An open letter to women Democrats

I received this from my blogfriend Margie today via e-mail, and I thought it was compelling enough to share. It was written by a Phoenix woman who sent it to the local paper as a letter to the editor. She is skeptical that it will ever appear in print.

An open letter to women Democrats:

My dear sisters,

Please consider very carefully how you plan to vote in November. No matter how hurt you feel today, a McCain/Palin ticket will not bring you peace or satisfaction. Here is what it will bring:

Two people who openly oppose your right to choose. Think about 16 years (yes, it is entirely possible) during which at least three Supreme Court Justices could be selected. Do you really want Roe vs. Wade overturned? No matter the intricacies of your personal views on abortion, do you really want a return to back-alley, coat-hanger days?

Also, you will get a president who doesn’t think it is particularly important for you to earn the same wage as the men who do your job. John McCain said he would have voted against Lily Ledbetter because, after all, what right does government have in telling businesses how much to pay their employees? What right? I thought government existed to protect us from just such an abuse. And if it could happen to Lily in this 21st century, it could also happen to you. Or your daughter.

And finally, you will have two people (again, think 16 years) who believe that it is better to drill every last ounce of oil from this earth before putting any real money or muscle into alternative energy sources; two people who don’t see a problem with assault rifles made available to anyone with the money to buy them; and two people who think your health care, and that of all Americans, should be left to the open market. They say, Just go shopping for your best price, and too bad if you have a pre-existing condition.

Like you, I long to see a woman in the White House. But I will wait for someone who is not going to turn back the clock for my daughter. I hope you will consider following Senator Clinton’s lead and cast your precious, hard-won vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Thank you.

Marilyn McGrath

I trust certain disaffected Clinton supporters who might be considering a vote for Huggy Bear might read it and take it to heart.

The points are valid and, I strongly believe, the choice is clear.

UPDATE (8:51 pm 9/2/08): Just received an e-mail from Ms. McGrath herself, who asked whether I could provide a link to her website. Happy to oblige -- please check it out.

Huggy Bear hates women

There's a reason why another good nickname for Huggy Bear is "McSame." He's just the same as his BFF and hug buddy, Drunky McStagger.

Today, Huggy shows us that he really can't stand women -- you know, unless they are hot blonde lobbyists or obscenely wealthy trophy wives. He doesn't believe women should get equal pay for equal work.

Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had delayed the vote to give McCain's Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, time to return to Washington to support the measure, which would make it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.

McCain skipped the vote to campaign in New Orleans.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.

Sure, Huggy says he's for pay equity, but his vote proves otherwise. You know, Huggy, sometimes government has to step in to regulate private enterprise, to ensure that said enterprise doesn't discriminate. Sometimes lawsuits are a good thing, Huggy, because they ensure that injured people are compensated appropriately for their injury -- or the discrimination against them. But I guess discrimination isn't something you really care about, is it, Huggy? After all, if you were the least bit discriminating -- in a good way -- you wouldn't embrace (figuratively and literally) the Worst President Ever.

Then again, for a guy utterly devoid of integrity and positive character attributes, ol' Huggy's still done a pretty good job of taking care of the person who matters most to him: himself.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Republican women

Perhaps I'm reaching here, but certain Republican women seem to be taking self-loathing to new levels, and Republican men -- in Congress, anyway -- are finding even more ways to be misogynistic.

The Equal Rights Amendment, which fell short of ratification in several incarnations in the 20th Century, may be back with a Democratic majority in Congress. And the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to back away from it.

In 1971 and 1972 the amendment swept through Congress, with votes of 354-24 in the House and 84-8 in the Senate. Over the next five years 35 states ratified the measure, but even with extension of the seven-year deadline for action to 10 years, no other states concurred. The first ERA was introduced in Congress in 1923, three years after women got the vote. The last ERA-related vote was in 1983.

The new version has less than 200 original co-sponsors in the 435-member House, and one of them, Rep. Ralph Hall (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, dropped off the day after it was introduced, leaving only eight GOP signatures on it. In the Senate, the measure has only 21 sponsors, none of them a Republican. Constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislature.

O'Neill says those numbers reflect that Republicans are "farther to the right than they were in the 1970s."

Conservative groups have been quick to mobilize their opposition, underlining the abortion and same-sex marriage issues that resonate with Republican lawmakers.

"We believe the ERA is dead," said Jessica Echard, executive director of Eagle Forum, the conservative grass-roots group founded in 1972 by Phyllis Schlafly as she led the fight against the original ERA. "We'll see if Congress really wants to get back into this."

Among the main opposing arguments in that Vietnam War era, besides the images of men and women having to share bathrooms, was that the ERA would subject women to the military draft.

The draft issue "is still very much alive" in today's wartime America, Echard said, as are concerns that an ERA would be used to codify abortion and same-sex marriage rights.

A proliferation of female doctors, lawyers and stockbrokers and the fact that women now receive nearly 60 percent of college degrees show that women don't need an ERA to succeed, she added.

First of all, take a look at those numbers again. In the early 1970s, Congress voted for the ERA by a more than ten-to-one margin. Today, they're pulling teeth trying to get co-sponsors (which, I recognize, is not the same as voting, but still ...), and the sponsor list is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats.

That last fact could lead to some interesting decisions by Republic members of Congress:

With Democrats controlling Congress for the first time in a dozen years, "prospects are better now than they have been in a very very long time," Terry O'Neill, executive director of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said after the constitutional amendment was introduced in the Senate and House last week.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, said he plans hearings on the modern-day ERA. Sponsors said their goal is to get House and Senate votes on it before 2009.

"I would love for the American people to see who votes against women's equality," said O'Neill.

So would I, Terry, so would I.

But the Republicans are terrified that equal rights for women might be used as (gasp!) a justification for funding "tax-funded abortions on demand," since certain
procedures for men can be paid in whole or in part by the federal government. (Of course, men neither seek nor undergo abortions. That might be a relevant point.)

There are plenty of other reasons why an ERA is a good idea:

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who has sponsored ERA proposals in six different sessions of Congress[,] noted that women still get only 77 cents for every dollar that men are paid, that only 3 percent of federal contracts go to women-owned firms, and that the poverty rate of older women in nearly twice that of older men.

Without a "clear and stricter judicial standard on sex discrimination," women are in danger of losing ground, she said, citing challenges to Title IX, the federal law that opened academic and sports opportunities for women, and compensation for the families of 9/11-victims.

It's an equal rights issue and has nothing to do with abortion, Maloney said.

I don't think your typical self-loathing Republican woman truly opposes an ERA because of abortion. I think it's just that they see it as a threat to their housewifey ways, in much the same way as gay marriage is supposed to be a threat to the institution of marriage. Look, I fucked up my own marriage just fine, thank you very much, and gay marriage had nothing to do with it. Likewise, Republican women, allowing women equality under the law won't damage your June Cleaver world. In fact, if nothing else, it might keep some women busy enough that they won't have nearly enough time to have affairs with your husbands.

So, congratulations to self-loathing Republican women everywhere: this Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!