Earlier today I challenged free birth control activist Sandra Fluke to a genuine discussion on women's issues via Twitter, seeing that we're both here at the RNC. Unfortunately, it looks like she and her companion, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, are only interested in calling conservative women names and dodge honest debate on the issues. The Democrat Party through Schultz today said that female speakers at the RNC are nothing more than "shiny packages."
Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that the female-heavy line-up of speakers at the Republican National Convention was merely “shiny packaging” to distract voters.
“I think we believe that women can see through that nice shiny packaging that the Republicans have been putting out there, through to what’s inside, which is really a disaster for women’s future, extreme policies,” said Wasserman Schultz at a press conference at the Democratic National Committee war room, nestled in the heart of enemy territory just blocks from where the RNC is being held.
Wasserman Schultz was flanked by Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, contraception activist Sandra Fluke and Massachusetts state Sen. Karen Spilka.
This from the party that selected "private citizen" Sandra Fluke to be the face of it's "free birth control" campaign, a citizen who just happened to be represented by the PR firm of Obama's former communications head.
It's insulting that Democrats are so unsupportive of the female sex that they would refer to them in such a patriarchal manner for not towing their party's line. Democrats' idea of wooing female voters is barrage them with emotional abuse. How else to explain Wasserman Schultz's dismissal of women like Condoleezza Rice, who many would argue is infinitely more accomplished than her critic? Or the first Hispanic female governor in the country, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico? Are they merely "shiny packaging?" Is Wasserman Schultz so partisan that she can't even acknowledge the historic significance of Martinez's NM victory?
Wasserman Schultz, Fluke, and Schakowsky have a special sort of "women's advocacy": they seek to devalue the accomplishments of women unless those women believe in dependency upon the government. Their message is antithetical to choice: the women's movement was about more choice, not less. The only party I see campaigning against choice is the party who denigrates the women that chose against Democrats' choices.