The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman!

I believe it is time for the conservative movement to address this tactic for what it really is, nothing more than bombastic rhetoric made by people who cannot support their assertions with facts. I believe that this tactic actually dissuades many people from adopting conservative positions because of its clear attempts at derision verses a reasoned approach to the solution of problems. Given that, I am happy to address my opponents assertion that liberal democrats are anti woman. My opponent starts his argument by stating that liberal democrats have initiated a "charecter assassination campaign against Governor Sarah Palin. " I submit that this highly charged assertion isn't backed up with linked examples, simply because it is untrue. Those opposing republican leadership, will invariably question Sarah Palin's ability to govern, but that is hardly character assassination. I respectfully ask my opponent to submit proof of this claim in round two, in compliance with burden of proof, "necessities probandi incumbit ei qui agit, - the necessity of proof lies with he who complains. " My opponent then points out accurately that the Republican party championed human rights in the 1960s. I concur, however, we aren't arguing whether republicans supported human rights in the 1960s, we are arguing whether liberal democrats are anti woman. One could argue that republicans are isolationists, based on their pre WWII positions, using this logic. Truth is that times have changed and parties have changed. I argue that Liberal Democrats questioning Sarah Palin's leadership abilities or pro life, pro gun, pro war positions, are not being anti woman at all, they are in reality being pro woman. My opponent seeks to draw a comparison between questioning one woman's positions and denigrating women in general. I argue that questioning a woman's viewpoint supports equality and the fact that women in general are just as able and capable as men to hold both good and poor beliefs that should be questioned by all of us irregardless of gender. My opponent then attempts to position liberal democrats with the KKK through Robert Byrde's association with the group back in the 1950's. Once again, my opponent is forced to reach back 50 years to support an assertion made about 2008. The fact that Robert Byrde was a racist in 1950 has no bearing whatsoever on Liberal Democrats in 2008. Once again his reasoning is clearly and utterly flawed. A more reasoned approach would be to examine the beliefs and positions of racists and KKK members today, and seek comparisons with modern conservative and liberal political positions. I think we all know why my opponent doesn't utilize this approach, and submit that KKK members are far more likely to vote republican than democrat in 2008. Finally, my opponent dips into the most popular conservative conspiracy theory of an overly biased media, which of course doesn't support his original assertion, but only attempts to maintain his persecution complex. Which is then followed by the obligatory advertisement for Fox news. There is no denying Murdock's ability to make money from conservatives intent on feeling marginalized. However, that isn't the issue. The issue of course is whether liberal democrats are anti-woman. I contend that my opponent has, thus far, failed miserably to support his claim with anything other than rhetoric and illogical inference. Lets all hope he can provide something better than O'reilly or Limbaugh quotes in round two. ;-)