Good article on Salon (you'll need a "day pass" if you're not a member) today about the feminist and abortion rights activists who have been saying for a while now that John Roberts is a big problem. Bigger than some moderate, and tellingly mostly male, "liberals" were saying he is...until more of his past was brought to light.
It's also revealing about a divide that I'd like to think isn't as great as it probably is between those moderate males and the female women's rights advocates. Basically the fear, seemingly justified, is that these men would throw women's rights overboard if it means the difference in winning an election.
Is it true? I dunno, but I'm reminded that we already know Bill Clinton counseled Kerry to sell out gays in the last days of the 2004 campaign.
I don't want to turn this into a long post about abortion and my feelings on a woman's right to choose. Suffice it to say, I believe there are things we need to compromise about, but basic civil and human rights are not among them, and neither is Roe v. Wade. And I believe some people aren't necessarily as enlightened as they think they are, or as they want you to think they are, or both.
What profits a party if they gain the presidency but lose their soul? I want a democrat back in the White House, but more than that, I want a Democrat back in the white house.
I wonder where we could find one?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment