|
March 28, 2007
A very shrewd move
Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that the Equal Rights Amendment has been reintroduced. While this is largely symbolic and unnecessary (for the reasons Eugene Volokh points out), it's nonetheless a very shrewd move. An election move? To whose benefit? Well, we're always in the middle of an election, so any move can be seen as an election move, but Bob Krumm links a report showing the people behind it: Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume "the fight for women's equality" on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women's Equality Amendment.Doesn't look very bipartisan, does it? (Is there some reason why not?) Clearly, the Dems are thinking ahead. This puts the Republicans in the very difficult position of having to "oppose" equal rights for women, or else have to explain why the ERA is "not needed anymore." Obviously, it is hoped the latter will look lame to the voters, and especially to the gender gap voters. Who knows? If the Democrats selected a woman as their candidate for president, this might even transform sex from a non-starter into a legitimate campaign issue. I'd say the Democrats have done their homework well. This can't do anything but make the Republicans look bad, because there's no way for them to triangulate their way out of it. (What won't make much difference is whether the ERA is a good or a bad thing.) UPDATE: NOW is endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds for the link! Welcome all. (Now, there's a coincidence!) posted by Eric on 03.28.07 at 04:02 PM
Comments
NOW only endorsed Hillary because neither Howard Stern nor Andrew Dice Clay are running for president. Sparky · March 28, 2007 06:53 PM This will be a very popular move in Cambridge, Northampton, Upper West Side and every other place where Dems get 95% of the vote in Blue States - otherwise nobody really cares bandit · March 29, 2007 08:09 AM You can triangulate in three ways (just not all at the same time): 1) It puts women at risk of being forced into combat roles. Nobody · March 29, 2007 02:52 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
if this is a close ally, who are our enemies?
For every horror, another horrible law? Screw incandescence! I'm screwing in my fluorescents! News From Zimbabwe Palestinian Lesbians Safe In Israel Hacking A History of the Middle East in Just a Few Minutes Fred Thompson just keeps looking better and better A very shrewd move From mourners to suspects overnight. Who knew?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
If they're smart, Republicans will just hold their tongues over this. (Yes, I know that it is genetically difficult for a politician to hold his/her tongue on any topic, but....)
Let the Libertarians explain why this proposed amendment is redundant, moot, overtaken by events, etc.
Nothing leaves a plank more dead than not giving the proponents any ammunition at all.