Next entry: Funkdaddy Supreme's House O' Speech
Previous entry: PUMAs "don't exist" themselves right to the top of Technorati
The handicapping of McCain’s campaign by the media is becoming brutally obvious during the DNCC. Between the lack of coverage for major speeches and puffing up the whole “PUMA” storyline to be a much bigger thing than it is, it’s becoming undeniable. Skimping on the Lily Ledbetter speech was especially irresponsible, because it was a great opportunity to educate the public about this under-covered story. Ledbetter, of course, is the woman who was openly discriminated against by her employer Goodyear, watching less qualified men get promoted and raises while she languished for years. What made her case especially terrible is that it shows that our hard right-leaning Supreme Court will basically lie and color outside of the lines in order to push an anti-woman agenda---because they knew they couldn’t outright claim that women aren’t covered by the “equal protection” clause in the Constitution (much less the Civil Rights Act), the court fudged with a bullshit story about filing deadlines. If the public knew more about this case, they’d revolt. If they knew that McCain refused to support the bill named after Ledbetter that made it harder to deny women equality with bullshit like this, many people would see McCain for the hard right winger he is, who openly refuses to support something as basic as equal pay for equal work, which is as popular as women’s suffrage.
But it gets worse. Let me just quote Media Matters.
During MSNBC’s August 26 coverage of the Democratic National Convention, NBC News chief Washington correspondent Norah O’Donnell asserted that during the upcoming Republican National Convention, “[t]he Republicans ... are going to use from Day One through Day Four to hammer [Sen.] Barack Obama” and asked MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle of the first night of the Democratic National Convention, “[W]hy not position a senator, like Claire McCaskill [D-MO], up there for five minutes and let her throw some red meat out to the crowd?” In fact, McCaskill did speak on the first night of the Democratic National Convention, and in that speech, McCaskill repeatedly criticized both Sen. John McCain and President Bush. However, MSNBC did not air the speech during its live coverage of the convention.
Unsurprisingly, McCaskill came out strong about what a threat McCain is to women’s interests specifically:
I know that this son of a single mom will stand up for the dreams of our daughters. And I know that John McCain won’t.
There is only one candidate in this race who has fought for equal pay for equal work by America’s women. That candidate is Barack Obama. There is only one candidate offering real tax relief for the middle class, health care that is affordable and accessible and protection of Social Security today, tomorrow and forever. That candidate is Barack Obama.
Now, I’m not saying that the media is in the tank for McCain exactly. I mean, I know they love him and suck his butt all day long. But even setting aside speculation about the corporate media and what rich pundits want a Republican to win, I think that what we’re seeing a bias towards “balanced” coverage, especially if it helps make this election a nail-biter that drives up ratings. The Republican convention is going to suck, let’s face it. Senators are avoiding it to keep the stink of suck off them. McCain is a boring person. So, to “balance” it, the media has to give the Democrats the shaft in coverage. Especially in the one area where Democrats have a lot of strength and can build more momentum, which is capturing more of the women’s vote.
Posted by
Amanda Marcotte on 05:43 PM •
Permalink
I am watching Melissa Etheridge perform right now at the convention. This would never happen at a Republican convention because she is a gay woman. A party that cannot validate the humanity of all is not party worthy of running any government whether it be in the US or abroad. If you believe that we are equal it is important to let the world know that intolerance has no place on this planet.
The 5-4 decision underscored a provision in a federal civil rights law that sets a 180-day deadline for employees to claim they are being paid less because of their race, sex, religion or national origin.
Without a deadline, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, employers would find it difficult to defend against claims “arising from employment decisions that are long past.”
The company said poor performance evaluations, not discrimination, were behind Ledbetter’s salary. She retired in 1998, shortly after claiming discrimination.
the Supremes made the right call here.
Disingenuous argument, coming from one of our resident misogynists. It’s weird how misogynists are so willing to get hung up on the bullshit excuses, huh? It’s almost, like I said in the post, like they know they can’t make a straightforward argument against women’s rights and have to dwell in misdirection and technicalities.
The company said poor performance evaluations, not discrimination, were behind Ledbetter’s salary. She retired in 1998, shortly after claiming discrimination.
Epic fail.
Anyone who knows the first thing about HR knows that you don’t freeze a person’s compensation when they get poor performance reviews. You put them on a performance improvement plan, gather your evidence, then fire them for failing to meet the objectives of the performance improvement plan.
The only reason Goodyear wouldn’t follow this procedure is because they knew they couldn’t hire someone who could do Ledbetter’s job as well as she could for what they were paying her or less. They deliberately kept her in that job at lower pay than she deserved because they knew she would tolerate it for as long as they kept the truth concealed from her.
And it worked.
Thanks for this post, the MSM coverage of this convention has been down the shitter from Day One, particularly CNN.
The 5-4 decision underscored a provision in a federal civil rights law that sets a 180-day deadline for employees to claim they are being paid less because of their race, sex, religion or national origin.
So if someone doesn’t discover within six months of their hire date that they’re being discriminated against in promotions, they can never file a complaint? That’s laughable on its face—how many people get promoted within their first six months at a job?
Without a deadline, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, employers would find it difficult to defend against claims “arising from employment decisions that are long past.”
A 180-day filing deadline from when you discover the discrimination makes perfect sense. Deciding that people should know that they won’t be promoted if they work for the company the next 20 years within the first six months of starting the job is reading the law so literally that you’re subverting it.
By that standard, we should all file lawsuits within 6 months of starting any job on the off-chance that the company might discriminate against us somewhere down the road. That’s what Alito says we should be doing, after all.
I actually learned something watching the talking heads spin their bullshit last night on PBS.
DID YOU KNOW (BobK, but actually it’s a cool fact for anybody to be aware of) that in 1976 both the Republican and Democratic parties supported equal pay for equal work, legalized abortion, and the ERA?
Interesting fact, that. Especially since that sort of thing can’t even be assumed nowadays for all members of our supposedly “liberal” Democratic party. It also makes people like Bob look especially reactionary. How does it feel to know that even your Republican brethren from 30+ years ago would consider you a misogynist wackjob?
The Opoponax,
Thank-God President Reagan and Pat Robertson rescued us from that moral slumber our party was in.
Look, the lady was a poor performer at work, her work was inferior to her male coleagues, so the merit pay she recieved over the years wasn’t as much. Period.
TO--
Many say Nixon was the most left-leaning President we’ve had in the last forty years, amazing as that statement may seem it is probably true.
All honor to Ms. Ledbetter, who was the second best speaker of the night, and a damn sight better than either Warner or Sebelius.
BobK, you don’t know this case, period. Jury found for her on the merits; she got screwed by a Supreme Court who ruled NOT that she didn’t suffer discrimination, but that the traditional rule of the tolling of the statute of limitations during the latency of a hidden tort would not apply. Go back to wingnut summer school, and try to focus.
Look, the lady was a poor performer at work, her work was inferior to her male coleagues, so the merit pay she recieved over the years wasn’t as much. Period.
So why did the Supreme Court say, “Yeah, you got screwed, but you didn’t file in time—tough luck.”
Or are you arguing that the Supremes made their decision based on things that were not in the case under discussion? That they, in fact, decided to legislate from the bench because they didn’t like the lower court’s decision but knew there were no legal grounds to vacate it other than to claim that if Ledbetter didn’t file her case within her first 6 months of employment, she could never sue for discrimination?
It’s clear that Bob think Ledbetter was “poor” at her job because women shouldn’t have jobs, due to the immoral man-threatening. Barf.
Mnem, he’s not arguing. He’s in full agreement that women should be oppressed by any trickery necessary. He won’t argue with you. He’s spewing shit.
Bob, like Reagan and Robertson, is pro-AIDS and pro-death.
A 180-day filing deadline from when you discover the discrimination makes perfect sense.
Yes, courts are free to apply the discovery rule to reach an equitable result. Unless they identify more with corporations than with workers.
<i>the lady was a poor performer at work, her work was inferior to her male coleagues, so the merit pay she recieved over the years wasn’t as much.<i>
Because no corporation would lie to avoid paying an assload of money? But the finder of fact decided that the corporation did lie. Period. End of story. Luckily for them, the Supreme Court changed the law so that the lying, cheating corporation wouldn’t have to pay her for what they owed her. But they didn’t change the fact that the corporation lied and cheated.
Look, the lady was a poor performer at work, her work was inferior to her male coleagues, so the merit pay she recieved over the years wasn’t as much. Period.
Absolutely WRONG.
The jury did not agree. They found FOR her. Period.
And, remember, the Court cannot rule that it was due to her “inferior” work record, because the jury found, AS A MATTER OF LEGAL FACT, that there was discrimination.
Saying that it was a matter of poor performance is a bald-faced lie. And a matter of libel.
I’m actually thrilled that Bob is here trolling on about how much better it is to have a pee-pee than a hoo-ha, because he’s giving me yet another opportunity to use what is rapidly becoming my favorite snotty, dismissive quip:
If you have to lie to get your point across, you don’t have a point.
Last night the MSNBC bloviators were going on about how the Dems needed more red meat and attacks on McSame WHILE John Kerry was doing JUST THAT. And when they noted that Biden made a Cheney joke their critique was that he should have told more. Ass-holery.
And BobK is clearly not bright enough to know that the Supreme Court does not make judgments of facts like why Ledbetter was undercompensated. Those decisions are made by juries. But then he probably doesn’t pay any attention to the court since they let GIRLS on it.
Last night the MSNBC bloviators were going on about how the Dems needed more red meat and attacks on McSame WHILE John Kerry was doing JUST THAT.
That’s because their model is sports color commentary, where hacks feel that they must say something whether it makes sense or not. They must get paid by the word.
The best commentators know when to shut up and let the story tell itself.
Mnem, he’s not arguing. He’s in full agreement that women should be oppressed by any trickery necessary. He won’t argue with you. He’s spewing shit.
Oh, I know. It’s still fun to point out that, by his stated position, anyone taking a new job should file a preemptive discrimination complaint within 180 days of their first day at work so they’re covered in case the company discriminates against them at some point in the future. If the Supreme Court insists that’s the only way to do it, they won’t mind all of the lower courts being tied up with the preemptive complaints, right?
You guys are being too harsh on old bob.
You see, he is just a pro-lifer. And you know how all those lady-jobs are killing babies don’t you?
He is just defending the poor fetuses. If ladies didn’t work there wouldn’t be any abortion.
/snark.
Thank-God President Reagan and Pat Robertson rescued us from that moral slumber our party was in.
Too bad Reagan didn’t believe any of it. He sucked up and lied to the lunatics in order to get elected. How does that make you feel, Bob?
And Pat Robertson endorses mass murderers—mass murderers who help him make millions off his mineral holdings in Africa. Robertson also steals money from his charities and uses it to make more money for himself.
What upstanding, Christian, moral men you look up to, Bob.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
I am watching Melissa Etheridge perform right now at the convention. This would never happen at a Republican convention because she is a gay woman. A party that cannot validate the humanity of all is not party worthy of running any government whether it be in the US or abroad. If you believe that we are equal it is important to let the world know that intolerance has no place on this planet.