Erick Erickson's Blog, page 53

The Metrics in Favor of a Romney Win

“Soon they will go full on outrage pimp accusing the GOP of bad mouthing Barack Obama’s recovery. It’s all they’ll have — that and a staggering silence about their own plans for both recovery and reform.”

A traveler from a distant planet landing in the United States right now would, if observing the Presidential election, presume the election was about a war on women or teasing over a cookie or the leader of the free world eating dogs or something else inconsequential to the Presidential election.

In fact, it is a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to hide the economy from people’s attention. Like the Great Oz, the Democrats prefer no one pay attention to the economic disaster behind the curtains. I have run a great many campaigns. Each has a real narrative focus. The goal of the campaign is to try to stay on that narrative focus and not get distracted by the team worried about losing. The Democrats’ antics reveal they are deeply worried about losing. They cannot fight on the issue that is singularly at play in this election — Barack Obama’s bungling of the economy, so they must try to force Mitt Romney to play elsewhere.

Mitt Romney is a deeply flawed candidate. His path to victory was smoothed based on familiarity by Republican voters, their habit of picking the guy who ran last time, and his money. He only shined in states where he massively outspent his opponents. That spending advantage covered up many, many flaws. Were the economy to improve, Mitt Romney would lose to Barack Obama. It is abundantly clear, however, from Democrat hyperbole about a host of ancillary issues and their hard spin on economic data that the economy is not improving and the metrics of victory are in Mitt Romney’s favor.

There are a variety of metrics political junkies can pay attention to.

According to Investors Business Daily, if any one of the major market indexes goes up in January by at least 5.8%, counterintuitively the incumbent loses. The metric has been right since 1936. It is also somewhat selective given that it necessitates picking the Dow, Nasdaq, or S&P 500 as need be to make it fit.

But there are more accurate metrics to forecast a Presidential election. The most significant is probably in your pocket right now. Pull out a dollar bill. In the past three years the purchasing power of that dollar bill has declined.

Then there are your unemployed neighbors and family members. The Obama stimulus did nothing for them. About the only thing the Obama stimulus did was line the pockets of Obama donors. Moreso, the unemployment rate is over 8%. Factor in those who have dropped out of the workforce and unemployment is over 10%.

When the purchasing power of a dollar declines and unemployment is over eight percent, voters fire the incumbent.

Voters may not like Mitt Romney, but they’ll be hard pressed to be convinced he will bollix things up worse than Barack Obama. This is not to say Mitt Romney is assured a win. He has issues both with his base and with independent voters. Black voters will turn out decisively for Barack Obama. Romney will need to galvanize the GOP and right leaning independents to him. But if he can resolve those, the metrics are in favor.

In fact, I’ll make a prediction. The Democrats are right to presume that if the economy improves, Barack Obama will probably get re-elected. I think so myself. Objectively though, the economy looks like it will drift back down. Trade numbers suggest trouble on the horizon, hiring is scaling back, and Americans are cutting back on credit card usage again. These are not good signs.

My prediction is that the Democrats will start loudly claiming the Republicans are talking down the economy and cheering for economic disaster. They have tried hyperbole over the War on Women. They have tried hyperbole over mundane issues like the cookie story last week. Soon they will go full on outrage pimp accusing the GOP of bad mouthing Barack Obama’s recovery.

It’s all they’ll have — that and a staggering silence about their own plans for both recovery and reform.

When the economy again dips and Mitt Romney wins, I can already tell you the next Democratic talking point — Romney didn’t win so much as Barack Obama lost. On that one, however, they’ll have a bit, but only a bit, of a point.

Morning Briefing for April 23, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing

April 23, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. A Consequential Man, Home Now With His God

2. The Metrics in Favor of a Romney Win

3. The Romney Campaign’s Tin Ear

4. Is the Department of Justice sanitizing its connection to Media Matters for America?

5. Earth Day 2012: The Day the Tide Turned

———————————————————————-

1. A Consequential Man, Home Now With His God

Chuck Colson was a genuine hero of mine. I am saddened by his passing, but rejoice that he is now face to face with the Lord he dedicated his life to.

Chuck Colson’s life is a very American story and very Christian story — his is a story of grace and redemption.

