September 17, 2008

"The 20 Most Obnoxious Anti-Palin Quotes So Far."

I'll highlight a few, but read the whole thing.
18) (John McCain has chosen a running mate) "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." -- South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler

17) "With Sarah Palin, America has taken one very large leap toward a completely theocratic politics." -- Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

16) "They are true believers in the idea that one can be very sexy but also desexualized, which is why Palin is being treated like this giant sex object, because she's got a practiced ability at being f*ckable without showing that she might be the sort who wants to f*ck." -- Former John Edwards's blogger Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon...

6) "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman." -- Wendy Doniger at the Washington Post...
Pandagon seems to be down this morning. You might have to get back to that one later. The "they" in "they are true believers" includes me, of all people. And the post is the same one I was talking about yesterday, in my post about my post that is the 11th buzziest post of all time.

(Just trying to see how many times I can use the word "post" in one sentence. I hope I'm not dumb as a post. Don't you think "Dumb as a Post" would be a good name for a blog?)

But let me focus on #6. I see it's one of WaPo's "On Faith" columns, which you know I loathe. Let's read it:
Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.
I'm glad Wendy Doniger put that in writing, because it's what I think many Democrats think and I like having such a clear statement to point to. It's what I had in mind when I wrote:
The feminism of the last dozen years has been a dull, uninspired argument for keeping Democratic politicians in power.

But feminism is something that transcends party politics. Women have interests that the parties should have to compete for. I want a vivid debate about what is good for women. Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted. Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who've been scorning feminism -- because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.
There's nothing more feminist than a woman having a mind of her own and speaking it. Doniger's feminism says: Shut up and be our idea of what a good woman is.

126 comments:

Simon said...

"Don't you think 'Dumb as a Post' would be a good name for a blog?"

It would have the problem that "dumb" in that sense is a homonym for "dumb" in the sense of being unable to speak. Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a blog if you're unable to speak?

Meade said...

"There's nothing more feminist than a woman having a mind of her own and speaking it."

How about a father taking the role of primary parent so his wife can develop her career, teaching his daughters to think for themselves and express themselves clearly and honestly?

rhhardin said...

There's nothing more feminist than a woman having a mind of her own and speaking it.

Changing a mind of her own would be more feminist.

Simon said...

"'she's got a practiced ability at being f*ckable without showing that she might be the sort who wants to f*ck.' -- Former John Edwards's blogger Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon"

Five children and Todd Palin's bearing would seem to suggest that it's not her least favorite thing in the world. In any event, hilarious that Marcotte - a putative feminist - can't seem to wrap her head around a non-sexual reason for men to like a female politician.

Simon said...

#19 is preposterous - doesn't Lohan realize that the tabloid cover she attacks Palin for posing for photoshopped the governor's official portrait onto a model's body? I hate to break it to you, Lindsey, but Hillary Clinton didn't pose for this picture, either.

Peter V. Bella said...

Don't you think "Dumb as a Post" would be a good name for a blog?)


Just checked Blogger. It is already taken.

Derek Kite said...

As much as anyone may question Palin's abilities, ideology or whatever, if the choice is between Palin and giving influence to the writers of these quotes...

In Canada, where the population as a whole is somewhat to the left of Hillary, the media looks for right wing nutcase quotes to show how scary the conservatives are. And it works every time. Can't give those guys power, who knows what they'd do.

In the US, the media just talks. Same result.

Derek

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
save_the_rustbelt said...

I am really amazed at the number of women who have been energized by Palin being in the race. As a purely tactical action her nomination has put McCain back into the race.

And many of them are quick to comment that the more crap she takes in the media they more votes she will lock up for McCain.

Who woulda guessed?

Henry said...

I'm surprised something from Judith Warner's Mirrored Ceiling piece didn't make the list.

Consider the lede:

It turns out there was something more nauseating than the nomination of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate this past week. It was the tone of the acclaim that followed her acceptance speech.

Or this:

Could there be a more thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women

Or this:

Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so “real”?

Or this:

Real people, the kind of people who will like and identify with Palin, they clearly believe, are smart, but not too smart, and don’t talk too well, dropping their “g”s, for example, and putting tough concepts like “vice president” in quotation marks.

Peter V. Bella said...

18) (John McCain has chosen a running mate) "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." --

The Democrats chose a presidential candidate whose primary qualifications seems to be he is young, well spoken, clean cut, and Black.

15) "If the media reaction is anything, it's been literally laughter in many places across newsrooms." Eleanor Clift, the McLaughlin Group

They were laughing at Obama for picking the President of Hair Club for Men.

13) "Bad Mother Palin… Roseanne Barr

There is a paragon of motherhood if I ever saw one.

TMink said...

Simon wrote: "In any event, hilarious that Marcotte - a putative feminist - can't seem to wrap her head around a non-sexual reason for men to like a female politician."

Marcotte is not a well woman. She is personality disordered and sexually obsessed. Her claim to fame is that she is a potty mouthed profaner of God.

I hope the 15 minutes of fame are worth blaspheming the Supreme Being of the Universe.

Seems short sided to me.

Trey

AlphaLiberal said...

So much for Althouse's vain "neutrality." Whining because a politician is criticized.

AK AG: Subpoenaed State Employees Will Refuse to Testify

This is outrageous. Republicans are the party of lawlessness. They'll do anything to preserve their grip on power and have no principles.

This investigation was underway before Palin was nominated and she said she would cooperate fully. Now that McCain picked her, she has gone back on her word and is abusing power to stymie the investigation.

She's worse than Bush, worse than Cheney, if that's possible.

slarrow said...

Seems like this is the list you were thinking of when Hamsher challenged you on liberals attacking Palin.

AlphaLiberal said...

You forgot:

"She's qualified to be President."

Or, how about a few from David Brooks column of yesterday which you conveniently ignored, Ann?

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

...or...

And there’s a serious argument here. In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

bennet surf said...

(Just trying to see how many times I can use the word "post" in one sentence. I hope I'm not dumb as a post. Don't you think "Dumb as a Post" would be a good name for a blog?)

for you, sadly yes...

AlphaLiberal said...

"...liberals attacking Palin."

This whole meme is absurd. Any candidate for public office is going to be criticized. For you guys to demand we not criticize your candidates is whiney in the extreme. give it up, the teflon was buried with Reagan.

Especially with the sort of hateful rhetoric coming from the right toward any Democratic candidate.

Not that Ann Althouse has any problem with that! she's very comfortable with double standards.

Original Mike said...

Doniger's feminism says: Shut up and be our idea of what a good woman is.

There's a reason Rush Limbaugh calls (called?, I don't know if he still does this) FemiNazis.

former law student said...

Sarah is quoted (second-hand) in the Salon article as believing in creationism, and that we are now in the End-Time. This sort of "In Case of Rapture, This Car Will Be Unmanned" bumpersticker religion disturbs me. I would like to hear her talk about her religious views, at least how they guide her decisions as government head.

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"


He's Coming Soon!

Henry said...

Alpha, that David Brooks column is almost totally incoherent. Bush is criticized for inexperience, while the experience of his cabinet is summarized in a throwaway line about Rumsfeld's "rigidity."

Brooks forgets to mention Colin Powell, not to mention Cheney. Whatever you say about the Cheney, you can't claim he was inexperienced.

Brooks also forgets that prior to the controversies about the Iraq War Bush was surprisingly successful in moving his agenda -- particularly his tax cuts, but also his education bill.

Anyway, the list is about "obnoxious" quotes. Brooks may be incoherent, but he's never obnoxious.

SteveR said...

As I commented on a previous post, people who use gender (and race) to limit, not expand, political discourse need to be called on it. Liberal Fascism indeed.

On the other hand, these kind of comments just seem so childish, not funny, and come across as desparate. Even my 12 year daughter notices it.

garage mahal said...

AK AG: Subpoenaed State Employees Will Refuse to Testify

A Subpoena? Ooooo I'm scared. LOL. Listen, they said they're busy, alright?

AlphaLiberal said...

Note that Althouse has dropped her "vow of cruel neutrality" from her masthead.

