A Republican feminist - Page 2

Does that exist? Meghan McCain says yes

|
(13)

Castro Theatre

429 Castro, SF

www.commonwealthclub.org

 

Comments

Great article. I'm glad to have learned more about such a momentus player on the right side of the political spectrum!

Posted by Ryan on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 10:49 am

Who?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

But she's not very consequential. If she weren't John McCain's daughter no one would have heard of her.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 8:55 pm

Newt Gingrinch's sister leads gay pride parades.

===

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1995_1281228/candace-gingr...

SAN FRANCISCO -- House Speaker Newt Gingrich's sister smiled and waved to the ecstatic crowd as her purple Mustang inched down Market Street on Sunday, luxuriating in her new role as grand marshal of the city's gay pride parade.

"I'm having a great time," Candace Gingrich said from the convertible, squinting into the sun. "It's a chance that too many people only have one day a year -- the chance to be out."

Posted by matlock on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 7:00 am

and where is ol' Candace now?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 8:14 am

the first female president and then will be made secretary of state in a later administration.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 9:05 am

republicans can't be feminists in the normal meaning of the term. republicans are for lower taxes and smaller government. traditional feminists want higher taxes and bigger government in order to give tax dollars to special interests groups that benefit and employ only women.

a republican feminist would be more inclined to working towards something resembling gender equality, rather than female superiority and safe & easy jobs for women who really don't want to work that hard.

Posted by pat on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 7:57 am

My family has been loyal to the Democratic Party since Roosevelt was president. Republicans were for everything we were against, and against everything we were for. They were people to be shunned and ignored, when possible. Four years ago we campaigned against a McCain/Palin presidency, fearing McCain would do all of the things that Barack Obama has since done. Then you went and printed that dynamite picture of Meghan McCain, along with the great article by Caitlin Donohue, "A Republican Feminist: Does that exist? Meghan McCain says yes." I have only three words to say about Ms. McCain: I'm in love!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

I know so little about this person. Great "perfect squelch" of fatass Glen Beck! A quick google search said she's a reefer fan, too. Stoned Republicans? Who would've ever known? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/meghan-mccain-wendy-williams-po...

Posted by Steve in Oakland on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

I don't know what 'sex-positive' means either, and I grew up here. But on a scale of one to ten, Dan Savage and Isadora Alman being high nines, Dr. Ruth around six, J. Edgar Hoover a three and Daniel Tosh currently being about a zero, I'd put Meghan in the 1.5 to 2 range.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 7:24 am

Because while I think it is supposed to evoke a sense of prudence in managing the balance between government income and outlays, in practice it means nothing of the sort.

What it means is that "me and my family and my friends have much and will keep it. We won't feel guilty about it and will in fact continue to agitate for ever lower taxes on our wealth; this despite the fact that as a class we produce nothing of value."

And while "fiscal conservatives" will talk up a storm about cutting spending on social programs that improve society, they seem to have absolutely no impediments towards war mongering.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 7:24 am

It's about governments running sound money policies, such as prudent limits on spending, strict budgeting and minimising taxes.

You might think that "favors" the rich. But that's a byproduct, if it happens at all - if the rich pay more tax then obviously they benefit more from tax cuts.

But the real point is that a government shouldn't spend more than it collects, nor play games with interest rates or exchange rates to enable it to live beyond its means.

The ultimate sound money system is the gold standard, which of course prolifigate governments always manage to avoid.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:10 am

Before getting to your completely spurious assessment with regard to the gold standard, let me just point out that your perspective insipidly concludes (by not even addressing it) that government cutting taxes... and then cutting spending to match the taxes... is a valid practice, but raising taxes to match spending is somehow flawed.

This is the kind of vapid and or insane thinking that has gotten us to the point we are in. Let me ask you (rhetorically): when our nation embarked on a war to defeat fascism, were taxes *lowered* to pay for it? Fuck no. Taxes on the richest Americans were around 90 percent -- and yes there were plenty of tax dodges, but the fact remains that for the most part taxes on the rich financed the war.

Contrast that with the bullshit game your "fiscal conservatives" ran on the country during the Bush/Cheney administration. Fiscal conservatives my ass.

As for the gold standard, the idea of needing a flexible money supply has several bases. Such flexibility is needed to account for growth in the economy due to population growth alone, but the basic need for the un-planned capitalist economy to have outside controls so as to preclude the crushing boom and bust cycles it is otherwise perfect for creating is the paramount reason.

The problem with the Fed is not that it regulates the money supply, but that it does so according to the interests of the banksters that run it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 9:27 am

Related articles

Also from this author