He worked for Richard Nixon and conspired to commit the Watergate burglary over which he was indicted and went to prison. Along the way, reading Mere Christianity led Colson to become a Christian.

He spent seven months in prison, was disbarred, and saw his son arrested in the fall out over Watergate. But God opened his eyes during his time in prison. He saw the condition of the prisoners, the failures of rehabilitation, and felt led by the Lord to do something about it.

Colson would go on to create Prison Fellowship, an organization loved and supported by many regardless of politics. He was a voice of clarity on the need for evangelicals to engage a world they so often feel as if they are just passing through.

Chuck Colson led a life for Christ Jesus our shared Lord and so many benefited from his ministry. He was a man of great consequence in American history and in the history of the evangelical movement.

He will be missed.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Metrics in Favor of a Romney Win

A traveler from a distant planet landing in the United States right now would, if observing the Presidential election, presume the election was about a war on women or teasing over a cookie or the leader of the free world eating dogs or something else inconsequential to the Presidential election.

In fact, it is a concerted effort on the part of the Democrats to hide the economy from people’s attention. Like the Great Oz, the Democrats prefer no one pay attention to the economic disaster behind the curtains. I have run a great many campaigns. Each has a real narrative focus. The goal of the campaign is to try to stay on that narrative focus and not get distracted by the team worried about losing. The Democrats’ antics reveal they are deeply worried about losing. They cannot fight on the issue that is singularly at play in this election — Barack Obama’s bungling of the economy, so they must try to force Mitt Romney to play elsewhere.

Mitt Romney is a deeply flawed candidate. His path to victory was smoothed based on familiarity by Republican voters, their habit of picking the guy who ran last time, and his money. He only shined in states where he massively outspent his opponents. That spending advantage covered up many, many flaws. Were the economy to improve, Mitt Romney would lose to Barack Obama. It is abundantly clear, however, from Democrat hyperbole about a host of ancillary issues and their hard spin on economic data that the economy is not improving and the metrics of victory are in Mitt Romney’s favor.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The Romney Campaign’s Tin Ear

The Romney campaign continues to leave many evangelical voters feeling a bit out of sorts. It seems more and more the Romney campaign calculus is that the campaign will get the evangelical vote without much effort.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Is the Department of Justice sanitizing its connection to Media Matters for America?

OK, here’s the background. CJ Ciaramella is a reporter at the Washington Free Beacon, and he emailed the Department of Justice to find out if they had any response to the allegations being featured in Kate Pavlich’s latest book on the Operation Fast & Furious scandal (Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up). Specifically, the allegation that there was a third gun found at the scene of Border Agent Brian Terry’s murder that could be traced back to that DOJ/DEA botched gunrunning operation; and that the existence of this third gun was being covered up in order to protect a confidential informant. And let me note in passing: I don’t care how highly-placed this alleged informant could be; his or her needs do not take precedence over the needs of Agent Terry’s surviving loved ones, or indeed the survivors of anybody that the US government helped murder by freely letting guns get illegally sold to Mexican narco-terrorists.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Earth Day 2012: The Day the Tide Turned

Happy Earth Day 2012, everyone! One day we may look back on this as the time when the tide began to recede – that being the tide of Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria.

The canary in this metaphorical mine is the Discovery Channel, long a mass purveyor of AGW porn. In its new seven-part series “Frozen Planet” Discovery confronts distraught polar bears and calving glaciers in glorious High Definition, but nary a mention of the Scientific Consensus that can best be summed up as “Aaaaargghhh! We’re All Going to Die!!”

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Whines of Unity and the Danger of Losing Some Objectivity

Yesterday, I pointed out that Mitt Romney’s campaign continues to show a tin ear toward evangelicals.

The majority of people reading the post understood what I meant and most agreed. But there is a large minority of vocal party unity types who feel compelled to attack me instead of dealing with the points raised.

The attacks are typically a combination of these four:

I’m an anti-Mormon bigot.
I work for CNN and therefore hate the GOP.
I intend to nitpick the candidate to death to undermine him.
I intend to hold the candidate to a desperately high and unfair standard.

To be honest, the more the whiners yell, the more I am emboldened to keep highlighting these sorts of issues.

The issue — Romney’s unsteady standing with evangelicals — is objectively legitimate and legitimately a problem. In a race where Barack Obama expects to turn out black voters at the same high turnout rate as 2008 and where he presumes to get 90% of those votes, MItt Romney will need every evangelical he can get.

