RE: http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion/local_story_303214959.html

Yes there still is sexism in politics, and other places too. I was really disturbed to see delegates at the Republican convention wearing buttons saying "Hot governor, cold state" and other sexist comments. (The homemade signs were the most offensive.)

What should it matter how Sarah Palin looks? Or Hillary clinton? But time after time, people like Rush Limbaugh and other commentators (on the right!) have made comments about "loving Sarah" or having a "crush" on her. It's sexist.

But as a woman, I have to say that I was most offended by McCain's choosing Palin to begin with. She was not ready to run for VP and it has showed in her interviews and even in the debate, where she repeated the same comments over and over. She is great at tearing down Obama, but that's not going to be her job if she's VP.

She is not able to talk intelligently or with any depth about most foreign-affairs issues. You and I might have trouble answering a question in the limelight, but she's been a governor and mayor and sportscaster on TV, so she has had years of experience in the limelight, yet she isn't able to talk off the cuff.

I felt McCain put down women when he chose her. He could have chosen many other more qualified Republican women politicians. I am embarrassed by her and I think she's just stirring up hate.

This "socialism" thing especially: middle-class and poor Americans will not benefit at all from having the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy continue. (They haven't helped us over the past 8 years, have they?) But we would benefit if the wealthy went back to paying the same taxes they did during the Clinton years.

Besides, Gov. Palin was popular because she was able to redistribute oil company $$$ to the people of Alaska.

Adele

Well said, Adele. I believe that most of the people who want to claim sexism in regards to criticism of Palin are simply trying to deflect the LEGITIMATE criticism. For example, they cry foul at the outrage of her party spending $150,000 to dress her. The outrage is not at the clothing itself, but at the extreme expense - it would have been just as bad to spend $150,000 on McCain's suits. Remember the scandal of Kerry's $400 haircut? How many haircuts could he get for $150,000?

quote:

How many haircuts could he get for $150,000?

DING! What is 375 haircuts?

quote:

Originally posted by Adele:
This "socialism" thing especially: middle-class and poor Americans will not benefit at all from having the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy continue. (They haven't helped us over the past 8 years, have they?) But we would benefit if the wealthy went back to paying the same taxes they did during the Clinton years.

As I recall, the past 8 years also have been plagued by a very disruptive terrorist attack on this country, a terrific outpouring of excessive indebtedness from people who want it all now and have buried themselves in debt, much of which is now owned by foreign powers, and a plethora of other events that would have flushed Clinton's presidency down the toilet as fast as Bush's went. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and the notion of ceteris paribus only exists in the minds of economists, not in the real world. But let's lash out at the wealthy, and continue to move jobs offshore. It makes great sense. Trickle up poverty, indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mantid:
As I recall, the past 8 years also have been plagued by a very disruptive terrorist attack on this country, a terrific outpouring of excessive indebtedness from people who want it all now and have buried themselves in debt, much of which is now owned by foreign powers, and a plethora of other events that would have flushed Clinton's presidency down the toilet as fast as Bush's went. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and the notion of ceteris paribus only exists in the minds of economists, not in the real world. But let's lash out at the wealthy, and continue to move jobs offshore. It makes great sense. Trickle up poverty, indeed.

Indeed, a great many things have happened in the last eight years. Let us not forget the hundreds of billions of dollars flushed into a war and rebuilding effort based on flawed and selectively-considered intelligence, and that was supposed to be paid for by the oil profits of the grateful nation we rescued - could that possibly have had an effect on our economy, or that massive debt you mentioned? Your argument against "lashing out" at the wealthy by asking them to pay the same taxes they paid eight years ago is also rather silly. If the lower taxes were preventing the offshore migration of our jobs, then you might have a point. Instead, even the Bush tax cuts have done little to stem that flow. Instead of continuing something that didn't work, perhaps we should switch to something that might.

quote:

Originally posted by BobApril:
Indeed, a great many things have happened in the last eight years. Let us not forget the hundreds of billions of dollars flushed into a war and rebuilding effort based on flawed and selectively-considered intelligence, and that was supposed to be paid for by the oil profits of the grateful nation we rescued - could that possibly have had an effect on our economy, or that massive debt you mentioned? Your argument against "lashing out" at the wealthy by asking them to pay the same taxes they paid eight years ago is also rather silly. If the lower taxes were preventing the offshore migration of our jobs, then you might have a point. Instead, even the Bush tax cuts have done little to stem that flow. Instead of continuing something that didn't work, perhaps we should switch to something that might.

I agree that the war has been a waste of money, and I have never been in favor of it. However, the notion of flawed intelligence is arguable. We know now that it was flawed, but that was not the case 5 years ago. Hindsight is great in the long-term but is useless in the heat of the moment.

Bush has attempted to reform corporate tax laws to bring jobs home, but with little success. I'm hopeful that Obama will reverse his class bias a bit and cut big business some breaks to make the competitive here at home again. It was during the Clinton years that business-unfriendly taxation really took off, and we are reaping the whirlwind of those policies. Obama seems like a smart guy who has studied the Clinton years, so I'm hopeful that he won't repeat the errors of that period, and will build on the positives from the Clinton era. Since it appears that his staff will be little more than the Clinton Old Guard, I may be rather too optimistic, but the next few years will tell.

The massive debt I mentioned has far more to do with the American attitude exemplified by the commercial catchphrase "It's my money and I want it NOW!" than with the economy. Indeed, our short-sighted greed has helped drive our economy into the ground. That is our own problem, and we can't lay it at the feet of any of our political figures.

quote:

Originally posted by Mantid:
The massive debt I mentioned has far more to do with the American attitude exemplified by the commercial catchphrase "It's my money and I want it NOW!" than with the economy. Indeed, our short-sighted greed has helped drive our economy into the ground. That is our own problem, and we can't lay it at the feet of any of our political figures.

100% agreement on that one, Mantid. Wish I had a solution, but as long as everyone is completely focused on short-term self-interest and not on the long-term best for society, I don't see one.