“Women don’t support women candidates . . .”

Super FeMANist!


From Clinton to Palin to Bachmann: Why some Dems now support GOP women

When Republican presidential candidate and tea party favorite Michele Bachmann was recently asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace if she was “a flake,” the moment seemed like déjà vu all over again for some women active in politics.

Bachmann’s response — she was “insulted” — was stern, but it pointed to a larger bias many women perceive in presidential politics.

“Nobody in the GOP establishment is going to hand anything to Bachmann or (Sarah) Palin — just like (Democrats) did not for Hillary (Clinton),” said Amy Siskind, who supported Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid. “And it takes a certain type of leader to go out there and have the courage and the guts to say ‘I’m running (for president)’ and I admire Bachmann for that.”

After Clinton’s failed Oval Office bid, Siskind and a small group of women who had supported Clinton decided the best way to break the glass ceiling in presidential politics was to put ideology and partisanship aside and support any woman seeking a top political office — including Bachmann and Palin, two darlings of the tea party movement known for their conservative views on economic and social issues.

But some Democratic leaders dismissed the idea, arguing the electorate is more sophisticated.

“Women don’t support women candidates simply because of their status as women, simply because of their gender,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the Democratic National Committee.


Wasserman-Schultz said women vote on the issues that matter to them and select the candidate who champions those issues. She pointed out that President Obama has signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, fought for passage of health care legislation that benefits women, has a number of women in his administration and has appointed two women to the U.S. Supreme Court.

By contrast, the DNC head said that none of the contenders in the current GOP presidential field has Obama’s track record when it comes to supporting women and working families and championing equal rights for women, both reproductive rights and rights in the workplace.

Lily Ledbetter. And Obamacare w/Stupak. Two women.


BTW – Women comprise 52% of the electorate. If women always voted for women then women would win every election.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to “Women don’t support women candidates . . .”

  1. JeanLouise says:

    Of course, if women always voted for women, we would be fairly represented in government. It’s impacted the way I’ve voted since I first pulled the lever.

    I voted for McCain-Palin as a protest against the DNC actions on May 31, 2008. As a life-long moderate Democrat, it was hard to do but Palin’s presence on the ticket was a plus. So was McCain’s. I didn’t think that Palin or Obama were prepared to be president but I thought that McCain would be a good placeholder and I prayed that a Democratic Congress would keep in the center.

    Political life has gotten even more complicated since then. Palin has taken a hard right and Bachmann’s a religious nut. Obama’s an incompetent boob who’s also taken a hard right. There’s no one left who even comes close to representing my values. This is depressing.

    • votermom says:

      Who threw the pie? Was it the lady in the pink blazer?

      • Three Wickets says:

        The guy on the left tried to throw the pie. The pink blazer lady is Rupert’s wife Wendy defending against the pie.

      • WMCB says:

        Wendy (Rupert’s diminutive wife) crammed that pie right back at the jerk. I’d like to see her spike a volleyball. The lady’s got game. 😀

    • Pips says:

      (Siiigh! Always a couple ot threads behind. So, I’ll just have to drag my own comment from down there to up here.)

      Not pie but … a plate of shaving cream. Huh? And what was his message anyway? That Murdoch needed a shaving?

      What he did accomplish was: For the rest of the hearing to be closed to the public. Sympathy mounting for old man Murdoch. And his wife, with her swift reaction, probably gracing more than just one newspaper cover tomorrow … besides landing himself in prison.

      Don’t think that was what the protester was aiming for.

  2. JeanLouise says:

    Oh, please, as if the Republicans will do any better. That ad’s sheer propaganda as all political ads tend to be. We need an FDR Democrat. We need to spend more but spend smarter and raise taxes on the so-called “job creators” who are hoarding their money instead of actually creating jobs.

    Government is not bad. Bad government is bad.

    • WMCB says:

      Yeah, because raising taxes on those nasty businesses who are “hoarding” is going to create a lot of jobs, huh? I’m really tired of that crazy meme. Businesses are responding in an entirely logical and utterly predictable fashion to economic uncertainty, by staying in liquid cash and hunkering down..

      And we may or may not need to “spend more”, (which is an entirely separate question from whether or not we even have the “more” to spend), but one thing is for certain – the american people are going to have to see proof that our govt has even the tiniest inclination to “spend smarter” before they trust them with with the “more” part.

      You are right – bad govt is bad. So how’s about they show us they are even capable of GOOD govt, before they ask us to finance more bad govt?

