More Republican Women Running for Congress Due to Economic Issues

Reader Comments
Back to blog

...if (s)he believes that women are generally wiser and more honest than men. We would not and should not tolerate a viewpoint that men are superior to women; neither should we tolerate the direct antithesis.

Brian Gillin of PA 1:10PM June 05, 2010

...if we killed off Aura Dawn Veirs (just as if we were to kill more unborn children), there would be one fewer person receiving government services, which we all receive. Obviously, that does not mean we should do that. Fiscal responsibility is fine, but not at the expense of human lives.

Brian Gillin of PA 1:07PM June 05, 2010

"The advantage to having women in politics is that USUALLY women are wiser and more honest than many men..."
So women in politics are awesome! So long as the politics of the women in politics agree with your politics. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "woman dancing in a strip club owned by men."
That is one of the most astonishingly anti-feminist things I've read all week. And I've seen some pretty anti-feminist stuff this week. Women are not a hive-mind. Women do not all think alike. Women are not bound by your personal politics. Women, as a collective, do not owe you anything.

Alice of AL 11:48AM June 05, 2010

is that USUALLY women are wiser and more honest than many men. If, however, you grow up a gaggle of prominent women who are willing to loudly lie about everything from soup to nuts and make themselves basically the handmaidens of corporations--- think Michelle Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, even old Margaret Thatcher of the UK--- then there is no real "advantage" to them being in the mix. Lies aren't helpful, especially if bolstered by flashy personalities. Lies are lies.
If you have GOP women funded by men and sent out to argue for more high end tax cuts for men, when those women OUGHT to intuitively know better, then basically you have something akin to girls dancing in a strip club owned by men.

Muser of NM 10:03AM June 05, 2010

Perhaps we have arrived at that moment where the essence of the argument against big government has started to shift in a slightly different direction. Shouldn't the argument be focused - not on "big government" - but rather on "good government"? Efficiency versus incompetence? We are now a nation of over three-hundred million people. The very idea that the government should be made smaller - or done away with entirely - is beyond idiotic. Rather than wasting our precious time trying to come up with ways of shrinking it, we should all be working overtime trying to improve it.
"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."
-Ronald Reagan's first Inaugural Address
January 20, 1981
As the decades ebb away and the judgment of history becomes more dispassionate, this truism will become increasingly apparent:
Ronald Reagan was a fool.
Once upon a time he was a liberal Democrat. As an actor in Hollywood in the thirties, forties and fifties he became fabulously wealthy by starring in a string of perfectly awful films. Back then, the rich were taxed more liberally than they are today. Reagan took a second look at his new fortune and decided he wasn't that much of a Lefty after all. For the rest of his life he dedicated all of his energy toward destroying the foundation of a new deal for the American people that Franklin Roosevelt put into place in the thirties - a new deal that had made a thriving and healthy middle class possible. Reagan was fairly successful in that destruction.
He also succeeded in deregulating industry and the financial marketplace. That deregulation was put into overdrive by his Republican and Democratic successors. What is now happening in the Gulf of Mexico - which could ultimately threaten the lives of every living creature on this planet - is their legacy. It is their gift to posterity. They can have it back.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan

Tom Degan of NY 8:18AM June 05, 2010

If GOP women candidates are Prolife, they'll increase taxes & make government even Bigger. This is because banning abortion is "spendthrift." It makes taxpayers subsidize an unwed poor mom & one kid to age l8. But it costs us taxpayers $500,000 to give them welfare, ADC, food stamps, health care & subsidized housing. We also have to pay people to hand out those benefits & that means more Big Government. But ProChoice is fiscally very thrifty & genuinely conservative in use of public treasuries. Abortion is cheap. To ten weeks, abortion costs $527. To 16 weeks, it's $735. If a woman must wait longer, it still costs only $1370. The difference is $498,630. So ProChoice is the far better money manager. Dear GOP women, please shift over to be ProChoice and give us taxpayers relief. We're supporting unaborted conceptions born to Americans & also supporting illegals who sneak in here with big families because their homelands ban abortion. Arizona is flooded with overbreeding illegals. In Riverside County, CA, many of those big box distribution centers are full of illegals who can't speak English. They run forklifts & do manual labor, & take jobs from people whose members pay property taxes there.

aura dawn veirs of CA 4:08PM June 04, 2010