In these insecure times, Democratic women voters supposedly are drifting toward George W. Bush. I’ll believe it when I see it. But just in case, perhaps it’s time for a reality check. After all, this is not your daddy’s backlash. Back in the ’70s when George W’s dad was shedding his pro-choice views to curry favor with the religious right, anti-feminists… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (13)Page 1 of 1 pagesHelp:
Would someone please translate the first comment ? It is probably a rave review which the article deserves.
twain
Posted by twain on Oct 25, 2004 at 7:43 PM http://Kerry-04.org
“During World War II, young Rose Will Monroe was the face of American women in adversity: strong, supportive and resolute against the enemy forces that threatened our existence. Tens of thousands like Rosie rolled up their sleeves, gritted their teeth, and flexed their muscles in factories and shipyards and arsenals across the country. They made rockets and rifles and bombs and boats. They painted and drilled and welded. When they got home to their kids, they cooked and cleaned and collapsed in bed after praying for their husbands and brothers and uncles on the battlefield. Rosie and her sisters in arms didn’t have the luxury of complaining about their lack of ’me time.’ There was a war to be won.
And so, as this presidential campaign season has constantly reminded us, there is today. But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are selfabsorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers’ union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their airconditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream jets and custom Escalades.) They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they’re apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his ’Star Wars’ light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones
in Afghanistan). . . . We’ve come a long way, baby. The wrong way. Get a grip, girls. You are an embarrassment to a nation at war.”—Michelle Malkin
Posted by J Effin K on Oct 25, 2004 at 10:08 PM The Article States: “A “pro-family” president would fund childcare instead of slashing it. Only one in seven children eligible for federal childcare assistance now receives it. As part of its welfare package, the administration has proposed cutting the number of needy children served by the Child Care and Development Block Grant. By its own estimate, the president’s 2005 budget plan would result in 300,000 children losing childcare assistance by fiscal year 2009.”
James Madison, author of the Constitution, states:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. . .”Does the Constitution of this country mean anything anymore, or should congress use it as toilet paper?
Posted by J Effin K on Oct 25, 2004 at 10:15 PM Effin:
So would that mean that feeding undernourished children would violate the constitution.
twain
Posted by twain on Oct 25, 2004 at 11:08 PM ” So would that mean that feeding undernourished children would violate the constitution.
twain”No twain, Mr Madison’s comment means that Congress stealing the taxpayer’s money to feed undernourished children (or anyone else for that matter) IS A GROSS VIOLATION of the US Constitution. Individuals are free to feed anyone they wish.
I respectfully reword and resubmit my previous query…do we respect the Constitution or revile it?
Posted by J Effin K on Oct 26, 2004 at 1:15 AM Effin - does it respect the constitution to amend with legal discrimination?
Bush believes that lesbians are subhumans. The right wing he panders to considers them selfish hedonists. He believes that an amendment to the constitution to discriminate against them would make our country stronger. He believes that his vice president’s daughter is one of these hedonistic creatures.
Just because we are at war does not mean we should turn a blind eye to rediculous policy cooked up by those in power. Leaving this administration in power effectively turns back the clock on women’s rights…gay rights…families…the environment…science.
Posted by JB on Oct 26, 2004 at 4:52 AM JB - it is a travesty to amend the Federal Constitution regarding gay rights - for or against. Thomas Jefferson said “[A] wise and frugal government…shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” Where does a gay marriage amendment apply to the functions of government outlined by Jefferson? I submit it does not, and should be abandoned.
President Bush has never referred to G/L/TG people as sub-human, you put those words in his mouth.
Your “just because we are at war” comment is especially disturbing. If we do not prosecute the war on terror (aka Radical Islamofascism) with extreme prejucidice and overwhelming force, the other issues you discuss (women’s right, gay rights, etc) will cease to exist. As much as I disagree with GWB on many domestic issues, he is a better choice to stop terrorists. Let’s eradicate the enemies of this country first, and fix domestic policy second. If you will support those of us for whom the war again Islamofascism is the top priority, you will be surprised at the number of us who will defend your freedom from government to live out your life as you see fit.
BTW, thanks for the civil debate. I posted on this forum expecting to be flamed, but instead I am enjoying a great exchange of ideas.
Posted by J Effin K on Oct 26, 2004 at 1:42 PM Bush did not say they are subhuman…correct…but his policy, and those he is wooing with the policy do consider them such.
I believe J. Kerry will fight terrorism and Islamofascism smarter than Bush is currently doing. Terrorism is a tactic, not a country. We have terrorism in the US that is not related to Islamofascism. We have had Americans use terror tactics within our country.
We cannot abandon domestic policy because of fear. I don’t believe we can say war first, domestic policy second.
We need smart, credible leadership home and abroad. Bush does not offer it.
Respectfully…
Posted by JB on Oct 26, 2004 at 3:18 PM i wonder sometimes why bush does these things. however, i think i’ve just figured it out. this man has no respect for life. he doesn’t care about people. i’m sure the thought of aborted babies gets no real response from him; if one of his horse-faced daughters got knocked up by someone they’d be the first ones in line for the procedure. this is why he passes the shitty laws he does: poor people can have lots of babies who will grow up in poverty so when they’re eightten they can go into the service and fight innocent people for bush’s wallet. it makes perfect sense now.
i’m voting for kerry.
Posted by Candice on Oct 26, 2004 at 10:14 PM There are many things that we now enjoy in society that aren’t an original part of the Constitution. HOWEVER, this document DOES provide for “representative” government (smirk, but that’s another issue) that theoretically can alter that same document to provide for CHANGE and the wishes of the “People”.
PEOPLE, ERAS, PLACES CHANGE! Things will change, that’s for certain. If it wasn’t for certain amendments to that Constitution, you “Michelle” and I probably wouldn’t be able to contract our own agreements, have a checking account or earn a decent salary.
For everyone of those supposedly self-centered, self-absorbed lefty women you’ve described in great and intimate detail, there are conservative, self-centered, self-absorbed Bible-thumping, women who are hypocrites and just as rotten as those you’ve described above.
Plenty of them are “I don’t pay social security taxes for my illegal nanny Rosita so I can attend my pyramid scheme religious-based, at-home marketing opportunity which takes just as much time away from home as the women I am blasting and looking down on cause she works “oustide” of the home and has to use center based daycare which is what she can afford. Also, in a very unlady like and grossly gauche way she brags (on the sly) about her church charity work and her clinic picketing. Meanwhile, she’s also the very preson who wouldn’t adopt one of those children (who may be of a different color) she’s so courageously trying to save from an abortion.
Remember, the Bible said Pride goes before the fall, to cast the mote from your own eye before your try to take out your brother’s mote and that Jesus was really angry at hypocrites, “Pharaces” or the religous elite at the time, moneychangers/ usurers/the rich and liars.
Bush’s own daughters smoke, drink and gasp, probably have PRE-MARITAL SEX! WITH A CONDOM! MAYBE ON BIRTH CONTROL! And as someone so hysterically noted, they would be the first in line for an abortion at 39 weeks on the quiet if knocked up. Funny thing is that there was an article (possibly in Salon) about the sex industry, (e.g. dancers, escorts, sex clubs, etc.) during the Republican National Convention in NYC this year. Guess what? Republicans are their best and kinkiest customers!
Remember there is “lifestyle” and there is public policy and public policy is for the greater good, not for someone else’s idea of how I should live my life, especially when they have motes in their own eyes. If anything, the shame of the US is its own lip service about the ideals it represents and the reality of its ruling elite and their treatment of the rest of the world.
Posted by Ingrid on Oct 27, 2004 at 4:45 PM Not to mention US treatment of its own children -we are behind some Third World countries in infant mortality and food insecurity for our children. What about abuse of pregnant women? What about discrimination against pregnant women looking for work when they are showing? No seems to care after the baby is delivered.
Are you feeding any of those children at your table tonite? Are you in the position to give a pregnant woman a job with benefits? If not, don’t talk about what the Constitution allows people to do charitywise - we DON’T do it individually, ergo….
Posted by Ingrid on Oct 27, 2004 at 4:53 PM Many many *many* women (and men!) oppose abortion. After all, ~half of the abortions are performed on females!
While i can see why some might want to keep abortion legal (presumably as a lessor evil?), the arguments for it are very weak and many people vehemently disagree with even allowing abortion (except to save the life, and perhaps health, of the mother).
It would be funny if a anti-abortion millionare opened an abortion factory for sex selection of babies. I would really find that amusing!
Posted by obviously on Oct 27, 2004 at 8:36 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura Flanders
- Not By Spin Alone
In the battle over reproductive rights, on-the-ground organizing is far more effective than massaging the message - Reality Check
From ending the Equal Pay Initiative to championing the Partial Birth Abortion Act, Bush’s record speaks for itself. - Taxes for Terrorists?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
