Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > October > 24 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USPigeonholing voters unfair and unwise
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Women.
Get ‘em all together, sit ‘em down and ask: What do y’all want?
No. Don’t all talk at once. Choose a representative and she will inform the world what women want.
Absurd? Of course. Even in Grandma’s day.
But every political season — during election campaigns and legislative sessions — the notion that “women” are a like commodity that can be weighed, graded and marketed surfaces anew. It’s no wonder that stereotypes fade so slowly and that politicians “fix” yesterday’s problems today.
In the governor’s race, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor is said to have a problem with Georgia women because substantial numbers of them intend to vote for Gov. Sonny Perdue. No doubt Taylor does have a problem with women who were passionate about the candidacy of Secretary of State Cathy Cox, whom he defeated. Many of those, it seems likely at this late date, will cast a protest vote with the Libertarian in hopes of visiting a pox on both their houses — Taylor and Perdue.
But attributing to all women the politics of “progressive” Democrats miscasts the majority. As the Mason-Dixon poll done for this newspaper in late September revealed, white women support Perdue at about the same level as white men, 66 percent to 21 percent.
The overall difference is when black women are added. About 90-96 percent of black women vote for Democrats, regardless of who’s running or where. In the Mason-Dixon poll, Perdue led among women 49-38, with the remainder undecided or choosing the Libertarian. Blacks represent 27 percent of registered voters. Of those, 16.2 percent are women, 10.9 percent men.
The overwhelming support of black women for the generic Democrat means that those who are hanging back are activist Democratic women who congregate around the issues, often gender-related, such as abortion, that attract activist Democratic women.
Taylor does appear to have lost them, but they’d never vote Republican. You’d find them now among the undecideds or the Libertarians. They’ll wind up either with Taylor, who is running about 15 percentage points below the Democratic base, or with the Libertarian, who’s running about 5 percentage points above base.
The confusion about the voting tendencies of women is because the Democratic Party’s activists tend to be articulate, passionate and media-savvy, much like the reporters who write about them. One would never find Christian conservative Sadie Fields, for example, or state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) or Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) or Rep. Barbara Massey Reece (D-Menlo), quoted as the voice of women.
With the exception of Fields, who became media-savvy under fire as head of the organization formerly known here as the Christian Coalition, the others tend not to promote themselves in the media. Besides, none would be accepted as the authority to summon women to action — the media simply assume that Republicans or conservative women don’t speak for ‘women.”
That’s because a small but influential segment of women in the Democratic Party do. It’s the practical reflection of quota politics. It’s difficult and messy to sort out the differences in conservative and liberal women, or Cuban and Mexican Hispanics, or rich and poor blacks, so they are grouped by race, gender and national origin and spokespersons are recognized, even when they have little in common.
When three legislators of Hispanic origin reached the Georgia General Assembly three years ago, they were expected to, and did, form a “Hispanic caucus.” Journal-Constitution reporter Carlos Campos captured the moment: “They are men and they speak Spanish. But the similarities among Georgia’s first Hispanic state legislators pretty much end there.” The reality was that the three had no more in common than any other three randomly picked legislators.
Campos quoted the president of the Georgia Hispanic Chamber, Sara Gonzalez, who said something that should guide every soul inclined to think that people who share some identifiable characteristics or heritage should be able to speak for one another. “What unifies us is the language,” said Gonzalez. “Other than that, we have very different cultures and we tend to have our own opinions and that’s the way it is.”
That is, indeed, the way it is — and should be.
Permalink | Comments (120) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
October 24, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Interesting topic, pigeonholing voters. And I agree…it’s insulting to generalize vast populations of people into cute little boxes using PR tactics.
Voters fall for it though, time and time again:
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I read Jim’s essay today as a challenge to our friends who support the party of special interests, to justify its tendency to lump people together on the basis of racial or sexual characteristics. From my libertarian/conservative perspective, that exercise requires justifying the unjustifiable, so I suspect I’ll just stay out of the way today, at least until everyone goes off topic.
That is too bad, however, the argument deserves more attention. The thrust of the Democrat campaign this fall is, “Vote for me, I am not a Republican,” a campaign fully consistent with the intellectual basis of lumping together otherwise disparate humans. Whereas my side tends to form coalitions around ideas – lower taxes, fewer regulations – the Democrats put together teams around nothing more intellectual than “aren’t we beautiful?”
I know that argument is harsh, and I also know there is no lack of intellectuality among our friends of the left (how could I argue otherwise knowing that I face informed rebuttal from Southern Democrat and JK). Those of you on the left cannot honestly affirm your beliefs as a basis for your election – if you even mention abortion, or ACLU issues or environmentalism you guarantee your loss in the election. Yet, what else do national Democrats represent? You are the party of Kennedy and Pelosi and Gore and Kerry, and specifically not the party of Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
Thanks, JaCP @ 8:08, for underscoring my argument. You stand for nothing, no principles, other than “I am anti-Republican.”
By candide
October 24, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this
The brilliant Wooten could even run an organization called ‘Jews for Hitler.’
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this
Dear Candide @ 8:24, you stand for nothing other than anti-Republicanism, correct?
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
October 24, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
How can agreeing with Jim Wooten and posting a document that affirms his point be anti-Republican?
I don’t understand your reasoning. Explain.
By Van
October 24, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Does this mean a politician will change their stance depending on which sub-group they are trying to woo?
Does this mean the politicians views are not firm and can change at a moments notice?
It does sound like a democratic device. I just wish they would say what they believe in and not just that they hate what the other guy stands for.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
October 24, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Hi Van,
I stand for all that stuff in the “contract”. Who can I vote for that will do that stuff?
I especially dig the part about “ending the cycle of scandal and disgrace”.
Who’s delivering on that these days?
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Does this mean a politician will change their stance depending on which sub-group they are trying to woo? Does this mean the politicians views are not firm and can change at a moments notice?
Yep
It does sound like a democratic device.
Two words, Trent Lott. Remember him?
I just wish they would say what they believe in and not just that they hate what the other guy stands for.
So true. So true.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
The thrust of the Democrat campaign this fall is, “Vote for me, I am not a Republican,” a campaign fully consistent with the intellectual basis of lumping together otherwise disparate humans
Please!! Have you even HEARD some of the campaign ads on television? The guy running for the Supreme Court, “I’m a Bush supporter and Liberal Judges changing laws on the bench, blah, blah, blah.”
Talk about the lumping together of worthless rhetoric!!
By Eric
October 24, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
If every Republican and every Democrat on the planet dropped dead right this minute… other than the stench of decaying flesh (and in Washington D.C. who would notice a difference anyway?) the world would instantly be a better place.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Dear Debbie @ 9:17, you evade the issue. What do you believe in? Not, what do you oppose. I suspect you favor abortion on demand. I suspect you oppose development in ANWR, even though all of Alaska favors it. I suspect you favor habeas corpus for non-uniformed combatants caught carrying weapons in war zones. What do you believe, and what will your democrats do on the war on terror, and on taxes?
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
It’s the practical reflection of quota politics. It’s difficult and messy to sort out the differences in conservative and liberal women, or Cuban and Mexican Hispanics, or rich and poor blacks, so they are grouped by race, gender and national origin and spokespersons are recognized, even when they have little in common.
That’s the most accurate thing I have ever read coming from Jim. So, the next time he posts some gibberish about why a vast majority of blacks in america don’t support Clarence Thomas, I’ll point him back to this paragraph as a reference.
By GodHatesTrash
October 24, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
Politics is the art of gaining influence from constituencies and interest groups. Unfortunately, the largest constituency in the American body politic is stumpbroke redneck fundamentalist white trash.
And the GOP speaks their language.
By Seriously
October 24, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
Very interesting subject today. Is it a coincidence this subject has been brought up? It sounds familiar……
Sounds like Republicans and religion. The fact is Christian conservatives have been made the laughingstock of the electorate.
Christians need not research candidates, just bring your “christian voter guide”, or just vote Republican. After the election Christian voters are then mocked and ignored by the ones they helped vote into office. Classic.
Republican religious leaders have been the darlings of the media. Dobson, Robertson and Reed always there to speak for all Christians.
The media is always near for a quote from these leaders but never explain their tactics. Anyone know how Dobson converts children from lives as homosexuals?
Pigeon hole- To put aside and ignore; shelve
Yep, sounds like a family value Republican to me.
By time for the truth
October 24, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
We need to elect politicos who will NOT expand Moving AfriKans Rapidly Through Atlanta nor give it any(more) tax payer subsidies.
I will joyously vote (numerous times if need be) for any politician who will ensure that harold’s home in that increasingly dingy old Cobb County trailer park is gobbled up by eminent domain for a new dual carriageway road.
The more obvious demoNcrat sub groups are the snouts in the trough racial spoils types, homosexuals, the Bush hate cut and run crowd, homosexuals, SUV driving eco wacko hypocrites opposed to any new development(s) for big oil, homosexuals, effete metrosexuals, homosexuals, knuckle dragging thuggish union types in the now fast vanishing staple (manufacturing)industries, homosexuals, perjurers rapists and pardon sellers, homosexuals, the more gullible stupid old folks who they lie to and scare to death year after year with lies about medicare etc, homosexuals, wimmin from NJ who use 9/11 as a means to make money and exploit their husbands deaths, homosexuals and so on.
Does this mean a politician will change their stance depending on which sub-group they are trying to woo? Does this mean the politicians views are not firm and can change at a moments notice?
Yep
It sure does sound like a demoNcratic device.
John band aid warrior gigolo Kerry … “I voted for it before I voted against it …”
so true so true
By Aquagirl
October 24, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, all of Alaska favors that silly bridge to nowhere, too. Maybe they can pay for it by drilling in ANWAR.
All politicians, Democratic and Republican, change at a moment’s notice. Nutcase Sadie Fields types are mad at the Republicans because they spent so much time before the last election talking about constitutional amendments to protect marriage. After the election? It dropped right off the “to do” list.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
I suspect you favor habeas corpus for non-uniformed combatants caught carrying weapons in war zones.
Since I’m not a lawyer I had to look up the meaning of habeas corpus. This is what I got: “you have the body” Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.
OK exactly what are you saying? R U saying that I favor release for uniformed combatants in war zones? R U crazy? Name a post of mine that I specifically stated that I support enemies of the US…..you can’t. I suspect that you “believe” in stirring rhetoric just like your favorite news show Fox.
By time for the truth
October 24, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
aquaLIAR
last time I heard that bridge to nowhere has actually been nixed (cancelled). drilling in ANWAR is a vital domestic need that demoNcrat scum have blindly and moronically opposed.
the constitutional amendment was dropped because the poofs mobilised enough votes in the concourse of buggers pandering senate to prevent it from becoming law.
your pathetic points are as lame as anything the feminazi JK writes.
By harold
October 24, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Harold just loves Sadie Fields, the pre-Foley embodiment of conservative hypocrisy.
“Marriage is a family value! Gays are despicable (but hate the sin not the sinner)!”
Divorced mother of a lesbian Sadie seems to be imposing her personal demons on the public at large.
Sadie, bless your heart, go see a psychiatrist.
By Van
October 24, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Jim’s a Cherry Picker,
I am reminded of the very old joke,
How can you tell if a politican is lying - his lips are moving.
DebbieDoRight, my reference was to a campaign run by polls, not what someone said at a birthday celebration. On that level, I can always bring up Byrd of West Virginia and Kennedy talking about Obama.
By JK
October 24, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Let’s be clear on this: I am a woman, and Jim Wooten does NOT speak for me! haha! He took an awful lot of paragraphs to say “Not all women are the same.” Astute.
By harold
October 24, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Hey Troof, Harold says, like Dubya and Poland, you forgot the homosexuals.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Truth: Have a little problem with homosexuals do ya? What gives?
