Yesterday I received my official Democratic Party Headquarters “2009 Priority Issues Survey.” This document reveals just what “Change” is being implemented. While pleading for donations to the DCCC, they provide a checklist survey which includes among other things, a request for donors to rank a list of Democratic “priorities.” Here’s the list:
_____ Lifting the economy out of the Bush recession
_____Helping families avoid home forclosure
_____Expanding access to affordable health care
_____Equal rights for all
_____Protecting America against terrorism
_____Bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq
_____Stabilizing Afghanistan
_____Guaranteeing retirement security for America’s seniors
_____Enacting middle-class tax relief
_____Improving educational opportunities
_____Raising wages and protecting jobs for American workers
_____Taking swift action to stop global warming
_____Restoring fiscal responsibility in government
_____Add your own priority ________________________________
Do you notice what is missing? It’s a woman’s right to choice, autonomy, and privacy. Oh sure, we can “add it.” Just like we’ll be able to “add” special supplemental insurance for our reproductive needs.
This my friends is their official public list of priorities; and we’re not on it. The Democratic Party is no longer concerned about our issues. Earlier this week, Peter Beinhart, over at The Daily Beast, indicated his approval for the party’s abandonment of “cultural” issues as a strategic method for obtaining and retaining political power. He calls their Stupidstupaksepsis compromise “The Dems Smart Abortion Move.”
The House’s passage of health-care reform is the clearest sign yet that the Democratic Party is, once again, for better and for worse, a big tent. By essentially sacrificing abortion and immigrant rights to get conservative Democrats to vote for expanded health-care coverage, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi restored the old hierarchy that between the 1930s and the 1960s helped Democrats establish dominance on Capitol Hill. Today, to a degree we haven’t seen since then, the Democratic Party is about economic protection first, and cultural freedom second.
Meet the “New Democratic Coaltion.” Beinhart’s casual disregard for “cultural” issues like “choice” are being echoed by Obama-toadies everywhere. This morning I noted the competitive attitude of some who seem to value beating a candidate such as Martha Coakley–who dared to call out the current leadership for their betrayal, instead of endorsing her as a strong defender of liberal ideals. Speaker Pelosi’s recent endorsement of Capuano, who voted for the bill that included that egregious provision, over Coakley who publicly stated her opposition to the entire bill should it contain the anti-choice measure, speaks volumes about these new priorities and where women stand in the party. It is almost unfathomable that a Democratic supermajority and a Democratic president would instigate such a devastating rollback of our rights. But it has happened. They have exposed their true intentions and clearly believe they can continue down this path with impunity.
It should have been clear to all women, as it was to us, that this direction was set in motion long before the moment Obama called Hillary “likable enough.” But it wasn’t. The party’s cries of WWTBQ, so that the one with a penis could be pushed over the finish line, should have been an “aha” moment for all women. But it wasn’t. The decision of the RBC to take earned delegates from Hillary and transfer them to Obama to ensure that there were no “numbers” problems with the delegate counts should have set off alarms for all women. But it didn’t. The outrageous sexist and misogynistic behavior of this so-called “New Democratic Coalition” toward both Hillary and Sarah should have been a major wake-up call to all women about the unacceptable level of derision with which women were being treated. But it wasn’t. The decision, for the first time in our party’s history, to deny a candidate (who just happened to be the first viable female candidate for president) the right to a roll call vote at the convention should have felt like a sledgehammer to the heads of all women. But it didn’t. The appointment of pro-lifer/anti-choicer Tim Kaine to head the DNC should have been the final straw. But it wasn’t.
This recent action of using women’s autonomy in reproductive choices as a bargaining chip must be the final affront. We cannot allow this to continue. We have been the sacrificial lambs for far too long. We have fought too long and too hard to get where we are. Regressive attacks on our rights must be met with fierce challenge. The time to say NO MORE has come.
I am nearly 50. I have never had, nor needed, nor had to decide about whether to have an abortion. But that’s not the point. Control over our reproductive choices is part and parcel with the Constitutional promise of equality. But then again, this party has no interest in advancing the Equal Rights Act. Because that would mean we deserve autonomy and independence regardless of gender. And we now know, that is not a “priority.”
I am no longer willing to take one for the team or fall on my sword for the greater good. Both political parties have placed their disdain for our gender on public display. We must unite in common consciousness if we are to overcome this blatant attack on our equality under the Constitution. The Hyde and Stupidstupaksepsis amendments are nothing more than legalized discrimination against women. It’s up to us to send the message:
No
Not. This. Time.
I invite you to read the lyrics by Christina Aguilera
digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: General
Did he really say “the old hierarchy”? Yes, back before civil rights and feminism, when “those people” knew their places and we were free to run everything out of smoke filled back rooms and we were free to run everything for the benefit of people like me without all the annoying squacking. You go, Peter. We really should go back to those days.
The “new Democratic coalition” isn’t very liberal is it?
They sound an awful lot like Old Republicans, don’t they?
Rockefeller Republicans wouldn’t touch those cretins with a 10 foot pole.
sounds like the Dixiecrats to me.
It won’t be a very big coalition without the women.
Maybe they’re counting testicles and think they have twice the number in their “coalition.”
That questionnaire is shocking. The party has certainly fallen a long way.
For me, the fact that the Stupak amendment passed was the end. 2008 and Obama and the DNC pretty much closed the door. But I still had some secret hope that things could turn around. Now I not only have no hope, I won’t give that party another chance.
I’m even pretty sure this is a bit of a political game and the amendment will be gone or watered down so that those few people left who care about human rights will cheer and feel the have a victory. But they won’t have. Precisely because the amendment ever passed. The Dem party is a party hostile to women. And a party hostile to human rights. Period. The fact that you have to fight tooth and nail to try to barely hold on to small bits of human rights in the party means it is not a party for you.
Let me repeat, the Democratic party is a party against basic human rights. Period.
Of course the Republican party is also against basic human rights. But that’s not the point. The point is, if you’re for human rights, the party you might have thought was on your side or worth a closer look, is not.
And of course separate from that, the bill will be a complete boondoggle if it passes even without that amendment. It’s a bail out to insurance companies, by and for insurance companies. It will lead to further economic devastation for this country. No, not for the reasons the right is pretending, faux outraging about, but because the super rich mega corporations will be getting more money and more power. Again.
(end of rant… whew, exhausting)
So glad that champions like you have the backs of women everywhere.
And you as well, SOD. Both of your posts are right on. Down thread I made a comment that the Dems have declared war on women and I don’t back down from necessary wars. Then I came up thread and saw your post. I am in excellent company, that’s for sure.
On Monday I will do another round of calls/emails to Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Coakley and any woman working with her. I am also going to donate to Coakley’s campaign. And if the DSCC or DNC call me, I am going to tell them that all of “their” money is going straight to Martha Coakley. I will post when I’ve got these things done because I want to be accountable on this site.
Have Boxer and/or Feinstein come out with statements re: the stupid amendment?
I haven’t heard anything from Feinstein and when I called her office this week her aide told me he had never heard of the Stupak amendment.
I had to leave a message for Boxer. Later that night on radio news I heard that she had just announced that she and other women on the hill were organizing against the rider. So that is good. I want to encourage everyone who’s acting against it and try to jump start those who aren’t .Basically, my money and my energy are up for grabs. I’ve got time 2 days a week to make calls, and write letters. Martha Coakley is going to get a bit of money from me this week.
I did call Boxer’s office a few days ago. I think I’ll call George Miller’s office and tell him that I will no longer vote for him, since he voted for the bill containing the Stupak amendment. He did vote against the amendment, but his vote for the entire bill was wrong. Plus, he is always in lock-step wit pelousy.
Good idea about Miller. I’m in his district and will give him a call. He’s been less than helpful when it comes to children’s healthcare, too.
Thanks. It’s simple logic. It’s human rights. If an organization is oppressing some group, then they are oppressors plain and simple. It doesn’t matter which group. If they can oppress one group, they can oppress another. If you’re not in the group they’re oppressing now, just give them time.
Boy, when they told us they didn’t need or want us in the “New Democratic Coalition” they were serious.
This must be their “and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out (or the tire hit you as it thuthuthump thump thumps over your ass.)
And in this case it isn’t really just oppression or separate and unequal treatment or bigotry, it’s actually about control of your own body, it’s effectively about slavery.
What’s the next step for Dems? What will be in the next bill they’ll push? Hey, there could be some unprotected citizen in wombs out there, shouldn’t we begin testing women of child bearing age every month? And when pregnant, we can’t trust mere women to take care of that unprotected citizen on their own. Shouldn’t we round them up and keep them in camps? After all, that unprotected citizen could be….. male.
Maybe they’ll try to lower the voting age to zygote. Another demographic they can claim to be the great protectors of.
SOD: You sum this up with laser clarity. I knew as I started down that list where it was going to take me. What is incredible is those who believe this is a strategy that recaptures the coalition of FDR!!! Are they nuts? Or just acting historically stupid?
it’s not so much that they are “nuts” — this seems pretty “cool, calm, and calculated” just like their hero Obama. The Dems want it this way. It’s not so much that they are acting stupidly but that they are acting immorally. It’s a 21st century extension of the idea that women are possessions.
They do want it this way. They don’t give a d@mn about us.
I do think that = acting stupidly.
Another great piece, SOD.
I’m pressed for time, so this is just a repost of what I said downstairs–
you can take the Stupakistan out of the bill but you can’t take the bill out of Stupakistan.
the Democratic party has been “accomplishing” what they want telling women only they can defend women’s rights at election time and then when it comes to policy keeping women’s rights in limbo. They won’t make women’s autonomy and privacy a given because that would require actually having to engage women beyond a single-issue platform (that they only defend at election time.)
This isn’t just about “defending” abortion rights, this is about the Democratic party continually treating its female voters like second class citizens , our rights being used as bargaining chips in a piece of skidmark legislation that is being hailed as expanding healthcare to more people (even though in practice the only thing it really expands is wealth to Wall Street). They don’t want us to be engaged in multiple issues beyond abortion, they don’t want our autonomy, privacy, or rights in anything but limbo—the limbo is what allows them to use the same old scare tactics at election time: Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS! They don’t want left-leaning women voting on any other interests… the Democrats might actually have to deliver on them.
they cannot unring the bell that is Stupakistan.
And what’s great about it is that they make absolutely no bones about it. Except right at Election time, when it’s SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade, it’s tough luck, what are you going to do about it, we can win votes from anti-choice voters, you don’t get a say, you don’t get a vote, this is how it is. You’re selfish, intolerant, and we don’t care. We need your votes, we need your labor, we need photo ops, we need coffee, so you owe us that, but when we don’t need you, we need you to shut up and disappear.
Will the Democratic women we have worked to elect as congress critters allow this to happen in exchange for holding on to their party support? Will they abandon the cause of real women for their own political power? Surely Nancy Pelosi has done so.
It really doesn’t matter if the language is removed in the final bill. Women’s rights have been erroded by the very presence of this language in the first place. This should have never passed a vote.
Well, actually it does matter but I get what you mean and I agree. By their actions they have exposed their willingness to throw us under the bus for political expediency.
Thanks SOD – that is what I meant. I’m pretty pissed that this happened at all.
I am too. It is outrageous. To put this in to appease–who, who is it that they should get to be appeased while we are appalled by this language and feel it as exactly the slap down that it is.
No-one would tolerate language of racial bigotry in a bill and then have the gall to tell people of color to sit tight because the bigotry won’t stand in the end. No-one.
But this, no problem, let the words (just words?) fly.
I’ve had it, absolutely had it. Hillary said it all in Beijing when she said women’s rights are human rights. No wonder they assaulted her and cheated to get rid of her. Well, she said never give up. As far as I am concerned, they have declared war, and I just signed up.
Some Dem House rep was on the Ed Schultz radio show today excusing Stupidstupak for his amendment because he’s so “devoutly religious.” Who the hell cares about his religious beliefs????? Didn’t these people have to read the gawddamn Constitution before they took office??
There is a special place in h*ll for Pelousy.
Do you remember, back in the day of ERA? Guess that really did tell us a whole bunch. Guess we just needed to be reminded where we really stand.
Don’t women make up something like 51% of registered voters?
yes they do
Yes, but women don’t have common goals.
women should have common goals. do you think the republicans treat women any better? Hell no. We should get together with other women and organize to take over the political power in the country. In the long run that will be a pro-choice coalition. But MORE than that, it will be a coalition which takes on so many other issues that we DO agree with republican women on.
