Radio host Heidi Harris on Hardball: Women vote for Dems because they "tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds"
On the June 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, when host Chris Matthews asked why "most women vote Democrat," radio host Heidi Harris responded, "Most women? I don't know. I think women -- sadly, a lot of women are very emotional, and they tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds about some of these issues. They tend to feel more of these kind of things than think it through." She added, "I hate to say it, but it's true."
In response to Harris' comments, Matthews asked, "You mean it's not hard issues like abortion rights, or Social Security, or minimum wage? Logical reasons?" Harris replied: "You know what it is? I don't think, Chris, that most women under 50 care about abortion rights, and here's why. Because women at that age have -- Roe v. Wade was passed in '73, as you know. So all the women growing up -- my generation, the women 10, 15 years younger than I am, it's always been legal. I don't think that 30-year-old women have any concept of what it's like not to have that right."
On the June 11 edition of Hardball, discussing an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released that day, Matthews referred to Sen. John McCain's six-percentage-point advantage over Sen. Barack Obama among suburban white women (the poll found an Obama lead among women overall, 52-33 percent), and asserted, "[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, 'I'm pro-choice, he's not.' " He then added, "But you're playing for a close election. If you want to reach up for the higher, for the harder ones to reach, you can win big."
From the June 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Why do you think most women vote Democrat, Heidi? And have for years?
HARRIS: Most women? I don't know. I think women -- sadly, a lot of women are very emotional, and they tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds about some of these issues. They tend to feel more of these kind of things than think it through. I hate to say it, but it's true.
MATTHEWS: You mean it's not hard issues like abortion rights, or Social Security, or minimum wage?
HARRIS: You know --
MATTHEWS: Logical reasons?
HARRIS: You know what it is? I don't think, Chris, that most women under 50 care about abortion rights, and here's why. Because women at that age have -- Roe v. Wade was passed in '73, as you know. So all the women growing up -- my generation, the women 10, 15 years younger than I am, it's always been legal. I don't --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
HARRIS: -- think that 30-year-old women have any concept of what it's like not to have that right. So whether you stand left or right on it, it doesn't really matter to most women, 'cause they can't conceive of it. And on the other hand --
MATTHEWS: Well should they have -- well, shouldn't they have a concept of it if the Supreme Court moves further right, and there is no more right to have an abortion?
HARRIS: I don't think it's going to change. I don't think -- no matter who's on the Supreme Court -- it's going to be overturned. And the women who are complaining about it the most are too darn old to get pregnant. So I don't think it's a big issue for young ones.
The right really are the masters of projection. And by "masters" I mean not very good at it, but constantly doing it clumsily. It's 24/7 patriotism and faith and pride and tradition, big piles of sentimentality, then they spin around and accuse libs of being "emotional" as an attack.
Pro-choice is the emotional irrational side of the issue?har.
"Ah, Tommy hasn't figured out yet what the head honchos know: Hate sells. Why do you think they have these ubiquitous haters like Laura Ingraham and Anne Coulter on. Money/ratings only. They have no moral compass. This woman is just another cog in the wheel of Team Hate. Wake up, boy."
Let's merge our insults together: the dis-likes of Laura Ingraham, Heidi Harris, Liar ann Coulter, Melanie Morgan, Susan Molinari, Rashonda Barber, Michelle Malkin, etc., are all members of TEAM HATE HAG, because they are ALL right wing Republican Hate Hags.
"Sounds like she's another player on "Team Hate"."
Or, to merge the 2 labels we use, another player on "Team Hate Hag".
:)
Tommy, are you reading what you're typing?
A major cable news network that comes standard with most cable packages books someone who says something really stupid, but what you're concerned with is a supposed "boost in relevancy" that a relatively small website might provide by criticizing that guest and the network's decision to book her? MMFA isn't responsible for making this or any other guest any more or any less relevant: MSNBC and the radio station that airs Heidi Harris' show have already taken care of that.
Let me take your argument to its logical conclusion, Tommy: if you disagree with MMFA's editorial choices so strenuosly, Tommy, why do you continue to give MMFA the appearance of legitimacy and relevance by spending so much time on its message boards? To appear to be a fair and open forum, MMFA requires dissenting opinions, and therefore every time you ask "Why is this here?" you're just doing PR work for MMFA.
OK, I know I should have figured it out sooner but sheesh, you don't have to rub it in. So do I get a prize or something? A tote bag? Maybe a coffee mug?
Hmmmm. A Public Relations shill who derails nearly every thread in which he partakes? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but then, either does the bored little detour down to here.
