I must admit, I am quite concerned about the fact that I personally know two or three women that are progressive, intelligent Hillary Clinton supporters who want to either vote for a third party candidate, stay home or write-in Hillary Clinton.
Of course any of those actions would give John McCain a significant advantage that could put him in the White House.
One argument I have heard is that the Obama campaign was sexist and they do not want to “reward” such behavior with their vote. I certainly understand that sexism is alive and well in this country and I was appalled by some of the rhetoric used during this primary season. I should also mention that I was equally appalled with the racist rhetoric I had been hearing. The reality is, McCain would actually legislate sexism. We cannot afford this step backward.
Withholding our vote from Barack Obama would put McCain in office. On sexism, McCain is no talk and all action!
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said, “He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances — that was about violence against women in clinics,” Keenan says, adding, “He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme.”
In addition, McCain has long held radical positions on reproductive issues, having consistently voted :
- AGAINST Ensuring women’s access to birth control
- AGAINST Providing educational information for teens on birth control
- AGAINST Requiring health insurance companies to cover birth control
The bill that McCain voted for that which denies coverage for birth control actually mandates coverage for Viagra! When he was confronted with this, he went into a long, long pause looking like a deer in headlights. His actual response was that he didn’t want to talk about it, he doesn’t remember his vote and he doesn’t know what his opinion is on this.
McCain has stated that Roe vs. Wade “must be overturned.” His position is that abortion should be not legal even in cases of rape, incest or life threatening conditions for the mother.
And there’s more!
John McCain has opposed the Fair Pay Act – a bill that would guarantee women equal pay for equal work. To make matters worse, McCain insulted women by saying that the solution to employment discrimination was for women to get more “education and training.”
Now, think about this. When you watch the polls and you see McCain so close to overtaking Obama, do you ever actually imagine that this man, John McCain, could be our president? Does that trouble you in any way?
If so, than you know the only decision you can make, for woman’s sake, is to pull that lever for Barack Obama.Do you dislike him so much that you would be willing to give the presidency to an institutionalized sexist?
Truth in Politics NOW 
Whew. Thanks, for doing this post. Actually, I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about McCain. I was pulling for Mike Huckabee and was going to vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils. I didn’t know that he is for overturning Roe vs Wade. Now, I can pull the lever for him with vigor. Plus, I’ll go into the booth with my wife where she will allow me to push the button for John on her vote, making it “twice” that I vote against Barak.
LikeLike
Your wife is not capable of voting on her own? I guess you might vote for sexism so that you might have more control over your wife. Do you know what other religion is sexist in this way? Extremist Muslims. They give Islam a bad name just as you give Christianity a bad name. I guess you have more in common than I thought.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m a Baptist. Yes, she’s capable, but, knowing how much it means to me to vote against liberalism, she lets me press the button. Now, let me get this straight. I’m against murdering babies and because of that, “I’M EVIL?” Wow!
LikeLike
No one is calling you evil.
LikeLike
Well, not no one. I am willing to guess davisoftheheapes1 is evil, although in a banal way. The first clue is that he would happily take the illegal and immoral step of denying his wife the privacy of her conscience in the voting booth. The second clue is that he would summarize the debate over Roe vs. Wade as a debate about “murdering babies”. (Wow! No wonder it is controversial, what with the huge pro-baby-murdering contingent in this country!) This inability to understand and respect the viewpoints of others is typical of a kind of fanaticism that, if it does not lead directly to violence, supports and spawns the violence of others. Don’t let him off the hook so lightly!
I’ll go further, but less confidently. I will guess that the “prolife” views of davisoftheheapes1 include support for starting the Iraq war (oh, too bad about 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians; not our fault!!) and support without qualms for the death penalty (too bad about the mistakes; gotta break some eggs to make an omelette!). This would be consistent with his tone and style of argument: ignorant, reactionary, disrespectful, and smug.
LikeLike
Thank you, aisaac, for saying everything that I should have said!
LikeLike
Well, well. Hello, Aisaac. Ignorant, reactionary, disrespectful and smug. Hmmmmm. I guess your tirade was not “reactionary?” Pardon my skepticism, but I don’t think you sound very tolerant of an opposing point of view. I don’t “control” my wife. She needs no controlling. She’s quite capable of reaching her own conclusions. Are liberals not accustomed to women who think for themselves? She agrees with me. Roe vs Wade IS about murdering babies. How can you reach any other conclusion? Is a baby a giraffe? A milk dud? It’s a baby. I’m glad John McCain wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and it’s a plus in mine and a lot of other people’s book. Aissac would it be more palatable to you if the 100k dead Iraquis were put in a big Hefty garbage bag, filled with amniotic fluid and ripped apart with giant forceps? Would that make the war ok?
LikeLike
davisoftheapes1 says: “Roe vs Wade IS about murdering babies. How can you reach any other conclusion?”
Since millions of people do reach other conclusions, and you know that, your question is silly. The question of course is rather, why are you unable to comprehend that people of good faith can disagree with your assertion? Presumably the reason is that you cannot think past what is “obvious” to you. Perhaps one day, if you are lucky, you will realize that a great deal of what is “obvious” to you is merely ideology. (That of course is why you are unable to reason about it, but simply make assertions.) However, I will not hold my breath.
Some people search for truth, knowing that since they are not a god they must be fallible in almost all things. Other people find this level of honesty far too frightening or disturbing, and they persuade themselves that they have special access to eternal verities, and that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or evil. So far you look to be in the latter camp. Of course from a religious perspective, this substitution of hubris for humility *is* evil. But as I said, it is a banal kind of evil. Nothing special.
As for what might make the war “OK”, I await your statement of whether the war is “OK”. Is it? Also your statement on whether the death penalty is “OK”. Is it?
LikeLike
Sorry Aisaac, I was at work and haven’t had a chance to go to WordPress. The war is unfortunate. All war, death and killing is unfortunate. I think the war was justified as the US and/or the UN had negotiated or attempted to negotiate with Sadaam at least 17 times. Diplomacy and talking was not doing it. I don’t for a minute think that materials for or actual weapons of mass destruction were not in Iraq. With all his juxtapositioning, I believe he was able to hide them or smuggle them out into Syria. The death penalty is also unfortunate, but necessary. I do not think we should fail to execute murderers and heinous vermin because there are going to be mistakes. Say that capital punishment is not a deterrant, but there is no way to effectively argue that Ted Bundy will not kill any more college co-eds. I am honest enough to realize that some of my opinions, idealogies, ideas, are not the final answer. I may be wrong on some of my beliefs. But they are just that. Beliefs. I “believe” them. For better or worse, I have contemplated the idea and come to a conclusion of what I believe. You mentioned that since i am not a god (little g) I am fallible. I sure am. So are you. So is everyone except God. He is not. There is one one God. You and I are not him. I don’t “require” that everyone believe as I do, you you sure as hell don’t sound like you have any room for anybody that doesn’t march in step with you, Howard Dean, Harry, Nancy and some of the more slimy left wing pieces of shit. After all is said and done, our opinions or ability to effect history is like two fleas arguing over which one of them owns the dog they are living on.
LikeLike
I said earlier: “I will guess that the ‘prolife’ views of davisoftheheapes1 include support for starting the Iraq war … and support without qualms for the death penalty”. He now confirms this guess.
So, an adequate response to davisoftheheapes1 was written long ago: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
LikeLike
Pingback: PUMA or PUVAW, People United to Vote Against Women « Truth in Politics NOW