By GodHatesTrash
October 24, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
The GOP Coalition:
Closeted homosexuals
Homophobes
Drunken white trash
Meth addicted white trash
Fundamentalists and other believers in fairy tales
White soopremacists
Chickenhawks (both the war lovers and the little kids lovers)
The scared and the paranoid
Men who hate women and the women who love them
People that think their lawn mowing business makes them an entrepreneur
Trash all.
By JK
October 24, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
..the Democrats put together teams around nothing more intellectual than “aren’t we beautiful?”…I know that argument is harsh..
Lawyer Man, here’s your informed rebuttal: Your comment was utterly assinine and unworthy of response.
By Southern Democrat
October 24, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Good morning, all.
“Beware of factions.” Didn’t someone named Madison tell us about that? I fear now we are seeing just how damaging factions can be in our two-party system.
My learned colleague, jbmlaw, makes several dead-on observations about the fractured nature of the Democratic Party. It certainly is not a cohesive party and persons with ideologies like mine do not feel completely comfortable sharing the platform with Soros, Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy. I do think, however, that the moderate voices in the Democratic Party are gaining strength (Casey, Menendez, Webb, etc., are examples). I long for the Sam Ervins, Sam Nunns, and Max Clelands of the Party to stand up and wrest control.
The GOP however, is just as guilty of fostering extremism and factions. Jbmlaw, you lament the ostracization of Zell and Lieberman, but I, too, lament the complete rejection of Powell and Hefley… good men who were turned on their ears for not marching to the party’s tune. I think both parties need to move to the center.
Last, I would like to implore my conservative friends on this blog to please refrain from criticizing persons such as Murtha, Cleland, Webb, Kevin Tillman, etc., who have served their countries in combat and now disagree with our nation’s current policies. It really upsets and offends me (I know this will probably fall on deaf ears [or is blind eyes more apt for the blogosphere?]) and I think truly underscores the points you are making. One cannot claim that “everyone who serves is a hero” and then lambast those who have looked death in the eye while wearing a U.S. military uniform for criticizing this administration, particularly when our president, vice president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense have never served in combat (for the first time in history). You are welcome to attack the substance of veterans’ arguments, but do not attack them personally.
By Curious Observer
October 24, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Ain’t it strange that these libertarians (read anarchists) are supposedly anti-regulation, but they make a huge exception for abortion? For them, it’s all “let’s get government out of our lives” until they want to call on government to enforce their own moral imperatives.
In other words, these hypocrites want government to impose their own beliefs on everybody else, but they don’t want to be burdened by anybody else’s beliefs. Government help the poor? That’s against my belief. Progressive taxation? That’s against my belief. But allow a woman to control her own reproduction? That’s murder and I want government to stop it!
It all sounds very much like Redneckism to me, complete with the Jerry Falwell/James Dobson/Pat Robertson moral absolutism. The only difference in the nature of the advocate is perhaps a trade school diploma or a worthless degree or designation listed after their names.
By Southern Democrat
October 24, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Replace “underscores” with “undermines” in my above post.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight, my reference was to a campaign run by polls, not what someone said at a birthday celebration. On that level, I can always bring up Byrd of West Virginia and Kennedy talking about Obama.
Van, so can I. Guess what? For every Dem you can pull up who has done something “wrong” I can pull up two republicans who have done the same thing. This can go on forever.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
And I was referring to Trent Lott’s wishy-washyiness when faced with his political “death” because of the “comments he made at said birthday party.”
He went on BET and said he supports 100% Affirmative Action. Now if THAT isn’t “a politician who will change their stance depending on which sub-group they are trying to woo and politicians views are not firm and can change at a moments notice” I don’t know what is!
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
October 24, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Southern Democrat:
Good luck with that request.
Van,
So some liars are better than others?
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”?
Jbmlaw,
I’m still wondering how I can be anti-Republican if I agree with Jim Wooten and am holding up a document written by Republicans as something to rally around? I like that document. I agree with it. What’s the problem?
Is it that I’m much too complex to be simply pigeonholed as a liberal?
By deegee
October 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
The white house announced yesterday that they will no longer use the “stay the course” phrase when referring to strategery in Iraq. They want more flexibility in stategerizing. I wonder if that had anything to do with the miserable poll numbers 2 weeks before the election.
For you fair and balanced fans here is what you missed this morning. The Today show reported on the new strategic flexibility from the White House and the news conference with the amassador to Iraq and Gen. Casey. CNN was reporting on the news conference with the ambassador to Iraq and Gen. Casey. Fox and Friends was reporting on the man with amnesia in Denver.
By Dusty
October 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Southern Democrat,
How far do you want to go with this policy of not criticizing veterans who served in combat? Are we to belittle the sacrifices of those who are still serving in combat? It is being done by Murtha, correctly entitled “Cut-n-Runner? Kerry’s switch on I’m-for-it and I’m-against-it with the Iraq War? Kevin Tillman’s late opinion which is totally opposite of what his brother stood and died for? Does combat embitterment allow veterans to say anything they wish if it hurts or criminalize those still fighting? There is no way that can be called support for the military. Those in Iraq know it.
Are you saying that those who served in the military but not in combat are to be listed as NOT serving? That the President did NOT serve his country honorably?
You are setting an atmosphere which made many Viet Nam veterans bitter on their return home. The air was poisoned against Viet Nam and that included the returning military. Democrats are now using a few disillusioned veterans as political pawns to poison the air against Iraq and turn Americans against the President.
You think clearly, Southern Democrat, but your politics are showing just as plainly as those we might call disingenuous.
By Van
October 24, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight,
I guess we might come close to agreeing on something.
Politicans talk out of both sides of their mouths - or they will say whatever they think you want to hear.
It is rare and infrequent that a politican will hold fast to a core belief against a storm of disagreement.
Question, how do we regain our control of Congress -
James A. Garfield had a good quote -
“The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities… If the next centennial does not find us a great nation… it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
By never underestimate. . .
October 24, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
the ability of a politician to underestimate the intelligence of the voters. Both parties have spent the last few years “playing to the base” and moving further and further from the Center. The Center is p*ssed off about the war in Iraq and is lashing at republicans over it. Make no mistake though, the democrats have to have a message other than republicans are bad to win any more elections (if they don’t blow this one, which is far from a given).
I think the next wave of polical power will lay in the center — whichever party is most able to stop the partisan bickering and voter “pidgeon-holeing” and actually address issues. (but I am terminally optimistic, so I may be wrong and we will have decades more of this polarized, ineffective government where nothing good gets done)>
By Support the Troops FOR REAL
October 24, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund rates sitting legislators’ voting history on issues that affect US troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and military families.
If YOU REALLY support the troops, check out your Congressperson before you vote! Ratings are also available for state legislators.
Here are some of the ratings:
Sanford Bishop, Jr. (D-GA 2nd): A, David Scott (D-GA 13th): A-, Jim Marshall (D-GA 3rd): B+, John Barrow (D-GA 12th): B-, Jack Kingston (R-GA 1st): C, John Lewis (D-GA 5th): C, John Linder (R-GA 7th): C, Charles Norwood (R-GA 9th): C, Nathan Deal (R-GA 10th): C-, Phil Gingrey (R-GA 11th): C-, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA 4th): D+, Tom Price (R-GA 6th): F (No excuse, Sergeant!), Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-GA 8th): F (No excuse, Sergeant!), Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): D-, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA): F (No excuse, Sergeant!),
By time for the truth
October 24, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
I knew if I wittily mentioned the poofs a few times in the role of demoNcrat shame the more wide eyed leftist nutters on here would comment on it … as ever thanks for being so predicktable chaps!!
just like pavlov’s dogs you lefties are!!
who the bloody hell is sadie fields - can someone just not spell sally?
By Aquagirl
October 24, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Thanks Deegee, for the morning news round-up. That always cracks me up!
Dusty, I think it’s always fair to criticize someone’s viewpoint (or why else would I be here?) but the application of words and phrases like “cut-and-run” or “with the terrorists” or “wacko liberal” to people who volunteered to serve is over the line, IMHO. It’s a good example of the trend in politics…if someone doesn’t agree with your viewpoint, just start the namecalling.
And vets coming home from Viet Nam were probably embittered just a tad by the war, not just the attitude on the home front. But I do agree that being spat on and called “babykiller” was a blanket condemnation of their service. Kind of like if you served in Afganistan, were in a Ranger unit, had your brother killed, and now get labled a “tool” or whatever.
By Political Foreskin
October 24, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten had a field day with demographic groups today.
Jim opened with: “Women, get ‘em all together, sit ‘em down, and ask: what do y’all want?”
Jim just described a “girls gone wild” video and the answer to the question is, “BEADS”.
Here’s one I really liked: “The notion that women are like a commodity that can be weighed”, (oh, cruel, jim), “graded”, (you mean from 1 to 10?), “and marketed”, (just how do you sell to fat chicks, anyway, oh yeah, show Fabio eating a stick of butter).
Then he couldn’t resist pointing out that the members of the “hispanic caucus” had no more in common than any other 3 “randomly picked” legislators. (Hispanics…..fruit pickers….ouch).
Jim’s premise today is that no conservative figurehead for women has emerged because the liberal spokeswomen have drowned them out. He goes on to explain the media’s complicity in this conspired anomaly.
The truth is that republican women dont dare speak out against the president for fear of RNC/Christian backlash in their home states. Conservative women instinctively wear this American Taliban-imposed burka of silence. They are as corralled and herded together, (and forced to earn their beads), as the obsequious babes on the ‘girls gone wild’ videos .
Liberal women only show their udder disdain for the Burka and the Beads.
The Burka and the Beads….. sounds like an epic novel.
By Van
October 24, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Support the Troops FOR REAL,
This looks like the old group Kerry joined up with - Veterans Against the War - or something like that - far - far left
By getalife
October 24, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Van,
Stop bashing the troops!
By getalife
October 24, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
The new plan is Murtha’s plan that should have been implemented months ago but they were too busy with the cut and run bs.
By Dana
October 24, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Hmm. Good Morning all! Miss me while I was busy? Hello JK! And hello Debbie - great to see some intelligence here when I came back to look!
Now - on topic - While I do understand the concept of grouping individuals, I am really tired of being told that I vote a particular way simply because I am a woman. Yes, I am concerened about issues that will effect me directly, healthcare, children’s issues, my right to do what I wish with my own body - but I also care very much about my taxes, my country’s safety, the ability of my representative to read, be honest, and to vote as I would have him/her vote. NO intelligent person votes a straight ticket just to be voting one - intelligent voters vote for the rep who most closely espouses the values they wish to see promoted. Finding one who reflects ALL my values is tough, and sometimes choices have to be made that I would prefer not to make, but thats life. I am annoyed by and offended by politicians in general, but it is especially annoying to be pandered to for a vote.
I do find it interesting that (for the sake of argument) the “Women’s Vote” tends to be considered Democrat. I’m aware that this relates to the pro-life/pro-choice debate, however, since this is an issue that effects both genders I am amazed that it is consistently relegated to women. And I think women tend to be rather split on this, not all women are pro-choice.
By Support the Troops FOR REAL
October 24, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Van, so the Veterans who make up the IAVA should shut up and sit down because you are unwilling to listen to them? They served so their voices could be silenced or ridiculed by their fellow Americans?
Maybe you’d like to “spit on them” too for daring to express an opinion, which, if you look, does not appear to be partisan-based. Van, do you have the $2 sticker or the $3 magnet on your car to support the troops?
