I had hoped Debra Bartoshevich would see reason and stop endorsing McCain, but apparently that's not the case. Back in June, I voiced my displeasure with her, a pledged delegate for Clinton who was ousted from the convention for her open support of McCain, saying that I couldn't understand how anyone who really liked Clinton could turn around and support a guy whose views on almost everything are the polar opposite. Seriously, how could any supposedly pro-choice, feminist person vote for this guy?
I guess Bartoshevich never got that memo, because she's now shilling for McCain in one of his campaign ads. A lot of folks are, rightfully I'd say, tearing into her for it, so I'm not going to add much more to the din except to say that I agree with them. I suspect, too, that Bartoshevich is in a bit over her head with this, and is being used rather gleefully by the McCain campaign. But that doesn't entirely excuse her from culpibility.
I think it's also fair to point out the fact that this type of Clinton Supporter for McCain thing isn't nearly as widespread as the mainstream media would have us believe. I suspect that most Clinton backers realize that, while Obama may not have been their #1 choice, he's a sight better than John "Pander Shamelessly to the Far Right" McCain. Maverick my ass. So all you "PUMAs" out there? I have one thing to ask you: what the hell are you thinking?
Showing posts with label Debra Bartoshevich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debra Bartoshevich. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Not exactly the "Midwest's Katrina"
As massive flooding continues to ravage the Heartland, some commentators have taken to referring to the disaster as "the Midwest's Katrina." It's not a comparison I think is at all apt. In fact, I'd argue that the events only share two common traits: they're disasters, and they involve water. Other than that, though, it's apples and oranges.
However, it seems like the real reason the comparison is being made by some is so they can then go on to extol the virtues of the good, hard-working Midwestern folk over the looting, "whining" citizens down in New Orleans.
I take no issue with characterizing most of the people currently dealing with the flooding as "hard working." For the most part, people have been coming together to do what they can to see this thing through, keep everyone safe, and come out stronger on the other end. Official response has been, as far as I can tell, pretty dang good. Not perfect, but good. Dustin Christopher has a good take on this over at his blog.
But to compare this with Katrina? Hell no. A hurricane, especially one of that magnitude, is not much like a flood. And the people of New Orleans? I would argue that they had every right to "whine" and complain about the official preparation for and response to it: blatant negligence on the part of levee builders and inspectors, poor evacuation planning and execution, delayed disaster response by the federal government, inept FEMA leaders, and the list goes on and on. If that's not reason enough for complaint, than I'm not sure what is.
Why use this current disaster as a reason to rail against other people effected by disaster? It just seems crude. Praise the people dealing with this for their efforts, but leave Katrina out of it.
In other news, I had the distinct pleasure of talking with Lee Rayburn over at the Mic (92.1 FM) this morning. If you're morbidly curious to hear the fruits of our conversational efforts, tune in tomorrow morning from 6AM - 8AM and check out my mad radio skills. Or, if you're not keen on waking up so early, download the podcast of the show later in the day.
Finally, I'd like to point out something that relates to my recent post about elected Democratic delegate Debra Bartoshevich, who publicly stated that she would be voting for McCain in November. I said that, while she absolutely has the right to vote for whomsoever she chooses come fall, as an elected delegate to the DNC, she is beholden to support the party. Turns out, it's in the DNC's rules, too: "...delegates will not publicly support or campaign for any candidate for President or Vice President other than the nominees of the Democratic National Convention."
However, it seems like the real reason the comparison is being made by some is so they can then go on to extol the virtues of the good, hard-working Midwestern folk over the looting, "whining" citizens down in New Orleans.
I take no issue with characterizing most of the people currently dealing with the flooding as "hard working." For the most part, people have been coming together to do what they can to see this thing through, keep everyone safe, and come out stronger on the other end. Official response has been, as far as I can tell, pretty dang good. Not perfect, but good. Dustin Christopher has a good take on this over at his blog.
But to compare this with Katrina? Hell no. A hurricane, especially one of that magnitude, is not much like a flood. And the people of New Orleans? I would argue that they had every right to "whine" and complain about the official preparation for and response to it: blatant negligence on the part of levee builders and inspectors, poor evacuation planning and execution, delayed disaster response by the federal government, inept FEMA leaders, and the list goes on and on. If that's not reason enough for complaint, than I'm not sure what is.
Why use this current disaster as a reason to rail against other people effected by disaster? It just seems crude. Praise the people dealing with this for their efforts, but leave Katrina out of it.
In other news, I had the distinct pleasure of talking with Lee Rayburn over at the Mic (92.1 FM) this morning. If you're morbidly curious to hear the fruits of our conversational efforts, tune in tomorrow morning from 6AM - 8AM and check out my mad radio skills. Or, if you're not keen on waking up so early, download the podcast of the show later in the day.
Finally, I'd like to point out something that relates to my recent post about elected Democratic delegate Debra Bartoshevich, who publicly stated that she would be voting for McCain in November. I said that, while she absolutely has the right to vote for whomsoever she chooses come fall, as an elected delegate to the DNC, she is beholden to support the party. Turns out, it's in the DNC's rules, too: "...delegates will not publicly support or campaign for any candidate for President or Vice President other than the nominees of the Democratic National Convention."
Monday, June 16, 2008
Kino in Kentucky, plus stupid Democrats
I'm just in from a weekend trip to Louisville, Kentucky for their local Kino chapter's 48-hour film festival. It's a lovely city, and I wish I'd had more time to explore, but me and my fellow Wis-Kino buddies managed to make and screen a whopping four films (I'm dressed as a character from one of them in the photo at right), and had a great time. Many thanks to Kino Louisville, especially Whitney, for their hospitality.While I recover from the drive and get my head back on straight enough to make a proper post, I'd like to point out this little gem for you to ponder and be somewhat baffled/enraged by: Debra Bartoshevich, an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention this year, is apparently such a sore loser after her candidate of choice--Hillary Clinton--failed to come out ahead, that she's openly endorsing John McCain.
I understand the disappointment felt when the cause or person you've supported so fully for so long doesn't succeed as you'd hoped. I am a liberal after all. What I don't understand, however, is being so bitter about it that, instead of supporting the candidate with similar views and goals, you switch over to backing the candidate that is about as polar opposite as you can get.
This goes for all Clinton supporters who've been threatening to back McCain. It doesn't make sense. It is, in my opinion, wrong-headed. But when applied to an actual elected Democratic delegate, we're now talking just plain stupid.
I'm glad that Wisconsin Democratic Party has now voted to strip Bartoshevich of her delegate status for this. It's absolutely deserved.
Seriously, I can't think of a single good reason to back McCain instead of Obama because you preferred Hillary. His politics and ideas are not remotely similar to those of Clinton, and I would argue that it would be insulting to all that Hillary has worked for to vote McCain.
h/t Steve N.
EDIT TO ADD: Arianna Huffington has an excellent article explaining why it would be ridiculous for liberal-leaning voters to support John McCain, including his terrible record on reproductive rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
