Blogs home At Random
Coming Out of the Closet: Politically Speaking
I am/was a Hillary fan, of that I make no denial, so that is an added problem as I try to decide if I vote McCain/Republican this year, or write Hillary in.
I've voted as a Democrat all of my life - ever since an aunt I emulated took me to register as one. I didn't question my party affiliation; my decision to vote Democrat was as clear as black or white. White was for Democrats - pure of heart, waving the anti war flag, holding peace-ins and love-ins, chanting, "Give Peace A Chance."
My mind was influenced as much by the times in which I was raised as one could be. I am of the age that I came in too late to participate in some of the most avant garde of political changes. I didn't burn my bra, I never bothered buying them! I wasn't a radical hippie, I simply enjoyed the life style.
I have kept my eyes open about women's issues though. I have experienced inequality, prejudice against women, and sexual harassment first hand.
And it isn't that I don't want to see our first black President elected, but rather I feel slighted for women's and children's rights.
I thrill when I see special coverage on black issues and interviews with daughters about their famous black fathers. At the same time, I feel disappointment that there aren't similar specials about women; no interviews with sons or daughters about their famous mothers.
Twice over the past couple of decades I've taken a political test, you know the one that determines if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and both times I tested as a liberal Republican.
What was surprising and quickly ignored the first time, I gave ponderance to recently.
A couple of key issues, pro-life and anti-government involvement, tell me I'm more Republican than Democrat and lately, when I heard fluff over McCain's supposed unfair advantage in answering questions during the "Saddleback" program, it came to mind that if one hour of additional time to think about issues had given McCain an edge, then imagine the edge he would have over Obama with an additional thirty years of time to think, experience, and grow?
So after all these years, I'm finally coming out of the closet. I am a Republican who may write in Hillary for President.
Does this mean I have to start wearing a bra?
Evan Bayh looks like Edwards to me! Does he to you?
Has your preference for a political party changed over your lifetime?
Is a woman on Obama's ticket a must in order for him to win?
21 August 2008
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liggyon (David Lignell) says…
I will vote for Obama if he picks Hillary as his running mate, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance of that. As for McCain, he's a bit scary to me, especially his view of continuing the war “until we win” in Iraq. Disappointing election year, but I'll stay with the Dems or Independents.
21 August 2008
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
So you are a Hillary fan as well, David. Bravo for you.
The more I learn about MacCain, the more I like him. The more I learn about Obama, the less I know. :)
21 August 2008
at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mmiller (Anonymous) says…
Great topic, Rhonda!!!
Interestingly, I am a Democrat. Recently, however, my political views and beliefs have begun to shift dramatically. Why? I attribute this “shift” to superstar Barak Obama.
It seems as though people have fallen in love with Barak Obama. He has brainwashed the masses into thinking he is what the USA needs during these trying times. WRONG. What the USA needs now more than anything is a legitament president. These trying times require a president with extensive experience and knowledge on a hodgepodge of issues.
The idea of Barak Obama leading our nation startles me! Obama is superficial. His speeches and media interviews are merely fluff. He has done a fantastic job charming the pants off the media and the masses. Honestly, I am shocked that so many people are buying into his fluff.
I am not voting for Obama because he is black. Race is not the issue. I would have no problem voting for him if he possessed the knowledge and experience needed to lead our country.
The next President faces monumental tasks. I am voting for John McCain because I believe he is the most qualified man to manage these tasks. I have faith and confidence in his abilities to lead our country, make critical decisions about war, foreign relations, etc.
That being said, I question whether I am a true Democrat? Perhaps I should switch to Independent? I certainly don't believe it's right to vote for a Democrat just because I am one.
21 August 2008
at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
I will vote for Nader. I supported Clinton in the primary. I was angered by the blatant sexism. The problem is everyone can agree racism is wrong (even if it doesn't stop it), but women are expected to laugh off sexism. Obama's support for FISA and off-shore drilling sent me looking for another candidate. With so many people classifying themselves as independent, why do we not have an independent candidate? Why if someone is on the ballot in 30 states are they not allowed to debate?
21 August 2008
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mmiller (Anonymous) says…
So maybe I'm a closet Republican or Independent? UGHHHH!!!!
21 August 2008
at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ruette (Anonymous) says…
Vintage R Miller.
Dreadful English (cf. run-on sentence “A couple of key issues…”, “…gave more ponderance to recently.” and “…of the age that I came in late…”).
Misspelling of Bayh's name.
And what's up with the superfluous apostrophe in Edwards' name?
What do they teach at the Citizen Journalism Academy, anyway? And doesn't the LJW edit anything?
As for the content, where do I start? With the Limbaugh-esque assertions about O's experience? He's no younger and has considerably more experience than JFK or Mr Clinton. He's already established closer rapport and respect internationally than Bush ever had, or McCain ever will.
McCain's sorry absenteeism during crucial votes on issues he claims to care about, his simplistic rhetoric and bellicose stance on what might otherwise be diplomatic issues, his high-hat favoring of corporations and the wealthy, points to another sad four years of Bush government at its worst, if the fuzzy logic here prevails.
21 August 2008
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LeviCircle (Anonymous) says…
Went door-to-door in high school to (unsuccessfully) help a Dem unseat Larry Winn; then did door-to-door for McGovern, so I can understand the Dem roots. Much thought and reflection through the early '80's led me to the Libertarian Party, where I've resided (more or less) happily ever since. Personal political evolution is a sometimes-painful process, as it requires admitting to yourself that maybe - juuuuuust maybe - you weren't 100% right before. Finding where you truly belong is worth the effort, though.
21 August 2008
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
ruette, “He's no younger “???? than McCain???? I believe he is younger. Oh, did you mean youngster? hehehe I wrote a blog - no one proofs it (unfortunately for my readers). Both Republicans and Democrats make mistakes - even closet ones.
mmiller, I couldn't agree with you more than I agree with you! :) What age group are you? I know some things do change as we age. I wonder if there are stats on the percentage of people who change from one party to another as they age. Most curious.
tvc, I believe a lot of women (particularily those of my age group and older would agree about blatant sexism. I have always liked Nader as well.
levi, good comments. Who are you voting for this time around if I may ask? thanks! :)
21 August 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mmiller (Anonymous) says…
Ronda,
I am 27. The political evolution theory mentioned above may be true!!! My politcal views and beliefs have certainly changed!!
A Facebook friend said that if you don't vote for Obama you're racist. I was stunned and annoyed when I read this!!!!
21 August 2008
at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LeviCircle (Anonymous) says…
ruette - As made obvious by my previous post, I won't be voting for O or Mc…but I gotta call you on your “experience” claims about O. Your mind-reading of world leaders is opinion - fine - but the experience claim is a matter of facts.
You say that O “has considerably more experience than JFK or Mr Clinton”. No. Incorrect. Actually, not even vaguely close.
Mr. Clinton served as Arkansas Attorney General for two years, then was Governor of that state for a total of twelve years…two executive offices voted on by the entire state, held for fourteen years. O was a State Senator, voted on by a small area of a state, for seven years.
Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1960 - and we'll just ignore his demonstrated valor during WWII. Six years in the U.S. House easily trumps seven in a state Senate, and two statewide electoral triumphs easily trumps one.
(Actually, I just realized that the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, has more experience in D.C. than O! He was in the U.S. House of Representatives - albeit as a R - for eight years!)
I never cared for Mr. Clinton; I admired Mr. Kennedy quite a bit. Both of them, however, had far more experience than O has going into their first Presidential race.
21 August 2008
at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
I'm also in my late twenties, but my political views have not really changed. I think the order of importance changes with the tides of current events.
21 August 2008
at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
Ronda, Ronda, Ronda…. might not have wanted to put it this way “White was for Democrats” I'm just sayin'….
I voted Republican for 12 years. Look what that got us. I'm going for the Dem this year. We lived in IL when Barry was up and coming. This Chicago politician is taking it and I'll be glad to give him a shot.
21 August 2008
at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
mmiller, thanks for the information. I find it annoying also when people play the race card - oh how I hate that term, so over used! sorry :) I don't think that people who didn't support Hillary as necessarily sexist (although a lot of them are).
A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak with an elderly black man about his take on the election. His opinion was that if we really wanted change in our President, that we would vote for Hillary. That another man, whether he was a black man or a white man, would not amount to change, but that an experienced woman would.
I liked Bill Clinton a great deal until his affair came out - I lost a lot of respect for him even though it was played off as no big deal to a lot of people. Morality in a President is important to me on every level. If you are going to cheat on your wife and child (which is what it amounts to) then you can not be trusted with the well being of people you should care less about.
tvc, good point about tide of current events. Seem to have ebb and flow, cycles of similar incidents. Human nature; there seems to be no getting around that.
levi, you nailed the experience difference!
21 August 2008
at noon
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
alm77, meant as purity and good - not race. :) I believe there are more blacks who are Democrats than Republicans. Good guys wear white hats era and bad guys wear black hats era. I am really old - we had westerns to watch as children instead of Power Rangers!
21 August 2008
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
I know, I just thought someone should give you a ribbin'!
21 August 2008
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…
Ronda,
I am a Democrat and quite frankly supported Richardson rather than Obama or Clinton. Personally I think we have a choice between two good candidates and while I am leaning toward Obama-McCain's comments about bombing Iran(even in jest) and some of his other comments bother me a bit.
But I think Obama really has to work at over coming the perception that he is weak on foreign policy-given the tensions right now with Russia that could be a really dangerous thing.
I do tend to like Obama's economic policy better. In terms of energy policy both will shift away from oil but they differ on how to do that. I am a bit disappointed in Obama's shift on off shore drilling as that is not likely to have much real impact on energy supplies inspite of McCain's retoric. But both candidates seem convinced on the need for conservation. McCain favors an increased role for nuclear power and I think he's right that nuclear has to be part of our energy mix.
MicCain has made some science related comments that make me wonder if he isn't trying to out Proxmire William Proxmire who often criticized science that he did not understand or want to understand…but that may be just his style. I really want to know where they stand on the space program and biotechnology and I am going to look closely at these issues!
On social issues I give the edge to Obama-but then I support reproductive choice and am quite liberal socially so that is not too surprising.
I think both candidates are a vast improvement over the current president and at least from what I am seeing either person will shift policies more toward the center.
Have my political views changed over time? Yes. I have become socially more liberal and economically more free market oriented but I have a big pragmatic streak when it comes to the role of government. So if some policy looks like it will work to solve a problem I don't really care if it is a free market solution or a government program so long as it works.
Pretty clearly to me lots of stuff we have been doing in recent years (And I am not blaming Bush entirely here) aint working very well.
21 August 2008
at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
alm, was that a gold ribbin? :) hehehe
Paul, you explain your views and why you have them quite thoroughly. I hear a lot of people saying McCain will be just like Bush which is an easy way to say they don't like him without explaining why. I believe if McCain is elected we will find out how much he is different from Bush - it is difficult to badmouth the President too much when you are of the same party and Bush is still in office. It is a respect thing in part I would imagine.
I think I have become more liberal in most of my views over time, but the pro-life issue has really become a major focus in my political views. I was pro-choice until I had children, and after working with children of all ages, and disabilities. over the past thirty years. I believe their light from within deserves to shine, however long, however brightly.
Do me a favor if you don't mind, Paul, and once you learn more about their (McCain and Obama) scientific perspectives. come back and let us know - or do a blog about it. I know that would be interesting for me from your take.
When it gets down to it, I don't think are either party is that different - one from the other. I do want someone who I believe has been tested under stress though and I think McCain has been tested to the core. I don't believe Obama knows who he really is - McCain knows very well who he is.
21 August 2008
at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
“Morality in a President is important to me on every level. If you are going to cheat on your wife and child (which is what it amounts to) then you can not be trusted with the well being of people you should care less about.”
tell that to john mccain. i think you should research this a little more. of the two major party presidential candidates this year, only one has not had an extramarital affair… can you guess who?
21 August 2008
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ruette (Anonymous) says…
Ronda,
Learn to read as well as write! “He's no younger … than JFK or Mr Clinton” was what I wrote.
21 August 2008
at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
Tony, I am well aware that he had an extramarital affair - he has talked about it on numerous occasions and took the blame for it. I don't know that we can say only one candidate has had an affair - unless you know Hillary and Obama a heck of a lot better than I claim to.
21 August 2008
at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
sorry, ruette, it didn't make sense the way it was written.
21 August 2008
at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
Ronda, I am, and have always been pro-life, but we've had a pro-life President and politicians for 8 years and they've done nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade etc. What has happened however, is the abortion rate has dropped through grassroots efforts, support clinics and one-on-one counseling. Culture has changed. Women are protecting themselves against pregnancy better. The abstinence commitments seem to be working too. But none of this has to do with politicians. Which is why this is not an issue for me this election year.
21 August 2008
at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
but by your standards, you can not trust mccain with the “well-being of the people”. he took the blame for it… that's means he can now be trusted?
you still consider hillary a candidate? if so, i guess you should consider every american citizen elegible for the presidency to be a president… i am writing myself in.
you're right, i can't make the absolute statement than obama has not had an affair. either way, i'm not a major obama supporter, but i sure as h*%# can not support a warmonger and willful participant in the bombing of vietnamese children… so heroic!