      Show me your fucking plans before you ask me for more taxes. I don’t do “trade me for what’s behind door #2” deals.

      • JeanLouise says:

        Small businesses don’t have any money because Wall Street is hoarding it. Most jobs in this country come from small businesses which live or die on consumers. No one’s consuming because many don’t have any disretionary income and those who do are afraid that they’re going to need their extra pennies to pay for their living expenses and healthcare in their old age.

        As to the “fucking plans”, Obama tried to give away the store to the Republicans and they turned him down.

        We know that Republicans want to decimate two of the most successful things that government does – Social Security and Medicare. As their guru, Grover Norquist says, they want to starve government until it virtually disappears. They’re doing a damn good job of it. Personally, I’d rather not live in an America that takes it’s governance style from third world countries.

        • ralphb says:

          Small businesses don’t have any money because Wall Street is hoarding it.

          Utter bullshit! Small business doesn’t have any money because their customers aren’t buying. Some could purchase but they are paying down debt instead.

        • Melissa says:

          Wait, I thought Rush Limbaugh was their guru. Soooo confused.

        • WMCB says:

          ROTFLMAO!!! Again with the Great All Powerful Guru Grover Norquist ridiculousness. The Koch thing bombed so badly, I guess poor sad Grover is the best they can do for a convenient hate-object. Maybe the funny name will give it some traction, but I doubt it. The Journolisters and MSNBC have been flogging the “Secret Leader Grover” tack for a couple of weeks now, and no one is buying it.

          I don’t want to live in a third world country either. Nor do I want to live in Venezuela or Greece. Claiming that conservatives have a secret desire to turn us into Somalia is about as credible as claiming that Democrats are aiming for a glorious Soviet revolution. Which is to say, somewhat true of the very fringe, but not at all mainstream, in either party.

        • JeanLouise says:

          ralph, it’s utter bullshit to claim that not being able to borrow to make your payroll doesn’t impact small businesses.

      • Three Wickets says:

        Most of the 2 trillion dollars in cash businesses are sitting on are with corporations, not small businesses. There is a difference. Don’t know why we’d want to defend large multinational corporations.

        • ralphb says:

          It’s less a defense than an acknowledgement. Business is doing what they see is right for their bottom line. They aren’t in the social welfare trades. Corporations are amoral creatures of money.

        • votermom says:

          That FT article is behind a firewall.
          My question – are they sitting on it or are they investing it in other countries and creating jobs in other countries? Because I think there’s got to be something wrong with the picture or getting a govt bailout and then turning around and investing in another country.

        • Three Wickets says:

          Search this headline in Google, should get you in to FT article: “Corporate finance: Rivers of riches”

          How does defending corporations make sense even from a political perspective. They are raking in all that loose money from the Fed for their investors and making them richer with dividends, share buybacks, new acquisitions, earnings boosted by firings, equity appreciation…but little or no longer term investment in jobs, training, growth. When the tea party stands with multinationals and/or banks, the smell gets fishy for me. It’s the only reason I paid any attention to them in the first place, railing againt the financial/corporate TBTF-TPTB monopolies.

        • ralphb says:

          votermom, rather than give you a screed I’ll answer your question. Lots of the money is sitting fallow and a lot of companies would spend for an acquisition/merger if the best chance comes along. I’m not necessarily talking about the finance houses here because those people really are scum.

          Corporations are also investing a lot of money and creating a lot of jobs, just not in the US. Most foreign activity is taking place in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) with significant investment still in SE Asia and some in the Middle East. Most multinationals should be pulling the majority of their new revenue this quarter from outside of the US.

          There is not at this time any reason other than “patriotism” for a US company to invest in the US. Amoral creatures of money are not patriotic either. What needs to happen is we need to give them an economic reason to invest in the US and threats won’t work. If you threaten them, they’ll move to Dubai.

        • Three Wickets says:

          As a start, we can stop letting multinationals defer taxes on their offshore profits. That would bring in revenue and probably compel more domestic hiring.

        • ralphb says:

          Good first step and one I agree with 100%. Carrot and stick needs to be used to make the difference. Relying on their good will and vilifying them when they disappoint does no good.

          Same good be said for politicians. Withhold what they can’t win without, your vote.

        • votermom says:

          I’m not necessarily talking about the finance houses here because those people really are scum.

          As to carrot & sticks & corporations being amoral creatures of money– exactly.

          Which is why the fault is with pols & regulators who adjust the rules for the corporations’ interests rather than create and enforce laws that promote the general welfare of the people.

