Log in

No account? Create an account
Oh, so that's what suffrage was about! - Chronarchy — LiveJournal

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
Chaos Matrix

August 29th, 2008

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
02:27 pm - Oh, so that's what suffrage was about!
"I am especially proud to say, in the week we celebrate the anniversary of women's suffrage, [she is] a devoted wife and a mother of five."
    -Senator McCain, about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Between 6:30 and 7:00 minutes into this video.

I didn't know suffrage was about being devoted to your husband and popping out babies. . .
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: blankblank
Current Music: "Duke's on Sunday", -JB

(41 comments Leave a comment)


[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 06:58 pm (UTC)
I have a pro-life LJ friend who thinks she's great because of the Downs baby. My response was the equivalent of "so?"
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:06 pm (UTC)
It's somewhat like she laid a golden egg with that one, huh? "Ooh, look how terrible it is that I have a kid with Downs. Look how big I am that I didn't abort!" It's a sympathy vote and a political move all at once.

I'm interested to see where this nomination moves the "Obama is so inexperienced" attack.

Hmm. . . Do I vote for the old white guy with the inexperienced female running mate, or do I vote for the inexperienced black guy with the old white guy running mate?
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:10 pm (UTC)
I'd vote on the issues, personally.

The thing is, she's 44, which means she got pregnant at either 44 or 43. Which means, it's almost guaranteed she had to go through IVF for that (though my MIL had a surprise pregnancy in her early 40s). The older you are when you get pregnant, the higher chances you have of a Downs baby. Like, exponentially.

Also, she found out through prenatal testing (amniocentesis). Personally, I would never have one of those as a) there's a not insignificant miscarriage risk, and b) any fetal defect that I would consider aborting for would be apparent by ultrasound.

So, does that make me more pro-life than she is? :)
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:15 pm (UTC)
I always vote on the issues. Long before I vote for party lines. I have serious difficulty with the anti-choice stance of the Republican ticket: Since my first presidential election, I've been voting pro-choice in any place that I can, even locally.
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:16 pm (UTC)
Pro-choice is a gateway for me. I won't vote for someone just because they're pro-choice, but I won't vote for anyone who isn't.

Hillary was by far the best on choice, and I voted for Obama, but only because I couldn't vote for Dodd.

Obama hasn't won me back yet. I hope he does.
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:26 pm (UTC)
I represent a lot of issues that Hillary would have faced in this election: I'm an independent voter who has heard all the tripe that the Ministry of Truth has put out about Sen. Clinton over the past. . . Well, about as long as I can remember. I have it in my mind that she's scary, dangerous, and just completely the wrong direction for the country.

And I'm actually willing to admit I'm wrong and vote for her.

I can't help but think of the other millions of independents who have gone through the same sort of constant bombardment that I did, but who aren't willing to admit that they're fundamentally wrong.

Her nomination could have been freakishly bad for the Dems, in ways they don't really understand. Obama's might be freakishly bad because Dems still have that rosy picture of Clinton that might prevent them from voting for the candidate their party eventually did pick.

I fear the Dems may have shot themselves in the foot. . . Again.
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:34 pm (UTC)
I think in a lot of ways Obama was the best, most electable candidate. But I believe HE has shot the Dems in the foot with his constant run right.

There is a STRONG progressive base that wants to see a progressive president. The Rethugs have run on solidifying their base, being who they are as strong as they can, and have won, for decades.

Dems should take the hint, and go progressive. They'd energize the base and actually win. As it is, everyone knows the Dems are right on the issues, but the Rethugs own everything and thus control the message.

In other news, some Rethug seriously and with no irony referred to Fox News as a ministry of truth. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/26/politics/animal/main4385316.shtml
[User Picture]
Date:August 29th, 2008 07:45 pm (UTC)
Indeed, I read that related story the other day :) I came away thinking, "Damn, I should read Nineteen Eighty-Four again!"

They're cautiously running on "change". If nothing else, this is an election (refreshingly) unlike any other we've ever seen. A first will occur: either a woman reaching higher than ever, or a black man doing the same. That gives me some hope.

But not enough, truth be told.

> Go to Top