I’m a Libertarian and therefore in favor of the lowest possible level of government spending for anything, and I believe the odds are that we’re not spending our defense budget very efficiently. However, being more frugal with our budget does not (ever) mean diverting funds from the military to fund causes that NOW supports.

My favorite part:

“Every year, the Pentagon gobbles up at least half of the federal discretionary budget,” says Marie Rietmann, public policy director of WAND. “We could easily cut several weapons systems that were developed in the 1980s to fight the Cold War, and our defense capabilities would be just as strong.”

I’m no expert on military funding, but I’m positive Ms. Rietmann isn’t, either. If she’s representative of women everywhere, I don’t want any woman allowed anywhere near the military.

(click the image for a full-screen version)

This means that when she speaks, I barely have to add commentary, I can just copy and paste – which makes my life really easy. Thanks, Marcia!

Some gems from Ms. Pappas from today’s Politico, entitled VP Pick May Chafe Hillary Supporters:

Marcia Pappas, who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, believes that Clinton supporters “would be outraged to know she was not given that right of first refusal.”

“She is the only woman in history who has ever garnered this much support,” Pappas continued. “She is the only woman in history who was able to raise the kind of money one would need to run a presidential campaign.”

Actually, as of June 2008, Clinton is still more than $10 million in debt, not counting the $11.5 million she personally loaned her own campaign. Don’t know about you, but I always prefer my candidates to be incapable of balancing their own budgets.

“I would be very concerned about his judgment if he offered the position to another woman before offering it to Hillary Clinton,” Pappas said, “or any person.”

“The women who have been elected to office in this time in history are the beneficiaries of the women’s movement,” Pappas continued. “And it’s disheartening to see those same women turn their backs on another woman who is better qualified, and one can only wonder what they are getting out of their decision to turn their back.”

If a woman was offered the VP spot and declined, that doesn’t mean Hillary would get it. Second, you can only wonder what they would get out of accepting? Really? Let’s see … maybe the chance to be VP?

As for women politicians as a whole, I’d say their supporting any candidate on the basis of their gender alone would show poor judgment. How is it their fault who gets Barack’s VP nomination? According to you, no one is listening to the female politicians, anyway.

Kim Gandy, president of all of NOW, can’t help but chime in, and apparently neglected to compare notes with Pappas before doing so:

“There are a lot of women apoplectic at the discussion of Bob Barr and Chuck Hagel,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

“It seems like the smart choice will be to pick Hillary Clinton because she adds so much to the ticket but the second choice should be a nominee who supported Hillary Clinton, to try and bring the sides together.”

These “stern” quotations are particularly amusing to me because they are effectively endorsing McCain, which NOW would otherwise claim never to do.