I certainly don't want Tommy gone. He's attempting to punch moderately consevative holes in the discussions here by seeming to be a voice of reason and it's good practice. These are the guys who are most difficult to dislodge from their father's Republicanism.
Well you might want to alert MMFA and let them know they've highlighted a stupid, mindless, sh#t talkin', member of team hate.....oh, and she's a hack too."
You forgot to mention that Heidi Harris is also a hate hag, as ALL right wing conservative Republican women are hate hags.
She makes her political decision based on her BRAINS. That is to say, if she promoted Democrats and Liberals ... and the programs PROVEN over the decades to make America a better place ... then she'd have no job in broadcast. Thinking it through, she sees that the only way to make a living as a Media figure is to shovel that rightwing mantra.
So, yes, FOR HER, rightwing dogma is a decision made by mind alone, with absolutely no heart involved. I believe her.
It must be intellectually painful to claim that Bush and Cheney are the result of "intelligent" decision.
"She makes her political decision based on her BRAINS. That is to say, if she promoted Democrats and Liberals ... and the programs PROVEN over the decades to make America a better place ... then she'd have no job in broadcast. Thinking it through, she sees that the only way to make a living as a Media figure is to shovel that rightwing mantra.
So, yes, FOR HER, rightwing dogma is a decision made by mind alone, with absolutely no heart involved. I believe her."
This is exactly why Democracy Now's Amy Goodman http://www.democracynow.org was able to best hate hag Republican Harris. Goodman debunked Harris with BOTH her heart and her mind.
Who the heck is Heidi Harris?
Yet another right-wing loser who thinks with her butt.
This is all they have on her at Wikipedia:
Heidi Harris is a conservative radio talk host and columnist based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The "Heidi Harris Show" airs weekday mornings on NewsTalk 720 KDWN 8:30AM-Noon (kdwn.com). A former professional singer, she began her radio career at KDWN in Las Vegas in 1998, moving to KXNT in 1999. Between 1999 and 2006, she hosted her own show, then teamed up with another KXNT host (Alan Stock) to create a new morning show. During their five year collaboration, the show won an Electronic Media Award, and the team was listed on Talkers' Magazine's "Heavy Hundred" (100 Most Influential Talk Show Hosts in America) three years in a row. In 2006, she left KXNT to resume her solo career.
Heidi has appeared as a guest and commentator numerous times on the Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Her monthly column appears in Liberty Watch Magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Harris
And it looks like her "official web site" has not been updated since 2006. Her blog has two entries - one smearing Islam, and one about Terri Schiavo. There are two comments posted to her Schiavo rant - and they're both "come to my blog" spams.
And this loser is on the list of "100 Most Influential Talkers"?????
http://www.heidiharris.com/index.html
"And it looks like her "official web site" has not been updated since 2006. Her blog has two entries - one smearing Islam, and one about Terri Schiavo. There are two comments posted to her Schiavo rant - and they're both "come to my blog" spams.
And this loser is on the list of "100 Most Influential Talkers"?????"
Obviously some right wing conservative groups pressured the composers of the list to include foolish hateful liars like the lying right wing Republican hate hag Heidi Harris.
The likes of Nova M Radio's uncompromising liberal/progressive radio hosts like Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, as well as the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER's "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison, and Warren Ballantine are all more deserving of being on that list [Madison IS on the list of 100 most influential talkers, by the way] than this evil lying fascist flag-scamming hateful evil racist Republican hate hag Heidi Harris.
Reagan lowered inflation and lowered unemployment which were two major concerns heading into the 80's. - Bruce1Ace
I doubt if you can point to anything Reagan did that accomplished either of those goals. The policies of Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve had more influence on inflation. Unemployment dropped with the general economic upturn that came when OPEC solidarity fell apart and oil prices fell. Reagan was lucky enough to be in office when that occurred, even though he had nothing to do with it, similar to Carter's bad luck of being in office when OPEC control of the oil market was at its peak. Both were along for the ride for events outside of their control.
Conservatives learned early in their movement that emotionalism is the way to change our basic assumptions about how the world works. They understood that talking about policy position was a snoozer, that people respond viscerally to, and connect on a soul deep level to talk about values.
And mostly, that's alright.
All logical thought has at its core an emotional component. I mean you don't wade through a pit of vipers because it simply not logical to do so. You avoid the pit largely due to fear of death.
Reagan lowered inflation and lowered unemployment which were two major concerns heading into the 80's.
Here's a more fact-based list of St. Ronnie's "accomplishments":
http://www.bartcop.com/reagans-records.htm
Tommy, we all know that one of the favorite tricks of right wingers is to take their own worst traits, and try to pin them on their opponents. They also try to brand their opponents with their own worst weakness (example: the Bush camps lying about John Kerry's service record). Therefore, I guess you have a point on that Liberal thing.
I'm not sure what you're swinging for here, Tommy. The right never defined the word "liberal" for liberals, they've tried to re-define it for the conservatives and the undecided.
If by "masterful" you mean years of very deliberate and effective propaganda, then yes, that could be. Still clumsy, but masterful in that they knew their audience would fall for clumsy.
None of which has anything to do with projection, but I salute your derailment efforts. Clumsy yet masterful enough to work for you, and you may even get a buyer like that JamesB or JosephB who was swooning over you recently.
they tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds
You go girl. You're just the kind of spokeswoman my two daughters should hear more from.
Is there some secret training ground in the dessert that mills out these hacks?
Yes, it's the last course...
Who the heck is Heidi Harris? Is there some secret training ground in the dessert that mills out these hacks?
Las Vegas is not far from Area 51......
check out her website. Looks like it was built by some 5th grader as a class project: http://www.heidiharris.com/
Of course there's pictures, especially one with her in front of military jet, cod piece and all, don't miss her favorite bok section, sorry Hannity, sorry Levine,sorry Coulter - She doesn't think that much of your literary crap. Also includes many references to religion
"So emotional women are voting Democratic. Women who vote Repubican do so.....because they're Hillary Clinton?"
That, and/or women who vote Republican are self-hating women who wish they were men instead of women. Also, Republican women are MORE sexist against their own gender than Republican men are.
Much the same as blacks who vote Republican because they hate the fact that they're black instead of white, and black Republicans are racist against their own race than white Republicans are.
I see that this item cites the hardball/matthews show of June 16, and is time-stamped that same day, 7:19 pm ET. That's great, MMFA and R.C., I love it, the quicker these things are attended to, the better. Great job.
At first when I saw the item, for it's subject matter and the show it cites, I didn't notice that it was about a June 16 airing of that show: I thought it was maybe a citation of the tail-end of last week's hardball shows, maybe Friday's episode. Because the subject matter here is the same as what this guy matthews was pushing all last week (or at least what got cited here in MMFA's pages last week, about four times it seemed)... and so what now, this guy is kicking off another week's worth of hardball shows, hammering still at this issue?
Everybody knows what "push-polling" is: it's where someone is pretending to draw your opinion from you, in a question and answer discussion-like manner... but in fact, they are directing steering your thoughts to some pre-determined issue of theirs, and are trying to dredge up any vague impressions you might already have on the issue, so that they can sharpen and define that impression for you, and even introduce matter-of-factly certain ideas and prejudices you may never have heard (yet)... "pushing an issue" on you, that otherwise is something you'd have given little or no thought to.
That's what chris matthews did all last week, or at least what I know of that he did, from reading MMFA's pages: I don't watch hardball: life is too short... too short to watch infomercials, or chris matthews.
The political media hack chris matthews strained last week, in a variety of ways with a variety of guests, to "push" upon any Democrats so bored and otherwise mindless as to listen to him, an issue in an alarming manner:
"well, shouldn't they have a concept of it if the Supreme Court moves further right?"
...he asks yet again, above, in what may now signal a second straight week of his "pushing" into the minds of Democrats, an issue that polls otherwise show they are not thinking of much, if at all. But chris matthews is on the job: he'll "push" this issue into the minds of whoever's watching/listening to his routine... he'll do it if it takes a third and even a fourth week of shows: persistence is the only real qualification, in a "push-poller"
If he has to, he'll go on a live remote, to a clinic somewhere in the city... he'll get those girls on camera, right there and then in that distressing circumstance of their young lives...
"well, shouldn't they have a concept of it if the Supreme Court moves further right?"
...he'll put that concept in their minds, if it wasn't there already. And if it was there, but was somewhat healed over, he'll pick at it like a scab...
"well, shouldn't they have a concept of it if the Supreme Court moves further right?"
...because he knows who it is that "thinks with their hearts", and why... that's another quality that "push-pollers" make use of: they "push" emotional buttons as well.
Yep, I expect chris matthews, at the rate he's going, to get right on down to the clinic, and get those girls in the waiting room on camera, and ask them right to their distressed faces: "Did you know John McCain is "pro-life"? How does that make you feel?"
That's called "push-polling"
"Are you going to vote Democratic?"