By Van
October 24, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
getalife,
You try supporting them -
By Dana
October 24, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
How about this -
Let’s consider RESPECTING the beliefs of other Americans, be they in the service or out. Lets try NOT condeming each other for a little while. I am absolutely blown away by the hypocrasy I see every day, pwople who have NO idea what it is like to serve in the Armed Forces, but feel obligated to trumpet some vast philosophy regarding how the troops should feel and behave.
We have soldiers in circumstances the average American can scarcely imagine. They all have a right to have an opinion about what they are doing! Some of them believe that the war is absolutely the right action. Some believe it is criminal. Why are we bashing THEM? I am appalled by the nastiness I saw regarding Kevin Tillman. Get a grip people, he has EVERY right to state his opinion! I happen to believe he has a point, but I equally stand behind the soldier who stands up in support of the war.
By getalife
October 24, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Van,
I never bash them like you do.
Support the troops!
By Southern Democrat
October 24, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
Your response is certainly valid. If you reread my post, what I am trying to say is this: it is one thing to say, “I don’t agree with Congressman Murtha’s ideas about Iraq. I think it’s important for us to be there.” It is quite another to say, “Marines don’t cut and run and Murtha is a traitor, Kerry is a traitor, etc.”
Further, you are attempting to turn my argument on its head without looking at your own. You argue that my viewpoint is encouraging an atmosphere that is similar to the one during and post-Vietnam? Who, my friend, is the one criticizing veterans? I have never advocated criticizing a single veteran. And how is trying to get our troops out of a mindless, dangerous situation traitorous?
I will never, ever, ever, ever forget that my president came into my state and called my senator, who sacrificed his legs and an arm for his country, “unpatriotic,” for not voting for a bill in which he did not believe. Never, never, never.
This administration’s eschewing of the recommendations of those with combat experience (e.g., Powell, Franks, etc.) in favor of Rumsfeld’s policies and ignoring the experience of a GOP Senator tortured at the Hanoi Hilton when drafting rules for enemy combatants.
As I have stated before, I am equally (probably more) disgusted with my conservative friends who are still blindly following this administration, echoing talking points and listening to hypocrite after hypocrite, as this administration leads us further and further away from who we are, as I was with Democrats who thought that Clinton in the 90s and Congress in the 80s were the models of righteousness and good governing.
Finally, I recommend that before you criticize Kevin Tillman and attempt to say that he doesn’t represent his brother’s wishes, you investigate further. EVERYONE who knew Pat talks about how he thought the war in Iraq was pointless, illegal, and a distraction from our country’s mission. He died, tragically, because of incompetent leadership (the decision to split the Ranger force and have them move in broad daylight) and a lack of sufficient force in Afghanistan because the majority of our armed forces were diverted to Iraq.
By CJ
October 24, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw @8:41 “Whereas my side tends to form coalitions around ideas – lower taxes, fewer regulations – the Democrats put together teams around nothing more intellectual than “aren’t we beautiful?””
jbmlaw has nailed it. His side does form coalitions around the ideas he named – lower taxes and fewer regulations. However to imply that these ideas are “intellectual” is a mistake. Greedy? Of course. Intellectual? No.
You see, the jbmlaw’s of the world would like to go back to the days of the early 20th century, the America of yore that was not unlike many third-world countries of today. No labor laws to prohibit an employer from hiring children, paying substandard wages and maintaining in unsafe working conditions is preferred by the jbms. They don’t mind if industry dumps waste into the rivers that supply our drinking water and air that we breathe. And, god-forbid those polluters should have to clean-up their filth.
Caveat Emptor– right jbm? No need for a Consumer Product Safety Commission to prevent infants from dying in baby cribs or car seats. Let the buyer beware. No need for an NTSB to prevent unsafe automobiles that catch fire when gently rear-ended or that have exploding tires. Let the passenger beware. No need for a Food and Drug Administration to prevent drugs that increase the risk of heart attack or suicide. Let the patient beware. Who needs an EPA to protect our rivers from catching fire when industry dumps its flammable waste into our streams? Let the family beware. And we don’t need no stinkin’ FAA to prevent airlines from taking short cuts in airplane maintenance procedures. Let the flyer beware. No need for the SEC to oversee public companies to make sure the public is properly informed when deciding where to invest. Let the investor beware. And if we develop mad cow from the hamburger we ate at the Labor Day cookout, then obviously it’s the our fault. Who needs the USDA inspecting our herds?
By the way, what do we need Labor Day for anyway? That’s a government imposed holiday, and the jbms don’t like it.
No, the jbms don’t like regulations – even if such regulations arose out of horrible loss and abuse. The freedoms that the jbms seek include the freedom to exploit, the freedom to pollute, the freedom to lie and the freedom to sell unsafe products and services that can kill us and our children.
However, don’t misunderstand jbmlaw’s morals (or lack thereof). It’s not that he and his “side” want others to suffer or die. They don’t actually care one way or the other. The jbmlaws of the world simply want less regulation as a means to one end – lower taxes and more profit for them.
As for me, a Democrat, aren’t I beautiful?
By Van
October 24, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
getalife,
You support the troops by making sure your congress critter funds what they need, by telling them they are doing a great job and supporting them, not by making them a pawn in a political p*ssing match
By getalife
October 24, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Van,
Again, stop bashing the troops.
Support the troops!
By Support the Troops FOR REAL
October 24, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Van, so why do you criticize the IAVA Veterans for informing people of how their Congressmen voted on issues of importance to Troops and military families? Did you seek this information out on your own? Few people have time these days. At least they act to inform themselves about what matters to them, instead of spouting sound bites they hear on the radio and believing blindly.
By Van
October 24, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Support the Troops FOR REAL,
Our troops are in a hard position. They need our support. By placing them in the position of taking political sides, you impact their morale.
What they do is not political. Back in ‘67 we were taught to obey orders. If a Captain said go there, we went. If he said get 5 planes ready we got 5 planes ready.
We may not agree with the orders, but we obeyed.
This group like the Kerry group, tries to place on the overburdened troops shoulders the weight of a political choice. If I obey then I am supporting a policy I either do support or not, if I do not obey, I can be imprisoned.
Do we want to put that into their heads also?
Our troops have enough to worry about. Let them do their jobs and come home. As I said, do not involve them in this p*ssing match between parties.
By Catherine
October 24, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Responding to Jim Wooten, I’m a female architect with a small, owner-operated Atlanta architecture firm. I have a Bachelor’s degree from a university that is highly regarded in this field. I also have several years of experience. In addition, I’ve only received excellent reviews from my boss.
However, I recently learned, by mistake, that my boss is paying a male co-worker just out of college ten percent more than he’s paying me. My boss also recently hired a male with only a couple of years of experience to be trained as a project manager. My female co-workers and I, all of whom have significantly more experience than this guy, are not on the project management track.
Angry and disappointed, I began searching for a job with another firm. In the process of researching the market salary that I should set as a target, I came across earnings statistics on the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) website. I was shocked. I had previously heard that women are paid less than men, but I had no idea how pervasive or significant this difference is. According to DOL statistics, regardless of job or industry, women consistently appeared to be paid anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of men’s compensation for the same job.
I made the mistake of trusting that my boss, who seemed like a nice guy, was measuring my performance objectively and compensating me consistently with others in the office. He is not. I resent it, and I will not make the mistake of trusting any male employer again. Or, I’ll trust but verify.
With regard to how I vote, one of the issues I’ll consider is whether my elected officials will fight for the enforcement of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that prohibits wage discrimination based on gender. I’ll be writing to them about this issue, and I’ll be watching all politicians to see where their views on this and related matters fall.
By Dusty
October 24, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Southern Democrat,
You wouldn’t misquote me, would you? I did not call anyone a traitor in my post yet you put such a statement in quotations without a reference.
You also assume that I am against combat veterans when I have some in my immediate family. I am saying that those STILL in combat do not need ANYBODY saying they are fighting for nothing and it is all useless.
This is a war, Southern Democrat, not a soccer game. There is always hurt and harm. I wish it were not so but there seems no other way to fight inhumanities. Neville Chamberlain, for one,is a prime example of a good try that didn’t work.
I did not know Pat Tillman. I read that he turned down a lucrative sports contract, volunteered for the military and asked to be put in a combat unit. If he changed, I hadn’t heard about it. I prefer to believe what was said about him when he was still living and fighting and speaking for himself.
“Friendly Fire” is always a terrible mistake. If it makes you feeel better to point fingers at human error, go ahead. But it doesn’t do any good. Those errors are not intentional.
You did not answer my question about military service that is not in combat. You don’t want to consider the fact that President Bush was in the military and flew military aircraft. You don’t want to give him any credit, do you?
You had better decide whether you want to fight terrorism or not. That is what we are doing. We are not fighting Americans we elected to govern this country.
By Support the Troops FOR REAL
October 24, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
Van, are you saying the IAVA Veterans were FORCED to research the votes of Congressmen and build a web page to inform the American public? Are you saing that somehow, I put them in the awkward position of having to do that against their will? Did John Kerry do that to them? How exactly did that go down?
But you make a good point, Van. You received orders, and you obeyed. We all know this. Therefore, it is not criticizing soldiers to criticize the civilians who lead them with bad policy and poor planning. Thanks for acknowledging that!
By LS
October 24, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Van, “Our troops are in a hard position. They need our support. By placing them in the position of taking political sides, you impact their morale.”
Troops or not, they are human and take political sides (most likely right wing) without any help from us.
I just went to the IAVA website and found this. Could be left leaning, but it sounds kind of reasonable to me.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America believes that Troops and Veterans who were on the front lines are uniquely qualified to speak about and educate the public about the realities of war, its implications on the health of our military and on the health of our country. These Troops & Veterans should be given a voice in the national dialogue and connected to the American public.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America believes that issues concerning our Troops & Veterans, the health of our Military, and our National Security are all interrelated. The IAVA philosophy/platform is that:
A healthy, well-manned, well-equipped, and properly used Military is vital to our national security, but with substantial priority placed on personnel, not high-end weapons systems Our Troops must always be provided a clear mission (with goals and an exit strategy), be properly trained for the tasks it is given, and not be overextended in order to ensure success of the mission and to keep the military healthy. Our Troops must always be provided the best equipment and operating conditions that provide for the greatest level of safety and moral within reason. Veterans must be properly provided for, not only for moral reasons, but because it directly and significantly impacts recruitment and morale for the overall armed forces.
By Brian Curtis
October 24, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
Dusty: “those STILL in combat do not need ANYBODY saying they are fighting for nothing and it is all useless.”
So, in your view, what are Americans supposed to do when that’s exactly the case? When we KNOW for a fact that the cause they’re fighting (and dying) for is bogus? Should we simply sit by and let it happen?
Or is your argument that such a situation could never, ever occur, under any circumstance?
By Wit and Wisdom of Dusty
October 24, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Dusty @12:38 “You don’t want to consider the fact that President Bush was in the military and flew military aircraft. You don’t want to give him any credit, do you?”
NO!!!
Bush joined the military specifically to avoid military combat.
SD can speak for him or herself, but the answer to your irrelevant question is no. Bush get’s no credit.
By Brian Curtis
October 24, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
I’d really like to see Dusty’s answer to this one. It goes to the core of her “Real patriots should sit down and shut up if they can’t be cheerleaders” argument.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Van: Liked the quote; made me want to know more about the person who said it. Thanks.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Van: How do we (the people), regain our control of congress? Good question. For ordinary people like us, it should be our number one priority. Contrary to popular belief, (and various blogs), the majority of americans are centrists, falling neither to the left nor the right. They want accountability in congress, the senate, and the white house. They want people who should be representing them to actually do so. Centrists are concerned with their environment as well as their security. They want a comprehensive plan of action in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, with Bin Laden brought to justice and Iraq stabilized and self reliant.
So how can the average american get that out of a two power political juggernaut that is ruining our country and the lives of our citizens? I have no idea — sometimes I think only the wisdom of a modern day solomon could answer such a complex question.
