Top Female GOP Donor: "I was the only woman in the room... they'd assume I was RNC chair Secretary"

[Emit]

“There are a lot of women we would meet with who have the capacity to write really large checks who feel disenfranchised by the party,” Toretti said. “I’m not saying their perceptions are accurate, but they are their perceptions, and that makes them real.” ... Toretti recalled that as she traveled the country raising money with former RNC finance chairman Ron Weiser, “At a lot of dinners I would go to, I was the only woman in the room, and they would assume I was Ron’s secretary.”

EMILY’s List spokeswoman Marcy Stech responds: The Republican Party has a policy problem: The GOP is just “completely out of step with women.”

Top donor rallies GOP women

~snip~

Pennsylvania energy executive Christine Toretti, who served as the finance committee co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee in 2012, told POLITICO she will head up a super PAC dubbed Women Lead. The organization aims to drum up contributions from other deep-pocketed Republican women and use them to promote women running across the country in 2014 and beyond.

A longtime member of the RNC who has donated some $600,000 to Republican candidates and committees over the years, according to the Federal Election Commission, Toretti said she came away from the 2012 election convinced that female donors needed a stronger role in intraparty Republican politics.

~snip~

Toretti said at least part of the problem for the party is that women — as well as male donors who care about electing women to federal office — have little power to ensure that their donations are spent on behalf of other women. So for other prolific givers who were dissatisfied with the results of 2012, Toretti has created a more narrowly focused political entity to address her concerns.

“There are a lot of women we would meet with who have the capacity to write really large checks who feel disenfranchised by the party,” Toretti said. “I’m not saying their perceptions are accurate, but they are their perceptions, and that makes them real.”

Toretti recalled that as she traveled the country raising money with former RNC finance chairman Ron Weiser, “At a lot of dinners I would go to, I was the only woman in the room, and they would assume I was Ron’s secretary.”

“I decided that if I was going to do this again, I was going to do it differently,” she continued. “Really, for me, it’s about getting more women at the table.”

~snip~

Democrats expressed skepticism about the viability of Toretti’s group as well as the full range of outreach efforts under way on the GOP side. With much of the electoral off-year gone, there’s only a limited window left to recruit female candidates — and in the bigger picture, 14 months is not much time to reverse the GOP’s weak position with women.

The bottom line, said EMILY’s List spokeswoman Marcy Stech, is that the Republican Party has a policy problem: The GOP is just “completely out of step with women.”

“It’s why they lost big in 2012 and why they are struggling to find women candidates to step up and run,” Stech said. “No amount of money will be able to drown out their anti-family policies that continue to plague a Republican Party that continues to oppose equal pay and would rather play politics with women’s health rather than focus on creating good-paying jobs for Americans.”

~snip~

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/gop-women-super-pac-95872.html

[Berlum]

1. When the GOP ain't warring on women...

...it's ignoring women. Or treating them like servants. OINK (R).

[Emit]

2. And yet this woman stays with the party

likely because with her wealth the warring on women doesn't affect her like it does others:

~snip~

In some ways, Toretti seems like a woman who might get it. After all, she’s divorced and she has kids.

However, the very wealthy operate in a different legal arena than the rest of America. This is yet another example of how electing more ovaries does not necessarily mean that better policies for women will be enacted. Being female does not necessarily mean that you support equality, freedom and liberty for women (see Sarah Palin).

~snip~

It’s not a surprise that Toretti doesn’t care that Republican men assumed she was the secretary. She is not relying on them to pass laws that will impact her. She is not relying upon them for a raise, or for the freedom to make her own medical decisions. She knows her family will always be safe from the tyranny of Republican big government overreach. Money assures that.

It is a surprise that Toretti doesn’t get how offensive that is to a woman who has no choice but to rely upon these Republicans to make decisions about her salary, her medical care, who she can have sex with and whether or not she will be tossed in jail for having a miscarriage.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/25/prominent-female-gop-donor-republicans-assume-secretary.html

[CTyankee]

3. well, if she has daughters she might well be worried sick about what happens if she

succeeds! I hope she gets REAL very fast and either jumps ship or just goes quiet and then either doesn't vote at all or votes Dem...

[KittyWampus]

4. Go figure.

[mountain grammy]

5. Weathy women don't have to live by the same laws and rules as less advantaged women.

Women of means are either oblivious to that fact or just don't care.

[JI7]

6. depends on how they got wealthy , women who earn a good living have a lot of reason not to let

right wing policies control their lives.

the right wing wants women to be dependent on men mostly.

[mountain grammy]

7. You would think working women would feel like that and be more progressive on women's issues

but this one isn't and there have been many more. Phyllis Schafly almost single handedly stopped the ERA from passing. Women advocating for policies against women. I'll never understand it.

[JI7]

8. they don't see it until it hits them, i remember one idiot who worked at walmart

and kept trying to convince people they were not bad and how they gave her a joba nd other shit.

and then it hits her when she gets pregnant and they fire her because of it .

[Emit]

10. Omg So true! Schafly makes me want to

[PassingFair]

12. Not single handedly by a long shot!

She was backed by powerful evangelical churches.

[mountain grammy]

13. Of course she was, but she was the spokewoman who got the attention

I think without Phyllis, the ERA would have passed.

[Ohio Joe]

9. heh... 'Out of step'...

Thats being pretty fucking generous if you ask me... And this moron is going to raise money to try and change the 'image' instead of accepting the reality that repugs hate her.

[Johonny]

11. perhaps she should become a democrat

... nah just keep pretending the base issues of the party aren't purposely bias against women and write those checks. I'm sure that will teach 'em.

I decided that if I was going to do this again, I was going to do it differently

They want to rape pregnant women with ultrasonic probes and you think well that's just a minor policy disagreement you get around with better manners. That's your problem.