Sunday, June 03, 2007

Vote On Issues, not Founding Fathers

Okay, I admit it. I get pretty excited about Presidential elections.

I love the idea of Hilary or Barack, even though I'm still torn about which one I like better.

I love thinking about it. Even though I think it's time for a smart, strategic woman to be president, I would be equally happy to have a black president who is young and incredibly articulate.

So this election really has me on the edge of my seat, even though I keep hoping, unrealistically, that the Iraq mess will somehow end without our having to elect someone new.

I'm the sort who really enjoys the run-up to the election the best. Because by the time the primaries are over, inevitably I'm disappointed with my options, and by the time of the actual election, I'm sick of all of the candidates and the usual mudslinging.

But oh, until the primaries, it all seems so optimistic!

I watched Meet the Press this morning and thought,

Wow, the Democrats should recruit Mary Matalin to their side.

Because I just don't get it. Female republicans are like gay republicans. You must really hate yourself.

And Mary Matalin seemed like she might actually be willing to flip. She couldn't bring herself to say that Hilary would be a bad President, or that she doesn't deserve to win. What she said was, "You go, girl!" And that Hilary might be very hard to beat.

In general I think Mary is a great example of a Republican woman who has her head in the sand. She actually tried to justify the war with the excuse that Iraqis stone women to death.


Um, hey Mary? Have you noticed that Afghanistan is actually WORSE NOW FOR WOMEN than it was before we invaded? I'm sure you haven't even thought about that.

Yeah, I don't think you can pretend any of this is about liberating women.

So for all you republican Marys out there, don't fall back on this bullshit - what the Founding Fathers intended about having a small government? Bush has not exactly been a poster boy for that party line.

So get your head out of that outdated, chauvinistic textbook and vote the issues. Then at least we can agree to disagree on substance.



At 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, hey Mary? Have you noticed that Afghanistan is actually WORSE NOW FOR WOMEN than it was before we invaded? I'm sure you haven't even thought about that.

Yes, that is a scientific approach. We should never try to help oppressed women because things might get worse thansk to primitive perps getting even harhser on the native women.

Guess we should abandon science, too, since that might not work out.

How can scientists be so narrow minded and blinded by the historical graveyard known as moral relativism?

At 10:58 PM, Blogger Janet Jeyapaul said...

I think the only justifiable reason for US to strike may have been so that it does not appear to be a sitting duck to the rest of the world esp.Muslim fanatism after 9/11.. but what seems unjustifiable is its long resident there .. it should have struck once or twice and pulled back and not indulged in 'War' ..Dr.JanetJeyapaul(

At 6:49 AM, Blogger mmarchin said...

I don't understand the comment.

But I don't think anyone can make the claim that Afghanistan or especially Iraq was about freeing women. The first was about revenge/terrorism, the second was an idealogy/psychological decision on the part of the Bush Administration.

At 5:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, a black president or a woman president! THIS is how you see the issue? Um, how about a COMPETENT president, one who would project soft power globally, one who understands the complexities of globalization, one who understands that the politics of polarization around the issues of "big government" and "moral values" are crap.

In my personal opinion, both your "woman" and "black man", who I personally tend to think of as, ya know, bright, talented individuals without reference to their chromatin status or SLC24A5 polymorphisms, would do brilliantly. Though I think that Sen. Clinton's (aka the "woman") detractors would force us to relive the Clinton marital psychodrama of the otherwise wonderful 90's, and I'm not up for that. I think Obama (the "black man" in your formulation) has the capacity to unite the country in ways that no other candidate can even imagine.

I am a committed democrat, but I find your comments on gay republicans and women republicans downright insulting. It also typifies one of my major beefs with contemporary liberals, which is the desire to box every individual into a divisive catagory that confines their behavior. Blacks are this way, therefore Clarence Thomas is a self-hating black man. Gays are this way, therefore Mary Cheney is so victimized that she does not even know it. And so on. Of course, you'll just call me a self-hating democrat for this, but I've come to realize WHY it is that Foxx News and The Rovian Juggernaut have had so much traction in the recent past. It is so easy for the to criticize liberals on these very grounds. We invite this.

My friend, until people like you get a freaking clue about how the world outside of academia works, we can count on a few more Rudy McRomney Administrations in the near future.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home