Jackson Free Press

Leigh Flayton writes in Salon about Republican women planning to vote for John Kerry this year due to George W. Bush's extremism: "Judith Allen, longtime Arizonan and lifelong Republican, says her choice is clear. She is voting for John Kerry on Nov. 2 and says there's plenty more where she came from. Allen is not a lone voice, crying in the wilderness. She currently serves as a volunteer coordinator for the group, Republicans for Kerry, which believes in 'putting aside partisan politics to do what is right for America.' In spite of recent polls to the contrary, Allen says her fellow Republicans, turned off by the Bush administration's sharp turn to the right, are defecting in droves to the other side. If what these Arizonans want is any indication, Bush may well be in trouble. Since Arizona earned statehood in 1912, no Republican has been elected president without carrying the state." [...]

"So what's a moderate, pro-choice Republican woman to do? For her part, Allen believes it's a sign of maturity that enables voters to cross party lines. 'I used to think, and I know many people do, you define yourself by your party,' she says. 'And since I have not been in [elected] office, I've realized, first, that I am an American. And I really don't want to be defined as a party because currently the party doesn't represent me.'"

"Allen hasn't yet pulled a Teresa Heinz Kerry and registered as a Democrat. 'I truly believe that I can help change this [Republican] party,' she says. And she has some words of encouragement for Republicans who want to come out of the Kerry-Edwards closet. 'It's OK,' she says, 'you can come forth and, honest to God, no one will shoot you.'"

Previous Comments

ID

137172

Comment

What a wonderful story for you to feature though the article, curiously, provides ZERO in the way of facts to support opinions, er, statements such as: "Binder, who claims she is still undecided, says the Kerry-Edwards ticket is the better choice for women. "The Republican Party has been so captured by the Christian Coalition and the right-to-lifers. They've just about destroyed women's rights and human rights." But such altruism is certainly to be commended. Too bad that these rights, so quickly disappearing from American soil -- well, "just about", are so fully embraced and honored in the Muslim world: "Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni Muslim scholar based in Qatar, was among the first to condemn the Beslan massacre. At the same time, however, he insists that a similar attack on Israeli schools would be justified because Israeli schoolchildren, if not killed, could grow up to become soldiers. (Sheik Qaradawi also justifies the killing of unborn Israelis because, if born, they could become soldiers.)" Or: "Abbasi Madani, a former leader of the Front for Islamic Salvation, has started a hunger strike "in solidarity with our French brethren." This is rich coming from a man whose party and its allies caused the death of some 200,000 people in his native Algeria during the 1990s. Mr. Madani never missed a meal in solidarity with the countless Algerians, including women and children, that his fellow Islamists slaughtered." Exhibition Killing: The Muslim "debate" on hostage-taking and beheading. I often wonder why a bastion of support for human rights, such as the Jackson Free Press, so infrequently reports on the real horrors taking place in the world today. Then I snap back to reality and remember what I knew all along. Those horrors don't support the agenda. I guess one has their fact checks as well as our reality checks.

Author

TC Stein

Date

2004-10-03T09:20:30-06:00

ID

137173

Comment

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post on Friday about various reactions to debates, many of which were Republicans totally shocked by Kerry's performance at the debate. A lot of them were talking about making the switch to Kerry despite stout Republican views after seeing him speak for himself. I'm just waiting to see the economy debates. If there aren't more Republicans against Bush after that... I'll be surprised.

Author

casey

Date

2004-10-03T10:35:26-06:00

ID

137174

Comment

That quote you pull out, TC, is clearly opinion, and you can agree or not, just as people choose to agree with your statements or mine. That doesn't mean, however, that it's not interesting that at least some Republican women are not planning to vote for Bush. Anecdotally, I suspect that number is higher than polls would show, being that many of the women might not even admit this to their husbands or out loud when a pollster calls. I know I've talked to a good number of Republican women in Jackson, or women who voted for Bush last time, who plan to vote for Kerry this fall. I suspect many of these women, and others, are falling beneath the polling radar. Of course, that may be wishful thinking on my part. As for your other pointóit's not an either-or game we're playing! It's simplistic to argue that either you're for women's and human rights in the democratic U.S., OR you support such things in countries where there are emerging democracies, or no democracies at all. That those things happen there, so why are we worried about these issues here?!? We all know horrendous human-rights abuses are happening around the world, but that does not somehow justify women losing rights here, or justify Americans returning abuse in return, as some have argued ridiculously in the Abu Ghraib scandal. We're not going to "spread" democracy if we're chipping (or pounding) away at it at home, or participating in human rights abuses abroad, or suspending the rights of prisoners to counsel in Cuba. We just look like hypocrites when we do, or condone, such double standards. I believe, however, that is an excellent point that we must be concerned with those issues in countries from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan, and not just after the U.S. is attacked by Islamic extremists. (Women rights' groups had worked for years to get international attention to the plight under the the Taliban.) Perhaps most poignant, we need to be cognizant of the effect of our actions in the countries you mention and others. If we're not careful (and I don't think we're being careful enough as a nation), we will help create conditions (including anti-Americanism, and thus democracy) that ferment the conditions that actually lead to the international spread (or "globalization" of, you could say) these more horrendous types of human-rights abuses. This was addressed very eloquently by American Muslim and Islamic scholar Vincent Cornell this morning on NPR's "Speaking of Faith." This was a great piece with thoughtful and studied comments from a supporter of Islamic that also recognizes the dangers of extremist interpretations of Islamic law. Hear the whole piece here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-03T15:47:51-06:00

ID

137175

Comment

Speaking of Bush defectors, here's part of an AP piece today that talks about the Crawford newspaper that is endorsing Kerry instead of Bush. The editor of the Crawford, Texas, weekly that bills itself as Bush's hometown newspaper says he has no regrets about endorsing Kerry, even after a dozen business pulled their advertising from the publication. "I'd do it again," Leon Smith, publisher of the Lone Star Iconoclast, told the Waco Tribune-Herald in Sunday's editions. The Iconoclast, which endorsed Bush in 2000, said it now supports the Democrat because of disillusionment with the war and Bush's actions on Social Security, the economy and other issues. An editorial dated Sept. 29 accuses the president of having a "smoke-screened agenda" and leading the United States into a "quagmire" in Iraq on flimsy pretenses. The newspaper, with a circulation of 425, has become scarce, and copies have shown up on the eBay online auction site. Business leaders in Bush's adopted hometown of 705 residents about 20 miles west of Waco say they support the president and are critical of the upstart newspaper. "I think what's his name, Leon Smith, is entitled to his own opinion," said Vicki Martin, an employee at the Coffee Station convenience store and cafe, where Bush sometimes stops during stays at his ranch. "Unfortunately, his opinion hurt a lot of feelings around here. Bush is our neighbor."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-03T15:51:06-06:00

ID

137176

Comment

Some interesting numbers about women and this election in this Alternet story: Nicole Halpern's decision to become politically active came down to two numbers: 22 million and 537. Earlier this year, Halpern, a 30-year-old, living in San Francisco, heard that 22 million single women did not vote in the 2000 election, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. That fact, combined with the slim margin of President Bush's victory in Florida (537 votes) made Halpern realize that single women could and should make a difference in this election. So on July 3, Halpern started WAKEup2004.com, which stands for Women Advocate Kerry Edwards. "I was frustrated about the actions of this administration and decided to channel my frustration and sadness into this project," Halpern said. She said that like many other women, she has been intimidated by politics, and was frustrated by all of the negativity in the political process. [...] So could these independent efforts add up to something tangible at the ballot box? Maybe so, according to Dianne Bystrom, the director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. Bystrom said that because single women tend to vote heavily democratic, a "one to three percent increase in the number of single women voting could make the difference in the election." Bystrom said that focusing on recruiting single women would help John Kerry because of a "marriage" gap in women's voting tendencies. Bystrom said that an August poll conducted by USA Today, CNN and the Gallup Organization showed a 38-point gap in preference for president, as Bush lead by a 13 percent margin with married women, while Kerry lead by 25 percent with single women. Single women are more concerned about health care and the economy since 54 percent of unmarried women earn less than $30K per year, according to Bystrom. Married women, who tend to live in households with higher incomes, focus more on terrorism and security, she said. While having cocktail parties and writing letters are important, Bystrom said the women's groups need to personally follow up with potential voters after they register to make sure they turnout on election day. "Single women have a problem getting to the polls," she said. "If you wait until election day, you could be sick, or the car could break down." To increase voter turnout, Bystrom suggests that organizations urge people to take advantage of absentee ballots or the early voting days that are available in some states. [...] According to the 2000 Census data, only 41.2 percent of women aged 18-44 who have never married voted, compared to just 34.3 of men in the same category. Torrey Strohmeier, the founder of She19.com, said it is a mistake for so many women to fail to vote. "To give (away the right to vote) away is insane," said Strohmeier.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-03T17:01:35-06:00

ID

137177

Comment

Speaking of Kerry defectors. Thanks to the sometimes referenced Andy Sullivan -- noted only when there is an agenda fit -- we're alerted to this endorsement from the Lowell (Mass) Sun: "Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought down to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Endorsement: George W. Bush for president

Author

TC Stein

Date

2004-10-04T02:20:24-06:00