21 August 2008
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
to be a candidate…
21 August 2008
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tony88 (Anonymous) says…
john mccain: war hero, er uh, criminal:
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/34700-j…
21 August 2008
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
I am pro-choice. A single-woman faces extreme hardships when there is an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. Men do not have the same burdens; they do not wear a scarlet letter for 9 months. They do not have to worry about if they will lose their jobs. They do not assume any of the health risks. The risk to men is no more than a slight financial burden. If women are going to be true equals, then women must have reproductive freedom. The largest supporters of pro-life/anti-abortion are really against sexual freedom for women. Why else do they fight so hard to limit women's right to birth control?
21 August 2008
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
Ronda, here is an “I'm Voting Republican” video to help you get everyone on the same talking points.
http://www.heavy.com/video/54635#/cha…
21 August 2008
at 1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Tvc:
“The risk to men is no more than a slight financial burden.”
If I may briefly opine; the risks to men may not be the same as to women but they are still significant. Women get to choose whether they want the physical, emotional and economic costs (and benefits) that accompany having a child. Men are often forced into financially supporting a child they, in some instances, don't have a right to visit, or may not even be their biological child. These financial costs are in many instances substantial. Women get to choose whether they want to have a child, but men are forced to be responsible for their choice, because often they are not given the same liberty to choose not endure the costs of a child. Perhaps more men would support a women's right to choose to endure these costs when men are given the right to choose whether they want the costs.
As for the counter-argument that social costs would be higher if men were to choose; involuntary servitude was abolished by the 13th Amendment. We abolished slavery in the South even though they suffered economically because an individual's rights supersede economic consequences. Also, since women are now “liberated” and many are employed they shouldn't require a man to support them, and should oppose laws that amount to the same.
21 August 2008
at 1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Shouldn't men have reproductive freedom as well? Women want to have their cake and eat it too.
21 August 2008
at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
“The largest supporters of pro-life/anti-abortion are really against sexual freedom for women.”
I think “they” are against men and women's sexual freedom because of the negative effects it has on society.
21 August 2008
at 1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
eileenroddy (Eileen Roddy) says…
What's the difference between a liberal Republican and a conservative Democrat?
21 August 2008
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…
99% of all the candidates from the two major parties are absolutey horrible… including Clinton, Obama and McCain…
so… Nader… or Barr…
and that doesn't seem like much of a choice…
21 August 2008
at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
Satirical,
I agree. Men should be able to give up their rights in the same timeframe a woman has to terminate her pregnancy (I would say 6 wks or less). A man should not be able to freak out at 6 months and leave a woman with the entire financial burden. Men are not supporting the women but the children. Daycare is extremely expensive. I know men that pay less in child support per month than the cost of daycare per week.
21 August 2008
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Tvc..
“I agree. Men should be able to give up their rights in the same timeframe a woman has to terminate her pregnancy (I would say 6 wks or less).”
First, men wouldn't be giving up rights, they would be exercising the right to not be for forced to support a child they do not want. Second, I think we both know in most states women can get an abortion past 6 weeks. (If it were up to Obama, women could have abortions even after birth of the child.)
I think any time frame given for men to decide whether they want to endure the economic and emotional costs should start once they are informed of the pregnancy, and should not start once the woman gets pregnant. Once the time frame has passed a man, just like a woman should be bound to support the child.
“I know men that pay less in child support per month than the cost of daycare per week.” - tvc
This anecdotal evidence in no way counters any argument I have made.
21 August 2008
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Eileenroddy:
“What's the difference between a liberal Republican and a conservative Democrat?”
One still believes in personal responsibility as sound social and economic policy, (liberal Republican). The other is under the delusion that government bureaucracy is frugal and efficient and is better able to solve social problems than incentive based government policies (conservative Democrat)
: )
21 August 2008
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
invictus (Anonymous) says…
Women are able to kill a man's child at their whim, even if they are married. I don't blame some evil women for savoring his newly found power. Power always corrupts. In order to make things equal a man should get one shot at killing the baby immediately after it is born. This will be his choice whether to abort. But there should be a time frame:::like 30 minutes.
21 August 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
“Women are able to kill a man's child at their whim, even if they are married.”
Unfortunately according to liberal logic, a women's right to their body for 9 months are superior to both the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the father in protecting, raising, and loving the child.
21 August 2008
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
Satirical,
Thank you for the civilized conversation. I really think we agree for the most part.
Ronda, I think a liberal Republican has to wear a bra at work and is braless at home.
