The Man Who Would Be President

Roberta Riley writes: 

On top of the overall financial insecurity squeezing middle-class families, women still earn only 77 cents to every dollar made by men. Despite strong evidence that some women are segregated into low-paying occupations, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a Bush economic adviser from the Independent Women's Forum, voiced the administration's opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, arguing the wage gap stems from women's different "choice of occupation." While there might be some truth to that, it's not the whole truth. Lilly Ledbetter worked for decades at an Alabama Goodyear plant doing the same job as her male co-workers. After she learned the men received better pay, she sued and a jury awarded her fair compensation. Rather than pay a modest sum to a wronged employee, Goodyear pursued the case all the way to the Supreme Court. There Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, Bush II appointees approved by McCain, reversed the verdict. Their decision paves the way for companies to commit rampant pay discrimination. With the devil buried in the details of a lengthy court decision, McCain and Bush cloak their complicity in the economic harm that Ledbetter v. Goodyear will cause women for years to come. When pressed on the subject, McCain did admit he supports the ruling and opposes reparative legislation. He also promises to fill future court vacancies with "clones of Alito and Roberts.

In short, Bush-McCain put corporate interests -- no matter how slimy or unjust -- ahead of ordinary citizens. Supporting Lily Ledbetter's suit should have been a slam dunk; the injustice is clear and unambiguous. Yet the Bush Supreme Court -- and the next president may get to appoint up to three new justices -- ignored that in favor of a questionable technicality. The remainder of Riley's excellent article about the impact of the Bush Administration on women and why we can expect more of the same from John McCain is here...

Where does John McCain stand overall on women's issues? You can't find out from his web site, although it does have a discussion of "Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life." (I looked, and "Human Dignity" does not include such trivialities as equal pay for equal work.) Otherwise, there is no heading or link to women's issues. On the other hand, Barack Obama's site puts forth his positions on women's issues in detail. These include the health care, reproductive choice, preventing violence against women, economic issues (including pay inequity), national security, poverty, and education.

One candidate has thought through in detail the interrelationship of overarching issues as they relate to woman as well as issues of specific concern to a constituency that comprises half of the country. The other hasn't even bothered to put lipstick on a chauvinist pig...

As Homer Simpson would say, it's funny because it's true: