To revise and extend my remarks on a few recent posts:
A Nod:
I was reminded over the holiday weekend that my observance of the cultural differences between the American West and other regions of the country truly does have very deep historical roots. The example at hand is women's suffrage. Wyoming was the first state in the union to provide the franchise regardless of sex, and this occurred in 1890 when Wyoming became a state (but the right had been there at the territorial level since 1869). Three years later Colorado became the second state, and the first in which a full vote of the people (that is the men) extended the right to women. Idaho and Utah followed shortly thereafter. It is important to note that this extension of individual liberty happened in the west a full 30 years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote nationwide. And of course my native Montana elected a woman to Congress in 1916, four years before most women in the country could vote!
Now consider the contrast with the South. While the 19th amendment was adopted in 1920, South Carolina did not ratify it until 1969, Georgia and Louisiana in 1970, North Carolina until 1971 and Mississippi until 1984. It is telling to realize that these Southern states did not think it was worth endorsing a woman's right to vote until 100 years after Western states had begun extending the franchise.
Ego:
It's official: Senator Obama will accept the nomination at Invesco. Yip, yip, yip.
Fourth:
Yesterday Senator McCain was here in Denver and a local radio remarked that McCain was making a lot of hay out of Sen. Obama's energy positions. When it comes to energy, Sen. Obama's slogan should be "No We Can't," went the line. Nationally the GOP has run its first ad on the energy topic, and a lot of commentators seem to agree that it is a potentially powerful issue for the Republicans this fall. Not surprisingly it is something to be "For." For expanding access to domestic oil and gas production, for building nuclear power plants, etc. When Senator Obama has to be the candidate saying "no, no, no," the issue favors McCain. Hopefully Sen. McCain finds additional contrasts that force Obama into the "No We Can't" column.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"What the 'ell for?" is a question with double meaning: There are four "L" words that serve as my guiding principles. By representing this as "L" and the Roman numeral "IV", they are a reminder to use these principles to "LIVe" as rich a life as possible. What the 'ell for wonders how this is possible and wonders aloud what we are LIVing for.
1 comment:
With respect to your follow-up on "Fourth", I would add that McCain has also started to beat the drum of fiscal responsibility. Last week McCain stated that he would balance the budget by 2012. A balanced budget is a great thing to be for, and I think it puts the pressure on Obama to explain and justify his proposed expansion of government spending. It is difficult to overstate how much the message of fiscal responsibility will resonate in this election. The message may not seem novel, but think about it: when was the last time you heard a major politician sound this theme?
Post a Comment