On Selective Hearing
John McCain tells Hillary diehards what they want to hear: "It's okay to hate Obama."
But McCain does not like Hillary. His party hates Hillary and all Clintons. McCain and his party are using women in a cynical gambit to win the White House and then turn on the very women who misguidedly believe that supporting McCain will sting someone other than themselves.
A Republican president must obey the laws of political physics. Inevitably, he will gravitate to the conservative base and stack a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe v Wade so that reproductive rights will either be outlawed or thrown back to state legislatures that would end abortion with finality or restrict travel to the few remaining states that would allow it.
A McCain presidency would not only neglect equal pay for women, but reverse it, along with other civil protections ensured by equal opportunity laws.
A McCain presidency would offer a $5,000 tax credit for health care — useless to working mothers who don't earn enough to pay that much in taxes. The other health care proposal McCain offers on his site is federal aid to set up medical mini-offices at Wal-Marts — a proposal he concludes will guarantee Americans "access" to "quality" health care.
McCain and the GOP have no plan to help women. His election will be an exercise in cynically using women, just as the worst men have always used women for temporary advantage. Hillary die-hards are McCain's new trophy wives. Once they fulfill his purpose, they will soon go the way of McCain's first wife or, like his second wife, be offered up as sacrifice into a topless contest for biker.
But McCain does not like Hillary. His party hates Hillary and all Clintons. McCain and his party are using women in a cynical gambit to win the White House and then turn on the very women who misguidedly believe that supporting McCain will sting someone other than themselves.
A Republican president must obey the laws of political physics. Inevitably, he will gravitate to the conservative base and stack a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe v Wade so that reproductive rights will either be outlawed or thrown back to state legislatures that would end abortion with finality or restrict travel to the few remaining states that would allow it.
A McCain presidency would not only neglect equal pay for women, but reverse it, along with other civil protections ensured by equal opportunity laws.
A McCain presidency would offer a $5,000 tax credit for health care — useless to working mothers who don't earn enough to pay that much in taxes. The other health care proposal McCain offers on his site is federal aid to set up medical mini-offices at Wal-Marts — a proposal he concludes will guarantee Americans "access" to "quality" health care.
McCain and the GOP have no plan to help women. His election will be an exercise in cynically using women, just as the worst men have always used women for temporary advantage. Hillary die-hards are McCain's new trophy wives. Once they fulfill his purpose, they will soon go the way of McCain's first wife or, like his second wife, be offered up as sacrifice into a topless contest for biker.
Advertisement
last word should be plural "bikers"
August 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Topless bikers?
August 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
a topless contest for the amusement of bikers
August 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Occasionally bottomless too, from what I read.
August 25, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/hillary-clinton-at-the-dn_n_121179.html
DENVER — Hillary Rodham Clinton preached unity Monday in her first appearance at the Democratic National Convention, insisting she is doing everything possible to prove her full support for Barack Obama.
The New York senator was quick to put Republican John McCain in her sights, saying the de facto GOP nominee was running ads using her words to try to divide the Democrats.
Clinton's response: "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message."
"There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this is Barack Obama's convention," she said, adding that it is only natural for there to be some lingering issues to resolve after a tough primary.
"It would have been the same way if I had won and Barack was here supporting the unity of the party. This was a hard fought campaign and there was a lot of intensity and passion associated with it, in part because of the historic nature of our two candidacies."
Part of her job at the convention will be letting those delegates know "that however they decide to vote, we will all be united behind Senator Obama," she said.
"We have a very good working relationship and it is through that relationship that we have worked out a lot of the issues," she said. "I have done more in the last two months than people in my position historically have done and I am going to keep doing it."
August 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope she's passed that message along to Paul Begala and James Carville.
August 25, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've drawn an interesting parallel, Ripper. I have a feeling though that many Hillary supporters, definitely not all, but many were disingenuously used by the Clintons themselves yet seem unaware of it.
I've been thinking about people who continue to support Hillary, the former presidential candidate, even though she lost. There's a lot of talk, as we all know, about these democrats either actively voting for McCain or passively voting for McCain by abstention.
How would they explain their vote to their sons and daughters if McCain re-institutes the draft?
August 25, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In tearful letters to Tbilisi, one presumes.
August 25, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to look that one up. But yeah.
August 25, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't going to be a draft. I really dislike this overwhelming threat argument. It's insulting to people who know better and cruel to people who don't.
August 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton dead-enders are consumed with frustration and anger. It has now metastasized into outright hate, and they've given their hate a name. Barack Obama. This politically suicidal behavior is completely irrational and, (I'm gonna go there) CULT LIKE.
A just consequence for these Clinton dead-enders would be to actually have all of those women's rights issues overturned right in their anger ridden faces. If only it weren't for all of the other, non self-destructive, women who would be made to suffer along with them.
August 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary supporters"? Hillary is supporting the Obama-Biden ticket of her party. "McCain supporters" is the correct term for anybody who votes for McCain. We need to get this terminology straight. And the new "McCain Democrats" need to start spending time with their new party, the Republican Party. McCain and the Republicans have websites, where McCain supporters can go for their entry forms to the Miss Buffalo Chip contest.
August 25, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN to that!
August 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great distinction, TerryCarroll. Noted. In the future, when I refer to PUMAs and the like, I'll be careful to drop Hillary Clinton's name and call them what they are: McCain supporters.
They insult Senator Clinton by invoking her name when supporting John McCain.
August 25, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper, you clearly know nothing about abortion in this country.
Rec'd for sheer ignorance.
August 25, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, well. Enlighten me, diRTBAG. Where did I go wrong, dead-ender?
August 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
With McCain, the country will have six or seven, not four, Scalias in short order, and abortion law will become a brutal and prohibitive patchwork as the privacy right shrinks for the first time. Lawrence v. Texas will also be overruled, in case anyone cares.
So kudos, brother, you are correct.
August 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I was amazed when Lawrence came down and didn't think AK had it in him. It has always felt very shakey.
August 25, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abortion law already is a brutal and prohibitive patchwork - to people for whom the issue is important, this is an empty threat.
August 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bev.
August 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, do tell. This woman would be quite interested in your response, for Ripper's post looked right on to me.
Please enlighten us.
August 25, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about rtbg? I don't understand "You know nothing about abortion in this country" as a response to this post. Does that mean his point about the SC and overturning Roe v. Wade is wrong? Care to explain?
Also -- as I recall, during past months I've usually been able to have respectful exchanges with you because you seemed (usually) somewhat reasonable and intelligent. But lately your comments have seemed exceptionally douche-y. What gives? You allowing yourself to be provoked into douche-y-ness?
August 25, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF, laura! Why are you unloading on me? What did I ever specifically say to you to warrant such a spectacularly snotty response?
Have I ever not been able to support an argument? Ever? If so, name the topic and provide a link. You don't have to agree with me, but that's different, isn't it? There are multiple sides to many issues, correct? Not just your knee-jerk side?
Here, why don't you educate yourself about the state of abortion in this country:
Or you could look it up yourself. Start with Wiki. I did.
From now on please don't respond to me, laura. You've unfairly unloaded on me one too many times. I haven't done anything to you and my interactions with others are actually none of your business. Thanks.
August 25, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blockquote was supposed to begin with this sentence:
My reference is just one of many possible responses to Ripper's original ignorant statement:
Another angle of correcting Ripper could be: The Supreme Court is already stacked. A majority is a majority. Doesn't matter if it's 5-4 or 6-3 or 7-2.
Yet another angle could be to challenge Ripper's use of the term "reproductive rights." What are "reproductive rights," Ripper?
August 25, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't shown me any error. Keep looking for angles to justify your shitty attitude.
August 25, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read your assignment, sweetie? No, you obviously didn't.
August 25, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The burden of proof lies with your assertions, diRTBAG. Bring on the evidence. Bring on the proof.
August 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already did, you moron. So refute it.
August 25, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in your "evidence" contradicts my post. Sorry. You lose. Go away now and let the grown-ups talk.
August 25, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize the article I linked to is quite long, but for anyone who is genuinely interested, it's a worthwhile read. It follows the lengthy history of abortion legislation in this country, and offers fairly current (2007) information pertaining to specific states (including which states have "trigger laws" and which states have codified a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in state law even if Roe falls).
I know you won't read it because I'm the one who posted it, Ripper, but with any luck, others will appreciate having the resource at their fingertips.
You do the TPM readers a disservice by espousing flawed and inaccurate information. Not the first time, unfortunately, and probably not the last.
I'm glad this post made it to the Recommended List.
August 25, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in my post is inaccurate, fool. The error is in your mind.
August 25, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You posted a snotty comment yourself to this post -- with absolutely nothing to support it. Not one, but four of us called on you to explain why you made such a snotty comment.
You've been increasingly uncivil and hostile over the last couple of months, and I had once considered you one of the thoughtful, civil posters here.
So you're willing to do some bridge-burning? Fine. I don't know what your fucking problem is, and considering the increasingly abusive tone in your comments, I don't care. No loss, IMO.
August 25, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly are you talking about, laura? Please prove your accusation by supplying links or referring to posts or enumerating dates. Otherwise, you are totally out of line.
Because I can show you comment threads where I have been civil, even while disagreeing with people. Here's one. Here's another.
August 25, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and one more thing, to clarify the record:
No, that's not true. I do remember one instance when I was at work, typed a short disagreement response to you that lacked any support, and I left it at that because I got busy and had to leave the blog for several hours. Later I returned to the blog, read an indignant, quite angry response from you; whereupon I apologized and explained what had happened.
Otherwise, except for having genuine, albeit respectful disagreements with you, that's the extent of our "conflict history."
August 25, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See comment below.
You get to unfairly unload once. You already took your turn. You're not a friend, so you don't get another turn. Please leave me alone.
August 25, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll cry myself to sleep tonight.
August 25, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget to read that first article I linked to about abortion. You asked for the information, and I provided it. It's important to be an informed voter.
And thanks for flinging unsupported shit at me like a good little troll!
August 25, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't YOU, asshole? You might find this paragraph:
August 25, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go on. Keep reading. I know you haven't finished the entire article. When you get to it, let us know which states have codified the right to an abortion into state law no matter what happens to Roe, okay? People will want to know if their state is on the list.
August 25, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and how's that definition of "reproductive rights" coming, Ripper? We're all waiting for your pithy definition.
August 25, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ignorant fucking moron. If you don't know the meaning of reproductive rights, look the term up.
And you doubly ignorant fucking moron, tell me which states have adopted a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion if Roe v Wade is struck down. Because the truth of the matter is that only a federal Constitutional right is veto-proof by the states. That guarantee begins with Roe v Wade.
You illiterate, uninformed, self-important troll.
August 25, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Love It When You Call Me Names, Rip.
August 26, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I love it when you leave.
August 26, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't finished it, have you.
August 26, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And while we're at it, although a tiny minority of states have state constitutional protections for abortion, the overturning of Roe would automatically trigger bans on abortion in many other states with trigger laws. No should women have to rely on ephemeral political decisions made in state legislatures or be without federal protection of the right to control decisions affecting her body.
My post stands. Your criticism is ridiculous sniping concocted of your own "sheer ignorance."
August 25, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, really? Tell that to Terri Schiavo.
August 26, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, no, you tell her. You'll have to die, of course, to tell her. Go. Off with you now.
August 26, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT comeback!
You're spent. Bye.
August 26, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God it's gone.
August 26, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you'll have the article read by tomorrow. 'Night.
August 26, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You raise good points Ripper.
I'm one of the Hillary supporters, but I think that PUMAs are going too far.
But for the rest, I think what Hillary supporters are genuinely going throw a powerful combination of emotions.
It's easy to critize them and blame them, it's harder to understand them.
They still feel Hillary is a stronger candidate than Obama in the General.
They still don't buy into Obama's candidacy or message. I think they actually dislike Obama as strongly as some of his supporters dislike Hillary.
They are angry that sexism is still acceptable, it becomes a double-standard when racism no longer is tolerated, but sexism is.
They are angry for being taken for granted, as a voter statistic, they want to have their own voice.
They are angry at being demonized everywhere all the time.
If they vote for McCain in the end, it will have nothing to do with McCain.
I think Hillary awoke something in them and I think they themselves are still figuring out what it is.
