The New Face Of Dunderheadedness

Posted by on
You knew they were out there somewhere, but you really didn't want to believe it was true. Top Clinton backer, Lynn Forester is going to announce at a news conference in front of the US Capitol that she is backing, and will campaign for, John McCain for President.  

Does this send a shiver down anyone else spine? I feel like I want to yell at this woman! What are you doing? You're obviously just trying to be vindictive because why would you have ever been a Democrat in the first place if you would throw your support behind the likes of John McCain and Sarah Fascist err oops, it's Palin right? Did you not believe in reproductive rights, gay rights, a stable economy, and an end to the war when you were supporting Hillary? Was it just those glittery X chromosomes that caught your attention?

I have yet to hear her say one good thing about John McCain and his policies, although I'm sure she will talk him up in her speech. She did have this to say about Obama in a CNN interview this summer however: "Frankly I don't like him. I feel like he's an elitist."  So I guess we know where her drive is coming from.  Yes, hatred of a man can make you do crazy things. Things like abandoning every possible principle you may have had, to prove a point.

Well way to go lady, you proved your point. That I was naive when I thought that no woman would be ignorant enough, or vengeful enough, to actively support the ultimate anti-women's rights platform. Just goes to show you though, and Ms. Forester you could learn from this; sometimes you're just dead wrong.

Comments

Peggy said…
I don't get the reproductive rights thing. China has policies againt reproductive rights. Margaret Sanger lead the charge to restrict reproductive rights. What Palin platforms are you referring to?
September 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM
NiNa* said…
I am mostly referring to the appointment of conservative judges to the supreme court. While McCain has said that he would not have a litmus test on one issue, I think it is fair to say that if elected, roe vs. wade would be overturned.
September 19, 2008 at 6:31 AM
Peggy said…
Oh, ok. Thats what I thought you meant. I just never heard the argument that pro-lifers are against reproductive rights. I don't think reproduction can be considered a right after the a baby is conceived. at that point reproduction has already occured. Overturning Roe would't restrict peoples right to reproduce or their decision not to.
September 19, 2008 at 4:23 PM
NiNa* said…
I guess to me, reproductive rights simple means a persons right to control all aspects and functions of their own reproductive system.
September 23, 2008 at 7:22 AM
Peggy said…
So a developing child is an aspect and/or function of the reproductive system???

My baby is 7 1/2 months gestation. He/she would most likely survive outside of my body and is undeniably a baby. Roe guarantees a woman the right to abort her baby at any point during pregnancy. At what point do you consider abortion infanticide? I can't believe anyone can support partial-birth abortion.

Overturning wade would not outlaw abortion but would allow states to make its own restrictions on this controversial topic.
September 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM
NiNa* said…
I myself wouldn't feel comfortable telling a doctor what she could or couldn't do to save someone's life. I can't comment on any other time it's done.
September 24, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Peggy said…
well, the less-than 1% of the time abortion is performed to save a woman’s life would be a vast improvement over what we have now but can not be enforced until Roe is overturned. It is never medically necessary to abort a baby in the 3rd trimester. Most babies can survive if delivered in the third trimester. As an OB, Ron Paul has assisted the delivery of over 4000 babies. He has said on many occasions that Partial-birth is never medically necessary. As long as Roe is on the books there is no way to protect these babies.
September 26, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Post a Comment