GOP debate revives question: Are Republicans waging 'war on women?'

The danger for Republicans in the revival of a 'war on women' narrative runs deeper than an 'inappropriate joke by Donald Trump,' analysts say.

John Minchillo/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to the media in the spin room after the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland on Thursday.

Republican candidates have learned that waging a “war on women" – more than half the electorate – is a label to avoid, especially as they may face a woman in the 2016 presidential race.

But you wouldn’t know that from Donald Trump’s answer to an early question in Thursday’s GOP presidential debate from Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly.

“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,' " Ms. Kelly said during the debate, which set a cable record, with 24 million viewers tuning in. "How will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who [is] likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Mr. Trump said, to some applause.

Then it got slightly ugly. “And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that,” Trump said.

Later that night, it got uglier, still. Trump opined from his Twitter account that the biggest loser of the night was @megynkelly, calling her "unprofessional" and saying she "really bombed tonight."

As a general rule, handing Democrats talking points in the general election to gin up turnout for their side is a bad idea. The exception to that rule is when it can boost turnout for a candidate in the GOP primary.

That may have been Trump’s calculation in swatting off a question he clearly hadn’t expected.

Conservative voters are angry about political correctness, too. So the dodge may work, despite the uproar in the Twitterverse, after the Trump exchange. Certainly, it wouldn’t be the first time GOP establishment, the news media, or Tweetland declared Trump dead, only to see polls give him another boost.

But with the GOP-controlled Congress threatening to cut funding for Planned Parenthood in the fall, the revival of claims that Republicans are waging a war on women clearly troubles some conservative commentators and GOP hopefuls wary of tarnishing the brand.

“There’s a fine line between political correctness and polite, and I’m not sure Trump knows where it is,” says Jennifer Duffy, senior editor for the the Cook Political Report in Washington.

The controversy in Congress over defunding Planned Parenthood “has opened the door” to claims that Republicans don’t care about women’s health and are waging a war on women, she adds.

On Friday, the conservative website Breitbart News chided Kelly for legitimizing the “meme used by the Democratic Party to attack Republicans” by even asking the question.

“Kelly’s decision to omit ‘so-called’ prior to ‘war on women’ is critical, as it suggests she legitimized the Democratic Party’s mantra, which it has been using for years against Republican challengers.” 

But the danger for Republicans in the revival of a "war on women" narrative runs deeper than an "inappropriate joke by Donald Trump," says Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Princeton University.

"It taps into a perception that's been around for decades now that the challenges that different groups of women face are not front and center for the GOP and that Democrats will take these concerns more seriously," he adds. "Republicans need a response to that."

Earlier this week, Jeb Bush, another front-runner, quickly walked back a remark he made during an interview at the Southern Baptist Forum in Nashville that appeared to suggest that he didn't value spending on women's health. Commenting on the Planned Parenthood dispute, he said: “I’m not sure we need a half-billion dollars for women’s health issues.”

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton responded in a tweet: “You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong.”

Bush issued a clarification. The $500 million referred to ‘hard-to-fathom’ federal funding to Planned Parenthood, he said in a statement Tuesday evening.

After Thursday’s debate, GOP Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who participated in an earlier debate for GOP candidates who did not make the Top 10, called Bush’s comments “foolish."

“It’s really disappointing when a front-runner gives the Democrats an ad and a talking point before he’s even in the race,” she said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina, another candidate who did not make the cut for the prime-time debate, turned the question into an issue of war and peace abroad. Asked whether cutting funding to Planned Parenthood that people will say provides “positive things for many women” could be used against Republicans, he said: “Let's take the money that we would give to Planned Parenthood and put it in women's health care....”

“You want to see a war on women? Come with me to Iraq and Afghanistan, folks,” he added. I’ve been there 35 times. I will show you what they do to women.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to GOP debate revives question: Are Republicans waging 'war on women?'
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today