Why Palin drives feminists crazy

By Becci Robbins

SC Progressive Network

She’s only been on the scene five weeks, and I’m suffering severe Sarah fatigue. You know which Sarah. The one tapped by the McCain camp in a cynical attempt to shore up the crippled wing of his fundamentalist base. The one who has been winking and obfuscating her way through a tightly scripted campaign that is relying on style over substance, sound bites over sound public policy.

As a woman, I want to see Sarah Palin do well, knowing that her performance reflects — fairly or not — on all women and our perceived ability to lead. As a feminist, I want to enroll her in a women’s studies program. If she knew her history, she couldn’t so easily impose her anti-choice ideology, wouldn’t presume to know what’s best for all women.

Palin holds an extreme position on reproductive rights, opposing contraception and access to abortion, even for rape victims. And yet she cried foul when reporters dared mention her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter — never mind that Palin’s abstinence-only agenda makes it a legitimate point of discussion. Our government has spent over $1 billion to fund abstinence-only sex education programs since 1996. That approach has failed countless young women, including, apparently, Palin’s own daughter.

Rather than talk about it, Palin simply said that her children should be off limits. But in the vice-presidential debate she repeatedly mentioned her son in Iraq and her special-needs child. She did not mention her pregnant daughter. Apparently it’s okay to talk about her kids as long as they serve the campaign’s interest.

Yes, Palin proudly touts her pro-life credentials. While she sits in her office on a couch covered with a bear skin, the head still attached. While she shows off photos of her and her four-year-old daughter posing with the caribou she shot. While advocating hunting wild game from the safety of a low-flying aircraft.

When Palin talks about life, she is referring to pre-born human life. Not the lives of grown women. Not the lives of children her running mate would deny health care. Not, certainly, the lives of the animals with whom we share this planet. Not even the life of the planet itself, which will continue to suffer the devastating effect of America’s petroleum addiction, which Palin advocates when she gleefully chants, as she did in the debate, “Drill, baby, drill!”

The debate was little more than cheap theater. The McCain camp had negotiated its terms, in effect dumbing down the debate. The contract limited the candidates’ responses to 90 seconds, discouraged the moderator from asking follow-up questions, and prohibited the candidates from asking each other questions. The format helped ward off the sort of embarrassment an unscripted Palin revealed in recent network television interviews.

Instead of an honest debate, we had Sen. Joe Biden biting his tongue — warned by his handlers to play nice — and Gov. Palin ignoring the moderator’s questions and providing instead well-worn one-liners, off topic and sometimes off the wall. She was like a Chatty Cathy doll programmed with conservative talking points. Pull the string, and she spouts a few sentences.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one underwhelmed by her performance. A number of conservative pundits have grudgingly admitted that Palin is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Kathleen Parker’s Sept. 26 editorial, in which she suggested Palin pull herself out of the race, garnered the most attention. “If BS were currency,” Parker wrote, “Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.” If she were a man, she continued, we’d be laughing; but since she’s the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, we can’t say the painful truth.

In earlier editorials, Parker was Palin’s biggest cheerleader. “Palin is everything liberals have always purported to want for women — freedom to choose, opportunities for both career and family, a shot at the top ranks of American political life,” she wrote. “With five children and an impressive resume, Palin should be Miss July in the go-girl calendar.”

In an editorial she wrote after the Republican convention, she gushed, “No one is going to be embarrassed by John McCain’s maverick pick.”

What a difference a few weeks make.

And in a twist of irony, the pundit who has made a career out of skewering the opposition with barbs aimed, more often than not, at women on the Left, got a taste of her own venom. After her editorial pleading for Palin to pull out of the race, she found herself on the receiving end of her party’s most rabidly partisan element. In her latest piece, she writes about being called an idiot, a traitor, about people writing angry and threatening letters.

Surprised and dismayed, she writes, “Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn’t sound American to me.”

Sadly, that is the America she helped create.

There are lessons here for us all. May we learn them before it is too late.

SC Election Protection volunteers needed

866-OUR-VOTE Hotline Set Up in South Carolina

The SC Progressive Network is once again organizing nonpartisan election protection work to ensure that all eligible voters’ ballots count in the upcoming election. In the past two general elections, we responded to calls to the 866-OUR-VOTE toll-free hotline set up for voters to call if they had problems at the polls. The hotline received over 500 calls.

While most of the calls were from confused voters, some reported incidents of voter intimidation and efforts at vote suppression. Some calls were referred to SLED or the Justice Department. We were able to deal with most problems by having a volunteer call the voter. With the assistance of volunteer attorneys and informed volunteers, we were able to dispatch someone directly to most of the problem precincts.

We are assembling a directory of attorneys and informed volunteers willing to respond to calls for help in their county on Election Day. While most problems can be resolved by telephone, some require going to the problem precinct.

We need help on Nov. 4 and in the days leading up to the election. Election Protection Volunteers (not necessarily attorneys) are needed to deliver signs to the county election boards for placement in the precincts, to monitor the operation of the voting computers and to report problems at the precincts. A South Carolina Legal Manual prepared by the Election Protection Coalition is available to volunteers that answers a wide range of election-related questions.

This is a nonpartisan effort. Participants can neither support or oppose candidates, and must offer assistance regardless of voters’ party affiliation.

To volunteer, please contact Brett Bursey at 803-808-3384 or network@scpronet.com. We will need your contact information, your hours of availability and services you are offering. Your information will be shared only with coordinators of the Election Protection coalition. There will be a volunteer training by conference call.

For details on the Election Protection coalition click here.

Students and ex-offenders unclear about voting

The State picked up part of the SC Progressive Network‘s recent press release on the confusion over ex-offenders’ voting rights. It’s tacked onto the end of this piece about student voting.

*********************

Student voters face barriers –
Geography, rules complicate process for college youth

By Wayne Washington

They have provided much of the passion in this presidential race. They have put up signs, answered phones, swamped campaign Internet sites and sworn to be there for their candidate on Election Day.

But past elections show college students can be an unreliable voting group. Part of the reason is confusion about whether they can vote in the county where they attend school. Or, others say, it’s the hassle of having to cast an absentee ballot.

“The enthusiasm of the campaign runs into the reality of voting by absentee ballot or even remembering to vote,” said Blease Graham, a political science professor at the University of South Carolina. “There are a lot of potential barriers.”

College students, of course, are not all residents of the place where they attend classes. Typically, large colleges enroll students from across the country.

Elections, however, are local functions, administered by local officials. Different localities have different rules, further complicating things for students.

Chris Whitmire, public information officer for the S.C. State Election Commission, said students have three choices when it comes to how they vote.

If they already are registered to vote in another place, they can contact election officials there to request an absentee ballot.

In addition to voting by absentee ballot, students can return to their hometowns to vote. However, students do have a third option — changing their place of residence so they can vote in the county where they attend college.

But that can be a little tricky, Whitmire said. “You have to know the address of your dorm,” Whitmire said. “They can’t use a post office box. They have to put you in the right district.”

Students who want to change their place of residence and vote in South Carolina have until Saturday to do so. There is no required length of residency.

Whitmire said information on the state Election Commission’s Web site could answer other questions students might have about registering and voting.

OTHERS CONFUSED TOO

Students aren’t the only ones who may be confused about their voting rights. Many with criminal records, especially those who have been incarcerated, often wrongly think they forever forfeit their right to vote.

Felons and those who have broken the state’s elections laws are not eligible to vote until they complete the terms of their legal punishment.

The state Election Commission recently sent county officials a memo outlining how such voters can cast ballots. First, they have to re-register with county voting officials by submitting a registration application. County officials then determine whether the potential voter meets eligibility requirements.

Local election boards can ask for proof that the voter’s legal punishment has been completed, though that proof is not required by law.

In a recent study, the S.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union found 36 S.C. counties require proof that legal punishment has been completed.

“If additional proof is not required by law, the state Election Commission should be advising the counties not to require proof that an offender has completed a sentence,” said Brett Bursey, director of the S.C. Progressive Network, a social and economic advocacy group. “This added requirement burdens the 18,000 citizens a year who have paid their debt to society, and may result in them not voting.”

State Election Commission Complicates Voting Procedures for Ex-offenders

Voting Rights Remain Unclear for SC Citizens Who Have Served Their Sentences

In light of a recent study that revealed confusion among county election directors regarding procedures for ex-offenders’ voting rights, the State Election Commission (SEC) yesterday sent a memorandum to the 46 county election directors advising them that they “may ask the voter for proof of completion of their sentence, but this is not required by law.”

This discretionary additional requirement may depress the vote among ex-offenders, said Brett Bursey, director of the SC Progressive Network. “If additional proof is not required by law, the State Election Commission should be advising the counties not to require proof that an offender has completed a sentence. This added requirement burdens the 18,000 citizens a year who have paid their debt to society, and may result in them not voting.”

South Carolina’s voter registration form includes a “Voter Declaration” that the registrant must sign, and face criminal penalties for falsely taking the oath. No additional proof is required to prove their US citizenship or mental competency. Ten counties accept the oath as proof that the registrant is not serving a criminal sentence.

On Sept. 17, the SC Progressive Network and the SC ACLU held a press conference to release the results of a study that found county election directors around the state had different methods of dealing with ex-offenders who wanted to register to vote. The study concluded that, since there were no laws regulating the procedure, all counties should simply allow ex-offenders to register by signing the registration form.

“We daily encounter citizens who tell us they can’t vote because they are ex-offenders.” Bursey said. “Unfortunately, the citizens don’t know the laws, the county election boards don’t know the laws, and the State Election Commission is unwilling to define the laws.”

While the SEC has recognized that there is no law requiring ex-offenders to provide proof of completion of sentence to register, its officials claim they are unable to direct the independent county election boards not to do so.

When asked if they will issue a press release advising ex-offenders of their right to register, an SEC spokesperson said, “That’s not our job.”

Sept. 24 SC Election Commission memorandum:

Any person who is convicted of a felony or an offense against the election laws is not qualified to register or to vote, unless the disqualification has been removed by service of the sentence, unless sooner pardoned.  Service of sentence includes completion of any prison/jail time, probation, parole, and payment of restitution.

Federal and state courts provide the SEC with lists of persons convicted of felonies or crimes against the election laws. Those persons are removed from the state’s list of active, registered voters. The SEC notifies each voter whose name is deleted from the list. Voters have 20 days from the date the notice is mailed to appeal. Appeals must be made to the SEC.

Once a person who was convicted of a felony or offense against the election laws serves their sentence; they may register or re-register.

The following process should be followed for voters who are re-registering after being made inactive due to a conviction.

• The voter must re-register with the county voter registration board by submitting a voter registration application.
• The board makes the final determination of whether the voter meets the qualifications to register.
• The board may ask the voter for proof of completion of their sentence, but this is not required by law.
• The voter is either added as a new voter or reinstated to the voter registration system
• If the board determines a voter should be reinstated to active status, the board must notify the SEC in writing. Once notification is received, the SEC will reinstate the voter.

Thank you,

Chris Whitmire
Public Information Officer

South Carolina State Election Commission 
Post Office Box 5987
Columbia, S.C. 29250
Tel: 803.734.9070
Fax: 803.734.9366

Pride ’08

Gay rights activists marched in downtown Columbia on Sept. 20, then joined thousands at Finlay Park to celebrate South Carolina’s annual Pride Festival. SC Progressive Network member groups with booths on the park grounds were: AFFA, Garden of Grace United Church of Christ, SC Equality, SC GLPM, PFLAG, SC Gay and Lesbian Business Guild and Sean’s Last Wish. The Progressive Network’s Missing Voter Project continued its voter registration drive, and brought in new individual members to our coalition.

It was a day of fun fellowship and solidarity. Congratulations to all the organizers for a successful Pride Week!

For Pride photos, click here. (Thanks to Jim Blanton, Ed McClain and Sarah Gibb for contributing snapshots.)

Ex-felons’ voting rights fool officials

Survey finds almost half are unclear on certain aspects of the law

By Gina Smith

The State

S.C. election officials lack knowledge of some voting rules for people with criminal records, according to a new survey. Wednesday, representatives from the ACLU and the S.C. Progressive Network released a survey of election officials in each of South Carolina’s 46 counties.

On questions like whether people with misdemeanor convictions and people with out-of-state felony convictions may vote, an average of 48 percent of officials got it wrong. On basic eligibility questions, like whether residents with felony records could vote, officials fared much better, with about 5 percent getting the answer wrong.

“The history in South Carolina is preventing people from voting, and we’re still living that history,” said Brett Bursey, director of the S.C. Progressive Network. Several people the Network attempted to register to vote recently thought they couldn’t vote because of past incarcerations.

“The people on the streets don’t understand (the rules), and if they go to their election commission, they’re going to get this kind of wrong information,” Bursey said.

The two organizations hope the survey will result in more training for election officials. They also want the state to notify people when they regain their right to vote.

The State Election Commission, which oversees the 46 county election commissions, is questioning the survey’s methodology.

“I don’t know what to think about the survey,” said Chris Whitmire, commission spokesman. “I don’t know how it was conducted and who they talked to at the (election commission) offices, how were the questions asked and if there was any bias in the questions.” Whitmire also noted some of the questions were misleading.

Under South Carolina law, those convicted of felonies are prohibited from voting until they complete their sentences, including parole and probation. Those convicted of violating any election law – felonies or misdemeanors – are also prohibited from voting until their sentences have been served. Then, the right to vote is restored.

If convicted of any other misdemeanor, the person loses the right to vote while incarcerated.

All employees of the state’s election commissions must complete a state certification program, Whitmire said. An additional class is required annually.

Survey questions were asked of whoever answered the phone at the election commissions, to simulate the experience of regular callers, said Rachel Bloom of the ACLU.

Whitmire said the election commission may send a letter to the county commissions, reiterating voting rules to workers.

Women’s Equality Day

Today marks the anniversary of women’s securing the right to vote, in 1920, after 72 years of struggle.

We’ve come a long way. But we have a long way to go. Consider:

• Women lack equal pay, making $.77 for every dollar men earn.

• The US has no guaranteed medical leave for childbirth. (168 countries do.)

• The US is near the bottom of the list in our public support for quality child care for children of working parents.

• Access to affordable birth control is under attack.

• Reproductive rights are threatened.

• Women make up 16 percent of representatives in Congress.

votes-women.jpg

Making Money on a New Cold War

By Morgan Strong
Consortium News

The Russia-Georgia clash has generated heated anti-Moscow rhetoric from John McCain and U.S. neoconservatives about a new Cold War, a prospect that most people might see in a negative light but which many military contractors surely view as a financial plus.

One unstated reality about revived tensions between Washington and Moscow is that it will mean a bonanza in military spending – billions of additional dollars for anti-missile weapons systems, larger armies, construction of new bases in Eastern Europe, etc.

Indeed, the spending on Cold War II could dwarf what military contractors are now making on the “war on terror” – and the prospect of spending on both conflicts simultaneously should make arms industry executives drool.

Others who stand to profit grandly from a new East-West showdown include tough-talking politicians and their friends in Washington think tanks – like Heritage, AEI and CSIS – that have long fattened up on contributions from the defense industry and related corporations.

There would be losers, too, like taxpayers who would see more of their dollars go to “national security” and less to domestic needs, from repairs to the crumbling infrastructure to the costs of health care, education, the environment and Social Security.

But, in many ways, the exploitation of Cold War fears – to divert money away from domestic needs to the coffers of what Dwight Eisenhower dubbed “the military-industrial complex” – is nothing new.

Arguably, the original Cold War ended under Eisenhower’s former Vice President, Richard Nixon, who as President returned from Moscow in 1972 carrying a strategic agreement that he had reached with what was already a rapidly decaying Soviet Union.

“In Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945,” Nixon said. “With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear, our two peoples, and for all the peoples of the world.”

Nixon unveiled a new era of realpolitik cooperation between Washington and Moscow that he called “détente.”

However, while reducing fears and lowering tensions might be good news for many people, it wasn’t welcomed by the corporations that profited from the fears and the tensions, nor by the intellectual hired guns who had built lucrative careers in politics, media and academia by exaggerating those fears and exacerbating those tensions.

Continue reading

Greenville activist featured in new book

crisis.jpg

Sean’s Last Wish founder Elke Kennedy is featured in the soon to be released book CRISIS, 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America. It is edited by Mitchell Gold, founder of Faith in America, with Mindy Drucker.

CRISIS is an expose of the fear, isolation, depression, and even suicidal feelings young gay people face from the time they realize they are gay until they have a healthy coming out. For many gay adults, the traumatic teenage years are buried in memory as a painful time to be left behind and forgotten. But, those who bravely recalled and contributed their stories to CRISIS describe experiences that are unfortunately universal for gay youth. 

Well-known successful members of the gay community, such as Bishop Gene Robinson, actor Richard Chamberlain, ambassador Jim Hormel and US Reps Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank, share what it was like to live a lie every day, without support from family, friends, church, or school-and how they triumphed over the challenges. And a number of young people detail personal experiences that make clear the same challenges unfortunately continue today.

CRISIS is designed to make parents, clergy, teachers, politicians, and the media aware of the ongoing crisis young gay people experience in our culture today and understand how to stop it.

In addition to being an inspiring and helpful personal resource, it is an excellent gift for that someone you know whose heart and mind you’d like to transform from hostility to love and from rejection to acceptance. 

CRISIS will be published in mid-September. Pre-orders are available now at Amazon.com and CrisisBook.org.

“I Believe” license plates up for debate

On Sunday, Aug. 10, at 7pm the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Columbia will hold a panel discussion about the proposed South Carolina “I Believe” license plates, which has resulted in a lawsuit. (See earlier post for background on the controversy.)

The panel will include Kevin Hall, an attorney with Nelson Mullins, the law firm that will be defending the Dept. of Motor Vehicles in the lawsuit. He will join the Rev. Michael Frisina, pastor of Calvary Chapel, and one of his parishioners, Carl Sohm, in defending the constitutionality of the plate. Speaking in opposition to the plate will be two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit: the Rev. Dr. Tom Summers, a retired United Methodist minister, and the Rev. Dr. Monty Knight, pastor of the First Christian Church of Charleston and president of the Charleston AU chapter.

The UU Fellowship is at 2701 Heyward St., corner of Heyward and Woodrow in Shandon.

believecaption.gif