Michelle Bernard; FU TOO!

[oviedodem]

On Hardball and Michelle is pathetically trying to downplay the fair pay for women.

She and her forum do not support the Ledbetter legislation. You know Michelle, maybe you forgot that you have a double edged sword. I cannot believe that women are actually against this. Now we are starting to see the closet republicans. Absolutely stunningly pathetic and disappointing.

"Sexist boogeyman" actual quote from Michelle. FU.

[ErinBerin84]

1. and the other day

when Tweety said "moderate Republicans like you", she quickly said "I'm an INDEPENDENT!" Why so touchy about that Michelle, lol.

[Enthusiast]

19. I noticed the same reaction. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Michele Bernard was never actually a closet repuke. Her talking points were obviously

from the same memo that the rest of the repukes read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4946897

[TheDebbieDee]

6. I think she's another repuke "hired gun" like

Armstrong Williams. She's hired to lend diversity to the face of the repuke party.

So's Ron Christie and just about ANY other African-American that admits to being such on TV.

[rvablue]

9. Add to that the young lady who is always on CNN, whose name escapes

me who worked in Cheney's office for a while.

[TheDebbieDee]

12. I know who you are talking about......

but I thought she was an aide for McCain for awhile!

[nc4bo]

16. Amy Holmes? She's a real piece of work. nt

[BuelahWitch]

3. Her arguments were horrible

The bill wasn't about neurosurgeons vs. nurses dipshit, it's about men and women who do the SAME JOB. I can't understand women who try to undermine their sisters' lives...

[Cha]

14. I can't either unless it's like

the log cabin syndrome which is greed. I got mine and the rest of you can eat dirt and die as far as I'm concerned.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

4. this is akin to a black person saying that a blck person shouldn't be paid equally. how pathetic. nt

[The Brethren]

5. Agreed.

And one of her strongest points....at least that she seems to be making against this bill, is that it (paraphrasing) will cause employers not to hire women because they would be afraid of being sued in 10 or 20 yrs for ex. for allegations of sexism towards a former female employer; whether the claims were true or not.

Therefore, her argument was this will work against women not for them. And that is possible in some cases with employers. But that same argument could be used in every case involving a law that helps to prevent discrimination against a worker. In other words, if I were to follow her logic, then why bother making sure there are laws so that lets say a minority such as black Americans can not be discriminated at work? After all, wouldn't that put pressure on future employers not to hire blacks because they are afraid of possible litigation due to labor-equality laws?

Naturally there will always be a percentage of folks who lie and bring charges against a company for whatever reason. However, bills like this one are important to help make sure that equal pay for equal work applies to all Americans....males and females alike.

[Gman2]

26. Then only aggregious cases outlive statute of limitations.

This would stop the upfront discrimination of women before hire. Unless they could justify being monsters. Most crimes have a Sof L. So should this. And up the court reaction to clearly baseless cases. Not that hard.

[The Brethren]

29. True.

What Bernard was trying to pull during her exchange was an old scare tactic that has been used before regarding anti-discrimination laws.

I was very surprised when I heard her do this. Not because it hasn't been done before, but because she is a woman as well and also black. I foolishly thought she would've understood the reasoning behind this bill as a woman. And as a black person, I assumed she may have seen the connection as well. But that would mean that Bernard is intelligent enough to pay attention to our past and to use some common sense.

[EFerrari]

7. She's a hack and not a very good one, at that.

[firedupdem]

8. She's horrible always has been. Tweety likes her dumb ass for

some reason. Fucking idiot.

[BeyondGeography]

10. She's a sad little sellout

[Faygo Kid]

11. What a shithead. Had her facts all wrong, too.

Sadly, the woman from Planned Parenthood who defended the decision didn't have a clue, either.

It's pretty simple, actually. A new actionable episode of discrimination is encountered each time a discriminatory paycheck is issued. Otherwise, employees would have 180 days from the time of their hiring to determine all their coworkers' salaries and whether they were discriminated against.

Right.

[CTyankee]

13. The woman from Planned Parenthood is Cecile Richards, daughter of Ann Richards, former governor

of Texas. She is a very good spokesperson, I thought. This legislation righted a wrong that was (almost laughably) decided by the Supreme Court in the former legislation.

This time, I hope we got it right so the f*ckers on the Supreme Court don't ruin it for us...

[rufus dog]

15. She actually intentionally mislead on several occasions

aka LIED.

I have seen her argue before and that is o.k. Today she crossed the line by saying (paraphrasing) "Women will be able to sue for an unlimited amount of time thus hurting themselves because employers will be afraid to hire them and insurance costs will go up. Very shitty to start off with a lie then say bad things will occur because it gives women to litigate for an unlimited amount of time.

[otohara]

17. Hardball was nauseating today

Starting with Ron Christie - ending with Michele Bernard.

I can't remember, but was there this much talk about who would run against Bush just 10 days after he stole the presidency and again in 04?

If this is any indication of what Hardball will be for the next 4 years - I'm gonna have to say buh bye.

[cooolandrew]

18. The solution is simple, every bill from here contains advancement for womens rights. Each bill>

passes with ease.

[Vinca]

20. That was a surprising interview. She's usually not that right wing,

although she's far from the "independent" she claims to be. I couldn't imagine any woman poo pooing that legislation. Maybe she's one of the few lucky ones it didn't happen to, but the practice was widespread and common. It's a matter of comparing "equal work" as well as "equal pay." Women, for decades, were confined to the pink ghetto and the work of a typist or stenographer was never viewed as being worth the same money as a typically male plumbing or carpentry job. It's a shame this law wasn't put in place 40 or 50 years ago.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Women's Independent Forum = Right Wing Conservative Women ... it's truly Orwellian. eom

[spanone]

22. any sane working woman would not be against this...michelle is a paid rethug hitman

[Phx_Dem]

23. She's such an ass. Comparing nurses to neurosurgeons

in a conversation about equal pay for equal work. Hello? How is a nurse and a neurosurgeon equal? In her rush to slam equal pay for women, she drives herself off a cliff.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Silly, didn't you know that men are neurosurgeons and women are nurses?

That's why women are paid less. It's not discrimination at all. Women just aren't worth as much! :sarcasm:

[Phx_Dem]

25. Silly me. If only I were as smart as Michelle Bernard. sigh.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Now THAT's sexist and particularly egregious coming from a female.

Those capriciously throwing around the epithet "sexism" during the election should take note of what sexism actually looks like and stop purposely smudging its outline to use as a political cudgel.

[Honeycombe8]

28. She seems to be a true Independent to me. She agress with some leftist ideology and some...

and some conservative ideology. That's one of the reasons some people don't belong to either of the major parties.

Proof: You KNOW you're an Independent when people on the right say you're a commie leftie libral, and people on the left say you're a closeted rightwing nut.

I'm not sure I understand the new Ledbetter legislation fully, and Michelle may not, either. I understand that it extends the deadline to sue, in effect (and rightly so), but I think it may also cover some other areas.

I think it's a good bill, since a company seeks to hide pay differences, and it's almost impossible to find out what someone else is getting paid. So the fact that someone may not find out for years that she's been paid less than the men should not be to her detriment because the status of limitations had run out after the first discriminating paycheck. But I wonder if the bill crosses job title lines. That is, can someone sue for pay discrimination if a man gets paid more but has a different job title, even though they do many of the same things? This is the murky territory that prevented the ERA from getting passed.

[RepublicanElephant]

30. i'm sick and tired of all these repubs claiming to be "independent".

if we had that many freakin' "independents" in this country, ross perot would be president by now!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

31. Regardless of who

Tweety has on "Hardball", he talks over all of them UNLESS they preface their words with something like, "You know, Chris, I totally agree with you."

I'll always be ticked off at him for his handling of moron Dick Armey last week. And watch him less.