Women, use your brain. Don’t vote McCain.
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
The pundits are coming out of the woodwork since Obama chose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton (or any other woman) for vice president. Some, like the generally suspect Dick Morris, have suggested that McCain now choose Kay Bailey Hutchison as his running mate in order to secure votes from the angry Hillary supporters. Women, don’t let the pundits and the conservatives dumb you down and defocus you from the task at hand. You know and I know that had Obama chosen Clinton, they would have had a field day with it. There’s no polite way for me to say this, so I’ll just say it:
John McCain is no friend to women. There is no need to discuss Kay Bailey Hutchison’s position on women’s rights because it doesn’t matter one bit, even if she ends up rounding out the ticket. What really matters is John McCain’s position. Casting your vote for McCain rather than Obama, out of some twisted sense of loyalty to Hillary Clinton, makes absolutely no sense. For the record, Hillary Clinton feels that way too. If, however, you want to set women’s rights back a few decades then pappy McCain is your man and the Republican party is your ticket.
Now, I’d be a liar if I said that this isn’t a ‘gender election.’ It has been a gender election from the beginning because of Clinton’s candidacy and the malodorous treatment she received from the male-dominated news and broadcast media. However, for women the gender issue goes far deeper than that, and the election issues go deeper than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or the state of the economy. That’s because the conservatives are very quietly waging a war against womens’ rights that is slithering just under the radar screen. Make no bones about it, John McCain wants it kept under the radar. He’s counting on it. However, in order for women to make an intelligent, informed decision, this is one war that must be exposed.
Let’s start with the here and now. Probably as his last great act of pandering to the right-wing Christian conservatives so intent on legislating morality (in their image and likeness, of course, because they are the chosen ones and everyone else is just dead wrong) George Bush has fired the first shot. Under a new rule instituted by the Bush administration, health care workers can refuse to provide a patient with information on abortion sources, contraception - even preventing or ending pregnancies - if they have a moral objection to such things. There’s no ambiguity here, when we say ‘health care workers’ we are talking about doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others. According to our imperial president, a person’s ideology comes before the health and welfare of female patients. Even worse, this ruling doesn’t require a Congressional vote; it could simply go into effect after a 30-day comment period.
I have spoken informally to a few health care workers since learning about this regulation, some of whom I’ve known from my previous job, some of whom have treated my immediate and extended families in the past. In their minds, each and every one, health care workers should suspend their ideology in favor of what is right for the patient. That’s part of the job. In the case of doctors, the Hippocratic Oath and the promise to ‘do no harm’ comes first, not a provider’s personal ideology or religious conviction. While, on the face of it, the regulation seems simple enough - protecting health care workers against being fired or other forms of punishment for not performing or supporting procedures that they find abhorrent - the fact is that the regulation also allows the worker to refuse to refer the patient on. There is the slippery slope. It is at this point that you potentially put a woman’s health at risk. Now, let’s fast forward to John McCain.
Do you think that John McCain will reverse this regulation if elected? Are you kidding? He’s probably thankful that his predecessor got this one out of the way. I invite you to Senator McCain’s campaign web site and his page about overturning Roe v. Wade, where he reveals the steps he will take to accomplish this task if elected. There’s no chance in hell that John McCain is coming down on the side of women. He’s another in a long line of rich white guys who will be more than happy to tell women what’s best for them. Do you know what Slate is saying about us women? In an article posted Thursday, August 21, they say that John McCain is betting on us not paying attention to what he’s doing. If you still view McCain as candidate v2000, be advised that the software has been updated. McCain has learned the hard way that he needs the Christian conservative vote to win. That is his base. The Slate article postulates that women who find out McCain’s true position on abortion and reproductive rights tend to run away from his candidacy. The problem is that most women aren’t finding out about his position. It’s important to keep the war on women quiet, but McCain’s camp is also betting that women won’t go looking for information. That’s because McCain has a slippery slope of his own.
You see, not only does McCain need the Christian conservative vote, but he also needs the support of women to win the White House. A dilemma, no? The problem is that he has tried floating pro-choice names for his vice presidential nominees, with a very negative reaction from his ultra-conservative Republican base. In light of this, a pro-choice running mate is unlikely and I say it doesn’t really matter anyway. What matters is McCain’s very clear position. I urge all women, especially the angry Hillary supporters, to reconsider handing McCain their votes. While McCain has clearly shifted on this issue to gain the Christian conservative vote, perhaps it’s fair to speculate about his attitude toward women in general.
If John Edwards’ extramarital affair and his subsequent handling of it is seen as a reflection of his general attitude towards women, then I say we must look at all politicians in that light - including John McCain. After all, he is the presumptive GOP nominee for president. Here’s a candidate who has admitted to womanizing in his own books. (Apparently, if you boast about it right off the top, it’s more palatable.) While I often assume that most people know about how he got to be Mr. Cindy, perhaps some do not. Here’s a quick synopsis: McCain cheated on his first wife with Cindy. Then, he divorced his first wife, married the rich Cindy, and proceeded to launch his political career using her money. But there’s even a more recent, more telling event that may well reflect McCain’s true attitude toward women.
One of his recent campaign stops happened to be in Sturgis, South Dakota, at the Buffalo Chip Campground, site of a huge 10-day biker festival where the women are encouraged to bare as much skin as possible, and the women are only happy to comply. (You can’t say McCain doesn’t know where his appeal lies.) While standing on-stage with his perfectly coiffed wife, addressing a bunch of flag waving, beer-drinking bikers, he told the crowd that he had encouraged Cindy to participate in the nightly Miss Buffalo Chip bikini competition. He said, “I encouraged Cindy to compete. I told her with a little luck she could be the only woman ever to serve as first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip.” Perish the thought. This is the guy who is supposed to bring dignity back to the U.S. Presidency? It has been suggested that McCain may be much more at home in Sturgis than he is with the Christian conservatives. But either way, women are the losers in the equation.
The 2008 election is about so much more than exacting revenge out of some sense of misguided loyalty to one candidate. This election is not only critical for America, but also for American women. Returning America to the dark ages would be a disaster for both, and we are certainly headed there under McCain. I believe that Hillary Clinton would prefer a united Democratic party focused on beating John McCain, to a party that will defeat itself on so many fronts if its members misuse the ballot box to exact political revenge.
Writers Note: Barack Obama is fully pro-choice. For those concerned about Senator Biden, he has consistently supported a woman’s right to choose. See NARAL president Nancy Keenan’s statement here.
Comment by Mary Anne on 7 September 2008:
I don’t know how others will vote but being a lifelong Democrat, and being appalled at how the Dem party and Obama treated the Clintons, myself and my husband will be going red in November and all the statistics and stories won’t change it a bit. Perhaps the next time a women runs for the high office of President men will learn to keep their pie holes shut and stick to the issues!If you end up with McCain as President point the finger at Obama and the Dem cronies!
Comment by Nicole Jordan on 8 September 2008:
The folks on either side who are voting based on whether they are offended that Hillary Clinton was treated poorly by the media, or that Sarah Palin is being “attacked,” or that Obama is too “skinny” are like the kids on the playground who take their balls and go home. I’d like to suggest people focus on how offended they are about the state of the planet, the international “community” (which could use an organizer!), the economy, unaffordable education, collapsing infrastructure and America’s debased reputation around the world. Vote Obama/Biden!
Comment by Eric S. on 8 September 2008:
It’s 3:00am and the red phone rings. It’s the Surgeon General. President McCain has expired. Vice President Palin is now President. Imagine that; “PRESIDENT!” This is what can happen on day 2. Now…look at your children and repeat, “President Palin.” Scarry isn’t it. This is what you’re asking for. This is not some feel good pick because she’s a woman. This is potentially your life. How about this:
She will be talking with Heads Of State on our behalf. OMG…..
Comment by george.t on 8 September 2008:
Dear American friends,
As a pro-life (but against the criminalisation and stigmatisation of women’s choice) christian and a doctor who by any means, psychological and financial, supports unmarried pregnant girls and women, i am ashamed for mrs Palin s “christianity”.
Mrs Palin is not a christian, a religious, a pro-life or anything. She is a fanatic. Her religion is just a cover for a narrow minded personality.
If she was born muslim, she would become a human bomb and would cover her seventeen year old daughter with a burga, allthough usuall muslims have nothing to do with this. If she was a Hindu, she would slaughter muslims and would pass above the untouched cast with disrespect, allthough Ghandi was struggling for the rights of this cast especially.
If her religion was pro-abortion, she would present her daughter on TV saying where and how the girl is going to complete the abortion.
She is so selfish that she believes that whatever she does is by divine illumination: even the pipeline in Alaska is seen as Godsent:
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/07/america/church.php?page=1
I wish, to you and all the world, good lack at the day of the US election
Comment by erika on 9 September 2008:
george.t
I find your response disgusting and if you are really a Christian then you should go on your knees and repent before God.
You only know what the media tells you about Sarah Palin and the media so desperately wants Obama to win, that they are spreading lies and gossip all over the world in desperation!
Comment by george.t on 11 September 2008:
Dear Erica
First of all, i want to express my deepest sorrow for the present day.
It is a sad day not only for America but and for the rest of the world. People from every country and religion express their solidarity.
I come from a country that was fighting until the recent past (1923)against its muslim conquerors - the muslim ottoman. But we have no hatry against the present day muslim ottoman state - the Turks. And we know that extremists and mads have no religion because we where devastaded and from the christian italians and germans in world war 2 (1941-5).
I admit my rhetoric might have been overwhelmingly agressive.
I admit that i have overexaggerated my metafors and i regret for that
I would really like to listen from you to something more than the media say about Sarah Palin.
I am from another country and some things could look different from here,for good or bad.
There are too many lies in the media, so, yes, this is why i really feeli need an answer to those following questions:
1. Still children in Iraq day in a war that was plotted behind the backs of the American people you all. Didnt anybody thing that after an embargo that costed 700.0000 dead iraqi children under 5, the iraqis wouldnt welcome US troops?
2. Can anybody think that the Iraqis are responsible for not beginning a revolution against the Saddam dictatorship? How? With stones? Why was God’s will the Iraqis to suffer from the Bush assault and it was not God’s will for the rest of the world to wait for the regime to change as it happened with Libya, where the US foreign minister was very pleased yesterday?
Or they had to be educated the hard way because they where muslims? Libyans are muslims too.
3. Or did any strategist think that christians anywhere could begin a succesful rebellion with just their faith and stones?
But even, if prayer is enough, then US attack wasnt necessary to the Iraqis and the world. Except if we believe that our “christian” bombs are more powerfull than a muslim mother’s prayer to God to liberate her country and thus save her child from embargo-death. What do you think? Tell me.
4. Can anybody imagine Christ putting pipelines across the last natural refugees of polar life? Isnt it a distortion of faith?
5. Can we even say as a joke that Christ would come and shake the hand of the petroleum companies? He has said so many against mammona (wealth) in His Gospel
6. Or we believe that Christ’s first illumination to the re-elected goverment of the US would be to begin a war with no proofs, and kill a million to stop one fool dictator - who wasnt dangerous to the us, alltough an enemy. ?
Libya also was an enemy, but it isnt now- why?
7. In which of these extreme, anti-human,anti-christian politics there is even a scarce sample of opposition by Sarah Palin?
8. Are these all signals of a non-fanatic world view? if no,what they are?
9. The Crusader- warriors where pro-life, had many children, where christians and they where explaining the Bible literally. Does that make them good people? Is it what christ told His people to do? To march with lances in the desert and kill followers of the other religions whatever they said or did to Him? If not, why do we have to call someone who supports war and pollution a christian because she has many children and is pro-life?
We need more, and i will really change all that i write if proof is provided.
I promise it. Honestly
Please, i am not joking, i would like to listen.
Post me anything you like, that will change my view on Sarah Palin
Comment by JoB on 11 September 2008:
Today is a day of great sadness… not just for those who lost their lives on 911 but for all who have lost their lives in the name of 911 since then.
While we are said to be fighting fanaticism abroad.. we nurture it at home… supposing that the word Christian placed in front of it makes it palatable.
The Christian Church is based on the teaching of Christ.. the justification for Christian fanaticism comes from the teachings he rebelled against.. the Old Testament.
The current administration takes the mantle of Christianity without following any of it’s teachings… thus we have persecution waged in the name of Christ.
I am deeply saddened by all of it..
but as a woman who lived the persecution of my sex that the Republicans would like to reinstate in the name of Christ .. I am angry.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 13 September 2008:
This is a response to several of these posts about Sarah Palin (specifically George T and Erica). As far as being a Christian, I am not. I was born Catholic and am a Buddhist by choice. That is my right as an American. I bow down to no ‘god.’ The Dalai Lama does not require that. His religion is Kindness and that is what religion should be, not some kind of ancient patriarchy that the Christian right wants to institute. Those days are gone and women are stupid if they support Sarah Palin.
I do not condone war as a solution to problems. I do not believe in the might of pre-emptive strikes. That is called war mongering. It is not what our forefathers intended in any way. In fact, one of the most intelligent Republican presidents we ever had, and a military man I respected, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned about this day coming…the day when the military-industrial complex would take power and that is exactly what has happened in America. All of these wars are for oil. The fighting between Georgia and Russia was encouraged by our government for the purposes of oil. Why do you think Georgia was just given $1 billion by the United States? Our country has been bankrupted, we have never taken adequate care of the Katrina victims, people are losing jobs and homes, yet CEOs are getting billions in severance pay for screwing up royally. Our illustrious oil man president is buying out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and charging us $25 billion in taxes to get the deed done, yet we can still manage to give $1 billion to Georgia. That, in my book, is criminal. He should just leave now and avoid the January rush.
And Erica, you have lost your perspective. In America, we depend upon a free and open press as a guarantee of freedom. It is and always has been one of the fundamental checks and balances on our government. After eight years of this garbage leadership, if you trust this government to do the right thing, you haven’t been paying much attention. THIS IS AMERICA and, right now, citizens residing in many of the countries we believe are inferior actually have more rights than we do. That is pathetic.
Here is the way things should work: When a man or woman is elected to run this country, they must represent ALL Americans because all Americans pay taxes (everyone but the corporations). The president is not supposed to represent special interests (yet John McCain has more lobbyists and big-money fund raisers on his campaign than anyone else and has from the beginning). There is a separation between church and state for a reason. A president doesn’t represent and/or cater to one religion. In fact, there is no place for religion in government at all. It’s a personal choice and it should never be forced on anyone. I am neither an evangelical nor fundamentalist Christian and never, ever will be. It doesn’t work for me. These groups need to tend to their flocks and get the hell out of goverment.
As for McCain, he learned in 2000 and 2004 that he pissed off the Christian coalition even though he was right when he said they were intolerant and the ruination of the Republican party. Sarah Palin, an ill qualified candidate on ANY level, is his conduit to the the coalition vote. That is her sole purpose. I cannot even believe that she was chosen for an office so high and important. If John McCain kicks during his term and, with his history of melanoma (which he won’t come clean with, by the way), he very well could, what do you think she’s going to do? Spare me the thoughts.
George T., you have done nothing wrong. You merely expressed your opinion. You are entitled to do that here…at least for now.
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Sarah Palin: Perception vs. Reality
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 14 September 2008:
This is a response to Mary Ann. Truly, I’m sorry you feel the way you do because it’s really counterproductive to the Democratic process. It’s like amputating your legs because you are pissed off at the shoes you got for a gift.
Do you know where Hillary Clinton is going next week? On the road with her husband to help Barack Obama win. First rule of business: Politicians never shut their pie holes. They wouldn’t be politicians if they did. Secondly, revisit your facts. I’ve written an archived article on it: Obama only went after Hillary on issues, and she did the same thing to him. It was the good ole’ boy mainstream and conservative media who attacked Clinton on everything but the issues. You should be mad as hell at them. I am. Imagine the unmitigating gall of them to question Clinton’s ability to lead with a veritable clown like Sarah Palin riding shotgun to a sell-out Republican whose handlers have openly stated they don’t want this campaign to be about issues, but rather about personality. It is absurd.
Secondly, next week, Hillary and Bill Clinton are going on the road for Barack Obama because they are smarter than the American people and want to eliminate the Republican rule that has so decimated this country. John McCain is more of Bush and Sarah Palin can barely speak with any amount of knowledge of world situations. With the world in the shape it’s in, selecting her as VP is dangerous and shows just how much hubris John McCain has. Oh, I forgot, she can see Russia from Alaska. My error.
As far as everything else, I’m tired of the “protection” crap McCain is spouting. Now, he supposedly knows how to get Bin Laden. If so, and he has known all along, then he has been withholding information and should be taken to task for that. As far as Palin is concerned, she’s no friend to women with her patriarchal attitude. She is disgusting to force anything on women. I may never have had an abortion myself, but not this or any other government has the right to tell me what to do with my body.
Tell me, were you voting for the country or just for Hillary Clinton? This isn’t what SHE wants.
Deb Della Pianas last blog post..Sarah Palin: Perception vs. Reality