-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Political Hay
Republicans and Women’s Rights: A Brief Reality Check
The GOP’s longstanding “war on women” includes such horrors as giving them the vote.
When the Obama reelection staff began developing its general strategy for duping a majority of the electorate into once again supporting the President, they knew they needed to drive a lot of disenchanted female voters back into the Democrat herd. Thus, they concocted the fictional Republican “war on women.” And, knowing that our government education system has long since given up teaching history, Obama’s minions had little fear that the public would realize that the GOP’s support of women’s rights goes back to its founding in 1854. Nor were the President’s men worried that Democrat front groups like the National Organization for Women, much less the “news” media, would remind female voters that their very ability to cast a ballot was won for them by the Republicans over the vehement objections of the Democrats.
Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats — including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”
One of the most interesting battles in the long congressional war over women’s suffrage involved the Mormons of Utah. In 1870, nearly fifty years before Congress passed the 19th Amendment, the territory of Utah granted women the right to vote. This was encouraged by congressional opponents of polygamy, which was practiced by some wealthy Mormons. Their hope was that given the vote, Utah’s women would quickly put an end to “the abomination of bigamy.” And the women of Utah did indeed prove to have strong opinions regarding this issue. They voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. Congress responded by passing the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1882, which disfranchised Utah’s women while also violating the First Amendment by outlawing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and seizing much of its property.
Meanwhile, the Republicans continued to introduce the 19th Amendment in Congress every year, but the Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in various committees for another decade before allowing either chamber to vote on it. In 1887 it finally reached the floor of the Senate. Once again, however, it was defeated by a vote of 34 to 16. After this setback, advocates of women’s suffrage opted to put pressure on Congress by convincing various state legislatures to pass bills giving women the vote. This met with some success. By the turn of the century a variety of Republican-controlled states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, had granted women suffrage. During the first ten years of the new century, several other states gave women the vote, including Washington and California.
Congress, however, didn’t deign to vote on the issue again until 1914, when it was once again defeated by Senate Democrats. It was subsequently brought up for a vote in January of 1915 in the House, where it went down by a vote of 204 to 174. Nonetheless, the Republicans continued to push even after it was defeated yet again in early 1918. The big break for 19th Amendment came when President Wilson, a true Democrat, violated his most solemn campaign promise. Having pledged to keep the United States out of the European conflict that had been raging since 1914, he decided to enter the war anyway. This set the stage for the 1918 midterm elections in which voter outrage swept the Republicans into power in both the House and the Senate. This finally placed the GOP in a position to pass the amendment despite Democrat opposition.
During the following spring Rep. James R. Mann, a Republican from Illinois, reintroduced the 19th Amendment in the House and it finally passed by an overwhelming majority. Shortly thereafter a now Republican-controlled Senate also passed it, clearing the way for ratification by the states. By this point, President Wilson had also faced the reality that women would inevitably get the vote and abandoned his opposition. But the Democrats’ resistance was by no means dead. They did their level best to prevent the amendment from being ratified: “When the Amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were Democratic.” Many of these Democrat-controlled states refused to ratify the amendment until the 1970s.
Obviously, the Obama reelection staff is desperately hoping that most women voters don’t know this story and are counting on the “news” media and the unions that control our government education system to keep it from being told. They know that, if the voters hear the truth about the roles the two parties have truly played in women’s rights, all but a few Obamazombies will see the “war on women” as the red herring that it is. If that happens, they might be faced with the deadly prospect of discussing Obama’s abysmal record. And they know that almost certainly means they will lose on November 6.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (107) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/30/republicans-and-womens-rights
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Public Nuisances
- Consternated Conferences
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
oldfart| 4.30.12 @ 6:49AM
God forbid the facts get in the way of the 'agenda'!
Lets see – Wilson was a Democrat.
Wilson was also a strong advocate eugenics – the selective breeding of the human race.
This program favored the forced sterilization of poor black women in the South, Native Americans, and other people of 'low quality' so they would not be a 'burden' on a society of their betters. Check it out on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....ed_States.
Oh – it also included euthanasia for certain people of limited mental capability.
This is what Democrats favor.
People who are not aware of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Teaghan| 4.30.12 @ 9:15AM
This is what Sebelius favors and uses it under the guise of "women's rights". Just wait until the all powerful obama regime begins telling women how many kids they can have, or forces certain ones to be sterilized. The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left will begin.
USSAlabama| 4.30.12 @ 1:19PM
The following appeared this weekend on my facebook newsfeed:
Doug Yarbrough
Think about who you vote for in the fall. My Dad owned a franchise business 42 years ago when he passed away at a young age. The company asked my Mother was she going to sell the business or close it down. Women have come a long way in the last 40 years, mainly from Democrat legislation.
WGMOW| 4.30.12 @ 10:36PM
Women have gone nowhere thanks to the Democraps. In the Victorian age they went from the care and the control of their fathers into the care and control of their husbands. Now they go from the lack of care of their single unwed mothers into the care and control of Big Daddy Gubment.
Alan Brooks| 4.30.12 @ 1:33PM
"Wilson was also a strong advocate eugenics – the selective breeding of the human race.
This program favored the forced sterilization of poor black women in the South, Native Americans, and other people of 'low quality'"
Wilson was a Southerner.. back then his views were Southern currency.
oldfart| 4.30.12 @ 8:32PM
And the 'old' South was what Party?
Slam - Dunk
yappy1953| 5.8.12 @ 12:51PM
This is just ridiculous.
To defend the current radical right Republicans by using what happened in the past, fails on the simple tenet those "pro women" politicians would not be welcomed by todays tea party Republicans.
I had respect for Spectator but this weakens credibility.
Appleby| 4.30.12 @ 7:03AM
If you can somehow get history into an App and convince TheKids that all the Cool Kids already have this App, perhaps you'll have a chance to get your message to them. My younger sisters are in their fifties and completely unaware of any of this. They believe women have always had the vote and all other rights that men have.
TexasMom2012| 4.30.12 @ 7:52AM
Really? Do they know who Susan B. Anthony was? I find your statement that your sisters believe women have always had the vote unbelievable! I always found it astounding that former slaves were given the vote over half a century before women! Wasn't aware however that Republicans were responsible for both and civil rights legislation as well!
TLP| 4.30.12 @ 5:36PM
Somebody help me out.
What is it that women want, that they don't already have?
They can Whore around the town, all night, every night. They outnumber Men at College. They are some of the most Powerful CEOs in the Country. They can MURDER their Unborn Children every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. And they can do it right up to the day it's Born, via the TILLER THE KILLER Method.
WTF do these Sluts want from us?
JP| 4.30.12 @ 7:27AM
Women's sufferage was one of the Progressive goals of the early 20th Century. Along with temperance, centralzied education, the federal income tax, the federal reserve bank, and direct elections of Senators, the right for women to vote was cutting edge political stuff.
What is interesting is that Progressives accomplished almost everyone of thier goals during the 20th Century. And we should remember that at least intially, the GOP was the hom for Progressives.
Dan| 4.30.12 @ 8:58AM
A litany of disaster.
We have a Senate made up of Schumers and Lugars, we've a federal government taking so much we're on the verge of becoming an unfree economy, the Federal Reserve is slowly erasing American sovereignty, and the women have propped up the failed party of the Klan.
It's a disaster.
An utter disaster.
darcy| 4.30.12 @ 11:23AM
Yes, it is a disaster, and universal suffrage is largely to blame, it being a tool of progressives to undo America.
And frankly, the Civil Rights Act -- especially Title VII -- should be studied with a view to repealing much of it. Saying that Republicans are responsible for its passage, during LBJ's administration no less, is not anything to cheer about. Seriously, people, where is conservatism? Does it even exist anymore?
No wonder we're heading into the iceberg; the whole country has been brainwashed and everyone trying to pat himself on the back for his 'liberal' views about humanity, society, and government. It's nauseating.
Derek Leaberry| 4.30.12 @ 1:30PM
The Republican Party in the mid-60s was dominated by liberal Republicans- Hugh Scott, Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, Kenneth Keating, Charles Goodell, George Aiken, Leverett Saltonstall, Margaret Chase Smith, John Williams, Thomas Kuchel, John Sherman Cooper, Thruston Ballard Morton, Hiram Fong, and, of course, Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney.
darcy| 4.30.12 @ 2:59PM
And so now we have John McCain, Richard Lugar, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, the Maine sisters, well, you get my drift. Even Boehner and Cantor are not conservatives, but are rather creatures of the establishment. And let's not forget the Bushes. Even as we write, the establishment continues its knee-capping of Tea Party-types elected to office.
But I do appreciate your point. Question: When have we ever had, not including Pres. Reagan, real conservative leadership in the Republican Party? And if we have, what did it look like? And if we haven't, then what would it look like if we did?
And how do we ever get there?
GKPAL| 4.30.12 @ 7:50AM
The facts are stubborn things to argue against, but since when did democrats care about the facts anyway? They never do. They forget that it were democrats who fought against the Civil Rights Act as recently as 1965 and it was passed only with Republican support. Al Gore's father voted against it.
TexasMom2012| 4.30.12 @ 7:54AM
Heh, unfortunately here is the south we are still subject to abuse resulting from Reconstruction AKA voting rights act still enforced decades after needed. Our redistributing remains under judicial review...
Dr. X| 4.30.12 @ 7:52AM
Yes, the Republicans supported suffrage. (After the Sandra Fluke episode, I'm not entirely sure that was a good idea).
Republicans also prosecuted the Civil War against slaveowning Democrats, and passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments on behalf of blacks.
And today they are labeled "racist."
The problem with a democracy is that propaganda and demagoguery trump rational thought and facts every time.
Louis Jenkins| 4.30.12 @ 8:10AM
Just remember, the winners write the history books. Unfortuantely, the democrats have been the winners in most of the politics for the last 50 years or so. They've had ample time to re-write history to suit their need.
Derek Leaberry| 4.30.12 @ 10:10AM
Yes, there was a time when the Republicans were to the left of the Democratic Party. The Populist Movement, the great wave of immigration from 1870-1914, Woodrow Wilson and FDR moved the Democrats to the left of the Republicans over a fifty year period.
Surly Curmudgen| 4.30.12 @ 3:30PM
The political left has always been about reducing personal rights and liberty. Examine world history and look specifically for this and you will find this to be accurate. Ending slavery and extending the vote to woman increases personal rights and liberty. The Republican party was never to the left of the Democrats.
What is very frustrating both parties belong to the right of center, the Democrats slightly to the right of center and the Republicans considerably further.
Instead we have the Democrat party in a full gallop in the last ten yards for the cliff with their cheering section, the media, screaming them on. The Republican party is only five yards back running hard and afraid they won't be going over the cliff with the Democrats.
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 11:03AM
The 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster just passed where a suffragist rowed away to safety enjoying chivalrous preference along with "women and children" and then later, suffragists continued to claim that women were oppressed by sexism and entitled to preferential treatment.
So in other words, not much has really changed. Sandra Fluke and other feminists want special privileges, at best, and to dehumanize men and treat children as chattel at worst.
What puts many women firmly into the Democrat's camp is the welfare and special interest group system that the Democrats sell. The primary electorate of the republican party: married, white heterosexual men do not have any mainstream groups making demands for special privileges. There is no "La Raza" for Obama to appear in front of to appeal to white male voters for him to mention taxpayer funded bribes in the form of special privileges and hiring quotas.
What makes women rather unique among the Democrat special interest groups is that many of them want to marry and be supported by Republican men. I know a number of Republican breadwinning men who married Democrat voting career women and didn't put their foot down.
Derek Leaberry| 4.30.12 @ 8:22AM
I didn't know that giving women the vote was a conservative issue. Due to the socialistic tendencies of women, the 19th Amendment was a big mistake.
DTOM!| 4.30.12 @ 8:39AM
Remember when Al Gore gave Tipper that big kiss at the 2000 convention? My wife, to her credit, turned to me and said, "If that gets the women's vote, please take it away from us - we don't deserve it!"
Lucky me!
Dan| 4.30.12 @ 9:00AM
No. They don't deserve it. And that's the honest-to-God-no-shit-assessment. And they're not the only ones...........
It's at times like these that Conservatives have to remind themselves of the judgement of Churchill about democracy and republican governance, that is that it's the worse, but for all other alternatives.
darcy| 4.30.12 @ 11:25AM
Amen, Derek!
Jack London| 4.30.12 @ 8:54AM
Yes - and those damn Democrats are still agitating to limit women's reproductive rights, cut health care access for poor women, and to oppose equal pay. You Republicans really ought to revitalize your fabulous legacy and end this Democratic war on women.
Harry the Horrible| 4.30.12 @ 9:20AM
"Reproductive rights" doesn't include infanticide. "Health Care Access" seems to mean tapping other people's wallets. "Equal Pay" is for the market to decide.
What is it you "Progressives" have for murder, theft, and fascism?
KyMouse| 4.30.12 @ 11:03AM
At least half of the unborn babies who are butchered by abortion are female. By insisting that unborn babies have the right to be born, Republicans are the advocates for those female babies. Democrats are not.
Sex-selection abortion is a problem not only in Asian countries such as China and India, but also here in America, but Democrats are almost always silent about it. They stand by while millions of female babies are butchered simply because they would grow up to be women.
A June 2009 New York Times article cited several studies showing that Americans of Chinese, Indian and Korean descent retain a preference for sons -- and sometimes choose abortion because of it. Right to Life groups, almost all of whom are against Obama and his Democrats, speak out against sex-selection abortion.
People who are truly for women's rights should advocate for the rights for even the very youngest female human beings -- babies in the womb.
After all, if those "baby women" can't have the right to live, they can't have any other rights, either.
The Republican Party believes that female babies are every bit as human, and as deserving of care and nurturing, as male babies.
And pregnancy-resource centers and maternity homes -- places which give babies and mothers all kinds of help -- are staffed and supported by pro-life people, most of whom side with the Republican viewpoint on life issues.
Frank Natoli| 4.30.12 @ 2:19PM
Reproductive rights? Isn't it astonishing that a process that nature has been perfecting for a million years reliably results in pregnancy and a healthy child? One would think reproduction is working fairly well, except of course that the phrase today is a euphemism for converting reproduction into medical waste.
