Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Did Mara Liasson Demean Women's Intelligence? UPDATE - Oct. 22, 2014

I published this post in April of this year entitled: "Did Mara Liasson Demean Women's Intelligence?"

I am bringing it back because I humbly think it was very prescient in it's basic conclusion: That I have more faith in women than does Mara Liasson because I predicted the Democrats [led by President Obama's] "war on women" rhetoric would not work this election year and it would show up in the election results.

As you see in the article, Mara thought the war on woman rhetoric [even if the facts weren't there to back up the Democrats claims] was a good smart political move that was being made because it would work.  [implied: like it always does] 

As you can tell by some of the replies, and also by some of the comments I got on twitter, I was criticized in believing the war on women rhetoric would not work this time, and a lot of people said, no, Mara was right and I was naïve. 

Well we still have to wait a couple of weeks for the election results, but initial signs are going good for the Tales position. :-)

Look at these recent headlines that have just come out in the news:

From ABC news: "is the War on women backfiring on the Democrats"

From the Catholic Register: "Is the Democrats War on Women Rhetoric Backfiring in 2014"

From The Colorado Observer: "Poll: Democrats War on Women has backfired"

From Newsmax commenting on Commentary Magazine's Jonathan Tobin: "Dems [war on women] Strategy on GOP Backfiring"

From The College Republican: "Democrats are Losing the War on Women"

From The [Colorado] Gazette: "War on Women Backfires on Udall"

From Townhall.com: "Dem's War on Women Campaign Backfires"

I would say case closed, but it still isn't closed until we find out the election results on Nov. 4.  I hope and pray I am right with a big Republican wave that drowns the Democrats "war on women" rhetoric once and for all.

Please read the following article I did on Mara Liasson [as I stated in the article, someone who I really like, and like to hear her opinions] and I hope you will agree with me, the Tales might just turn out to be right.
____________________________________________________________
From April 16, 2014: "Did Mara Liasson Demean Women's Intelligence?"


Mara Liasson
I like NPR and Fox News Channel's Mara Liasson.  She is a liberal and I disagree with her position most of the time, but she is usually very thoughtful with her comments and I've noticed is also very attentive and respecting when a conservative, such as Charles Krauthammer, makes his opinion known.  I do not want this post to be an attack on Mara Liasson, but I am just asking this question I put in the title of this post.

So, that is why I was kind of surprised at her position [given on Fox News Channel Special Report Show on Tuesday April 8, 2014] on president Obama's call for equal pay for women, especially as he used bogus statistics and he revealed total hypocrisy in his call, as his White House does not meet the standards of equal pay for women that he demands of the private sector.

Listen to Charles Krauthammer on the topic, Special Report Panel, April 8, 2014:



Mara was listening with great respect to Charles, but then made this statement "Everything you say Charles may be true" and then she said [paraphrasing], "but this [Obama's rhetoric] will have an affect on women and it is a good political move by the president to help the Democrats in November."

Think about what Mara said.  Even if everything Dr. Krauthammer said was true about president Obama's lying demagoguery, those real facts wouldn't matter to women and they would fall for the emotional rhetoric by the president even though his statements were false.

I respect Mara Liasson, but isn't that demeaning to women about their intelligence and ability to reason?  Remember she began her statement of approval of president Obama's statement, by allowing that "everything [Charles Krauthammer] said may be true."   So, it wasn't "I don't agree with your assertions Charles" which if she had made that qualification, I wouldn't be writing this post.  I think, and what I was hoping Mara Liasson would have said in response to Charles Krauthammer was, "If what you are saying is true Charles, then I think women will be intelligent enough to see through the president's rhetoric, and his statements will not help and could actually backfire on the Democrats in the upcoming elections." 

I have more respect for women's intelligence than Mara and believe they will determine the facts and make a reasoned decision about the president's and Democrats hyperbolic accusations against Republicans so-called "war on women" as they exemplify falsely in the "Republicans not wanting equal pay for women".   I sure hope I am right, and not Mara Liasson, about women's decision making.

