Towards the end of the conversation she said something to me that I thought was very poignant. "Y'know, Mark, the future of politics rests in the hands of women. The next president should focus their agenda on women's issues because that is where elections will be won and lost." We went on to discuss what those issues were. Most women, in poll after poll, consider health care, education, and the environment to be the most pressing issues of our time...not the war or the economy.
If you think about it, this really makes sense. Women make up the majority of voters in this country and being a mom myself, I have become deeply concerned about similar issues. I think about what kind of a place we are going to leave our children and then I look at what our current government is doing with health care, education, and the environment and it just isn't good enough. In fact, it's downright awful.So, what better person to tackle women's issues than a.......WOMAN. Folks, we need a female president. It has been way too long. Not only do we need a female president, but we need female leadership overall. I am sick and tired of seeing a bunch of old, fat men in suits getting their guns off for four to eight years. Our country desperately needs someone who can put these three issues at the forefront of the country's agenda.
Surprisingly, there is a certain woman Senator in our government who has fought long and hard on these three issues and has achieved some success in addressing these concerns. She is extremely popular in her home state, winning her last election by a margin of 20 percentage points, the largest in direct election history.
Oh, and her first name is not Hillary. It's Barbara.
Barbara Levy Boxer was born on November 11, 1940 in New York. She attended Brooklyn College and got a degree in economics in 1962. She married Stewart Boxer and moved to Marin County California where she worked as journalist, congressional aide and the first female president of the Marin County Board of Supervisors.She was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1982, representing Marin country, and served for five terms. During this time she has focused on human rights, environmental protection, military procurement reform and pro choice issues. She was also involved in seeking protection for whistleblowers in government, and pushed for higher budget allocations for health, biomedical research, and education.
In 1992 she was elected to the US Senate and has since served three terms. She almost didn't run in 2004 but decided that someone should "fight for the right to dissent" against the conservative agenda. In her terms as Senator she has:
1. Authored successful bipartisan legislation to accelerate America's contribution to the global war on AIDS.
2. Written a bill to make health insurance tax deductible and another bill to let any American buy into the same health insurance program that members of Congress have.
3. Supported comprehensive prescription drug coverage through Medicare and the right of all consumers to purchase lower-cost prescription drugs reimported from Canada.
4. Been a strong supporter of stem cell research.
5. Increased autism awareness
6. Introduced legislation providing federal funding for local after-school programs, which have been shown to increase student performance while decreasing juvenile delinquency, crime, and drug use. Her 'Computers in Classrooms' law encourages the donation of computers and software to schools.
7. Established the Excellence in Education award to recognize teachers, parents, businesses and organizations that are working to make positive changes in education.
8. Successfully led the 2003 Senate floor battle to block oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge In 2005, Boxer voted again to block oil drilling at ANWR.
9. Been an original co-sponsor of Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Clean Power Act. This legislation would reduce emissions of four pollutants coming from power plants; sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Oh, and on the subject of national security, Senator Boxer voted against the war in Iraq, authored a bill to protect commercial airliners against attacks by shoulder-fired missiles, and wrote the law allowing airline pilots with special training to carry guns in the cockpit. She also wrote the High-Tech Port Security Act, and sponsored the Chemical Security Act to address terrorist threats against chemical plants. Senator Boxer also cosponsored comprehensive rail security legislation.What the??!!?? A Democrat concerned about national security? I thought all Democrats were "lilly livered, chicken faggots who want to hand the keys of America over to the evil doers" (source: FOX News).
What makes me the most proud of Senator Boxer is her tireless, unnoticed work on international women's issues. In 1997 the Senate passed a Boxer resolution calling on the United States not to recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan because of its human rights abuses against women. In October 2001, Boxer successfully authored a resolution calling for the inclusion of women in the temporary government of Afghanistan.
In March 2005 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed Boxer's amendment to the Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Bill strongly urging Saudi Arabia to permit women to run for office and vote in all future elections.
And thousands of Saudi men just sharted themselves at the thought of women governing.....
Which brings me to my final point of why it would be great to have a female president: what better weapon in the War on Terror than a WOMAN fighting and winning against a bunch of Arab men? Can you imagine the looks on their faces when they see President Boxer ordering an assault on their Bat Cave hideouts?As a matter of fact I have a better punishment for the recently imprisoned for life Zaccarias Moussaoui and any other psycho Islamist that is captured by US forces. They are all to be put to work on a chain gang building abused women shelters across the country. Oh, and all of the police in charge of said chain gang will be female. So, Marwan el-Suckditch gets to spend the remainder of his days working for and helping women. How's that for some REAL torture?
Anyway, I know that Hillary is the one to beat but I think if she is elected then our country would be still be too divided. There are so many people that just hate her. We would be right back to square one and make no progress in unifying this country. Barbara seems more pure to me.....she seems to really stick to her guns, regardless of whether or not it is popular.
The achievements I mentioned above are just a small portion of the service she has given this country. She has raised awareness to issues that are not very popular (Florida and Ohio voting irregularities, voting against Bush judicial nominees, weapons bans) and come out bluntly in defense of issues that are very much in the minority (gay marriage, troop withdrawal from Iraq).
It takes courage to take a stand on these things and I find that appealing. And, dude, I'm sorry I hate to be a total guy here but.......Barabara is hot. I have seen her on several chat shows and she is bloody gorgeous. I don't get the screaming thigh sweats for many 64 year old women but she just does it for me. Maybe, as always, it's the slightly more than average sized love shaker.
Anyway, as we head to the polls in 2006 and 2008, let's think about selecting a candidate who will focus on these issues with great care, gentleness, intelligence, and inner strength.
In other words, how about a woman?
19 comments:
Great Idea. Only one problem:
What would we call hubby? The First Man!?
Markadelphia...
Two things straight off the bat...
1. For years I have heard that if women were in power there would be no war, there would be love and peace and all of our needs would be met. Balony. Women are an important component to our SOCIETY. That is the key. SOCIETY. We ALL have to vote, we all have to be sensible about it and we all have to live with the outcome. There is no reason to believe that a person's plumbing has anything to do with how well they will perform in office. If a woman wins the election I would support her not because she is a woman, but because she is the president. Enough of the sexual partisan sentiments. We are all human beings and until we start treating each other with EQUALITY, there will be no peace or tranquilty in our society. That means that no sex should be put up on a pedastal.
2. You are not a mommy. You are a daddy and that is just as important as being a mother. Some numbnuts decided a long time ago that fathers couldn't nurture and care for their children without growing a pair of ovaries. That is pure unadulturated crap handed out by lazy men who don't want to take on the responsibilities of doing the messy childcare duties. Taking care of children (not just watching them) is hard f_ing work and by dog if you do the job, you sure as hell have earned the title father and should wear it like an Ace of Hearts in a game of Indian Poker.
As for Barbara Boxer...good thoughts, I like her better than Hillary, but there is still two problems here. First, I have sincere doubts that large portions of this country will vote for a woman and second, if they were to vote for her, you would still have to get the yo-yo's in the House and Senate to work with her. You and I live in the upper Midwest and have a warped perception of how women are perceived in the rest of the country. Especially in the deep south.
That being said..GO BARBARA!
I whole-heartedly endorse the candidacy of Ms. Boxer. After her embarrassing displays at the Ashcroft, Alito, and Rice confirmation hearings (among other settings), Republicans will have a field day correctly portraying her as a politician incapable of compromise in situations that run counter to her agenda that clearly is out of favor with a great many people outside of her home state. Not to mention the (once again) delicious irony of a multi-milionaire standing up there attempting to "speak for the little guy" battling evil big-business and rich-folk.
Depending on who the Republicans throw out there, the train-wreck that would be the Boxer candidacy and the potential debacle that the next Republican candidate could be might finally be enough to once and for all marginalize the two major parties and give legitimacy to a middle of the road, third-party candidate.
To PL's point, I think you have aruged on this blog many times that how much money someone has should NOT be an indication of whether or not they can help the little guy....your defense many times in the case of George Bush.
What exactly is "out of favor" with people outside of her home state? Better, affordable health care? A simple recognition that global warming IS happening and it is because of our ridiculous energy policies? Higher education standards?
I can safely say that from what I have seen and read in the last few weeks, 69 percent of this country are now "kooky" liberals like myself. The issues that Ms. Boxer fights for are not liberal or conservative...they are human issues and we need to put aside our petty partisan issues and get to solving them. To quote Laura IngraHam, "The Republicans better start listening to what people are saying or they are going to lose everything."
What we don't need is more loud, obnoxious people who have tunnel vision base on out of date philsophies, who are deathly afraid of change and have too much pride to admit when they are wrong.
I also wanted to put an email exchange between myself and Crab that I thought you would all find illuminating.
I sent out this link to my conservative pals. Go read the story...
http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_129085124.html
The title of the email was "The Sign of the Apocalypse."
Crab's reply was:
"If you're going to campaign for her like you did for Kerry you'd better send out better articles than that one.
"Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card carrying liberal" - not exactly a resounding endorsement of liberalism is it?
I hope her trips to Iraq were done for some other reason than to
"strengthen her credentials". More proof that the only war the
Democrats really have their heart in is their war against GWB. Any
incidental damage done to the national interest in furtherance of that war appears in their eyes to be for the greater good.
I notice now it's only republicans who get criticized for spending money on the Iraq war.
"She's always been a praying person"? Gee, I hope her faith doesn't influence her policy decisions!!!
"Cares about the average American" - translation - I'll fund every social program put in front of me even though they really haven't helped
anyone in the long run so far but results don't matter - it's our
intentions that count! Btw, what exactly is an "average American"?
What's the salary cutoff? I need to know when I become a "slightly
above-average American".
I guess when one side can't win elections, poll numbers, political
one-upsmanship and celebrity-type gossip is all they have. Rupert could hold 10 fundraisers for her, won't matter one bit to me, trust me.
Keep this stuff in your blog where it's easier for me to ignore."
Here is what Crab is really saying....point by point..
"1. I just sharted myself because the owner of Fox News is letting the most evil women on the planet into our club.
2. All Democrats are flip floppers. The can never make up their minds.
3. All Democrats are stubborn, their minds are always made up, and will enlarge government to the point of where all the rich people I don't know won't get their tax breaks anymore.
4. I have too much stubborn pride to admit that Markadelphia has been mostly right in all his predictions about Bush Co and since I would rather have my testicles boiled in oil than admit that any Democrat might be do something positive for this country (and more than likely for myself), I am now suddenly less interested in politics."
How convenient....
Now that we know what Crab is really saying, here is what I am saying about the article.
My opinion about Fox News has gone up while my opinion about Hillary Clinton has gone down. She is moving to the center and she shouldn't. The pulse of this country is moving towards progression and they see Bush Co as impeding that progression. It is happening. Deal with it.
And, Crab, you really ought to get your facts straight about "Democrats" voting for the war. While Senators Clinton and Kerry voted for the war, Senators Boxer and Feingold did not. These are the people that have the messages that are resonating with the majority of people in this country. Why?
People are finally starting to wake up and see what a catastophe we have on our hands. It doesn't mean that ALL Republicans are responsible...just the the leadership. They realize this as well and are already changing their tone to reflect a more progressive voice.
You asked where you are in the class system now? Well, since Bush Co has effectively wiped out the Middle Class...your space has eliminated.
I must have been drunk when I (apparently) said that how much money somebody has does not have an impact on their ability to represent the little guy, because I don't recall saying anything like that. Doesn't even sound like me. Frankly, I think it's yet another situation where you saw/read what you wanted to see/read. Regardless, to me, the compelling issue isn't whether or not somebody who is rich can represent the little guy....instead, it's how blatanly they lie about doing it. For better or for worse, Bush Co have no pretenses about their allegiance to big business, which they know is what drives this country forward.
Senators Feingold and Boxer have the messages that are resonating with the majority of the country? Is that the same 69% majority that are now kooky liberals like yourself? I can only speculate that you obtained that number from the new rock-bottom approval rating for GWB. Tear apart that approval rating (according to cnn) and you'll see that the majority of those who disapprove of GWB do so because of the perceived lack of progress in Iraq. Another significant portion of those who disapprove do so because of high gas prices. To somehow conclude that these numbers indicate a "pulse" toward progression or resonance with the messages of flaming liberals on actual issues is ridiculous.
Just as much as we need to avoid people with "tunnel vision based on out of date philosophies" I contend we need to avoid catering to candidates who make vacuous statements such as "we need a plan" and who support untenable positions such as "no more war". Boxer made the rounds several months ago criticizing GWB's lack of an exit timetable for Iraq, yet, when pressed So when you call for a timeframe for withdrawal, what does that mean? she replies that she has no specific timeframe. Yeah, I can see why this woman is so inspiring to you.
Catastrophe? Human issues? More like hot-button issues. Stripped of all melodramatic statements Boxer brings nothing new to the table in terms of solutions to problems that truly interest the majority of Americans. From the Donkey's own mouth
Obviously you can back whichever pony you want...that's what makes this country great. But quite humbly I suggest that you seek your leadership elsewhere, or you are just setting yourself up for another kick in the ass.
The jury is still out, for me anyway, if the Democrats can come up with something to unify this country. As it stands right now, the leadership of both parties have made me believe that:
1. The Republicans stand for all that is evil and dark in the world.
2. The Democrats are a bunch of frightened pussies who are afraid of their own shadow.
Until either side steps up and proves me wrong, that is what I am sticking with. I do see glimmers of hope in people on both sides of the aisle and those are the folks I am highlighting in my Profiles in Courage.
PL, I encourage you to go out and start talking to people about what they think about the current leadership of this country. I think you will be surprised at their repsonses. I have had at least a half dozen people in the last week alone tell me that they are sorry they voted for Bush. Hell, you didn't vote for Bush.
The Democrats have an enormous opportunity now to unite this country. I wonder how they will fuck it up this time....
These people that I'm supposed to start talking to....are they the same ones who disapprove of GWB because of high gas prices? (1 in 8 of them, anyway) Are they the same ones who spout rhetoric like "universal health care" and "equal rights for everybody" as if there's some magic switch that can be flipped to make it so? (I'm now picturing the evil horde of Republicans standing around this switch, desperately fending off all of those knights in shining armor-Democrats who are struggling to save the world by flipping the switch. Quite poetic.)
In my estimation, anybody worth takling to recognizes that GWB is no more responsible for what is evil and dark in the world than you and I are. You wanna blame somebody, look in the mirror or come talk to me.
We do agree on something, though. The Democrats do have an enormous opportunity to unite this country. As do the Republicans.
No, they are just regular people. Forget about the gas thing.
As far as Universal Health Care goes, how about the State Of Mass. model? They seemed to really put together a nice plan...under a Republican governor btw...and they have gay marriage there...hmm maybe they are onto something...
If Mitt is going to make a run for the White House in '08, he'd better be hanging his hat on more than Mass's new "universal health care" plan. Nobody (that I know, anyway) is questioning the fact that our nation's health care system needs some serious work. Kudos to Mass. for at least attempting something. But the bottom line is that the Mass. plan just doesn't add up.
** They are instituing a "penalty" for companies who don't provide coverage. Hmmm...let's see. Pay a couple hundred dollar penalty per employee or pay the couple thousands of dollar it takes to insure each employee. If anything, it's an incentive for companies to stop providing coverage.
** Employers have been unable to get health care costs down to $200 per individual, so how on earth does Mass. think it's going to do that?
** I'm sure the people who visit their local hospital and flash their "Joe's health insurance" id card are going to receive some bang-up care. May as well just stay home and slap on some leeches.
** They are counting on people who never use medical services to help lower the costs of premiums and deductibles. I find it quite appalling that you would support such an intrusive plan when you bemoan all of the other ways the government is intruding in our lives.
Mainly, I applaud Mass for at least trying out a new system. Governor Romney's desire to overhaul health care came out of neccesity. He saw his state's dollars being wasted on people who were opting for a state run system. He figured that if the state was going to be paying for health care, why not pay it to a private insurance company and insure people that way.
By his own admission, we will see in one year how effective the systems is...until that time your comments are purely speculatory....as are mine.
Nothing speculatory about the plan being intrusive.
I agree that Mass. deserves credit for at least trying something different. I'm just glad it's somebody else who's trying it. And I'm confident that you're not suggesting that GWB or whoever our next President is should roll the dice and try something like this without having a much better understanding of the impact?
PL...you clearly would not be a supporter of Boxer...who would you support? I agree we need a viable 3rd party, but that seems like a remote possibility given the current situation.
So who would it be? Who could you get your support around?
I personally would like to see Feingold run...I think there would be an issue with his religion, but maybe not. Lieberman is an ass-kissing roach, so he is probably not a good one to judge anything by.
I think we all agree that the healthcare system is not working well, the real issue is can it be fixed by the people who are currently setting the prices and levels of services. I would say that those folks...primarily insurance companies and large healthcare providers...have little or no motivation to do anything. In the meantime, we tax payers are going to be paying top dollar to cover those who don't have insurance or are illegal aliens, or whatever the case is. See, those folks don't go away...when they have a jacked-up car fall on their heads, or they fail a suicide attempt or they break a bone, they don't just go to the local witch doctor or seek herbs from the local green pharmacy, they go to the hospital where they are spending 10,000 dollars a day in intensive care of OUR money.
I know PL is loath to see our government act as keepers, but there are some things that when they are broke, they can not be fixed by the same people who benefit from them being broke.
As far as gas prices are concerned, why shouldn't people be pissed? Lousy energy policies set into motion by this administration are largely to blame for them. If these yo-yos can't get it right, they should be voted out of office (I am sure you agree with this sentiment). But it is an issue and a far more pressing issue than whether gays can be married or not.
Gay marriage isn't as pressing an issue as health care reform? What an absolutely practical position! I love it.
Whether or not people are pissed off about gas prices is irrelevant to me. What does their anger have to do with GWB? Breakdown the price of a gallon of gas and you're not going to find a "GWB" component, or even a component that is overly affected by what any sitting president does. If anything, GWB took huge steps toward lowering prices by starting a war to steal Iraq's oil. (Still waiting for that kook theory to pan out.)
No disrespect intended toward Markadelphia, but what I have actually said on this blog several times is that I whole-heartedly agree that GWB's run probably needs to end. If he were being judged like a CEO of any worthwile company he would have been cut loose months ago, even if in some books (such as mine) he isn't responsible for the multitude of failures hung on him.
The same people whose jacked-up cars fall on their heads who aren't paying medical bills now aren't going to be paying them under any "universal" plan either, so I'm not seeing what the fascination is. The notion of mandated coverage seems counter-intuitive to me, since the ultimate reality, as you pointed out, is that people who can't pay now are never going to "go away". For me, the compelling issue isn't that we are paying for the health care of others....it's that we have to pay so much for their health care. If the government is going to intrude, and I think it's inevitable at this point, then I think they should attack blatant causes of the high prices and not try to drive the costs down through speculation over how the market will respond. Malpractice and unnaturally high premiums are the two things that immediately come to mind.
For better or worse, I haven't given much thought to who I would like to see run for President. There are some people -- Giuliani, Todd Whitman, Powell -- for whom I have a positive impression, but I haven't given thought to what kind of President they would make. (I think I'm on record from several years ago as saying I would have voted for Lieberman had the Dems pushed him through, so the 'ass-kissing roach' comment made me laugh. Apparently I can't even stray from my own party without offending the liberals!) Chalk it up to a general lack of belief that there are any politicians from either party who have proven capable of "fighting the good fight."
I suspect I am in the minority when it comes to Lieberman. I just don't like the horse-of-many-colors routine.
Same problem I have with McCain, who up until recently was a favorite of mine. Still could be if he would refrain from kissing the buttocks of the radical right religious folks. I think Giuliani would be a good choice for the Republican Party, but I am afraid Powell shot his load (as far as I am concerned) when he went in front of the world with lousy intelligence and GWB's agenda hot in hand.
What do you think of Wes Clark? Military man, close in stripe to many conservative ideals, intelligent, lots of foreign policy experience (on the implementation end)...
One thing for sure...whoever gets the job is going to have a hell of a mess to clean up.
I am with you on Lieberman....if Sean Hannity likes him than he is an idiot.
I love Wes Clark.
McCain...I am pretty sour on him now because of the Falwell thing..
Wes Clark would be better than the 3 candidates profiled on this blog, but the Dems can do better. I appreciate his stance on border security and education, but I think he's frightfully misguided on issues such as taxes and labor unions, and frankly a little too erratic for my tastes. But I do appreciate the frank manner with which he seems to approach a discussion. I'm not convinced he's as much of a diplomat as might be necessary to tackle some of the major world issues, but perhaps him not being a diplomat is a good thing. If it were GWB against Clark in '08 I would throw my vote his way, but the Repubs will have to throw out a real clunker for him to get my vote otherwise.
Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
»
Super color scheme, I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»
Post a Comment