      • raising taxes on those nasty businesses who are “hoarding” is going to create a lot of jobs, huh?”

        Depends on where the tax money goes to. If it went to longer unemployment payments, more food stamps, etc, the recipients would spend it immediately, saving jobs at local markets and encouraging mom and pop to start new local businesses.

        If we don’t want money hoarded (offshore etc),then take it away from the hoarders and give it to people who CANNOT hoard.

    • ralphb says:

      Government is not inherently good either. The best government is the least we can possibly have and maintain order at the federal level. In almost every case, you can have more influence over and more trust in government closest to the people.

      • JeanLouise says:

        Clearly, I don’t agree with that. Without government, we’re not civilized. The world is too complex to act as if we’re fifty unconnected entities. State governments polluted one another’s natural resources, outlawed inter-racial marriage, outlawed contraception, even for married couples, outlawed reproductive choice, established literacy test and poll taxes, kept the races separate, denied women and minorities the right to be have equal access to jobs and to equal pay (still working on this one) and denied disabled people the right to fully participate in society.

        Government. local, state or federal are neither inherently good nor bad. The key is to get good people to run them. That’s why we need to establish public financing for every elected office. Candidates should be forced to use the funds to actually communicate their plans instead of appealing to people’s fears like the ad that the Klown posted .does

        • WMCB says:

          Question: Is there any point at which you would say there is too much government? Especially economically speaking. How much GDP should govt be allowed to consume? 20%? 40%? 60%?

        • ralphb says:

          I don’t expect you to agree with that. I don’t really care that you don’t agree with that. I am concerned that you seem to have so little appreciation of and value for personal freedom. It seems to have escaped your notice that when one person is “forced” to do something against their will, it could happen to any of us next.

        • “How much GDP should govt be allowed to consume? 20%? 40%? 60%?”

          Depends on what government does with it when they “consume” it. We might look at some countries that have good quality of life (good single payer medical for all, early retirement pensions, etc) and see what percentage of GDP they require.

        • JeanLouise says:

          WCMB, I believe in smart spending, not necessarily big spending. Big spending is demonstrated by our incredibly bloated defense budget, unfunded wars and outrageous tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy. I believe in spending as much as is necessary to assure that government dollars are actually going where they’re supposed to go.

          Smart spending is doing whatever is necessary and humane to keep unprepared people from having children that they can’t take care of , ending the endless, unsuccessful war on drugs, not locking up drug addicts in prison instead of, at least, trying treatment first and making real investiments in education, technology and infrastructure.

  3. yttik says:

    Women have trouble just supporting the woman down the street, let alone a political candidate. We’re taught from a very young age not to side with women.

    But you never know, the primary sure threw us for a loop, the misogyny has gotten pretty bad, and most of us are having financial problems. One woman just put her husband’s penis in a blender, one attacked a judge, and another tweaked a TSA agent. Maybe we’ll all go off the deep-end, get together, and upturn the political cart. : )

  4. elliesmom says:

    I think that Obama’s lack of support for women may just do women a of favor. Maybe disappointment with “what a feminist looks like” will make some women “think different”. Women were admonished to vote for Obama because of “the Supreme Court”. As if our only issue is abortion. Women need to vote their own self-interest on a lot of issues. We’re for the most part always “underemployed” or at least underpaid even when times are good so this Great Recession has hit us very hard. Women live longer and and our lower salaries throughout our careers make us more dependent on social security and medicare than men are. We’ve tried voting for the candidate who appears to represent our self interests even when it means voting for a man over a women. Maybe we should try voting for the candidate who shares our self-interest even if her solution is not what we think we want. At least the stakes are the same for her.

    • ralphb says:

      +1000 honk! honk! honk!

    • angienc says:


    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Honk indeed!

    • WMCB says:

      Yeah, but if I don’t view myself as a walking uterus and nothing more, I get kicked out of the “real feminist” club!!! And that would be…..

      ……..well, actually…….

      Okay, I don’t give a fuck if I’m outta the club, I’m voting economy! 😀

    • JeanLouise says:

      Just because they’re women doesn’t mean that Bachmann or Palin share our self-interests.

      • WMCB says:

        They share a lot of them. They share many of mine. The point, JL, is that women themselves get to decide what is “in our self interest”. You or the Democrats don’t get to decide that for all women.

        It’s not that groups keep “voting against their self-interests”. It’s that they are more and more refusing to let someone else tell them what those self interests are.

        • JeanLouise says:

          I dont believe that you’ve seen me holding a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to vote for the candidate that I prefer. As a matter of fact, I don’t have a preferred candidate as I stated in the first post of this thread.

          Please, if you prefer, vote for the woman who thinks that we’re in the “End Times” and will have the nuclear codes, if it makes you feel “free”. I prefer to deal with anyone else as long as they aren’t messianic nuts. I’d like to, at least, not be incinerated in a nuclear war even if I am “forced” to contribute to WIC.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        They certainly share our experience. They’ve had periods. They’ve had babies. They’ve had to fight hard to be taken seriously. Every single woman in America has at least one of those things in common with them. You can’t say that about a single male politician.

        • JeanLouise says:

          Fine, I can commiserate with them over cramps and the evils of high heels.

          The truth is that neither Palin nor Bachmann supported the Lily Ledbetter Act nor currently support pay parity, Medicare or Social Security which impact women more than men because they spend so much of their lives out of the work force when they’re raising a family.

          No, they don’t share my values. They’re a pair of “I got mine, screw you” Republicans.

          So is Obama.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          That’s pretty ridiculous to say that Palin and Bachmann don’t want pay parity. As working women, they obviously do. They just don’t share your ideas on what the solutions are. Reasonable people can disagree on what to do about equal pay. Not every woman wants to run to Daddy Government to fix their problems. I am one of them.

      • Mary says:

        On the other hand, JL, it was Nancy Pelosi, a devout Catholic, who Stupak’d women to pass Obamacare.

        Stereotyping one side or the other reflects very lazy thinking.

      • yttik says:

        “Just because they’re women doesn’t mean that Bachmann or Palin share our self-interests”

        This is actually a fallacy, one of those things women are taught in order to keep us paranoid of each other. Of course Bachmann and Palin share our self interest, they’re women too. You may not agree with everything they believe, but they’re pretty darn stuck being women and therefore share our self interests as women.

        Often it has been right wing women who have stood up for all women, even when the liberal dudes wouldn’t do it. They were once the champions of the Equal Right’s Amendment and they sent the first woman to congress. Domestic violence laws, child sexual abuse laws, even the old worn out Lilly Ledbetter act would not have passed if not for Republican women. They benefit from our country’s policies too, you know.

      • WEll, one self-interest I share with Bachmann is that I’d like to see women allowed to run for office without being smeared and insulted. So a protest vote against misogyny is worth making, other things being equal.

  5. insanelysane says:

    Simply putting more women in office and at the table with men will have an effect on the process. I am supporting any woman who runs and especially any progressive woman. Earlier comment re: women voting as if abortion is our only issue is true and destructive to our cause. Neither party is going to change the status quo. Both sides make a ton of money using abortion as talking point=cashcow .

    • WMCB says:

      He’s falling apart. Nice guy, but losing it.

    • Melissa says:

      I agree that Romney may not be right for the GOP, but in order for Cain to convince me that he’s right for the GOP, he needs to knock off the anti-Muslim and mosque banning nonsense. I’m not someone who denies any problems with Islam, I just think that bashing the religion of 1 billion people in the word and at least a million people in the US is a bad strategy. Full disclosure, my boyfriend is Muslim from Morocco. He’s probably pretty typical of Muslim immigrants to this country. He practices his religion and is fairly socially conservative, but he is convinced that the Republicans hate him and that the Democrats are his best friend and protector forever and ever (or at least until he expresses negative views about gays or illegal immigrants)

      It’s funny, I’m the midst of a move to a more “red” part of my state from a very “blue” part and I’m going to have to re-register to vote. I’ve been a registered Dem for years, although I haven’t considered myself particularly liberal for quite a while, if ever. I thought about re-registering as a Rep but I’m seeing enough anti-Islam crap being spewed by some candidates and by the comments sections of my favorite conservative blog (Ace), that I’m probably going to have to register Independent to express my complete dissatisfaction with both parties.

      BTW, did you see this excellent article in Reason about this very topic? http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/18/fear-of-a-muslim-america

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        I share your concerns. I am deeply troubled by the misogyny inherent in Islam and think we should continue having that dialogue. That said, Muslims are people, and when they are citizens of the United States, they share the same rights I have. That means I don’t get to ban their mosques or tell them they can’t say certain things. It means I can fight them with my own free speech and organizing ability, nothing more.

      • angienc says:

        but he is convinced that the Republicans hate him and that the Democrats are his best friend and protector forever and ever

        Your boyfriend is an asshat if he believes EITHER of those things.

        Oh, and there are 1.1 billion Catholics in the world & I bet you & your boyfriend don’t give a shit about all the bashing they get.

