Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Anderson Cooper Takes on The Democrats' "War on Women" Claim Against GOP

First off, a HUGE bravo to Anderson Cooper for standing up for truth. Partisan politics aside, the position of this blog from the beginning has been to stand up for truth and fact above all things. Cooper's recent reports highlighting the democrats' often false and over-exaggerated claims about the GOP waging a war on women is precisely the kind of journalism we stand for. We often rail on the mainstream media for the spinning and misrepresentation of facts, but Anderson Cooper's stance on this specific issue is a breath of fresh air. He takes on the democrats' (and's) claims and argues for truth in journalism, campaigning, and politics. Below are 2 clips that show what we're talking about.

Clip 1:

In this "Keeping Them Honest" segment, Cooper describes the democrats' use of the student loan issue to claim the GOP wants to fund the continuing government subsidy of the Stafford student loan program by cutting funding to women's healthcare. The clip also shows's ad that claims "republicans must think we are stupid," referring to the alleged war the GOP wants to wage between students and women. He also airs numerous clips of prominent democrat congressmen/women and their claims of a GOP attack on women's health overall.

Clip 2:

In this clip, Anderson Cooper confronts a editor about his group's claim that the GOP is waging a war on women. Cooper correctly points out that is taking a hypocritical stance in chastising the GOP for wanting to fund the subsidy of Stafford loans by zero-balancing a preventative healthcare fund established under Obamacare, but does not make the same war on women charge when Obama proposed drawing from the very same fund. He also points out how the fund is actually NOT a women's health fund and, in fact, very little money allocated in the fund is for women's heath issues. He cites a write-up seen here:

Sure, there will be those that say, "both democrats and republicans do this (spinning)," and yes, they're right. Both do. We at The Elephant in the Room find this spreading of "maltruths" disgusting and abhorrent regardless of political leaning. We call it "maltruths" because it seems like the media and many politicians take one ounce of truth and spread it like it's a ton. To use this specific issue as an example, the claims the healthcare fund targeted for use by the GOP would withdraw many crucial funds from women's health programs, but as Anderson Cooper properly points out, it is incredibly small.'s claim isn't a lie in full since some (regardless of how small) funding for women's health would be cut, but the amount that they're claiming would be cut is a massive exaggeration.

Another example of this is how Barack Obama tries to push the "Buffett rule" as if millionaires paying a lower tax rate than middle-income earners is the norm, when it is nowhere close. See those numbers here: Again, it's not a lie; it's a "maltruth." Under the current system, some millionaires do pay lower tax rates than the middle class, but as a trend, in spite of the claim Obama makes, this isn't the case.

Political rhetoric, in my opinion, is dangerous, and it seems politicians and media outlets know the average American can be easily swayed. Unfortunately, it will continue, and the best we can hope for is for large-scale journalists like Anderson Cooper to let truth and facts rise above the spin and muck. Just like we do at The Elephant in the Room, he takes a position, and he backs it with cited evidence. It seemed the editor couldn't handle this, and tried to spin whatever "truth" he was pushing. I think every American should see these clips and realize the truth about his alleged "war on women." I hope they can wade through the bull to see the real information in the face of propaganda and fear mongering.

Please share your thoughts below.


  1. As a woman, these political games the democrats are playing are making me sick. I hope my fellow ladies aren't as easily brainwashed by the democrats' crap. I hope they can realize the truth. Thank you AC.

  2. Yes, good for Anderson Cooper, but, too bad nobody watches CNN. They are at their lowest ratings in a decade.

    I saw one of those clips of Anderson Cooper a couple of weeks ago and was amazed. I was wondering if AC was going rogue or if CNN was trying to become legitimate. Looks like AC went rogue.

    1. I find it hilarious that AC is keeping the press, the president, "honest." Don't get me wrong, I LOVE seeing the truth come out of someone like AC (who knows WHY he is doing this), but isn't one member of the press keeping another member of the press "honest" like giving the wolf the keys to the hen house, in a way? :-)

  3. I always wonder what is going through the minds of some prominent members of the GOP lately. None wish to be categorized as 'waging a war on woman', as ridiculous as that catch-phrase is, yet they keep providing ammo.

    Like, Mitt Romney hesitating in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which should be a no-brainer regardless of political affiliation.
    (the act is a very simple one)

    Gov. Scott Walker and the legislative body, repealing the equal pay legislation in Wisconsin.

    Or, banning Planned Parenthood funding all together, in a state that already banned the use of federal funds for abortion related procedures by PP. So in essence, all this additional legislation did was ban Planned Parenthood from using federal funds for the STD/cancer screenings and treatment that were otherwise provided for free for women:

    And that’s all without even going into the birth control/contraception debacle.

    Say what you will about whether these actions were justified or not, but the fact remains that the GOP has lost and continues to lose support of women by a rather significant margin. And if they’re really concerned over losing that vote, and not being labeled as ‘waging a war on woman’, maybe they should stop giving so much ammo?

    I mean, the war on woman rhetoric has been vibrant for months yet many GOP legislators are still playing into it by focusing on such trivial issues that will do little other than drive more woman away from the party.

    1. No offense RKen, but I really gotta disagree with you on this. Perhaps you should understand more of what republicans really stand for than political rhetoric and news clips (I'm not attacking you, but I am a little surprised, coming from someone who is well-versed like you).

      Yes, the democrats saying the republicans are waging a war on women is ridiculous and shameful. This is pushed forth by democrats and the press. They use the twisting of information (which this posting shows), and the media tornado for shovel it along. Maybe I can help.

      As far as the LL act, yes, most republicans think it's absolute garbage. Why? It's not because we want women to earn less money. No one is against that. Many of us just think this is not a federal government issue. Many of us don't think this issue is relevant. Most studies show women not only are more educated than men, but do make more money than men as a whole. It seems that it depends on whose study you read. But again, the point isn't that we don't want this. We just think the FEDERAL government (it's not promoted in the constitution) should be doing this. The market equals out salaries anyway. For the Obama administration to tout and brag that it created this 100% unnecessary law is nothing but political posturing. That's what upsets republicans. But of course, if we don't go along with it, even if our grounds for not going along with it have nothing to do with trying to ensure women are paid less, the media twists it.

      Ditto for the Scott Walker one. (and I'm surprised you quoted the Huff post on this). Him repealing that law has NOTHING to do with wanting to keep women's pay low:

      The act was meant to give victims of wage discrimination more legal avenues for pursuing cases against their employers, but Walker signed a measure removing parts of the law that allowed people to plead their cases in state circuit court as opposed to federal court.

      "The reality is today in the state of Wisconsin it is illegal to discriminate for employment, not only for hiring, but for promotions or any other impact on employment based on race, based on sex, based on a whole series of other criteria," Walker said last Friday at the Illinois Policy Institute. "It was illegal before I took office, it is still illegal today."

      But, as expected, the media twists this.

      Maybe the use of ammo, I will concede, does highlight what you're saying, but again, it's a chicken and egg argument. Maybe since the GOP is taking logical, constitutionally backed steps, though not cute and fuzzy sounding, it seems like they're against such things, and when put into the hands of the media, oh boy! the GOP looks bad. So sure, being a realistic republican in front of the firing squad media is what gives the shooters their "ammo," but you know what? It's truly sad and despicable that it is this way. The GOP gets murdered by the media, and, like in the Scott Walker case, they twist and shoot the facts to push their agenda. Anderson Cooper did a great job highlighting it and using those words, this blog posted it wonderfully, and I'm just a little surprised that you, someone I don't know but do respect because you're very clear-headed, jumps on the GOP for giving the press ammo when I know you know that's not the case. Nothing personal, and nothing but love for you RKen, but on this issue, I really have to disagree. I'm sure there will be more :-) It's just my two cents.

    2. Sorry, perhaps I should have made my point more clear.

      I expressed no feelings whatsoever on whether or not I supported or opposed any of the topics I mentioned, and on purpose. Because it's not really relevant to my point; which is that at a time when debating sensitive issues concerning women is resulting in serious political rhetoric being used as (and effectively, I might add) a weapon against your party, the best course of action isn't to continue doing it. Which is what confuses me about many GOP figures right now.

      That's my point. I'm not debating whether they should be passed or not, but I am questioning why they're playing into the rhetoric almost purposefully and/or ignorant to the ultimate results.

      I'm also not disagreeing with the silly, hyperbolic use of the political rhetoric by the Democrats in this topic.

      But the fact of the matter is, none of those issues are major (or even moderate) players in what is causing concern for most voters. All the passing of those issues has done is make it harder on the GOP.

      None of them are major (or even minor) players on the real issues of our budget and jobs, so why risk losing votes for what essentially amounts to little/nothing? That’s where my confusion lies.

