Tired of Politics? Too Bad -- The Race for 2012 Has Begun!

posted by Joanne Bamberger November 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM in In The News

16 +SHARE

I apologize if I've spoiled your morning coffee or your afternoon latte with that headline. But like it or not, we are officially on the road to 2012 -- no, not the movie with my fave John Cusack. I mean the 2012 election. (Sorry I don't have a fancy banner or theme music to announce it like the cable shows.)

I know it feels as if we've barely come off the 2008 and 2010 elections, but you know how those campaigners like to get a jump on things! Sadly, I don't think many politicians are going to take that road with Jon Stewart's message of sanity.

It's Not the Year of the GOP Woman After All

posted by Joanne Bamberger October 28, 2010 at 11:13 AM in In The News

4 +SHARE

At the beginning of this election season, the media and the GOP latched on to the story that 2010 was going to be the Year of the Republican Woman.

With Sarah "mama grizzly" Palin flying from coast to coast giving her blessing to the myriad Republican women who were inspired to run for office because of her place on the John McCain ticket in 2008, surely this was their time to charge into office and be the conservative change they wanted to see.

Or not.

That's not just speculation or punditry. A recent study from the Center for Women and American Politics at Rutgers University found that while GOP women filed for elective office, including Congress, in record numbers in 2010, only 28% of non-incumbent GOP women won their primary races for Congress.

Excuse Me, Virginia Thomas. You Have That Anita Hill Apology Thing Backwards

posted by Joanne Bamberger October 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM in In The News

10 +SHARE

When a 20-year-old incident prompts you to pick up the phone to rehash a piece of history that wasn't even your own, there's something serious going on. At least that was my reaction when I heard that Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, called Anita Hill to demand an apology from her for what Hill had "done" to her husband!

We all have things we stay angry about. I was plenty peeved when my law school boyfriend thought it was a good idea a couple of decades ago to give me kitchen knives for my birthday (only romantic in a Fatal Attraction sort of way), but it's not something I think about anymore other than as occasional comic fodder. I've moved on.

Apparently Ginni Thomas hasn't.

The reason?

The Week for Whores in Politics

posted by Joanne Bamberger October 14, 2010 at 9:01 AM in In The News

7 +SHARE

The political word of the week is "whore."

GOP California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is offended that someone on her opponent Jerry Brown's campaign called her a "whore" in a taped phone conversation.

Krystal Ball, the Democratic candidate in Virginia's 1st Congressional District, was, in essence, labelled a whore, with the anonymous release of racy, college-era photos only weeks before the election and just after her campaign made a big media buy.

Even someone going as far as calling the National Organization for Women, the "National Organization for Whores."

So when it comes to calling political women "whores," is context important? If so, which is worse?

Should Harassing the Families of Dead Soldiers Be Protected Free Speech?

posted by Joanne Bamberger October 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM in In The News

29 +SHARE

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

"God Hates Fags."

"Thank God for 9/11."

Those are just a few of the signs that Fred Phelps and the members of his Kansas Westboro Baptist Church held up high during their protest at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in 2006. Snyder gave his life for our country in Iraq.

He was only 20 years old when he died.

Offensive speech about Snyder was also posted on the church's website (which has the url not of the church's name, but of "god hates fags") proclaiming that it was the fault of Snyder's parents that he died in Iraq because they'd divorced and their son was a target for God's punishment because of that.

So the question for the Supreme Court is whether those protests and web content are protected free speech or whether it's action aimed toward private citizens that doesn't deserve Constitutional protection.