Guy Benson
Recommend this article

Brought to you by the same guy who masterminded his party's disgraceful 'just-say-no-to-budgets' strategy, which is currently in its third consecutive year of unflinching implementation.  It's going to be a long, insufferable general election campaign, guys:
 

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act.  Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a “war against women.” It’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days.

From his perch as the Democrats’ chief policy and messaging guru, Schumer wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than $1 million, and many Democrats want to push the vote for April 15, a move designed to amp up the “income inequality” rhetoric just in time for Tax Day. Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.

None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law. But that’s not really the point. The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues.


And yet, Schumer appears on television and says things like this with a straight face:
 

Schumer...said last Sunday that Democrats would focus like a “laser” on the economy.


Except, of course, when they're totally consumed with the paramount undertaking of cynically dividing Americans along gender, race, and socio-economic lines.  The Left regularly fulminates over Republicans' supposed exploitation of wedge issues during election seasons (see: 2004 and marriage), yet their outrage dries up when Democrats drag the practice to new lows.  To quote the president, let's be clear: Democrats are desperate to change the subject from chronicly high unemployment, the failed stimulus, the unraveling and unpopular Obamacare law, our unprecedented credit downgrade, exploding debt, high gas prices, and meager economic growth.  Instead, it'll be all Republican war on [fill-in-the-blank], all the time.  Pathetic.  Then again, voters may be more interested on Democrats' war on jobs, not to mention the possibility that Schumer & Co. may be in for a rude awakening as they institute their plan.  Their "war on women" rubbish has thus far rendered mixed results at best, so straining to keep that storyline alive may not be especially wise.  I wonder what level of shamelessness Democrats will have to achieve before most women begin to resent the nakedly identity-based pandering.  And for the record, nobody opposes reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, as the second-ranking Senate Republican has explained.  On the question of tax "fairness," does Schumer realize that the vast majority of Americans firmly reject his working definition of the concept?
 

Three-quarters of likely voters believe the nation’s top earners should pay lower, not higher, tax rates, according to a new poll for The Hill.  The big majority opted for a lower tax bill when asked to choose specific rates; precisely 75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below.  The current rate for top earners is 35 percent. Only 4 percent thought it was appropriate to take 40 percent, which is approximately the level that President Obama is seeking from January 2013 onward...
 
Rasmussen has a new poll out that underscores this point, showing strong majority support for a flat tax:
 
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of American Adults now support a [single] across-the-board income tax percentage. Support for a simplified system like this has been growing from 44% in April 2009 to 55% this time last year.  Thirty-one percent (31%) oppose a system where everyone pays the same percentage in taxes.


Undeterred, Democrats are advancing their political wedgie strategy, full bore.  Case in point: A new ad the DNC is running against Mitt Romney in Illinois (where, incidentally, he holds a four-to-nine point lead over Rick Santorum):
 


This spot makes several false claims designed to frighten women. (1) Mitt Romney wants to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood.  This may come as a surprise to some Democrats, but presidents can't just abolish private organizations they don't like.  Romney wants to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which is a standard Republican position. (2) It states that Romney wants to "ban many forms of birth control."  Wrong again.  Like every other Republican candidate -- including Rick Santorum -- Mitt Romney does not favor any form of contraception ban.  He, like most Americans, does object to the federal government forcing religious employers to violate their faith by paying for other people's birth control.  In fact, let's ask Mitt Romney exactly what he thinks about birth control policy:




"Contraception?  It's working just fine.  Just leave it alone."


Sounds like he's got ban-fevah to me.  Obama for America's rapid response director tweeted at me that Romney supports outlawing birth control because he backed Mississippi's (defeated) "personhood" amendment, which could have restricted some forms of birth control.  The only evidence of this I could find was an ABC News article from last year, in which Romney appeared to endorse some form of a life amendment, under vague questioning from Mike Huckabee.  The piece called Democrats' contention that Romney embraced the specific personhood initiative "misleading."  I reached out to the Team Romney for further explanation, and a campaign spokesman responded by clarifying that the candidate never weighed in on the Mississippi ballot question:  "Mitt Romney is pro-life, and as he has said previously, he is supportive of efforts to ensure that life begins at conception.  He believes these matters should be left up to states to decide."  I was also directed to a statement Romney made last fall in Iowa, responding to an inquiry about whether he opposes contraception:  "I don't. I'm sorry, life begins at conception; birth control prevents conception." 

I'll leave you with a prediction and a reminder on reproductive extremism.  Prediction: These facts will not prevent the Obama/DNC machine from continuing to lie about this. Reminder: Obama actively opposed anti-infanticide laws, then lied about it.

Recommend this article

Guy Benson

Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Senior Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson.

Author Photo credit: Jensen Sutta Photography