0
   

A Feminist Who Voted for Bush

 
 
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 10:20 pm
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15740

By Tammy Bruce
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 29, 2004

As a Democrat and a pro-choice feminist, it's time for me to explain why I support the president, and why other thoughtful Democrats should join me in doing so. I can't tell you how many e-mails I've received from other Democrats either condemning me for not toeing the line, while others write who are genuinely curious, after all the hate-mongering and demonizing of Republicans and the president specifically, they hope I can ease their fears about what their inclination to vote for the president means about them.

The simple answer? It means you're a confident liberal, a thoughtful person who realizes that game of party loyalty takes a back seat to the safety of your family and this nation. It also means you take the slogans of "choice" and "radical individualism"seriously. Isn't it ironic that there's nothing more radically individual these days than a liberal who doesn't conform?



For me, Authentic Feminism is rooted in making it possible for people to make the choices that best suit them. If you have recognized the weakness of John Kerry, and know in your heart a vote for the president is the right thing to do, join me and do it! It can be done with a clear conscience as you embrace the radical individual inside you that attracted you to liberal causes in the first place.



Because some things simply transcend party lines, when in front of that Early Voting touch screen, I stood there as an American first, and voted for George W. Bush. This nation, our lives, and the lives our children require nothing less.



I explain to detractors and supporters alike that President Bush is the man who will keep this nation safest. The president and I hold dramatically divergent views on a number of social issues of importance to me, and yet for the 3,000 people who died on September 11th, abortion rights and same-sex civil unions mean absolutely nothing to them now. These issues, while important to me and ones on which I will continue to speak out about, are luxuries in the face of a world war where the enemy is a stateless savage who hunts children and cuts off people's heads.



We have a responsibility to leave this nation as great as it is to the next generation. We all know, and must reflect on, the fact that the joy we have in our lives today is due to the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of other Americans who died fighting for this country. Those soldiers did not die because they were promised 72 virgins in the afterlife, they fought not for themselves-they died in the most noble of American causes- so future generations-us-could live in freedom.



I do not take that action for granted, and I have learned that generosity of spirit and commitment to freedom is inherent in each of us, and a duty we cannot shirk.



Those of you with children have a more immediate concern, which is the literal safety of the light of your life. That little face looks up at you as you tuck her in, and sleeps gently knowing that Mommy and Daddy are there. That same face stares at you in the morning, with a heart full of hope, limited only by her imagination because you confront, for her, the harsh realities of every day. And these days it's not just about making a living, it's about the Beslan school massacre, it's a new al-Qaida tape threatening Americans at home, it's about war and mad savages who have specifically targeted children.



I voted for President Bush because having a Pacifist Internationalist in the White House will only embolden those who salivate at the sight of our blood. Having a man in the White House who stands for nothing will only excite Islamic Fascists who revel in torture and the cutting off of heads. I do not want a man in the White House who is so cold, when asked by a New York Times reporter how September 11th changed him, answers "It didn't change me much at all."



While I know a Bush presidency makes my work as a feminist more complicated and demanding, I will love and be grateful for every day I have the luxury of working on those issues. And frankly, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a president who encourages social activism on issues. Liberals make the mistake of thinking a Democrat president is indeed Daddy, who can be trusted in all things. Apathy soon follows that false comfort.



Bill Clinton showed us the decline of the Democratic Party into a gang spouting slogans to make women, gays and blacks feel Daddy was in the house, to our grave regret. What did we get? A sexual compulsive who put Monica Lewinsky on her knees instead of cutting bin Laden off at his.



Yes, there were plenty of Democrats, feminists, gays and blacks in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on those fateful flights. I'm sure you would agree that in their last moments their literal lives were more important to them than party affiliation.



I want a president who will be strongest making sure tomorrow comes, that this nation not just survives, but emerges from this war like the others we have fought, in a world that has been transformed for the better. I want a president who understands this is war, not a "nuisance."



I know George Bush has made many in the world angry, and frankly, I am dismayed at the hard feelings. A recent poll of Europeans revealed their general belief that Bush has made the world a more dangerous place.



Upon hearing that, I remind myself of the time President Reagan increased arms production and installed more Pershing Missiles in Europe as we faced down the Soviet Union. President Reagan grappled with European polls, anger and resentment, all of which evaporated when the Soviet regime collapsed.



Yes, they hated Reagan, but he plodded on, never swayed by those polls or made doubtful by others' hatred. His resolve freed Europe from the shadow of a bear which had no mercy and the blood of tens of millions on its paws. As a man of faith with a love of this country, Reagan stayed the course, and did what he knew had to be done. He was a leader, and I'm proud to say, one that only America could deliver.



Today, President Bush faces the same polls, the same anger, and the same resentment as he, too, recognizes and engages a rabid enemy of civilization, Islamo-Fascists. Europeans felt Reagan was leading them to Armageddon, as they now insist Bush is doing. We can't know what it's like for Europeans to see such a young nation doing so many things, but one thing Europe will find, again, is that while we may be wild, young and even cowboys on occasion, we have a pretty good track record of making the world a safer and better place.



With George W. Bush at the helm, this time will be no different.



I voted for President Bush because he has freed 50 million people, 25 million of which are women and girls. The feminist establishment, in a shameful exhibit of their hypocrisy, has ignored that fact. As a feminist, I thank the president with my vote, in solidarity with the millions of Afghan and Iraqi women who now, courtesy of the president and our astounding military, finally have hope, liberty and freedom.



Like all of our presidents, George W. Bush is quintessentially an American. He's a Cowboy. A Texan. He will never be mistaken for a Frenchman. He's a Yalie. He's a man of faith, a husband and father. He's a man who has fought with and overcome addiction. He's a man of strength and character.



And while he is also wrong on some issues, if I have to work harder on social issues, I want it to be against a man whom I can admire, who I know, despite our disagreements, honors me in his work to keep this nation free and great.



For those of you who are Democrats and liberals�-and I know through my years as a leader in left wing causes, including feminist and gay activism�-we all have gone through a sort of conditioning that makes dissent or difference a frightening prospect. Republicans and conservatives have been decidedly demonized in your circle�-perhaps by your own friends and family.



Let me tell you this--voting for the President does not change who you are or what you stand for. I stand for the classical liberal concepts of personal liberty and individualism, and have spent a great deal of my adult life working for those causes. I have found that "Choice" and "Individualism" are only slogans if you never act on them. Sometimes being yourself means straying from the expected, standing apart from your crowd.



November 2nd is a good a day to be a Democrat who's an American first.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,292 • Replies: 53
No top replies

 
Dookiestix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 10:22 pm
GOD, that's unbelievable hysterical!!!

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
georgia brown
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 12:19 am
WONDERFUL, another person who doesnt follow party lines in a blind manor. We could all learn from her!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 12:34 am
Oh - I strongly suspect she is following her party lines!!!

That site is about as likely to attract a progressive person to write for it as carrion is to attract a honey bee.
0 Replies
 
georgia brown
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 01:44 am
WOW, Typical left responce , this woman who under all other circumstances , you would proudly boast , A fellow lefty. shares an opinion slightly different from yours.And you put her out to pasture. ....pretty weak!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 03:29 am
Anyone who would vote for Bush...based on the way he is handling the "terrorism problem"...need serious psychiatric help.

Anyone who would vote for Bush based on "which of the two will make this a safer world"...needs serious psychiatric help.

Bush is a disaster in both areas. And while I will acknowledge that we do not at this moment know what Kerry would do if the calls were his to make...I cannot imagine ANYONE not doing a better job than Bush and/or his incompetent advisors.

I think this woman it WAY OFF BASE.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 03:38 am
georgia brown wrote:
WOW, Typical left responce , this woman who under all other circumstances , you would proudly boast , A fellow lefty. shares an opinion slightly different from yours.And you put her out to pasture. ....pretty weak!


(Edit: Ummm - before I start, it might be worth you looking at where people are from, Georgia. I am not a Democrat - from where I am - as from most of the world, BOTH your major parties are right wing - you may not be aware of this? Many Americans have no awareness of this - but analyses of it are all over A2k. So - I have no loyalty to your democrat Party - I DO have a loyalty to broad feminist principles - doesn't mean I have a stupidly simple-minded "Four legs good, two legs bad" [ie feminist good, anyone else bad] analysis. On this US election I am going for "ABB" though - for reasons I have expounded elsewhere. And, recent discoveries about kerry have made me quite respect him. But that is sort of irrelevant.)

Lol - nah - the site is pretty weak and the rehetoric of said woman in her praise of Bush extremely unconvincing .

There are many brands of feminism - and whether this woman has, or does currently, identify herself as a feminist is of no interest to me. What is of interest is what she wrote and what she appears to believe now.

I read her drivel on the site Gunga posted - and followed her up somewhat on Google, because I thought that, in fact, she was some made up character for this cartoonish site - with its hyper-pumped nationalistic fervour and mawkish chest-beating rhetoric.

To my amazement, she is real - with a history in NOW - which only goes to show one can disagree passionately with people who might at first glance appear to have some views in common.

Show me something she has said with which I agree, and I will happily agree with it - but her views are clearly in most things inimical to mine - and her rhetoric in the article Gunga quotes is sick-making - as I said above - it is hyper-pumped nationalistic fervour and mawkish chest-beating rhetoric. I can't be bothered finding more descriptors for such writing!

Tell me, Georgia, would you embrace what you considered pathetic drivel written by one who claimed to share YOUR politics, or religion, or whatever it is you value, and applaud it, because it was by one who claimed to be one of yours?


I care not what a person claims to be - and just because someone claims to be a feminist, or is a lesbian, or bright purple with yellow spots, does not make them one of whom I would boast! Lol - what an absurd idea.

Many who claim to be lefties, or feminists, or such are folk I have no truck with - just as there are republicans and such who I admire. Labels do not make a person something to like or dislike - nor does it mean I necessarily agree with them.


Here is a bit of a blog about dear Tammy - just to present a counter view.... I ran across it in my search of her name:

http://www.scoobiedavis.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_scoobiedavis_archive.html
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 03:43 am
Hmmm - a little more re Tammy: http://www.americanpolitics.com/20040913Young.html

Television Under-reports 9/11 Anniversary... to Elect John Kerry??
Oh, That Wacky Tammy Bruce!
by Steve Young

Sept. 13, 2004 -- HOLLYWOOD (apj.us) -- It seems a shame to give any space at all to a Saturday afternoon talk-radio show, especially when the host is somewhat below the radar -- except when the Right wants to roll out their feminist/lesbian democrat.

Kind of like a female Zell Miller!

But listening to this particular woman's show this past Saturday, as she was offering up her theory that there was an under-reporting by television of the three-year anniversary of our 9/11 tragedy -- and that it was a purposeful effort to unseat George Bush -- Tammy Bruce was just too juicy to pass up.

For those who are not familiar with Tammy Bruce... good.

For those who are, I remind you that she is the former head of the California chapter of National Organization of Women who now presents herself as a Democrat lesbian feminist who has become a FOX News and Newmax.com contributor.

And, in a real break from the glut of "blond-bimbo" conservatives, Tammy is a brunette.

As the newest addition to the Laura Ingraham-Ann Coulter-Michelle Malkin AM radio Ladies of Loud, Tammy Bruce is fighting fang and nail to garner the coveted "How Shrill Can I Annoy and Distort The Truth While Spewing Hate" Trophy, which I actually believe Coulter has retired.

Tammy's comment alluding to the Democrat effort to defeat Bush by not airing more 9/11 memorial and reflection would be jokable if it didn't fly in the face of the flip-flopping Republican attack machine -- you know, the one that says we shouldn't use the war as a campaign issue even though Karl Rove told Republican governors that they should use the war as a campaign issue.

Who's kidding who? The ugliness of using the Twin Towers and 9/11 as a political device has long been incorporated into a Republican battle yell.

To somehow connect what Tammy feels is inadequate attention by "television" as an indication of an anti-Bush sentiment is as absurd as, say, Donald Rumsfeld standing in front of the Pentagon on 9/11/04 and telling us that the terrorists had underestimated our Commander-in-Chief.

Wait a minute. He did say that!

Okay. How about Tammy's comment being as absurd as if, say, Vice-President Cheney said that John Kerry winning the election would make it more likely that America would be attacked.

What? He DID say that?

Damn. I have gotta start researching this stuff before I waste all this cyber-ink.

But isn't that the point! Talk radio is all about throwing out any anti-liberal, anti-Democratic, anti-Kerry... um, stuff against the wall to see how much... um, stuff sticks -- no matter how flimsy the basis for the crap (oops, sorry) they throw.

This week, Sean Hannity and the rest of the Republican Broadcast team all but said the documents supporting the CBS report that President Bush's National Guard service wasn't exactly a full-scale commitment on the part of our under-estimated Commander-in-Chief had been forgeries.

After CBS provided verifiable proof that these documents were not forged, the Lords of Loud immediately went on the air to apologize and set the record straight.

Hey, I said the same talk show hosts who blasted CBS for sending out fallacious information came on to correct their earlier reporting.

Hello, is anybody there? Is this thing on?

Well, they didn't.

In fact, they repeated their original "throw against the wall" scenario, as if it still remained an issue.

That would be like saying most FOX News viewers believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attack, or that Rep. Henry Hyde continues to say that there was a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, or that Bush cheerleaders like Sean Hannity continue to say that WMD were in Iraq just before we attacked but were probably scurried off to Syria without one iota of fact to back it up.

I mean, none of that could possibly be true.

D'oh!

I think I'd be better off to put a halt to the rest of this column and do a bit more fact-checking before I get another thing wrong. Perhaps Tammy Bruce and the rest of talk radio should do the same.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 03:47 am
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121603.shtml


Oh - I found something she said that I agree with - I agree that OJ Simpson was NOT a victim of racist persecution.

Here is a more challenging article on her:

http://reason.com/0308/co.cy.tammy.shtml
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 05:04 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone who would vote for Bush...based on the way he is handling the "terrorism problem"...need serious psychiatric help.


I'm voting for Bush simply because Kerry's IQ isn't adequate for the job:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37212

In fact, that sort of explains Kerry's record, or lack thereof. Expecting somebody with qn IQ deficit like that to have much of a record in the US senate is like expecting the guy with the littlest **** to have lots of kids...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 05:18 am
Tammy Bruce is one of my favorites. A promo from her most recent book:

Quote:
Stop the Left from Policing Your Mind
Our freedom to speak our minds is under attack. Like the Thought Police of George Orwell's 1984, powerful special interest groups on the Left are mounting a withering assault on our rights in the name of "social equality." Liberty has been turned on its ear as the rights of the few restrict the freedom of everyone. In The New Thought Police, author Tammy Bruce, a self-described lesbian feminist activist, cuts through the deluge of politically correct speech and thought codes to expose the dangerous rise of Left-wing McCarthyism. Provocative and persuasive, this book is a clarion call to anyone interested in preserving liberty.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 05:34 am
gungasnake wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone who would vote for Bush...based on the way he is handling the "terrorism problem"...need serious psychiatric help.


I'm voting for Bush simply because Kerry's IQ isn't adequate for the job:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37212

In fact, that sort of explains Kerry's record, or lack thereof. Expecting somebody with qn IQ deficit like that to have much of a record in the US senate is like expecting the guy with the littlest **** to have lots of kids...


Lol - stuck on that one groove are we, Gunga?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 05:35 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Tammy Bruce is one of my favorites. A promo from her most recent book:

Quote:
Stop the Left from Policing Your Mind
Our freedom to speak our minds is under attack. Like the Thought Police of George Orwell's 1984, powerful special interest groups on the Left are mounting a withering assault on our rights in the name of "social equality." Liberty has been turned on its ear as the rights of the few restrict the freedom of everyone. In The New Thought Police, author Tammy Bruce, a self-described lesbian feminist activist, cuts through the deluge of politically correct speech and thought codes to expose the dangerous rise of Left-wing McCarthyism. Provocative and persuasive, this book is a clarion call to anyone interested in preserving liberty.


Oh dear, fox...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 06:46 am
gungasnake wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone who would vote for Bush...based on the way he is handling the "terrorism problem"...need serious psychiatric help.


I'm voting for Bush simply because Kerry's IQ isn't adequate for the job:


Quite honestly, Gunga, it does sound to me as though you are voting for George Bush because of a low IQ...but not because of Kerry's IQ...or even Bush's IQ...

...if you get my drift.




Quote:
In fact, that sort of explains Kerry's record, or lack thereof. Expecting somebody with qn IQ deficit like that to have much of a record in the US senate is like expecting the guy with the littlest **** to have lots of kids...


I just love the fact that in order to support a moron lie George Bush...you guys actually have to attack the intelligence of a guy like Kerry.

Good grief...the folks doing that are pathetic!!!!

But...I LOVE a good laugh...and I gotta thank you for giving me one...pathetic or not.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 06:59 am
It's not so much Kerry's IQ that is in question, it's what comes out of his mouth. He will say anything, take any position that seems good at the time. Rather than having a low IQ, it's more like a complete disconnect.. What's in his mind has nothing to do with what he will say. He has no firm stand on anything. That is more dangerous than Bush, who knows what has to be done and does it.

Again for all you people who don't believe people who voted Dem in the past will vote for Bush this time.. I am one of those people..
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 07:22 am
Xena wrote:
It's not so much Kerry's IQ that is in question, it's what comes out of his mouth. He will say anything, take any position that seems good at the time. Rather than having a low IQ, it's more like a complete disconnect.. What's in his mind has nothing to do with what he will say. He has no firm stand on anything. That is more dangerous than Bush, who knows what has to be done and does it.

Again for all you people who don't believe people who voted Dem in the past will vote for Bush this time.. I am one of those people..


No offense, but I see this tendency in both candidates, as an outside observer. Bush may make more claims to a firm stance, but I'm not really sure he knows what he's saying either, as it's all scripted.
0 Replies
 
Xena
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 07:35 am
cavfancier wrote:
Xena wrote:
It's not so much Kerry's IQ that is in question, it's what comes out of his mouth. He will say anything, take any position that seems good at the time. Rather than having a low IQ, it's more like a complete disconnect.. What's in his mind has nothing to do with what he will say. He has no firm stand on anything. That is more dangerous than Bush, who knows what has to be done and does it.

Again for all you people who don't believe people who voted Dem in the past will vote for Bush this time.. I am one of those people..


No offense, but I see this tendency in both candidates, as an outside observer. Bush may make more claims to a firm stance, but I'm not really sure he knows what he's saying either, as it's all scripted.


What do you mean by "it's all scripted"? I'm talking about the many different stands Kerry has had on Iraq and other issues. Bush has one position on Iraq. Kerry's stand has shifted back and forth all along, there is nothing definite about Kerrys Iraq policy. Kerry's trust in the UN is the biggest strike against him. Even people who dislike Bush understand the UN is a corrupt organization. I don't see how the UN is the answer to any of the worlds problems, they ARE the problem...
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 07:40 am
I politely agree to disagree. The UN isn't a corrupt orginazation, it's a political orginization, just like the US government. I just don't think it matters who you elect, you will still be wading through muddy waters.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 07:41 am
I should clarify, I think politics is corrupt in general.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2004 09:46 am
I don't get the part where she says that she's a liberal, but that she's voting for Bush. How does that work?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Feminist Who Voted for Bush
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 02:58:38