Skip to main content

I spent my evening at my local OFA campaign field office making phone calls for the very first time. I'm really fired up and excited and will probably write a diary about my first experience being a volunteer. While I was busy making phone calls I missed what was going on around the Internet, including the release of a new television ad by the Obama campaign, so here it is with transcript for those who can't watch videos online.

Voiceover: As you're making your decision ... maybe you're wondering what to believe about Mitt Romney.

Well, when it comes to protecting your access to birth control ... and the basic women's health care services Planned Parenthood provides ... one thing we must remember, is this:

Mitt Romney: I'll cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.

Voiceover: He'll cut it off. Cut us off.

Mitt Romney: Planned Parenthood. We're going to get rid of that.

Voiceover: Women need to know ... the real Mitt Romney.

I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message.

The Huffington Post describes the ad and where it will be aired. Since budgeting concerns limit the on air television time for this ad, you can help by sharing it with your friends, family, coworkers and neighbors via email and on social media like Twitter and Facebook.
President Barack Obama's reelection campaign released a new ad Friday attacking Mitt Romney's position on women's health issues, the same week in which the Republican presidential nominee attempted to portray a more moderate stance on abortion.


The commercial will air in six battleground states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.

Obama Campaign Ad: Women Need To Know Where 'Real Mitt Romney' Stands On Abortion, Contraception

Last night after the vice presidential debate Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, for MSNBC who explains why it is so important for woman to understand what's at stake for them in this election.

Rachel Maddow: Lawrence O'Donnell is in the spin room tonight with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. Lawrence, over to you.

Lawrence O'Donnell: Thanks Rachel. Cecile, we've heard something new I think tonight about the Romney-Ryan position on abortion. Mitt Romney has beens saying there is no legislation that I've been contemplating while at the same time saying he definitely wants the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Cecile Richards: Absolutely.

Lawrence O'Donnell: And would appoint justices to do that. Tonight I think I just heard Paul Ryan saying he doesn't want judges to do this; he wants legislation to do that. He wants elected officials to get rid of the provisions of Roe vs. Wade.

Cecile Richards: Right. I think what we heard tonight was such a clear declaration that they believe; he believes and Mitt Romney believes that government should be making the most private, personal medical decisions for women. And I think this is; I'm glad that it's finally out in the open that they actually do believe that women shouldn't be able to make their own decisions about having children, but in fact this is something we should leave to legislators and government. Because this is something that is not supported by the American people and I think American women needed to hear that tonight.

Lawrence O'Donnell: There was also a discussion in that section of the debate about Obamacare, as they call it, and its effect on contraception services within healthcare plans and as that relates to some religious employers; Paul Ryan talking about that in terms of a depravation of religious liberty.

Cecile Richards: Right. Well I think the incredible thing, and Paul Ryan didn't say this of course tonight, but he and Mitt Romney have said on Day One if they were elected, they would get rid of insurance coverage for birth control from employers all across the board. So actually this is an issue that you know Mitt Romney repeatedly has said. He's going to get rid of Planned Parenthood which serves three million folks a year with preventive care. And now they're saying they're going to get rid of birth control coverage in insurance plans. So I think what you heard tonight is Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan aren't just going to take women back four years; they're going to take women back forty years. And I think this is such a clear distinction; I'm glad women of America and men of America are hearing it because it's going to be a voting issue in the election.

Lawrence O'Donnell: You listened to the whole debate. Taking in the whole debate, what were you hoping undecided voters heard tonight?

Cecile Richards: Well, I think what I heard was a vice president who clearly has the experience, who was fact based, was able to talk clearly about policies. And I thought Mr. Ryan did his best but he talked about big ideas and things with no detail. I think whether it was about war, whether it was about taxes, believing that we need to ... really, the wealthiest in the country need to pay higher shares so that we can get middle class tax relief ... was very clear to me and I think that's what the voters will have heard tonight.

Lawrence O'Donnell: I just want to go back to the abortion issue one more time.