Some of you seem to think that with the primary over we’re to turn ourselves to rainbows and unicorns in a sea of unity.

I am well aware Mitt Romney will be the nominee. I intend to vote for him. We will not tolerate advocacy of a third party campaign or a “sit it out” campaign here at RedState. RedState has, with all candidates in all races, covered those races with a affirmed bias for the Republican nominee, but without a fear of holding the nominee accountable. We’ll show the nominee grace, but we’re also not going to shy away from highlighting those areas on which he needs to improve. While we are mindful of “do not harm” and agree with the maxim, pointing out areas of needed improvement is not harmful. One of those areas is evangelical turnout.

RedState is not a water carrier for any candidate or the GOP. We saw how well that went in 2006 for conservatives who remained silent on Harriet Miers, immigration reform, and big spending, many of whom are happy now to revert back to that destructive behavior.

We, and I in particular, know the team we’re on and the game we’re playing — to beat Barack Obama — but we’re not afraid to suggest a different play on the field. Right now, Romney needs to do more to solidify evangelicals. Presumptions that they’ll show up to vote just to boot Barack Obama misunderstand the core evangelical voter.

By the way, if you can’t deal with it, you are not obligated to read RedState.

The Romney Campaign’s Tin Ear

The Romney campaign continues to leave many evangelical voters feeling a bit out of sorts. It seems more and more the Romney campaign calculus is that the campaign will get the evangelical vote without much effort.

As Ben Domenech wrote in his excellent Transom last week:

Now evangelicals shift from roughly half the pie in the primary to a quarter of it in the general (they were 24% of voters in 2008). They are making their peace with Romney, but the potential danger, as I’ve noted before, is that their lackluster feelings for him will result in lower evangelical turnout than needed to win. In order for Romney to win, he needs evangelicals to come out for him at the same levels they did for McCain or better. In 2004, George W. Bush won evangelicals over Kerry 79-21, while McCain won them over Obama 73-26 in 2008. http://vlt.tc/8a0 While similar numbers will probably hold for Romney in 2012, he cannot afford any significant drop off in those numbers. Obama gained among White Protestants by a significant margin over Kerry, cutting it to a 45-54 win for McCain where Bush had won them by 19 points. (It’s also notable that McCain and Bush 2000 both underperformed their internal poll data among evangelicals prior to the election – Karl Rove made a repeated point of that defect, and was determined it would not be true in 2004.)

As an evangelical, let me explain something to those of you who may not be able to relate, don’t understand, or just don’t like it. Evangelicals view themselves as strangers in a strange land. To quote one of my favorite books of the New Testament, “People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” Hebrews 11:14-16 (NIV).

For a good subset of evangelicals, they are not committed to the Republican or the Democrat. According to the most recent Barna Survey, evangelicals prioritize their issues first and second on the debt and taxes, but then abortion and gay marriage are up there in the top five, which deviates greatly from the general populace. They remain skeptical of Mitt Romney and, as they are just passing through on their way to eternity, a number of them may sit out.

Just as troubling and extremely likely, they’ll vote for Romney, but they won’t give money, knock on doors, get their friends engaged, or show any other enthusiasm.

For those of you who view Romney as better than Obama, evangelicals view them both as sinners in a lost world, which they fully expect to go to hell in a hand basket before the second coming.

In other words, Mitt Romney cannot afford to take them for granted. While he will get close to three quarters of those evangelicals who do turn out to vote, he must ensure they do turn out. And that brings me to his tin ear.

For a demographic that makes up one quarter of the general election, these voters do not trust MItt Romney, do not think he appreciates them or can relate to them, and thinks he takes them for granted.

Today, Chuck Colson died. Mr. Colson and I have both been involved with the same evangelical groups, including that group that threw its support to Santorum. Due to his health, I don’t think he really participated that much publicly or in meetings, but his spirit was there. He was mentioned several times by his friends who met in Texas. I was in that room. Those who threw their support behind Rick Santorum were his friends, compatriots, and kindred spirits. Chuck Colson was a most consequential figure in evangelical circles and within the Republican Party.

Consider if you will Mike Pence’s statement on Chuck Colson. Rep. Pence is running for Governor of Indiana. Today, he released this statement:

“In the passing of Chuck Colson, the earthly life of a consequential American has come to an end and I mark this day with a sense of personal loss. He rose to the heights of political power and fell to the depths of disgrace, but in his fall, he found redemption in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Having been given a second chance, Chuck Colson devoted his life to carrying the Christian message of second chances to those in prison, and he saw countless lives changed by his compassion and example.

“His voice of moral clarity was an inspiration to millions of Americans and made him an invaluable counselor to leaders in government and business. I will always count it a privilege to have been able to call him my dear friend and mentor. His dedication to moral integrity, serving his fellow man and his steadfast faith have always and will always be an inspiration to me and my family. Karen and I offer our deepest condolences to Patty, the whole Colson family and to all who mourn the loss of Chuck Colson.”

Consider Speaker John Boehner’s statement:

“Chuck Colson lived an extraordinary life. He was a man who experienced tremendous lows yet went on to spark a movement of ideas and people focused on spiritual transformation. His calling was to minister to prisoners and their families through Prison Fellowship, an organization emphasizing spiritual renewal that is active in more than 100 countries across the globe. Chuck was a patriot who loved America. He was a Marine. He was a mentor. He was also a best-selling author, a broadcaster, and a leader – one who inspired a generation of Christian believers to defend the faith while showing true compassion for people forgotten by society. In the eyes of the world, he was a person who had it all and then lost it all. But in God’s eyes, Chuck’s path in life was just preparation for His higher purposes. Through the full picture of the life Chuck Colson led, Americans saw that a broken man can accept the gift of redemption and embrace a new life devoted to the service and redemption of others. This will be his legacy. We, his countrymen, join the Colson family in mourning their loss, and in celebrating the gift that was his extraordinary life.”

Now consider Mitt Romney’s

“Chuck Colson embodied and made possible an immeasurable amount of good in the lives of the people, families and communities he served in bringing a message of faith and hope. Ann and I are praying for Patty, the Colson family and all the people he touched throughout the world who will miss him.”

As several people noted on twitter, that might be the only statement released today that didn’t mention God, Christ, or Christianity. But that’s the minor issue. The major issue is two sentences. It may seem a trivial thing, but for a group already presuming they’ll be taken for granted and not really valued, it is a real problem.

This evening an email exchange between a number of evangelicals on this very topic left a lot of them more certain than ever that Mitt Romney just expects their vote. He may get it, but not their passion or energy. That is the real problem for him. People used to witnesses won’t be for him.

A Consequential Man, Home Now With His God

Chuck Colson was a genuine hero of mine. I am saddened by his passing, but rejoice that he is now face to face with the Lord he dedicated his life to.

Chuck Colson’s life is a very American story and very Christian story — his is a story of grace and redemption.

He worked for Richard Nixon and conspired to commit the Watergate burglary over which he was indicted and went to prison. Along the way, reading Mere Christianity led Colson to become a Christian.

He spent seven months in prison, was disbarred, and saw his son arrested in the fall out over Watergate. But God opened his eyes during his time in prison. He saw the condition of the prisoners, the failures of rehabilitation, and felt led by the Lord to do something about it.

Colson would go on to create Prison Fellowship, an organization loved and supported by many regardless of politics. He was a voice of clarity on the need for evangelicals to engage a world they so often feel as if they are just passing through.

Chuck Colson led a life for Christ Jesus our shared Lord and so many benefited from his ministry. He was a man of great consequence in American history and in the history of the evangelical movement.

He will be missed.

The War On Women Bites The Democrats In The Butt #EERS

Tonight we're going to dive deep into the Democrats' rhetorical walk back on the War on Women.

Then we'll move into Barack Obama's "fairness" argument about the Buffett Rule.

You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

The show runs from 6pm ET to 9pm ET.

Consider this an open thread.

Does the Catholic League Use Colons?

I'm not sure if this is a parody account or not. If it is legitimate, I presume the Catholic League twitter account holder does not use colons in tweets going back to at least April 2nd because his head is so far up his rear end he's blocking his own colon.

I'm referring to this bit of hate in its twitter feed. Today while the right is pushing back on Hilary Rosen's comments about stay at home moms somehow not having jobs like women who work outside the home, the Catholic League, via twitter, presumes to divide up moms between authentic moms who have their own children and moms who adopt — not to mention raising the wholly irrelevant issue of Hilary Rosen's sexuality.

