Women of A2K, have you seen this ?

angie, I have seen most of these items in the past, but not all together like this. Thanks.

Early Money Is Like Yeast . . . Emily's List is a worthy charity for anyone who makes such donations . . .

Don't polls show roughly 60% support for Kerry among women? But that begs the question, what about the other 40%?

I cannot understand why facts such as the ones given in this list are not a topic worth of discussion in the media.

These issues affect our daily lives. These appointments reveal more about Gerorg Bush's true nature and true agenda than any speech ever could.


There is clearly more to this "wartime" president than people know.

I do believe, however scary as it may be, that there are some (many?) people who would enthusiastically support the people he as appointed (above). I guess we're not going to hear from any of them here. And why not ? Are they ashamed of something ?

Horn said that low-income kids whose parents aren't married should be last in line for Head Start and other benefits


I almost cannot believe this one. Are the kids responsible for being born to parents who are not married ?

How do you break the cycle unless you start education early ?

and other benefits ...


What other benefits? Medical treatments? What benefits should these kids go without because of their parents' lack of responsibility?

The kind of logic reflected in Horn's statement is absurd, and the attitude it reflects is selfish, judgmental, unproductive, and most definitely "un-compassionate".

Where are all the Bush supporters?

Let's see you defend this appointment.

Good list. Thanks, I hadn't seen it. Under cover of "war" and with not the slightest inclination towards honesty, much can pass out of sight. Much is. The weekend bad news this morning on medicare, what with a hurricane and the convention noise still remaining, including no mention in Bush's speech of something so relevant, a fine example.

I've seen it, Angie, I got the letter too, but not your thread. It is so frustrating, isn't it? Obviously, our world is nuts.

The Bush supporters are noticeably absent here.

There are plenty of women here on A2K who have expressed support for Bush. It's THEIR reaction I had hoped to elicit.

Maybe, Angie, if you post each of the points, one by one? It's worth a try.

Bush is a nut case and I can't for the life of me see how anyone could support that monster!

Piffka

I intend to post the above list in parts elsewhere, but I have found on A2K that, when the Bushies cannot counter posted information, they just avoid/ignore it.

For some reason, they refuse to hold this guy accountable for anything.

John Kerry may have his faults, but I dare say if he were to make appointments to the agencies listed above, they would be people who truly supported women and families, in particular struggling American families. And he would do so WITHOUT requiring that assistance require adherance to a certain religion-based set of criteria.

How can any woman not understand how dangerous this man really is ?


Why won't the media highlight actions he has taken of the kind described above ? A while ago, one of his appellate court nominees in Florida (I think) was noted on the news, in particular, that person's extremist views re women's rights and gay rights, and the reaction among most people was one of revulsion, which I think hurt Bush at the time, but such information has been scarce and most people don't go digging.

I posted four of the appointments in three other threads. It will be interesting to see the Bushies dance around / ignore them.

Can you believe it ? NOT ONE COMMENT from a Bush supporter. How could any woman support him ?

"CNSNews.com) - With a vote scheduled for Tuesday on embattled judicial nominee James Leon Holmes, conservatives are turning up the pressure on a handful of Republican senators who they fear might vote against the Arkansas attorney.

Holmes has waited more than 17 months since he was first nominated by President Bush to fill a federal district court seat in Arkansas. Even though he has the support of Arkansas' two senators, both Democrats, conservatives are concerned about some wavering Republicans.

During a conference call Thursday to strategize on Holmes' confirmation vote, conservatives identified two Republican senators -- Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- as potential opponents of Holmes.

Even though Hutchison generally aligns herself with conservatives, she is one of five Republican women in the Senate who are being courted by Holmes' supporters. The others include Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and North Carolina's Elizabeth Dole.

The breakdown by gender is the result of repeated Democratic attacks on the issue of women's rights. Democrats attacked Holmes at his Judiciary Committee hearing last year, because he and his wife authored an article in 1997 about the roles of husband and wife in a Christian marriage. The article was based on the language of St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

One phrase, in particular, caught the attention of his liberal critics, who claimed Holmes was unfit for the seat because his article stated, "the wife is to subordinate herself to the husband" and "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man."

The Catholic League was quick to defend Holmes. Its president, William Donohue, said Democrats shouldn't have attacked Holmes for making a reference to the Bible in the article.

"They would have been on more persuasive grounds had they been able to point to a single instance when the" private religious beliefs of Holmes had unfairly colored his ability to render a fair judgment," Donohue said. "Their failure to do so speaks volumes."

That hasn't stopped the attacks from the left, however. Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron sent a memo to editorial writers Thursday, criticizing Holmes as an opponent of women's rights and abortion. The National Women's Law Center also sent an "action alert" urging Holmes' defeat.

"Usually district court nominees are not the subject of this level of opposition," said Elliot Mincberg, vice president and legal director at People For the American Way, which opposes Holmes. "But I think it's the very extreme nature of what Mr. Holmes has said that caused a lot of concern among our members and activists around the country."

Conservatives remain confident that Holmes will win approval Tuesday, but they plan to make a last-minute push with certain senators, said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary's Ethics in Nominations Project. Miranda organized Thursday's conference call.

In addition to the Republicans being courted, some Democrats are also in play, according to the call's participants. Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Zell Miller (D-Ga.) are expected to vote for Holmes, and Louisiana's two Democrats -- John Breaux and Mary Landrieu -- could also cross over.

One of the conservatives who took part in the call, Kelly J. Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, said Hutchison can expect to hear from Texans before Tuesday's vote.

"I can't imagine her opposing one of the president's nominees, especially one who's being opposed, in my view, by people because of anti-Christian bigotry," Shackelford said. "If anything's different from that, we'll let everyone know in the state so they let her know whether they agree or disagree with what she's doing."

Specter remains in the mix as well. Project 21 member Mychal S. Massie, who lives near Philadelphia, said he would be reaching out to black churches in the city in hopes of swaying the senator's vote.

Specter has denied reports that he led a secret campaign among Republicans to oppose Holmes. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal last September, Specter said he concurred with Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch that Holmes' nomination should be sent to the Senate floor without a committee recommendation, but he dismissed a report that he wanted Holmes defeated.

Regardless of Specter's position - he hasn't publicly said what he plans to do Tuesday - Massie noted the senator's opposition to Republican nominees in the past. Massie also dismissed concerns about Holmes' controversial article that has caused much rancor among liberals.

"To deny a person based strictly on that is to unambiguously state that judicial nominees shall come before the Senate Judiciary Committee absent of thought and conviction and principle," Massie said. "That is an egregious position on its face."

Another conservative leader, Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, said Democrats have gone too far in the case of Holmes.

"It used to be a badge of honor to be a man of faith," Daly said. "It was something expected of judicial nominees. Now it's a one-way ticket to a filibuster.""


Yup. The guy and his wife quote scripture and he is persona non grata. Such are our times, that Barney Frank, James McGreevey, and an entire phalanx of shallow, tunnel visioned, but well paid Hollywood celebrities, as well as our local confused chromosome counters, seem to have cornered morality while the their enemies, who do actually put limits on their own behavior, are seen as extreme.

Back to vacation. I hope all the Floridians out there are buttoned up and safe, and buena suerte.

"as well as our local confused chromosome counters"

huh ?



Anyway, objection to Holmes comes not from his being a "man of faith". That is a completely invalid deduction. The objection comes from the fact that he believes: "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." and "The wife is to subordinate herself to the husband... and... place herself under the authority of the man."

And there is the fact that he has spoken out against the separation of church and state.

Can you see how those beliefs might influence his judgment ?


And why the reference to Barney Frank ? Could it have anything to do with his being a gay man? Is the author perhaps suggesting that, as a gay man, he would be in no position to understand morality ?

Then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into her statement.

Any chance you get the irony of what you just wrote?

It clearly means that if McGreevey, Frank, and others are free to believe in Gaydom and hold public office and make policy, why do some feel justified in preventing Christians from holding public office.

TURN IT AROUND. Imagine Christians preventing homosexuals from holding office.

If it sinks comin', it stinks goin'.

Sofia, objection to Holmes comes not from his being a "man of faith". That is a completely invalid deduction. The objection comes from the fact that he believes: "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." and "The wife is to subordinate herself to the husband... and... place herself under the authority of the man."

And there is the fact that he has spoken out against the separation of church and state.

Can you see how those beliefs might influence his judgment ?

Guys...this is a trick that sofia forwards without recognizing it.

The claim is that Christians are victims. They are, says the claim, victimized for holding a belief or for trying to forward their belief within the polity.

So, if a fellow like Holmes says that, say, he thinks that church and state ought not to be separated. Or that separation has gone too far. Or that women ought to be subservient to men in a marriage. Or that gay sex is perverse and unnatural and ought to be banned or be reduced through institutional roadblocks. And let's say that each of these notions arises from his particular Christian membership (many Christians, of course, don't have such beliefs or interpretations).

Now, when someone speaks out against these ideas, the claim is forwarded that such is an attack on religion or on Christianity. Holmes is the victim of anti-religious prejudice. Holmes is being victimized.

What's actually happened is that some bright legal boys working for the right have adopted the language of the civil rights movement and turned it around.

Under this formulation that sofia and others advance, one could in very short order find the relevant quotes that would, if attribution was unknown, lead sofia to label a significant number of the writers of the constitution as being bigoted against religion.

Let's say that Holmes had argued for a theocracy. There are a good number of evangelicals who see such a system as ideal or preferable to the present situation. Under sofia's notion of what can and can't be argued regarding ideas originating from scripture or those who interpret scripture a certain way, then protests against any appointment of Holmes would be anti-religious bigotry which victimizes the believer and the belief.

First: You can hold personal beliefs without forcing them on people at work, or putting them into your work.

Second: So, you advocate that Muslims, Catholics, Christians, Jews cannot hold public office?

Only atheists and agnostics need apply?