Cecile Richards: Sure.

Lawrence O'Donnell: There was another distinction I think came up between Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney now says that he would favor some kind of exception for, in terms of abortion policy when it comes to rape or incest, Paul Ryan tonight seemed to say no that a pregnancy is a pregnancy.

Cecile Richards: That's exactly what he said. And I think it's very hard, I think, for women to trust Mitt Romney because I feel like he has taken every different position and even this week we've heard him take about three different positions on this. Tonight I think Mr. Ryan made it very clear. They believe that government should make, and legislators should make, decisions that I believe and women believe they should make themselves.

Lawrence O'Donnell: What's your reaction to what we've seen in some polls that indicate a closing of the gender gap with Mitt Romney running better now in the polls any way with women.

Cecile Richards: Well I've seen different polls and I think polls are all over the map right now. I do think this is what women were needing to hear tonight, is what are the differences on particular issues. So I mean I actually think we'll see after this is again this gender gap that has been very strong in favor of the president, I think we'll see it continue to grow.

Lawrence O'Donnell: Cecile Richards, thanks for joining us tonight.

Cecile Richards: Good to see you, Lawrence.

Originally posted to hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:34 PM PDT.

Also republished by Pro Choice, Sluts, and Abortion.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (35+ / 0-)

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

    by hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:34:13 PM PDT

  •  I agree with the ad but Obama needs to put (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hungrycoyote, palantir

    out an ad as to what he wants to do for the next term.

    Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

    by Micheline on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:40:06 PM PDT

    •  let's see (8+ / 0-)

      Immigration reform, getting out of Afghanistan, handling Iran, continuing to push for the Jobs Act and other economic stimulus that will result in job creation, Veterans benefits and healthcare, going back to Clinton's leaner but just as mean military, continuing to hash out a reasonable budget that cuts where it can, increases taxes where it can and closes loopholes and subsidies that benefit the very few.  

      Among other things.  If you are lucky enough to live in a non-swing state...lucky you because the ads, both policy based and attack, have filled my TV for over a year.  The SuperPac attacks are nonstop.  The 501 ads have been omnipresent since the day Obama won the last election.  

      But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. – Yeats

      by Bill O Rights on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 09:55:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tweeted. I don't FB. Glad to see this. (5+ / 0-)

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:49:14 PM PDT

  •  Great ad. "He'll cut us off." (6+ / 0-)

    A very blunt assessment of a blunt pronouncement by Romney.

    Obama is the chair and James Hetfield is the table. Who is the lamp?

    by alkatt on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 08:50:02 PM PDT

  •  Here's what I don't get about the GOP critics. (8+ / 0-)

    Why are they so anti-woman?

    Theocratic dictates.  This comes from the religious faction the GOP panders to.  Why don't more people object to that?

    Their desire to inflict this danger to women's health comes from religious devotion and fanaticism.  They want to break down the separation between church and state.

    Interestingly, Biden answered the question about his church's position as wrong for the country because it would impose his church's views on the country at large.  It's correct to frame things that way.

    Pro-life is a cause that exists to tear down the wall between church and state.  If they ever succeed, they will pick another cause and hammer at that.  They're already trying to do so with educational reform.  Their religious fanaticism should be addressed.

    •  The simple answer is that a great portion (8+ / 0-)

      of the GOP base is made up of that religious faction and if the politicians don't object to it is because they would lose votes.

      But now it goes even farther than that. At first it was just the GOP pandering to the base. But as time has gone by, some of the people who actually have these extremist views have entered politics and gotten elected. A great example of this is Todd Akin in Missouri. When he made his comment about "legitimate" rape, he actually believed what he was saying. So, not only does the GOP have to pander to these people, they have them elected to office in local, state and federal positions.