Conflucians, Big Rant here.
I can personally attest that the our administration is absolutely NOT “_____Helping families avoid home forclosure” . I’ve spent the last 8 months attempting to modify my home loan with Wells Fargo. I am ashamed to admit, unemployed for a year now. recruiters are now asking me…”um, your last job was nov 08?” It’s a drag on every level imaginable.
My point however is: the banks can do whatever they want with HAMP applicants, with absolutely NO recourse. I was never told until just recently (now that I am 6 months delinquent and hopelessly behind) that unemployment was a disqualifier. The federal website stated that unemployment counts as a “hardship” regarding HAMP mods, not a disqualifier. the bank scoffs at whatever federal guidelines are out there. Wells Fargo told me TARP dollars are for new loans, not to help people in distress. I “escalated” my file via the Oregon dept of Justice, my congressman’s office, (D-Blumenaur) and Blumenaur’s Treasury liason and just yesterday, got a cold email from the congressman’s office that sounded like the rep works for the bank. I have a “3 month moratorium” but have to come up with a crushing balloon payment in March to keep my house.
Absolutely no workout; no attempt to come up with anything resembling a workout. At one point I found out WF fudged my numbers (took data from a 6 year old credit report when I had a car payment and student loan) to destroy my monthly budget and boot me out of the loan mod pool. In reality – I got a roommate and trimmed my budget to barest bones to deal with my situation. No justice at all. The folks who are benefiting from all this: Lawyers. Trustees. All those HUD counselors who do nothing to help but add more red tape to the process.
I’m unemployed. I don’t expect an immediate loan mod from my bank and realize their point of view. But if the money is there to help homeowners in distress who cannot find work (oregon has been at 12% for most of the recession)and had excellent credit and payment history before the bailout/fiasco……. that’s me, and I would have liked some advocacy from the folks I elected. (my congressman, not obama). I think the whole process is streamlined so banks can take the houses back and write them off as bad debt.
Then again, I’m not a family. Just a single woman with pets. Maybe I didn’t make the guidelines on that level.
With that qualification you are almost guaranteed to be ignored, mistreated, sacrificed, derided, and thrown under the bus by the current crop of Dems.
Oh – forgot this… at one point they claimed I had “dependents!” That would be funny if not so despicable.
yup its preety much over for you then
I’m sorry, alphaBeach. It’s always Just Words, if you’re a hypothetical and need help, they’re all over it. As a real person in practice, not so much, and always with the fine print and the loopholes.
TY Seriously. I am not done yet; we’ll see if I can rally and meet their terrms. Or maybe I will just hire a lawyer. But it’s certainly been an eye-opener regarding our lack of representation.
You’re right – just Words.
I’ve started to rewrite the list – anyone care to join me?
_____
Lifting the economy out of the Bush recessionWhining and blaming; Presidentin’ is haaaard!!!!
_____
Helping families avoid home forclosureHelping banks with their balance sheets
_____
Expanding access to affordable health careHelping insurance companies attract and retain “consumers”
(tried the Strikeout tag with no luck…)
How’s that?
You do <del>Say Something</del> and you get a line through the text.
Like this:
Say SomethingThanks…now let’s rewrite that damn list! ; )
We don’t need to re-write the list. We can just add the disclaimer:
“The DCCC reserves the right to ignore any and all prioritizations we receive from members and substitute and and all priorities as determined by our largest donors. We hope you understand.”
Very good.
Are you a lawyer by any chance? ; )
SOD’s not a lawyer (iirc), just observant and way smarter than your average donkey (ie, Dem).
I think it was Joe Cannon had something up about this. If you haven’t done so have Wells Fargo prove they hold your paper.
I think we each, personally, do have some core goals – we want to have access to good health care
we want our daughters to be able to plan their lives
we want to be able to have healthy children
But you make a great point about even if they take the amendment out of the bill – I have a copy of the bill and had started reading it but frankly – it is as dry as dust and (perhaps purposely) difficult in some spots to understand.
So I have a question – even if they take the Stupak amendment out what is in there to support our reproductive health?
