The GOP Quote Everyone’s Talking About Is Actually Being Taken Out Of Context
Does the Republican Party richly deserve to have their conference on messaging to women be represented by the more perfect than perfect quote urging male GOPers to “bring it down to a woman’s level?” Maybe, but that remark by Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.) actually is being taken out of context to suggest that she thinks Republicans need to dumb down their messaging to women.
All over the internet and cable news dial, Ellmers’ remarks at a closed-door meeting called the “Taking Back the Future” women’s summit have been translated into variations on the theme that “Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers says that men need to dumb down their conversations because women aren’t able to understand pie charts.”
Making the story even more damaging was the fact that the remarks were reported on by a columnist from the conservative Washington Examiner, who was critical of the conference. Although Ashley Schow provided sufficient contextual quotes to make Ellmers’ true meaning clear, the irresistible money quote was reported like this (emphasis Schow’s):
“We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level and what everything that she is balancing in her life — that’s the way to go,” Ellmers said. (Emphasis added.)
The key quote for context appeared a few paragraphs above, as Ellmers explained, “Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level,” and added “Many of my male colleagues, when they go to the House floor, you know, they’ve got some pie chart or graph behind them, and they’re talking about trillions of dollars and how, you know, the debt is awful and, you know, we all agree with that.”
Schow interpreted this to mean that Ellmers was saying “people are too stupid to understand pie charts.”
As the ridicule built, Ellmers objected, and said she was being taken out of context, so Schow released her audio of the event. Liberals dutifully smirked and played the fuller context, but by and large maintained their previous interpretation of Ellmers’ comments. Here’s the audio of the key portion:
Aside from some skipping around, Schow’s original reporting of the quotes was rather faithful to Ellmers’ meaning, even if Schow’s interpretation wasn’t. Although clumsily stated, Ellmers was clearly saying that Republicans needed to present their policies in a more granular form, and describe their practical implications for the individual voter. It’s not great advice, and seems no more true of women than men, but it’s not the same as saying they need to dumb things down. She’s not saying women are too stupid to understand charts and huge numbers, but that these things don’t resonate the way a more on-the-ground explanation would.
The silver lining is…READ MORE
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Tommy Christopher
Tommy Christopher is The Daily Banter's White House Correspondent and Political Analyst. He's been a political reporter and liberal commentator since 2007, and has covered the White House since the beginning of the Obama administration, first for PoliticsDaily, and then for Mediaite. Christopher is a frequent guest on a variety of television, radio, and online programs, and was the villain in the documentaries The Audacity of Democracy and Hating Breitbart. He's also That Guy Who Live-Tweeted His Own Heart Attack, and the only person to have ever received public apologies from both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
34 responses to The GOP Quote Everyone’s Talking About Is Actually Being Taken Out Of Context
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Anomaly 100 July 16th, 2014 at 18:46
It still sounds pretty bad IMO.
m2old4bs July 16th, 2014 at 18:59
My thoughts exactly. But, then again we are dealing with Ellmers here. I do believe she’s one who speaks before she thinks. Wasn’t she the one who basically said she needed her 174K salary during the government shutdown last year, a shutdown she fully supported, while the rank and file workers, making +/- 40K, were going without theirs?
Anomaly 100 July 16th, 2014 at 19:23
I don’t understand politicians that think $174K per year isn’t a lot of money. I sure would like to make ‘not a lot of money.’
cogitoergodavesum July 17th, 2014 at 06:07
In most cases, it’s because the only people they care about are the ones making millions per year.
Anomaly 100 July 17th, 2014 at 06:52
Occupy their paychecks!
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:18
I could live comfortably for 6-8 years on “not a lot of money”.
Anomaly 100 July 17th, 2014 at 12:23
Me too, my friend!
Budda July 17th, 2014 at 08:16
I believe $174K will go a long way in her part of NC.
mea_mark July 16th, 2014 at 19:08
Really poor choice of words. Should of said something like, make it more relevant to women.
Anomaly 100 July 16th, 2014 at 19:23
Exactly. But it’s Ellmers.
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:16
Or even better: make it more relevant for people who don’t see things in the terms of pie charts. I’ve worked with and known a lot of men in my life. Some of them were into pie charts. Most of them were not.
Anomaly 100 July 16th, 2014 at 18:46
It still sounds pretty bad IMO.
m2old4bs July 16th, 2014 at 18:59
My thoughts exactly. But, then again we are dealing with Ellmers here. I do believe she’s one who speaks before she thinks. Wasn’t she the one who basically said she needed her 174K salary during the government shutdown last year, a shutdown she fully supported, while the rank and file workers, making +/- 40K, were going without theirs?
Anomaly 100 July 16th, 2014 at 19:23
I don’t understand politicians that think $174K per year isn’t a lot of money. I sure would like to make ‘not a lot of money.’
cogitoergodavesum July 17th, 2014 at 06:07
In most cases, it’s because the only people they care about are the ones making millions per year.
Anomaly 100 July 17th, 2014 at 06:52
Occupy their paychecks!
