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)


Date:August 30th, 2008 07:44 am (UTC)
hmm, I hadn't seen a political post from you in quite some time. I was starting to wonder if you were going to sit this one out. When going through the montage of Sarah Palin speeches on youtube she does seem to speak her mind and hold true to her positions, which is admirable even if you don't agree with the issues. I do think the women's suffrage anniversary and the women VP announcement were what they were trying to relate to(i.e. 88 years ago a woman could vote, and now today they are on Presidential tickets, so playing more to the role of women in gov't rather than in their personal lives) On that note, Football Season has started!
[User Picture]
Date:August 30th, 2008 12:45 pm (UTC)
It's because I rarely post things that are party-oriented in any way. That little flub (if he didn't actually mean it. . . and I think he really did think he was saying something he meant. . . If he didn't, the applause would have given him time to fix it) was just too ridiculous to pass up.

I'd point out, though, that his choice of running mate seems about as devoid of forethought as many other things. It screams, "Man, do we ever need a minority. Do we have any in our party? Crap, just pick one! She's got one term as Governor? Sounds good!" For someone who has been hammering Obama on experience, this is clearly not a well-thought choice.

And sticking to one's positions is not always positive: there is value in fluidity, particularly when that fluidity allows one not to trample on the rights of others. Of course, I'm thinking specifically of Rowe v. Wade, but I'm also thinking of gay marriage, Pagan military chaplaincy, religious tolerance, oil dependence, and a thousand other things that are more social than fiscal or anything else.

Remember that Obama is against abortion, too: the difference is that he has stated that he understands his role as a public figure is to protect rights, not remove them. (Good article in Time about that a few months ago.)

I'm afraid that over time, not being able to locate a fiscal conservative in any party, I have begun to base my vote primarily on social issues. And on those, I'm very liberal.

I have to be: if I don't look out for myself (my religion makes me a minority), no one else will, Democrat or Republican. In the process, I look out for the rights of others, too.

While this has made me far more independent, it has also made me more likely to find common ground with Dems than Republicans (and forget the libertarians: Bob Barr once tried very hard to have Wiccan services removed from US military bases).

Besides, I might point out that for all McCain's talk, Tonie Nathan received an electoral vote for VP in 1972. . . Palin isn't the first woman VP on a ticket.

I can't really sit this one out, anyway: there are Justices at stake. Possibly the entire left wing on the SCOTUS. And they will decide things like my children's rights to not be indoctrinated with religion in the form of Intelligent Design, the Ten Commandments, and school-sanctioned prayer.

And Go Bucks, Go Appalachian State, Go Illinois!

> Go to Top