I think it’s pretty clear I don’t understand women. But it seems politically, the way to win the support of women’s groups is to support women in general, but show disrespect for women individually. Conversely, no matter how well a man has treated women in his personal life, he is judged solely on his position on a single issue.

Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are considered “heroes” to the women’s movement. Bill Clinton has a record of womanizing (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky). Ted Kennedy has been the subject of rumors of womanizing himself (the “Dodd Sandwich” and “offshore drilling” stories spring to mind) and even killed one once.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, has never faced any serious allegations of mistreating women in his life. Many of his key advisors have been women, including three Cabinet Secretaries and his National Security Advisor, yet because he opposes the women’s groups’ position on a single issue — abortion — he’s demonized by NOW and their ilk. He liberated millions of Afghani women from a hideously oppressive government (the Taliban repressed everyone, but women were singled out for extra helpings of oppression).

I happen to be pro-choice, myself, but I just don’t get it. Is that the sole basis on which women’s groups judge a politician’s acceptability?


"Your progressive hypocrites hand out their trash..."
Wizbang RNC Stalker Edition - Wild Cards


  1. Leopold Stotch August 29, 2004
  2. Joe R. August 29, 2004
  3. Maureen August 29, 2004
  4. Joe R. August 29, 2004
  5. Dave Schuler August 29, 2004
  6. Francis W. Porretto August 29, 2004
  7. Tom August 29, 2004
  8. Lornakanaga August 29, 2004
  9. sdunn August 29, 2004
  10. Katie August 29, 2004
  11. Francis W. Porretto August 29, 2004
  12. Sydney T August 29, 2004
  13. Lori August 29, 2004
  14. dewaun August 29, 2004
  15. Luke August 29, 2004
  16. firstbrokenangel August 29, 2004
  17. Jim Price August 29, 2004
  18. McGehee August 29, 2004
  19. Alex D. August 30, 2004