    3. RKen - I might have not been clear.

      I fully and completely understood that you were not expressing personal opinions on those subjects. I know that's the stance you took. What I'm saying is, the "giving them ammo" part is where I disagree.

      I don't feel the GOP is giving the other side and the press ammo at all. I think the press and the other side are intentionally twisting things to use as "ammo." That's what I meant by the chicken and the egg.

      The GOP is taking positions (like what I've said above), but the press and the other side are twisting these positions like the GOP is saying awful things (look at my example about Scott Walker). He absolutely did not remove the law. He absolutely does not want women to make less. If people realized the truth about what he did, the "ammo" part would be a non-factor. Unfortunately, the left and the media took what he did and twisted it. Just like he said, ""The reality is today in the state of Wisconsin it is illegal to discriminate for employment, not only for hiring, but for promotions or any other impact on employment based on race, based on sex, based on a whole series of other criteria," Walker said last Friday at the Illinois Policy Institute. "It was illegal before I took office, it is still illegal today." - This isn't even close to repealing the law. So people like you and many others (again, not a personal assault on you) have the positions you do when it's not even close.

      I really hope that's clear, and if it's not, I apologize. I know where you stand, and you're 100% right that the war on women is silly, and overplay and an over exaggeration, but I definitely don't think that if you look at what the GOP actually has said on the subject, they are giving ammo at all. The press is turning it into ammo 100%.

    4. This is a bit of a tough topic to debate. :)

      I understand your point in that the media/liberals are turning what doesn't appear to be intentional ammo to the GOP, into ammo.

      But that's exactly how politics works.

      You make a completely fair, reasonable, and understandable argument about why the GOP passed those certain policies (and so does the quote from Scott W.). But if that was all it took to convince people on the other side of your point, partisan politics would hardly exist.

      Regardless of the intentions, the point remains that these are issues sensitive to women that hold little to no relevance to the goals of the nation. It is not good political strategy to continue it leading up to an election, even with the good intentions.

      I mean, consider this similarity:

      Dems could argue into the sunset with logic and reason about why they believe the rich should pay more, but most Repubs will still disagree with it and take the other side.

      And if Dems kept perusing all these avenues that force the rich to pay more and/or make them feel vilified, especially it being largely irrelevant to the real important issues facing our country… Not only will they continue to play into the Republican rhetoric of ‘Dems hate the rich’, but they will start to (or continue to) lose votes from that populous. And it would be a poor decision to continue to do so, regardless of intentions, and particularly if half the voting populous was in the rich category (hypothetical).

  4. RKen, good afternoon sir.

    The PP issue and the alleged "birth control/contraception debacle" is all fabricated. Planned Parenthood is still operating in whatever state you are referring to, taxpayers just aren't subsidizing it. Women can still get birth control in all 50 states in America, even as low as $7 a month at Target and Wal-Mart. Those Wal-Mart's are all over the place, so there is no shortage of them. It's just a ruse to roust up the unintelligent base of the Democrat party. Oh yeah and it keeps from talking about his dismal track record on deficits, economy, and the phoney baloney unemployment numbers.

    If anything, the Democrats are waging a war on the 53% of America that actually pays taxes.

    1. Good afternoon to you too Slim,

      I understand PP is still operating, and that it merely is not receiving tax-payer funds in the given states. But the idea is that, funding was taken from an area that was specifically used for health services (and not abortion), which will effect how many woman the organization can help.

      However, again, my point was just that by targeting legislation issues sensitive to women, despite their lack of relevance to the current issues most important to people, they’re doing more to hurt themselves with woman and easily allow the rhetoric used against them to continue... than they are doing anything else.

      As far as birth control, though again this is a different subject from my point and I wasn't attempting to argue the validity of it.... You have to keep in mind that all birth control doesn't work for everyone. If it did, then yeah, every woman in America would be on the generic. But medications don’t work that way, and this is especially the case for one that regulates hormones (which varies greatly person to person).

      That being the case, birth control can cost upwards of $283/month, though of course that is by no means a typical figure.

      But seriously, who would really pay $283/m vs $7/m if it really was that simple? lol

  5. Whether its the left or the right, I'm glad we are moving on from the "fake war on women" to more substantial issues. Women are doing fine. There are more new women entrepreneurs than ever. We got empowered in the 60's folks. Its a process.