Gender and Race in U.S. Politics
by Denise Morris on 01/04/2008 at 11:00 AM
So, Obama won Iowa last night. Time magazine is playing up the win as an historic event -- a black man beating his white counterparts in the very Caucasian state of Iowa:
[H]e did so because, after spending months getting to know him, the people of Iowa stopped seeing his color and began to admire his character. In an election where the word "change" became an almost meaningless talisman, Iowa's triumph over race is a message to the world about the real nature of America — and a ratification of Obama's belief that this will be an election year where everything is on the table, where all the conventional wisdom can be tossed aside, where anything, including decency, is possible.
It is interesting to me that the two Democratic candidates getting the most hype in the media are a woman and a minority. If either of them win, it would be a first for the United States. Although I don't necessarily agree with their politics, I think this issue brings up some interesting thoughts about race and gender in the U.S.
So, my question is what kind of dynamics do the possibility of a woman president or an African American president present? There are probably some who would vote for either of them simply because of their gender/race. And I know that there are others who would not vote for them solely because of gender/race.
What do you all think? Regardless of political party or your views of Hillary/Obama, would U.S. citizens really elect a woman or a black man? Is the country "in that place" yet?
1. Justin said the following at 11:16 AM on Jan 4:
I don't know about a woman, but I think the country is definitely ready to elect a "black man". Last night, just proved that.
2. Mandi said the following at 11:27 AM on Jan 4:
Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people who may feel a need to vote for Obama to somehow "prove" to themselves/others that they're not racist. Not so much for Hilary because she has such high negatives, and it's more acceptable to not vote for an unqualified, abrasive woman than it is to not vote for an unqualified (half-) black man. Which is all quite a sad commentary on our society.
As a "visible minority" woman myself, I find the fact that people are actually considering voting for a candidate because of their race or sex as a very, very racist or sexist thing to do. Why don't we look for the most qualified, worthy candidate, and assess them on the basis of factors over which they have control?
That's not to say that a person's background cannot be a valuable and needed quality for the job. To use a personal example, Christians with Middle Eastern origins are usually more aware of the realities of the crosses borne today and throughout history by Christians in the cradle of Christianity, than those who are not.
But none of that applies here.
In fact, quite the opposite: Hillary couldn't be more of a unfriendly advocate for women and children with her unwavering support for abortion, and Obama's just as much a traitor for giving his 100% support to something that has eugenist roots and kills African Americans in alarming numbers.
3. Loris said the following at 11:40 AM on Jan 4:
I have no problem with having a minority president of any color, but in this era of Islamofascist terrorism, I would be afraid to have a female president. I read recently that a good bit of Condi Rice's difficulties in negotiating with middle eastern diplomats is that no matter how brilliant the woman, many from an Islamic background simply cannot take a female diplomat seriously. If this is true, it would be disastrous to have a female president during this time. If what I read was accurate, voting against Hilary would be a matter of national security.
More related to the question at hand, I think it would be easier (at least for me) to accept Obama as president because he is male. I have no doubt a woman can run a country ably. After all, look at the great queens of Europe. On the other hand, while any leader/ruler has their critics and detractors, female leaders have historically faced harsher criticism and doubts about their abilities because of their sex. America is already perceived as weak by our terrorist enemy. I would hate to see them attack us again while the media is focused on "Ms. President's" new hairstyle and weight gain/loss.
4. BB said the following at 11:57 AM on Jan 4:
I know many women would vote for Hillary because she is a woman however everyone else does not trust her and thinks she's too weak to be the leader of the free world. Check out Deuteronomy 25:11 to see how the middle east feels about women taking situations in their own "hands" or "grabbing life by the..."
5. KimberlyEddy said the following at 12:10 PM on Jan 4:
I don't see why not. I wouldn't vote for either of them based on what they stand for, but I would never not vote for them solely on color or gender.
If anything, I get really sick of people bringing that up. How will we ever get a truly color blind society if the media plays up the historical-ness of the candidates color or gender? Who cares! Their political views and qualifications are far more important than the color of their skin or gender.