Finally, a glimmer of honesty.

Simon said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"Or, how about a few from David Brooks column of yesterday which you conveniently ignored, Ann?"

It didn't have any bite. Brooks overstates the need for experience in the federal bureaucracy and understates the need for executive leadership experience. As well he might, given that his preferred candidate looks poor by such measure. Nor should it be forgotten that Palin isn't running for President. Yet. She is McCain's veep, and all of Brooks' arguments apply with yet stronger force to Obama, the Democrats' nominee for President.

I might add - only partly joking - that I'm not asking Sarah to go to Washington to run the federal government. I'm asking her to dismantle it.

Paul Zrimsek said...

This sort of "In Case of Rapture, This Car Will Be Unmanned" bumpersticker religion disturbs me.

Eschatology is a bipartisan hobby. Read any Greenpeace mailings lately?

Simon said...

former law student said...
FLS, I wouldn't say that the crowd who think that, by sheer coincidence, they happen to live in the time when Christ will return disturb me, but I do share what I take to be your puzzlement with them. What it has to do with someone being Vice President, though, is beyond me.

AlphaLiberal said...

"I would like to hear her talk about her religious views, at least how they guide her decisions as government head."

I agree. She uses her religion in her campaigning and she has said the occupation of Iraq is a mission from God. Also, her church appears to be outside the mainstream of Christianity.

So, we need to know more about her religion (which is now our business), to what extent she will use government power to enforce her religious doctrine, and if she believes we are in "End Times".

But in their full arrogance, the Republicans limit her exposure to the news media and tough questions. They scorn the American people by their actions.

Simon said...

Besides, I'm not sure I understand the premise of the attack - so your criticism is that Palin's a Christian? Gee, can't see how any voters would empathize with that. Next you'll be telling us that she's a mom!

krylovite said...

I might add - only partly joking - that I'm not asking Sarah to go to Washington to run the federal government. I'm asking her to dismantle it.

Oh hell, this is the same crap Republicans said about Bush. How did that work out?

Some people never learn.

rhhardin said...

There's also ``post turtle,'' which Obama lately has been compared to.

Simon said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"[Palin] has said the occupation of Iraq is a mission from God."

That's a lie.

I do agree, however, that she should be asked - and should talk about - whether and how her faith guides her decisionmaking in office.

William said...

Because liberals hate a different group of people than conservatives hate, they think that there is nothing bigoted about their hatred....I think Obama is a decent sort with considerable charm and intelligence. I will not vote for him. Is it so difficult for liberals to grant that Palin is likable and admirable in the way she lives her life?

Simon said...

krylovite said...
"Oh hell, this is the same crap Republicans said about Bush. How did that work out?"

Some people expressed shock and amazement that Tony Kennedy turned out to be too liberal. Not people who knew his record. Some people expressed shock and amazement that David Souter turned out to be too liberal. Not people who knew his record. And some people expressed shock and amazement that Bush turned out to be too liberal. See if you can fill in the blank from the pattern.

I for one never liked Bush all that much. He was simply better than the options the other party put up, but I would have been far happier if McCain had been our nominee in 2000. I will admit that I've been surprised by how bad a federalist Bush has been - I had thought that a governor would have understood better why federal power should be restricted. But now we're back to the division between southern conservatism and western conservatives. Today, we have a ticket composed of two western conservatives with a track record of reforming government. I see every reason for optimism and no reason to think that this will be anything even remotely like Bush.

Paul Zrimsek said...

FLS, I wouldn't say that the crowd who think that, by sheer coincidence, they happen to live in the time when Christ will return disturb me, but I do share what I take to be your puzzlement with them.

I find this one of the less puzzling things about them. If I'm living in these times, they must be extra-super-special in other ways as well, mustn't they? (I've already alluded to the many secular End Times believers out there.)

William said...

Alphaliberal: Can we go through the writings of Franz Fanon and Saul Alinsky and inquire which of their beliefs Obama still holds and which he has outgrown? Is he ready to repudiate the tenets of black liberation theology?....Palin has some views that differ from the majority. The media hones in on them and they are presented as a reason for distrust. The media seems to have no such distrust about the Rev Wright and his teachings. I have read in Newsweek about the wonderful work he has done in his community. Has no congregant in an Assembly of God ever benefited from their faith?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

She uses her religion in her campaigning and she has said the occupation of Iraq is a mission from

No she didn't. Lie. She said that that we have to pray that it is God's plan. Not that it IS God's plan.

Quote "Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Also, Alpha, it isn't just that the attacks are on Sarah Palin as a candidate. That is acceptable and people expect that the candidates are subject to scrutiny. What is unacceptable is that while attacking Palin, the media and their ankle bitting lap dogs are also attacking,disparaging and insulting wide swaths of the American public. Rural people, women, religious people, working blue collar. The libs just can't help themselves in their rabid hatred of people who are not just like themselves. Bitter and clinging to their lattees.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

your criticism is that Palin's a Christian? Gee, can't see how any voters would empathize with that.

Though the vast majority of Americans are Christian of one sort or other, as a Pentecostal, Palin is a subset of a subset (Evangelical). Only snakehandlers are further out of the mainstream.

Next you'll be telling us that she's a mom!

Although she seems a perfectly normal mom, if she were as far from mainstream moms as her faith is from mainstream Americans, she'd be closer to the Fundamental LDS moms.

former law student said...

French has already announced her verdict without having even heard the witnesses; she has announced when the report will be released, again without having listened to the damning evidence that Monegan was a real asshole who repeatedly undermined the governor.

joe would sound more on top of things if he realized Hollis French is a man:

http://www.hollisfrenchforsenate.com/

Joe said...

Oh hell, this is the same crap Republicans said about Bush. How did that work out?

And some of us didn't believe it. We voted for Bush only because Gore and then Kerry would have been far worse. The real parallel is between Bush and Obama--in both cases, proponents projected their own desires and political fantasies onto a blank slate and empty suit. That Bush turned out NOT to be a small government guy was no surprise to many of us, though perhaps not the extent to which is wasn't conservative.

Had the democrats put up a strong moderate in 2004, I probably would have voted for him or her and I believe they would have won in a landslide.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Only snakehandlers are further out of the mainstream.

Don't know much about religion do you?

Joe said...

AlphaLiberal,

"AK AG: Subpoenaed State Employees Will Refuse to Testify

This is outrageous. Republicans are the party of lawlessness. They'll do anything to preserve their grip on power and have no principles."

You have it backwards. It is state Sen. Hollis French and his cronies who are not following the law and have no principles except to act as patsies for the DNC and Obama. They are abusing their power and the subpoena process. French has already announced his verdict without having even heard the witnesses; he has announced when the report will be released, again without having listened to the damning evidence that Monegan was a real asshole who repeatedly undermined the governor. If a DA pulled this kind of shit, he or she would be disbarred. (I think we can fairly say that French has pulled a Nifong.)

bearbee said...

I dunno... the more obnoxious her opponents, the more she rakes in the dough.

Palin raises $1 million over lunch for GOP

Bissage said...

THIS sounds like a job for
Nonsense Rhyme Cheerleader Man!!!
(a copyrighted feature of this broadcast):

Stainless steel, lemon peel, stand up on your toes,
Bouncing ball, Charles de Gaulle, beat me with a hose.

Gooooooooooooo TEAM!!!

PatCA said...

My un-favorite was Mary Mitchell's. Throwing all pretense of objectivity or even intelligence out the window, she wrote Sarah Palin Makes Me Sick.

Hey, tell us how you really feel!

Beth said...

Whatever feminism we see in her achievement in being elected governor isn't enough to make her a good choice for women. I don't see that she's bringing anything much in terms of feminism to people who've not been interested in that in the past. Her ideologies are squarely in the fundamentalist corner; that a woman is bearing that standard doesn't change anything.

krylovite said...

We voted for Bush only because Gore and then Kerry would have been far worse.

Since you have a proven track record of being wrong, I assume you'll vote for McCain/Palin in 2008.

Kim said...

There is nothing obnoxious about pointing out Palin and McCain's desire to see their particular religious beliefs enshrined in law.

krylovite said...

Some people expressed shock and amazement that Tony Kennedy turned out to be too liberal. Not people who knew his record. Some people expressed shock and amazement that David Souter turned out to be too liberal. Not people who knew his record. And some people expressed shock and amazement that Bush turned out to be too liberal. See if you can fill in the blank from the pattern.

The obvious pattern is that you don't know what the word liberal means. That must suck for you.

Today, we have a ticket composed of two western conservatives with a track record of reforming government. I see every reason for optimism and no reason to think that this will be anything even remotely like Bush.

Today the GOP has a ticket composed of two solid Bush backers. McCain and Palin are huge supporters of Bushonomics, Bush's far right social policy positions and Bush's reckless foreign policy decisions. I see every reason to believe that McCain/Palin represent more of the same.

If you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, it's fair to question your judgment. According to the guy you voted for, twice:

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on.... shame on you. Fool me.... you can't get fooled again.

You've been fooled twice. Now you're going for the trifecta. Four more years of the same.

Some people never learn.

Joe said...

Since you have a proven track record of being wrong, I assume you'll vote for McCain/Palin in 2008.

That makes no sense. Bush hasn't been a terrible president--my complaint is that it was more a missed opportunity than anything. But since you suffer from BDS, I don't expect you do understand that.

Gore and Kerry would have been dreadful presidents as Obama will be if elected. (And though not nominated, Huckabee would have been dreadful--had McCain picked him as the VP candidate, I would have sat out this election.)

Rose said...

You can say all that with a straight face, krylovite? Knowing what Al Gore has turned into? Ignoring his ulterior motives for the Global Warming tour? Ignoring all the hypocrisy? Ignoring the fact that he did nothing for 8 years when he had some power?

Same with Onama - what did he ever do while in office that gives you ANY indication that he will solve all the world's ills?

Hilarious.

Joe said...

krylovite, you really don't get it. McCain is not another Bush. For one, he's actually believably conservative. Even if he were I'll take either Bush's or McCain's economics over Obama's Marxism. (And what were Gore's and Kerry's economics? Oh yeah, only slightly less liberal than Obama's--you know the ones that Obama said he's now having second thoughts about so he won't worsen the economy.)

krylovite said...

That's a lie.

Not really. You're spinning. Palin said this too:

I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.

Does Palin have a hotline to God? Must be since Palin knows that God wants that gas line built!

Spin away Simon.

Michael_H said...

"I would like to hear her talk about her religious views, at least how they guide her decisions as government head."

Alpha, get a sense of history. Read up on Jimmy Carter, the Democrat president who was fundamentalist Christian and whose beliefs guided his decisions as President.

A side note: I'm on the fence as to which candidate will receive my vote. If the Dem side is filled with folks like you.....I want no part of it.

Kirk Parker said...

Simon,

But we're all supposed to be acting as if He might come back in our lifetimes--nay, as if it might happen this very moment. And it's not just American right-wing fundies who think so, either.

"a good choice for women"

As if women were some monolithic bloc of voters (or citizens.)

krylovite said...

That makes no sense. Bush hasn't been a terrible president

This is where you should pull your head out of your ass. Your nearly eight year proctological self-examination has gone on long enough.

Gore and Kerry would have been dreadful presidents as Obama will be if elected.

All speculation. On one hand you have the fact that Bush has been a dreadful president. You were wrong twice - your judgment was poor.

On the other hand you have your speculation about a Democratic president (Gore, Kerry, Obama). How did the last Democratic president work out Joe? A whole helluva lot better than Bush, that's for sure.

I've gotta tell ya Joe, I'd go with facts over speculation. Speculation got you Bush. Now is no time for more of the same.

Mixalhs said...

Ann:

The fundamental flaw in your understanding of feminism is your belief that any woman -- by virtue of being a woman -- is somehow a feminist. You've made this point before by saying you don't like posts where men argue feminist points. Newsbreak: men can be feminists; some women are not feminists.

A few points:

That quote from Washington Post has nothing to do with opposing Palin as not-a-feminist. It's about the Republican party choosing Palin just to appeal to women (ex-Hillary) voters. You can challenge the accuracy of that claim, but you can hardly challenge the fact that if it is indeed true, it is insulting to women, the message being: Women should vote for women because they are women.

As for the accuracy of the statement itself, it seems pretty clear. Palin herself in the Gibson interview opined that Barack must be "sorry" now that he didn't choose Hillary as his running mate. Why is that, Palin?

Also, her blatant appeals to Hillary voters by referencing her with praise and admiration in dozens of speeches is transparent.

It's also a change in position. In the Gibson interview, Candidate Palin praises Hillary's toughness, resolve, and grace during the campaign. Non-Candidate Palin critized Hillary for "whining" when she came under sexist attack.

Kirk Parker said...

Kim,

"There is nothing obnoxious about pointing out Palin and McCain's desire to see their particular religious beliefs enshrined in law."

That's correct, so feel free to point out some particulars.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Has Bush been worse than Carter, Johnson (both), Buchanan? Not even close.

Voting against Gore and Kerry wasn't mere speculation--look at their records. They're both serial liars and do nothings. Gore claimed he was going to things as president he didn't bother to try to do in all his previous years holding various public offices. Same with Kerry.

Since Kerry ran, what has he done as senator? Not much at all. Why didn't he take all these "great" ideas he proposed and try to enact them into law as senator?

I've gotta tell ya Joe, I'd go with facts over speculation. Speculation got you Bush. Now is no time for more of the same.

How about the fact that Obama is a Marxist? That he's incredibly corrupt? That he's taken more money from the very institutions he's demanding to regulate more than just about anyone? That he advocated invading a nuclear power who is an ally? That he's done nothing significant in his short years in Congress.

(Bush, on the other hand, did defeat the Taliban. He reduced taxes on the middle-class. His economic policies resulted in a great economic expansion. The economy is still actually very strong and resilient. The current wall street situation is almost entirely due to bad mortgages and and you can look squarely at Clinton, Greenspan, Dodd, Obama, etc. for that. You can't encourage an institution to give loans to high risk buyers AND turn a blind eye to the absolute corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac AND put the blame elsewhere. Yes, Bush is also at fault for not publicly humiliating Dodd, Obama and the other crooks in the senate and for not insisting FANMAC be held, for exmple, to the same capital requirements as banks.)

former law student said...

How about the fact that Obama is a Marxist? That he's incredibly corrupt?
How about the fact that Obama is a space alien? That he has three biological parents? Because these are just as factual as the Marxist and corruption facts.

That he's taken more money from the very institutions he's demanding to regulate more than just about anyone?

Except Bush in 2004 and the current set of Presidential candidates.

That he advocated invading a nuclear power who is an ally?

Why not? Bush advocated that too, two whole years ago:

Bush would send troops inside Pakistan to catch bin Laden
POSTED: 1:44 a.m. EDT, September 22, 2006


NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would order U.S. forces to go after Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan if he received good intelligence on the fugitive al Qaeda leader's location.

"Absolutely," Bush said.


Great minds think alike.

That he's done nothing significant in his short years in Congress.

McCain hasn't done anything significant since 2002, so there's a low bar. He can't rest on his laurels forever, you know. If McCain's slowing down, easing up, why doesn't he just retire?

former law student said...

But we're all supposed to be acting as if He might come back in our lifetimes--nay, as if it might happen this very moment.

If you believed the world would end in your lifetime, you might not see any problem with burning up all of America's remaining oil, or with despoliating America's wilderness areas. If you believed the Rapture was a good ways off, you might want to save some things for future generations to enjoy.

Arturius said...

I would like to hear her talk about her religious views, at least how they guide her decisions as government head.

As opposed to any other presidential candidate? Last time I checked, nearly every US President has expressed a belief in a diety or has made some reference to their faith guiding their life. Why Palin's religious beliefs should be subjected to special scrutiny versus Obama, McCain or Biden's suggests a particular bias on your part.

Henry said...

Mixalhs -- I would point out to you that none of your points make Palin "not a woman."

It is simply perverse to take the attempt by Republicans to reach out to women voters and treat it as insult to women. The only way to reach that conclusion is to join an incredibly narrow definition of women's issues with the utmost condescension for those who would vote for her.

Of course, that was exactly the response of many leftwing feminists, from Gloria Steinem's conflation of feminism and socialism to Judith Warner's mockery of people with regional accents.

In a democracy, voters have the power. Republicans realize that and respond to it. Leftwing accusations of Republican bad faith simply illustrate their contempt for the voters.

If Palin is a bad candidate, tell us why based on issues and record. The fact that so many on the left focused their attacks on her gender tells us nothing about Palin and everything about the character of these critics.

Simon said...

Kirk Parker said...
"Simon, But we're all supposed to be acting as if He might come back in our lifetimes--nay, as if it might happen this very moment."

I don't have any problem with that. That is a very different proposition, however, to thinking that by sheer coincidence, after two millennia away, Christ is coming back to earth during the blink of the Almighty's eye in which any of us are here.

Cedarford said...

Wendy Doniger - The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

Wendy Doniger, born in 1940 to a wealthy NYC Jewish family with radical politics in it's blood. Radcliffe, Harvard MA, PhD. Oxford PhD. Radical feminism booster since the mid-70s. Ensconced in UofChicago since 1978.

Who never sullied her family's good name with a day spent in the working class - yet - an expert on working class women. As opposed to Palin, who has worked for paychecks before advancing to signing them, gutted fish for a living at one time, and did all sorts of menial things for the foul malignancies that emerged from her exploited womb.

Wendy Doniger - a "real woman". Unlike Palin and other stupid goy proles.

The Drill SGT said...

I found it fasinating that of the 20 quotes:

13 from women
3 from men
4 unclear

Arturius said...

That makes no sense. Bush hasn't been a terrible president

That remains to be seen. Certainly the last nearly 8 years of his administration could hardly be characterized as stellar or even adequate if you were to look at say the last 20-25 years. Bush Sr. was cast out after one term due to a blip in the economy which by today’s standards could be looked at as the Golden Years. Like it or not, the Clinton years were boom times and as with good or bad times, the man in charge gets the credit or the blame.

Bush’s legacy will be Iraq and it will probably take that nation’s transformation as the Middle East’s version of South Korea for him to be vindicated. Otherwise, he might want to think of starting his own version of Habitat for Humanity to rescue his legacy.

TMink said...

FLS wrote: "This sort of "In Case of Rapture, This Car Will Be Unmanned" bumpersticker religion disturbs me."

FLS, I do not have that bumpersticker. Mine say "Got Triplets?" and "Friends don't let friends smoke bad cigars." But as an evangelical Christian, it would not be outside my theology to have that sticker.

What about people like me and Governor Palin disturb you? Do you have any Evangelical friends?

I cannot answer for anyone else's spirituality, but if you want to ask me any questions about Evangelical Christianity I would certinaly try to give you an honest, respectful answer.

Trey

Henry said...

If you thought the rapture was coming, wouldn't you be trying to be really, really, really good?

TMink said...

FLS wrote about Pentacostals "Only snakehandlers are further out of the mainstream."

Oh my no! There are MANY weirder sects than Pentacostals! Here in Nashville, Tony Alamo had a cult that kept his dead wife out for WEEKS while they waited to raise her. WEEKS! He also hated Catholics if I remember correctly.

Then there are the Coptic Christians that believe in the divinity of Christ but live like Rastafarians! Rumour has it that Bob Marley converted shortly before his death.

Then there are the "churches" that have abandoned belief! The Unitarian's come to mind. We cannot forget Liberation Theology Churches which posit that Jesus was Black and Africans are the chosen people.

My own denomination wanted local churches to say things like "Mother Womb" to refer to God! So trust me as someone who has quite an interest in the various forms and subcultures of Christianity, Pentecostals are interesting and certainly conservative, but not as weird as it gets!


Also, within the Pentecostal associations, there is wide variety between individual churches. Theirs is a very local structure, so the variety is emphasized.

My last job I worked with two fine Pentecostal people. We began each day with prayer, we tithed off the top of our earnings to a charity of our choice, it was cool. The other two spoke in tongues, but not around me. They love me and do not want to make me feel uncomfortable. You do not have to speak in tongues to go to their church, and people do not do that in public settings.

Now THERE is an interesting question. I would ask Governor Palin if she has been baptized in the Holy Spirit and spoken in heavenly languages. I am a Christian, and have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit, but glossolalia has so far eluded me.

And I bet it continues to!

Trey

TMink said...

kyrovite wrote: "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.

Does Palin have a hotline to God?"

See, your problem K, aside from being a snippy troll, is that you do not understand the words she said.

She asked OTHERS to pray. If she had a hotline to God, she would have simply used it. No need to ask for other's to pray if you have a hotline.

She is praying for GOD's will. We Christians do that. It is an act of love and trust and devotion and HUMILITY on our part.

Father, not my will, but thine be done. Jesus said that. We are big on Jesus!

If Jesus was humble before God then we as His followers seek to be as well. And when something is not God's will, we appologize and accept it as such. God is God, and we are not. We get that. You don't, but we do.

Now I have no idea if it was God's will for that pipeline to get built, but I sure thank Him that it IS getting built.

And so should you.

Trey

TMink said...

"If you thought the rapture was coming, wouldn't you be trying to be really, really, really good?"

Hell yes!

Trey

Mixalhs said...

henry:

I agree that it is ridiculous to say that Palin is not a woman. She clearly is. But other than that slight implication, the balance of the quote has nothing to do with Palin's woman status.

In any event, your post demonstrates precisely the type of twisting and turning Palin defenders have to engage in in order to make their point:

(1) The only way to reach that conclusion is to join an incredibly narrow definition of women's issues with the utmost condescension for those who would vote for her.

No one knew who Palin was when she was announced as McCain's VP pick. No one knew what issues she stands for or how they relate to women. Yet, even before her convention speech, she had instant supporters, many among women. Why? Because: (a) some women bought the "I'm supposed to vote for her because she's a woman" argument; and (b), and I suspect most people fall into this category, the Republicans finally got their superstar, American Idol candidate (you know, one to serve the role they accused Obama of playing, and forcing them to tacitly retract their position that this campaign shouldn't be about popularity). Do I have condescension for these voters? Indeed. They decided to jump on a bandwagon when they knew -- and in most cases still don't know -- anything about a candidate. Up until now, we've only heard Palin speak original thoughts once, in the Gibson interview (if that counts because her responses were so clearly canned). It's like supporting an image, not a candidate. It's sad.

(2) Leftwing accusations of Republican bad faith

I don't think terms like "leftwing" have any value here. The official Republican meme that the liberal media has "attacked" Palin "unfairly" is utterly weak on its face and doesn't even dignify a response except to say that everything good and everything bad about Palin came from the media. People love her, so how it computes that the media is "out to get her" is beyond me.

(3) simply illustrate their contempt for the voters.

Lovely piece of typical conservative propaganda. "Liberals hate voters." Ha. Laughable. That doesn't even make sense; they'd have to hate themselves, since many are voters. Drinking the koolaid, much?

(4) If Palin is a bad candidate, tell us why based on issues and record. The fact that so many on the left focused their attacks on her gender tells us nothing about Palin and everything about the character of these critics.

The "left" hasn't been focused on her gender. Plenty has come to surface about her lack of experience or knowledge, her abuse of earmarks, her lying about abusing earmarks, the outrageous debt she saddled on Wasilla, etc.

The Republicans with their stop-at-nothing tactics have injected her gender into the discourse and then claimed foul.

If you want to talk about character, take a look McCain-Palin's lie campaign. It's appalling.

Revenant said...

Certainly the last nearly 8 years of his administration could hardly be characterized as stellar or even adequate if you were to look at say the last 20-25 years.

Well, yes, but if you look at the last 40-45 years suddenly Bush doesn't look so bad anymore -- Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were all disasters. The period from 1983 through around 1999 was unusually GOOD for America.

That aside, I think Bush has been a bad President.

Mixalhs said...

tmink:

Now I have no idea if it was God's will for that pipeline to get built, but I sure thank Him that it IS getting built.

See, this is the problem with those kinds of "prayers." You say you don't know if it's God's will for the pipeline to be built. Well, what if it's not? It doesn't matter to you, so you "thank Him."

In other words, you are injecting your own desires into "prayer" in order to sanctify them. When Palin "prays" that the war be God's will, she is making a suggestion to God as to what His will should be. She's not asking neutrally, "what is Your will?" She's going forward with the war, "hope that's okay." Well, what if it's not?

That's why these types of prayers are anything but "humble."

Revenant said...

No one knew who Palin was when she was announced as McCain's VP pick.

I did, as did many or most of the regulars here. She's been discussed as a good VP pick (or future Presidential candidate) for months.

Revenant said...

I would like to hear her talk about her religious views

It would be nice to hear all the candidates talk about their religious views. For example, does Barack Obama share his church's belief that white people are the enemy and God exists to serve the interests of blacks?

That's an interesting question I'm sure plenty of voters would like to hear answered.

Arturius said...

Well, yes, but if you look at the last 40-45 years suddenly Bush doesn't look so bad anymore -- Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were all disasters. The period from 1983 through around 1999 was unusually GOOD for America.

I agree. History tends to put things such as presidential performance into perspective.

That aside, I think Bush has been a bad President.

I would also agree mainly because I think he focused soley on Iraq at the expense of ignoring or at best, incapable of dealing with a mounting financial crisis not to mention doubling the nation's debt while sovereign wealth funds have been buying up American businessess as if it were a weekend rummage sale.

Again, it remains to be seen if Iraq and the financial fallout will ultimately make Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter years look good.

chickenlittle said...

I don't know about obnoxious, but here's the most risible thing said today about Palin:

From Josh Marshall:
"The fall back defense, when claims about Obama's 'taint' fall flat, is that Palin's someone who 'shakes things up'. That's what she's done in Alaska and that's what she's going to do in Washington.

I guess Marshall is really trying to bring the fish and the bicycle thing together at last.

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

Mixalhs, the context of Ann's post are specific attacks on Palin by specific individuals, many of them left-of-center women, many of them specifically attacking her gender.

I specifically mention two more attacks -- Steinem's and Warner's -- and both of us reference a third -- that of Donigers.

That's the context of my remarks.

C o n t e x t. Look it up.

I do enjoy your claim that the Republicans "injected gender" into the campaign. Did you notice that Obama also "injected gender" into the campaign? Yes, Joe Biden does have a gender.

TMink said...

mix wrote: "You say you don't know if it's God's will for the pipeline to be built. Well, what if it's not? It doesn't matter to you, so you "thank Him.""

You miss the point. We are always looking for God's will. We want our choices to follow it, we want to further it through our choices. We are sniffing around for it. It is part of our alternative lifestyle.

And with this pipeline coming through at this time, I smell a blessing. Every good and perfect gift comes from God. I bet the pipeline is not perfect, but I would bet one of mine that it is good. So I thank God.

You think we are projecting because you think we are "primitive" and unable to recognize when we are outside of God's will. I bet you do not have the thought "Will this choice glorify God" twice a lifetime. Right? We have it twice a minute.

In truth, God's will does not matter to you, but it matters deeply to us. That is why you did not understand her when she prayed that sending troops into battle was God's will. We worry about following God's will. You do not.

You thought she was asking God to want us to go to war. That is incorrect. She was praying for our clarity and obedience.

She prays that the war is just, the implication that is clear to those of us who worry about God's will is that if it is not just she expects God to let us know so we can stop.

Maybe that is the part you guys who are not believers do not get. We spend very little time asking God to change what He wants, we pray to change what we want. This is a small key to being able to follow what we are saying in a post Christian world.

Trey

Kirk Parker said...

FLS,

It might be a good idea for you to read the relevant passages from the Gospels first, before claiming that the message they convey is "Jesus is coming back to rescue you, so it doesn't matter what you do."

(Hint: they don't.)

Trey,

Coptics that live like Rastas? What on earth does that mean??? Say more, please; I have some Coptic in-laws, and this doesn't ring any bells with me at all.

krylovite said...

How about the fact that Obama is a Marxist?

I keep tellin' ya Joe.... Pull your head outta your ass.

krylovite said...

She is praying for GOD's will. We Christians do that. It is an act of love and trust and devotion and HUMILITY on our part.

Jesus, Airball, you are totally clueless.

Read again what Palin said:

I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.

Palin is telling us that God's will is to have the damn gas line built. How the hell does she claim to know God's will? Claiming to know God's will is not an act of HUMILITY.

Basically Palin is full of shit and you are too. You're both willing to use religion to carry your political beliefs. That's unbelievably cynical Air Ball.

knox said...

Isn't it interesting that so many of those quotes are from women. With friends like that...

Sarah Palin's nomination has revealed that when most feminists refer to "women," they have a very, very narrow, specific, politically idealized picture in their mind of what that means. You basically have to either be either:

1. a leftist, or

2. looking for a handout from leftists.

Anyone else is a poser.

She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women

This is the funniest line. Certainly a woman from a small town, who has worked as a commercial fisherman, couldn't possibly speak for "working class women"! No! it takes a woman like Amanda "Fucking" Marcotte to really understand.

whatever.

krylovite said...

Unbelievable! I just finished my last post and then my cell phone rang. Who do you think it was?

It was God. Holy shit! How do you think he got my number?

Anyway, he told me that he changed his mind about the gas line. He's drawn up a whole new set of plans and the gas line is definitely out. I asked if he's 100% certain this time, and he said yes, so I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to scrap the gas line, so pray for that.

Actually God was kind of chatty so he told me some other things too. For example, it's God's will that I become a millionaire by the end of the week. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to send me cash, so pray for that. (Remember, actions speak louder than words!)

I could go on but what's the point? God's getting pissed off at you fake Christians who pretend to know his will. He told me so. Using religion as cover for the sake of a political agenda is very naughty. Assuming you believe in God of course. Because most people who sincerely believe in God don't pretend to know his will in order to sell the public on a gas line. People who do things like that end up in Hell. Or so I've been told.

Mixalhs said...

Henry:

I didn't mean that Republican's injected gender into the campaign just by choosing Palin. They injected gender into the campaign by claiming sexism in response to questions like: "is she qualified?" That's what I meant.

While I consider some commentary highly inappropriate (i.e., how can she be VP and raise a family), I think her proclamation that she "decided" to keep her child and the fact that her 17-year-old unwed daughter is pregnant are relevant because they signficantly undermine and contradict her positions. That isn't sexist; it's true. It would be true of Obama, as well.

I will point out that the "how can she run a country and be a mother of five" line of questions often comes from women who are mothers. You know, those voters that the Republicans apparently also despise.

rhhardin said...

Some people just want God to notice them.

Revenant said...

I think her proclamation that she "decided" to keep her child and the fact that her 17-year-old unwed daughter is pregnant are relevant because they signficantly undermine and contradict her positions.

How?

Joe said...

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

- Karl Marx

Equal pay for equal work is just rephrasing that.

His other views on class struggle, liberation theology, his contempt for religion, how he phrases his arguments about society and foreign policy all clearly reflect someone who has been steeped in Marxist philosophy and still believes it--or maybe he's just using the rhetoric and doesn't believe in anything. Take your pick.

Beth said...

She's been discussed as a good VP pick (or future Presidential candidate) for months.

Yes, but most of that centered on her being a good strategic choice, not on her particular record, policy positions, abilities, experience -- in fact, all surface level, just as I'm seeing now. She's a soccer mom, she's a pit bull. She's a hunter, she's a MILF. And that's all from the GOP fan side.

Mixalhs said...

Henry et al.

Re-reading the posts, it semms you miss (or intentionally ignore) the central criticism behind using Palin to attract women voters.

Conservatives are the quintessence of anti-woman. They are the ones who (at one time or another) advocate imposing glass ceilings, restricting voting to just men, keeping her in the home (by social norm, not by choice), imposing Government ownership of her body, blaming her for rape, and many many more.

They are also the ones who refused to acknowledge the sexism underlying many comments about Hillary Clinton, or that sexism or racism exist at all!

It is on this backdrop that they have insulted (some of) our intelligence and put an inexperienced, pagent-winner-gone-governor as their VP pick. They have also told us how great she was because she "decided" to keep her special-needs baby, how she's a "hockey mom," and how she "wears lipstick." They've also had her praise Hillary (whom she previously criticized in) in an amazing about-face.

Now, having made sex so central, by both bringing it up whenever opportune (or even when not) and by calling out to Hillary voters, they cry: SEXISM! This leaves many of us (those who have been paying attention for the last 30 years) in a state of shock.

Of course, people forget (or in the case of many GOP supporters, never knew) that McCain left his wife for a younger, more attractive, sugar momma. He's suddnely the candidate for women?

Simply put, when a candidate's only qualification (read: reason for being chosen) seems to be that she is a "lipstick[-wearing], hockey mom," some women (and men!) are (expectedly) upset that their intelligence has been thus insulted.

Joe said...

They injected gender into the campaign by claiming sexism in response to questions like: "is she qualified?"

Nice rewriting of history. The questions weren't simply "is she qualified?" Critics first added several conditions, just like you just did.

I will point out that the "how can she run a country and be a mother of five" line of questions often comes from women who are mothers.

Bullshit. This line comes almost exclusively from males. Regardless, this is a purely sexist comment no matter who says it.

Cedarford said...

Revenent - Well, yes, but if you look at the last 40-45 years suddenly Bush doesn't look so bad anymore -- Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were all disasters. The period from 1983 through around 1999 was unusually GOOD for America.

That aside, I think Bush has been a bad President.


I wouldn't call LBJ or Nixon disasters, unlike Carter and Bush. The difference is that both were elected by huge margins after being in office. Meaning voters very much approved of their Presidencies for most of their terms. Both left in disgrace over one matter - but historians and regular people are now seeing that aside from FDR, Nixon and LBJ were the most consequential Presidents of the 20th Century - with the most significant changes and policies - with most of what they did considered "good calls" by them. More consequential than TDR, Wilson, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan, or Clinton.
They left lasting, enduring legacies that voters have not rejected.

As another poster said, about the only thing that could possibly bail out Bush's legacy is if Iraq turns into the S Korea or the postwar peaceful democratic and prosperous Japan of the ME.

===============

Of course Bush may be commemorated for cluelessly being the vehicle by which clueless Religious Right, radical supply siders, cunning Neocons, and "free tradeaway" of middle class jobs globalists all were dragged down into the toilet and flushed away. Along with Bush II. Add in as a bonus the netroots nuts and MSM as additional turds flushed - from their discrediting as deranged haters of various Bushies outside all proportion to the Bushies incompetence, for being caught fabricating stories, and for the wakeup call they gave women by assailing Palin.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yes, but most of that centered on her being a good strategic choice, not on her particular record, policy positions, abilities, experience -- in fact, all surface level, just as I'm seeing now.

While that may be true, it certainly begs the question as to why the Hope and Change candidate picked a VP who is everything but.

From what I have heard, Biden was there to shore up Bambi's lack of foreign policy cred and provide a sense of gravitas.

William said...

TMink: Thanks for several informative and interesting posts. You present a good defense of your beliefs.....I think the tacit subtext of all prayer is that we pray for the grace to accept God's will.....I think that it's a fair bet that many of your critics have beliefs a great deal more bizarre than speaking in tongues or even snake handling.

Revenant said...

Yes, but most of that centered on her being a good strategic choice, not on her particular record, policy positions, abilities, experience -- in fact, all surface level, just as I'm seeing now.

Her record, policy positions, abilities, and experience are the main *reason* she was discussed as a good strategic pick for McCain and the main reason she was seen as a potential future Presidential candidate even if McCain hadn't picked her. She's got executive experience, unlike McCain and both of his Democratic rivals. She's a Reagan conservative, which appeals to people sick of big government conservatism of the Bush/McCain variety. She has genuine achievements as a reformer in the notoriously corrupt Alaskan government. Etc, etc. That she's a woman is merely a bonus -- after all, we couldn't have known that Obama was going to pick some crusty old white dude instead of Hillary. Perhaps most importantly, she's not part of the Washington establishment.

You think our interest in her has been strictly "surface level" because you haven't paid attention.

Revenant said...

Conservatives are the quintessence of anti-woman.

Yawn.

krylovite said...

Yawn.

Uh oh, Republicans are now resorting to their favorite rebuttal - the big fake yawn! I bet that "pretend to be bored to try to conceal your cluelessness" strategy was a big winner for you in school. Stick with it!

chickenlittle said...

@krylovite:

Super fucking yawn!

Mixalhs said...

Revenant:

I hope you're joking.

Her record, policy positions, abilities, and experience are the main *reason* she was discussed as a good strategic pick for McCain and the main reason she was seen as a potential future Presidential candidate even if McCain hadn't picked her.

You are the only person (from either camp) trying to claim this was a well-thought out plan.

She's got executive experience, unlike McCain and both of his Democratic rivals.

This is one of those extremely misleading statements that Republicans like to make time and time again. Yes, it's technically true, but it doesn't follow (as it is intended to imply) that she is qualified. A person elected as a tribe leader of a 5-preson tribe in the jungle has more "executive" experience than all of those people, too, even after one day of "executive" service. It doesn't prove anything.

She's a Reagan conservative, which appeals to people sick of big government conservatism of the Bush/McCain variety. She has genuine achievements as a reformer in the notoriously corrupt Alaskan government. Etc, etc.

Was this before or after she took millions of dollar in earmarks, put her town in millions of debt, and charged Alaskan per diems for 300+ days she spent at home as "away from the office"?

That she's a woman is merely a bonus -- after all, we couldn't have known that Obama was going to pick some crusty old white dude instead of Hillary.

Yeah, you knew. This is why McCain waited and chose Palin until long afte Biden had been chosen. Purely reactive.

Perhaps most importantly, she's not part of the Washington establishment.

By choice? Sorry, I mean by decision? I have no part of Washington, either, am I qualified for president? In other words, your point is code for: she has no experience.

You think our interest in her has been strictly "surface level" because you haven't paid attention.

We've paid attention, alright. We watched as people who had no idea who she was one day, the very next day began her biggest supporter.

It doesn't matter though. The glamor will fade and you will lose in November. I have some faith in the American people, even if there are people like you out there.

(NOTE: I'm sure you were voting for McCain anyway. I actually don't think Palin is responsible for that much of anything. She inviograted the people who'd vote for McCain anyway. Big whoop.)

Mixalhs said...

Joe:

Bullshit. This line comes almost exclusively from males. Regardless, this is a purely sexist comment no matter who says it.

Prove it. I guess neither of us can. I don't think men actually even think about that issue, though. I think you are pretty much dead wrong on that. But everything else you utter is intensely flawed, too, so there's no reason this should be any exception.

Donn said...

Mix,

You said:

I think her proclamation that she "decided" to keep her child and the fact that her 17-year-old unwed daughter is pregnant are relevant because they signficantly undermine and contradict her positions.

and Rev responded:

How?

I also would like an answer to that question.

krylovite said...

But everything else you utter is intensely flawed, too, so there's no reason this should be any exception.

But... does this mean Obama isn't a Marxist? I mean, Joe's proof was so convincing!

krylovite said...

Knowing what Al Gore has turned into? Ignoring his ulterior motives for the Global Warming tour? Ignoring all the hypocrisy?

Come on now Rose - you Republicans have no problem with hypocrisy. You nominate hypocrites all the time. On that basis, doesn't your concern about what you consider Al Gore's hypocrisy seem completely hypocritical?

Ignoring the fact that he did nothing for 8 years when he had some power?

I don't know why you want to advertise your ignorance. The fact that you don't know what Al Gore did as Vice President isn't Al Gore's fault. Take some personal responsibility. That's what the GOP preaches, right? Or does the GOP encourage preaching without practicing? Yeah, that's probably it.

what did [Obama] ever do while in office that gives you ANY indication that he will solve all the world's ills?

After 8 years of the disaster known as Bush, I'm willing to settle for anyone who doesn't keep increasing the world's ills. I'm not sure Obama can clean up the huge mess that Bush has made, but I'm willing to bet that he won't make it worse. I can't say the same for McCain. I don't think America can take four more years of the same. It's time for real change, not more of the same.

Mixalhs said...

Rev, Donn:

Thanks, Donn, for pointing out that Rev had asked "how." I didn't see that. :-)

Okay, I said:

I think her proclamation that she "decided" to keep her child and the fact that her 17-year-old unwed daughter is pregnant are relevant because they signficantly undermine and contradict her positions.

(1) Palin's people have made a big deal about how she "decided" to keep her child despite his Down's Syndrome. We are supposed to think this is somehow noble. But her position is that abortion is NOT an option. She believes that there is no choice to be made. If that were true, then why should she get any credit whatsoever for keeping her baby, that's just what she is supposed to do.

To illustrate, think about this. It is generally accepted that it's better for new fathers to stay and raise their kids, and not to leave their wife behind. Right? Now imagine that Barack Obama campaigned by saying: "I didn't leave my daughters. I stayed to raise them. See, I'm doing what's right." He would never do that. Simply put, if something is so obviously the right thing to do, then you shouldn't seek credit or even mention it, it should be a given. That Palin's baby's Down's Syndrome has even come up seems to contradict the position that there should be no "choice" to make. Some have gone so far as to say that she made the choice she doesn't want other women to be able to make. Same with Bristol Palin's chioce:

http://www.comedy.com/embed/bristol-palin-s-choice

(2) There is most definitely irony is someone (like Palin) advocating abstinence education as an effective method of educating the youth when she and her husband were unable to engrain those values in their own child (Bristol) who is now pregnant.

Donn said...

Hi Mix,

Thanks for your response.

I can see where you are coming from on (1), however, I think the important thing that people see is that she is consistent with her beliefs, and I think we can agree, this is many times not the case. In fact, this is exactly the point you try to make with (2).

As far as your second point, from what I understand, Bristol attended public schools and thus did have comprehensive sex-ed. Even it that wasn't true, it no way invalidates the "abstinence" pov, because as any parent knows, kids often don't follow the advice they receive from their parents.

Further, if you try to use that line of argument, then it can be turned around by pointing out that even though hundreds of teens do go through sex-ed, they still end up getting pregnant. Are you willing to stay consistent and then say this obviously invalidates comprehensive sex-ed?

Revenant said...

But her position is that abortion is NOT an option. She believes that there is no choice to be made.

She believes that there are three available choices (abortion, adoption, and keeping the child), of which one (abortion) is morally wrong. Saying she believes there is no choice to be made is idiotic. Obviously there's a choice to be made, just as when you find somebody's wallet you have the choice between stealing it and returning it -- it is just that there's only one choice that is morally right.

(2) There is most definitely irony [etc]

Obviously. Now answer the question: how does Bristol's pregnancy "undermine and contradict" Sarah Palin's belief that unmarried teenagers shouldn't have sex? You could argue that it undermines her opposition to birth-control based sex education... if it wasn't for the fact that that's the exact form of sex ed Bristol received in school.

The simple fact is that Bristol's pregnancy supports Palin's position: Bristol was taught about birth control and got pregnant anyway. She should have abstained from sex.

krylovite said...

She believes that there are three available choices (abortion, adoption, and keeping the child)

This isn't accurate. Palin believes that women shouldn't have the choice of abortion available to them. Therefore Palin's position is that women should get NO CHOICE whatsoever about giving birth, including giving birth in cases of incest and rape.

By the way, your attempt to change the argument by pretending in this context that "keep" means two different things simultaneously is lame. Adoption is not a "third option" apart from abortion and giving birth. Adoption implies that you also make the decision to have the baby. In this case, the first decision that Palin made was whether to carry the fetus to term. That decision leads to a second choice: keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption.

Lastly, if you again consider the context, the choice of putting the baby up for adoption was NOT really a serious possibility in this case. Any woman who decides to keep a baby with Down's Syndrome surely is also making a decision to care for the child with Down's Syndrome. A baby with DS isn't an infant that would get passed on to someone else.

Saying she believes there is no choice to be made is idiotic.

It's not at all idiotic - it's perfectly accurate. Palin believes that woman should have NO choice about giving birth if they become pregnant, even in cases of incest and rape.

The subsequent decision about whether to raise the baby or put it up for adoption is a red herring in this argument.

Revenant said...

"She believes that there are three available choices (abortion, adoption, and keeping the child)"

Palin believes that women shouldn't have the choice of abortion available to them.

I believe idiots shouldn't try to argue with me, yet here you are. This concludes today's lesson in the difference between the actual world we live in and the world we wish we lived in.

Sarah Palin had the choice to abort. That's simple reality. Argue with it all you like; it amuses me to watch you humiliate yourself in public.

Arturius said...

She believes that there are three available choices (abortion, adoption, and keeping the child), of which one (abortion) is morally wrong.

There is actually a fourth choice which is not to become pregnant at all. Considering that birth control is so easily available today, its almost inconceivable (pardon the pun) that anyone who has a shred of common sense can would have an unwanted pregnancy.

Personally I have no dog in the abortion fight but I think it speaks to a larger issue which is the abdication of personal responsibility to the extent that human life becomes as disposable as a used razor blade.

krylovite said...

Rev,
You republican lightweights really crack me up. You like to claim intellectual superiority and then with every new post you disprove it. You talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk. You're all blow and no show. Your mouth keeps writing checks that your ass can't cover.

Here's your problem in a nutshell: Like a poor chess player, you think one step at a time. While you busy yourself employing cynical and dishonest debate tactics in order to object to each new fact brought to bear in a line of argument, you lose sight of the original point and often end up contradicting your initial position. That's not a sign of genius, dude. That's a sign of a person who doesn't know his own intellectual limits.

This is the starting point of the argument made by Mixalhs, since you seem to have forgotten:

I think her proclamation that she "decided" to keep her child and the fact that her 17-year-old unwed daughter is pregnant are relevant because they signficantly undermine and contradict her positions.... Palin's people have made a big deal about how she "decided" to keep her child despite his Down's Syndrome. We are supposed to think this is somehow noble. But her position is that abortion is NOT an option. She believes that there is no choice to be made. If that were true, then why should she get any credit whatsoever for keeping her baby, that's just what she is supposed to do.

Mixalhs is correct in stating that Palin has a moral objection to abortion. Her moral objection is absolute. She doesn't even accept abortion as an option in cases of rape or incest. She doesn't believe that abortion is a choice to be made on a case-by-case basis. Palin does not recognize abortion as a choice for herself, and she believes it should be prohibited as a legal option for other women in every circumstance.

Here's the key point Rev: Palin's objection to abortion is absolute - according to her stated beliefs, it is NOT an option for her. It's not a choice that depends on circumstance.

This is your first response:

She believes that there are three available choices (abortion, adoption, and keeping the child), of which one (abortion) is morally wrong. Saying she believes there is no choice to be made is idiotic.

As I pointed out, your attempt to include adoption as part of Palin's "choice" in this instance is a red herring. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't honestly believe that Palin's decision to "keep" her baby refers to a decision about putting her Down's Syndrome baby up for adoption. The adoption angle that you try to introduce into the argument is not at all relevant in Palin's case (i.e., the one we're talking about). You were trying to spin.

That means that Palin's decision to "keep" her baby was a decision relating to abortion. You dishonestly want to pretend that we are discussing her legal options. We aren't. While she retains a legal right to abortion, her moral objection to abortion prohibit her from considering it in any instance. Therefore, if we accept Palin at her word concerning her moral objection to abortion, there was no "decision" about keeping her Down's Syndrome baby.

If you want to argue that Palin's moral objection is not absolute - that is, that she feels that it can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis - then you have the great problem of explaining why she believes abortion should be prohibited in instances of rape. Is it morally acceptable for Palin to consider abortion in the circumstance of a Down's Syndrome baby but to legally deny the option of abortion to a rape victim?

You can't have it both ways. Either she made a decision in which she considered the legal option of abortion or there was no decision to be made at all. If she considered abortion as an option but decided against it, that decision undermines her claim to an absolute moral objection to abortion. If she never considered abortion, then the claim that she "decided" to keep her Down's Syndrome baby is disingenuous. Either way, there's evidence of dishonesty coming from Palin and her handlers.

Face it Rev, you've been schooled. It wouldn't be a big deal if you hadn't made an ass of yourself by claiming to be a super genius. But you've just been spanked by a person you identified as an idiot. That's gotta hurt.

As I keep advising you, if you'll just pull your head out of your ass now and then, you'll get a completely different view of the world. Go on Rev, give it a try.

Arturius said...

Her moral objection is absolute.

Except that isn't true. Palin believes that abortion is wrong except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Therefore her objection is not absolute but is, nuanced, if you will.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Face it Rev, you've been schooled. It wouldn't be a big deal if you hadn't made an ass of yourself by claiming to be a super genius. But you've just been spanked by a person you identified as an idiot.

I just looked at the market and was thoroughly depressed until I read this comment. I’m still wiping away the tears from laughter if you think that you somehow schooled Rev on this topic.

Thanks for the chuckle though.

krylovite said...

Thanks for the chuckle though.

I can't take credit for the amusement of a moron. Hell, a rubberband is all you need for amusement.

krylovite said...

Palin believes that abortion is wrong except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

If we are being picky, your restatement of her position isn't accurate either. She wrote this:

With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued.

(Apparently, writing a complete sentence isn't Sarah Palin's forte.)

In other words, if a doctor can determine with certainty that a continued pregnancy will end the mother's life, then the pregnancy can be terminated.

This is a rather meaningless exception if you think about it. First, doctors can very rarely predict the consequences of health risks with the precision that Palin's stated "exception" demands. Second, if the mother's life could be preserved by any method of delivery of a viable fetus, then there would be no need for an abortion and Palin would prohibit such an abortion.

This particular "exception" refers to the case of a fetus that is not yet viable. If the doctor determines, according to Palin's words, that the mother's life will end if the pregnancy continues, what options are available? Under these circumstances, the likelihood of a mother surviving to produce a viable fetus are infinitesimal. So the choice is between abortion or death of both the mother and fetus.

In other words, Palin's so-called "exception" has no real, practical bearing on the basis of her moral objection to abortion. No fetuses that could become babies are lost under this exception.

In any case, the relevant point is that Palin's so-called "exception" in no way constitutes choice. Palin has an absolute moral objection to the exercise of abortion choice.

Arturius said...

If we are being picky, your restatement of her position isn't accurate either.

Yes it is. You were the one who used the term absolute. Her position holds an exception which no longer makes it an absolute.

With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued.

In other words, if a doctor can determine with certainty that a continued pregnancy will end the mother's life, then the pregnancy can be terminated.


In other words? How about her actual words? Absent a verifiable link, I'll go under the assumption that you used a direct quote from Palin and I don't see the word 'certainty' in there. In other words, you have taken a quote from Palin and re-interpreted by adding a descriptor to fit your argument. That's called building a strawman.

Until such time as the definition of absolute is re-written you stand corrected on this one.

former law student said...

Palin believes that women shouldn't have the choice of abortion available to them.

I believe idiots shouldn't try to argue with me, yet here you are. This concludes today's lesson in the difference between the actual world we live in and the world we wish we lived in.

Sarah Palin had the choice to abort. That's simple reality.


Then Sarah Palin had a choice that she would deny others. This is intuitively unfair. Unless rev is arguing that the abortion-banners are somehow pro-choice because the choice of a back-alley abortion will be available once more. That's simple reality too.

Further, she gets no more credit in Heaven for not aborting than she would for not strangling Trig at birth. Therefore, the moral value of her choice is depreciated, practically nil.

Another person out of touch with reality:

Considering that birth control is so easily available today, its almost inconceivable (pardon the pun) that anyone who has a shred of common sense can would have an unwanted pregnancy.

Even the most reliable birth control method fails 2-4% of the time per year. That's a hell of a lot of unwanted pregnancies. "Common sense" has little to do with it.

Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 31, Number 2, March/April 1999
Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates From the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth
By Haishan Fu, Jacqueline E. Darroch, Taylor Haas and Nalini Ranjit
When contraceptive methods are ranked by effectiveness over the first 12 months of use (corrected for abortion underreporting), the implant and injectables have the lowest failure rates (2-4%), followed by the pill (9%), the diaphragm and the cervical cap (13%), the male condom (15%), periodic abstinence (22%), withdrawal (26%) and spermicides (28%). In general, failure rates are highest among cohabiting and other unmarried women, among those with an annual family income below 200% of the federal poverty level, among black and Hispanic women, among adolescents and among women in their 20s. For example, adolescent women who are not married but are cohabiting experience a failure rate of about 47% in the first year of contraceptive use, while the 12-month failure rate among married women aged 30 and older is only 8%. Black women have a contraceptive failure rate of about 20%, and this rate does not vary by family income; in contrast, overall 12-month rates are lower among Hispanic women (16%) and white women (11%), but vary by income, with poorer women having substantially greater failure rates than more affluent women.

"This concludes today's lesson in the difference between the actual world we live in and the world we wish we lived in."

krylovite said...

Yes it is.

No it isn't. You claim this:

Palin believes that abortion is wrong except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

But Palin wrote this:

With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued.

Here are your errors:

- Palin doesn't just think it's wrong. She thinks it's immoral and should be prohibited as a matter of law.

- You claim that doctors only need to determine that the life of the mother is in jeopardy. But that's not what Palin wrote. Palin makes it clear that doctors need to establish more than risk to the mother's life. In her words, there needs to be a "determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued."

As I showed before, your restatement of her position is inaccurate. Consider yourself corrected on this one.

krylovite said...

Actually I should say one more thing about the quibbling of Arturius.... It's not relevant!

The topic of discussion is whether or not Palin exercised choice in keeping her Down's Syndrome baby. If she considered her options and decided not to abort, as her campaign staff has suggested, then she's undermined her claim that she has a moral basis for her objection to abortion. On the other hand, if she never considered abortion as an option, then her campaign staff is lying when they say she decided to keep the baby.

Either way, it's another example of the dishonesty inherent in the information coming from McCain campaign. I can see why they've sent the dittoheads out in force.

Revenant said...

Then Sarah Palin had a choice that she would deny others. This is intuitively unfair.

I saw a really attractive college girl the other day. I had the choice to rape her. I chose not to. This is obviously both unfair and (somehow) hypocritical, since I believe rape should be illegal.

Mixalhs said...

Rev:

Your example actually makes the point. I don't think you understand what the word "to choose" means. It means to decide among options.

This is different than the mere existence of a possibility.

In your example, are you saying that when you saw this girl, you actually considered the option of raping her and then decided against it? Or are you saying that raping her was just possibility, one you would never considered.

You see, if Sarah or Bristol Palin (or you, in your hypo) actually made a choice, it implies that you considered the options and then selected one.

For example, it's possible for me to jump out of my office building right now. I have never considered that. Using the English language as we all know it, it would simply not be proper to say I chose not to jump out of the window. If someone came into my office and said, "oh, you chose to stay in your office and not to jump out of the window," I'd (rightly) find that to be odd.

Finally, it bears noting that Palin's people publicly announced her "decision" and then lauded it. I doubt that you'd publicly announce your decision not to rape and then seek laud. People who truly believe what they are doing is the only right option, aren't thinking of the alternatives, and therefore not choosing.

KaziA said...

"(Just trying to see how many times I can use the word "post" in one sentence. I hope I'm not dumb as a post. Don't you think "Dumb as a Post" would be a good name for a blog?)"

Too easy, now this does credit to VP selections...


http://dumbasaposte.blogspot.com/