A mother is a mother however she received her blessing.

If this is a legitimate twitter account, shame on the Catholic League for stooping to the same level of hate it combats in those it views as going after the Catholic Church.

If this is a phony account, I hope the Catholic League will take swift action to shut it down lest it be further maligned by the idiocy of whoever is twittering under that account.

On Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen and the War on Women

This has been the typical response of Romney supporters on twitter for my role in "L'Affair Rosen" on CNN last night:

JoiseyCop: For you to sit by and let Hillary Rosen slander Ann Romney without challenge shows you be the phony piece of dog shit you are ! @EWErickson

I'd mentioned I missed the remark, still dwelling on a previous remark along with some IFB trouble, but yay Romney supporters.

Nonetheless, let me make a couple of points.

(1) I disagree with Hilary, who has now apologized for her wording. There has been, by the left for a very long time, an ongoing degradation of the role stay-at-home moms play. I do not think Hilary meant to fall into that whether or not she thinks stay-at-home moms' work is equivalent to other work. I've no idea of her view on that. The question asked and the answer she was trying to convey was about Mitt Romney's problems relating to women. She was arguing Romney cannot solely address the disconnect shown in polls by using Ann Romney as his rebuttal because of the number of women who work outside the home, struggling in single parent households to raise kids, in a lifestyle Hilary did not think Ann Romney could relate to.

I disagree with her, but I'm not going to be all outraged by her poor choice of words. I'll leave the outrage to others and I do understand it. I have a hard time these days getting outraged by liberals saying liberal things. Likewise, I have had my share of poor word choices too and, frankly, I find it in bad form to beat up a co-worker. Hilary and I both work at CNN and I'm just not willing to go there over a poor choice of words. I suffer no illusions that there may be reciprocity with CNN contributors from the left, but I personally find it bad form.

(2) In the choice of words though, and where I think a lot of the outrage overshoots by assuming, but not explicitly going toward, is the assumption by many liberals that neither Mitt Romney nor Ann Romney can relate to working mothers who do not stay at home. Liberals treat people as groups, not individuals. Liberals who often assault the right for stereotyping or profiling do it too. They presume that working women believe X, Y, and Z and if you don't believe it too you cannot relate to working women or blacks or hispanics or the elderly or [insert group here].

My wife suffered a double mastectomy, a prolonged and miserable reconstruction process, the removal of a chunk of her lung, and assorted other problems while fighting an insurance company over coverage, seeing her husband chronically on the road, and raising kids. For the first year of my daughter's life I was on the road at least four days a week every week while my wife took care of her and worked a full time job.

My wife can relate to the working moms the Democrats claim Mitt Romney and Ann Romney cannot relate to. And guess what? She agrees with the Romneys. What is galling to her, and to me, is that Democrats think unless you support killing children (euphemistically called "choice" or "abortion") and other liberal pablum you somehow cannot relate to working women. That is fatuous nonsense. It is a stereotype that has long played into the idea on the left that stay at home moms are somehow something other than working moms, when in fact they have one of the hardest jobs out there — and a job shaping the next generation, which makes it one of the most important jobs on the planet.

(3) One of the great tragedies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is the left and, subsequently, American policy makers, devaluing the two parent nuclear household with one parent, regardless of which one, staying at home to raise children. We should, as a society, be re-incentivizing this. Instead, the liberal secular culture treats it as an outmoded relic of a bygone era. I dare say that many of our present ills as a society can be traced to the degradation of the two parent nuclear family with one breadwinner. That's not to say it is perfect. That is to say it is far more perfect than anything else we've come up with.

(4) I think that while everyone is focusing on Hilary's comment about Ann Romney, they've ignored her first comment — the one I was dwelling on as she continued. She said that Democrats had not used the phrase "war on women" and it was a Republican invention. Hilary is both sharp and an advisor to the Democratic National Committee. I have to wonder if a sharp advisor to the DNC is now aware that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, MoveOn.org, etc. have been using this term for a quite a while and actually came up with it back in February of 2011, what the hell is going on at the DNC in the communication channels? Update: Greg Sargent notes that according to CNN, Hilary is a partner with Anita Dunn who is a DNC Advisor, but Hilary herself is not. Her communications firm does, however, work with the DNC and the presumption many on the right have made is that Anita Dunn, with her work with Sandra Fluke, has been complicit in this "war on women" meme. I'm shocked Hilary would not know the Democrats were behind it, used it, or started it last year.