6. JB said the following at 12:49 PM on Jan 4:
I think it is still very difficult for a woman to run for high public office. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton (though I'd probably vote for her should she get the nomination), but it seems to me that the vitriol directed against her is well in excess of what would be expected from her center-left views and relatively innocuous personal life. Certainly more hatred is directed her way than towards Obama (who is probably a bit to the left of her) or towards Giuliani (whose personal life is far more complicated). The rhetoric aimed against her is even worse than that against her husband, whose politics are similar and who is more culpable in his personal life. I can't see what could explain it except for the fact that she's a woman.
7. Elizabeth said the following at 12:56 PM on Jan 4:
Thanks for your post!
I am so excited about the elections and know wholeheartedly that God is in the midst. I know I definitely need to be prayerful !
As for as candidates, I have been really impressed with Senator Barack Obama. I am actually reading his book, The Audacity of Hope". This is part of my homework to learn more about him. There is still lots of research that needs to be done. Is America ready for a black/biracial president? I think America is hungering for change and if Sen. Barak Obama seems to be offering genuine transformation and people believe it, that may be enough for Americans to look beyond his race and more at his credentials.
As for as Sen. Clinton, I am excited that she is running. ( I must say, I am a little bias because we share the same alma mater:) I need to do more reading about her and her politics before I can make a decision whether or not I would vote for her. But it sure it would be interesting to see what our country would look like under a woman's leadership? Although the US is known for being lightyears ahead other countries, we are still one of the few countries that are still hesistant about having a woman as a leader. In the end, I still think our country would prefer a black male president over a female president.
8. Ashley said the following at 1:10 PM on Jan 4:
One can also pose there are those who vote solely because of religion, (i.e. Mike Huckabee). This was apparent according to the New York Times in the Republican side of the caucus yesterday. It goes to show how messed up the system is when people vote for gender, race or religion. The NYT also said Hilary Clinton's primary voting crowd was over age 65, possibly many of those women who want to see a woman become president in their lifetime? It's a likely reason, albeit a poor reason to vote for someone to become president.
I really think even this question is ridiculous, while interesting, irrelevant. It shows how many people aren't voting for actual issues and what's best for the country, but rather their own selfish ideologies. Though, race, religion and gender always play a role since they define the context of the person and help define who they are as a person, it is foolish, and very sad, that so many people would vote solely for those reasons. It shows how ignorant, and for some, uneducated, so many people are in this country.
With that said, its hard to say how the race and gender cards are playing out. I think the NYT observations of the voter demographics in Iowa may have some indication, considering most of Clinton's supporters were older, and most of Obama's supporters were under age 25. If you look on Facebook polls, though different from those such as ABC's, Obama is a front runner. Of course most on Facebook are in the college age/post college age demographic, so it doesn't seem that race is an issue among young adults - however, race MAY be a factor for those of older demographics. As I said, its hard to tell now, but may become apparent as the year goes on.
9. Ted Slater said the following at 1:59 PM on Jan 4:
This may sound puerile, but I think the TV show "24" helped this happen. It "showed" the world that an African American man could be a fine President. While I won't be voting for ultra-left-wing B.H. Obama (or his female competitor, for that matter), I see no reason not to vote for someone because of their ethnicity or sex.
While my main concern is one's policies and effectiveness in executing those policies, there are benefits to having someone other than a white man act as our President. It may further race reconciliation and further diminish sex-based discrimination, among other things. And that would be good.
On the other hand, I wonder if leaders from other countries might have any difficulty seeing a woman (for example) as a peer, someone to negotiate with as an equal (see Loris's comment above).
The world has seen many fine women leaders and fine minority leaders.
10. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 2:42 PM on Jan 4:
I've heard it suggested by feminists that more women should have political power. Their argument says that women are more nurturing by nature and would therefore be less likely to start wars (and take other highly aggressive actions). I think this is way too much of a generalization.
Based on Sen. Clinton's voting record and previous statements, I don't think she is any more of a "dove" than any of the other candidates.
I don't think that a female president would necessarily present a weak face to the world. It depends on the person.
That said, if I was an American, I'd have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Sen. Clinton.
11. MarkB said the following at 2:50 PM on Jan 4:
I think of four years ago when Iowa choose Vermont Govenor Howard Dean as their candidate. He then fell way off the bandwagon, quite precipitiously, in the weeks to come. Not to put down the Iowans, but I don't give that single state a great deal of weight. I think there are too many other states that will choose differently, both Democrats and Republicans, and I think we're in for a bit longer fight in the coming two or three months.
