<p>McCain reversed his position on affirmative action today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<ul>
<li>McCain Reverses Himself on Affirmative Action (I would post a link but I read that’s against the rules…?)</li>
</ul>
<p>What % of voters actually support quota based AA. Not many.</p>
<p>People post links here everyday, Newjack. It’s blog links that are expressly against the rules. Is your info from a blog?</p>
<p>The proposed legislation stops short of quotas, barrons—or so they say in the article.</p>
<p>McCain voted against legislation that would require that women be paid equal to men for the same work, too. That should further endear him to the hearts of women voters:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The main problem is that McCain was against such measures in the past and said they were divisive. The proposed legislation he is now for is incredibly similar to the one he was against in the past.</p>
<p>Technically, it’s a blog but it’s an ABC one.</p>
<p>[Political</a> Radar: McCain Reverses Himself on Affirmative Action](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-reverses.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/mccain-reverses.html)</p>
<p>I am very glad that he doesn’t support quota based affirmative action anymore. Affirmative action should be based on socio-economic status not on race.</p>
<p>We need to fix the K-12 system, affirmative action is just putting a ban-aid on a far worse problem. </p>
<p>If the Democratic Party cares about minorities, they should be concentrating their efforts on reforming the k-12 system, and not worry so much about Affirmative Action. There are far more important issues to deal with, like, the just released study on new cases of HIV showing that Blacks make up of almost 50% of new cases of HIV. None of the political parties released any statement on this issue. </p>
<p>Poor people of ALL RACES should be given a break</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you use the word ‘work’ do you mean exact same job or comparable worth legislation?</p>
<p>It surprises me that there are so many female CC posters here that don’t have any fathers, husbands, sons, or grandsons that they love.</p>
<p>Toblin,</p>
<p>I am sorry, I don’t understand your post. Are you saying if I support a woman receiving equal wage for an equal job that I don’t love my men? I hope not because that is soooo ignorant.</p>
<p>My husband and I are both educators and if he received more pay than me because he was a man, do you feel that is just?</p>
<p>This is the initiative </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Affirmative Action should only be used for poor people, race and sex should not matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What senate bill was that? I’d like to look it up. Thanks.</p>
<p>Ok, what is wrong with that? I am not sure I understand what this has to do with quotas or ending them. Is it the part that says …or grant preferential treatment…</p>
<p>I am tired and I don’t get the big deal, though I support equal wages for equal work…</p>
<p>McCain actually employs more female senate staff than Obama, and he pays both groups equally on average unlike Obama. Yes, I know we can’t compare averages, but we can infer that his male staff hold higher positions than his female staff.</p>
<p>Again, the issue is that he reversed his position on issue. He dismissed a 1998 initiative written using similar language as divisive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would be surprised how unpopular this is with people who are moderate or liberal. Most everyone regardless of the ideology disagrees with quotas and extreme preferential treatment. Hell, I’m black and I disagree with quotas and extreme preferential treatment.</p>
<p>Most educated people share Obama’s view on this issue and believe that affirmative action should only consider race as a means of creating more racial/ethnic, gender, geographic, etc. diversity. </p>
<p>We are a diverse nation so we should make sure we reflect that as best as possible in all parts of life. It doesn’t make sense that this country’s population is 50% female yet only 15% Congress representatives are women. Having a group of individuals that doesn’t reflect the diversity of our country results in unfair policies like allowing insurance companies to not cover birth control while allowing them to cover Viagra.</p>
<p>In regards to business especially, eliminating affirmative action is incredibly unpopular. Women make up 30% of all privately held firms nationally but in 2006 they made up only just 3 percent of government contracts awarded that year. Moreover, women and minorities made up just 8% of government contracts given in 2006.</p>
<p>This flip flop is going to hurt McCain’s message of being a straight talker and is going to hurt him with more moderate voters.</p>
<p>He may not have flipflopped. It is more likely that he doesn’t remember.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean that last remark flippantly. I watched his interview that dealt with the subject on CNN, and he sincerely didn’t seem to be aware that he once strongly held a different position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source please?</p>
<p>I would think that anything which dictates to a business who they can hire (or MUST hire) & and what the demographic of their group of employess should be wouldn’t be very popular w/ businesses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The men & women in Congress are elected - which state are you going to tell that it can’t have the representatives who they have elected b/c they need to have someone of another gender in that rep’s place in order to adequately reflect the demographic of the country as a whole?</p>
<p>AA is a thing of the past. Can’t we move on? People can’t scream for “equality” then expect preferential treatment. Let job applicants, college applicants, etc. be judged on the merit of their achievement and/or abilities, not on the color of their skin. Wouldn’t you really want to know that you got the job (or into a school) b/c you were the strongest applicant and not b/c someone had to hire or admit you just b/c you’re a certain race? Don’t you want “race” or 'gender" to be irrelevant? As long as AA stands, race or gender won’t be irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is because Viagra is a treatment for a medical condition while BC is not. That’s all. It isn’t discrimatory based on gender or anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In 2003, “a slight majority in the overall poll think affirmative action programs still are necessary — 51% to 43%. Among blacks, 89% think it’s necessary (USA Today).”</p>
<p>And that is affirmative action in general. I think that a majority of people would agree with affirmative action when presented the way that Obama presents it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not even how it is implemented.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not what I’m saying at all. I was making the case as to why diversity is important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This what older Americans think of when they discuss affirmative action. This view of affirmative action being there to make up for past wrongs, level the playing field, etc. are out of touch with reality–at least in regards to college admissions. Colleges nowaday use affirmative action to promote diversity within their student body. That’s all it is used for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think many people are going to buy that explanation especially since vasectomies are covered by insurance companies.</p>
<p>First of all, you made the assertion:</p>
<p>
Then you quoted a USAToday poll of individuals from 5 years ago - and the data only slightly supported your argument. Those figures have probably changed by now.</p>
<p>Whether you are honoring one person’s application over another in the interest of “diversity” or “to level the playing field”, it is still giving preference to someone based on race. Try as you may to justify it, the fact remains that one race is being favored over another - that is wrong. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Vasectomies are in another category altogether - they are medical procedures. That’s entirely different from “prescriptions”.</p>