not afraid to speak to truth. We should all be adult enough to handle it in Montana!

    1. Craig Moore

      Larry, are you on crack?

      The felon pled guilty to 2 counts of distribution and received a 10 month sentence. Drug dealers deserve a hell of lot stiffer sentence than that.

  3. larry kurtz

    Cebull should leave the bench, Craig: his jurisprudence has been compromised. If these defendants could afford counsel all his rulings would be appealed.

    1. larry kurtz

      And Rep. Rehberg, by dodging comment on the House Judiciary Committee investigation, is not representing a likely majority of Montanans who believe that Cebull is unfit to stay there.

  4. Mark Tokarski

    I did not know that having an affair was anti-woman. I thought that usually there was a woman involved. Having an affair (which women do as much as men) is disrespectful of one’s partner – no doubt Max’s wives felt abused. But the truth is that in politics, affairs are easy to have and conceal, as they are among the trading currencies of legislation, along with Superbowl private boxes.

    The constant moral superiority of the writers on this site is off-putting. Try an issue sometime.

    1. larry kurtz

      You mean like the Colorado legislature’s current debate on civil unions is not about hypocrisy?

        1. Mark Tokarski

          I don’t know what you’re getting at. I follow all of this stuff down here, but my point here was the people who write here are constantly harping on personality issues and moral superiority, like Dems don’t have affairs. Sirota is on three hours every AM here, and Republicans and Democrats alike refuse to come on because he doesn’t play by the media rules, which are that you must confine yourself to issues that the “two” parties agree can be discussed. He strays into areas of concern that neither party wants to talk about.

          1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

            You yourself do not confine yourself to the issues Mark. And did I read that right. Did you just say you just show up to disrupt people who do not agree with you???? Really?

            You really are a steaming pile of egotistical BS.

            Shorter Mark: Mommy, that Montanan gave me a verbal wedgie MOmmy Mommy Mommy Mommy LOL

            Go somewhere else whiner!

          2. Rob Kailey

            Tokarski, you picked one point, only one in this entire post and used it to smear the author with your particularly vile brand of Ad Hominem. There were many very direct issues dealt with here, but you ignore all because you’ve been ‘off put’. As Larry Kurtz eloquently advised before, STFU.

            1. Mark Tokarski

              I chose to deal with the most off-putting part of the post, the syrupy moral high ground that supposedly exists wherein the party puts up slugs like Baucus and then condemns Hill for doing exactly wha Baucus does, except the Baucus once used the power do his office to try to force himself on a subordinate. You cannot be the morally superior party when your leaders are people of his ilk.

              Remember, this is the party whose leader has abandoned the Magna Carta and asserted he has the right to murder any citizen without evidence or due process. He’s a moral slug too. He’s yer fookin leader.

              The overreaching point is that these Cowgirl people are diddling you, looking for anything they can grab onto to convince you that this party is a cut above the other, which it surely is not. That, in case you have missed it, is a consistent theme with me, and easy to assert with every post here. These people are charged with keeping the home fire burning without the benefit of issues.

              That’s why it’s so easily seen, outside looking in, that American politics are for the stupid.

              Now, Kaily, you STFU, and stay STFU’d. If there is a common overarching theme with you, aside from your off-putting intellectual airs, it is that you are like a guy in a parade suit throwing a baton in the air, looking for a parade to pretend to lead. Any parade will do.

              Metaphor. Lost you.

              1. Dan T.

                I don’t see anyone in the lefty blogs defending Max. Often, I see quite the opposite.

                1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                  Sorry Dan T, I like Max and would defend him in a second so your dead wrong here. True leftys know his value to Montana as he has done a lot for this state. I wont apologize to the EMOProgs. Secondly, There hasn’t been a good republican here in Higher Office, in the last fifty years, that haven’t all been scandalously plagued with criminal intent.