12. Jethro said the following at 3:08 PM on Jan 4:
He's not ultra left wing Ted. You're simply confused because you're ultra right wing.
Go Obama. Could be the best thing to happen to the US in the past 50 years.
13. Henry said the following at 6:32 PM on Jan 4:
News has not been overly focused on Clinton's gender or Obama's race. Why is this? Because it is not a "big deal". "But we have never had a black or a woman for President before". With all due respect to your possibly rhetorical question, we are at that place.
14. Ted Slater said the following at 8:02 PM on Jan 4:
Jethro -- you say that Obama is not "ultra left wing." The truth is that he is left of Hillary, and is likely the most left-leaning Democrat Presidential candidate running. He is recognized as having "one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate."
According to the New York Post, "The liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action gives Obama a 100 percent voting rating -- 5 points to the left of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who gets a 95 percent grade."
The article goes on to explain: "Obama backed a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, supported international funding for groups that provide abortion, and opposed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. And a Congressional Quarterly review found Obama has a near-perfect partisan voting record, casting his lot with the Democratic Party line 97 percent of the time -- higher than Clinton and dead even with Sen. John Kerry (Mass.)."
He's enthusiastically in favor of "partial-birth abortion," in favor of tax increases, against privatizing social security, against extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision, against permanently repealing the Death Tax, is against preserving the tradition definition of marriage and in favor of "gay marriage," and so on.
Obama presents himself as a moderate, but he's about as left-wing as you can get. At least that's what the facts show.
I acknowledge that he's a good speaker.
Is he a Christian? I don't know. He did say to his church in 2006, "I heard God’s spirit beckoning me.... That’s a path that has been shared by ... evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike." That opinion is not compatible with faith in Christ, the singular Savior, a member of the Triune God, in my opinion.
I'm just presenting this information because many of our readers aren't aware of it. For those who are interested in learning more, click here.
If you have evidence that Obama is not left-wing, Jethro, please share it.
15. Chris said the following at 9:00 PM on Jan 4:
Loris writes:
I have no problem with having a minority president of any color, but in this era of Islamofascist terrorism, I would be afraid to have a female president. I read recently that a good bit of Condi Rice's difficulties in negotiating with middle eastern diplomats is that no matter how brilliant the woman, many from an Islamic background simply cannot take a female diplomat seriously. If this is true, it would be disastrous to have a female president during this time. If what I read was accurate, voting against Hilary would be a matter of national security.
This would mean letting how foreign leaders feel about women (or anything, for that matter) affect how we as Americans vote.
To heck with that. I say we vote who we want to vote for. The fact that some foreign leaders would have a problem with a female (or black or whatever) President is their problem, not ours. Should we downplay Huckabee's chances because Islamic country leaders feel Christianity is wrong?
If you are afraid to have a female President because of terrorism, then the terrorists have already won. They've affected political change (e.g., your political outlook and behavior) through violent means.
16. Beccca said the following at 11:34 PM on Jan 4:
Ted,
You wonder "if leaders from other countries might have any difficulty seeing a woman (for example) as a peer, someone to negotiate with as an equal".
Judging by the number of non-US political office holders and heads of state, I doubt there'd be much of a problem with that. The US is way behind much of the world in this respect.
17. BDB said the following at 11:36 PM on Jan 4:
I'm still betting that the first black or woman president elected will be a Republican.
Ted, before there was "24," there was Colin Powell.
Given how some evangelicals treated Catholics, I will be curious to see the political debate that will ensue if the choice is between Clinton and Romney.
18. Denise Morris said the following at 11:58 PM on Jan 4:
Ted,
David Palmer was my favorite president. :-)
19. JB said the following at 12:18 AM on Jan 5:
Ted,
On all of the issues you mention to show that Obama is "ultra left wing," the main Republican candidates hold opposite positions. So does that make Romney and Giuliani ultra right wing?
20. Kelly said the following at 5:36 AM on Jan 5:
I'd vote for both of these candidates, simply because I think the western world has become far too comfortable with having white men in positions of power. It's good to mix things up.
One thing that causes me to admire Hilary Clinton is that she stood by her husband during times of difficulty. She'd get my vote.
21. k. said the following at 9:17 AM on Jan 5:
I agree 100% with Chris!!
22. Stanhope said the following at 11:50 AM on Jan 5:
"It is interesting to me that the two Democratic candidates getting the most hype in the media are a woman and a minority."
Shocking how the front-runners in presidential races tend to get more press coverage than, say, less-popular candidates or people who aren't running, eh?
Me, I'm not surprised that the media focuses on the strongest candidates.
And Jethro's right. Ted suffers from a consistency problem. Being pro-choice, pro-civil liberties, and against the destruction of Social Security -- that's all squarely in the American mainstream. Unless, of course, you're a right-wing hypocrite who only uses "ultra x-wing" for those who don't parrot your opinions.
23. Ted Slater said the following at 10:16 PM on Jan 5:
JB, again, Obama is recognized as extremely left-wing by those who favor left-wing candidates. As I wrote, "Americans for Democratic Action gives Obama a 100 percent voting rating -- 5 points to the left of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who gets a 95 percent grade."
You go on to ask, "So does that make Romney and Giuliani ultra right wing?"
Giuliani is pro-abortion. He's not "ultra right-wing" in any sense of the term. Someone who advocates snuffing out the lives of pre-born children and putting their bloody body parts in plastic tubs is not "ultra right-wing." Romney, during his time as governor of Massachusetts, saw a number of non-conservative policies come about, and enjoyed being seen as a moderate. Again, he's not "ultra right-wing."
Obama, on the other hand, is indeed extremely left-wing, as shown by his being given a ... 100 percent voting rating by Americans for Democratic Action. Not 95 percent like noted liberal Ted Kennedy. 100 Percent. That's as left-wing as you can get. There's no 105 percent.
FWIW, I'm not intending to vote for either of the fine men you mention in the primaries.
24. JB said the following at 1:12 AM on Jan 6:
Ted,
It appears you're using the term "ultra left wing" to mean "agrees frequently with the position of the Democratic Party" rather than something like "holds extremely liberal positions" (unless, that is, you think the Democratic Party is extremely left wing, in which case I would wonder whether your political spectrum is centered around Ronald Reagan). Because if you look at the ADAs voting record guide (and I didn't know this organization existed until you posted about it), Obama is one of about 82 congresspeople to receive a 100% rating, including Sen. Clinton. So unless there are 82 people in Congress who are "ultra left wing," and I think that would strain the meaning of the word "ultra," I would disagree with your description of Obama's record.
Ultra left wing, to my mind, is someone who holds views which are far out of the mainstream - say someone who is an outright Marxist. Obama's views, and correct me if I'm wrong, seem to be very conventional and pretty popular with Americans as a whole. They're the sort of views the talking heads soberly discuss on political talk shows, not the sort of views you only hear from a guy shouting on a street corner. He doesn't seem to be really "out there" on anything I'm aware of. In your usage, I would think that Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson are all ultra right wing since they all support the core positions of the Republican Party (even Giuliani is vaguely for the overturning of Roe), though I wouldn't use the term that way. But this seems to be a disagreement about our possibly idiosyncratic use of terminology.
I do wonder, though, how is Giuliani a "fine man" if you think he is for "suffing out the lives of pre-born children?" It seems like he couldn't be both at the same time . . . Or am I missing the sarcasm?
25. Petra said the following at 6:34 AM on Jan 6:
I pray more people will learn the truth about Ron Paul. He is a good, G-d fearing man who wants to help transform America back to what her Founding Father's once envisioned her to be.
More info about Dr. Ron Paul can be found here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
26. Jethro said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 6:
I find it hilarious Ted that in the 'Light Bulb' thread you are lamenting the invasion of big brother government legislating against high energy light bulbs, but in this thread you are bagging Obama for his liberalism and voting against the PATRIOT act, which is about the most Orwellian thing since Orwell himself.
Oh, and I think Obama's record sounds sterling. In fact, I don't think I appreciated how good it was till you spelled it out there. Just the kind of president the US and the world at large needs. Let's all pray that he gets elected in 08.
27. Kyle said the following at 8:39 AM on Jan 6:
I think our country is in a place that the electorate would be willing to choose a black man to be their leader. In fact, I think our country is approaching a point that being a "minority" can enhance your campaign. Obama brings a dynamic that many people find interesting and many also believe that he will bring all of this "change" that he is promising. However, he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton is so the "change" will be interesting to see.
28. Karen said the following at 2:40 PM on Jan 6:
Generally speaking, I think that the country and world would be more willing to accept a black man as opposed to a woman in the position of President of the United States. In terms of a gender difference in styles of governance, I believe that most of those arguments are irrelevant. However, I think that even today it would be a stretch for the U.S. military to accept a woman as Commander in Chief almost as much as it would be for the Catholic Church to accept a woman as Pope (I'm Catholic, can you tell?) In addition, I think a black man would be more well received on the world stage at this time, particularly given the precarious situation in the Middle East. Yes, there have been and are female leaders of various countries around the world, but no country as powerful and infuential (and, some could argue, hated) as the U.S. in its current position.
As a woman I long for the day when the list of U.S. Presidents (not to mention Fortune 500 CEO's) is statistically in line with the actual percentage of women that make up this great United States. But do I think we are there yet? Sadly, no.
Specifically regarding Mrs. Clinton- in the event that she becomes my gender's first attempt to lead the country, I have already made plans to relocate to Canada.
29. John said the following at 3:39 PM on Jan 6:
If B. Hussein Obama is not ultra left wing, then why is running for the democratic nomination?
The party of the NEA, Soros, MoveOn and PlannedParenthood.
Funny, I don't hear so many Dems complaining about the Iraq war now. Wonder why that is?
Could it be that it was just an excuse to exercise Bush Hate Syndrome?
If all the surrender monkies really wanted to bring the troops home, they'd vote for Ron Paul, BECAUSE there is not one single Democratic candidate that will bring them home.
Anyway, does anybody know what happened to Duncan Hunter? Did I miss him dropping out?
30. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 6:20 PM on Jan 6:
In my opinion, none of the candidates running should be called "ultra left wing" or "ultra right wing." "Left wing" or "right wing," yes; "ultra," no.
Using superlative adverbs when they are not warranted diminishes their effectiveness when they are.
Let me give some examples:
Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Maximilien de Robespierre--ultra left wing.
Hugo Chavez--far-to-ultra left.
Adolf Hitler, Augusto Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic, Francisco Franco--ultra right wing.
Unless I'm misinformed, Obama does not advocate a socialist revolution. Likewise, Guiliani and Romney (and Ted :) ) are not plotting to turn the U.S. into a nationalist police state. So "ultra" should not precede the description of their place on the political spectrum.
31. Ted Slater said the following at 6:25 PM on Jan 6:
JB -- Obama presents himself as a moderate, and many on this blog may think that he in fact *is* a moderate. But his voting record shows Obama to be emphatically "far left-wing." In fact, no senator is to the left of him. He's to the left of Ted Kennedy, for goodness sake. Obama is not a moderate; no senator, according to Americans for Democratic Action, is more to the left than he is.
I don't want our readers to be taken in by his fine rhetorical skills, not realizing that his positions are, by all accounts, as "left" as the most left-leaning senator.
There is a difference, I need to remind our readers, between "the left" and "the right." Neither is sinless, of course; both are represented by selfish, tainted, fallen people. But the left advocates killing pre-born children, for example; the right advocates protecting these lives.
Someone who is "far left," then, is emphatic in support of enabling the murder of pre-born babies. Someone who is "far right" would be more emphatic in their support of protections for these little ones.
I would argue that it's more admirable to be far right than far left, at least in this instance. Just my opinion, of course.
32. Ted Slater said the following at 6:39 PM on Jan 6:
Daniel from the Maritimes -- you mention Hitler as being "ultra right wing."
Hitler was a Nazi -- National Socialist. Socialism is generally considered a left-wing ideology, not a right wing one. If we have to use the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" to describe this man, well, Hitler would be a left-winger. (Think "Volkswagen," a creation of the state.) Despite how many news readers claim otherwise. He would be what we now call "progressive."
That said, there are sinners throughout the spectrum of politics, both to the left and to the right. Some are great sinners (in need of a great Savior).
33. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 7:19 PM on Jan 6:
Ted,
I'll certainly concede that Hitler and the Nazis had some "left-wing"/"progressive" economic policies.
He also was big on nationalism and a very well defined social hierarchy (Hitler certainly didn't hold up the ideal of a classless society), which are more characteristic of the right wing of the political spectrum.
"That said, there are sinners throughout the spectrum of politics, both to the left and to the right. Some are great sinners (in need of a great Savior)." I agree completely!
Francis Schaeffer had something good to say on this issue (How Should We Then Live?, p.245): "...to quote Eric Hoffer (1902-), "When freedom destroys order, the yearning for order will destroy freedom."
At that point the words left or right will make no difference. They are only two roads to the same end. There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left: the results are the same."
34. John said the following at 8:12 PM on Jan 6:
For everyone who wants to relocate to Canada if Clinton gets elected:
They're already where she wants to take us.
Preachers are locked up for saying homosexuality is a sin AND you pay through the nose for government healthcare. The best of both liberal worlds, socially and economically!
Instead, move to Mexico, so you can learn our future language!
Feliz Dia de Reyes!
35. BDB said the following at 11:18 PM on Jan 6:
Karen wrote:
>>As a woman I long for the day when the list of U.S. Presidents (not to mention Fortune 500 CEO's)<<
Why?
In one surprisingly honest article, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that most of those jobs are c***. There's a reason why most executives get divorced.
The WSJ pointed out that women-owned businesses employ 30% more people thant the Fortune 500 companies do. Even though those companies have high revenue on paper, they also lay off lots of people and outsource the work. A bunch of those jobs were outsourced to female-owned businesses.
36. JB said the following at 12:52 AM on Jan 7:
Ted,
Obama's voting rating says nothing about how far to the left he is - it just shows that he's more consistently center left than some other congresspeople. I don't know why Ted Kennedy is the end-all, be-all of liberalism for you, but Obama is no more to the left than 82 of his colleagues. Obama's positions aren't extreme, he's just a very consistent in holding to the views of the Democratic Party. Which is, you know, what most Democrats want in a presidential candidate.
Name a view that Obama holds that's well out of the mainstream. He holds no views which compare with Romney's extreme ideas about executive power or McCain's dream of a century long occupation of Iraq. Even on abortion, Obama stands with either half or a large majority of Americans, depending on which polls you like. You might not like his views, but they're far from extreme. Americans who look at Obama's platform will find conventional Democratic ideas, just a lot of them.
37. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 8:24 AM on Jan 7:
In regard to the ultra-right and ultra-left wing, such as Hitler, Stalin, etc: As I learned in political science classes, the spectrum is a circle, not a line. Once you go so far off one end, you actually end up at the other. The deep ends are essentially the same. So Hitler was both extreme-left and extreme-right.
John said:
"For everyone who wants to relocate to Canada if Clinton gets elected:
They're already where she wants to take us.
Preachers are locked up for saying homosexuality is a sin AND you pay through the nose for government healthcare. The best of both liberal worlds, socially and economically!"
That last sentence is bang-on. Though I can't recall the last time a preacher was locked-up for speaking of his beliefs (that's his right, entrenched in our Charter, though groups like FotF like to make it seem like he doesn't have it anymore) and Canada spends less on healthcare per capita than America does, plus if I go to the hospital I won't have to sell my house to pay for it.
And Ted, this may say a lot about Canada, but I took a quick glance at Obama's voting record and I see him as a moderate, quite a contrast to your view of him being "far left-wing".
38. rosabacio said the following at 11:54 AM on Jan 7:
In my opinion, a black man has a better chance than a woman of any race to be elected. I believe that's because men have a hard time allowing a woman to lead in a capacity such as US presidency. In fact, how many woman CEO's are there in this country. I'm not in the least a Hilary supporter but I do believe people perceive her as unlikable because in their eyes a woman shouldn't be agressive, opinionated or strong like she is. Instead a woman should be quiet with no opinion of her own. Not to say everyone thinks that way but based on the demographics of such states as Iowa I am lead to believe folks there may be put off by a woman leading the country. That's my opinion however.
39. John said the following at 12:39 PM on Jan 7:
I guess you haven't been paying attention:
http://www.narth.com/docs/faces.html
Canadians do not pay less for healthcare and I mean that. Last time I checked 10% sales taxes was on the high side.
Your house might be nicer if you didn't have to pay so much in taxes, PLUS you wouldn't have to wait forever to get special surgery if you need it.
40. Rhonda said the following at 2:03 PM on Jan 7:
Ted, post me or not, I don't care. But you're a political hack of the worst stripe. No one who's ever taken a poli-sci 101 class would ever label the Nazis "left-wing." Names don't make it so. Dobson claims to lead a "Christian" group, and his claims aren't any more valid than yours.
41. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 2:17 PM on Jan 7:
Yes John, but what NARTH didn't tell you is that (former-Reverend) Stephen Boissoin's letter compared homosexuals and those who support them to paedophiles, said that children are being "brainwashed" by homosexuals and said that gays are "wicked, perverse, self centered, morally deprived" in addition to a lot of other bad things. You can read everything about it here:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legislation/Panel_Decisions/panel_decisLund.pdf
I've personally heard many ministers speak out against homosexuality and homosexual marriage, and Fred Phelps came to Parliament while the same-sex marriage debate was going on, but none of them have faced any charges. Part of adding "Sexual Orientation" to Hate Crime law was an amendment that stated an argument that came from religious literature would not constitute a hate crime. However, Mr. Boissoin's letter went far beyond the Bible, as I'm sure you would agree. You could never say the things he did about another people-group and not expect backlash.
And as for taxes, I happen to live in a nice house (not that nice material things mean a whole lot to me) and the Canadian government has been posting a surplus for nearly a decade now, which means nice tax cuts. And line-ups aren't that bad, and I just take comfort in knowing that if I or someone I love ever gets sick or injured, our finances will be okay.
I'm praying for you, brother.
42. farmer Tom said the following at 6:14 AM on Jan 8:
With regards to the left and right thing, some of you are historically illiterate. Now one of you even mentioned that you learned this in poli-sci class, off course I'm not surprised.
Most colleges are a fount of liberal indoctrination.
Do a little research before you quote your liberal college professor.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59446
43. John said the following at 11:09 AM on Jan 8:
You are not my brother and God does not respond to prayers of the unrepentant.
44. Rhonda said the following at 2:06 PM on Jan 8:
Hey, farmer Tom,
It's "of course," and I think you meant to say "font of liberal indoctrination."
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss education if I were you.
Oh, and Vox Day is just mad he never got a date. With hair like that, I'm not surprised.
45. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 2:28 PM on Jan 8:
Farmer Tom said:
"Most colleges are a fount of liberal indoctrination."
Yes, the "I-disagree-with-educated-and-experienced-professors-so-they-must-be-incredibly-liberal" argument. Kind of ironic that you then point to an article from a website that is thousands of times more right-winged than universities are (supposedly) left-winged.
"Oh, and Vox Day is just mad he never got a date. With hair like that, I'm not surprised."
That made me laugh. Thanks Rhonda.
Again, I'll refer to my comment about how the political spectrum is a circle, not a line.
46. Jo said the following at 1:24 AM on Jan 9:
Canadian Boy said: "As I learned in political science classes, the spectrum is a circle, not a line. Once you go so far off one end, you actually end up at the other. The deep ends are essentially the same."
I was going to say the exact same thing after I read Ted's comment, but you beat me to it. Hear, hear.
Since we're talking about Hitler - I got back from Poland last night, while I was there I visited Auschwitz. Anyone else ever been there?
47. MarkB said the following at 12:32 PM on Jan 9:
Wow... I'm siting here amazed at some of the posts. How deeply the emotional attachment, it seems, that exists apart from factual data. I see so many stretching the definitions, not even discerning nor parsing the spectrum and just letting perceptions prevail, being shaded so strongly in their emotional positions. Lord, help us to gain your perspective, to apply your word to our minds, to our understanding and to our actions in how we vote. Amen.
48. Becky F. said the following at 4:11 PM on Jan 9:
When Condoleeza Rice decides to run for president, I'll be very excited.
49. John said the following at 1:26 PM on Jan 13:
B. Hussein Obama still extreme left.
Sorry, it's not simply a circle, as you would like to believe and dilude yourself into equivicating liberals and conservatives.
Liberal left is still sinful and unbiblical.
Conservative right is still biblical.
That is all.
Have a nice day:)