I read with interest the Jeanne Clark piece "Why Would Any Woman Vote for George W. Bush?". It has certainly made its way around the internet in the past several weeks. It merits a closer look, and CPR's made some important points in rebuttal which were lost in his usual medium, the RANT.

(Before going any further, I want to say that I don't have a horse in this race yet, and truth told, I'm no great fan of either Bush or Gore.)

When Clarke wrote that "Most people have never heard of Beets", she was obviously counting on that being the case. She painted a most sympathetic picture of Beets by ignoring the fact that she killed not one, but TWO of her husbands, and shot a third in the head. We are also asked to take at face value the idea that she married seven abusive men. Gotta be a little more to the story than that

No doubt Beets lived a difficult and violent life, and one can still make the case that she deserved clemency (I certainly think she did). But let's base our opinions on ALL the facts, not just the convenient ones.

Clarke goes on to sling some statistics around, unsupported by any source information, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt and accept them as fact. I gots questions:

Have you taken into account the unique problems Texas has with immigration? How do these problems affect the numbers?

What were these numbers at the beginning of the Bush term? Have they gone up/down/stayed the same?

How do these numbers compare to those during Anne Richards' term?

How do they compare to Al Gore's Tennessee? Bill Clinton's Arkansas?

To sum up, what we got here is an piece written by someone with a clear agenda, which uses numbers without support or context, and ignores any fact that doesn't support her opinion. Does this sound familiar? Did we learn anything from the Y2K experience? Didn't we at least learn to read crap like this a little more critically?

[And don't even get me started on this bit: "As self-confessed party boy and libertine, Bush saw women in two roles -- madonna (Laura and Barbara Bush, for example) or whore (feminists, for example)]

RC

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), September 07, 2000

Answers

The guy admits to a reporter to talking about "pussy" with his dad and calls another reporter an asshole over an open mike.

Refreshing honesty. Or even stupidity. He's human. I like that. Gore is a bore.

-- helen (b@t.f), September 07, 2000.

RC, did you see the thread started not too long ago on this forum? I agree that this article put the blame on Bush but where do women take responsibility for their own lives?

Yes Bush is human and I think he's better than Gore.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 07, 2000.

A lot of the secretaries at my office dislike Gore, but claim that they will probably vote for him because of 1) "The Kiss" and 2)He appears in more ads with his family and thus might care more about families of the rank and file (THAT'S THEIR WORDS, not mine).

Shrubya would help himself a lot with Ohio women, I think, if he'd dispense with the negative ads. Case in point: my girlfriend, who normally rails at me when I channel surf, has taken to switching channels whenever Shrubya's face appears. She hollers, "Frat Boy Alert!" and then hits the remote.

This is a side of her that I have never seen before.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 07, 2000.

Frat Boy Alert??

What was algore, some sort of "working man"?

Twit hasn't worked a day in his life.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 07, 2000.

CPR, my girlfriend, along with several other ladies, think that Shrubya resembles a slightly older version of one of the local frat leaders who seems to always be doing sound bites on our local news programs about the various volunteer programs in which OSU Greeks participate. Many of the Greeks are trying to distance themselves from the "disturbances" that have been occurring after OSU football games. She claims that GW has the exact same expression when he talks, thus, "Frat Boy Alert!"

For what it's worth, she doesn't like the AlGore Unit, either.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 07, 2000.

Well Columbus, get ready for your annual disturbance in a few weeks when the Wolverines run your so-called team into the ground.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), September 07, 2000.

Hey, my blood runs GREEN, (MSU!) but if I catch any of those drunken bums peeing on my mums, I will turn the hose on them!

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 07, 2000.

"Twit hasn't worked a day in his life."

You're right about that! Bush Junior has had everything handed to him on a silver platter.

-- (shrubya@the.twit), September 07, 2000.

For what it's worth, she doesn't like the AlGore Unit, either. -- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 07, 2000.

Then it is clear she has a certain amount of smarts and good taste. Whatever is she doing with someone like you?

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 07, 2000.

Geez, Randy. I haven't seen anything from you since Bill did that thread post-rollover.

I saw the above article. As you said, it wasn't hidden. It was just another nonsense article about politicians much like I read daily, although I DO read some GOOD articles about politicians daily, as well.

As far as the candidates go, the Dems didn't really have a choice. It would have been pretty insulting to Gore to vote for Bradley. OTOH, the Repubs DID have a choice, and I feel they made the worse possible choice in Bush. McCain would have made a far better candidate, IMO. Since you seem to have missed all the political threads on this forum [including the one wherein this article was first introduced], I'll repeat that I'm ONE woman who will be voting for Gore over Bush. I've gone into the reasoning behind this on other threads, and won't repeat it, but the above article had nothing to do with my decision. I don't think it's so much that Gore is popular with the women, but that Bush is LESS popular with the women, as reflected in today's Zogby poll:

Zogby on women versus men and their votes

Good to see you. I'm not around, myself, much these days, but when I do have some time, it's good to see folks like you still posting.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000.

I interrupt this thread to get back to the original question:

Why WOULDN'T any woman vote for GWB?

Because he doesn't represent *me*. Gore doesn't 100% either, but he's closer than Dubya (who also hasn't worked a day in his life).

And now back to our regularly-scheduled personal attacks..........

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 07, 2000.

(Sorry about that, Anita. We seem to have posted at the same time.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 07, 2000.

I WOULDN'T vote for Bush if I had a better choice.

-- helen (b@t.f), September 07, 2000.

Good point, Helen. About a month ago, when I really started to look at the two candidates, I realized that I'd probably be voting for "the lesser of two evils". So I looked at the other candidates (Green, Libertarian, etc.). They were even worse.

(I really admire Anita for making the painful choice between keeping Bush in Texas or giving him to the rest of the country [g]. Brave woman!)

The day the Presidential ticket includes a 5'1", 40-ish, pro-choice, NYC-born-and-raised (gotta have those "street smarts") WOMAN who believes in paying down the debt, puts education as the *Number One Priority* and who leans slightly to the left of the middle, is the day there will be someone who represents *me*.

(And that STILL won't be 100%, I'm sure. Heck, if *I* ran, it probably wouldn't be 100% [g]).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 07, 2000.

OK, America wants to know how/why women choose their candidates...Gore sets my teeth on edge every time he opens his mouth. His vocal mannerisms make him sound like everything is a f***ing revelation he realized about five minutes before the interview. The idea of listening to that tone for the next four to eight YEARS is unbearable. At least with Dubya we get to hear an honest "asshole" now and then.

-- helen (b@t.f), September 07, 2000.

"At least with Dubya we get to hear an honest "asshole" now and then."

ROTFL!!! What makes you think is honest? That he said he would restore dignity and respect to the White House then goes around mumbling that people are assholes? LOL! You're clueless! I wouldn't trust that sleazy snake as far as I could throw him.

As for "listening to their tone" I'd much rather listen to a man that can speak an entire sentence without stumbling over his words. At least Gore hasn't fried his brain with drugs and alcohol.

-- Shrubya (is@lowlife.snake), September 08, 2000.

Hi, Helen.

I don't think there's anything wrong with an honest asshole remark now and then, but Bush called that reporter an asshole simply because he had reported on the State of Texas under Bush, as in those statistics that Bush doesn't like to see in print. I figure those statistics will get a lot worse for us if Bush loses the presidential race. He doesn't handle defeat maturely.

I can't say that Gore puts me on the edge of my seat when he talks, but how often do we ever hear a president talk? I want a grownup in the White House. A boring grownup would be good, just as long as he/she's a grownup.

Anyway, you're rural, Helen, so it's to be expected that you'd prefer Bush over Gore. It's everyone's choice to decide who they prefer.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

"OK, America wants to know how/why women choose their candidates.."

They do?? Intelligent Americans already know how women choose their candidates... it has nothing to do with rational consideration of the issues, they choose their candidates based on nothing but foolish and irrational emotional "feelings".

-- female logic (i don't @ like. his voice), September 08, 2000.

Anita,

Yep, that's the first thing I've posted since then. A lot's happened since then - got married, sold and bought a house, moving week after next, and work is nuts, as usual (that's why I'm still here at 1AM).

And I've been meaning to reply to that earlier women vs Bush thread ever since I first read it - took me this long to get around to it, sadly.