                  Denny Rehberg is no Different from Burns, if not worse. Rehberg attacked Montana’s seniors and families last week by voting to gut critical aid for programs they rely on, like Meals on Wheels, children’s health insurance and child care programs, while protecting tax cuts for millionaires and doing Wall Street’s bidding by weakening consumer protection efforts. These bills were all part of the appropriation bill last week.

                  The man is doing everything in his power to Screw Montanans right now! and give more Power to Corporations. I happily accept my brother Max any day of the weak over the tool Denny Rehberg!!!!!!

                  1. Moorcat

                    Here you and I will have to disagree. I don’t think Max is good for Montana anymore. I think he was once a great Senator but not so much now. If he is primaried, I will likely vote for the Challenger.

                    All this hinges, of course, on who is actually running. Though he appears to be campaigning already, I am not convinced that he will actually run when the time comes. If Schweitzer runs, I will certainly vote for him. If it is a choice between Baucus and Rehberg, I will choose Baucus over Rheberg. There is a lot of uncertianty about that race at this point.

                    I prefer to remain focused on this year’s races – both local, state and federal. There is plenty of choices to deal with now and trying to choose between the people running is going to be difficult as it is. I don’t need to add the idea of looking at future races into the mix until I have sorted out my feelings about the current races.

                    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                      I dont see the disagreement Moorecat! Dan T was making a slight to Max. I was defending MAx, as the better choice over Rehberg… Heck over anyone of the GOP running this year!

                      Ill go with the Democrats I have right now…. as I see there is no one who comes close from the other side. And wont for some time! No guesswork there.

                  2. Rob Kailey

                    Norma, I politely urge you to respond to what a commenter writes as opposed to your gut reaction to it. What Dan T. wrote is not wrong at all. Max Baucus is not well favored in the lefty blogs, mine included. He didn’t “slight” Max. He wrote what is true.

                    Baucus isn’t running against Rehberg (yet), nor did Dan T. even mention the possibility. You brought that up. Dan T. was responding to Mark in an effort to point out that Tokarski was pinning his hopes on the idea that all Democrats love Baucus so we’re all really wrong in the head. We don’t all love Baucus, nor do we all vote for him. Please keep that in mind.

                    1. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS

                      I do believe you are making more of a conversation of this then I was….. and it was hardly from my gut, more a mere truth…. but point taken I guess……. for what ever reason you saw in it, I know I didn’t make.

              2. Mark Tokarski

                He and Obama negate any claims to moral superiority. And though there is occasional criticism on “lefty” blogs, these people here have and will vote for him time and again because .. he’s a fookin Democrat.

                1. Havre Voter

                  I won’t be voting for Baucus. Haven’t for years. In 2014, IF he runs again (doubtful), Schweitzer’s got my vote. If Schweitzer doesn’t run, I’m writing in James Conner for U.S. Senate.

              3. Michael Searalika

                Shorter Mark: Doh! Let me confuse you with my insane circular reasoning again! I am good at saying nothing in two or three Paragraphs.

      1. larry kurtz

        Obama is steadily improving even in Rasmussen’s Daily Tracking Poll, Craig: the momentum is clearly in the President’s favor.

        1. Craig Moore

          Time will tell. USNews has this on the CBS-NYT poll: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/05/15/mitt-romneys-poll-surge-might-be-bigger-than-it-looks

          Actually, Romney may be in better shape than the poll suggests. The same survey conducted in April showed each man with 46 percent of the vote while the polls from March and February showed the president ahead.

          What is particularly interesting is this is a poll of registered voters, meaning it’s a survey representing the entire universe of those who may cast ballots in the upcoming election. Thanks to things like “motor voter,” there are far more Democrats in the pool of registered voters than Republicans and, unlike surveys of so-called “likely voters,” many of them may not bother to vote. It is not too much of an inference, therefore, to think that Obama may be losing the country—and that’s because he has failed to get a handle on the nation’s economic troubles.

