The True Misogynists: Progressives & Liberal Women (generations, racist, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's hard to claim the republicans are all white men (like there is something wrong with being a white male) if there are high profile women and black republicans.
So they go after women and blacks. I suspect most people see right through it.
In the book 1984 Big Brother had all the party members meet once a week for "20 Minute Hate" They watched video of the "enemies" and screamed and yelled and such. Then they pledged their allegance to Big Brother and The Party.
I swear Orwell could see into the future. He was talking about today's Democratic Party. It's a shame. They oughta campaign on ideas, instead of hate.
hating conservative women because they are conservative and ignorant is not the same as hating women. Orwell was talking about the regresive-right party.
hating conservative women because they are conservative and ignorant is not the same as hating women. Orwell was talking about the regresive-right party.
so it's ok to hate conservative women because that's not the same as hating "women"
and, if someone disagrees with Obama's policies he is deemed a racist because Obama is half black?
heads I win, tails you lose? is that how we play this game?
Really? Have you seen the Right do the same to that imbecile, Al Green?
No, they haven't.
The Left/dems attack conservative women who they think are a threat, either now or in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
You just did!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
Exactly
While y'all mock outrage at sanrene's characterization of Al Green, please know that the Dems in SC have done the same and worse to him. They tried, without success, to get him to withdraw from the race. When he wouldn't, the insults flew. Oh, and they were vicious. Republicans stayed completely silent. I'm sure that was a strategic decision on the part of the SC Republicans.
I believe sanrene was simply highlighting how different people are treating one perceived "idiot" versus another based solely on political party.
For the record, since you don't know about Al Green. He is the Democratic nominee for Senate in SC. He was kicked out of the Army and then the Air Force for failure to comprehend the most basic instructions. Then, he was charged with sexual harrassment and is still in that case now. He suggested, as a means of producing revenue for the gov't, to make action figures of himself. When the media asked DeMint to comment on these obviously odd statements, he declined. Call it what you will, but the Republicans in this case decided not to lambast a man that they could very easily have skewered.
Also, when Al Green won the Democratic nomination, many of the Dems were sure that illegal and inappropriate actions were the reason. However, after MULTIPLE investigations, even by the SC DNC, they found no cause other than voters put forth a referendum against the heavily touted Democratic candidate. Again, Republicans stayed silent on this. Guess, it's only okay to bash someone who is deemed an "idiot" by you if they are a Republican? Hmm.
I did some reading up on this race, and I think you're missing some key points here. As far as the democrats being concerned about foul play on the part of the R's--it's because absolutely none of it makes any sense. First, this guy came out of the blue. He's destitute--he has no job, and a criminal record. No one can figure out how he even came up with the 10,000 + to file for election. He did zero campaigning. He didn't file any of his election paper work. He had absolutely no endorsement of ANY KIND from the state and national party--I don't know where you came up with "heavily touted democratic candidate" because they didn't spend a dime on him, and Green didn't spend money either. The press didn't check anything out on him because he was a kook candidate with no shot of getting more than the couple of percent advantage you normally get for being first on the ballot. He ran against a well known Judge (who did have party support, and did campaign) and he got 60% of the vote in the primary? It doesn't make sense, and that's why the Dem's are questioning it. That, and some democratic voters are telling the press that when they voted for Fowler, it showed their voting in the booth going for Green instead. None of this proves there was hanky panky with the voting machines, but it sure makes you wonder.
Regardless, even if Fowler would have won, he would have had a near impossible task against Jim DeMint to begin with. That's why this is getting almost no national attention. The only real advantage DeMint gets by running against a nut is that he won't have to spend the kind of money to defend his record, and some of his more recent statements, against a real candidate from the Dems. DeMint doesn't have to publicly come out and say ANYTHING about Green because he's a zero threat, and he has no backing from the Democrats. They didn't want him either, so what's the point?
On the other hand, candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle etc. are heavily backed and endorsed by the R's. They ARE supported by the party, and they're in tight races. Palin has campaigned for them. That's when the candidates records and stands on issues become important, and that's what those races have been all about. Both of those R candidates (and many others) are crackpots--no one has to sling "mud" at them, because the truth is what's hurting them. I haven't seen statements in either of those campaigns speaking negatively about their appearance, or singling them out on the basis of being female. The bottom line is that if you're a woman running for office, it's a two way thing. You should never have to deal with criticism based on the fact that you're female, but you can't expect ANYONE to gloss over your record on issues and cut you slack because of it either. It's time to put on some big girl panties (welcome to the world of equality) if you think that's the case.