Again, this post is not so much an attack on the intelligent Mara Liasson  as on all the Democrats who actually are so demeaning to women to think that they can influence a woman's vote by emotional lies rather than reasoned facts. 

Thank God we don't have long to go to find out as the November elections are just a half a year away.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Mara is right, and you are wrong. Wish it was, otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Mara is quite convinced that this President deserves positive mention. Any thing she can do to further that goal is acceptable in her mind. Questioning women's capabilities will not further that goal so why do it?

Anonymous said...

Mara is right. Obama did the same thing with blacks and young voters. Of course it works.

Anonymous said...

In her defense, isn't she just saying that there are a number of people (of both sexes) who are easily fooled by rhetoric? And that the easily-fooled women will tend to base their vote on women's issues? She is right. Our country is made up largely of idiots, and it cuts across many demographics.

batchainpuller said...

It has worked and will continue to work because the deceit and demagoguery are not widely exposed or discussed. He can lie with impunity. The goal is to win the news cycle every day...and it works, when the vast majority of journalists are your voluntary PR organization. Fox/Breitbart/NRO users live in a bubble and don't realize the extent to which these stories are artfully quashed.

Anonymous said...

Voting patterns of the last several elections prove without a shadow of a doubt that Mara is absolutely right.

Doug said...

Krauthammer was right. Will was right. Liasson was right. Each spoke the truth. In Liasson's case she said the facts of the issue are not as significant as the emotions of issue. Is that demeaning? Maybe, but it also goes hand in hand with the way the most MSM outlets—television, print, and online—will report the story. Though to my surprise some main stream journalists have reported the issue straight.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

Big Mike said...

No, when I heard her I don't think she was saying it cuts both ways --also, the way I took it Mara was agreeing with this rhetoric because it will help the Democrats cause...that there is nothing wrong with the president using it. I agree there are a lot of dumb voters out there-my hope is the intelligent voters will outnumber the unintelligent ones. Thanks for your opinion.

Big Mike said...

It has been that way in the past, my hope is that it has been used so often, eventually [I hope] at least some people wake up. But you could be right.

Anonymous said...

Look, if you sat down and actively asked people this question just the way you presented it here, they would agree with you (and Krauthammer) and that would be that. The INSTANT you tell them that President Obama made the statement, they'd change their minds and vote for him. With most people it's just that simple. Whether they're intimidated of being called a racist if they disagree with Obama, or if they just want to cut the first black president a break, or they think "Obama means well so I shouldn't disagree with him"...whatever it is, it makes them idiots. We all saw this in action when Howard Stern took Sarah Palin's statements and told people they were Obama's and they suddenly agreed with them as if it were natural. This "Obama effect" is the primary reason he's the president. If he weren't black, he'd never have gotten out of the democrat primaries. Simple as that.

Big Mike said...

As I said to the first commenter and I should have made more clear in the post...yes, I realize that this has been effective in the past---as I also said to the first person... maybe in hope only--it has been used so often, that it is like the person crying wolf...eventually those tactics won't work--my hope and prayers. :-) Thanks

Big Mike said...

Agree! thank you for your comments.

Big Mike said...

That's why I put a question mark asking if that was demeaning...up to you to decide...I think it is demeaning to women because it is implying they are not using their intelligence in deciding their vote...only their emotions [based on false facts].
Thanks for your views!

Big Mike said...

I agree totally! But the unfortunate fact for Democrats is that Obama is not running anymore and actually not an issue in any more elections. So, hopefully, even though it is Obama with the rhetoric, it won't work this time. We will find out soon enough..in about 6 months if it worked or not. Thank you!

Big Mike said...

and that is why I am doing this post....[as small a blog as I have :-)] to try to expose it to maybe a few people.
Thank you Batchainpuller!

Big Mike said...

Yes, the past several elections..... we will find out in November if it works this time. My prediction is no. Or maybe I should have said, my hope is no. :-) Thanks a lot for your comments.

