September 21, 2008
NOW Morphs into NOD ... and Maybe That's a Good Sign
Perhaps it was inevitable, in view of their advocacy of certain issues which they perceive benefits all women, issues primarily, though not exclusively, advanced by one political party. And they certainly telegraphed this action ten years ago with silence in the face of Bill Clinton's serial harassment of vulnerable and subordinate women, a group whom they purport to champion.
In any case, with their endorsement Tuesday of an all-male (Democrat) Presidential ticket, the National Organization for Women has officially turned into the National Organization for Democrats.
This may be a good thing, in a strange way; an indication that America is in the final stages of moving past the consideration of gender in politics. Certainly this has been my own experience since jumping into politics almost ten years ago. Any negative reaction to my words or even presence in that time has been directed not at my gender but exclusively toward my stance on a particular matter.
In fact, this blithe indifference left me unprepared for the focus on gender which the arrival of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in the presidential race evoked. I took it for granted that the discussion about their candidacies would be centered exclusively on their qualifications, policies and governing records (... and, as with all candidates, any dirt that could be dug up or spun about them).
Now perhaps, with the endorsement by an organization with one gender in their name of a ticket comprised entirely of the other gender, we really have arrived at the issues-and-qualifications stage of politics in America. (Dirt, on the other hand, will presumably continue to have a revolting/guiltily fascinating presence.)
Lila sapinsley was on Channel Political Roundtable this morning talking about the Palin nomination and women voters.
Now get this-Sapinsley was the Republican minority leader in the RI Senate at one time.she flat-out said the Women's Political Caucus representing feminists like herself would never endorse a woman candidate who didn't follow their AGENDA.Namely,abortion rights above everything else.
She and Linc Chafee,and other gun grabbers and abortion promoters in the RI Republican party are the reason I sometimes vote for Democrats.I can honestly say there are Democrats at the state level who represent my point of view better than Republicans.
These hags like Sapinsley have hijacked gender identification,ignoring the beliefs of millions of women.
I saw an interview on CSPAN with Katha Pollitt,a feminist who writes for The Nation-she was a truly disgusting individual who probably couldn't unstuff a blocked toilet on her own.
She wrote an article which I read shortly after 9/11 in which she agonized over her daughter's desire to fly an American flag from their apartment window on 5th Avenue(!!)in NYC.She finally relented as long as it was flown from the girls room and not from an area they shared,that's how much she hates the flag of the nation that lets her have a loud public voice without fear.
I would love for her and her ilk,like Steven Brown to spend a year or so in a country like Myanmar or mainland China,or better yet Iran or Saudi Arabia.
They would be begging to be let back here.
{ - snip - }
{You must be new here. Welcome. In the future, kindly focus your comments on issues posed or inspired by the post and other commenters and avoid ad hominem attacks.}
Posted by: Uncle Tanus at September 21, 2008 7:38 PMNOW. chose to endorse 2 staunch family men Obama-Biden, instead of serial adulterer McCain
Or Palin who would force a 13 year old child RAPED by her step-father to have a
kid she does not want
The same Palin who charged rape victims 1300 for rape kits
Palin who would not provide condoms or the pill for her sexualy active daughter
"2 staunch family men Obama-Biden"
How do we know that? Would the media tell us if they weren't? Could make for an interesting "October Surprise."
"Or Palin who would force a 13 year old child RAPED by her step-father to have a kid she does not want"
How would she do that exactly? Through her dictatorial powers to personally amend the Constitution or by firing the whole Supreme Court? Do tell.
"The same Palin who charged rape victims 1300 for rape kits"
Palin didn't charge anyone. The city of Wasilla, as well as many other towns in Alaska and elsewhere have made this a practice in the past. Small towns don't always have the luxury of picking up the tab for everything that might happen to others. The former Democratic governor of Alaska (whom Palin beat in the general election of 2006) made it a campaign issue, and tried to link her to it to no avail. The dollar amounts vary, and in most cases, the cost was picked up by private insurance.
"Palin who would not provide condoms or the pill for her sexualy active daughter"
How do we know that? Palin has outright said she is not against contraception. If her daughter is old enough to be doing that, she could have easily gone to a drug or convenience store.
I have to admit that I enjoy the full-fledged PDS* sufferers who have been coming to the site as of late. Anyway, as for the subject of this post, I'm glad that everyone is getting the chance to see what NOW is really all about.
PS I've always preferred the acronym "NAG" (National Association of Gals).
*Palin Derangement Syndome
Posted by: Will at September 22, 2008 2:55 AMNOW has always been a left-wing group trying to promote a liberal agenda.
Failing to endorse a major presidential ticket with a woman on it didn't destroy NOW's credibilty. That had already been done when it defended Bill Clinton despite the multiple accusations of sexual harrassment against him.
NOW should change its' name to NARAL-Lite. It's a better description of what the organization stands for.....
Posted by: Anthony at September 22, 2008 3:53 PM