Friday, February 12, 2016

Bernie Thinks His Election Will be More Historic for Women

And why not? He had argued that he would be better on race relations than Obama.

He also seems to think that his election would be more historic than hers. Not for women it wouldn't and not for issues of gender.

Indeed, I still think that the Hillary team should put out video of his at the Black and Brown Forum saying that gender issues have had more progress than racial issues.

While obviously, there remains some deep problems of race in terms of police brutality and systemic racism, the fact is that at least you get called on saying we're a post racial society. Many have called this election post gender.

I had this argument with a Bernie Bro yesterday on Twitter. He was beating the dead horse of Steinem's comments. My reply was that at least she had apologized-she was clearly a little frustrated and for good reason.

But when does Susan Sarandon apologize for saying that 'women shouldn't vote with their vaginas?'

That was at least as insulting for those women voting for Hillary as Steinem's were for those voting for Bernie.

The Bernie Bro finally lost it and declared 'gender is not an issue, she's just fucking trying to use it.'

I disagree with those who say the gender of the President doesn't matter. I understand that Bernie checks the right boxes as far as a 100 rating with NARAL-as does Hillary of course.

But as Planned Parenthood notes, Hillary has done more than just vote the right way, she's sponsored bills that push for protecting and upholding a woman's right to choose.

At the end of the day, there's something called political capital. You might go into the WH wanting to achieve 20 big ticket items, but in the early going you will of course get much less than that done.

So you're ordering of priorities matters. It's a good case that the specific issues of gender-which many claim is not an issue-would be better prioritized in the Administration of the first female President.


  1. OK, now I've seen everything: John Cochrane posting a link to the libertarian case for Bernie Sanders.

    If that means he really really really doesn't like Trump, then it's a good sign.

    1. Wait, Sumner said he'd vote Bernie over Trump too!

      What a world it would be if come next November, Cochrane and Sumner head to the polls to pull the lever for Sanders while you're voting Trump! Lol!

      Probability of the above scenario: 0.1%

      But still... this IS a crazy election year.

    2. I would assume Cochrane really doesn't like Trump and don't consider it's a good sign.

      I've explained this phenom before.

      There are Trump Democrats and Bernie Republicans, at least right now.

      Now if the race really comes down to Bernie-Trump who knows how anyone will really feel?

      I am now at least certain I will not vote for Bernie Sanders, full stop.

      Maybe Bloomberg if he runs, or Trump, or write in, or just say no. First time in my adult life to not vote for President-though I'd vote for Congressional Dems.

      I suspect Cochrane is just really anti Hillary.

    3. The idea of a 'libertarian case for Bernie' though is interesting.

      Surely, there is not much of a libertarian case for Trump

    4. No: which is probably why Sumner and Cochrane (I'm guessing in Cochrane's case, although I did ask him about Trump's immigration ideas once, and he basically called a Trump a moron) would go there before Trump. Sumner's been pretty explicit: he says Trump's combination of ideas make them "100% pure unadulterated absolute evil."

      Well, at least they're not 100% pure unadulterated absolute *Satanic* evil! So, so, there is some room on the downside.

    5. BTW, here's a Cochrane post on immigration: his comment there shows his disgust with the can of worms he opened in the comments:

      "Note to readers: I find many of these comments not just outrageous but almost offensive. I'm letting them through anyway, as they are a good lesson in just what kind of mentality people with a sane, analytical, economic approach to immigration will face."

      Avon Barksdale posted a link on Rowe's site: I'm trying to keep on good terms with that crowd in case I need to request they let me in.

    6. ... BTW, Cochrane's post on immigration there was 18 months ago. I can't imagine the situation would be improved now.

      Also interesting is that Rowe has done a series of posts now on immigration: he has mixed feelings (see my link above). I'm 100% cool with that!... I just don't like the scapegoating done by Trump, Coulter and the rest in this country.

    7. I joked with Rowe about having to get used to poutine. I could have mentioned a grab bag of all things stereo-typically Canadian: poutine, hockey, Molson, maple syrup, "eh."

      I wish I could find it, but there's a scene I love in Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters," where he's considering converting to Catholicism: so he brings home a grocery bag full of Catholic paraphernalia and starts unpacking: out comes a crucifix, a New Testament, a rosary, a virgin Mary candle... and then the last two items: Wonder bread and mayonnaise! Lol.

  2. Yes, I seem to remember Nick Rowe being skeptical about immigration before.

    As I've observed, Trump's position was the law of the land for almost 40 years-1925 to 1964.

    We had very little immigration in those years. There was real fear about Eastern Europeans and Jews being wild eyed anarchists or Marxists or something.

    1. In that same thread, I go on to describe what I think a conservative should be ideally (to Nick), and he counters with that in his opinion we need that kind of "conservative" policy to avoid a Trump. I can't disagree.

      But what galls me is Obama has been pretty harsh on the immigration front: that and economics have probably kept net illegal immigration (w/ Mexico anyway) close to zero recently... if I'm to believe what I've read about the facts on that. But I bet you'd have a hard time convincing a Trump supporter of that. To them, we're in a crisis: with a massive flood of rapists coming across the border. It just smacks of other unfortunate damaging lies in history: such as "The Protocols of the Elder's of Zion." Crises based on falsehoods are scary. I read this the other day and thought it apropos:

      Now if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to update my views. But I categorically don't trust talk radio or right-wing populists on this. They've never given me any reason to trust them on anything before (except maybe to judge the mood of their listeners, which they help formulate).

  3. Indeed, I emigrated with my parents in 1974-how easy would that have been just a few years earlier?

    To be sure, I was coming from a most favored nation for the US-England.

    1. Do you recall living in England pre-1974?

      BTW, I guess Sumner might be a Bernie guy now too:


      Anyone is better than Trump
      Sanders is anyone.
      Ergo, Sanders is better than Trump.

      Heck he might be better than any other candidate, now that Rand Paul is out of the race."