NOW Endorses Bacmann

code1211

Senior Member
Apr 8, 2009
5,999
854
48
Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

I don't think they even are worried that this might further expose the hypocricy that is their organization. If they were in truth the National Orgainzation of Women instead of the Natioanl Association of Gals ( thank you Mr. Limbaugh ) , we would have seen them lauding praise and congratulations on the likes of Condoleeza Rice and Bachmann and other female Conservative luminaries.

Their silence trumpets their biased departure from their supposed mission in accord with their name to their real mission of liberal assertion of biased, partisan, take no prisoners allegiance to the single splinter issue that they have adopted in favor of the implied goals of their name.

It would be the same thing if the NAACP had stopped doing what its name implies and instead became a shill front group for the Democrat Party.
 
NOW has worked hard to support women who want to reject some of the traditional American values. Everyone should have a voice, so they have a place at the table IMO....but they cringe at women like Bachmann because they don't provide the sort of role model that they believe exemplifies the best woman.
 
Why on earth would a feminist organization endorse a woman who believes she's obligated by her religion to be submissive?

Why would that make any sense whatsoever?
 
Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

That you correctly assume that you even need to point that out is really about all you need to know about the intelligence of the OP.
 
Don't hold your breath.

Pretty near all of the people who comprise those socialistic identity groups are loyal to their socialistic dogma before anything and everything else.

Did I call that, or what? :lol:

Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

See what I mean?...They're a political group first, over and above being advocates for all women.
 
Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

That you correctly assume that you even need to point that out is really about all you need to know about the intelligence of the OP.

:lol:its always been a farce, its NOW as in 'only for woman who feel the way we do'......notice the name of the org is NOT- National Organization of Women, its National Organization FOR Women.......see?
 
Don't hold your breath.

Pretty near all of the people who comprise those socialistic identity groups are loyal to their socialistic dogma before anything and everything else.

Did I call that, or what? :lol:

Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

See what I mean?...They're a political group first, over and above being advocates for all women.
Why would they endorse someone who isn't an advocate for all women then?

This would be like expecting Glaad to endorse her.
 
NOW has worked hard to support women who want to reject some of the traditional American values. Everyone should have a voice, so they have a place at the table IMO....but they cringe at women like Bachmann because they don't provide the sort of role model that they believe exemplifies the best woman.



So a woman who excels in an arena dominated by men and who is arguably the most prominent Republican Woman holding office in the country and who is an outspoken advocate of women's rights as people ant not just as sexual objects violates the goals of the National organization of Women?

Interesting...
 
Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

That you correctly assume that you even need to point that out is really about all you need to know about the intelligence of the OP.


I was pointing out that the NOW is a single issue splinter group that exists only to defend the right of women to get abortions.

NOW sees women only as sex objects and you see that as noble?

Interesting...
 
I was pointing out that the NOW is a single issue splinter group that exists only to defend the right of women to get abortions.

NOW's Priority Issues

Constitutional Equality Amendment: Equality in pay, job opportunities, political structure, social security and education will remain an elusive dream without a guarantee of equality in the U.S. Constitution. The progress we have made—and must continue to make—towards women's equality can be lost at any time because those advances depend on legislation that can be (and has been) weakened or repealed by Congress. Although we did not succeed in ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, winning a constitutional guarantee of equality for women remains one of NOW's top priorities.

Reproductive Rights: NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment.

Racism: NOW condemns the racism that inflicts a double burden of race and sex discrimination on women of color. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism. A leader in the struggle for civil rights since its inception in 1966, NOW is committed to diversifying our movement, and we continue to fight for equal opportunities for women of color in all areas including employment, education and reproductive rights.

Lesbian Rights: NOW is committed to fighting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in all areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, health services, child custody and military policies. NOW is committed to educational efforts that combat the adverse effects of homophobia, promote positive images in the media and ultimately ensure civil rights protection for all. NOW asserts the right of lesbians to live their lives with dignity and security, and the rights of equal marriage for all.

Violence Against Women: NOW is unique in its approach to the issue of violence against women, emphasizing that there are many interrelated aspects to the issue—domestic violence; sexual assault; sexual harassment; violence at abortion clinics; hate crimes across lines of gender, sexuality and race; the gender bias in our judicial system that further victimizes survivors of violence; and the violence of poverty emphasized by the radical right's attacks on poor women and children—all of which result from society's attitudes toward women and efforts to "keep women in their place."

Economic Justice: NOW advocates for wide range of economic justice issues affecting women, from the glass ceiling to the sticky floor of poverty. These include welfare reform, livable wages, job discrimination, pay equity, housing, social security and pension reform, and much more.​

With all that common ground, it's a wonder they wouldn't endorse Bachmann.
 
Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

That you correctly assume that you even need to point that out is really about all you need to know about the intelligence of the OP.

:lol:its always been a farce, its NOW as in 'only for woman who feel the way we do'......notice the name of the org is NOT- National Organization of Women, its National Organization FOR Women.......see?

So the name doesn't adequately elaborate on the mission of the organization?

lol. Neither does the name Tea Party.
 
And in what universe would NOW endorse a man??

I'm shocked that a collectivist group endorsed a right winger...

This only proves that progressives are retarded and care more about aesthetics than anything else.

That or they're attempting to put her against Obama which would secure another 4 years of Obama.
 
Don't hold your breath.

Pretty near all of the people who comprise those socialistic identity groups are loyal to their socialistic dogma before anything and everything else.

Did I call that, or what? :lol:

Is there anyone who believes that the National Organization of Women would ever endorse Bachmann if she became the Party Nominee for President?

Endorsing a candidate who opposes your organization's public policy agenda would be kind of stupid.

See what I mean?...They're a political group first, over and above being advocates for all women.

They support the left.... women can rot for all they care. Bunch of fucking bigoted bitches.
 
And in what universe would NOW endorse a man??

I'm shocked that a collectivist group endorsed a right winger...

This only proves that progressives are retarded and care more about aesthetics than anything else.

That or they're attempting to put her against Obama which would secure another 4 years of Obama.

They endorsed Obama.

And.... they have not endorsed Bachman. Basic comprehension, find it, use it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top