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:18
I could live comfortably for 6-8 years on “not a lot of money”.
Anomaly 100 July 17th, 2014 at 12:23
Me too, my friend!
Budda July 17th, 2014 at 08:16
I believe $174K will go a long way in her part of NC.
mea_mark July 16th, 2014 at 19:08
Really poor choice of words. Should of said something like, make it more relevant to women.
Anomaly 100 July 16th, 2014 at 19:23
Exactly. But it’s Ellmers.
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:16
Or even better: make it more relevant for people who don’t see things in the terms of pie charts. I’ve worked with and known a lot of men in my life. Some of them were into pie charts. Most of them were not.
Tommy6860 July 16th, 2014 at 19:00
Well, I think you’re being gracious in your assessment of her entire dialogue. I read it all a few times and I get where she’s coming from. But the fact she worded in such a way expresses how out of touch the GOP is with women in general. I am not asking that she force herself to be PC in her speeches, rather, get out of being inured to the view of equality that is contemporary republicanism.
“Can she really do that with her social beliefs?”, is a question I’d posit to her.
You can ameliorate her words and that probably carries some weight. But consider the words of other GOP women, like Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Jodie Ernst, etals, and it’s fairly difficult to think that many of these female GOP counterparts are not themselves misogynists.
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:12
It’s really really weird. And sickening.
Tommy6860 July 16th, 2014 at 19:00
Well, I think you’re being gracious in your assessment of her entire dialogue. I read it all a few times and I get where she’s coming from. But the fact she worded in such a way expresses how out of touch the GOP is with women in general. I am not asking that she force herself to be PC in her speeches, rather, get out of being inured to the view of equality that is contemporary republicanism.
“Can she really do that with her social beliefs?”, is a question I’d posit to her.
You can ameliorate her words and that probably carries some weight. But consider the words of other GOP women, like Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Jodie Ernst, etals, and it’s fairly difficult to think that many of these female GOP counterparts are not themselves misogynists.
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:12
It’s really really weird. And sickening.
Carla Akins July 16th, 2014 at 19:52
I understand what she was “trying” to say, but the initial interpretation is still the same. We (women) do not need some kind of softshoe lead-in. We are perfectly capable of understanding – and no bitch it’s not about time. Why are women the only ones trying to balance things in their lives?
Know what, if we earned what our male counterparts did – we could buy the time, just like men do. I don’t need more time to get ready in the morning, or spend with the kids – I need to be treated as an equal in my government and workplace. This means equal pay, equal family benefits so men can be present in their families as well. She’s just perpetuating the myth that we are weak and unable to stand on our own. This is why women can’t have nice things.
Carla Akins July 16th, 2014 at 19:52
I understand what she was “trying” to say, but the initial interpretation is still the same. We (women) do not need some kind of softshoe lead-in. We are perfectly capable of understanding – and no bitch it’s not about time. Why are women the only ones trying to balance things in their lives?
Know what, if we earned what our male counterparts did – we could buy the time, just like men do. I don’t need more time to get ready in the morning, or spend with the kids – I need to be treated as an equal in my government and workplace. This means equal pay, equal family benefits so men can be present in their families as well. She’s just perpetuating the myth that we are weak and unable to stand on our own. This is why women can’t have nice things.
tiredoftea July 16th, 2014 at 20:34
Umm, no, not out of context, although blaming the reporter has worked well for politicians caught telling the unflattering truth about their idiot comments. Pie charts and graphs are terrible things for many men, too. But, she didn’t go there, did she?
tiredoftea July 16th, 2014 at 20:34
Umm, no, not out of context, although blaming the reporter has worked well for politicians caught telling the unflattering truth about their idiot comments. Pie charts and graphs are terrible things for many men, too. But, she didn’t go there, did she?
labman57 July 16th, 2014 at 20:44
Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Marsha Blackburn, Virginia Foxx … Renee Ellmers …
Perhaps it’s not a problem of needing to “talk down to a woman’s level” in order to connect with WOMEN IN GENERAL, but rather it is necessary for explaining complex issues to the types of women who embrace conservative political ideology.
labman57 July 16th, 2014 at 20:44
Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Marsha Blackburn, Virginia Foxx … Renee Ellmers …
Perhaps it’s not a problem of needing to “talk down to a woman’s level” in order to connect with WOMEN IN GENERAL, but rather it is necessary for explaining complex issues to the types of women who embrace conservative political ideology.
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:07
I don’t think it was taken out of context at all. GOPTP women really DO believe that women are stupid, and some have even said that they didn’t think that women should vote because the “important” stuff should be decided by the menfolk. Gag me. Lately I’ve been feeling like a reverse Rip-Van-Winkle–I fell asleep in 2014 and woke up in 1954.
M D Reese July 17th, 2014 at 12:07
I don’t think it was taken out of context at all. GOPTP women really DO believe that women are stupid, and some have even said that they didn’t think that women should vote because the “important” stuff should be decided by the menfolk. Gag me. Lately I’ve been feeling like a reverse Rip-Van-Winkle–I fell asleep in 2014 and woke up in 1954.