This morning on the national news, there was a brief post-mortem on Clinton's campaign on how she lost the black vote, a vote necessary for Democrats to win.
So, women and blacks can win or lose an election for Democrats.
Why?
Paul Weyrich said that, as voter turnout increases, conservative electoral success diminishes.
For example, if Republicans lose the Evangelical vote, they're toast. There aren't enough Voodoo Economics devotees, Social Darwinists or Jingofascists to put them over the top without their Troglodyte brethren.
Roe v. Wade was passed in '73, as you know. So all the women growing up -- my generation, the women 10, 15 years younger than I am, it's always been legal.
And what? This hack doesn't think that younger women might like to KEEP it that way? What an idiot.
And how about EQUAL PAY? Is that an emotional issue as well? How about laws require phamacists to dispense birth control as prescribed by a doctor regardless of any religious superstitions they may hold. Is that emotional?
The list goes on an on. This chick's an idiot.
You know what's emotional? Wanting to outlaw abortion. THAT'S emotional. What someone else does with their pregnancy has no bearing on MY life whatsoever. So if I want to interefer with their decisions, the only justification (the only reason at all!) is an EMOTIONAL one. Same goes for Gay Marriage, Labor Unions, Taxes, Health Care, Eductaion, Paryer/Religion in Schools, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq and just about every other Republican talking point. To see it there way requires looking at the issues on only an emotional level and completely ignoring logic or facts.
I'll wait here for an answer.
Hear, hear!
You and I should go out and have a drink together. It'd be a hoot. We can talk about how much we hate America, right after we're done burning all the flags!
Rush Limbaugh was the first professional liar that I heard use the "emotional Liberals" talking point.... not long after the "cool-headed conservatives" had tried to push through a Flag Burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I've been screaming at the radio ever since.... unemotionally, of course.
"Maybe one of them can explain the logical, empirically based non-emotional reason to post the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse"
And the guy couldn't even name them!
"Maybe one of them can explain the logical, empirically based non-emotional reason to post the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse"
And the guy couldn't even name them!
I'll bet the best he could come up with was "Cross at the Green - Not In-Between". :-)
"Maybe one of them can explain the logical, empirically based non-emotional reason to post the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse"
And the guy couldn't even name them!"
Hey, ignorance of the facts are a REQUIREMENT for lying right wing conservative Republicans, lying right wing Republican hate hags like Heidi Harris included.
"Ah, yes..... the non-emotional, logical, empirically based Conservative mind. Maybe one of them can explain the logical, empirically based non-emotional reason to post the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse, or to criminalize Flag Burning, or to outlaw Gay Marriage, or to shoehorn the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Maybe these same non-emotional, ILL-logical, empirically based, fascist, racist, and oligarchic conservative minds can give the same non-emotional, logical (as only lying right wing conservatives define logical), empirically based, non-emotional reasons for reinstating racial segregation and/or placing multi-national corporations above and beyond all state and federal laws, and/or doing away with our nation's constitution?
"This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea’s promoters-in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement..."
"We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today’s American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously."
"We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people...We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms..."
-Eric Heubeck and Paul Weyrich
The "Republican Revolution", culminating in the "War on Terror", is a textbook example of such a campaign. I realize that Liberals also do this to some degree, but the current crop of Conservative liars have elevated it to an art form.
Right-wing conspiracy? Nahhhh.....
(In case it wasn't otherwise clear, </sarcasm> tag noted) ;)
Want to talk about emotion? Look at what a lot of the republicans trot out to get elected.
Elect a democrat, and the terrorists are going to get us.
By not supproting republicans, you're letting the terrorists win.
I know we were just attacked, but the best thing you can do now is go out shopping.
Terror alert level is orange today.
We need a constitutional amendment to not allow for same sex couples to get married, God forbid we see 2 men kissing on a corner somewhere.
2 words - Terry Schiavo.
And the list goes on and on and on as far as emotional appeals that republicans make to their base, while, I see a far more reasoned and logical voter turn out for liberals. In general of course.
Not sure if anyone is still ooking at this thread, but apparently this idea has had legs for a while now:
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200806170001
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to me, minimizing the female vote to emotions is garbage. It's the same rhetoric men, who weren't in favor of giving women their voting rights, used once upon a time. To see it coming from a woman is just beyond my comprehension. Furthermore, that comment almost suggest men don't vote with emotions. As if the Curious George t-shirts of Obama aren't an emotional response to Barack being the Democratic nominee. What the hell is this woman talking about??