        • Melissa says:

          How do you know anything about me and my boyfriend? You won’t hear me religion bashing, period. I’ll wait for your apology.

        • angienc says:

          Keep waiting, concern troll.

          You can’t tell the difference between Herman Cain — a man who has no chance of getting the GOP nomination exactly because he says things like people should be able to ban mosques — and ALL Republicans. That right there proves your asshat status. The fact that you think ALL Dems are some kind of “protector” just further confirms that status.

        • melisshka says:

          Wow AngieNC, you’re a real piece of work. You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you’ve managed to completely dismiss anything I have to say. It’s funny, I’ve been lurking around here and the Confluence long enough to have a pretty good idea of the screen names and the personalities. I watched the flirtation between you and MyIQ over at the Confluence. It was certainly amusing and I had no reason to think badly of either of you. In fact, I followed the crowd when MyIQ more or less got kicked out because he was kind to Sarah Palin. He’s a great blogger and so are the other bloggers at this site. With few exceptions, almost everyone at this site seems wonderful.

          I don’t know how you can identify a concern troll after reading one comment. I do have concerns about any number of things, but nothing that would be particularly relevant here, other than what I just commented on, which clearly I should have kept my mouth shut about. For instance, I’m concerned that if I don’t get my stucco fixed that the walls of my house are going to get ruined. I’m concerned about my boyfriend getting a job, because he seems sort of unhappy without one. I’m concerned that I might have trouble finding a job in the location that I’m moving to.

          I’m still going to hang around this site and I may comment too because it obviously annoys you and as much as your responses hurt my feelings, you don’t know anything about me, so I can hold my head high, as I know the type of person I am and you clearly have no clue. See you later, sunshine…

        • Three Wickets says:

          more or less got kicked out

          uh not really. the size of the room shrunk and there was less range for debate.

  6. imustprotest says:

    I agree with JeanLouise on this thread. She appears to be somewhat alone here. I’m tired of the “can’t tax the job makers” meme. The “job makers” have had over 10 years now of Bush tax policies…not uncertainty. The too big to fails were given massive bail outs but now will not loan any money out. They are indeed, sitting on the money.

    • WMCB says:

      When did Obama propose doing jack shit to reign in the banks or make them cough up their ill-gotten gains? I must’ve missed that. And when did the Republicans, or especially the Teaparty people, claim that the too-big-to-fail banks were the job-creators? I must’ve missed that too. They have not switched gears here – they are merely distinguishing between businesses/the private sector in general, and the favored banks and companies getting govt favors with taxpayer dollars. They are not all the same thing.

      • imustprotest says:

        Look. I never said Obama did anything so I don’t even know WHERE that came from….left field?? The fact is the banks ARE sitting on the money. And the fact is, the corporations ARE sending what jobs they have overseas. Homeowners, and/or people who want to buy homes now can’t get loans. No loans-no homes. No homes-no fixing up homes. No fixing up homes = job losses. No jobs = nobody buying any frickin’ thing = more job losses. Clear now?

        • WMCB says:

          I understand, imustprotest. But you seem to be assuming that taxing businesses more will keep them from moving jobs overseas? How does that make sense? I was responding to the claim that we needed to raise taxes on businesses because they are hoarding money. No one was talking about banks.

          The banks are a whole ‘nother reeking kettle of fish, that both parties are fairly silent on, though the grassroots on both sides are yelling. But that has not that much to do with businesses hiring. Business owners large and small have been yelling at the top of their lungs that inability to get loans IS NOT the primary driver that is keeping them from hiring.

          The only way to create private sector jobs is to make it to their economic advantage to build and hire here.

        • JeanLouise says:


          Perhaps you don’t understand that I’ve been talking about small businesses although I’m sure that I’ve said it more than once. Small businesses drive the economy and they’re the ones who are being denied funding.

          I used to defend Tea Partiers as citizens who had a legitimate concern about bailing out the banks and auto manufactuers. I shared their concerns. Then they took up with the Christian Taliban. Now, they’re willing to destroy the world economy to make a point. They’re absolute loons.

          Thank you, imustprotest. I appreciate your kind words.

    • yttik says:

      One problem imustprotest, with “taxing the rich” for “sitting on their money”, is that we don’t really tax money or assets, we tax earned income. The money that big business is allegedly sitting on and “hoarding” rather than creating jobs with, doesn’t really get taxed much until it is actually used to create profits with. We tax profits. We don’t tax money that’s being sat on.

      • Three Wickets says:

        This was one of Matt Y’s more creative posts recently. On cutting back excess reserves held by banks at the Fed. Not sure it would work for a couple of reasons, but intriguing.

        You could also accomplish this by reducing the interest paid on excess bank reserves. This rate, unlike the short-term treasury rate, can go below zero. This is a policy that has worked well in Sweden. Banks penalized for holding excess reserves will presumably lend to someone. Make the penalty large enough, and banks may even lend money at negative rates. Alternatively, they’ll just go out and get fancier office furniture. Either way, money gets spent.

        • yttik says:

          That is an interesting idea!

          For myself, I could win the lottery and I’d still feel uncertain about investing and spending. The darn uncertainty, the not trusting what our government is going to next, is just paralyzing.

          I have access to good credit, so it’s not a case of not being able to get a loan, I’m just terrified of all the instability and whether or not we would be able to pay it back. Small business is used to risk, but the current amount of risk is just too scary.

        • ” I could win the lottery and I’d still feel uncertain about investing and spending. ”

          That could make an interesting front page article!

          “If you won the lottery and had enough money for yourself and your friends forever, how would you invest the rest to make some profit?”

          For that matter, with the whole world to choose from, where would you invest your own savings? Social Security Trust directors pls take note.

        • Three Wickets says:

          The EU is going to explore a financial markets tax on high frequency casino trading to compel investors into more productive investments. We should probably look into that too.

      • ” We don’t tax money that’s being sat on. ”

        Then maybe we should!

        Sarah taxed the Alaska oil companies that were sitting on their oil fields instead of drilling.

        • ralphb says:

          Sarah did better than tax them. She was going to take their leases back unless they drilled and worked them. That’s fair. We need the same kind of leverage, and the courage to use it, with other businesses.

        • WMCB says:

          They wanted to sit on the leases forever. She forced them to compete. She said, “Either get busy doing something economically productive with that, or we’ll give it to someone who will, because the people of Alaska own those oil fields, and we plan to turn a profit.” People have this idea that huge multinationals are all for free markets and competition. Bullshit. They aren’t. They’d all like to do what the oil companies in Alaska were doing – simply use the govt to tie up or lock out their competitors so they stay top dog.

          It’s hard to get across to folks that free markets/competition is not an evil concept at odds with proper regulation of business. One of the biggest POINTS of correct regulation is to make the fuckers compete, and prevent them cheating. The uses that regulation has mostly been put to in the past few decades is to punish the politically unconnected, and shore up monopolies for the favored few. That’s bad regulation.

          This is why I don’t knee-jerk cheer when some politician announces new regulatory crackdowns. The devil is in the details. Who wrote them? And who gets a carve-out? Is the brunt of that new regulation going to be borne equally, or is it going to force under smaller entrepreneurs who can’t afford 12 tax attorneys, 200 paper-pushers, and 300 accountants on retainer, thus clearing the field for more profit by the Big Boys?

        • ralphb says:

          Uncle Sam, sugar daddy

          When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?

          Speaking of sitting on it.

        • JeanLouise says:

          I believe it was when people were standing in soup lines just before they died in the streets. Watch The Grapes of Wrath sometime. It’s our future.

    • elliesmom says:

      I see you’re polishing up “your feminist street creds” some more, ABG. Hitting every blog covering this CNN story. 😉

      • Pips says:

        Heheh – yeah that was a good one. As was pretending that “having daughters” had opened his eyes to sexism. 🙄 Made me consider if maybe he does have a sense of humour after all.

        As someone at TL called him recently: “Mr. Today I’ll Pretend to Put a Liberal Hat On”, lol.

  7. ralphb says:

    Aos: Why The Democratic Party Is Doomed interesting read.

    We hear a lot of this sort of thing about the Republican Party — that we’re simply “running out of white people” to get to vote for us, and that the Hispanicization of the US will spell doom for the GOP, at least as we know it.

    Richard Miniter says it’s the left that’s doomed. Not due to demographics per se, but due to having run out of the government money it needs to bribe all the members of its coalition to vote Democrat.

    Apart from the high-income Cultural Liberals, Miniter notes, every single other segment of the coalition depends on government largess. What happens when the tap runs dry?

  8. ralphb says:

    Size Matters And you probably wondered what economist did all day. 😉

    Penile length alone can explain over 15% of the between-country variation in 1985 GDP.

    Startlingly the male organ coefficients are statistically significant at the 1% level in all model specifications.

    Maybe this could help explain why everything is so “unexpected” to them.

Comments are closed.