BlogHer - REPUBLICANS - Comments

Maybe it isn't just

shellie — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:35:33 -0500

Maybe it isn't just 'revenge' or 'anger' or 'because he put a woman on' etc etc. Maybe they have good reasons. Several polls throughout the summer and even after both conventions, showed only about half of Hillary's supporters planning to vote for Obama. About 1/4 were planning to vote for McCain and another 1/4 planning to stay home in protest.

Even if you discount the stay-homes and look only at those actually voting for McCain, that 18-25% of Hillary supporters is a lot of people. Do you really want to assign bad motives to all of them?

At the time of the NH primary, Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed for the NYT saying that cleaning up after Bush Jr might take four terms: two for Hillary and two for Obama. Unfortunately Obama refused Hillary's offer of Clinton/Obama, but it's possible that one or two terms of McCain/Palin might make a start at the cleanup, doing a better job than Obama would, as well as leaving Hillary free to run in 2012.

McCain may not progress as fast as we'd like on things like health care (he's just announced a proposal something like Hillary's HOLC for the mortgage crisis), but he's unlikely to make the awful blunders that Obama might make in foreign or financial matters. And Palin as 'the future of the GOP' is certainly better than some other GOPs who might become their future.

Good Grief

cshayr — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:40:11 -0500

I can't believe that women are willing to vote for McCain simply because he has a woman on the ticket. I have to admit that initially, I was angry about Hillary not getting the nomination. However, that quickly turned when Palin began to open her mouth.

I was insulted as a female voter that Palin would be the alternative female placed on the ticket. Are you kidding me? Have you heard her talk? And I am totally dismissing the debate because she clearly had three weeks to be coached for it.

Nope, i am solidly behind Obama now. Listening to Palin and McCain speak turns my stomach.

Toto -- You are a joke

MJ2007 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:31:27 -0500

You are a joke. And I, as well as many others here, are well aware of that from your many hateful posts. You calling me ignorant shows your ignorance. It screams it actually. But since you have been a member of Blogher for all of 2 days, evidently you aren't aware of how things work -- so we'll have to give you a pass. Personally, I think that you can't take the heat of true discussion, so maybe you should stay out of the kitchen. I hope that you are more professional in your face-to-face interactions than you have proven yourself to be in the short time you've belonged here. But just from browsing your posts in various discussions, my guess is that you aren't. I wasn't aware that we were having a Poli Sci Master's level dissertation discussion or do you even know what that is. I am well aware of their records (and I certainly don't need to justify that to you). You, my friend, with all of the diversionary discussion, I'm not so sure of. I will be glad to end this discussion with you, since your comments have added nothing to increasing anyone's knowledge or understanding (the true purpose of discussion) and has been nothing more than name calling on your part anyway. Gladly, buh bye

PS Your candidate (the doddering old man) is tanking in the debate with Obama. Good luck with that on November 4th.

Silly Puma, yep thats me...

Paddycake — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:58:03 -0500

Call me silly if you like but the way I see it I wasted my time voting in the primary.

Politicians carry on and on about how important it is to vote, and then they have some back room deal to give away the votes. Just doesn't sit well with me.

Not to mention the comment Obama made "I know I can get her voters, Not so sure she can get mine" Just another turn off.

And as far as Issues half of the issues that made me vote democrat are nothing more than "distraction issues" Roe v Wade, gay rights, equality issues, affirmitive action, god

seriously what would seperate the two parties without those "distraction issues"?

MJ, have you ever heard of

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:36:20 -0500

MJ, have you ever heard of The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill? Have you ever read anything political other than what you read on Daily Kos or Huffpo?

I suggest that you educate yourself more before you attempt to debate the "issues".

http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/mccain.html

After reading your last thread, I've decided that I'm going to move on from this topic with you. There are plenty of informed intelligent Democrats on this site that I would much rather debate. You said, "And what reform has John McCain achieved in the political system? This is another one of those blanket statements that Republicans love to throw out there as fact". Statements like this just show how ignorant you are when it comes to politics.

Regardless of who you support you really do yourself harm by not educating yourself on all of the candidates voting record. It's rather easy to do ... here's a good unbiased place to start.

Here's McCain's Senate voting record -

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

Here's Obama's Senate voting record -

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Buh bye.

Sticky stuff, and no pun intended

Nordette — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:16:36 -0500

You did a great job with a complicated subject that leaves most of us scratching our heads and reaching for the Tylenol or Valium.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

I Wish I Was Torn

alyssaroyse — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:49:09 -0500

I really do wish I was torn. For that matter, I wish I was outraged. How dare they take a woman of such accomplishment, intelligence and experience and reduce her to a vapid sex toy just because she's a woman. But, here's the thing. I'm much more outraged that anyone would suggest that a woman who so clearly lacks accomplishment, intelligence, and experience could be president, just because she's a woman. I am positively offended by that assertion, to be frank.

Where porn (which I have no problem with whatsoever) may offend us for stripping aside all intellectual capabilities and reducing us to sex objects, this sham of a political ticket is stripping aside all intellectual deficits and reducing women to a sexual characiture. Porn, at least, is honest, we know what it is. This is sinister, putting the lowest form of woman in the highest office and suggesting this is as good as we get as women. This is the pinnacle.

Their clear strategy to make up for the loss of Hillary Clinton by putting a woman on the ticket, and doing so by choosing someone who basically admits she doesn't even read, is OBSCENE. Do they really think this is the kind of woman we want to see. Don't matter how she thinks so long as she's hot? No, my friends, that IS what we look for in a porn star. NOT in a politician.

When Hillary - a not very sexy woman, I'll admit it - was running for office against Obama, I would watch the political coverage with my daughter and come damn near tears. I would talk to my daughter about being smart, driven, hard working, determined, LITERATE, well-spoken. We would talk about how many people never thought we'd see this day, when a black man and a woman were running for office. But, i would tell her, if you're smart, driven, hard-working, determined, literate and well-spoken, you can do anything.

She literally looked at me the other day and said, "mommy, is it my imagination or is Palin just really stupid." No honey, it's not your imagination. All that stuff I told you about working hard, learning and stuff, it was all bull. Just put on some pumps and wink a lot. Turns out, that's all anyone needs from you.

I'd rather have her watch porn and discover incredible power and magic in her sexuality than watch Palin be trotted around as an example of anything other than the most pernicious kind of vile sexism in our culture. How passively demeaning do people need to be before we stand up and say, NO, we are more than just sex objects, find me a woman who inspires me, not just begs for a spanking.

Larry Flint nailed it. He may have the most astute political mind out there right now. If nothing else, he's telling it like it is. Personally, i don't like it, but i know the truth when I see it.

____________

Alyssa Royse

Just Cause It: A Web Site To Save The World

Start Her Up: A Blog for Women Entrepreneurs

Yes Toto, I am right. I'm glad you can admit it.

MJ2007 — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:23:34 -0500

Okay, I love your back-handed compliment about me being correct. You say that I'm right and then you post some completely UNRELATED story to the Keating 5 incident. So what if John Glenn is endorsing Obama now? So what if Obama didn't mention it (if that in fact is even true --which I don't take much that Republicans say as fact in this campaign because so much of it is fabrication)? How does this make him a hypocrite? It doesn't. Glenn, like McCain, was accused of wrong-doing. This doesn't change the fact that JOHN MCCAIN WAS ACCUSED OF WRONG-DOING. And just in case you don't get it, John Glenn isn't running for President, but JOHN MCAIN is. That's the key difference between the two.

