Maybe now Obama will use the “W” word
by digby
Well this sucks:
“In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney” since his strong performance in the first debate, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says. “Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.”
While Lake believes Obama retains an edge among women voters, the changed views of Romney could be “a precursor to movement” to the Republican candidate, she says. “It opens them up to take a second look, and that’s the danger for Obama.”
“Old Moderate Mitt” as Bill Clinton called him made quite an impression on some women voters apparently, what with his compassionate conservatism and all. And since nobody challenged him, they assumed it must be backed up by his record.
Maybe President Obama will be moved to mention Romney’s real attitudes toward women in tomorrow’s debate. Seems as if it might be a good idea to remind them of some of this stuff:
In October of 2011, during his second run in the Republican presidential primaries, Romney appeared on Gov. Mike Huckabee’s TV show and said, “My view is that the Supreme Court should reverse Roe v. Wade and send back to the states the responsibility for deciding whether it is legal or not … Would it be wonderful if everyone in the country agreed with you and me that life begins in conception and that there’s a sanctity of life that’s part of a civilized society and that we’re all going to agree there should not be legal abortion in the nation? That’d be great.”
Also too, destroying Medicare, Medicaid and calling half the country a bunch of dependent losers he doesn’t have to care about. I have a sneaking suspicion that if someone mentioned those things, a lot of women would no longer think old Moderate Mitt was quite as appealing.
… and let’s not forget:
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, who is taking time out to volunteer with the Obama campaign, said, “I don’t think this is about flip-flopping. I think this is about completely trying to distance himself from the positions he has taken repeatedly. Obviously he took these positions as he was running for the Republican primary. I mean, his three main positions when it comes to women’s health are: he wants to get rid of women’s access to birth control through insurance plans, he wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, and he wants to overturn Roe. I think it’s completely disingenuous to say this is not part of his agenda.”
By Wednesday afternoon, Mitt Romney was back to vowing to be “a pro-life president,” saying in Ohio: “I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president.” Romney added: “the actions I’ll take immediately [are] to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I’ve indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions overseas.”
Removing funding from Planned Parenthood has serious consequences. Richards notes that “[t]he reason why Planned Parenthood is still being able to provide cancer screenings and birth control to women in America is because President Obama has stood up to the Tea Party Congress, and said we are simply not going to get rid of that. And so I do think that he’s trying to have it both ways, by saying that’s it’s not part of his agenda, but giving complete license to the most extreme part of his party when it comes to repealing access to healthcare that women have had for decades.”
Trust him?
.