          Unemployment is down from where it had been under Obama, to 8.1 percent, but that’s not because the economy is creating jobs. It’s because, as this simple analysis shows, large numbers of people have simply stopped looking for work. “In April,” wrote Tyler Durden on Zerohedge.com, “the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000,” which he says is the highest number ever recorded. The labor force participation rate, meaning the people who are working or looking for work, is now at 64.3 percent, a 30-year low.

          With numbers like that, with Obama having wiped out 30 years of job creation under presidents of both parties, is it any surprise that 62 percent of respondents in the CBS News/New York Times poll “cited the economy as the most important issue in the presidential election”?

  5. Dave Skinner

    Last I looked, Sandy Welch looked kinda like a lady to me. Never mind Dee Brown, Janna Taylor, Carmine Mowbray, Tammy Fischer, Pam Holmquist — and that’s just here in evil right wing Flathead country.
    Playing the misogyny card don’t work. Try something else.

      1. Dave Skinner

        Good try, that’s certainly an upcoming topic and we’ll bicker when it comes. Live long and prosper.

        1. Michael Searalika

          Women Brainwashed by men for religious intolerance, and tools of the right do not count Dave. Each side of the gender equation has idiots… Our states last legislature session proved it in Nutcases like Warburton and Barrett. Montana’s GOP Men are not alone in delusional messaging, just look at the republican platform and you will see the hate, mistrust, fear-biting and stupidity. lands evenly on both sides of the extreme Teapublicans!

  6. Buckminster

    Dear Abby, Dear Abby, my housing pipe leaks
    My federal Congressman blinks when he speaks
    The locals aren’t listening; I’ve no campaign dough
    If you can’t do something, I guess I don’t know.
    Signed,
    Disgusted

    Disgusted, Disgusted, I wish I could say
    Your Pubbie dwarf problems were going away.
    Unfortunately, Dopey is running, of course.
    I hope that you’ve paid for your home and your horse.

    Signed,
    Dear Abby.

  7. Rob Kailey

    The real shorter Tokarski:

    “Democrats and Republicans are all the same because a Democrat acted like a cad.”

    What’s the matter, Mark? Are you actually afraid to discuss the very real difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding very real issues which affect very real women? Or is it that you just don’t give a shit about women’s issues when you see an opportunity to ride your favorite hobby horse?

    Now, Kaily, you STFU, and stay STFU’d.

    Sooner or later it will sink in to you, Tokarski. I don’t do your requests. Now I request of you, please don’t shut up. Rather tell us all:

    Should women be forced to carry their rapist’s baby? Rehberg and the Republicans mostly say “yes”. Tester and the Democrats emphatically say “no”.

    Should women get equal pay for equal work? Rehberg and the Republicans mostly say “no”. Tester and the Democrats emphatically say “yes”.

    Should funding for Planned Parenthood be cut? Rehberg and the Republicans mostly say “yes”. Tester and the Democrats emphatically say “no”.

    Should Doctors be told by legislators what they can and cannot do to save a woman’s life? Rehberg and the Republicans mostly say “yes”. Tester and the Democrats emphatically say “no”.

    Should Insurance companies be able to discriminate against women in the name of profit? Hill and the Republicans mostly say “yes”. Bullock, Stutz and the Democrats emphatically say “no”.

    Should women be legally forced to be raped by a machine when seeking medical help? The Republicans mostly say “yes”. The Democrats emphatically say “no”.

    Those are very real issues, dipstick, that actually affect real people as opposed to the cartoon you’ve become. You keep bitching about issues and avoid them like the plague. So please, don’t shut up. Offer your wisdom. How are Democrats and Republicans the same on these actual issues in which they obviously are not the same?

  8. Cherilyn

    Cowgirl–Thanks for a great article! The GOP insistence that their war on women doesn’t exist is baffling. Utterly. Baffling.

    Does the Rehberg portion need updating with his vote on the Violence Against Women Act?

    1. lisa o'conner

      Rehberg is a scumbag. How could anyone vote against protecting women from violence you ask? Rehberg opposes the provision that lets tribes put abusers to trial in tribal court!! As I native women don’t deserve these protections.

Comments are closed.