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

      by hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 09:20:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, I don't get why this critique is so rare. (5+ / 0-)

        I understand why people like Akin and the like get into power.  Politics has almost nothing to do with competence or actually effective policy position.  Politics (and political leadership) has more to do with sounding like the best voice for a social community that one represents.  This is why people who promote insane ideas (creationism, homeopathy) can sometimes get political positions.  Intelligence has nothing to do with being elected, interpersonal skills do.

        Akin's views come from his religious background and foundation.  Now here's what I don't get at all.  Why is it that we don't criticize his religion?  Why is it that his anti-science, fundamentalist religion is not critiqued, when the vile ideology he follows is the source of his anti-woman views?

        These things don't come out of nowhere.  It comes from a theology that views women as inferior to men.  It comes out of a theology that says scientists are tools of evil.  It comes from an theology that calls 'critical thinking' the enemy.

        It comes from a worldview that is entirely antithetical to science.  It comes from religion.

        Now I get some people are not fanatically religious, and that's fine.  But what it means to be religious and not fanatic is the following:
        If science and religion ever have competing explanations for something, toss out the religion and go with the science.

        I don't know what value a religion could possibly be to someone if they do that, but that's their business.  However, the people who toss out what is known in favor of religious assertions about the nature of the world are nihilist, anti-scientific, and anti-humanist.  It is the nature of rejecting science that leads one to this, inevitably.

        Only when one accepts science can we begin to have morality, equality, and true compassion for one another.

        •  one word: spineless (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          palantir, hungrycoyote, Paul Rogers, jdld

          It is the same reason Obama refuses to use the word LIAR when referencing Romney's disavowment of reality.   it is the same reason Democrats aren't on stage every day yelling at a camera about obstructionism and reckless governance.  From gay rights to women's rights, to civil rights in general; from immigration to climate change; from budgets to wars...both sides are in the business of doing the least amount of business because once a stand is taken or a vote is made...they fear the people they might piss off more than they want the adulation of those they can help.

          Biden showed all politicians how it should be out the lies and then provide the truth.  Fight for the those who can't fight for themselves and not those who no longer need protection.  

          But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. – Yeats

          by Bill O Rights on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:01:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They want their religion in public, let it show. (4+ / 0-)

            It makes me angry to see injustice and persecution, and moreso against groups that I know are being actively persecuted.  Implicitly, I understand that if they ever succeed in their campaigns against any of these groups, they may very well turn their hateful spite towards me, or just redouble it on someone else they're already targeting.

            Criticize their religion.  They want it to be in their public life, fine.  Let's talk about how their religious views justify slavery, excuses racism, demands sexism, endorses bigotry.  Both in the past, and even to this day.

            Let's talk about how their ideology opposes everything good that has ever existed.  Let's talk about how major social improvements have never developed out of religious movements, but only out of secular causes.

            Religion is not the source of ethics or morality.  In every case, religion comes out with surprising revelations of ethics long, LONG after secular society conquers the debate.  They desire to revise history to claim otherwise, but it is false.  Secular reasoning and secular arguments bring us justice.

            I guess I've been a little more pissed off about this recently.  But I'm tired of reading about David Barton and Todd Akin and Paul Broun and, and, and....

            It's time to call out what they're doing.  It's time we recognize what they are.  Nihilists.

        •  You're asking them to think rationally like (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul Rogers, Creosote, Loose Fur

          you and they simply don't. They are driven by faith; not facts or science and they have infiltrated the Republican Party more severely than you want to believe, more so at the local and state levels. If you've seen any of Rachel Maddow's shows about the abortion issue like I diaried here and here you know how much they've accomplished since taking over state houses and governorships in 2010. Look at this graph of abortion legislation since 1985.

          Howard Fineman was on Hardball with Chris Matthews back in August and explained it better than I can. I wrote a diary about the appearance at the time.

          Howard Fineman: Chris, I'm not making a value judgment when I say this, but the Republican Party has become a faith based party. Starting with Ronald Reagan, there was a marriage between the Bible belt of the south, the fundamentalist Bible belt of the south.

          Chris Matthews: Literal interpretation?

          Howard Fineman: Literal interpretation. And Catholics elsewhere in the country who were becoming more conservative socially. They joined hands. And there are many good things that came from that, especially if you believe in the Republican Party and its success. But these people start from a fundamentally different point of view on questions such as abortion, on questions such as evolution, on questions such as climate change. They see, as John McCain belatedly said, "the hand of God in everything that happens." And they look to God first. They're legitimate concerns. For example, about genetic manipulation of the human species. Should we leave that to God, or do we as human beings take that on? There's a serious point underneath this. Okay, there is. But nobody in the modern Republican Party dares question the orthodoxy of a faith based Republican party at this point. That's what it is. It's a Bible-based Republican Party.

          As for why Democrats aren't pointing their fingers at Republicans and saying "they are trying to put religion in our government;" it's an extremely sensitive area. When Ted Kennedy was defending his Senate seat from Mitt Romney in 1994, he tried to make Romney's Mormon religion an issue in the campaign. It didn't work out well for him. Yet another diary I wrote quotes an article from 1994:
          We want to know our political candidates as whole men and women. We want to know where and how they grew up, where they went to school, what traditions and experiences formed them. Religion, or lack of it, is part of that formation. To deny religious values a place in politics would leave the leaven out of the lump. To use religion as a shorthand to distinguish Like Us from Not Like Us is reprehensible.

          Kennedy erred in making issue about Mitt Romney's religion by Ruth Walker, The Christian Science Monitor, 6 October 1994

          How do you point out that a candidate's religion informs who he/she in a way that is not good for all Americans without attacking the religion and then opening your side up for attack for judging another person's religion?

          “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

          by hungrycoyote on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We need politically active scientists/skeptics. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hungrycoyote, Creosote

            We need people willing to aggressively target and attack nonsensical religious justifications for social policy.  No social policy, ever should be justified by anything but scientific arguments.  Science is the same everywhere and for everyone, whether or not one belongs to a religion.

            Also, it might help to remove the tax-exempt status from religious organizations that insist upon injecting themselves into political discourse.  By doing so, their political speech is effectively being subsidized by the US government.

          •  Sometimes I think that talking about abortion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is the only way fundamentalists can deal with the emotions aroused at some level by awareness of the profoundly mortal issue of global climate change.

            They can understand it only as the death of a cell and its 'potential.' Not of the totality of the world's people, animals, trees, ocean, and millennia of culture.

  •  Excellent diary and please make sure to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote, Loose Fur, hungrycoyote

    diary your GOTV experience. We had so many positive GOTV diaries in 2008 and unfortunately many of those people left the site in 2009-2010 due to the tone of the site. We need to re-capture that positivity again.

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 11:52:18 PM PDT

  •  What I would really like to know (3+ / 0-)

    is how on earth a position that advocates for the banning of all abortions except in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother gets called "more moderate?"

    No. Hell no. That's radical, extreme, and horrifying.

  •  Gatekeeper deciding if woman raped/incest/life etc (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, Paul Rogers

    If Romney/Ryan will arguably permit abortion exemptions for "rape, incest, life of the mother", who exactly will be the gatekeeper deciding whether a woman qualifies for one of these exceptions, and what kind of criteria/evidence will a woman be required to bring to even make a prima facie qualifying case before the gatekeeper?  How broad a discretion will the gatekeeper have to reject a claim, even though a woman brings a purported prima facie case for one of these exceptions?  That's a real bona fide "government health care panel" deciding what care a person can get and what they cannot".

    •  They want to redefine rape. (0+ / 0-)

      This is one reason why they want to redefine rape.  To make rape not rape.  They have a fear that woman massively lie about rape.

      I don't know if it's because they just believe a man should be able to rape a woman as long as he doesn't leave a physical injury to her, or if it's because they want to prevent a woman from lying about being raped to force more women to have babies.

      If I had to guess, I'd say there's about equal motivation for both.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site