Jennerationx

The Party of JFK

This article has been moved–Click here.

Advertisements

September 29, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized

28 Comments »

  1. It’s ironic I’m reading this because here in Ohio, Tim Ryan, who represents the OH-15 in the US Congress, has a very prominent reputation as a pro-life Roman Catholic Democratic legislator. Although I hate the phrase “rising star” no matter who uses it (did the story of Michigan’s Young Republican Chair, Michael Flory, make it up to your area? He was called a rising star before going to jail for five years for sexual battery against another young Republican during an event in Cleveland), Ryan is often referred to as a rising star. He has been one of the members of Congress who has worked with Republicans to craft and seek passage of legislation that would provide incentives for women to not have abortions and/or not get pregnant (if you’re familiar with that effort).

    Bill O’Neill (whom I’ve met a couple of times and have had a chance to interview) was a judge for many years here in Ohio and has run for Congress as well (lost to Steve LaTourette in the OH-14 GE) is also a Catholic, pro-life Democratic politician. His story is rather amazing – a widower who was left with four young kids, he raised them himself and became a nurse. Even while he was on the bench, he worked as a nurse.

    I’ve never researched this issue, but these two politicians have made it very clear that they are pro-life and they seem to act in accordance with that, at least, that is their judgment of their actions.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  2. Jill, name one prominent Democrat that is pro-life. You can’t.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  3. I just did – Tim Ryan. That you don’t know him doesn’t mean he isn’t prominent. If you’re asking me to only name who you know, well – I only just discovered your blog today, Jenn. That’s not exactly fair, though of course it’s your blog, your rules.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  4. Also – I just googled “democrats for life” – seems there’s an org for people who ID themselves that way – you might check there to see what names if any your recognize.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  5. You are intentionally ignoring my point. I said prominent. The fact is that a Democrat who is pro-life that is, anti-abortion cannot and will not be nominated for much in the leadership of the demcrat party because the liberal women of the party will not allow it.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  6. Why are you being belligerent?

    Tim Ryan IS prominent here and many who follow Congress would say the same – I’m not sure why you can’t say that you just aren’t familiar with him – likewise, I am SURE I do not know Michigan members of Congress who are prominent nonetheless. Wow.

    Ryan is constantly getting plum positions – he was just in the news about it – I think he just got placed on Appropriations or something – here’s his bio – he’s on multiple powerful committees, placed on them by Pelosi.

    If you want to question his pro-life credentials, go for it. But seriously – maybe you just aren’t familiar with everyone who might fit what you’re saying you thought didn’t exist, ok? There’s no shame or anything in that.

    He’s incredibly approachable they say – e-mail the guy and see if he measures up for you – maybe he doesn’t, but maybe no one ever would.

    You wrote, “I can’t think of one Democrat politician who is pro-life, there may be some, but they are not household names. The Democrat Party ceased to be the Party of JFK when they began accepting only pro-aborts in their leadership.”

    I’m suggesting, in good faith for goodness sakes, that you check in with Ryan and that group. Unless you really just are not interested in finding that some folks are taking these stands.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  7. My bad re: the bio link – here it is

    http://timryan.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=49

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  8. Well then, I guess Tim Ryan better be happy where he is. I said in the Democrat party leadership, you keep promoting a no-name. I’m right about this, and you are struggling with one name, a nobody. Pro-aborts rule the democrat party. That’s just a fact. If Pelosi was pro-life, she wouldn’t be in the position she is. Fact. All of them, top-down baby killers. Your Ryan will not do well in that party.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  9. Jenn, like I acknowledged – this is your blog – you make the rules. You seem to be re-defining them to be sure you are staying in what you believe to be the upper hand of your argument. Whatever.

    I republished what you wrote at the end of this post. I offered information in response to what you wrote. You want to disqualify the information I provided because…I’m not really sure why.

    But this is your blog – we’re leaving comments to flesh this out and that’s how it goes.

    The invective and anger that courses through this last comment of yours – it seems really uncalled for. Especially this assertion of what you call fact.

    I also can’t get a handle on why you express what seems to be a need to be judgmental about someone about whom you know nearly as little as I do.

    What is it that makes you prefer that, rather than give someone the benefit of the doubt, you condemn them?

    Also – a correction – he’s not “my Ryan.”

    I’m not in his district, I’m not Catholic and I didn’t support his recent exploration into running for to be Ohio’s US Senator.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  10. I’m never angry, just saying what I think. You are too sensitive if you think I’m being angry. Why didn’t you support him?

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  11. Jenn – again – this is our first day ever interacting so I will take you at face value that if you say you aren’t angry, then you aren’t – this isn’t about being sensitive – this is about understanding how to interpret and give voice to words on a screen – and believe me, I recognize how one-dimensional and limited that can be – so if you say that’s just you and it’s not anger, I will trust you (but you have to promise to point out to me in the future – when you ARE angry, tell me – so I can see the difference – I don’t think never being angry is a good thing btw). 🙂

    Ok- I didn’t support Tim Ryan because, as I think I might have written earlier, he has been called a rising star since his birth, from what it seems to me. And I keep asking people I trust, why do you call him that – because I just don’t get that feeling – that rock star thing. When someone gets that moniker attached to them? I almost automatically start to get distrustful of someone – I think it can really be the kiss of death to be said to be a rising star – the fall is just too easy – so maybe it’s superstition or something – no tempting the fates.

    But mostly – I just FAR prefer Ohio SOS Jennifer Brunner as the qualified Dem (since that’s what I will pull as a ballot in the primary) and having a woman from Ohio is something that, while not the deciding factor, is important to me, all else being equal (which I feel they are).

    I would say that if Ryan were the only Dem running, he would be fine I think but again – I don’t know a ton about him, though I know where to look if I wanted to educate myself on the opinions of people I trust to really rake him over the coals in the way I like.

    So – it’s not any one thing – but in general, I prefer at least one of the other alternatives and the rising star thing always makes me wary.

    But – it’s still 14 months from the primary! Who knows what might happen?

    And sincerely thanks for even asking.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  12. “having a woman from Ohio…. is important to me” Ya know what, I ran for supervisor of my township, and when talking to people, one woman said she would support me because I’m a woman. Weird. Why would anybody support people for their genetalia?

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  13. Please listen – I am HAPPY to discuss that but please, can we do it in the good faith of discussing, not just dissing it? Ok? I’m going to assume the answer is yes. 🙂

    For me – and I speak ONLY for me (for example, I was not a Clinton or Obama supporter until I had to choose between them in the primary and then I chose Clinton but it was experience over unknown, not because she was a woman – I wrote fairly negatively about both of them – and I’ve met and interviewed Obama so…anyway – all another story some day) – when all else is equal – truly equal, in my estimation, on the criteria I’m considering for whether or not to choose someone, if there’s a woman involved? I may very likely choose her. NOT always, it’s not definitive, but it is a factor.

    To say it another way – I’m Jewish. That’s important to me – but there are plenty of Jews I never vote for and I never would vote for. Israel is important to me, separation of church and state are important to me – but I can’t imagine any of those being the ONE thing I’d make a choice on.

    YET – if all things are equal, and one of the choices is Jewish, yeah – I might lean that way.

    It is VERY individual.

    (Do you vote for judges? We do in Ohio – and it is a real pain in the neck because it’s so difficult to know all of them and it’s nonpartisan although starting this year, they are allowed to wear it more prominently – I don’t know – I grew up in CT and there, it’s all appointments to the bench – even though that’s old boy network, the voting for a judge? It bugs me.)

    Ok – so the female thing as it applies to the Ohio US Senate race:

    Ok – we know that in the U.S. Senate, there are only 17 out of 100 women (and if this is in fact something you’d like to explore, just from the sheer numbers of what it’s like across the country re: women in politics, check out this post I wrote just after the elections – it highlights a bunch of stuff, but did you know about how New Hampshire’s state legislature, it’s senate? Is majority female?? But in South Carolina? It’s state senate – has NO women, not even one, from either party?):

    http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2008/11/07/stagnation-nation-womens-wins-in-political-races-fail-to-accelerate/

    For me, for ME, this is just unacceptable – to have a legislative body that, as a whole, only has 24% women in it and in the Senate, only 17% – when our country is about 53-54% women. Now – I am not saying that I’m not persuaded by the belief that men can represent women’s needs, but history, trends, analysis show us that when women are present in decision-making bodies, the mix of what is discussed, the outcomes as well do reflect a broader range of issues and outcomes than if women are not there.

    Now – the one situation most recently which I believe shows why, for those of to whom this matters or makes sense, voting in this way can make an impact is the Lilly Ledbetter case.

    In the US Senate, 13 of the women are Dems, four are GOP. When the vote came on that bill, all four GOP women senators, plus Arlen Spector, voted FOR the Ledbetter Bill. That resulted in a 61 in favor – meaning it was filibuster-proof.

    Now – I understand that men and women in the GOP might not support that result (I had an intense debate with a good blogging buddy in Ohio – a conservative woman – you might enjoy her blog now that I think of it – Thurber’s Thoughts by Maggie Thurber who lives near Toledo) but Snowe and Collins from Maine, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Kay Baily Hutchison – the only four women the GOP has in the US Senate – all voted for Ledbetter. Plus Spector.

    So – it is that kind of thing – that kind of shaping, crafting and result – that causes me to want to help our decision-making bodies reach a far more reflective of the population mixture.

    But – as I say – that is me. I think you will find that women vary dramatically in how they feel about this – I have friends, contemporaries, who think I am blaspheous because I won’t always vote for the woman (and that is from one Ohio blogger, typically from the left, who wouldn’t vote for Obama and thought all women should support Palin, even with issue differences).

    I think it’s very complicated and not settled.

    But this also goes to my inability to excuse sexism as humor or entertainment.

    So…that brings us back to you and I having different sensibilities on that (i.e., I don’t think Limbaugh’s way of speaking about women is acceptable in any genre – I would not have my sons learn to speak that way to women and I will not have my daughter tolerate it).

    Amazing how our DNA can be 99% the same – and look what is left that’s different. 🙂

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  14. Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid…

    Comment by Scott | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  15. It does kind of seem weird that the Democrat Party pushes the idea that women have a voice in it and then, like you say so few are actually elected. I wrote when Hillary was dissed, (because she was winning the later primaries and the party leadership kept focusing on the superdelegates to pull out an Obama win) that the Dem party basically patted her on the shoulder and said, “Nice try hon.” https://jennerationx.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/liberal-feminism-has-created-superwoman/ And how about when they wanted to fill Hillary’s seat? They looked for a female, (Kennedy) and by the way when they looked for an Obama senate replacement, it had to be a black man, I distinctly remember hearing a Democrat strategist say that. Well, I thought, if that is the case, that guarantees that only so many women and black men can serve in the senate, right? Weird.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  16. I agree with you sense that it’s just not logical all the time – we aren’t logical all the time and democracy is really messy in this century. It’s very hard to act/vote, speak out on what seems like the right thing, the consistent thing, when you know that doing that right or consistent thing can lead to bizarre results.

    I don’t know what the answer is, but I really can’t fathom having a chamber in a legislature that has not one single woman in it – I know you might not agree, maybe you do, I don’t know, lol – but to me – that just seems really unnatural. I think of all the laws, all the legislation – over a zillion different issues – that women could easily have a different perspective on, that would be useful and helpful in shaping the state law. But if they aren’t there to vote it, to massage it…I don’t know.

    And then there’s the thing about how campaigning and governing aren’t the same either – so maybe people can win, but they can’t legislate.

    Anyway – we’re both mothers yes? It is totally past my bedtime.

    Jenn, I do hope you will check out Thurber’s Thoughts – I think it might be right up your ally, if you haven’t ever read it before – she won what I think was a fairly prestigious recognition for conservative bloggers maybe two or three months ago – I like her a lot – we can debate things, I can ask her questions to help me understand, but still go on to say why I see something differently.

    Anyway – you have a good night.

    Comment by Jill | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  17. right back atcha, Jill

    Comment by jennerationx | February 26, 2009 | Reply

  18. “(i.e., I don’t think Limbaugh’s way of speaking about women is acceptable in any genre – I would not have my sons learn to speak that way to women and I will not have my daughter tolerate it).”

    Men are men and women are women. You may not be able to tolerate certain aspects of either, but you are not always around. Boys will be boys, and if you try to purge them of themselves, you may get them to treat you differently, and that is just fine, but they will do what they please when you are not around. It is human nature. Hold a boy back, and he will rebel. Advice from one mother to another.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  19. Hmm – I left a long message this morning – I don’t see it here now but…well…okay –

    The gist was that we may need to agree to disagree after a certain point on this one.

    I see differences between boys and girls but I would never use those differences as an excuse and slough off otherwise unacceptable behavior with the rationale “they’re just being boys” or “they’re just being girls.”

    I don’t really know what you have in mind when you say “hold a boy back” – we shouldn’t, as parents, hold anyone back, but we shouldn’t as parents, encourage hurtful or otherwise unacceptable behavior or attitudes just because of someone’s genders. Understanding why someone does something and excusing what they do are not the same thing, in my opinion – it doesn’t have anything to do with being a mother.

    What were you/are you thinking of when you say this? Sexual prowess, physical aggression?

    Comment by Jill | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  20. Jill, comment #18 has a reference in it of what you said. You then boiled my response down to sexual prowess or physical aggression. I note the tendency of most women to try to stop boys or men from being harsh, uncouth and things of that sort. That is what mothers are good for. In fact, that is why a mother and a father are needed in a family, they each have the innate ability to teach a child something that the other parent cannot, or will not. My husband has always taught my son conservative thought and in that way, he will be attractive to the opposite sex without ‘sexual prowess’ as you say. Also, physical aggression is only acceptable when all else has failed. What I mean by holding a boy back is the nit-picky, stupid ideas that men will not notice the curve of a woman and comment on it, just because his mommy told him not to.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  21. Evening, Jenn.

    You read what I wrote as boiling down but what I very specifically wrote in the comment was this:

    “I don’t really know what you have in mind when you say “hold a boy back” …
    What were you/are you thinking of when you say this? Sexual prowess, physical aggression?”

    So, twice I explicitly indicated that I didn’t know what was on your mind, and then, after the second time? I made two suggestions for all that I could think of that you might be intending.

    Your comment then, in #21, clears that up when you write:

    “What I mean by holding a boy back is the nit-picky, stupid ideas that men will not notice the curve of a woman and comment on it, just because his mommy told him not to.”

    THAT is really helpful in explaining what you meant because it is explicitly saying what you meant (as opposed to assuming that I would know what you meant by “holding a boy back”).

    This is an interesting assertion that you make:

    “they (a mother and a father) each have the innate ability to teach a child something that the other parent cannot, or will not.”

    I worked in the children and family services sector for about 11 years and dealt with many, many mothers and fathers who didn’t have a clue and certainly didn’t balance each other – if that’s part of what you’re saying. In fact, I’d argue that the explosion of reality shows that have to do with parent coaches and nannies coming in and stuff like that highlight just how clueless, unfortunately, some parents are – or, if not clueless, insecure. And in this day and age, when criticism can come from so many places, it’s not hard to understand the growth of insecurity.

    Now, I definitely agree with you on this next thing, especially if by “all else” we both mean at least several other methods of attempting resolution, at a minimum:

    “physical aggression is only acceptable when all else has failed.”

    The only piece of your comment that remains something I do not understand is this:

    “My husband has always taught my son conservative thought and in that way, he will be attractive to the opposite sex without ’sexual prowess’ as you say.”

    In my life, “conservative” has several different though not necessarily competing meanings, but defintely different – and that is why I ask you for something more specific (like an example like you did with the holding back boys).

    For example: I belong to a synagogue in the conservative branch of Judaism – and in that sense, the branch literally was created as one to “Conserve” as in “keep as is.” BUT within my region, my synagogue is a more traditional conservative synagogue – whereas the one across the street from us? Far more progressive conservative.

    When you write that your husband teaches your son “conservative thought” that leads to someone being attractive to the opposite sex, what do you mean when you say that? I’m a little confused because I’m thinking back to what you wrote in the Advice for Women thread – where you wrote this:

    “I know him [Rush Limbaugh] like every square inch of my glorious naked body. I hear his thoughts 15 hours a week, he has a beautiful mind and a healthy sex drive. He’s a regular guy, and I love men.”

    I thought that was a pretty private thing to be saying to a stranger and I would not consider that a particularly conservative kind of thing to say – but that is me.

    So I’m trying to put two and two together – does this mean then, that Rush is a model for your son in how he talks about and treats women, re: what you wrote here:

    ” My husband has always taught my son conservative thought and in that way, he will be attractive to the opposite sex without ’sexual prowess’ as you say.”

    I am hoping you will see why I’m asking for clarification. 🙂

    Comment by Jill Zimon | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  22. ” I hear his thoughts 15 hours a week, he has a beautiful mind and a healthy sex drive. He’s a regular guy, and I love men.”

    I thought that was a pretty private thing to be saying to a stranger and I would not consider that a particularly conservative kind of thing to say – but that is me.”

    Well then, I guess it’s just you.

    Comment by jennerationx | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  23. Hey Jill, conservatives have sex all the time. Does that shock you?

    Comment by jennerationx | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  24. Very ironic you should ask me that at this very second!

    Here’s what I was reading when your note came through:

    “In the presence of any one, never put your hand to any part of the person not usually uncovered. As for the hands and face they are usually visible. In order to form a habit in this point of decency, practise it even when with your intimate friend.”

    That’s a George-ism, one of George Washington’s 110 rules of civility. I work in my kids’ libraries at school and I’d seen that book in there last fall. They let me take it out but I finally neeed to return it, even though I hadn’t gotten a chance yet to write about it. So before I sent it back, I made sure that I could find the maxims online. I was just sitting down to an ice cream cone and checking out the sources I’d found on those civility rules when I got the email notification of this commment from you about sex and conservatives!! lol

    As for the question you asked? I’ve never thought about it to be honest.

    Comment by Jill | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  25. Are you interested in 2009 or 1775?

    Comment by jennerationx | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  26. Why both! 🙂

    Comment by Jill | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  27. Here’s a great list of the 110.

    Comment by Jill | February 27, 2009 | Reply

  28. I have no idea what you are talking about, holding hands went out in 1983!!

    Comment by jennerationx | February 27, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: