Equal Rights For Women - Just Talk After All?
For decades, the Democrat party has staked out the claim that it is the champion of the working class, the downtrodden, minorities...
and women.
The majority of prominent feminists seem to be Democrats, and Democrat candidates constantly rail about "equal rights" for the fair gender.
But what have they done about it? In 1984 they stood Geraldine Ferraro up as a vice-presidential candidate for Walter Mondale.
That was a good start, even though the ticket was defeated.
But it took them another TWENTY-FOUR YEARS to place another woman, Hillary Clinton, in the executive race.
And one has to wonder...
had she not been Bill's Wife, would they have even done that? And then? They didn't even let her have the nomination.
The Democrats have lots of female "congresspeople" (the downside of being a Democrat woman is that you have to deny your gender...
"congresswoman" is politically incorrect), lots of mayors and legislators and other showpiece female politicians, but somehow they just don't trust a woman near the White House.
After all, you would think that a party who is so Pro Woman would welcome a chance to put their votes where their rhetoric is.
Wouldn't you? I mean, if they're really serious about it, then where is the proof? And being Pro Woman, you might think that, if their own voters rejected their female candidate, they might take a positive view of a Republican woman breaking that executive barrier in her stead.
After all, the talk about Equal Rights for Women doesn't specify party affiliation.
But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Enter Sarah Palin.
Not only is Sarah Palin a woman, she is also a wife and mother (whom the Democrats claim to care about), and she holds down a full-time job.
Not just any full-time job, but she's the governor of one of the most resource-rich states in the Union, and also the largest in land area.
She has proven to be tough enough for the job, facing down corruption in her own party, taking on the Evil Oil Companies and winning, balancing her budget, and maintaining an approval rating north of 65%.
And, if that weren't enough, she's also physically attractive.
(I don't say that to take anything away from Democrat women -- Hillary looks especially hot this year, and Geraldine Ferraro is one hell of a looker.
) So here we are, for only the second time in history -- a woman running for Vice President.
It's about time, wouldn't you think? Especially since women have had the right to vote for over eight decades! The Democrats should be supportive, wouldn't you think? Sure, they'd rather she was from their party, but still, she's a woman.
A very capable woman.
Smart.
Tough.
No-nonsense.
Just what the doctrine ordered.
Go, Sarah! Right, Democrats? Well...
no.
I won't even attempt to catalog the litany of smears the Democrats have launched against this woman.
If you live in America and you're still breathing, you already know.
I guess all that talk about Equal Rights for Women all those decades was just talk.
Smoke in the ear.
If she gets the job, they'll probably cut her salary.
and women.
The majority of prominent feminists seem to be Democrats, and Democrat candidates constantly rail about "equal rights" for the fair gender.
But what have they done about it? In 1984 they stood Geraldine Ferraro up as a vice-presidential candidate for Walter Mondale.
That was a good start, even though the ticket was defeated.
But it took them another TWENTY-FOUR YEARS to place another woman, Hillary Clinton, in the executive race.
And one has to wonder...
had she not been Bill's Wife, would they have even done that? And then? They didn't even let her have the nomination.
The Democrats have lots of female "congresspeople" (the downside of being a Democrat woman is that you have to deny your gender...
"congresswoman" is politically incorrect), lots of mayors and legislators and other showpiece female politicians, but somehow they just don't trust a woman near the White House.
After all, you would think that a party who is so Pro Woman would welcome a chance to put their votes where their rhetoric is.
Wouldn't you? I mean, if they're really serious about it, then where is the proof? And being Pro Woman, you might think that, if their own voters rejected their female candidate, they might take a positive view of a Republican woman breaking that executive barrier in her stead.
After all, the talk about Equal Rights for Women doesn't specify party affiliation.
But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Enter Sarah Palin.
Not only is Sarah Palin a woman, she is also a wife and mother (whom the Democrats claim to care about), and she holds down a full-time job.
Not just any full-time job, but she's the governor of one of the most resource-rich states in the Union, and also the largest in land area.
She has proven to be tough enough for the job, facing down corruption in her own party, taking on the Evil Oil Companies and winning, balancing her budget, and maintaining an approval rating north of 65%.
And, if that weren't enough, she's also physically attractive.
(I don't say that to take anything away from Democrat women -- Hillary looks especially hot this year, and Geraldine Ferraro is one hell of a looker.
) So here we are, for only the second time in history -- a woman running for Vice President.
It's about time, wouldn't you think? Especially since women have had the right to vote for over eight decades! The Democrats should be supportive, wouldn't you think? Sure, they'd rather she was from their party, but still, she's a woman.
A very capable woman.
Smart.
Tough.
No-nonsense.
Just what the doctrine ordered.
Go, Sarah! Right, Democrats? Well...
no.
I won't even attempt to catalog the litany of smears the Democrats have launched against this woman.
If you live in America and you're still breathing, you already know.
I guess all that talk about Equal Rights for Women all those decades was just talk.
Smoke in the ear.
If she gets the job, they'll probably cut her salary.
