I just got an email from John McCain
It was titled "The Truth About the McCain Health Care Plan." Signed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the same guy who said McCain invented the Blackberry. Real credible source.
I've been on their email and phone list since last December (or longer). I signed up for their newsletter because I thought he was the least scary of the Republican candidates (boy, was I wrong about that!)
Before the Iowa caucus, I got a lot of emails from them and they called at least once a week. The email today was the first time I've heard from them since January.
How inept are these people? I was a Hillary supporter, which I told them every time they called. If they kept good records, they should've seen me as ripe for the picking when she lost. Why didn't they contact me then?
For awhile, I was so angry about the way Hillary was treated ("you're likeable enough, Hillary")that I might have been persuaded to jump ship.
And the McCain campaign waits till 7 days before the election to contact me. I already voted a week ago!
I left a message on their website - told them it was too late. And that they lost any chance of ever getting my vote when they put Palin on the ticket. Choosing that unqualified twit for VP was an insult to Hillary supporters.
I received that e-mail, too, ddn. I, too, was a Hillary-supporter in the primaries. I purposely signed up on their e-mail lists (including the one that Lieberman tried to build up when he crossed and Hillary lost) - not because he had a chance to get my vote, but because I like to get opponents' words directly from their mouth.
I have received many more e-mails from them than you. But you are absolutely right, they made ZERO one-on-one effort to try to reel me in.
I'm glad that they didn't cultivate the Hillary supporters; and, I'm glad they lost you, ddn.
October 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
They never had much chance with me. I just needed some time to lick my wounds. But I knew lots of other Hillary supporters who were thinking about crossing over until he chose Palin.
I used to like and admire McCain. It's sad that he's shown himself for who he really is - or what he's allowed himself to become.
October 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I supported Obama during the primary, but like a lot of people, I didn't have anything against Clinton. But when McCain picked Palin, I put up a post about what an insult this was to Clinton's supporters. (Sadly, it, like all my posts, have disappeared with the new "upgrade".) Lalo, though, called me deluded and said that I didn't "get it."
Well, I'm glad to see that some (most?) Hillary supporters agreed with me on that point.
October 28, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I also posted something about that on Blogger at the time. And I know how quickly posts sink into the great never never around here. This is the first time one of mine's made it to the recommended list.
October 29, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political analysts are still trying to figure out why McCain picked a V-P with appeal only to his base, rather than one with more independent potential.
Which leads me to why in the world would they send out an email on the healthcare issue a week before the election, rather than an all issues oriented appeal?
October 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
His health care policy is killing him in Iowa. Even pro-lifers, a big demographic here, are putting their families' need for health care ahead of that one issue now.
October 28, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only wonder why, if you supported Clinton, you'd have switched (if asked - nicely, I presume) to someone like McCain - or any Republican, for that matter - since they are as a party adamantly opposed to almost anything she's ever stood for publicly.
The feeling of pique that strong with you?
Serious question - I want to know.
October 28, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me when one of the candidates discovers anything interesting to say about women's issues.
And a good portion of the Democratic Party was adamantly opposed to almost anything Hillary's ever stood for publicly. As well as Hillary personally. News release March 2008 - the Clintons were a disaster in the 1990's, destroyed the party, let the Republicans win in 1996, and ruined our chance for universal health care for a generation. When the party leadership comes out to attack a candidate personally, it leads to a personal reaction.
October 28, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You will of course point to the exact place in my post where I said "women's issues", now won't you?
I am not a Clinton fan, and that goes back to the mid-90's, when I thought Bill was more trouble than he was ever going to be worth. (I was right.)
Even I have come around to seeing that most of what Clinton stood for in this was far closer to the Dems' norms than McCain would ever be in his worst nightmares. (May they all come true...)
What's your excuse? Poor reading skills aside, I mean.
October 28, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said "women's issues". What, I can't use a term until you ue it?
October 29, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me when one of the candidates discovers anything interesting to say about women's issues.
What women's issues are you talking about? Health care? The war in Iraq? Jobs? Those are the issues all the women I know care most about, including Hillary.
October 29, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Health care" and "jobs" are rather generic terms for conditions and policies that differ greatly between genders. Similar to education, law and order issues like drug abuse and violence, etc. And then of course there's discrimination itself. So a job program that creates great conditions for men might not be that convenient for women in the types of work they tend to do or given the childcare restrictions they frequently have. The health care women deal with tends to have a greater impact at a younger age than men's health care, and a satisfactory system for men might not meet the needs of a typical woman. A drug law that shows leniency for offenders may not be a good thing for a wife getting beaten up night after night. So at some point there should be some discussion of different needs, at least for those who feel that these issues need to be addressed. I can't imagine that Iraq is one of the top 3 issues for most women across the US, but anything is possible - we re-elected Bush.
October 29, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's this for women's issues:
-->Making women pay for rape kits in the state that (incidentally has more rapes per capita than any other). I haven't heard a comment from McCain OR Palin about this policy that she put forth when she was getting all of her "executive experience."
-->Sex education that includes biological truths and accurate information about contraception. Republicans simply do not believe in that; the "just say no" answer -- when that doesn't work (witness Palin's own life and that of her oldest daughter), then the next "No" is the answer to "Can I have an abortion." This punitive attitude has done terrible harm to women, and if they get their way it will be the law of the land.
-->Equal pay for equal work. I was in Charlottesville when Michelle Obama came to speak and she brought Ms. Ledbetter with her (the woman who sued the Tire company she had worked for all her life when she found out that she as a woman was paid a different salary scale than men.) John McCain's response to this issue: Women need better education. The point is equivalency between equally educated women and men, John. And on the other hand, as to better education for women, it's kinda hard to do when they are at home at 18 with their babies, and get no help from anyone, including health insurance.
-->Which brings me to health insurance, which you say is "generic." Women are overwhelmingly the care-givers in families, and are most impacted by poor or unavailable health care.
-->I have never seen Obama or Biden get "cleaned" from witchcraft (and I'm sure I would have if they did that), and since most witches are women, this is a big women's issue that Palin is out in front on, in a very negative way.
October 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your 4th is simply saying what I was saying - a "generic" discussion of health care doesn't acknowledge the gender difference in significance.
Regarding the "just say no", I'm not sure we're starting a crusade to impose government into families' sex education or lack of it.
Regarding witchcraft, well, I think this isn't something any of the candidates have spoken on.
Regarding rape kits, I don't think the candidates discussed.
Regarding equal pay, I'd rather the candidate discussed than leaving this to his wife, wouldn't you?
October 29, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you're right -- Barack sent the Missus to talk about equal pay for equal work because he doesn't care about it. BTW, the "Just Say No" mantra isn't about what goes on in families; it is about what goes on in schools, which definitely affects families, especially those that don't do any educating on their own.
October 29, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you're facetious on the first, but yes, sending the Missus to talk about those girlie things the girls care about is likely a patronizing move. About the type of sex education to provide in schools, well, it does get into people's right to decide how they want their kids to grow up. I don't want some do-gooder deciding that I'm telling my kids too much about child birth too young, and I'm sure other folks don't like some smart ass deciding that this or that contraception is just what his/her 14-year-old needs. So we have a balance between personal/family freedom and social good, and that requires a fine touch, not self-righteousness.
October 29, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she talked about it because it's important to her. I'm sure she has at least some input into what she gets to talk about.
I'm sure it's important to him too. But at this particular moment, there are a few things kinda front and center. If we all lose our jobs, we're all gonna have equal pay, ya know?
October 29, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Michelle is an ambassador of sorts, but at the end of the day she's not going to be doing a Hillary-style task force on health care, that will be Obama et al. So I'd like to see the pronouncements rise to the level of what will be done in Iraq/Afghanistan, future bailouts on Wall Street, and say what's the plan for the 1st 100 days/1001 nights (he's already backpedaling on what can be done early, so it's worth having a glimpse at the to-do list and the projected timeline).
October 29, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Health care" and "jobs" are rather generic terms for conditions and policies that differ greatly between genders. [Etc.]
Bullshit. Sorry. That's the only word for what you're spewing.
Women want health care policies and job programs that benefit their families. Women have husbands, sons, fathers and brothers and they want them to get quality health care and good jobs. Men have wives, daughters, mothers and sisters and they want what's best for them.
Men and women might approach things differently, but ultimately, we all want the same thing. Except for a few Neanderthals who think with their dicks.
October 29, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
DDN, I appreciate what you're saying, that men and women often think more widely than simply their own individual needs, and that those they include in their considerations are often members of a different sex. Fair enough, and in a really high level sense, yes, these may be able to be captured in the same sorts of phrases - health care, jobs, etc.
But. I've got 20% years of doing policy, across multiple jurisdictions. And even with sisters, mothers, girlfriends in my inner circle, trying as hard as I might, my personal experiences & predispositions have meant I often don't even SEE things that they do. e.g. I was working on public transit in a big city. My overwhelming focus was to increase the speed with which people could get home. Which was fine, except that when it came to travel after-dark, women insisted that safety overruled speed. So the system became somewhat more expensive, and somewhat slower, but enabled them to get off at much safer destinations. Same working on health care. My view of what birth was happily included midwives and many other things that women wanted. Except that again, the quality - including the time spent with each mother - turned out to be of much greater value than I had imagined. When I worked on recycling, it turned out that while "men" were often the ones who officially "took out the trash," it was women who were doing the product purchase, as well as most of the in-kitchen sorting of materials.
Now, I'm not saying we maybe can't find common phrases to capture these joint ideals - but the way these outcomes are defined, where the money is invested, who is involved in implementation, all this had better have major input from women, or they won't be what they should be. And in each case, I don't think it's bullshit to say that women's perspectives will tend to be somewhat different than men's. Cheers.
October 29, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got 20% years of doing policy, across multiple jurisdictions. And even with sisters, mothers, girlfriends in my inner circle, trying as hard as I might, my personal experiences & predispositions have meant I often don't even SEE things that they do.
Ultimately you want the same thing women do - good public policy that benefits everyone. You just need input from both sides to see the big picture.
That's why it's important to have a balance of men and women in policy making positions. The world wouldn't be any better if everything was run by women - different but not better. We need men and women to share the power.
October 29, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you just called bullshit on my noting that perspectives on these issues are very different across gender lines (amongst others). Thanks to Quinn for fleshing out some specifics. I was referring to similar specifics for implementing a successful jobs program for women that took into account typical education and experience levels, household and child-rearing/ferrying duties, and other issues like different rates of sickness. Daily Howler when not bemoaning the press focuses on the glib overly-optimistic projections on improving inner city education and performance on standardized tests. The reality is that most "improvements" are temporary and/or realized by ignoring similar trends elsewhere in the community. In short, "bullshit".
Women have special needs (and this can be subdivided further). There is nothing wrong with accommodating them in an election and in preparing policy and actual laws that better account for these needs. Women make up more than 50% of the population. They do not in general focus on foreign policy as much as men (though some do), and they have much more finely tuned requirements for health care, child raising, education, transportation, security/law enforcement, et al.
Topologically speaking, a coffee cup and a donut are the same. That broad equivalence doesn't do anyone much good in real life.
October 29, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not convinced that gender is a great way to distinguish issues facing the country.
Does a woman look at the "credit crisis" in a way substantially different than a male?
Every human prioritizes differently - even within the sub-category of male and female humans priority differentiation will occur.
I understand we can get real specific and talk about reproductive rights of the female relative to the female body (which requires a belief that a male's perspective is automatically different than a female's) but beyond that, why is it a man vs woman thing? Gives us something to argue about I suppose.
It all reminds me of the wo/man vs nature arguments. I guess because wo/man is completely separate from nature somehow.
October 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. Women look at a crappily lit parking lot a ton different than men. Women look at an ensuing pregnancy a ton different than men (remember the old joke, the chicken's interested, the egg's committed). Domestic abuse overwhelmingly impacts women worse than men, and men are much more likely to be involved in substance abuse and violent crimes. Think of all those $100 million sports stadiums - that's the prime focus of women? Sexual harassment and discrepancies in pay and job promotion? Goes on and on. No psychobabble about "nature vs. nurture" please. This is serious shit.
October 29, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all vote that way:
Personal before country (pseudo-grown up). Party before country (Republican).
I don't know how you could have missed it, or why no one has been able to tell you -- perhaps you ignore the fact: half of the human race is not female/women.
That means half of the country has other issues; as example, more money goes into into breast cancer research than into prostate cancer; the disoarity is so great that the first has a public awareness month, and the latter is almost wholly under the radar); still, that other issue MUST put WOMEN before all others.
Clue: When you're eligible for the draft during war time -- which ONLY affects men -- you'll know the meaning of oppression. Until then, you still have your head up your superior victim c**t.
So, one-issue self-involved bigot, do us all a favor: register as Republican, as that is the party for one-issue bigots who can only whine because they don't put YOU befere even themselves.
Get over yourself.
October 29, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you called me a cunt.
Brilliant, exlax, you do have your head up your ass and it's quite a mess.
October 29, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure. Lemme re-read. Ignorant... check... One issue, self-involved, bigot... check... Ah! Here it is, "Superior victim c**t."
Is that a standard phrase 'round here? I checked Nagarya's Profile, seems he/she likes Emily Dickinson. Maybe it's from Dickinson. Must be, nobody else seems to mind.
Nagarya, you're pathetic. I've tried joking with you about what I thought was just your accidental smashing up of people - like with that kid's 1st post the other day that you stomped on. Wrote it off to over-exuberance, maybe being inattentive. But it's not that. You're acting like a shit. Get a grip.
October 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - the number of people who die from prostate cancer is miniscule. It's quite likely that more people die from unnecessary treatment than the syndrome itself.
PPS - you've got problems.
October 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW.
And for the record, September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.
Des, apparently you're looking mighty feminine today. ;)
October 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're lookin' kinda hot yourself ;-)
October 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
But seriously, if you haven't looked up prostate cancer, take a look around. It's a rather poorly diagnosed disease, and most autopsies for men show some sign of "prostate cancer" - i.e. it hardly seems to be the major cause of their demise.
October 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a bigot. Got that?
October 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cause I said something against prostate cancer?
October 29, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a nitwit. Got that?
October 29, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus dude - let it go.
I think it's amazing that when it might have made a difference, McCain's incompetent campaign didn't have it's stuff together. Even with a running start! That was THE big controversy ... would McCain be able to pick up Hillary supporters?
In retrospect the question might be ... did he even try?
October 28, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd. I don't remember addressing my post to you.
That said, do you somehow not think it's a fair question, given what DDN posted? her reply was certainly more thoughtful than your psychobabble.
October 28, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You neglected to tell "kgb999" that s/he was not free to respond to your post.
October 29, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Failing to inform a poster of such unentitledness is grounds under TPM rules for a receipt by the violator of one o' them Palin as Rosie-the-Riveter t-shirts.
October 29, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
My perception of McCain was faulty. I bought the whole "Straight Talk Express" B.S. and I thought he was more moderate than his party. Like I said, I was wrong.
During the caucus, the local Obama supporters were awful. Our county leaders were all pro-Obama and they did everything they could to undermine Hillary supporters. Lots of dirty tricks, like taking down Hillary signs at the caucus sites and replacing them with Obama signs.
Then to top that off, the anti-Clinton attitude from the national Obama campaign and the media left a very bitter taste in my mouth.
I usually volunteer for the Dems every time. This year, I decided I'd vote Obama (grudgingly) but I wasn't going to volunteer. That changed when McCain chose Palin.
And now, Obama himself has won me over completely. I love the guy.
October 28, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your "You're likeable enough Hillary" and raise you a "He isn't a muslim..........as far as I know". Ha!
October 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay! let's all relive the primaries again!
October 28, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aww come on I was just teasing DDN she is a fantastic poster and it wasn't even serious.
October 28, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I'm blushing. And I enjoy the teasing.
October 29, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Fair enough.
October 28, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
About a half hour ago, I also got a robocall paid for by RNC and McCain/Palin. It wasn't bad - basically something like "I'm Ann, another Joe the plumber ..." about taxes and the economy.
Their campaign would be in better shape if they'd focused on issues like that instead of all the "celebrity, Hussein, pals around with terrorists" nonsense.
October 28, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their campaign would be in better shape if it was not run by J. Sidney McCain III (fifth from last in an Annapolis class of 700) who has no motivation, smarts or leadership skills to get the country going in a better direction.
October 28, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I can't disagree with that. Earlier this week, someone had a post about a top level campaing shakeup:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/genghis/2008/10/breaking-top-level-mccain-camp.php
October 29, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad the party came together. I supported Obama and that was a hard primary on all of us, but when Palin tried to step into Hillary's spot I was really angry. I thought, how dare she compare herself to "our Hillary." :)
October 29, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm rantingly and ravingly -- hysterically -- jealous that you've been getting them and I haven't. YAWN.
October 29, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far only 1 robocall and 1 email. I'm a little disappointed they've stopped there. We'll see what today brings.
Obama's ground game here has me scratching my head. Most years, my phone is ringing off the hook with the local Dems looking for volunteers. This year, I got 1 call to do poll watching (which I've done the last 5 or 6 presidentials) and 1 call asking me to do door-to-door canvassing this weekend. (Can't because of health problems.) They also need people to work the phone banks on Tuesday but I'm already booked.
October 29, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
JNagarya, I've rarely witnessed such angry misogyny as you display any time the word "woman" comes up. What exactly is your issue?
October 29, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you pay attention to my consistency and balamnce: I oppose sexism -- including FEAMLE sexism. That isn't "mysoginy," though your characterizing it as such is the usual female sexist effort to avoid the double standard.
I love women; I don't love bigotry or sexist double-standards in anyone, including women.
As for this thread and Desideros: apprently one must pay attention to catch the fact that "women's issues" exclusde half the population. Is there something "mysoginistic" about noting that fact?
October 29, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you consider "women's issues?"
Women's health? Ok. That excludes half the population: the half on which the lion's share of research dollars for cures and preventions have been, and continue to be, granted.
Equal pay for equal work? You think this takes something away from men?
Abortion? It takes two people to create a pregnancy, but one half of that equation has the opportunity to walk away from the responsibility.
Child care? Again, an issue for both parents, although in many cases, women are still shouldering the majority of the burden whether they work full time or not.
Women's issues are not about hating or discriminating against men. They're about fairness. Many, many, many men understand this. You do not appear to be one of them.
October 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egads - What. An. Asshat.
For the record, being pro-women's issues does not equal being anti-man. And running around dropping c*** on folks because they are pro-women's issues indicates that you are indeed misogynistic. Why else the gender based insults?
October 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the incongruity of egads and asshat in the same (sort of) sentence.
October 29, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you say this:
Yeah, yeah, yeah...I'll bet some of your best friends are women. Or maybe black people.
No one who calls anyone a c**t loves women. Got that?
October 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one who calls anyone a c**t loves women.
But jnagarya's role model is John McCain, and John calls his beloved Cindy a c**t. We all know how much Mac loves his wife. Or at least his trophy. And her money.
October 29, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I haven't gotten any campaign mail from Mccain, his office sent in response to an email of mine. It looked like he had a typewritten letter scanned and sent. Traditional business letter format, elite type, paragraph set up, his initials and his likely the title is "secretary". It's so archaic I've saved it for posterity. His team has made a lot of mistakes in this campaign, the poor use of technology and information among them.
If you haven't voted yet and can in your state VOTE TODAY. Then volunteer to work election day protecting other's rights and monitoring the process. Thanks.
October 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
DDN, Thank you for this post.
My personal story, I started out a Hillary supporter, but ended up being won over by Obama way before the primaries were over. In brief, Obama really impressed me and Hillary really started rubbing me wrong with the "white people will vote for me" and the "McCain and I are only ones qualified" kind of talk.
I'm sure there's plenty of outrage to go around. My wife remained a Hillary supporter. And...as many here have stated, when McCain picked Palin, my wife went ballistic! She was outraged. And I was to. I still hold respect for Hillary, and the Palin comparison was beyond stupid. Nice goin', McCain.
October 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comparison was so cynical. At the time, I thought McCain was serious about it, that he really thought he could woo us by putting a token on the ticket. It didn't take long to realize he was just using that as a cover story so he could pander to the base and the pseudo-feminists among them.
October 29, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink