Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:54 PM
Mon Nov 9
67 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/17/09
I have so much more respect for- and interest in- people who deviate from their party lines in one way or another. While I'm sure that there are some people who actually believe every single thing in their party's platform, I have a feeling they're a small minority. Someone who has a "mavericky" opinion tends to strike me as someone who has their own ideas and good reasons for them- not just repeating the same tired schtick.
09/16/09
Not only is it untrue, it's an example of the awful partisan bickering that she claims to oppose.
The hypocrisy is especially stunning considering she doesn't even mention the misogynist jokes her father has made, at, for example, Chelsea Clinton's expense.
I wouldn't find it so annoying if it weren't for her trying to pass herself off as the mavericky, only authentic "tell-it-to-you-straight" person in the GOP.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
I give her props for being able to say she believes in the values that the Republican party once stood for, and they were once pretty impressive, and that if Repubs and politics in general got out of peoples personal lives, all of us would fare better. Yes she might not be aware of the vast amount of speeches Reagan gave blaming his predecessor, but neither am i.
09/16/09
If you want to make REAL CHANGE, start with economic inequality.
09/16/09
09/16/09
Why would anything think that economic inequality is something that needs to be changed?
People aren't are equal. We need to stop pretending that they are. Some jobs that people do, for which they receive the compensation that leads to the inequality, are more valuable to society then others. A janitor and a doctor do not have equal value.
That is not to say that both jobs don't need to be done, but they aren't equal in the amount on training, skills required, education, or ability required to do them. And hence, they shouldn't be compensated equally either.
On the same note, people shouldn't be criticized for using their family status to advance themselves. (Living off of your family, feeling entitled to the support, and being a mooch -as opposed to trying to further advance your position- in the same manner that people live off of welfare without trying to better themselves is another story.) Part of the reason their parents worked so hard to succeed was so their children would have that privilege.
09/16/09
1) "Equal" and "same" are different concepts. Everyone is "equal", not everyone is "same". The statement "all men are created equal" is different from "all men are created the same". It's a distinction with a difference, as it negates your argument - nobody is trying to make everybody the same, and it's facetious to say so.
2) Economic inequality is, yes, going to be inherent in a free market system. There is a point where the discrepancy is so wide that other compensating factors (such as education, environment) cannot "make up" for the inequality by contributing to social mobility. According to the Gini coefficient, which measures economic equality, the US has one of the highest disparities in the world. For a country that founded itself on overthrowing an aristocracy, it would be quite bittersweet to replace it by a "de facto" aristocracy without titles. That's why we have a progressive taxation system (endorsed by none other than Adam Smith).
3) Although not everybody will agree with me on this point, I think it's sort of inherently immoral for so few to have so much while so many have so little. (eg., the "eat the rich" attitude). The term "noblesse oblige" was coined to describe the social obligations felt by the old aristocracy to give back to society. Now that we have a de facto aristocracy that tends to think that they've gotten every single penny based solely on merit, this idea seems passe. Of course merit plays a part, but so do factors like environment and education that can be beyond an individual's control (ie. Luck)
4) Nobody's arguing that doctors shouldn't be paid more than janitors. Duh. People are arguing that the janitor shouldn't have to die from lack of health care, for example, and that if the doctor earns enough money, part of his income should cover the janitor's health care.
5) Nor is anybody arguing that parents shouldn't be able to provide for their children and that the kids have to start from stratch. Inheritance law favors and encourages gifts to issue. However our society penalizes unearned wealth to some extent necessary to avoid the above mentioned "de facto aristocracy". Hell, even John D. Rockefeller stated that being given large sums of money tends to make one lazy and unproductive. US policy is (or should be) about striking the right balance between providing for one's kids and encouraging productive individuals.
09/17/09
09/16/09
Small government should mean politicians should have less interest in your bedroom and body than they do in in your gunrack and wallet. I can totally understand the appeal of that sort of Goldwater conservatism: pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gunrights, pro-civilrights.
It at least has logical internal consistency.
I mean, how does being pro-gun and pro-deathpenalty and pro-war square with calling yourself "pro-life"? Just doesn't.
If the political right fully divested itself from the fanatical theocratic religious right, the GOP would be really relevent all of a sudden. As it stands, so-called conservatives haven't been fiscally or militarily conservative since Eisenhower.
And FYI I'm pretty well to the left of Obama on pretty much everything; just the voice of someone who grew up amongst gun-toting loons who call themselves "libertarians."
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/17/09
09/16/09
I haven't seen any indication that McCain has a grasp on basic political philosophy, much less the history of her own party, MUCH much less history in general (see the Bill Maher interview - even cutting her some slack for being nervous and extremely out of her element, the whole "don't pick on me I'm just a dumb blonde!" is standard-issue GOP playbook.
Frankly, the whole thing about OMG I HAVE EXTENSIONS JUST LIKE TY-TY! is incredibly oblivious.
Yeah, I'd probably get a beer with her, but I'd get a beer with anybody. It's BEER.
09/16/09
09/16/09
however i agree with you on some of your points as far as her actual political knowledge goes. i do hope she succeeds though now that she has this popularity.
09/16/09
@jenalicious: It was Meghan M. herself who played the "I'm just a girl" card and was rightly shot down. She understands what it takes to be a media darling and plays it all too well.
Don't fall for it, people!
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
She may seem friendly and down-to-earth but she still does not believe in my right to a safe and legal abortion, and as such her "appeal" will always be limited to me.
Plus her position isn't even original. You know who else was was pro-gay marriage, yet anti-choice? DICK CHENEY.
09/16/09
And any time your political compass aligns with that of Dick *shudder* Cheney, it's probably time to re-evaluate.
09/16/09
There's a lot of stuff that Moderates from both sides agree on. That's why they're moderates: they haven't embraced the far-left or far-right of their particular party.
09/16/09
The Republican party is basically governed from the far right, and has been for at least two decades. Moderates such as McCain who haven't realized that don't get love from me. I'd be happy if they joined the Dems and then the progressive wing can split off, leaving the GOP powerless as the loony regional party that it has shown itself to be.
I mean I get that she thinks she can save the GOP from the lunatics but since they make up the majority of the party now she'd have better luck just joining the Dems.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
I have to say i have a ton of respect for her..
09/16/09
(I admit to not hating her as much as I probably should, but yeah...)
09/16/09
09/16/09
I'm liberal and I disagree with so much that the President and other Democrats are doing. But if I wanted to get in to national politics, I would probably be something like McCain, fighting to change the Democratic party from within.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09