As for health access for poor women, Medicaid is the largest single piece of any state's budget. But apparently not enough for some.
As for equal pay, when you control all other factors, women do better than men. A female physicist with a PhD gets hired sooner and paid better than her male "equivalent". Ditto in every apples-for-apples comparison. But why let facts get in the way?
Dan| 4.30.12 @ 8:55AM
Giving them the vote was obviously a mistake, for which we've all paid. The United States is up against the wall, and all because women were given the vote. The Democrats would long ago been marginalized but for women.
Teaghan| 4.30.12 @ 9:20AM
I don't believe what I'm reading here! I hope to God you men are joking. I'm 59 yrs old and have NEVER voted democrat and I resent your remarks. Perhaps you need to move to a Egypt where women are about to loose their personhood status.
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 11:07AM
Teaghan, thanks to Democrats we're all losing our "personhood status" as the Democrats define rates based upon special interest group membership and crony politics. If you're just a lone citizen and don't have a brother-in-law working in government to watch your back, you're prey. Even women and other Democrat special interest group members mean nothing to Democrats if there is no immediate political interest in protecting them. They eventually take womens' votes for granted just as they took working class white male votes for granted.
One of the biggest growing constituencies of the left is the radical Islam voting bloc. Women voters set that up.
Paul Windels| 4.30.12 @ 9:35AM
Thank you Mr. Catron for a well-researched and documented study and a presentation based on cold, hard facts. I hope you will have the time to help dissipate some of the similar myths that shroud the history of civil rights in this country, including the imposition of Jim Crow laws in DC and the removal of African-Americans from combat roles in the military. Thanks again!
Bill| 4.30.12 @ 10:36AM
Romney should pick Sen. Kelly Ayotte for his VP nominee:
1. She can unify the women votes
2. She is articulate and charismatic figure
3. She was endorsed by Sarah Palin when she ran for her senate seat in 2010
4. She was a "tough" AG, who sough death penalty for murder cases
5. She is a Catholic with Irish decent, only 42
6. She has a brief legislative experience being a freshman senator from liberal stronghold New England
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 11:55AM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Billy the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
"[Miami] is infested by millions of uneducated Cubans and Haitian whores."
- Written by Billy the Bigot, in the Rubio's Nuanced Neoconcervatism thread:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....ent_805157
You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Billy from Florida.
GO AWAY!
Bill| 4.30.12 @ 1:31PM
NICKY THE WHORE, listen to me. You're a kid and contributed nothing in this political blog because you are a moron. Anyway, just leave me alone. Nicky is a fucking whore.
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 2:16PM
I will never leave you alone, Billy the Bigot from Florida.
Never. You RACIST PIG.
You, and all of your tranny friends, just GO AWAY and listen to Laddy GagGag, will ya'?
Bill| 4.30.12 @ 2:47PM
NICK IS A RACIST PIG FUCKING MORON WHORE LIBERAL FAG. GO AWAY, GO BACK TO HELL, NICKY THE BIGOT LIAR.
Oh, yeah, Lady Gaga is my wife. What's your problem, yo fag NICKY?
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 3:15PM
Aren't you capable of telling the truth, Billy the Bigot? What a sad, little man you truly are.
If you can't live with your racist rants, GO AWAY!
Oh, yeah, Laddy GagGag......she's a man, baby!
John| 4.30.12 @ 5:59PM
Stupid, Nicky, Lady Gaga is a lady.
You, Nick, is a liberal moron whore racist pig.
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 6:30PM
No, he/she isn't.
Johnny Bill the Bigot....you're love with a man, baby!
John| 4.30.12 @ 7:00PM
No, she is, you stupid Nicky.
I'm in love with a $170 million dollar Lady Gaga. You're just jeaoulus.
Nicky the racist pig , go away!
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 7:07PM
You're a PERVERT, Johnny Bill the Bigot.
Laddy GagGag.....She's a man, baby!
WillyP | 5.1.12 @ 5:49PM
You too sound like a couple of 4 year olds arguing about nothing.
Pelleas| 4.30.12 @ 10:38AM
What the author of this article ..and all the posters who constantly "quote" the reactionary actions of a Democratic Party of 100 years ago-- or even 50 years ago fail to realize, or note is-- THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW..
While the Republican Party of 100 years ago MIGHT HAVE advocated Women's sufferage-- just based on their CURRENT reactionary policies--it SEEMS unlikely that if it were to come up for a vote in 2012, the elephants would support it.
While there might have been a number of racist and reacctionary members of the Democratic Party in the past ( and some still today)-- using that past negative history to color what is occuring in the here and now is--rather DISINGENIOUS , to say the least-- and a travesty of "selective memory"
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 11:33AM
The Democratic party is as racist as it's ever been but just switched their targets around and now target the very working class whites they used to claim they sought to protect during the FDR era.
In other words, they're not just racist but also amoral opportunists. They're like George Soros. When a white on black violent incident occurs, they pack the busses full of "civil rights" marchers. When a dozen black on white violent incidents occur, no news coverage.
Democrats are scumbags.
Pelleas| 4.30.12 @ 11:44AM
"Democrats are scumbags."
Brilliant political analysis..as usual, you dinosaur reactionaries sure do have a sophisticated and witty way with words--NOT!
SINCE YOU CHOOSE-- or are only able TO 'dialogue" on that pre-teen mindset level--ok.."" REPUGLICANS --ESPECIALLY TEA-BAGGERS-- ARE -- PIGS"
"happy", now?
Drunken Sailor| 4.30.12 @ 12:34PM
Pre-teen mindset? And yet the very sentence before that you used the very sophisticated and mature line of
"Brilliant political analysis..as usual, you dinosaur reactionaries sure do have a sophisticated and witty way with words--NOT!"
Yep, the mature, sophisticated use of NOT after a statement. You really zinged him with that one didn't you?
Pelleas| 4.30.12 @ 12:59PM
I had no intention of "zinging" a fool who yells out ad-hominem childish insults , such as "scum-bag", without any further intelligent comment
..it's just "tit for tat"
The "not" was added, as I very much doubt the drooler whom I was responding to has much, if any notions of sarcasm, nu?
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 5:03PM
Indeed, Pelleas, leftism is all about finding an excuse for bad behavior on their part by the "tit for tat" or "leveling the playing field" and then crying like a baby for hours about how "unfair" the right is when they win. Yep, the right is so "unfair" and wins all the time out of trickery and evil even as they're supposedly stupid and reactionary. Poor Obama and his super geniuses won't be able to get gasoline under 9 bucks a gallon by the end of the summer and will blame the evil oil companies for the failure of magical tree-hugging solar power while him and his buddies fly around in private jets bashing "the rich".
Good luck with that narrative.
It's appropriate you claim to work at a museum because even as you called me a dinosaur, isn't the NYC leftist elite itself a kind of living fossil of 19th century enlightenment European culture that is increasingly isolated and non-existent outside of your safety zones? The modern OWS generation doesn't even read newspapers but rather twitters in single sentences about what they ate for breakfast (I remember when I was young and we thought it was cool to also send sentences around the world. It was called ham radio.)
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 1:22PM
I didn't use the term scumbag loosely but rather supported it with logic and observation. In addition, the term was descriptive without being unnecessarily sophomoric (for example, "repuglicans" means Republicans are ugly! Haha! And teabaggers means they're gay! Haha!)
In both cases, your responses help to prove my point. Democrats regularly engage in racist behavior while projecting it onto their opponents ("The Wise Latina" lectures about racism) and calling someone a teabagger while criticizing homophobic slurs is also sublime doublespeak hypocrisy. And continuously fretting about their enemies and opponents which is "reactionary" rather than having an actual, realistic "progressive" agenda (more on this later.)
Indeed, leftists are the experts at moral equivalency and justifying their own bad behavior. When I wrote "scumbag", I meant it in this case and nothing more:
2) a mean, despicable person.
(Although the 1st definition is actually a condom which I did not know. Thanks for making me look it up!)
I'm honestly puzzled at the the mind of a typical leftist who is driven by claims of wanting to embrace science and progressivism via importing an electorate of third worlder illiterates, advancing women's rights while embracing radical Islam as another electorate, and helping the working man while wonkishly aspiring to be privileged government bureaucrat. It seems to me to be a kind of cult where different members either join out of fear or adulation of the power of big government or cynical opportunism (such as collaborators such as George Soros.) One can understand why racist welfare recipients, corrupt government union bosses and bureaucrats are leftists but it's a mystery why otherwise normal people would bother. My best guess is that they didn't grow out of high school and still crave to be at the "popular" table. They're "mean girl" wannabes.
In the end, rather than being elites they instead wind up as pathetic cheerleaders or dupes. And yes, scumbags.
Deal with it. Word of advice: Get a girlfriend, have a family, and maybe make something of your life and then you won't need to "teabag" for Obama, to so speak, anymore. That's why people age out of leftism from their youth: they grow up and have better things to do.
cheers.
Pelleas| 4.30.12 @ 1:30PM
"Get a girlfriend, have a family, and maybe make something of your life"
Well...I'm Gay...been in a long -term relationship for the past 30 years.. have no interest what so ever in raising a "family"... and am a department head at a major world-class Museum...
And... an un-apologetic Leftist...
I actually have little time for "better things to do"
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 1:50PM
Yet... here you are Pelleas. So something is fishy, so to speak, isn't it? If you're telling the truth (which I doubt), being an "unapologetic leftist" as a gay government or academic museum director is a no-brainer. It's like apologizing for being a Christian in church.
But, as I said, I highly doubt your story. Leftists regularly lie not only about their ideology (which is convoluted to say the least) but also about facts.
Note what I said about the way leftists have turned around their position on pandering to southern working class white males and thrown these men under the bus. When Islam takes over much of Europe and eventually the USA, gays will long for the good-ol-days of the 1950's compared to how they'll be treated by the Democrat elites. Tee hee! (This is assuming you're even gay as you claim. If you're just a straight "het" claiming to be a gay museum director with a 30 year relationship, then that's really pathetic.)
Pelleas| 4.30.12 @ 2:41PM
ROFLMAO....
THE RIGHT-WING ANSWER/ RESPONSE TO ...E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G THEY DON'T AGREE WITH/ DISAPPROVE OF IS TO SAY
"I DON'T BELIEVE YOU"
It would be tragic that a group of people could be so simple-minded and down right mean-spirited , provincial and hate-filled-- If-- it weren't so down-right hilarious
And-- you wonder why I call you people --STUPID?
Pelleas| 4.30.12 @ 2:43PM
BTW... C'MON upto The Metropolitan Museum of Art, anytime ya like--- lunch is on me....
rotflmao
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 4:49PM
That makes two of us laughing, Pelleas. I'm doubting your claims because I'm "hate filled" and your standard, smug, knee-jerk rant isn't reactionary?
Yeah, sure you'll be waiting at the MMOA to buy me lunch but I don't think the attendants who guard the paintings are allowed to take unscheduled breaks, are they? :-)
Regarding simpletons: Most Democrat voters aren't elites, either self-proclaimed or otherwise, but rather racist and homophobic immigrants from third world nations (as I said above.) Just be sure you get off at the right subway stop if you know what's good for ya (or take a limo.)
Dr. X| 4.30.12 @ 7:39PM
You're gay, so you're a freak of nature. (Study the science of biology sometime). You have no interest in a family. You work at a museum funded by taxpayer dollars and grant money from foundations generated by normal people actually WORKING and producing things of VALUE.
Thus, you're an "unapologetic leftist" because you produce nothing and contribute nothing. You're a self-indulgent narcissist interested only in getting the government to shake down working people so that you and your useless, non-productive, unnatural lifestyle can be supported by the tax dollars of others. You're a con man, a thief, and a criminal. And you know it.
People like you are why this country is finished.
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 8:08PM
Pelleas,
Well, then, you must be so proud of one your fellow traverlers, Dan Savage, huh?
Just watch the, um, tolerance exude from this lefty, anti-Christian twit:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog.....-the-bible
PolishKnight| 5.1.12 @ 10:07AM
Dr X. I doubt his claims of being a department head of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In internet debates over two decades, I have observed leftists making grandiose claims about themselves and later being revealed as total frauds because, after all, why would a legitimate VIP be on internet chat forums engaging in sophomoric rants? Shouldn't he be over at The New Yorker?
He's probably some secretary with a lot of free time on his hands or just some kid in his parent's basement playing gay dungeons and dragons or whatever they do.
Surly Curmudgen| 4.30.12 @ 3:42PM
The Liberal/progressive world is a world where to lie, cheat, steal even murder to advance their agenda, is laudable behavior.
LIBERALPARASITES| 4.30.12 @ 10:43AM
Why did man give -women- the right to vote, this was the beginning of -Liberalism- and the start of our decline as a great nation...
LMajito| 4.30.12 @ 11:27AM
well unfortunately what happen about a century ago, does not matter today...
fact is that the democratic party has done a marvelous job of presenting themselves as the party for the fringes while labeling the republicans as the party of the klan, greed, crooked so-called christian televangelism and all the negativity that goes with that.
after 8 years of bush allowing himself and the rnc to be painted as heartless cash lusting inhuman beings, it's kind of hard to come back now and cry...
and i surely wish that the whinning and bellyaching will stop...let the left be left and win the argument with ideas and deeds not complaining and playing the victim...
the fact that you have 50 year old women that had no sense of US history is an indictment of the obscene ignorance of the society and that did not happen after the 60's (if the Appleby's clueless sisters account is true)...
the vast majority of the us citizenry is ignorant about their history and that is why the country keep on repeating its mistakes...they all want the crooked preacher to pray their ills away, the crooked banker to keep their money safe and the crooked politician to pass laws that will not allow any bad thing to happen...
Elizabeth| 4.30.12 @ 11:56AM
What few people are not willing to look at is not so much that women's right's are not a Republican or a Democratic issue, but rather regional. It seems who ever tends to control the voting block of southern states is the party that tends to vote against women having the right to vote, people being protected under the Civil Right Act and so on. It was the Democratic controlled South that was against women having the right to vote and blacks being able to go to school with whites and not be segregated. When Reagan courted the evangelical voting block, especially with Reagan's pro-life stance, so did the South switch from Dixie-crat to Republican.
Vincent| 4.30.12 @ 11:59AM
Saying that women don't have the right to vote, or that giving women the vote has created problems, is not the way to go. All people have a right to vote. What has to change is the way campaigns and politics deal with the change in the voter base. You have a "rationally thinking" male vote and an "emotionally thinking" female vote: if you can't formulate and argue an agenda that caters adequately to both kinds of thinking, then you're in the wrong business. It could be said that the Democrats have taken advantage of the "emotional thinking" of women and minorities, and emotions are hard obstacles to campaign against, but there are plenty of women and minorities who think more rationally about issues than emotionally. The Democrats tend to ostracize those; the Republicans need to embrace them more. The Democrats play the emotional game expertly — two can play at that game. How the liberal agenda is likely to harm this country for years to come should appeal to the emotional side, especially to women whose kids are going to pay down the line for today's transgressions. Republicans need to appeal to that side of the argument in order to connect, and call out the other side for their blatant disregard for common sense.
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 4.30.12 @ 1:07PM
“All people have a right to vote.”
Saying that all people have the right to vote ignores the problem of people voting for “free” stuff when they do not have to worry about paying for it. Someone who does not earn enough (over 50% of the population) to pay federal income tax has no problems with favoring, and voting for those politicians who favor, “free” stuff (99 weeks of unemployment, “free” healthcare, welfare for the able-bodied, (coming soon to a college near you) Free Education, health care coverage for 26 year old “children”, etc. etc., and sadly etc.).
How about if we change the rules and only allow those who actually are “net” taxpayers the right to vote? Originally, in our country, only those who owned land had the right to vote. I would not go back that far but I would favor “net” taxpayers being the new standard. A “Net” taxpayer is one whose income is not provided by the government and actually pays taxes. This would prevent the military, firemen, policemen and teachers (to name a few) from voting. They have a built-in bias for voting for freebies. A member of the police force (for example) could have no problem with raising everyone’s taxes (or borrowing more money) a little so he could collect more in wages. That would be a winner for him since he would not have to pay (the increase in taxes would be covered many times over by the increase in wages).
I know it sounds harsh and I am sure many can come up with examples of members of the police, fire, military and education whose votes’ conservatives would miss, but that does not change any of my arguments. You have to have some skin in the game before you can influence the outcomes.
Heck, I would be willing to entertain arguments for a system where everyone who paid taxes to various levels of governments gets one vote for every thousand dollars (or fraction thereof) they paid to that level. If the property tax on your house is two thousand, five hundred dollars then you get three votes for the city council who decides how to spend your tax dollars. If you are a 26 year old who lives in you parent’s basement you do not get a vote.
Let the insults begin!
LMajito| 4.30.12 @ 1:26PM
you need to define 'net taxes' prm...does the guy who stops at a gas station and purchases gas and soda, does he pay taxes?...how about the woman who buys a car, does she pay taxes?...the money they gave have portions of it targeted for the federal coffers...
if just paying taxes is the 'new standard' do you mean income federal taxes? if that's so, then you must re-write the whole code because an awful lot of big $$ folks do not pay taxes because of their tax planning strategies...so are these folks prevented from voting as well?
now on the 26 y/o who lives with mom/pops...in the culture i grew up (and many in this country) children live at home until they marry.
i know many gulf war veterans that still have some of their children in their mid 20's living at home with them and are very grateful that they can still buy the health insurance for their kids with their service related retirement health plans...
painting any 26 y/o that still lives with his/her parents as some type of parasite is way off...many families have different arrangements and not everyone who have children living them after their 18th birthday is because the kids are meth addicts and like to live in moms trailer park eating chips during the day and hitting the pipe at night.
not only are you harsh, but have not idea of what's transpiring across this land...
and folks like me, veterans all, who fought in armed conflicts we did it to save the rights of all the citizens...not the privileged few...
and if my job was outsourced because companies you sponsored in your 401k took the factory, used my then taxes to pay for their relocation and now are bringing cheap oriental trinkets, just so your can enjoy the 9 or ten cents per share dividend, am unemployed for more than a week, tough daddio...you get your dividend your way and i do my way...
so be both can play the blame game...you greedeness caused my current financial situation...so pay up, man up and quit whining...
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 2:05PM
"All people have a right to vote."
What about children, resident legal aliens, convicted murderers in prison or even for that matter people in other countries? Why not just give an absentee mail-in ballot to all people in the world? Certainly, Obama would win THAT election!
gary siebel| 4.30.12 @ 12:17PM
LOL Next you will be telling us how advanced the Repubs are because Lincoln freed the slaves....
If your wife, or any woman, for that matter, is using birth control she is a ho -- it's as simple as that -- Rush the drug addict even confirmed it.
Nick| 4.30.12 @ 12:34PM
Are you still on the Sandy the Slut meme, Gary? That is over.
Didn't you hear how O'Bama, through his paid consultant, Shrillary Rosen, said that mothers, who raise their children, don't work?
O'Bama is waging a War on Moms!
Simon Templar| 4.30.12 @ 12:34PM
Go way troll. You are a programmed useful idiot, skip back to the Huff and Puff.
Drunken Sailor| 4.30.12 @ 12:38PM
Huh, and here I thought they were making a women's health choice by paying for it themselves. .
Frank Natoli| 4.30.12 @ 2:10PM
Lincoln may have issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but it took the lives of 650,000 Americans, in a country with less than one tenth the population it has today, to enforce the order.
Then again, shortly after Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln took a Union Navy warship down the Potomac, up the James, and drove his own wagon through the streets of Richmond. Former slaves surrounded him, calling him "Moses". And they overwhelmingly voted Republican until FDR in the 1930s, when guess what change happened in Washington [hint, it wasn't civil rights].
Simon Templar| 4.30.12 @ 12:33PM
A few of you in this thread seem to misunderstand the history of conservatism and the Republican party history relative to the philosophy of small government, constitutionality, and liberty.
Some of you may have been even shocked to learn that not only women's rights, the rights of blacks, and the emphasis on conservation and environmentalism actually were Republican efforts. The reason for this is many of us have bought the propaganda the modern Left has now pumped out for nearly a century about the GOP and conservatism. We have even accepted their definitions of liberalism and conservatism let alone a completely fabricated historical record and memory. This historical revision was done for a reason.
The overall misunderstanding seems to be in the idea that these "liberal" actions and politics do not seem in keeping with our traditions as conservatives.
The actually, in fact, are and on deeper thought should not surprise anyone.
These "liberal" actions were in direct agreement and support of our deep value for freedom, liberty and the dignity of the individual over the state and our commitment to seriously taking our constitution as the law of the land and the foundation of our Republic. Taking this into consideration, it should not surprise you that Wilson would be in disfavor of women's rights to vote and in favor of segregation as he had contempt for the constitution and its limits on state power. Remember the Sedition Act he passed? His segregation of the Army and the federal government is another example. Let us not forget what LBJ said about the Great Society welfare programs relative to Blacks that these "N's" would be eating out of "our' hands and voting democratic for the next one hundred years! Dependency on the state has always been a hallmark of the so-called progressive Democrats who in actuality have demonstrated time and time again that this progressive is in fact not progress but state dependency and all powerful centralized control.
Thus the resistance to anything truly empowering the individual over the state. Gun control? Welfare? Free abortion? Group and identity politics over individual, self empowerment and individual responsibility. PC and speech control over freedom of expression and freedom of worship?
If you think this is now and that is then, take a closer look. The democrats were color aware in 1863, not color blind, as they were in 1963, just from a different angle but the same overall objective- dependency and control. What did they offer their new constituency? Jobs, education, employment opportunity? No. A gigantic welfare state- a welfare check and a chit for an abortion.
Yes, let us not forget what the progressives offered up in the name of equality, fairness, justice. Yes, the right of women to objectify themselves, have slut walks, be sexually irresponsible, insult and bash men with impunity, garner greater rights than men in family matters, custody of children, and procreation itself. Ah, but we all thought this was about fairness, equality, and justice!
Those liberal democratic regulations on business for the common good. Tried to start a small business lately? Oh, but there for the little guy, remember?
Ah yes, the screams, protest, and temper tantrums about the lack of free speech, expression, and belief in this country! Particularly in those 1950's!!!!!
Apparently saying the word illegal in reference to a person who is in the US illegally is now racist!
It is the same party of 1863 with just another game and racket but with the same overall aims but now using European leftist rhetoric and political world views to divide, oppress, control, and protect the interest of the elite that knows better than all of us rubes down here on the plantations. We gotta help dem poor unwashed ignorant and take care of our new "Negroes." They need a guiding hand, a fatherly oversight, ya know? Class warfare, anyone? Gender Wars?
Racism as we call it and use it for our aims of division and control.
Consider what I have written, think about it...
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 1:37PM
Something that amuses me about their left is that underneath their dishonesty, self-importance, and hypocrisy there's another trait that's their greatest vulnerability: their arrogant naivety.
It never occurs to the typical snot nosed leftist on a college campus that the left could betray them just as they did working class white men. There's only so many of those choice, comfy bureaucrat "no show" jobs available and they go to cronies like roommates of Al Gore's cousin or Obama's Solyndra contact. So at graduation time when they send out their resume for "environmental engineer" to thousands of companies and government jobs, they get back letters saying that it's time to apply for a job at starbucks. So they go on a OWS protest and spend their parents' money to sit around listening to their IPOD and gripe about the evils of "capitalism" when the reality is that their socialist friends didn't want to hire them.
Under Uncle Joe, they had a simple solution for all that excess labor: Put them on the farms or send them to a gulag. Some vacancies were created when the regular purges kicked in and the wrong cousin offended the wrong guy and all of his buddies lost their jobs (Blagojavich's friends probably lost many of their no show jobs.)
In the end, the typical democrat isn't an elite but rather a loser and an amoral loser at that.
Simon Templar| 4.30.12 @ 2:07PM
Excellent points, PK.
Yes, the typical liberal democrat actually has a name...useful idiot. His master and leadership is called a statist and these statist are very clever.
PolishKnight| 4.30.12 @ 2:21PM
If Pelleas is what he claims (a gay, affluent leftist with a government/academic position), then the latest Democrat special interest group (Islam) will surely eventually have their own "wise Latina" declare that he's a privileged oppressor and toss him under the bus too.
So even the statists sometimes aren't as "clever" as they think.
On the history channel, they featured a deluxe hi-rise where Josef Stalin had a back door put in every apartment with a separate lift for the KGB to come in the middle of the night to haul people away without being seen by their neighbors. So even the statists like a very precarious existence.
I just read on Foxnews that the EPA administrator who bragged about liking to "crucify" people just got sacked.
Frank Natoli| 4.30.12 @ 2:05PM
Sometime during WW2, an American in Moscow, I forget whether military or state, reported back to Washington that it was impossible to reason with the Soviets, that there was no concept of "good will" with them, that nothing in the past that you did for them ever mattered, all that mattered was what would you do for them right now.
Catron did a first class job of recalling the past for the presumed benefit of present day Soviets, which includes most women, almost all blacks, and for that matter every registered Democrat.
Catron didn't mention abortion, but that is without a doubt the sine qua non issue with Democrat women, pardon my redundancy. It doesn't matter that 1.3 million American women each year kill 1.3 million young Americans, twice the number KIA in the entire blood drenched 20th century. Abortion matters, and Republicans have the "wrong" attitude in that regard.
What about nationalized child care? If a "mother" wants to work, why should it be her responsibility and her responsibility alone to care for her children? On this, Republicans again have the "wrong" attitude.
If you think the Ann Romney, stay at home mom, "never worked a day in her life" episode was on the balance a negative for Democrats, think again. In the days and weeks following the event, which of course started with the WTF Stephanopoulos contraceptive interrogation of the Republican debate participants, multiple op-eds in nationally prominent newspapers "confirmed" that Ann Romney never did work a day in her life. This is yet another issue where Republicans have the "wrong" attitude.
Get real. Once upon a time, it wasn't necessary to define "family" as the union of a man, a woman, and the children the two of them created. The children depended solely on their parents, and yes, the wife/mother depended on the husband/father. Plagiarizing Margaret Mitchell, that is all "Gone With The Wind".
Simon Templar| 4.30.12 @ 2:21PM
Everyone of those initiatives you have described are intended to destroy the family, the concept of family, and the concept of it is as the primary social unit, as it is the most threatening social element to the state's supreme power and the aims of socialism.
If anyone has any doubt about this look up the current and past left wing socialistic and communistic literature on the subject of the family unit. These ideas have been around a long time and can even be found in literature, such as in Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, who borrowed these anti-family ideas and others from the philosophy and political literature of socialist writers of his time.
Frank Natoli| 4.30.12 @ 9:25PM
But it's not only screeching leftist Pelosi-types who think, talk and vote this way. Both the Bush wives, Barbara and Laura, were unapologetically pro-abortion. For tens of thousands of years, they were the givers of life, who civilized the murdering instinct in men. In a few generations, the entire relationship has flipped.
EqualTime| 4.30.12 @ 3:12PM
Really? This is how the GOP will counter the 2012 policies reducing women's rights and in some cases requiring their bodies to be physically invaded? That reminding women that 90 years before the GOP was taken over by a conservative Taliban, they made some sense? This is the type of nonsense that led today's GOP down that road in the first place. Good luck with all that.
Wade Smith| 4.30.12 @ 8:33PM
Which right? The right to kill another human being?
cicero| 4.30.12 @ 4:23PM
You go too far back in history when trying to analyse the Dem/Rep issue. Over the past 160 years,or so, the Repubs went from being the anti-slavery party to the party of the conservative business class, while the Dems went from the party of slavery to the party representing the workers' rights against the employers. All of that changed in 1972, when the Dems became the coalition party of all of the minority fringe groups, while the Repubs began their journey to being the party of the newly emerging conservative movement. This is truly a new political world. It is now a battle between the various dependant groups against the workers and employers. It is a whole new world. The republican Conservative Party had better understand the new rules of engagement, and act accordingly. If they think that they can enter the fight under the old rules, they are sadly mistaken. The new Democratic party fights rough and tumble, with truth having little to do with any engagement. It is "whatever will sell" that counts. The Republicans will not have the luxury of relying on "truth to win out", or on the media to get their side of the story out. They will have to find a better way. One suggestion would be for the Republican Party to get behind their candidate, and flood the country with surrogates who can articulate the Party position in every venue in the land. They will have to have the ability to rebut every false position the Democrat Party trumpets in the press, and in their campaign performances wherever that may be.
Renaissance Nerd | 4.30.12 @ 6:42PM
The problem with women's suffrage is not the right to vote per se; it's the fact that adulthood didn't come along with the right. The current crop of feminists are doing everything they can to prevent women from being treated as adults. The bias in the courts in divorces, the humiliating fictions used in literature and especially on television (i.e. women are all wise and clever, men are all idiots; no adult would accept that kind of condescension), 'reproductive rights,' because obviously women aren't grown up enough to be responsible for their actions, etc. There are many individual women who are adults, but as a group our culture, and particularly the left, treats them as children. The same way they treat Americans of African or Latino descent. And poor people, and Muslims, and anybody else who doesn't fit into their elite template. One thing nice about being a white or Jewish man--we're the only adults in the world. Everybody is a hapless kid who can't help themselves, whether it's related to abortion or other kinds of violence. Only we are capable of making decisions between good and evil, everybody else is slave to their hormones or injustices that happened to their great-great grandcestors etc.
The fact is women are adults. So are blacks, latinos, what have you. Convincing them that they're helpless infants is the way the left keeps them on the plantation, miserable and hopeless. It also explains why they hate conservative white men so much--nothing is worse to the deceived than the one who shatters their illusions. Kill the messenger! We love our ignorance!
God won't be listening to all the excuses for bad behavior. It might make you feel good about your failures, but as Jesus said, you already have your reward. Surrendering your freedom, which is to say your responsibility for yourself, just makes you a slave in your own mind. Thanks, but I'll take freedom if it kills me.
POST American| 4.30.12 @ 10:02PM
"Way, way back in the 1890's, Annie
Besant and H G Wells were discussing how
they'd have to bring in deviant and disenfranchised
women to serve their cause. They KNEW that
once 'brought in' this bunch would NEVER
turn back,or admit they were wrong, no
matter how much damage, crime and destruction."
-Informed Radio
"I knew a Rockefeller, smart guy. I liked him.
Once he said to me 'Hey, what did ya' think
women's lib was all about? --We Rockefellers
created and funded that to destroy the family,
double the tax base, and make the kids look to
the state for their parent figures."
-AARON RUSSO
(FINAL interview online)
--AGAIN kiddies! ---whenever we're ready to
gut up to that trifling issue of ultra-rich, TAX FREE
'benny violent' USURY, Globalism and EUGENICS
mongering foundations and NGOs..
--------tick ----tick ---tick-----tick ----tick!
-----------------------------------WHENEVER!
Lonnie Wild| 5.1.12 @ 2:32PM
What a joke! The author is talking about ancient history. Got anything past 1920? Didn't think so. STOP THE PIGS - vote Democrat
A Woman In Virginia| 5.1.12 @ 5:28PM
I'm terribly saddened then that the party has so lost its way. I was shocked and appalled with the laws passed this year in my state. This does not feel like a pretend war to me, this is not a figment of my imagination madde up be democrats -- this is very real and even more frightening. I will not vote again for a Republican until I am assured my body, my rights and my future are safe within the party hands. It is too bad for the local Republicans because I vote in EVERY election, not just the Presidential ones.
POST American| 5.2.12 @ 3:32AM
----Tick! ---tick! ---tick! ---tick! ---tick!
Stan| 5.2.12 @ 2:38PM
Utah was not the first state or territory that granted women the right to vote. Wyoming was. The person that led that movement was Esther Hobart Morris, who was also the first woman judge in the United States. Wyoming also had the first woman governor, Nellie Taloe Ross. That is why Wyoming was not granted statehood until 1890, because of the women's right to vote.
antidote| 5.3.12 @ 3:18PM
You people must be kidding. You have to go back to 1920 to find anything positive Repugnantcans did for women? That fact alone validates the Repugnantcan War on Women! ROTFLMAO
Keep up the good work validating Obama!
messup| 5.4.12 @ 1:13AM
The myth about Democratic Party being one championing Women, Women Rights and Work Place Equality is a swan song. Under the Democratic Party are the likes of everything denigrating the essence of Womanhood. Larry Flynt and his smut (print) empire is the poster child of this growing threat undermining everything moral and good about America
Factual evidence abounds, on a daily basis, contradicting this very notion the Democratic Party is a Women’s safe heaven. The Democratic Party would prefer a women's role to be an irresponsible single parent, living in some low rent tenement, receiving monthly government welfare handouts of one form or another with health care at a local Planned Parenthood clinic.
Three major industries, music, film and TV will immediately dispel this notion Hollywood champions Women, Women Rights, and Work Place Equality. Rife are stories of Women treated and sung about in pejorative manners (especially RAP music; in film women are constantly depicted as helpless, inconsequential mind-numbed robots; and TV - remember Lavern and Sherry? Or Seinfeld? How's about Desperate Housewives? History channel mentions EVE as a fleeting footnote).
MSM media’s daily runs, place Women in secondary status. TV depicts Women as having demeaning roles both inhome and professional work place.
Corporate America has yet to come to grips with Women as viable executive officers.
In Politics the total trashing of Women as viable leaders of the Free World borders on the absurd (Bill Maher, John Stewart).
All these examples are exactly how one party (Democratic)looks, thinks and treats American Women (as unequal participants in The American Dream).
Those Democratic Party bigwigs have only to look at themselves in the mirror, answering with truthful piety, what their true feelings of Women succeeding in America, means and is. Eventually, the truth will out. God Bless America. Amen
Vance P. Frickey| 11.13.12 @ 9:44PM
Barack Obama got over $10 million in bundled contributions from members of Wall Street law firms because he was the ONLY Senate Democrat who voted to CONFINE class-action law suits for women, blacks and other victims of the "glass ceiling" under which they are trapped in big companies. Some "women's president," preventing women from getting justice in their state and local courts.
yappy1953| 5.8.12 @ 12:23PM
Too bad the current Republican party bears no resemblance to that GOTP.
yappy1953| 5.8.12 @ 12:28PM
Dang tansposed words, too bad the GOTP bears no resemblance to anything the GOP did in the past.
This is a diversion from what is happening today and for conservatives to believe this has any meaning, you have to suspend the reality of the GOP today.
LulaMay| 5.8.12 @ 5:03PM
President Obama has appointed 2 liberal women judges to the Supreme Court. Nobody GAVE us the vote. We won it through a combination of activism (that included women enduring imprisonment and force feedings), and SHAMING enough honest men to vote for their MOTHERS rights (the famous part of that history the deciding vote being cast in favor by a man whose mother had just sent him a note telling him to do the right thing). So, shame on you, David. Most women understand that sexism exists everywhere, but at least the Democratic party has a women's rights platform and Republicans DO NOT. The Republican party has not been the party for human rights since Lincoln, which is why you don't cite anything they've done for women since .....never.
Vance P. Frickey| 11.13.12 @ 9:10PM
President George H. W. Bush (Bush I) appointed the FIRST liberal woman judge to the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy has, since them, routinely been a liberal voice - often a tie-breaking one - in the Supreme Court. He appointed the first black man to that court since Thurgood Marshall against one of the longest Senate filibusters in the history of "advice and consent" - Democratic Senators stepped up one after the other to block Clarence Thomas' appointment, digging up trivial crap in his past and what was apparently very close to perjury by Anita Hill to smear his name.
Don't lecture the Republican Party about standing up for unpopular things like equality and due process of law. In the scales of history, the Democratic Party is still finding its feet as a party dedicated to equal treatment for all in a land of laws, not men. Shame on YOU, hypocrite.
Vance P. Frickey| 11.13.12 @ 9:16PM
I said "Justice Kennedy" when I meant to say "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor" - my fault.
But George H. W. Bush went farther than any Democrat president to reach out across the ideological divide to appoint good men and women, not "good party men and women." You can't tell me that Obama or any other Democratic president reached across the aisle to appoint a Republican or a Libertarian or even a Democrat who was unpopular among his fellow Democrats. You're defending a party that moves in lock-step, whether good or bad. If support for segregation or war is what the party leaders or caucuses want - it's what they get - that's the Democratic Party way. The Republican Party of today learned that from Democrats, so if you don't like it, don't defend the party that invented it.
Vance P. Frickey| 11.13.12 @ 9:31PM
The Democrat Party women's rights platform is not the women's rights platform as much as it is the "women's socialist organization platform." That platform defends one abortion provider against all the others, and has falsely alleged Planned Parenthood provides a whole range of women's services they do not, in fact, provide to most women who call them to ask. That's been the case here in Colorado, at least, where you can see a Planned Parenthood "store" in strip malls across metropolitan Denver. Enter one and ask for a Pap smear, a mammogram or anything BUT a pregnancy test or an abortion and you'll be referred to Denver Health or the county hospital in your home county. The Democratic Party women's rights platform advocates for a company that lies outrageously about the services it offers, and for which it receives Federal funding. It's a women-only ACORN.
And nothing is more telling about the Democratic Party than that it's kept Bill Clinton, the poster boy for sexual predators, as one of its spokesmen. Of course, it's unfair to go on and on about someone who screwed up a while back - IF you're a Democrat. But the liberal women's lobby was defending Bill Clinton while his spooge was still on Monica Lewinsky's little blue dress.
Vance P. Frickey| 11.13.12 @ 9:46PM
Barack Obama got over $10 million in bundled contributions from members of Wall Street law firms because he was the ONLY Senate Democrat who voted to CONFINE class-action law suits for women, blacks and other victims of the "glass ceiling" under which they are trapped in big companies. Some "women's president," preventing women from getting justice in their state and local courts. Barack Obama is Steppin Fetchit for Wall Street and Warren Buffett and any other rich guy who doesn't want to see a woman in his boardroom. And so are you.
Harvey Elwood Jr| 9.6.12 @ 12:45PM
Why would you or any other person continue to use false information to push your negative campaign against people in America working together? The only ones that profit from your falsehoods are foreign agents and nations that hope we keep fighting against each other as Americans. So the question becomes who are you really working for? - Them or US.
You know darn well that during the late 1800’s until 1926 the Republican Party was still the Party of Lincoln, that not only worked for women and rights for African Americans, it was the Party of the Progressive and open minded. So please stop telling these lies. The only people fooled by you are the ones that allow themselves to be – or fail to study history or whose behind the curtain. Mr. Wizard.
Harvey Elwood, Jr. Orangeburg, South Carolina
Vance P. Frickey| 11.13.12 @ 9:03PM
Don't forget the Republican Party's being the only voice for equal treatment of... well, everyone until it was an accomplished fact. Then the Democrats came in to take credit for it.
However, I remember growing up in Louisiana, where a few of my teachers (in public school, where their rights were secured by membership in a union) saying "Sure, you can vote Republican - if you want to waste your vote... "
Republicans, you see, were shut out of the primary process effectively - primaries were reserved for Democrat candidates. And Democrats, at least enough of them to dominate our state Legislature and the Governorship - assured very sincere opposition to integration of public schools and other venues (drinking fountains, waiting rooms, bus stations, colleges... little things like that... )
And no, I have no intention of letting a party remarkable mainly for hypocrisy while impersonating a force for good forget what they stood for most of their life as an organized political force - corruption and bigotry.
mmmjv| 3.15.13 @ 5:54PM
1920?? Are you serious or is this one of those satire or parody sites or whatever. You using a vote that was taken in 1920, and earlier votes, to show that todays women should vote Republican??? Are you gonna use that during the 2014 election? When a woman says she's not going to vote Republican because she doesn't want anything shoved up her privates on the order of the Governor you're gonna tell her about a vote that took place in 1920????
mmmjv| 3.16.13 @ 2:10PM
"smaller than the audience of MSNBC"
Would that be the same MSNBC that's somehow so powerful they gave the election to President Obama?
mmmjv| 3.16.13 @ 3:33PM
"It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment"
Oh bull, they had plenty of chances before that, During those 4 decades the Republicans
controlled the Senate 16 times, the Democrats 5 times. Also during that period the Republicans controlled the House 11 times, the Democrats 10 times. Most importantly during those 4 decades the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress 10 times, including the 16 years comprising the 54th Congress to the 61st Congress.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayo.....rtydiv.htm
http://history.house.gov/Insti.....Divisions/
mmmjv| 3.16.13 @ 4:07PM
"despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats — including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as 'Kaiser Wilson.'"
First of all the President has nothing to do with the Constitutional amendment process. He plays no role. Second of all President Wilson supported the 19th amendment and said so in an address to Congress on Sept 30, 1918 http://www.public.iastate.edu/....._suff.html
Also in 1878 when Senator A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment "only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress" the Democrats only controlled the House. The Republicans controlled the Senate
mmmjv| 3.17.13 @ 11:29AM
It's pretty amazing how awful this piece is. It's not just misleading it's downright false. I've already shown that contrary to David Catron's claim of a Democratic Congress is 1878 the Congress in 1878 was in fact a split Congress with the Democrats controlling the House and the Republicans controlling the Senate. I have also shown that contrary to his claim of the Democrats controlling the Congress for 40 years before "the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats" it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who dominated the Congress during those 40 years. For half of those 40 years the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, including the 54th through the 61st Congress. From March 4, 1895 through March 4, 1911 The Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate. And now it's gotten even worse as I've done some more research. I'm going to have to put the new stuff in a different reply because of space restrictions.
mmmjv| 3.17.13 @ 11:30AM
Carton says that in 1878 "California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress." A.A. Sargent was a member of the United States Senate, which I've already shown was in 1878 in control of the Republicans. Just how much in favor that 1878 Senate was in favor of women voting is shown in this little piece from the Art and History section of the Senate website.
"The first such amendment was offered in the Senate in 1868, but it got nowhere. Ten years later, the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections held hearings on a renewed proposal. As suffragists pled their cause in the packed hearing room, committee members rudely read newspapers, or stared at the ceiling. Then they rejected the amendment."
http://www.senate.gov/artandhi....._Women.htm
Ten years later from 1868 would have been 1878. In 1878 the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. That was a Republican Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections whose members rudely read newspapers, or stared at the ceiling and then rejected the amendment.