I did some reading up on this race, and I think you're missing some key points here. As far as the democrats being concerned about foul play on the part of the R's--it's because absolutely none of it makes any sense. First, this guy came out of the blue. He's destitute--he has no job, and a criminal record. No one can figure out how he even came up with the 10,000 + to file for election. He did zero campaigning. He didn't file any of his election paper work. He had absolutely no endorsement of ANY KIND from the state and national party--I don't know where you came up with "heavily touted democratic candidate" because they didn't spend a dime on him, and Green didn't spend money either. The press didn't check anything out on him because he was a kook candidate with no shot of getting more than the couple of percent advantage you normally get for being first on the ballot. He ran against a well known Judge (who did have party support, and did campaign) and he got 60% of the vote in the primary? It doesn't make sense, and that's why the Dem's are questioning it. That, and some democratic voters are telling the press that when they voted for Fowler, it showed their voting in the booth going for Green instead. None of this proves there was hanky panky with the voting machines, but it sure makes you wonder.
Regardless, even if Fowler would have won, he would have had a near impossible task against Jim DeMint to begin with. That's why this is getting almost no national attention. The only real advantage DeMint gets by running against a nut is that he won't have to spend the kind of money to defend his record, and some of his more recent statements, against a real candidate from the Dems. DeMint doesn't have to publicly come out and say ANYTHING about Green because he's a zero threat, and he has no backing from the Democrats. They didn't want him either, so what's the point?
On the other hand, candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle etc. are heavily backed and endorsed by the R's. They ARE supported by the party, and they're in tight races. Palin has campaigned for them. That's when the candidates records and stands on issues become important, and that's what those races have been all about. Both of those R candidates (and many others) are crackpots--no one has to sling "mud" at them, because the truth is what's hurting them. I haven't seen statements in either of those campaigns speaking negatively about their appearance, or singling them out on the basis of being female. The bottom line is that if you're a woman running for office, it's a two way thing. You should never have to deal with criticism based on the fact that you're female, but you can't expect ANYONE to gloss over your record on issues and cut you slack because of it either. It's time to put on some big girl panties (welcome to the world of equality) if you think that's the case.
Thanks for the national level articles on Al Greene but I live here so I think local press actually captured the issues better. The 'heavily touted Democratic candidate' was actually Rawl, not Al Greene. I don't believe my post said Al Greene was the 'heavily touted Democratic candidate'.
It may not have made sense to the national media or even the Dems but then go to the state newspapers and read the comments, they were quite revealing. Many people admitted to voting for Al Greene because he was 1)first on the ballot and 2)was not Rawl. Oh, and by the way, Carol Fowler is the SC DNC chair, not the opposing candidate.
Now, as far as seeing mud slinging just for a candidate being female - doubt you will hear that. However, there does seem to be an enormous amount of attention on the female candidates and liberal use of words like "idiot" and "crackpot" when describing them. Quite frankly, I think it just doesn't sit well with many people. Please point out other male candidates that get this same amount of attention and ridicule.
Of course, they only behave that way when it comes to conservative women.
And this coming from a tried and true democrat woman. We have dozens of examples of the Left and their women denigrating and demeaning conservative women.
You're right--I misread your "heavily touted," line, thinking you were referring to Green. I was wrong--I also got confused on the name. Rawl, the candidate, is married to Carol Fowler, the state DNC chair. I never said that there WAS vote tampering, or that there was any proof of it, but it really does look strange, and you do have to wonder. Normally being first on the ballot gives you a few percentage points--critical in a tight race. If it was an anti-Fowler statment, then so be it. It makes no sense, regardless of what happened, but as I said before, it doesn't really matter. DeMint would have been nearly impossible to beat. That's why the national press doesn't care.
As for the rest of it, and your theory that no one calls males crackpots--here's an easy one--Dan Maes, R Gubernatorial candidate in Colorado. Maes thinks the plan for a local bike path is a UN conspiracy:
Here's another: Arthur Robinson, R Senate Candidate in Oregon. He believes the AIDS crisis was manufactured by the government, and that sprinkling radio active waste on the ocean would be beneficial to all mankind:
I think the tea party has made being a kook candidate an equal opportunity position. The amazing part is that in some instances, the R's are trying to defend these people. Do you want me to start listing more?
One last point--the argument of another poster that the Democrats were viscous toward Al Green just proves my point. He's a kook too. No party should ever support a candidate just because he plays for their "team." If he doesn't belong in office, then he doesn't belong there, and that's what the Dems seem to be saying about someone running on their own ticket. I'm not sure how that can be turned into a bad thing.
EDIT--I forgot to add this. It would be profoundly stupid for DeMint to say much about Green, because it would just look like he was "piling on." It would be undignified--this guy has zero chance of winning, so DeMint doesn't have to say anything. If Green actually had party support (like many of the tea party candidates do for the R's) I think you'd be seeing a much different picture.
One last point--Maes isn't getting the national attention (and national ridicule) because he's so far down in the polls. I didn't bother to look up the polling results on Art Robinson. Christine O'Donnell was actually doing pretty well until the press presented info on her background--now she's just a joke vs. news, and not because of her gender--making your life's work an effort to abolish masturbation and the whole witchcraft thing is just...out there. Angle is still in a tight race, so she remains in the headlines. I'm a woman, and I really don't think this is a gender thing. If they were calling Angle a "b**ch" or a lesbian, or fat, or ugly, then we could talk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