(5) By the way, will the press coverage of this be as intense as the press coverage of Rush Limbaugh's Sandra Fluke comment? Will Media Matters protest? I won't hold my breath.

The Harriet Miers Presidential Campaign

I am about as excited by the Romney nomination as I am about going to the doctor for a digital rectal exam — necessary at a certain age, but awkward and uncomfortable nonetheless, with a lot of bending over and taking it whether or not you really want it.

One of the issues that I have dwelled on for some time is how so many of the people vouching for Romney's bona fides are the same people who vouched for Harriet Miers' nomination in 2005. As Ben Domenech noted in this morning's Transom, the Romney campaign has put Ed Gillespie in charge of finding a Vice President. That suggests to me Bob McDonnell remains the most likely choice — and it would be a fine, mature choice.

I like Ed Gillespie and think his Resurgent Republic effort has been quite good, but I am reminded of this story from the Harriet Miers days that Ben linked to in this morning's Transom.

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism." Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back. Gillespie later said he did not mean to accuse anyone in the room but "was talking more broadly" about criticism of Miers.

I have many friends who were in that room that day and they have not forgotten that incident. The Harriet Miers comparison remains problematic for Romney with so many of his zealous defenders the same people who were so easily duped or so much into team sports that they rallied for someone who wasn't and now rally for someone who may or may not be. But just trust them this time!

Since Rick Santorum's withdrawal I have fielded numerous phone calls from conservative activists and leaders and I've been on a few conference calls with concerned leaders in the evangelical community wanting to discuss where money is best spent in 2012 to make sure the House stays secure and the Senate is taken.

The implication is two fold. First, many are not sure Romney can beat Barack Obama. I do have to say that the Romney machine's rapid response and outrage dialup over Hilary Rosen's comments on CNN last night give me hope they can play the game for the long haul. But the second implication is that many social conservatives and even some fiscal conservatives are already convinced that if Mitt Romney does beat Barack Obama there'll be a constant struggle against his administration and, therefore, there will be a critical need to get likeminded conservatives elected.

One person on a conference call yesterday referred back to George H. W. Bush and House Republicans in 1990. Bush decided to raise taxes and House conservatives openly ran against him. What an unusual campaign season we are headed in to.

Conservatives, evangelicals, etc. will support Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. They'll take him over Barack Obama. But if this election is like 2004, where the candidates are focusing on turning out their bases, that might not be enough for Mitt Romney. He's going to have to do something to get them passionate about him.

I've run many a campaign and there are two constants to winning campaigns: (1) a candidate must give voters something to vote for, not just against, in order to generate passion; and (2) optimism wins. If the Romney campaign can deliver both, we might just have a winner on our hands. But his campaign needs to understand that conservative antipathy for Barack Obama is only the beginning of the process to earn their passionate support, not the end.

Democrats Now Say They Never Said 'War Against Women'?

If you went to bed oblivious of the news last night, there was a mini-bruhaha over a comment Hilary Rosen, the former head of the RIAA and a DNC Advisor, made to Anderson Cooper on AC360 last night. I was on AC360 with both Hilary and Paul Begala.

Hillary said that Ann Romney, a mother of five sons who has had breast cancer and MS, had "actually never worked a day in her life." Ann Romney made her debut on twitter to take issue with the remark. The White House and Obama campaign were quick to distance themselves and say Hilary should offer an apology.

For what it's worth, in context Hilary was talking about the workforce and recession and I don't think she meant to insult stay at home moms or Mrs. Romney. On Twitter, Hilary explained she was taking issue with Mitt Romney using Ann Romney as his expert on women and Ann Romney did not work both a full time job and raise the five boys concurrently.

But more than that, I actually never even heard her make the remark originally because I was still dwelling on how Hilary had started her statement. Hilary said the Democrats had actually never used the phrase "War on Women," and that it was a Republican invention. I turned on twitter and saw all the outrage and literally said out loud, "How'd I miss that?"

Saying the Democrats had never coined the "war on women" terminology threw me for a loop.