By getalife
October 24, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Check out my Halloween costume
Mark Foley.
By Brian Curtis
October 24, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Debbie: A start would be voting out incumbents more often and pushing for electoral reform: instant-runoff voting, for example, and lowered barriers to entry for third-party candidates.
Of course, the Dems and Repubs have a vested interest in keeping things just as they are, so any such effort is unlikely to get very far.
By R. Cagle
October 24, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Okay, so it is unwise and unfair to pigeonhole voters, but how does a statement like, “About 90-96 percent of black women vote for Democrats, regardless of who’s running or where” for instance fit into Mr. Wooten’s own non-pigeonholing fairness doctrine?
Maybe the statement is the truth, but only so long as the Republicans continually give up on them - or black voters in general - up as a lost cause. Witness Georgia’s own 5th Congressional District where the incumbent is running unopposed this year. Maybe he always has for all I know. My neighborhood - until it was moved to the 5th this year - was ignored in the equally lost cause known as the 4th District, where at least we had a Republican challenger most years even if the party didn’t seem to notice and practiced a “lesser of two evils” policy by supporting any viable Democratic challengers to the incompetent Democrat incumbent during primary time.
Point is, parties have to try, if nothing else out of a sense of responsibility to offer alternative views to all voters. It is a cop out for any political party, pollsters, or media types to pigeonhole any so called group of voters if they aren’t even going acknowledge their existence as individuals. I don’t want my vote or opinion to be sought after as part of the middle-aged, white, heterosexual, male voter block. I want to be recognized for me: an individual middle-aged, white, heterosexual, male voter.
By Van
October 24, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight,
Slowly, is the only thing I can think of.
By carefully looking over all parts of the campaign, doing what research is available, slowly pick the one that come closest to the ideal candidate. It might be the choice between a bad candidate and a not quite as bad one. Each election cycle you apply the same planning before you voter.
And, yes, I would rather have an honest liberal than a dishonest conservative, but I would prefer an honest conservative.
So far, there have been less and less of them out there, in either party, with the increase of “managers”, pollsters and spin doctors and less open public appearances.
The best one lately was when Harold Ford showed up at a campaign event for Bob Corker.[WMCTV}(http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5568809)
By @@
October 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Jim: It’s too often an alienation of self when you willingly fold up or down to fit into some pigeonhole carved out by others.
Most of us want to hold on to our illusions that someone else knows the real Truth; or that we have to study for years to find it; or that only the wisest can know the Truth; or that only the wisest even care.
So what have I done if I buy into the feminist mantra? I’ve sacrificed my individuality. Something that makes me unique and apart from all other women.
I’m somewhat of a traditionalist. The women’s movement of the sixties assumed I was a passenger on the bus. In reality I never bought a ticket to ride. Didn’t place obstacles in their way, just decided to stay on the road I had chosen.
Look, I don’t believe that ethics and morals are a common thread that runs consistently through all women, so why would I buy into a group think mentality? My individuality brings together all of my moral and ethical considerations. I’ll compare each candidate on those same considerations in order to get the most bang for my vote. I’ll probably never find one who is 100% with me, but then that’s life.
I’ll accept responsibility for my decisions, and I won’t whine because I made them. I’ll be true to beliefs and support them.
By DebbieDoRight
October 24, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
We have soldiers in circumstances the average American can scarcely imagine. They all have a right to have an opinion about what they are doing!
That is a great quote and very true. Just because u wear the moniker “soldier” doesn’t mean that you also wear the monniker “stupid”.
Our troops are in a hard position. They need our support. By placing them in the position of taking political sides, you impact their morale.
Speaking from a military wife’s viewpoint, trust me when I tell you, soldiers do VOTE. So if they vote, it stands to reason that they have an opinion about politics and the direction of their country — probably more intently than anyone else, since their lives are the ones that are more often than not used as barter in times of war and/or insurgency.
What they do is not political. Back in ‘67 we were taught to obey orders. If a Captain said go there, we went. If he said get 5 planes ready we got 5 planes ready
My brother-in-law and an older brother served in Viet Nam - I have the deepest respect for you for having the courage to answer the call to arms. Since you have served, you can understand the saying “following orders is no defense”.
In the military they say they want soldiers who are smarter, stronger, faster then the previous generation so in essence that also mean that they want soldiers who can think for themselves. My point is, soldiers are still citizens of the US and are bound to civilian laws as well as the UCMJ — they sometimes must make quick, calculated command decisions in the blink of an eye using their own judgements. Why can’t they do the same when making a political decision?
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 9:53, while I can agree with almost everything you wrote, I share Dusty’s 10:46 perspective: shall we exempt from critique all political arguments merely because proferred by one who served honorably in the military? How does that differ from the politically-calculated presentation of unqualified experts on policy matters (e.g., the 9/11 “witches” properly, if perhaps too-harshly, criticized by Coulter?) In the area of political debate, no argument should be exempt from examination. Further, good governance requires scrutiny of personal motivation – the “Bridge to Nowhere” being a great example.
I appreciate that this runs close to the “politics of personal destruction,” which I perceive is – justifiably - the true object of your concern. However, if John Kerry says, “I was the very model of the modern major-general,“ shall we prohibit those who served with him from affirming, even loudly, “No, he wasn’t.” (The controversy goes to the credibility of the witness, not the admissibility?)
Maybe one other area for discussion, on the Lieberman/Powell ostracization: good men, who stand for principles, always find themselves on the outside at some point. Right now my view of immigration law is not well-received by the people I normally travel with. I think it fair to argue that John McCain was on the outside, on several issues, as recently as six months ago, but now is admired again (by all but me?) Colin admirably took politically unpopular positions, but he killed his political career by his dishonest silence in the Plame kerfuffle; think of him as the Gary Hartpence of Republicans. Among Republicans, fundamental dishonesty is an intolerable character flaw, not likely to be forgiven; mere political differences go in cycles. I fear Colin, by his silence, is the modern Richard Nixon among Republicans – respected for his intellect, but perhaps not worthy of trust due to his history.
