Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27656)	1/13/1999 3:20:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Michelle, I wouldn't estimate women's views here. I sort of miss JBE, but of course unlike the gallant men of the right I've been quite unchivalrous with bp and Who,Me?. On the "abortion crap" issue, on which I've been somewhat more outspoken than is appropriate for my personal stake in the matter, there's this bit of interest, also from Andrew Sullivan's NYT Magazine article. I figure the scolds around here deserve to read more of that one. But there is one issue above all others at the center of this new conservatism. That issue is not adultery or even homosexuality, although both have come to play a significant part in it. It is abortion. Its importance to the new generation of conservative intellectuals is easily underestimated, and far too easily ascribed simply to the influence of religious activists. In fact, abortion is at the center of current Republican orthodoxy as much because of conservative intellectuals as evangelical activists. Since this may not be self-evident, I'll let one of those intellectuals stress it himself. Here is a writer in The Standard, taking a rare break earlier this year from the Lewinsky obsession: "Republicans talk a lot about being a majority party, about becoming a governing party, about shaping a conservative future. Roe and abortion are the test. For if Republicans are incapable of grappling with this moral and political challenge; if they cannot earn a mandate to overturn Roe and move toward a post-abortion America, then in truth, there will be no conservative future. Other issues are important, to be sure, and a governing party will have to show leadership on those issues as well. But Roe is central." Who wrote this paragraph? Pat Robertson? Patrick Buchanan? Randy Tate? The answer, again, is William Kristol. His seamless merging of the Lewinsky scandal with the right's other social concerns is perhaps what makes him so integral to the new conservatism. Always, however, the key social issue is abortion. He put the argument most revealingly in the February 1997 issue of the neoconservative political monthly Commentary. "The truth is," Kristol wrote, "that abortion is today the bloody crossroads of American politics. It is where judicial liberation (from the Constitution), sexual liberation (from traditional mores) and women's liberation (from natural distinctions) come together. It is the focal point for liberalism's simultaneous assault on self-government, morals and nature. So, challenging the judicially imposed regime of abortion-on-demand is key to a conservative reformation in politics, in morals, and in beliefs." The choice of words is revealing here. Not just "politics," a realm conservatives were once comfortable restricting themselves to, but "morals" and "beliefs." And not revolution or reform but "refoimation." Rristol's conservatism is happy with the vocabulary of religious war. Earlier this year, Kristol argued that "abortion is likely to emerge as the central - issue in the Presidential campaign of 2000." In the 1980's, the outlawing of abortion was framed in the somewhat liberal terms of saving human life, and protecting human rights. And that is why a smattering of left-leaning intellectuals also signed on as anti-abortion advocates. But in the 1990's, the conservative emphasis has changed. Now the banning of abortion is linked primarily to an attack on the Supreme Court's judicial activism in other areas as well (prayer in schools, women's equality and gay rights foremost among them) and to the more general sexual liberty of the society as a whole. Abortion is central to a reassertion of what Kristol called "traditional mores" and of "natural distinctions" between the sexes. It is not unrelated to the Lewinsky obsession and the anti-gay crusade. In fact, it is the anchor of both. It's certainly a hot button issue, though a few of the scolds around here have backed off some of their more extreme stands. What I'd say, for all the integrity bleaters around here, is that people should be up front about it. I'd expect any Republican nominee in Y2K who will pass muster to fill any Supreme Court vacancies with anti-Roe people. Maybe not explicitly, on the record anti-Roe. Perhaps, like George Bush's "best man for the job", just people who've never given it a thought but are sure to vote against Roe if the issue comes up. I'd also expect that issue to be addressed less than candidly during the presidential campaign, just as my "modest proposal" of candidates being up front on impeachment wasn't popular in the Nov. '98 elections. That's integrity for you, I guess.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27656)	1/13/1999 4:47:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

I've already said it twice. The internet polls aren't worth the paper they're written on. Like the mail-in ballots, they can be stuffed. The most similar poll is the Major League Baseball All-Star ballots. Cincinnati used to stuff the ballots for the longest time, and probably still do. In chat rooms and forums, the women seem to outnumber the men.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (27656)	1/13/1999 7:48:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The Abyss of Desire nytimes.com Michelle, on the subject of women, you might enjoy this piece by Maureen Dowd from today's NYT. Now that she's got an op-ed column, she's pretty clearly gone beyond the Times' normal irony into pure sarcasm territory. Women were long considered hormonally unsuitable for high office or combat. Who can forget Newt Gingrich's warning that in war, women "have biological problems being in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections"? The fallen Speaker also noted that "males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes," while women liked to sit still. But now it is the men who are acting hysterical, and Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr who are scratching each other's eyes out in the catfight of the century. Women may be affected by lunar tides. But men are total lunatics. Women are sometimes driven by hormones. But men are pushed around by them all day long. "The prism has turned," says Helen Fisher, a Rutgers anthropologist. "Instead of regarding females as headless horses, now males are regarded as headless horses." We have a President with a congenital need to get his hand caught in the cookie jar, so he can be rescued yet again by the brainy wife he has turned into Mommy Dearest. We have a "prosecutor" picking the wings off female bit players. We have a bunch of House conservatives who can't see their own hypocrisy. We have Senate bloviators engaged in an orgy of self-congratulation for their agreement to agree on very little. We have a Supreme Court Chief Justice who fails to appreciate the value of basic black. Now that the capital has been contaminated by testosterone, why not try estrogen? On the subject of Liddy Dole, I'm strictly wait and see. There's still the primaries dominated by the red meat crowd to get through. Who can say?