Alan said...

You cannot underestimate the intelligence of the average voter.
You're just learning that?

Gahrie said...

I am so convinced that Mara is right that I now believe we should repeal the 19th Amendment. I bet if you go back and look at the debate around the 19th Amendment, all the predictions of the bad outcomes have come to pass.Women are literally hysterical about the issues of abortion and birth control.

Anonymous said...

Not until we can wrench control of the message machinery from the Democrats' stooges in the media and academia. Every single female-centric publication and TV show is a never-ceasing drumbeat of Democrat propaganda. Most colleges are also hotbeds of Democrat propaganda. Women as a group lack the interest to look beneath the propaganda and see the truth.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's demeaning. It's also the truth. Women's votes are driven by emotions, not by facts or logic. This behavior demeans women, but it's their own doing. Liasson is simply the messenger here.

Ralph Gizzip said...

"my hope is the intelligent voters will outnumber the unintelligent ones."

They will ... when monkeys fly out of your butt.

Big Mike said...

Gahrie you are so right about the issue of abortion-that is the one issue that unbelievably overrides every other issue to a liberal women--and that is so sad and crazy.
Thanks both for your comments!

Big Mike said...

No, I knew it quite well..... that's how Obama got elected twice...this post was about how Mara Liasson would actually buy into it and didn't see how that demeans women's intelligence. Thanks Alan.

Big Mike said...

Yes, what was surprising to me is that Mara - even though she is definitely a liberal, is usually more discerning than that. But she was approving of the tactic - the facts be damned. Thanks for your comment.

Hank Seiter said...

Yep, Mara and the rest of the liberal elite hope women are simply rubes, pawns, and useful idiots in supporting the lying Democratic agenda ... and apparently they're right if the past few elections are any indication. Well, at least prog women are rubes and useful idiots.

Anonymous said...

Every time it’s election season, we hear the same old thing: “Vote for me or vote against them because __[fill in the blank]_____.” The difference between an informed voter and an uninformed voter is how he fills in the blank for the candidates for whom he or she votes. For example, I care about government staying within its proper limits, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, because where government’s purview is too large, individual liberty and civil rights are too small. So I fill in the blank and vote for candidates who move the ball forward on limiting the scope and power of the federal government. Most of my votes are cast for republicans, but not all of them, because a lot of republicans don’t stick to what’s important to me, so they lose my vote, unless I am compelled to vote for them as the lesser of two evils.
On the other side of the aisle, with folks voting democrat, I have to ask this question: Do you ever wonder about the TIMING of the seemingly all-important (i.e., headline-grabbing) exigencies with which your candidates fill in the blank? This election cycle, like most others in recent memory, the blanks are filled in with some mixture of the following concerns: (1) the Republicans’ alleged “War on Women;” (2) the purported injustice of “Income Inequality” in America; and (3) ubiquitous and ever-more-nuanced “Racism”. Has anyone else bothered to notice that we have heard of these societal ills over and over again in election-cycle after election-cycle? Has anyone else noticed that we never see any effective solution coming forth for ANY of these problems from the democrats when they are in power, and that we only hear about these problems when it’s an election year? Why is that? Could it be that these canards are important only as vehicles to ensure electoral success? Is it possible that the voters are so forgetful and Pavlovian?

Hank Seiter said...

BTW, liberal "progressivism" has proven to be the opiate of rubes, pawns, useful idiots and low information voters happily languishing on the left's entitlement plantation. The very definition of an idiocracy and parasitical political corruption.

Big Mike said...

yes, we have to remember there are a lot of great patriotic American women out there!! Like my wife. :-)) Thanks big Hank!

TeeJaw said...

Mara Liasson’s statement reveals her stance that the end always justifies the means. She admits that Obama is lying to women in hopes of getting their vote, but she’s OK with that because he's doing it to help the Democrats.

She’s not only demeaning women in general, she’s demeaning herself.

Big Mike said...

Exactly---my hope and prayer is that eventually - EVENTUALLY - at least some of the American people wake up and finally ask the questions you are. We will find out. Thanks for your comments!

Anonymous said...

With control of the media, Democrats can lie out their asses and not be called on it. The low-information voters of all genders, colors, and creeds will hear just the messages the Democrats want them to hear, and not bother to dig deeper.

The re-election of Barak Obama marked the end of functional democracy in America. What comes next?

Mark in Portland

Big Mike said...

The only hope is that Barack Obama can't run again [I hope] -- and that finally the American people will come out of their stupor...At least my prayer. Thanks big Mark!

Anonymous said...

While I am not so gullible as to think Republicans never lie, Mara is basically saying that she regards it as fair ball when a Democrat does it, and I doubt she has ever implied so about a Republican doing it. Shills like Mara don't even have to pretend anymore, to the point that they don't even think they are pretending.

AmericanWoman said...

I am a woman and conservative and I do like Mara, I think she is fair, although she does have a liberal bent. However, she is 100% correct. Women, especially single women, overwhelmingly support Obama and democrats. Women love having a victim status and this 'war on women' stuff is definitely gets to them. I am sometimes ashamed to be a woman. It seems that many women have reduced themselves to being afraid and wanting to give up rights to be protected. Just make sure I can get free birth control, or an abortion if I'm too stupid or lazy to use the birth control correctly... Is this feminism? I don't think so. And if you are a woman, and you reject this rhetoric, you are branded as a traitor and unnatural. IMO, Mara Liasson is not demeaning women, women are demeaning themselves.

DKWalser said...

Many voters of both genders vote for the person they feel is on their side. In this case, Liasson may have been merely acknowledging the fact that many women will be more apt to feel Democrats are on "their side" -- even if those women know that the specific argument being made is specious and that those making the argument aren't sincere. Their willingness to make the argument is evidence to women that the Democrats are on the side of women.

Big Mike said...

I think you are right...thanks!

Big Mike said...

I agree with you about Mara...and hope I let that be known correctly in my post..I actually like Mara a lot and that's why I was surprised because when I saw her make the comment live, I actually think she was demeaning women by her approving of this tactic [that was my take]---it surprised me---It is possible I am wrong and you could be right--you are definitely right about women demeaning themselves. Thanks a lot American Woman! :-)))

Big Mike said...

good points DK---my feeling and maybe it is more a hope that in November this tactic will finally be one time the Democrats specious arguments won't work. Also, my prayers. :-)
Thanks DKW!

Anonymous said...

While I agree with most commenters that emotional, even unhinged, rhetoric will win (as it pretty much always has), I wish more conservatives would go on the offense and take these sound bites and use them. "What Democrats believe: emotional lies, not facts, influence women". Quote Ms. Liasson. There are explosive quotes literally all over the place. You don't have to make stuff up, just use what comes from the mouths of donkeys, and make Dems defend or disown them. - Pam

Anonymous said...

99% of the time she has her Dem talking points in front of her. Amazing.

Big Mike said...

I agree with you Pam that we need to directly quote Dems for their outrageous statements and point them out for the world to see [that I hope the Tales blog has not been shy to do in the past and will continue to do in the future]--but the main point of this post, and I know I could have made myself clearer was not to attack Mara Liasson but to point out that Democrats attacking the Republicans for a so-called war on women is actually demeaning to women and not supporting women. That was the main point of this post-that I agree could have been made better. Thanks Pam.

Big Mike said...

Yes, Mara Liasson is certainly a liberal Democrat but I actually like Mara a lot because she doesn't always use Democrat talking points and you can tell, unlike so many on the left, she respects conservatives in their viewpoints even when disagreeing. She certainly doesn't grate on your nerves like a David Gregory, or others like him do.

TM Lutas said...

You will more likely wake up women to the nastiness of socialized medicine by sitting down and watching the Death of Mr. Lazarescu than listening to Charles Krauthammer for the equivalent amount of time.

Big Mike said...

Now you've done it TML. You are going to make me google "the death of Mr. Lazarescu" to find out what that is. :-)) I probably will be embarrassed that I should have heard of that. Thanks TM. :-)

Big Mike said...

That is a good point Tee Jaw! Thanks!

Big Mike said...

I don't know...I'm predicting this November it will happen--maybe, Krauthammer would evaluate me as delusional, but I think...hope.....pray that we will see it.

Anonymous said...

The problem is the MSM. All Republicans should boycott them. No interviews, no panels, no TV, no radio, no internet. NOTHING. They will then be spouting the democrat's propaganda and this will become evident to everyone. Republicans could go with PJMedia, NRO, Fox News or any other respected conservative-libertarian outlet. These outlets will grow with influence and value. Thus, the MSM will put themselves out of business. This is clearly evident when you view how Fox News and the internet outlets have grown while the MSM is dropping. Use the MAJOR muscle of conservatives and libertarians. This will work.

Big Mike said...

I'm really with you there! The MSM is a total propaganda tool for this administration as much as Pravda was for the old Soviet Union.
Thanks

Synova said...

Sometimes the truth is demeaning to women. Unfortunately.

I and many of my women friends find the whole of the liberal message overtly demeaning to women, particularly the War on Women. We can do nothing without government help. We can't use modern knowledge and science to control our own reproduction. Worse, we've been reduced to our lady-parts. A giant bright pink vagina costume is and can never be anything other than demeaning. (Imagine a male-rights rally with the equivalent male member as a human sized costume and then think of what it would take to respond: "Wow, we really need to hire that person because they're obviously an intellectual prize.")

Synova said...

Personally, I think it's an extreme ethics problem indemic to Journalism. Now, maybe it's just because it seems that most journalists are liberal and it's actually a journalism thing and not a liberal things... but "journalists" really should see it as their sacred duty, certainly Mara too, to advocate for the truth. There are a whole lot of things that really are objectively true. But media reports on personalities and social acceptability. And you have to ask, what is the point of them?

"Stuck on stupid" are words of profound wisdom that apply across the board. Journalists don't seem to view their job as informing people of the truth, informing them of events... the context of that quote was that people in the path of a hurricane *needed to know* what the emergency plans were... but what the journalists wanted was a juicy story... and people could just drown for all they seemed to care.

It ought to be seen by every single journalist as their sacred calling to tell the truth... not to "power" but to the *people*. Tell the truth to the people. If the politician you like is lying and your telling the truth to the people will mean that the legislation that you believe is a Good Thing, Necessary or even Vital will fail... too bad. Tell the truth anyway.

So Mara is right... Obama's rhetoric will *work*. But Mara should be trying her best to make sure that it doesn't work. She ought to be most interested in making sure that even if she agrees with the ultimate goals, that she's told the truth to the people. Reporting on emotions, reactions and opinions doesn't cut it.

Big Mike said...

Very good comments - I agree with your points. Thanks so much for taking the time to share Synova!

Anonymous said...

Just reading this now Big Mike. It's July 9, 2014. Saul Alinskey "Rules For Radicals" the playbook is being followed step by step. Unfortunately, we have been dumbing down children in public schools for decades, indoctrinate them in the Universities, the mainstream media, Hollywood & press have been a Propaganda machine for the left, we've kicked God out of the schools, courthouse, everywhere; we're overwhelming the system: IE Clower&Piven; etc etc...Now that the Culture has been infiltrated our Constitution and Declaration of Independence is hanging by a tiny thread. We're going to have to join together as American's...those of us who give a rat's bleep and leave our divisions behind to stand up and come out and VOTE and speak up in November, no matter the mudslinging. We need to come out peacefully and join hands. For the future of our Grandchildren.
God Bless America
Krissy in ATX

Big Mike said...

You got that right Krissy! Thank you for those great comments patriot!