August 25, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But can they honestly say that McCain and not Obama represents the best hope for moving in a positive direction on those issues? I mean, seriously, is McCain the candidate more likely to help attack sexism? Or is it the guy with an intelligent, beautiful and strong wife who he clearly respects deeply as an equal partner? Can you even imagine Barack disrespecting Michelle enough to call her a c-word in public or private? Or actually suggesting that it would an achievement if she could be first lady and topless champ at the same time? I'm just at loss on how someone can take such a grievance and twist it to suggest that McCain and not Obama would be the better candidate for the issues facing women. If you can shed some light on this and help it explain it, I'd really appreciate it.
August 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the last several months you've made many, many, many statements on this site that you intend to vote for McCain; that you'll never vote for Obama.
Have you now changed your mind?
August 25, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said I would change my registration to Independent. And I did.
As for how I will vote, I haven't decided that yet.
And if you really wanted the Hillary vote, you would condemn this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/convention-dispatch-does_b_121159.html
But you don't. So you wouldn't.
August 25, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I condemn all divisiveness and disrespect aimed at people of good will. I count Hillary as one of those of good will.
Will you join us, Lalo?
August 25, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I posted on another thread just now. I'm holding my nose and trying to join, despite any reservations, dislikes, hurts, and all. But the Obama supporters push me away. They are not reaching out, they are hounding. They are the worst friends Obama ever had.
August 25, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why you automatically concluded that I wouldn't condemn the post you linked to.
If you'd bothered to ask before jumping to conclusions, I would've told you that I do condemn that post. It's counter-productive and needlessly divisive. I'm very disappointed in David Sirota for posting it. And I disagree with the conclusions Sirota draws regarding the Clintons' motives. That's something he can't prove.
Well, Lalo, I know you absolutely hate Senator Obama, and I understand you have your reasons. And if you decide not to vote for him, I hope that, at least, you will not vote for McCain out of spite.
You know, I can understand feeling resentful if you believe the Democratic Party (and the Obama campaign) takes your support for granted, and assumes you'll have to vote for him -- having the attitude of "well, what choice do Hillary's fans have?" Because you're right -- you DO have a choice, and you are justified in feeling that the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign should earn your support.
I don't know if you can, but what if you were to change the criteria in evaluating whom to support? Would the issues still place you more on the side of Democrats than Republicans?
August 25, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also add that when you say "Hillary diehards" in your very first sentence, the rest of your post would have much less meaning and pursuasion for a Hillary supporter.
It's like saying: the reason "The One holds his faithful followers by the blah blah blah" and then expecting anything rational like the rest of your post.
August 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point well taken, but don't get all politically correct on me, Honest Ob.
August 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
EVEN if voting for McCain would end sexism in America (WHICH IT SOOOOOOO WON'T!) I still wouldn't vote for him.
Do you people realize that we could well be talking about the end of our country as we know it if we let McCain get his finger anywhere near "THE" button?
I would rather live in a country where we women still have some work to do in getting "complete" equality than in a country where we have to back to teaching our kids to hide under their desks. Why not vote for someone who will aid the feminist cause AND make us safer?
August 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and one more thing, to clarify the record:
No, that's not true. I do remember one instance when I was at work, typed a short disagreement response to you that lacked any support, and I left it at that because I got busy and had to leave the blog for several hours. Later I returned to the blog, read an indignant, quite angry response from you; whereupon I apologized and explained what had happened.
Otherwise, except for having genuine, albeit respectful disagreements with you, that's the extent of our "conflict history."
August 25, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, laura? We're not friends!
You made a permanent impression with me when you defended a lame David Sirota article that tried to prove how Hillary was a racist.
August 25, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never said we were friends. Never wanted to be your friend.
I said I thought you were a civil and thoughtful poster in the past, capable of respectful disagreement.
Clearly I was wrong.
August 25, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought you were a troll until now.
August 25, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I've never doubted for a moment that you are.
August 26, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! I know the next line: Takes one to know one.
August 26, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, you're the one who has the reputation for it.
August 26, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You did a fabulous job arguing the issues, McCain. I mean McCord.
August 26, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've done a fabulous job of Googling and never having it disprove what I wrote.
August 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the second time in two days I've heard someone make this utterly stupid argument.
The biggest difference between 5-4 and 7-2 is in how long it will be before control of the court can be taken away from the Scalias and Thomases, and that difference could easily be measured in decades.
August 26, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So?
August 26, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, that's something my kid would have to live with for potentially half his lifetime.