21 August 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
tvc…
“Ronda, I think a liberal Republican has to wear a bra at work and is braless at home.”
I agree, in fact I am pretty sure the same applies to conservative Democrat men : )
21 August 2008
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Actually, the rule for conservative Democrat men, is they are bra-less at work, and wear one at home : )
21 August 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
See we do agree! That was my rule for Conservative Dems!
21 August 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
“Why else do they fight so hard to limit women's right to birth control?” Hey, I'm not against birth control. Every woman should have access to preventing conception, and I'll even keep my mouth shut on the morning after pill, but pulling a tiny person apart limb by limb? How could anyone argue that's not wrong and horrible and awful? Good grief. Women have the right to choose. The right to choose to have sex or not. The right to choose to use birth control (double up if you *really* don't want to get pregnant) but why shouldn't they take the personal responsibility for their actions if they do get pregnant? Adoption is an option, it's not like I'm saying they should have to raise a child, but nine months of pregnancy and childbirth are the result of sex. That's just the natural effect. Every time we have sex we risk pregnancy. Why shouldn't consenting to sex be the equivalent to accepting that risk and taking responsibility should pregnancy occur?
I know not everyone will agree with me, but I think so many people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and this is just one more area that it is evident.
21 August 2008
at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
I don't really understand the logic behind this blog.
I can't fathom how someone who supported Clinton—who has only served since 2001, is pro-choice, and is liberal when it comes to government programs/involvement—could now turn and say they can't vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, his pro-choice stance, and his notion of more government involvement.
How does that make any sense? It sounds like sour grapes to me, from Clinton not receiving the amount of support necessary to become the Democratic nominee.
I'll be the first to agree that even McCain is a giant leap forward from GW Bush, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking he is the same guy who earned a reputation as a “maverick” by refusing to make his policy positions based on the party line.
Lastly, I hate to tell you this, but minimal government involvement is what the OLD Republican party stood for. We have expanded the debt to catastrophic levels, in large part due to our decision to pump money into the military, homeland security, and other related ventures. Guess what, those are all part of the government.
I can't stand how we hear lip-service to the idea of minimalist governement EXCEPT when it comes to the military, at which point no amount of spending is too absurd.
Last comment/question—have any of you who parrot the “what does Obama stand for other than nebulous change?” argument, have you read his policy brief? Obama can't choose how the media covers him, and I will agree that he is treated like some sort of “star”. However, that doesn't mean he is unfit. Judging him based on his ridiculous portrayal in the media is no better than judging McCain as nothing more than an out-of-touch old man.
More than any political party or philosophy, I'm tired of perception being the basis for the election of our political figures. That's how Bush was elected, and we're still dealing with those two mistakes.
21 August 2008
at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06…
21 August 2008
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
I didn't deny that's the case for some pro-lifers, but I don't think they're the majority. Most pro-lifers I know are on some form of birth control, and would be mad as hell if someone tried to tell them they couldn't have that option any more.
21 August 2008
at 5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
tvc,
That link proves how ignorant the pro-life movement can be at times.
If condoms are truly contradictory to the pro-life movement, then it makes it extremely hard to see the movement as little more than thinly-veiled desire to control other people's actions and morality.
If the point about taking a pregnancy to term is that you should be responsible for your actions, then why the hell not provide people the ability to take responsibility by having protected sex? Because it isn't about “responsibility” or the “life of the fetus”. It's about control—control over women's reproductive decision, control over people having sex, control over people doing things for pleasure.
The unborn fetuses are little more than a facade—a rallying cry for the pro-life movement to give the impression that they have the moral high ground. In reality, all they want is to make everyone else live by their own moral standards.
If you think abortion is morally wrong, then don't get an abortion. There are plenty of things that I think are morally wrong, but I don't clamor for them to be made illegal. Many of the people who think abortion is wrong also think that divorce and sex out of wedlock is morally wrong. Should those be made illegal too?
Additionally, I am tired of hearing the “less government, less government” mantra until it comes to the issues that are important to you. Oh, fetuses are being aborted? Bring in the Feds!!!! Gays are getting married? Bring in the Feds!!!!!!! Terrorists are going to bomb my hometown (even though I live in Podunk, USA)? Bring in the Feds!!!!!! Business owners are reaping record profits at the expense of consumers? HEY, leave the government out of my life!!!!!
It's enough to drive a person mad.
21 August 2008
at 5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
loris63 (Anonymous) says…
Ronda,
I must agree with logicsounds04; I do not understand your logic. Barack Obama would much more likely continue the fight for women's rights. Have you read anything about him that wasn't in the standard minimalist pop media? He's done a lot of good in the Chicago area by working as a citizen and a community organizer. I think all politicians should work hard in the area they represent with the people they represent before they represent the American people as a whole. I do agree that Hilary Clinton would have made a good president; better that John McCain ever could. And I truly believe that if we are lucky enough to elect Barack Obama as President, he will make a much better president than McCain.
I am disheartened that people are so afraid of change, that they would actually vote for John McCain, who is no better than a washed-out version of the same old conservative political agenda rag.
Are we really a nation full of “I got mine; you get yers” hate mongers? What ever happened to the American value of helping our fellow person? How can our country call itself a “Christian nation” when we have millions of children uninsured and under-nurished? How can we look at ourselves in the mirror and let our education system fall into the disarray that George Bush brushed aside for billions of dollars for “defense”? What are you thinking? We owe billions of dollars to China who is paying for us to be in Iraq. How will we repay them? What are we thinking here, folks? Don't you understand that without some sort of change, we will not have social security & Medicare waiting for us, even after putting money into it all of our lives? Did you know that in 2010 the Social Security Administration is changing so that we will only get a 90% return on the money we have paid into the pot? Don't you understand that we are loading debt onto our kids that they will have to repay somehow when they have gotten a horribly under-rated education from our ill-budgeted national funding? Don't you understand that when politicians say, “No new taxes!” or “Tax break!” that it doesn't mean they will reduce defense spending or their salary or retirement, it means, “Hey, we are cutting funding to education, and social services for children and elderly” (which we will be soon)!!!!
People wake up! Life cannot keep going down this same track.
Yes Ronda, it would have been nice to have Hilary as President. But even if you are looking at it like “which is the lesser of two evils”, you have to back Obama. Please, think this through.
21 August 2008
at 5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
interestedparty (Anonymous) says…
Ronda,
All I can say is remember the Supreme Court. A vote for McCain or a write-in for Hillary will put the appointment of SC judges in the hands of a conservative. I'm not wildly pro-choice, but I do remember what is was like before women had the right to control our reproductive lives.
How about honoring Hillary by voting for Obama?
21 August 2008
at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
Ronda: “So after all these years, I'm finally coming out of the closet.
I am a Republican…”
( looks like this may be the end of the road for us, then, thee and mee )
“… who may write in Hillary for President.”
It's the only respectable choice left to you.
“Does this mean I have to start wearing a bra?”
ALL the other Republicans in these forums do.
21 August 2008
at 7:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JJE007 (Anonymous) says…
These days there is no choice in any major election. You get tweedle dee or tweedle dum. The two party sytem is as insane as the comments on this Journal World site.
Ban party affiliation. Each would vote for the other if it added to their comfort level but you can vote for ayone in these elections and the results will be nearly the same.
I don't know how you throw a wrench into this barrel of monkeys without hearing only screeching and indignation but it's time to do so.
The only thing I can think to distinguish these two, these lousy two, candidates is how the world will look upon our choice and that makes me puke.
There is no party beyond our foolish party atmosphere. It's all pompous, officious and blathering bottom feeding. We all serve the golden calf, whether we like or admit it or not.
I won't vote for Wayne or Garth. I will write in “U.R. Anass”. I encourage you all to do the same. Write in whomever you wish but please TRY send a message about how disgusted you are with this failed system…or…
Party on, Wayne.
Party on, Garth.
21 August 2008
at 7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
Hmm… 'Giant Douche' … 'Turd Sandwich' ….
Will the blank Generation fill in the blank?
21 August 2008
at 7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
logicsound, seriously, I'm not kidding, the old school pro-lifers may be hard core anti birth control, but the younger generation are not against birth control. We realize that for most of us, there is no way in this day and age to feed 7-10 kids. Most pro-lifers I know (mostly under 30) would not want to ban birth control. They are happily married and hope-to-be-married women who want children, careers (or at least hobbies) and the ability to balance the family budget. They are also women who have had unplanned pregnancies (present speaker included) and made the sacrifices to bring those children into a healthy existence, whether they raised them or someone else did. They aren't just pro-life in name, they practice what they preach. They've adopted and they've spent time counseling women who are making the decisions. They aren't wanting to control anyone's life, but they are wanting to stand up for an unborn child who may be ripped to pieces and discarded.
21 August 2008
at 8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
alm77: “They are also women who have had unplanned pregnancies (present speaker included) and made the sacrifices to bring those children into a healthy existence, whether they raised them or someone else did. They aren't just pro-life in name, they practice what they preach. They've adopted and they've spent time counseling women who are making the decisions. They aren't wanting to control anyone's life, but they are wanting to stand up for an unborn child who may be ripped to pieces and discarded.”
That certainly bears repeating.
alm, you just may be my new hero.
21 August 2008
at 9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
tange, I am disappointed that alm is your new hero, (I am jealous) but I believe she stated her beliefs, and those of numerous other pro-life women and men nicely, I don't know of anyone who really wants to see an unborn child die. Everyone I know would prefer that choice not be made either because the woman did not become pregnant or she had the choice to keep the child. For those women who didn't have the choice to not become pregnant - and there are those cases - then giving a child up for adoption is difficult enough, but a decision that is easier to live with.
Interested party, I remember those times, or hearing about them as well. Today is not the same as it was a generation or two ago. The young people today have many other choices than women of your mother's, or grandmother's generation had. I understand what you are saying about honoring Hillary by voting for Obama. That doesn't work for me.
JJ, the poet in you sounds frustrated! :) I am frustrated too. I am hearing it again and again in the majority of posters on this blog. I remember a time when I believed in our President. When our country was honored by “most” of the world. I am proud to be an American, but I am less sure of what that means to me and it really should be easier for me, shouldn't it?
logic, there was no logic behind this blog. It was a tongue in cheek blog about realizing I wasn't the same person, nor do I hold the same beliefs, as the young girl who took her decision to be a Democrat most of her life lightly.
People do love to debate politics!
tvc, I am lucky that I work at home - it will save me big money on bras! :) You all delight me!
Satirical: “One still believes in personal responsibility as sound social and economic policy, (liberal Republican). ” May I use that quote as my own? Delightful!
21 August 2008
at 9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
johnp (John Poertner) says…
Nixon had lots of experience.
21 August 2008
at 9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
Clinton did too - are we talking about insanity?
21 August 2008
at 11:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
alm77,
If that is the case, about the difference between old-school and new-school, then that's good, and it does lend more credibility to the philosophy.
However, the trend of pharmacies refusing to fill birth control prescriptions seems fairly new (last few years or so), so I must admit I'm skeptical that it is limited to the “hard core old schoolers”.
I also beg to differ about wanting to control. By definition, the desire to outlaw abortions is an attempt to control other people's choices through legislation. I know that the logic is that “life begins at conception” and so that control is supposed to be justified by the need to “save a life”. However, the bottom line is that reasonable people can disagree on when sperm and egg become deserving of the same rights as a living, breathing, sovereign human being—and with that grey area, it isn't right to make laws based on one (minority) group's worldview.
I can appreciate the belief that abortion is wrong, and I can get behind initiatives designed to reduce unwanted pregnancies (the cause of 100% of abortions). What I can't support is categorically outlawing an action because some people find it despicable.
I'd also like to point out that being conceived is no guarantee to the right of life. If conception is truly equal to a right to live, then we need laws that involve criminal investigations for miscarriages, for example, just like when someone dies there is an investigation to determine whether or not foul play was present. Again, I agree that we should minmize abortions, but a ban not the most effective or most equitable way to do it.
22 August 2008
at 12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
LogicSound04,
Here's an easy question for you. The same one asked your idol…
When does the sperm and the egg get human rights?
Under the law as you would have it:
A girl can get pregnant and have the baby at 38 weeks and dump the baby in the dumpster. She goes to jail. Another girl gets pregnant and has an abortion at 42 weeks, but she's your hero.
The law is not fair, it's not equitable. It's not rational.
Give me a date when that baby is entitled to due process under the Constitution. Yes, I know you would have the law be grey. Grey is not just. Grey laws are a recipe for tyranny.
22 August 2008
at 12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
“What I can't support is categorically outlawing an action because some people find it despicable.”
So let's pass laws making dueling legal… How about sharia… How about slavery… how about kidnapping…
As for this being a minority worldview… Let's put it to a vote… Let the liberals stop stacking and filabustering the supreme court. And put it to a simple up and down vote.
22 August 2008
at 1:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Give me a date when that baby is entitled to due process under the Constitution.”
––––—
When you just stated—when it becomes a BABY.
That's the difference. One has been born and is entitled to the same rights as every other person on Earth. The other has not.
And you are confusing my opinion about the greyness of where life (with a capital “L”) begins with my opinion about what the law should say. No where did I suggest that the law should be fuzzy. The law should be based on when a person is definitively a person—once they are born. This is because the issue is grey.
=============================================
“So let's pass laws making dueling legal: How about sharia: How about slavery: how about kidnapping:”
––––
Well, first of all, sharia isn't specifically illegal, though there are certain aspects of it that are illegal under the law due to the harm it brings to others.
Second, every activity you mentioned involves direct harm to another living human being, so your analogy falls short.
By the way, it's laughable that you would imply that “liberals” are stacking the deck. The pro-life movement is one of the most vocal there are.
22 August 2008
at 2:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KEITHMILES05 (Anonymous) says…
McCain would end up worse president than Bush. His views are so far to the right and he has no concept of the average person in this country. I mean a guy who doesn't even KNOW how many homes he has? This bum can not relate to the working stiff.
22 August 2008
at 4:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
libertarianjim (Anonymous) says…
McLame & NoBama are the same. Republocrat or Demoplican.
These two parties have squandered our treasure and spilled our blood for nothing more than their own advancement. It has come at an incalculable cost in human life.
They have become traitors to the Constitution. Unconstitutional wars, domestic moralizing, socialist policy, tyrannical enforcement of unjust law, trillions in debt for our children to repay. The list goes on and on.
Vote Libertarian
22 August 2008
at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
logic, when it becomes a “Baby”. And when is that? Don't we prosecute people who take the life of the mother and the “unborn” child who would have been viable if given medical assistance, I believe the person is charged for two counts of murder.
I think in scientific standards it is pretty clear when the fetus/baby/life begins. Pauuuuuuulllllllllllllllll, we have a question for you! :) For me it is when the egg and the sperm unite.
22 August 2008
at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
A shrewd move for McCain would be to pick Hillary as his running mate. Imagine the consequences.
22 August 2008
at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“when it becomes a “Baby”. And when is that?”
––––-
When it is born, as I already stated. And while I agree that it should be a crime to intentionally harm a fetus, it is not murder. Any law that equates murdering a human being to injuring a fetus is categorically flawed.
We can have laws that treat soon-to-be-babies as sacred without needing laws that equate them with people who have been born.
And as to your assertion that scientific standards being clear that conception = beginning of life, that is not true. Most scientific orgs with an ideological angle (like the Christian Medical & Dental Association, for example) will definitively state that conception is the beginning of human life, but this view and statement is overly simplistic. For example, during the pre-embryonic state, which comes AFTER conception, it is not a certainty that a biological individual will result—so should we assign the rights of an individual to a clump of 2-100 cells that may or may not become a human?
I did some searching, and if you are up for a bit of a read, this PDF seems to explain why the concept is not as simple as “life begins at X point”. It is titled “The beginning of human life and its modern scientific assessment” and was written by an expert in the field of Perinatology (or maternal-fetal medicine):
http://download.journals.elsevierheal…
The reason I prefer to use being born as a standard is because that is the point at which you become a member of this world. Now that is not to say that close-to-term fetuses are undeserving of rights—I'm not advocating for late-term abortions here. It does say that we should limit fundamental rights to living human being, and not potentialities, no matter how certain those potentialities might seem. Before some of our more siginficant medical advances, a fetus could easily die in childbirth, but due to that same concept of medical advancement, we now have the ability to stop a pregancy before it becomes a person. It seems like a wash to me, and a way to HELP ensure that babies are born into situation where, at the very least, someone wants them.
I think asking if it's morally proper to bring a child into this world with no one that wants to care for it is appropriate. While adoption is technically an option, we seem to have a surplus of unwanted children already in the system, so I see adoption as little more than an excuse, as too many children that are put up for adoption never find a home.
I guess my point through all this rambling is that there is no easy/simple answer to the solution for an unwanted pregnancy, and limiting the options because of the moral objections of one group just doesn't seem right.
22 August 2008
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
I would say adoption laws need to change to make it less expensive to adopt a child. Some states still do not allow single parents (particularily if not of a “straight” nature) to adopt. Change some of those laws, ask Madonna and Brad Pitt, etc., to adopt babies and older children born here in the states. I say ask them because it seems anything they do people want to emulate. Plenty of wonderful children right here in the good ole USA folks!
logic, I'll read the link this evening. I always appreciate someone taking the time to give me additional information on their, or another, viewpoint.
Bigprune, shrewd it would be. He would win!!!
22 August 2008
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
angell (Marlo Angell) says…
Come on Ronda, give Obama a chance. If you look at his policies, his platform is very similar to Hilary's, so why do the 180 and go for McCain? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a woman president, but I don't think gender should overshadow