NOW or "THEN"?

If NOW’s approval is the only litmus test for women political candidates, women and the country will suffer mightily.

Here is the interesting case of Patricia White, who is running for Boston’s city council. She has been unable to secure an endorsement from NOW. That seems like a major plus in my book, but Patricia is nonetheless concerned.

Apparently, Patricia doesn’t measure up based on NOW’s criteria:

According to Emily Hall, acting director of NOW's political action committee, endorsements are based on an analysis of a candidate's stand on five issues: abortion rights, economic justice, racial justice, gay and lesbian rights, including same-sex marriage, and domestic violence.

NOW presents itself as “the voice” of women, as if their sex makes women into one political monolith. But, looking at the criteria for endorsement above, it would seem that NOW has little in common with most women.

For the NOW crowd, squishy terms like “economic justice” revolve around socialism, big government programs, and anti-constitutionalism. They want Big Sister's hand in most of your decisions and your family life as well. Carey Roberts sums up the result pretty well in his most recent column.

If Washington State’s crop of women politicians represent NOW’s image for women in politics, we are in trouble. First, we have Christine Gregoire, who obtained the Governor’s office through election fraud in King County. Then, we have Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, who spend a large part of their time attacking their male constituents with every weapon at their disposal.

These three banditas do get the endorsement of NOW. The rest of the country ought to take a close look at the sorry state of Washington to get an idea of what you are in store for if someone such as Hillary Rodham or Michigan’s Debbie Stadenow ever make it to the pinnacle of power.