SF Chron Paints McCain as Bad for Women

  • Bookmark and Share

San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci dutifully dusted off the same liberal talking points we hear every four years about Republican nominees: the women in their own party hate them.

In her front page article, Marinucci found no conservative Republican women to defend McCain or critique him from the right, but she found three Republican, including Obama backer Susan Eisenhower, and two Democratic women to slam McCain.

But as might be expected in the liberal media, the largest reason these liberal Republican women won’t vote for McCain was chalked up to "women’s rights," code words for abortion. The article devoted a special section to McCain's stance on abortion. Of course this ignores the fact that millions of socially conservative Republican women backed equally pro-life candidates such as Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney in the primaries.

The most famous woman featured was Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of former GOP President Dwight Eisenhower, and an otherwise inconsequential player in Republican politics. She is noted as supporting Obama because he has "shown more understanding of how the Iraq war, the economy and other key issues affect women’s daily lives."

Marinucci then held forth Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communication at Cal State Sacramento to provide academic support for leftist arguments against McCain. O’Connor claimed that the 'average soccer mom" will not support McCain because he is a Republican: "While McCain is refreshing compared to his peers, and a solid citizen on his values ... he's really a Republican in his heart on social issues. And that's going to drive the average soccer mom around the bend."

So, apparently, "average soccer moms" are all socially liberal and won’t support McCain just because he’s pro-life.

Marinucci’s second Republican woman featured as opposing McCain was Harriet Stinson, a founder of a Republicans for Choice group, who said: "If McCain is so against abortion, why does he oppose all the measures needed to reduce the need for it - making insurance companies cover contraceptives, federal funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education?"

But that position makes Stinson not just socially but economically liberal, more in line with Democrats than Republicans. After all, she's calling for federal regulation of private insurance to cover birth control. In other words, Marinucci is citing a Republican hitting McCain from the left. Good luck finding Democratic women wary of Obama who will hit him from the right.

Aside from Eisenhower, Marinucci highlighted another Republican woman who supports Obama. Jillian Manus-Salzman, GOP activist and a Gov. Schwarzenegger donor, said she will "not be surprised if Republican women begin writing checks and openly expressing their support of Obama." She also said, "I would have had a hard time selling Republican women on Hillary Clinton. But selling Republican women on Barack Obama is a whole different story" because "they don't see him as a partisan. My instinct, as a woman, is that this is a truly special person who respects women, who will listen to our voice and use women to rejuvenate and resurrect this country."

What Marinucci left out is that Manus-Salzman is a frequent contributor to the WISH List - America's largest fundraising group for pro-choice Republican women candidates at all levels of government.

In short, while the Chronicle staffer tried to show that McCain has problems with women voters, especially Republican women, most of the article focused on Democratic or socially liberal opposition, as if all women voted on the basis of liberal feminist priorities such as abortion without restriction.

The Chronicle is hardly alone in painting McCain as despised by women voters.

The June 20 Palm Beach Post featured an opinion article which claimed that "a vote for Sen. McCain is a vote against women." Additionally, the Los Angeles Times recently featured an article which highlights women supporting Obama, and as MRC analyst Scott Whitlock noted recently, ABC’s Kate Snow claimed that "women's rights" groups would reject the "anti-abortion" John McCain.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'll be anxiously awaiting

I'll be anxiously awaiting for her report on BHO's abortion stance, particularly the 'baby survives botched abortion, OK to leave on table to die" legislation that all the soccer moms obviously support.

A Women's 'Health' issue. 

"...he's really a

"...he's really a Republican in his heart on social issues. And that's going to drive the average soccer mom around the bend."

What a crock.  There is no statistical difference between women and men on the issue of abortion.  None.  Being pro-life ain't going to "drive" women or men anywhere.  Yes, Barack "let-the-abortus-die-on-the-table" Obama can count on getting the "abortion on demand" litmus-test feminstas, but this crowd is in a distinct minority; contrary to their Democrat-aligned spin, McCain ought to make no secret about Obama's radical, wacked-out-left-wing, out-of-touch voting record on abortion.

We all know Soccer Moms

We all know Soccer Moms hate babies.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Trick question

How many conservatives are there in SF for Carla to interview?

Trick answer... I know of

Trick answer...

I know of one. He's a cop in SF and loves his job. He says it's a little like managing Martians.

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Are they trying to save

Are they trying to save money by recycling these stories every four years and just changing the candidate's name?

  You're not a truly

  You're not a truly liberated and modern woman unless you can kill your own children. 

More

Not just kill your own children, but kill your own children and then congratulate yourself for having squashed such a formidable foe. AND promote child-slaughter among your friends and family and society at large.

We've all got our own point

We've all got our own point of view on abortion, but i think we can all agree that 80% of the country is somewhere in between "no abortions-at all" and "abortions anytime-even after the baby is born".

 So which of the two candidates falls in that 80% range and which one is sitting in the fringe 10% on his side of the issue?

 And why can't reporters ask this question?

exactly ironchef - Obama is a radical on Abortions

he wants them at any age (with no parental consent) and any stage (even born alive can still be killed or denied treatment). He wants no exceptions what so ever unless they have the "health of the mother" exception which would effectively make any exception null an void if a woman claimed she would be depressed or needed a c-section or any other trivial thing (in comparison to the murder of a child).

Most people, like you said, want restrictions. There is almost no chance of Roe V wade being overturned at this point because it's been precedent for too long. The only thing we can hope for now is not to let any age and any stage become the law of the land. That is what will happen with the liberal judges Obama would appoint.

All so his daughters won't

All so his daughters won't be "punished".

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

more than inaccurate - outright lying and fear mongering

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

  • Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
  • Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-is...

"I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term
abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And
it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health
consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues."

 

>>>>"If McCain is so against

>>>>"If McCain is so against abortion, why does he oppose all the measures needed to reduce the need for it - making insurance companies cover contraceptives, federal funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education?"<<<<

First of all, the "need" for abortion is in activists' heads, not women's wombs. 

 Second of all, those measures have been demonstrated to  increase the abortion rate, not decrease it.

Bottom line: Because McCain isn't a drooling idiot with no moral underpinning, abortion-lovers don't want him. Too bad. 

Data?

"Of course this ignores the fact that millions of socially conservative
Republican women backed equally pro-life candidates such as Mike
Huckabee or Mitt Romney in the primaries."

Millions or percentage? Which is more telling?

"Giuliani received 50.21% of the 765 votes cast. Rounding out
the top four vote-getters were former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson,
20.94%; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 14.42%; and
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 6.66%. Those four
candidates accounted for more than 90% of the vote.

The straw poll also featured U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback (.28%)
and John McCain (1.8%) and Congressmen Duncan Hunter (4.02%),
Ron Paul (.42%) and Tom Tancredo (1.25%)." ( National
Federation of Republican Women)

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.