Always Republicans

The newest voter suppression tactic in VA - someone's giving Dems fliers telling them that their election day is Nov. 5. It's wrong, of course - Election Day is Nov. 4th (and you should vote early if you can). This brings me to the question - why is it always Republicans? You hear these unfounded accusations of voter fraud against Democrats, but you never hear about voter suppression tactics. Meanwhile, again and again, you hear about Republican maneuvers to erase people from the voting lists, to intimidate voters, and to challenge voters on often flimsy grounds (think foreclosure lists in Michigan, where it turned out a large number of the people listed were still living in their foreclosed-upon homes). My gut reaction is to say that it's because Republicans are slimeballs and Democrats are good and honorable, and truly believe in freedom, but I know too many good Republicans and bad Democrats to really hang my hat on that. Is it, perhaps, just that the Republican voting blocs are not ones that lend themselves to voter suppression? Or that we tend to think our efforts are better spent on trying to reach out to these voters than on suppressing them, even if it's only because it's more efficient?

UPDATE - Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a Republican, has just extended early voting hours in his state, upsetting many others in his party. He says that the right to vote is sacred and that more will be able to exercise that right in his state with the expanded availability of early voting. Good for him - even if it is always Republicans who are suppressing the vote, at least here is one example of a Republican doing the opposite. Crist has also, in the recent past, refused to jump on the "voter fraud" bandwagon.

Divided Government

Lost in the divided government argument is the fact that we have three branches of government, not two. Right now, the judiciary is controlled by the right wing. If McCain is elected, right wing dominance over that branch will increase. Changing control over the judiciary is a much longer and more difficult process than changing control over the legislative or executive branches. If it turns out that having Dems in control of Congress and the White House is a problem, voters can change it in one election - either 2010 or 2012. If, as has been the case, having the judiciary under the control of the right wing is a problem, we have to elect a President who is on the other side and keep him or her there until enough vacancies have appeared in order to make a difference. Not just talking Supreme Court, either, but the federal courts in general. So, don't listen to the new McCain BS about divided government - even if Obama's in office eight years, the judiciary will almost certainly still be dominated by the right wing.

What if...?

So, I was thinking about the absolutely horrible choice of Sarah Palin and what a disaster it's turned out to be, and the fact that Biden also seems to have been at best a neutral pick, and it occurred to me that Obama's pick is somewhat underrated for this reason: he's not Tim Kaine. Now, I worked my ass off for the Kaine campaign in VA in 2005. Since then, I've become somewhat frustrated by his less than brilliant governing, although I admit that it is at least partly due to the ridiculous partisanship of the House Republicans. However, imagine the different reaction to the Palin pick had Kaine been the Dem VP nominee. Kaine is similarly inexperienced, although certainly still more experienced than Palin. He is similarly unknown, and therefore would have similarly unleashed a storm of investigative reporting. Part of the reason Palin's been such a disaster is that she's managed to stay in the news consistently, and too often the stories focus on her lack of relevant knowledge (although she also has her fair share of scandals, as well). If Kaine had been the pick, wouldn't he have unleashed a similar response? Certainly he's not as attractive as Palin, and he is not under investigation for abuse of power (that I know of), but... what if?

For the record: I was terrified of Obama picking Kaine for a variety of reasons, and utterly thrilled when it turned out to be Biden - not only is he not Kaine, but he's great on women's issues.

Palin and Feminism

This could be a short post. Any woman trying to hold herself up as a serious political figure whose main appeal is an ability to be attractive while winking at the camera during a debate, despite a complete inability to give real answers to any important questions represents a massive step backward for feminism in America. This post from Sullivan's blog really spoke to me, and echoes a theme I've been discussing for weeks. She really does remind me of the "mean girl" archetype, and while that type tends to be able to make headway in ways that other women often can't, because they can charm men, it's not the kind of headway that helps women generally. Women need to be able to get ahead on merits, not appearance, and that's why this choice by McCain made a lot of women I know so angry. It's claiming to be promoting women's rights by taking the pretty, charming woman instead of many women who might actually be qualified - who might actually read newspapers, know what the Supreme Court does, etc. This sort of gimmick is just tokenism, and is an insult to women everywhere. And men who are supporting her... let's just say, I agree with Sullivan's reader. If I were dating Rich Lowry... I wouldn't be anymore after what that comment revealed about his attitude.

UPDATE:

Palin regaled the cheering crowd with a story about how she was reading her Starbucks mocha cup yesterday, which featured a quotation from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“Now she said it, I didn’t,” Palin said of Albright. “She said, ‘There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.’”

The crowd roared its approval, but according to several sources, Albright actually said, “there’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.”

“OK, now thank you so much for receiving that well—I didn’t know how that was going to go over,” Palin told the southern California crowd. “And now California, let’s see what a comment that I just made how that is turned into whatever it’ll be turned into tomorrow in the newspaper.”