Nineteen people attended, which number, we guess, included Virginia Foxx; Dan Soucek; Soucek's Republican rival in the primary, George Robinson; Jonathan Jordan; and a few -- but not all -- of the Ashe County Republican Party candidates.
Monday, March 12, 2012
What If You Held a Political Convention and No One Came?
Nineteen people attended, which number, we guess, included Virginia Foxx; Dan Soucek; Soucek's Republican rival in the primary, George Robinson; Jonathan Jordan; and a few -- but not all -- of the Ashe County Republican Party candidates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
It's a shame that more people aren't interested enough in governance to participate in the process. It's particularly bad when even the candidates for public office don't bother to show up.
No matter if it's Dem. or Rep., apathy is not good for our process!
Nothing like a pack house for the Republican Police State........
One of the reasons given that numbers were low was because so many were "hospitalized, ill or injured". I hope they have good health insurance. Perhaps the raging national debate around contraceptive health just wasn't enough to pack the convention in Ashe, where unemployment would seem like a more pertinent topic. I'm sure Ms Foxx will do her best to keep contraception front and center in her own little mind since it is an issue that only divides, takes attention from important matters, and caters to her base. And if little Danny Soucek only had 15 people to sell his constitutional discrimination amendment to it was hardly worth his time. Oh, and does Jonathan Jordan even live in Ashe Co? His daughter attends school outside his district in Wilkes, so I wasn't sure.
Every time a Republican says the word "contraception," they lose 25 votes.
Yes, the fascist Repubs are really big on the police state.
Well, the communistic Dems Police State isn't doing so bad either.
And both are taking us in the same direction--totalitarianism.
I don't think they lose any votes when Republicans make the irrefutable claim that the issue is not one of contraception but is one of the First Amendment. Most women are smart enough to realize this.
Most women are smart enough to know the discussion is about women's health.
It wasn't a constitutional issue when contraception was covered by faith based organizations for the past 40 years, or when Viagra was covered for unmarried men for the past 15. It just became a new "wedge" issue in the last 2 1/2 months. Yet republicans don't mind changing the NC state constitution to discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit their narrow view of what comprises a family.
If a faith based organization wants to issue insurance that covers contraception it has the right to do so just as it has the right not to do so.
This is the entire issue as contraception is readily available as is the choice of abstinence. Women's health has nothing to do with this political talking point.
I think my husband would (rightly) be quite upset if I chose abstinence as my form of contraception. Actually - so would I.
IM, abstaining or not is certainly your decision. Just do not expect others to pay for your sexual activity.
Your post does not refute the statement that women's health is not the issue.
Anonymous, do you think health insurance should cover prescriptions for Viagara and Cialis to enhance male sexual function? It that a question of men's health or not? And can your mind wrap itself around the term "double standard?"
My insurance does not cover Viagra or Cialis, brotherdoc. It is not a matter of health. Do you think it should? Why should insurance premiums pay for something that does not effect my health?
Buying either of these is solely my decision.
You seem to believe that "someone else" would be paying for my "sexual activity". In fact, I pay dearly for my family's health insurance, which WOULD cover Viagra but did NOT cover contraception.
It DOES cover childbirth, which is far more expensive than contraception.
Without contraception, my husband and I could easily have 20 children by now. And that, to address an earlier point directly, IS a woman's health issue. (I had thought the idea self-evident, but it apparently requires specific explanation.) There is nothing that will destroy a woman's health quite like constant child-bearing - just ask your great-grandmother.
I love my children dearly, and I love the foster and adopted children that I have raised. But I could not possibly have afforded 20 of them....nor would I probably have survived to have raised them. And that is both a social/economic issue, and an issue of women's health.
I cannot make it any clearer than that.
Congratulations on raising 20 foster children, if you did. However, there is no relation to your having to have had 20 of your own children. You could have abstained from sex or purchased your own contraception. It was your own choice.
And yes, since Obamacare forces one to have insurance, everyone is going to have to pay premiums that are partially used to pay for others' sexual activity, even if the individual is against contraception due to his religious beliefs.
Well of course the whole point of group coverage insurance plans is that everyone pays a premium to cover everone in the group's medical care. Healthy, younger people pay premiums in to cover costs of older, sicker people. Although as a man I will never need hospitalization for childbirth, Independent Mom will never need, say, coverage for prostate surgery. One signs up for a group insurance plan NOT for only one's own specific health needs or desires, and one does not pick and choose what is covered, once one buys into the particular insurance policy package--the many pages of fine print of the policy will tell you and/or your health care provider what's covered and what's not. Contraception is covered in many group policies precisely because it is cheaper for the insurance company to pay for a woman to take birth control pills than to pay for her to have a baby, and so the insurance company saves money (which it will have to pay out for other services in other circumstances). Really, the whole libertarian mindset of Anon seems unable to grasp even the most basic understanding of how and why group insurance works. Anon, sit on your little island of abstinence, fine, but at least make an effort to understand the real world, and don't try to tell women they are not entitled to consider contraception to be a benefit of their health insurance coverage. As for the Viagra thing, my point in raising it with you was to say that if an insurance policy provides for it in the interests of a man's health, surely it would be imposing a double standard it if were to exclude contraception coverage for women.
brotherdoc, I am not sure I agree with you. We have had our policy for so many years now that I really can't say whether it covers more things or fewer things than other policies. I do know that when we first shopped for hospitization, we looked for a policy with good maternity benefits as we expected to use that feature.
As we grew older, we switched to a policy with significantly less maternity benefits but more coverage for routine care - doctor visits, etc.
We changed to our current policy about 15 years ago because it had a low ceiling before catastrophic coverage kicked in. That is, once we reach a certain cost threshold in a calendar year, all our covered expenses above that amount are paid with no deductables or co pays.
We tailored our insurance to our needs. If we wanted a policy with contraceptive coverage, we could have found it - we elected our coverage based on what we thought would provide us with the best coverage in our particular situation.
I wouldn't oppose companiesverep stocul offering contraception, or dental care, or eyeglasses, haircuts, manicures, whatever.....just don't take away the option I have to find another policy that suits MY needs.
Brotherdoc, nicely said.
Anon, your reading of my longer post was rather inaccurate - which I'm sure most readers will see. But Brotherdoc makes the overall point well.
If you are required to have insurance and the insurance is required to finance either contraception or abortion, then many people's first amendment rights have been violated. End of story.
I don't understand the opposition to contraception. People say it's a religious issue, but is it really? I don't recall ever seeing anything about it in the Bible. If the argument is that it's not natural and that you're "playing God" or something, isn't that true about a LOT of medical procedures? Heart bypass surgery isn't "natural" either. Neither is wearing eyeglasses or taking aspirin, for crying out loud. If we're against things that aren't natural, why even have hospitals and doctors? There has to be something else going on, and it's that women can't have sex. I haven't seen any politicians call for the banning of condoms.
Post a Comment