Dear Curious @ 10:09, I perceive you do not distinguish the moral basis between a law limiting interstate highway speeds to 70 mpg, and a law prohibiting the intentional killing of an innocent life. I do. I simply do not yield to your definition of libertarian, with a small “l.”
Dear JaCP @ various times, I admit I think your argument is dishonest, but you seemingly wish my approval, and thus you deserve an opportunity to persuade me otherwise. You wrote: “Interesting topic, pigeonholing voters. And I agree…it’s insulting to generalize vast populations of people into cute little boxes using PR tactics. …Voters fall for it though, time and time again: REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA” Why did you use the phrase “voters fall for it” rather than the seemingly more obvious choice, “voters desire…”? If you believe in this yourself, you would affirm your wish for these principles – which I share – and you would condemn all who oppose – as I do. I see the Democrats and wishy-washy middle-of-the-road Republicans as the opposition to the principles quote at length; in fact, I cannot name a single Democrat or a single middle-of-the-road Republican who supports the contract with America. Whom do you fault?
Dear CJ @ 11:55, you correctly outline the differences between us – you impose your beliefs of the superior intelligence of the government on us low-lifes; we would not impose our beliefs on you, except when you try to kill an innocent being.
Dear Brian @ 12:48, your premise is flawed. Fighting for the freedom of another is the ultimate good work; your disparagement of the moral basis of the Iraq mission is evil.
By Southern Democrat
October 24, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
I will, of course, answer your question. I have relatives that served on active duty during World War II and Korea that did not serve in combat zones. I have cousins and uncles that served on active duty (after either enlisting or being drafted) that served during the Vietnam era; some went to Vietnam and saw combat, some didn’t. NONE of them sought deferrals or National Guard commissions, even though 2 of them could have. I consider President Bush’s service honorable. I do not think it makes him competent to consistently ignore the advice of seasoned military commanders for the sake of his and Secretary Rumsfeld’s whims and wishes.
Your argument that “everyone at home needs to support the war while we have troops abroad” is pathetic and absurd. It is this type of jingoist attitude that emboldens leaders to send the young and bold into harm’s way without sufficient forethought. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
It is quite easy to put up a yellow ribbon and call veterans who have watched their brothers-in-arms needlessly shed blood “cut-and-run.” I’m curious, though, how YOU would deal with my close friend who I constantly find crying because her son is in the Marine ready reserve and has been called up for his THIRD tour in Iraq? Is she wrong for criticizing the President she voted for (twice) because “there are troops still over there”? Or is her son wrong for not wanting to go back and not being able to go hunting because the sound of a shotgun is too much like the shooting he heard in Iraq? Is THAT a soccer game? How should I deal with my former students in the military who consider going AWOL because they are terrified of going back to Iraq? Remind them that they volunteered? Dusty, I am not trying to personally attack you, but I simply feel VERY, VERY strongly about this.
The far right LOVES to bring up Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement policy towards Hitler when attempting to justify the pre-emptive war in Iraq. You ignore the fact, though, that sanctions and peaceful revolution were the driving force behind our Civil Rights movement, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the end of the Raj in India, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, etc. Sure, there are times when only force can solve a pressing problem, and if you’re not willing to concede that we should not have gone into Iraq, please at least entertain the possibility that after 3.5 years, we aren’t improving the situation and that veterans who call for a timely withdrawal are not “cut-and-run.”
The Neo-Con Amateur Hour Approach to Foreign Policy is OVER. It is time that we get real, experienced people (conservative, moderate, liberal, I don’t care) who will not lead through fear and hatred.
I have to go to court, but will try to check back in later and maybe get back to the original topic at hand… sorry for the distraction.
By Van
October 24, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Re: IAVA website
Went there, and it appears that the agenda is clear.
By picking out certain issues, they can pick and choose to get the desired outcome. Conservatives do not support the troops and the liberals do - just backward.
While the troops involved may be of a true heart, I am not sure of the people funding IAVA.
But the majority of the articles come from a source that does not fully support the troops, like the New York Times and Washington Post cabal.
Features from CNN and other liberal news organizations also raise some doubt in my mind.
In all, it is too early to tell for me.
By Dusty
October 24, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
If you are absolutely sure that war is wrong, then you should have been a Quaker or a conscientious objector. Are you sure about Iraq? Are you sure Iraqis don’t want freedom? Are you sure that terrorists are not out to kill Americans? Are you sure the terrorists fighting in Iraq, whether local or not, hadn’t rather be fighting and killing in the USA?
Of course Americans have freedom of speech. Just don’t use your political viewpoints to kick our troops while they are fighting. Saying everything they do is wrong cannot be called “support for the troops”.
By Chazman
October 24, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Our troops are in a hard position. They need our support. By placing them in the position of taking political sides, you impact their morale.
Van,
So did you support our military actions in Kosovo? Bosnia? Were you 100% behind Bill Clinton? Did you accuse the “Wag the Dog” when Clinton tried to get Bin Laden or were you 100% behind the troops?
It sounds like you do not support this statement from Trent Lott, “You can support the troops without supporting the President.”
I asked Dusty if he supported that statement and I am still waiting on an answer.
It’s a simple yes or no answer.
Do you support that statement Van? And I’m still waiting on your answer Dusty.
By jbmlaw
October 24, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Dear Chazman @ 2:09, I think it is a fair allegation that Republicans were unpersuaded of the worldwide threat of Yugoslavians during the 1990s. We also had doubts about the integrity of Bill’s motivation for lofting a few missiles into the Middle Eastern desert. I think we honestly have to acknowledge the error. By that course, do you thus acknowledge yours, in Iraq?
By getalife
October 24, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Hoping to find a political solution, the Bush administration has asked the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to issue an unconditional amnesty to Sunni Muslim ins