Letters to the Editor
-
The big lie
Anonymous posted:
The scariest thing about this election
Is that Clinton has transformed her supporters "into" the Republican smear machine.
Mission Accomplished. I hope y'all enjoy being complicit in the a campaign with its moral compass taken from Rove Cheney.
_____________________________________________
I think it is unfair to characterize all of Senator Clinton's supporters as "transformed." (Just as I think it unfair that all Obama supporters are accused of 'hero worship' -- a very good way to disregard and deride what they say.) However, I can't help but think that Anonymous hits the nail on the head.
NOW's stance smells like a Rovian smear campaign to me. I'm particularly concerned as I have supported NOW since I was a teenager.
However, NOW has often had the reputation (ill-deserved) of being oblivious to concerns of race, of being a "white woman's" organization. Again, these allegations are not true.
However, when NOW's leaders spend what must be a great deal of money to excoriate a pro-choice candidate whom they once endorsed, one begins to question their judgment.
Moreover, when that candidate happens to be the first black man to have a serious shot at the presidency, one has to question: Does NOW realize the signals it may be sending out? Are they, unwittingly, marginalizing the women they serve -- many of whom must face racism at the same time they do sexism?
I have lost a great deal of respect for Senator Clinton and NOW after all this. And I fear that we are all being enlisted as tellers of the big lies.
-
@ Lynn Harris r.e. gay rights
Speaking as a lesbian who would very much like to marry my partner, I have to say that the insistence by many gay activists on "full marriage equality now," which was primarily the agenda of blue-state activists, has largely resulted in red-state gays (who still lack basic protections against employment discrimination and hate crimes) being set back decades in their own struggle for equality. Now they have anti-marriage-equality amendments in their state constitutions that will take decades to repeal, and my partner and I worry every time we drive through Virginia to visit my parents that if something happened to one of us, the other wouldn't even have hospital visitation rights. Not to mention the fact that the 2004 focus on marriage rights as the sina qua non of gay rights issues went a long way towards handing Bush the White House. So, sure, I suppose there's "something" to be said for the NOW/purist approach, but it ain't pragmatism. It's the anthem of people who feel it's more important to stick to their principles than to actually get anything done.
-
A VERY sensible comment
"So, sure, I suppose there's "something" to be said for the NOW/purist approach, but it ain't pragmatism."
Gosh, I think that we are channeling the same thought. Yes, I am for gay marriage (I am a U-U), but it is political death right now, and won't pass anywhere. What we need is pragmatism, not purity. Sometimes bad votes are needed for political reasons, and I just wish there was a little understanding of that. Your comments are very sensible.
-
@ LindaHewitt
Republican-lite? He has the most liberal voting record in the senate and has been endorsed by MoveOn.org.
Oh, and 129 'present' votes out of 4000 is only about 3% of the time, for strategic, legislation-specific reasons. He's a master legislator, and that shouldn't be held against him.
-
Obama is HyperJesusLuther King Jr. III
Mega Mega Ultra Super Plus version 2.Gazillion
-
@Linda
Frothing at the mouth does not further your case.
-
@ captainlarab
...the insistence by many gay activists on "full marriage equality now," which was primarily the agenda of blue-state activists, has largely resulted in red-state gays (who still lack basic protections against employment discrimination and hate crimes) being set back decades in their own struggle for equality. Now they have anti-marriage-equality amendments in their state constitutions that will take decades to repeal, and my partner and I worry every time we drive through Virginia to visit my parents that if something happened to one of us, the other wouldn't even have hospital visitation rights.
I have in the past been accused of being incredibly cynical, and no doubt will be again. That said, here goes: I have some lingering suspicions that the couple in MA who began the whole seeking-legitimation-of-marriage process some years back may have been put up to it in order to provoke reactionary Republican backlash.
I also watch and listen to the "all or nothing" purists, and see many people who, taking the stand they do, end up far more often with nothing, excepting possibly the dubious salve for their feelings that they "lost pure" and thus fought the good fight.
They are wrong.
In the political arena, where compromise is the name by which we know the idea of accomplishment, it's always best to take half a loaf. Why? (This part is for the "innocent"...) Every step forward from that point goes on from the incremental gains being consolidated.
The Republicans did not accomplish their dismantling of the Constitutional mechanisms of government overnight. No one, not even Bush, walked into Washington and threw the "Republican" switch, changing everything at a stroke. This happened over decades, by the work of dedicated minions, who spend their long days and nights looking for ways to turn the institutional protections back on themselves and exploit the resulting cracks. Neither will it be changed overnight.
...I suppose there's "something" to be said for the NOW/purist approach, but it ain't pragmatism. It's the anthem of people who feel it's more important to stick to their principles than to actually get anything done.
Rarely if ever more clearly expressed. Make it better than it was yesterday. Come back tomorrow and do it again. Thus is a future transformed.
At bottom, NOW is getting down there in the mud with the Clinton campaign. America, all of America, deserves better.
-
@dataguyx
Let me rephrase. In what way is what you're saying in any way contradictory of or contrary to what i said? You're arguing with the wrong guy. We're on the same side and making the same point.
Granted it was a tad long, and writing briefs has resulted in progressive impairment of my writing ability, but, damn, I did think which side of the fight I was on would, at a minimum, have been clear from the sarcastic comment at the end.