As the other statement about Mrs. Romney was being made, I was replaying in my mind where I'd heard the "war on women" rhetoric. Turns out the Democrats started it all the way back in February of 2011 and even Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the DNC and a congresswoman has gone all in with the rhetoric.

Hilary saying the Democrats hadn't started it threw me for a loop because I'd played on my radio show DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Meet the Press from March 4, 2012. From the transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Nice to have you here in studio. So let me ask you about this issue of contraception and this fight over social issues. Just as I've asked your–the two other guests I've had this morning, can you appreciate where they're coming from, which is–this is not a war on women, which they say is a vast overstatement, or about access to contraception, but this is about religious liberty that started with the president's new regulation about faith institutions and access and who pays for contraception.

REP. SCHULTZ: Well, if it's not a war on women, then let's just look at what happened this week in contraception. First, you had the Blunt-Rubio bill that was on the floor in the United States Senate that wouldn't just deal with making sure that women couldn't have access to contraception, it would actually say that any boss could use their own moral conviction to decide what access to health care their employees could have, making sure that women would have to have their own access to health care, whether it's to mammograms or contraception or to amniocenteses or any other type of health care access, decided by their boss. And that was defeated in the Senate. So the Republicans actually want to go much further than just saying women shouldn't have access to, to contraception. They want to say that bosses should be able to decide what kind of access to health care women can have.

On Political Capital with Al Hunt on April 6, 2012, there was this exchange with the Democratic Congresswoman and DNC Chair:

HUNT: You have charged that the Republicans are waging a war on women. They say that is nonsense. The gender gap issue will disappear as we get closer, at least it will erode as we get closer to the election. And that the Democrats, in fact, have a Catholic problem.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Well, it is clear in this country that the jury of women across America have ruled, that the Republicans have been unbelievably extreme and out of touch and hyper-focused on cultural issues.

I mean while we are supposed to be focusing, and should be, as President Obama has been, focused on getting the economy turned around and continuing to move us forward and create jobs, their side is obsessed with cultural issues.

Note that she does not deny using the phrase.

Likewise, there was Debbie Wasserman Schultz on CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley just this past weekend pressed on whether or not there really was a "War on Women."

"The focus of the Republican Party on turning back the clock for women really is something that's unacceptable and shows how callous and insensitive they are towards women's priorities," she said. That's not exactly a denial.

At the same time, liberal Talking Points Memo from just yesterday characterizes the "war on women" this way:

Mitt Romney has tried to turn Democrats' claim of a "war on women" by the GOP against them this week, accusing President Obama of waging his own "war on women." Slower job growth for female workers, Romney insists, is evidence of Obama's war.

On just about every MSNBC show — official press organ of the Democratic Party — the hosts routinely use the phrase to characterize the GOP. For the past two weeks, it has been a consistent theme on the show. Given how MSNBC doesn't actually read news, but DNC talking points, it's a stretch to say the Democrats aren't behind it.

MoveOn.org sent out a letter on February 19, 2011 (yes, that long ago) accusing the GOP of a "war on women" writing

Dear MoveOn member,

It might seem hyperbolic to say that Republicans have declared a war on women.

Sadly, it's not.

On March 25, 2011, NARAL Pro-Choice America, EMILYs List, and MoveOn.org started a "Stop the War on Women" campaign.

The list goes on.

It is the Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Democratic Party mouthpieces, and outside groups pushing the Democrats' agenda that have all said the GOP is at war against women.

To now deny that the Democrats came up with the term and to say the GOP did it is not just unfair, it is factually wrong. But my guess is that this is an admission that the "war on women" approach isn't working well for the Democrats.

In fact, we can verify that.

Just last week, Gallup released a new poll with this finding:

Eight in 10 independent women in the swing states said they were not familiar with Romney's position on contraception, but those who were familiar disagreed with it by a 2-to-1 ratio. Independent women were more likely to have an opinion about Obama's views on contraception (58% were unfamiliar), and were divided about evenly between saying they agree or disagree with them.

Two things stick out like a sore thumb to me on this. First, 80% of independent women in swing states have no idea what Romney's position is on contraception despite all the Democrats' rhetoric. Second, of those who know about Obama's position, they are split roughly 50-50 on liking his position. That doesn't seem like it'll be a problem for Mitt Romney.