And I'm not making irrational leaps, you are. You are saying on one hand that you know that John McCain committed wrong-doing, but then you will throw in some off the wall comment that has nothing to do with the REAL ISSUES (like the references to Ayers). And what reform has John McCain achieved in the political system? This is another one of those blanket statements that Republicans love to throw out there as fact -- believing that no one will challenge it. Well, in case you haven't noticed, the American people are challenging. I for one am tired of the generic politics as usual. "Reform" and "working across the aisle" Rhetoric. Nothing more. Period. If John McCain was such a maverick reformer, there would be no doubt to his record. He wouldn't need to tout it himself. It would be common knowledge, and guess what (for a man that has been around as long as he has), it's not! Which speaks for itself. So, what we need is some new blood. Some fresh perspective and ideas. Which is what Obama will bring to the table. Change. By the way, if McCain is such a reformer of the political system why does he have so many lobbyists working for him?

PS What is this reference to Kool Aid? Maybe you drink Kool Aid, but I certainly don't.

Dumbing down America?

Elleuxe — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:14:51 -0500

I agreed with your reflections on Governor Palin's tactics during the debate. I was also appalled that so few people seem to find it singularly inappropriate for someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in the country to constantly use such poor grammer and pronunciation. I spent 25 years in Alaska, and raised three children there. I am mystified on where or how her speech patterns and accent have evolved from; I don't know anyone from Wasilla who sounds like that.

Sigh, I'm Torn too

Erin Kotecki Vest — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:03:13 -0500

I guess you could call me pro-porn too. I find it totally fine so long as everyone really is willing and wanting.

And I guess every public figure such as this ends up in nasty parodies or made fun of or what not.

My issue is one of respect I guess. Which makes it a non issue really. But in my mind, our first female anything, be it VP or President, should get a certain amount of respect. However. That doesn't really make for an argument against free speech.

So, I guess I'm not torn.

But the overtly sexual stuff- trying to poke fun at Palin or Michelle Obama or Speaker Pelosi- meh. Bleh. ick.

Sexist. Not funny. And certainly not in the spirit of everyone being 'willing' participants.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

And This Just Keeps Getting Bettter and Better

Megan Smith — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:31:11 -0500

Thanks for this very thoughtful post.

Honestly, I'm of two minds about this whole Sarah Palin porn thing. Yes they have the right to make the movie and to sell it, but like you say, just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.

It makes me wonder whether there were any porn characters based on Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Margaret Thatcher. Knowing human nature, I'm sure there were. You're absolutely right when you say that porn characters of women in power, for many men is a way of muting that power. There's a feeling of male impotence there that can only be assauged by sexual objectification. It can't be stopped, it won't be stopped, it just is.

But putting aside Palin's credentials and her positions on the issues for a moment, what does disturb me is the Republican party's use of Palin's power as a woman themselves. It's with her permission of course, but I ask myself if a male candidate had winked and mugged to the camera as Palin did last week during the VP debate if they wouldn't be ripped to shreds for not taking any of this running for VP stuff seriously.

It's the same feeling I used to get watching the cute girl with the pigtails in 3rd grade, wink and mug at the teacher and still get taken seriously while the plain girl in the corner who was the smartest in the class, had to work twice as hard to get the same recognition. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.

I think the credibility that porn producers attempt to undermine with porn characters is in even more danger if women themselves use sexual frivolity or as it's called in Palin's case, her folksy-ness, when it's least called for.

Megan

Megan Smith

BlogHer CE, TV/Online Video

My Other Blogs:
Megan's Minute &
Video Runway

Yes MJ, you are correct.

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:24:35 -0500

Yes MJ, you are correct, when you Google Keating 5 there are a ton of sources and FACTS about this story. I liked this story the best ...

"You don't get introduced by John Glenn every day," Bruce Springsteen said yesterday at an Obama get-out-the-vote rally at Ohio State University. Former Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, was -- along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. -- one of the Keating Five, the handful of senators who met with federal regulators to urge them to ease up on the savings and loan owned by contributor Charles Keating. Hours after Glenn introduced the Boss at the Obama rally, the Obama campaign launched a campaign attacking McCain for his Keating Five activities. They made no mention of Mr. Glenn."

Now, stop drinking the kool-aid for a few minutes and stop making irrational leaps in logic about where you think I stand on this issue. Read my post carefully, ... for the record, I believe that the Keating 5 scandal is a legitimate political issue in this campaign. As you can see in my last post, I don't deny the facts of the story. The Keating 5 story involves McCain's judgment and political record, and Obama can certainly raise it as a point for voters to consider.

Like I stated, McCain has never denied using poor judgment in this case and has repeatedly apologized for it. Again, his record shows that he used the experience to commit himself to reforming the political system. In fact, he angered many fellow Repubs while fighting earmarks and pushing for campaign-finance reform. Before you start dismissing this as lies or propaganda, all of this information can be researched and proved to be factual by looking at his Senate voting record. McCain worked across the aisle with Russ Feingold and other Democrats in this mission.

Now let's talk about Obama's Senate voting record on reform, ... oh, I forgot we can't do that because Obama has nothing on record that shows that he fought anyone for reform. Moving on, let's talk about Senator John Glenn ... John Glenn showed very bad judgment with the Keating 5 scandal as well, yet the Obama camp has no problem using Glenn as a surrogate. Hmm, this sure makes Obama look like a hypocrite in raising the Keating 5 scandal, doesn't it.

To quote Ed Morrissey, "If Glenn is clean, then so is McCain. If McCain is tarnished, then so is Glenn. Obviously, Glenn helps Obama in Ohio, so Obama has no real complaint over the Keating 5 scandal that outweighs his desire to win the election. Like so much of Obama's reform rhetoric, his faux outrage over the Keating 5 scandal shows him as nothing more than a poseur."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/a-different-mem.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/06/obamas-keating-moment-glenn-stumps...

And? And? Did Obama build a

shelleyp — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:55:16 -0500

And? And?

Did Obama build a bomb? Did Obama condone what Ayers did? Did Obama ever advocate violence? Has Obama ever come out in support of anything that any of the radical groups did when he was a little kid?

We're not voting for Ayers, and Ayers is not going to be on Obama's cabinet. Nor is Ayers an influence on Obama -- unless we want to think that Obama in his 40's isn't capable of knowing his own mind.

I still stand by what I said earlier -- if you're going to condemn Obama than you're going to condemn the University of Illinois, Columbia University, the state of Illinois, and most likely most of the educators in this country because they all shared space with Ayers. If you want to blanket convict a person by association, then it's also fair to open season on Todd Palin, who is actually married to one of the candidates, and belonged to a party advocating succession from the US. The man is still not a registered Republican -- he still supports his old party. He's not in this for the country, he's in this for his own agenda. Just hoping his wife gets into office so they can destroy ANWR and profit from all that oil money.

Finally...Keating...Keating...Keating...for every Ayers you play, I'll see you a Keating and raise you a Graham.

That's just plain silly.

shelleyp — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:52:54 -0500

That's just plain silly. Sorry if this goes against Blogher rules, but to vote based on a fit of pique is just plain silly.

If you don't think that Obama will represent you and doesn't provide the responses you want on the issues, then by all means, vote for someone else. More power to you.

But to not vote for Obama because you're pissed that Michigan and Florida weren't allowed to participate in the primary--who are you punishing? The Democrats? Or everyone? Because we all have to live under the President who gets elected president.

Look at this country and all thats wrong. Have you even bothered to look at that Platform differences between candidates? Obviously not, because you're not basing your vote on issues, you're basing it on primary mechanics.

Good lord.

I'm a PUMA and PROUD of it!

Paddycake — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:29:25 -0500

Believe it I'm (was) a democrat and now consider myself a PUMA.

I will vote for democrats for congress (Victoria Wulsin)

But I will not vote for a democrat for President this time around.

I did not like the way the DNC handled the primary at all.

They punished FL & MI, I could go into that but I think we all know what
happened.

They held back room meetings and then gave delegates to someone who didn't
earn them. Sorry thats not a democracy to me. I believe all votes should be
counted as the

voters intended them to be counted. If Super Delegates are going to vote I
think it should be done out in the open. I feel that the DNC needs to learn to
respect the voters, they need to earn my vote.

They did not want to count my vote in the Primary so they don't get to count
my vote in the General Election.