Somewhere I read that there is a list of services that must be paid for by the insurance companies but that none of those services women need for good reporductive health are included on that list.
If that’s true -just taking that amendment out isn’t going to help the majority of women.
That is true. reproductive healthcare for women is not part of the mandatory coverage. I wrote about it in my “Just so we’re clear” post. http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/just-so-were-clear/
When I posted on another board, that some of the screening tests ie pelvic exams, std and domestic violence counseling not being included in covered services, I was told I was wrong, and the reference and information contained in The Nation article was inaccurate. Which is it? Has anyone found where this is spelled out in the bill? I haven’t found it yet. The bill is difficult to get through and it is difficult to find pertinent sections.
All I saw was “maternity care” and “mammograms.” I’ll look at the bill again and report back.
what section covers that SOD?
BTW – this is a great post – thanks
What section of the bill are you looking at? 1990 pages is a bit daunting.
Makes sense to me. Maternity care because it is our job as good little Democrats to birth the cogs that work the jobs that line to pockets of the DNC (and vote (as instructed)) and mammograms because then they can talk about the horror of breast cancer and wear those little pink ribbon pins. Corporations like the NFL can make pink jock straps for their players and Nabisco can make pink shredded wheat and then the world is finished worrying about women. Easy and efficient.
It’s not that those items can’t be covered, but the bill doesn’t require insurance co’s to cover them while it does require prostate exams be covered.
somehow I think if there is a bit of wiggle room around whether they have to pay or not they will choose NOT
That’s the point. Yet Obama claimed he wanted to encourage preventive care. No pap smears, more cancer later on. Pretty bad bargain.
Starting on page 105:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
You’ll have to research the A & B list and CDC info, but the CDC reports are relevant to vaccines. I believe you’ll find mamograms and pelvic exams on that list
Here’s the task force link:
http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstfix.htm
The women’s gyno health provisions are troubling, but not as onerous as the stupidstupaksepsis provision. With 1990 pages, god only knows how “firm” the above list anyway. There’s probably some big insurance co. loophold buried in the verbiage.
Thanks. I was almost to that point.
Thanks, SOD,
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatments.
–Well, this gives me that hopeful feeling that I’ll be taken care of when I’m homeless and wandering the streets.
Maybe they’ll re-institute electric shock for all of us ornery, hysterical ladies
That provision was probably added by men who heard that the first vibrator was designed for “medical uses” to treat “female hysteria.”
I read that pap smears are covered but pelvic exams at well visits are not. I hope Nancy Pelosi can demonstrate for me how I am supposed to get the pap. Start at her throat perhaps?
That’s what it appears to say. But then again, 1990 pages!! who knows. Then there is a caveat that the covered services are based on some esoteric measure defined as:
That sounds very circular.
” We’ll see what’s being done to decide what will be done. There, done. Another day of not deciding anything or making a commitment that a reasonably intelligent person could decipher.”
Mammograms and pelvic screenings are there.
so then the whole d@mn thing should go in the trash if 51% of the population isn’t fully covered.
ayup
Cervical cancer screening is rated “A” therefore covered.
Mammography is rated “B” therefore covered.
http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm
You can find the ratings of all preventive screenings at that link.
Ovarian cancer screening is “D” — not required to be covered.
http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspsovar.htm
There really isn’t a good screening test for ovarian cancer. There is general lab test for cancer, but it isn’t definitive.
prostate cancer screening is “D” and “I” and therefore not required.
http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspsprca.htm
Interesting – who would want to eliminate cancers from the required screening list.
Strange!
Again, thanks SOD.
Well leave it to the sycophant obama toady media to use degrading sexist images to deride Palin.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/great-moments-in-journalism-sarah-palin-marginalization-starts-early-at-msnbc/
When there is enough legitimate policy issues to attack her with, they still think showing a picture of her photoshopped in a bikini is the best way to attack her.
Pigs.
They do this to powerful women. They did the same thing to Hillary, Coakley is starting to get it, and Palin has always received their degrading sexist attacks. I don’t care for Palin’s politics, but she doesn’t deserve this.
They must be compensating for something.
Just saw that video over at The New Agenda and noticed the same thing. How are they allowed to post these photoshopped images of her and pass them off as real? They would never in a million years think of doing that to Obama.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) makes it pretty much open season on “public figures.”
Good taste is not required, sexism and racism are permitted.
… over at MSNBO that Maddow anchorete keeps shut.
I was hoping that one of the positive effects of her resignation was that she’d be free to sue the media for negligent mis-representation
this hottie “gone wild” crap infuriates me
It ain’t going away anytime soon.
How about, None of the above because I’m not going to play your game anymore.
OK….time for a change in ambiance. New post upstairs. — Make me laugh! Please!
SOD — go here!
http://www.shewrites.com
today they wanted to talk about how women came last in 2009 best books?
! boy could you ever write essays they would love….
xxoo!
i saw a guy who got it. a guy who has national tv exposure and voice…david gergen. on thur. nov. 12 anderson coopers show with candy crowley…david gergen got it. talked about how mobilized women have gotten about the health (insurance, my addition) debate and the omission of abortion in the proposed obama/pelosi plan. he got it that the plan could be derailed by the very women who were responsible for obama being elected and how we were encouraged to vote for him since he would protect women’s choice as protected under current law. he got it. then reality set in and they said that the plan would probably be passed. but, a guy said it and he got it. a major step for women.
The HCR will not be derailed over this issue unless we make it so. And the great irony is that it is women more than any other group in our nation who have consistently pushed the HCR issues.
On the local San Diego station this evening they were discussing that in SD they expect 360,000 people currently not having health care to be able to get hc under the House bill thanks to the expansion of MediCal (medicaid). The big question they noted is where in the world will the state of CA get the money to fund its share of the Medicaid costs? Because of budget shortfalls to the state, we are currently anticipating a mid-year budget cut for schools and the financial failure of some of our schools who do not have enough reserves to manage a midyear budget cut of the size that may be needed. Add expanded medical service to that and what do you have—-a mess.
Beinart is so full of crap… Not only are the Dems willing to sacrifice women’s rights, there’s no “economic security” concern evident in their activities either. Where’s my single payer health insurance (or, at worst, robust public option)? Where’s New Deal II?
And, it should be noted, during LBJ’s administration the Dems were fully capable of delivering women’s rights, civil rights, AND economic security, all in one package. These are not mutually exclusive policy agendas.
That piece was so bad I’m wondering if it was intended as satire.
But in Beinart’s world, working class people don’t come in all races, ethnicities, genders and sexualities. They’re white, male, straight Archie Bunkers, goddamn it! And all their co-workers are either fellow Archies or they’re people to be resented the way KO resented Suzy Kolber and Beinert eyes the sandwich delivery girl with suspicion. Unless these scary furrigner and lady parts types are hidden away in the closet, Archie won’t play! He wants to see his inferiors suffer more than he wants a decent standard of living.
Two dates never to be forgotten by any woman who was ever a democrat.
May 31 2008
November 7 2009
any time a democrat contacts you for money or time or a vote remember these dates
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS BUBBAS, EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Burned in my brain helenk.
The time is now for a third INDEPENDENT PARTY.
Enough! We’re mad as Hell, and we’re not ‘likeable’ no more!
“Periodically, Baracks will feel down on the polls and start launching attacks against Women”
…but watch out, Obummer! Cause the attacked and slapped will turn around and bite your skinny arugula ass to hell…..You’re toast, Baracks….
The Independent Party should be called THE PUMA INDEPENDENT PARTY
Do not agree. PUMA in the big scheme of things is too narrow a base. We need a name that picks up on a common thread that can appeal to not just PUMAs but a broader audience. Also note that there are several “independent party” labels already in play. I still think THE Third Party could work; it picks up on common usage—such as “we need a third party”.
That’s a very worrying list, not just because of its innate conservative. All that talk of families – presumably male led traditional families – and fiscal responsibility and the middle class. But notice also the mendacity over war. Troops won’t all come back from Iraq and that isn’t the intention. They will be in huge super garrisons, protecting the oil supply, but probably not in combat. And they will be in combat in Afghanistan. That is what “stabilising” really means – killing Afghans, probably using more drones and killing many more civilians, but fighting all the same. And yes, women’s issues are missing too. One might add that so are gender and race issues. Not things that interest intensely conservative people mostly interested in themselves and the status quo.