As I said, I didn't intend my post as a pro-Bush thang, just a plea for continued use of the critical reading skills some of have picked up in the last year or two.

Or, as the kids would say, we got skeels.

But I still check in when I have time. Some of those Eve vs. Decker/Flint threads last week had me in stitches ;-)

Going home now,

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), September 08, 2000.

SIMPLE

Abortion

what is the big mystery? And I would not vote for Bush based on the simple fact he is too dumb to understand it not wise to toss half the voters out with his unwillingness to be their servant and thinks his destiny is to shove his ignorant crap down a nation's throat. And the Repubs talk about social agenda?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 08, 2000.

CPR -- re your comment about what she's doing with *me* -- I ask myself that question on a regular basis.

Anita! Good to see you again. I hope that the ed classes aren't annoying you too much.

Original Thread Question: I don't remember who said "because of ABORTION," but I think that's part of it, too. I remember one female supervisor who said that she only voted for Pro-Choice candidates, regardless of political party, because these folks also tended to be against big gov't. Not all women want to be taken care of, although there do seem to be a lot of whinners on the TV of late.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

"Anyway, you're rural, Helen, so it's to be expected that you'd prefer Bush over Gore. It's everyone's choice to decide who they prefer. "

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

It doesn't make much difference WHO I vote for. Rural means nothing. I've actually lived in (gasp) DFW and other cities. Democrat or Republican in office made no difference at the street level. They're all liars. They all pander to special interest groups.

All I have left is the choice between "asshole" or "Golly Batman! American moms can't find affordable and safe child care! We gotta DO something!"

All talk. No action. Either party. I could just flip a coin. I voted for Perot in '92 and it got us 8 years of Clinton. Mea culpa.

-- helen (hayseeds@re.us), September 08, 2000.

At least Gore hasn't fried his brain with drugs and alcohol.

Intelligence requires that a certain number of neurons be able to fire off simultaneously - say a number greater than 27 - and that memory storage space be in better condition than say a bowl of cold oatmeal. Wisdom does not, out of necessity, make great demands upon the brain. A president, my president, should be wise first and does not need to have memorized the gross national product of East Bumblefuck.

This is NOT an endorsement for Bush. Just sticking up for those of us with fewer than 27 functioning brain cells. We have rights too, ya know.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 08, 2000.

I have to confess here that after a day of knocking out Linear Algebra and problems, I found myself reviewing political sites for entertainment. It's not that the thread Decker started on What the King REALLY meant wasn't entertaining. It WAS, but it's getting a little like a soap-opera, and I've dedicated my life to avoiding those. So, I ran across this E-mail sent in to political pundit on the web, and thought you folks might enjoy it.

Basic Instinct--voting with one's guts

My 15 year-old daughter, Niaz is having a mock presidential election at her school. She came to me for advice about her choices. I told her she shouldn't base her vote on the issues. Believe it or not looks and feelings have guided me when voting all these years and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

It all started in 1972 when Miss Podgorskie's 4th grade class was voting on Nixon or McGovern. As the question was posed who would vote for President Nixon so many hands shot up, it looked like a pentecostal revival. And for McGovern: one bony hairy little arm went up. Who was the die hard Democrat with spider monkey appendages? It was me. But I was beyond party affiliations, I went with what really counted--looks and feelings.

Let my sheep-like classmates follow the whims of their parents over the cliff of mass opinion, I was voting with my heart and deep down I didn't like the way Nixon looked. Smiling, he looked like Howdy Dowdy with dark hair. When he was serious, he looked like a really mean principal. I always expected to see a paddle when his hands were behind his back.

McGovern, on the other hand gave me a warm grandpa-like feeling. He had a nice voice, the kind you wouldn't mind hearing read "Peter Pan" or something. And if you did something wrong he'd give you a good talk about why it was wrong and not to ever do it again--then he'd take you out for ice cream to make you feel better. In 1972, I believed the country needed a lot of ice cream.

In 1976, I was 14, and like the rest of the country I was sick of politics after having so many of my favorite TV shows preempted by Watergate. I remember thinking, "Why didn't they just let the water out of the gate and get it over with?"

I liked Jimmy Carter's smile but kinda felt sorry for Ford. I am an underdog supporter at heart.

My first real election in 1980 I voted for the underdog again. Carter looked so sad and tired it was a mercy vote but later I felt vindicated by Irangate and the fact Walter Cronkite said he was the best president.

1984 wasn't that Mondale and Ferraro? I was pregnant at the time and all my radical feminist hormones were suspended so I really didn't care--had Ms. Vice Pres Candidate advocated a national chocolate and potato chip holiday or maybe gave out free Taco Bell coupons, I would have backed her all the way. The fact was I didn't vote that year--I think I was in the bathroom. Believe it or not, I was with child again in 1988. My son Danny was 5 months old but I was still with him--24 hours a day. ELECTIONS? I DIDN'T HAVE TIME FOR ANY STINKING ELECTIONS! It was wash this, powder that, feed, burp, and please oh please go to sleep so mommy can take a nap...If there had been a candidate who would look for Danny's pacifier, answer Niaz's questions and maybe vacuum the carpet, I would have voted for him, her, or it--(future presidential candidates take note: this is the key to the Mommy Vote and believe you me there are a lot more of us out there than feminists).

In 1988, even though I liked the sound of Dukakis' voice, he didn't seem to be presidential to me. I saw him being an M.C. at a resort talent show in the Catskills. The Bushes were ok--I liked the fact that they weren't totally white bread having a Hispanic in their family and all. I also loved Barbara's take-me-as-I-am attitude. Having a gut like a deflated balloon and stretch marks down to my knees, I really resented Nancy's size 4 dresses--that year I voted for Barbara.

By 1992 I had returned from Mommyland and was in school so I was in a better position to make fairer judgments about who should run the country. I had just learned that it really doesn't matter who the peons vote for because it's only the Electoral College votes that count. (I'm sure I learned this in high school but I was sick that day) . If that wasn't depressing enough, then I learned that really it's the special interests and the Military Industrial Complex that control the country when election time came--I again voted my heart.

Bush: After 12 years in positions of power--more if you count his CIA stint, I was looking for a fresh young face. Dan Quayle was cute for about a minute but he couldn't handle the media so he got handled. I guess my flaming feminism was dying out because I admired a man who could hold his own. Clinton didn't impress me at first but then a news crew caught him griping about a secret service guy-I thought he had moxy. Okay to be honest, that year I voted for Clinton because I didn't have health insurance. It was that simple---Okay, and because I had a crush on Al Gore. when it came to it. I mean, by then my marriage was on the skids and Gore looked pretty good to me. My husband voted for Ross Perot because he had interesting things to say but to me his voice was too similar to my three year old son Danny's-- high pitched enough to make dogs cry.

In 1996, I voted for Clinton vindictively. If my future ex said, it was black then I said it was white whether I was right or not. Not the wisest course of action but it sure felt good. Actually I liked Clinton by then. I liked that he spent so much time focusing on language. Being a writer that impressed me. Little did I know he would take language to his defense with the Monica thing-what does humiliation really mean?

This year I am a C-span watcher and if you think Bush and Gore are saying anything new, take a look at the old presidential debates they show nightly. If you do you might be inclined to write in a candidate of your own.

If you're a republican type person write in a cat for president. A little tuna and milk and the country's all yours because pres. kitty just wants to be left alone. Watch out though with such a furry lazy bones as head of the military we may be rid of dogs but we also may end up a part of the United States of Mexico. If you have a co-dependent liberal leanings, a dog for president may just be what you're looking for. A dog wants to have his paw in every pie and his nose in everybody's business. If you can't stand fat cats, he'll go to congress and chase them under their desks. He'll route out injustice and protect you from the invaders. You'll have to share what's on our plates but if he gets out of hand a swift beating by an old newspaper like The Washington Post, or The New York Times usually keeps presidents in line. Truth be told, I'm going to vote for Gore. Why? Because he's still cute, he likes trees and maybe just maybe I can catch his eye. Hey I'm recently divorced --a girl can dream can't she? I mean, how long can a man be married to someone named Tipper anyway? Okay, I'll probably never end up the first lady. But I tell you one thing, if I ever end up being the first mistress, I'll make sure I at least get a Cabinet post out of the deal, that's for sure.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.