Getting back to the abortion issiue... just because states have codified something doesn't make it permanent. The whole damn south codified slavery, and then racial segregation after slavery was outlawed, if you recall your history.
The 2006 ruling was limited in scope, and while it is evident that the current makeup of the SC wouldn't overturn RvW, a replacement of 2-3 pro-choice justices - which is entirely possible in the next 4 to 8 years - could do the trick.
Furthermore, HOW laws are interpreted by the SC and other courts can make a huge difference in the availability of safe and legal abortions. One of the tactics used by abrtion foes is to institute laws and regulations which make it difficult for providers to make their services available, for example. But it also requires a court system full of judges who defend those laws and regs... not just SC judges. RvW can be undermined gradually, rather than directly - and indeed that is the strategy, since a direct overturning of RvW would outrage the public. Death by a thousand paper-cuts is the thier short-term goals for RvW.
So, while you may critique RM's post as being simplistc, the underlying point remains accurate.
August 26, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, we can talk hypothetically about what MIGHT happen till the cows come home, as Ripper's ill-informed OP does. Let's talk about what IS instead, shall we?
First of all, a preemptive rebuke: If you cared so much about the impact of Supreme Court on your child's future, you should have prevented George W. Bush's two terms. Why? Because he stacked the lower courts (the ones that truly affect your child's life as well as your own) with activist-conservative judges in addition to elevating Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Apparently, your senators didn't effectively block the confirmation of Roberts and Alito. Why is that? Have you asked them? Do you let your senators know what you want them to do for you as your public servants? If you do, great. If you don't, get on the phone.
In any case, now we're in the era of the Roberts Court. We are stuck with it. Your child is stuck with it too.
It's too late to cry about the Supreme Court. This is a wholly bogus, DOA argument.
Here's a better, more productive focus: Get as many local and state Democrats into elected office as you can. If you haven't worked toward this goal in the past, that's your fault, not mine. Do your kid a favor and get Democrats, especially women, elected to every office, not just the presidency. Don't even talk to me about state legislatures. I have no control over states I don't live in no matter who I elect for president.
Finally, polls show a majority of people in the country want abortion to remain legal. One of the major issues facing the legality of abortion is not who sits on the Supreme Court, but which side gets the most press coverage. If your local paper prints some anti-abortion editorial, do you write a counter-editorial to the editors? No? Didn't think so.
To sum up, my point is this: If you aren't personally working to keep abortion legal for your child's future, you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. Your comment sounds like you could do more to ensure your child's future, not me, so don't lecture me about your progeny. I would love to be wrong about you, but I suspect you are not informed or active enough to have this argument.
August 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still up to your old tricks: Attack, dodge, attack, evade, attack, change subject ... .
Let's talk about how everyone in this thread GETS my post, but YOU don't. Let's talk about how you threw in a childish insult from the start and then provided no support for your statement until you could Google a few possible ones. Let's talk about how you threw as many nonsensical objections up, like so much spaghetti, to see what might stick. Let's talk about how none of your "angles" do stick. Let's talk about how you have utterly failed to demonstrate that any of your "information" contradicts my post. Let's talk about your habit of writing in circles, veering from one argument to the next as you are shot down at each turn. Let's talk about your tremendous record for commenting on other people's threads, particularly of those people you dislike, such as me. Then let's compare that to how many coherent posts you've actually written yourself. (Zero. Remember, I said "coherent posts.") And finally, let's talk about what a complete horse's ass you are. Yes, let's DO discuss that one at length.
August 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have a testosterone imbalance. You ought to get that checked out. It obviously affects your interactions and critical thinking.
August 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, did you finish that article?
August 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal, asshole. Cease and desist now. Or find yourself dogged in every thread and shown for the shithead you are at every turn. Final offer.
August 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I don't make deals with morons. Dog me all you want. I don't care about you.
August 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you ever read that article? You never said.
August 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans will never actually overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's way too useful as a political tool for shoring up the base and fundraising purposes. They'd almost be a no-purpose party if they lost that one. More importantly, however, Roe vs. Wade is one of those issues that allows the Republicans to keep the culture wars going in order to distract the voting public from areas where they do not want scrutiny, such as tax breaks for the wealthy.
August 26, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink