These women are feminists?
I found myself in a very weird comment thread last night on another blog. I have a lot of respect for the blogger but something went horribly wrong in that thread and it occured to me that it is very easy to get the wrong idea about where a person stands with regard to Sarah Palin. I finally understand what is mean by “polarizing” figure. Sarah is becoming one. But there really isn’t any reason why she has to be one, nor is there a reason why we feel we have to take sides.
Let’s examine the facts:
Sarah Palin, no matter how you slice her, is *not* a liberal. She doesn’t believe in the common good, share the risk, allow your neighbors to pull themselves up by their bootstraps by providing them boots political philosophy of a typical liberal. She’s free enterprise, pro-defense, small government (whatever that means to a Republican these days). Her worldview is not ours.
Last year, I subscribed to Team Sarah because I like to keep up on what everyone is up to and love junk mail cluttering up my inbox. Yesterday, Team Sarah sent me an email announcing Sarah’s resignation and in the body of the text was this message:
In a press release, Team Sarah co-founder Jane Abraham said, “Team Sarah members anxiously await Palin’s next decision on how she believes she can best serve our nation. Since the 2008 Election, the continual presence of personal attacks on both Governor Palin and her family indicate that she remains a threat to the liberal feminist political establishment. Despite criticism, Governor Palin’s success will endure. Team Sarah’s thousands of members remain as engaged as ever on TeamSarah.org. The Governor has inspired millions, and her audience of enthusiastic support will only grow in the future.”
Ahhh, the “liberal feminist political establishment”. It’s emails like this that have managed to make Sarah Palin a polarizing figure. Because *I* consider myself a liberal feminist and I do not feel the least bit threatened by Sarah Palin. But I can understand where the Democratic party might feel a bit uneasy. The women supporters of Barack Obama, like Naomi Wolf, Kim Gandy and Jessica Valenti did the party or the feminist movement no favors last year when they hitched their fortunes to Obama’s star. The party took the abortion issue up to 11 and scared young women into voting for Obama in much the same way that Bush II frightened swing voters with the spectre of Osama bin Laden breaking into their homes in 2004. It was a fear propaganda message and it worked. Meanwhile, the cynical bastards of the Obama DNC carefully scrubbed most references of abortion and reproductive rights from Democratic candidates’ websites in an effort to capture the evangelical vote. And who have the Obama administration been courting ever since they were elected? Evangelicals of course. That’s what Rick Warren was all about.
So, let’s get one thing straight here. There are “liberal feminists”, such as myself and people like Violet Socks, who are pro-choice and anti-sexism. Up until the election of Terry O’Neill as president of NOW a couple of weeks ago, we didn’t have much of a political voice. Our champion, Hillary Clinton, was taken out by the women of the left who aligned themselves with Obama and undercut their own cause.
But in the meantime, the DNC cut its ties to millions of women who would have voted for Hillary and watched in shocked disbelief as they were characterized by their own party as old, stupid, uneducated, working class, post-menopausal idiots. They were identified as Reagan Democrats, bitter knitters, the “old coalition”. Many of these women became PUMAs when their own party nullified their primary votes and cast them out. Then the Obama coalition took over promising change but delivering the party and its votes into the hands of the financial oligarchy that has many of the same values as, um, Sarah Palin. Free enterprise, smaller government (for the non-oligarchy), pro-defense, etc, etc. I mean really, what is it that separates what Sarah believes from what Obama actually practices? And Obama is no more of a pro-choice person than Sarah when it comes right down to it. What has he done about the Bush conscience rule? Oh, sure, he reversed the Mexico City Gag Rule but that was an easy fix for the international audience. Domestically, he stripped out millions of dollars from his stimulus bill for reproductive services in order to pacify the Republicans.
We don’t know much about Sonia Sotomayor except that she has on several occasions sided with anti-choice protestors. But it doesn’t really matter. The Supreme Court already has 5 votes to overturn Roe, which we *tried* to point out to the Obama women last year. But getting through to them was as difficult as trying to reason with someone in 2004 who was convinced that Al Qaeda was about to invade their neighborhood. They were motivated by emotion, provoked by crafty propaganda artists who knew how to push the fear button while flattering them at the same time as the young and sexy saviors of their future.
I’m disgusted by the Naomi Wolfs, Jessica Valentis and Kim Gandys who either encouraged or didn’t stand up against the misogyny and sexism that occured in the primary season last year against Hillary and the general election season against Sarah. The abortion issue has been out of our hands since Sam Alito was appointed. We can do very little about the erosion of our abortion rights at this point. Or, should I say, we can do little about it while the feminist movement stagnates and fails to take an adversarial stand against the erosion of our rights. The so-called feminists who were flailing fecklessly for abortion allowed themselves to be used against women last year. They contributed to the perception of women as being stupid, bad campaigners, weak, easy to humiliate, obscene sex objects reducible to the sum of their parts and vulnerable to the tsunami of sexist stereotypes hurled at them by the media and the political establishment. “Feminists” did that.
So-called feminists, though no one *I’d* want to know personally, have brought us to this point. Now there is a woman who has the potential to split this huge potential voting bloc of women. The “Creative Class” has ditched millions of women whose votes are now up for grabs. The Democratic party has turned its back on union women, poor women, vocational women, older women, retired women, women with health problems. These women were reduced to non-persons who weren’t entitled to participate in their own government. They were degraded, demoralized, dehumanized by their own party. And here comes Sarah Palin, ready, willing and able to scoop them up in a third party run if she wants it. She can distance herself from the Republicans and run as an independent if she chooses. If she’s as tough as I think she is, she might be the crusader who takes on the media and beats them at their game. I’ll be behind her 110% if she decides to do that. I don’t have to vote for her in order to support her efforts against the media, something the so-called Naomi Wolf feminists should have been doing last year.
Here’s my point, and I know I’ve taken my time getting to it. There are several things going on with Sarah Palin at the same time. You can be for her without wanting to vote for her. You can support her brand of feminism while insisting that she stay out of your doctor’s office. You can be a liberal feminist without feeling threatened by her. She’s a force to be reckoned with as well as a bright shiny object that will take your eye off the ball.
We pigeon hole ourselves at our own risk.
Digg!!! Tweet!!! Share!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: feminism |
The Confluence 
Good morning, RD!
Great, well argued post.
The ideological lines have been blurred to the point where you can’t tell who stands for what anymore. It’s the same with the Republicans who supposedly stood for less government but instead massively increased the size and scope of government spending and control under Bush.
There really isn’t much difference between the parties at all, except for a few principled people like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders on the left and Ron Paul types on the right.
I checked out the Team Sarah website last night too and was turned off by all the anti-abortion, anti-feminist talk. But how are those people any different from people on the left link Naomi Wolf who blinded themselves to what Obama really was. We really don’t know what Sarah Palin would do if she got into the WH. Personally, I think she’s done in politics, but I hope she keeps a high profile and continues standing up to the media.
she remains a threat to the liberal feminist political establishment.
AND
I checked out the Team Sarah website last night too and was turned off by all the anti-abortion, anti-feminist talk
It’s this and the gleeful and vile reactions by the left to Palin’s announcement yesterday that have left me feeling completely left out in the middle of nowhere. I don’t want to be aligned with either of these groups.
It is so discouraging.
What party is working towards providing free birth control and reproductive education to women who need it? Birth control should be readily available free, or at a nominal cost. In Stockholm, condoms can be bought from vending machines on major avenues. It is cheaper to prevent unwanted births than to address the issue after the fact.
Then there should be pre-natal care and support for any woman who finds herself pregnant and doesn’t want to be. It should be a societal priority. Sarah Palin didn’t reject her daughter, and I doubt her daughter was tending towards an abortion on her own.
Let’s have a woman’s party whose platform supports preventing unwanted pregnancies.
I have come to the conclusion that Roe v.Wade is the cash cow for both parties. Democratic women rush to the polls lest choice be gone forever. I have several Republican friends who knock on doors, man the phones, and vote faithfully for their candidate or the blood of the unborn will be on their hands. I honestly believe that this has become a control mechanism used by both parties to keep women in line, and as such, will never be overturned.
That’s the truth!!
excellent thought!
And meanwhile, all that time, energy and money could be invested in the living and breathing children of America with better education, better daycare, better health care, better nutrition. We could be buying the best environment to raise the next generation and instead we put all our efforts toward “potential” life and not the children and young adults who direly need our immediate attention.
I was thinking this too, since the left started hounding us about voting for B0 to protect Roe.
But, I thought at the time, if we had Bush, and a Repub dominated congress, and the justices were there and it wasn’t overturned, why should that be a determining factor in the election?
Then I concluded what you did: that repubs want Roe in place to mobilize their base to get rid of it, and dems want Roe in place to mobilize their base to protect it. It’s a tidy win-win for them.
Happy 4th, RD! Naomi Wolf, Jessica Valentis and Kim Gandy dealt a blow to feminism that will take a long time to recover from. By not speaking up about the misogyny directed at Sarah Palin they’ve allowed feminism to be branded “liberal” and we all know that’s a dirty word. They also created the perception that they only support Democratic women.
Guys like Hannity and O’Reilly are more “feminist” than Naomi, Jessica and Kim when Sarah is the subject of the attack. But they were fine with it when the subject was Hillary.
A really bold move by Palin, one that would take the wind out of a lot of sails, would be to begin self-identifying as a Republican, Conservative feminist.
A really bold move by Terry O’Neill would be to embrace Sarah Palin as a sister in the struggle even though they’re not on the same page when it comes to certain issues. But attempts at uniting all women would really be bold. Bold action is requited on all sides; we’ve all been so lame for so long.
P.S. as to the polarizing thing, that will happen with every stong woman, remember Hillary was polarizing too (or so they said).
I could not agree with you more about your statement that Terry O’Neill should reach out to Sarah Palin. As RD has pointed out throughout this thread, not because NOW agrees with Sarah Palin on all issues because Sarah Palin is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
IMO NOW should sieze the opportunity to identify itself as an organization who will defend any and all women against sexism and misogyny and hate-filled remarks. NOW has the perfect vehicle to do so thanks to the disgusting post that was put up on HuffPo. NOW should be screaming far and wide about that piece and, in doing so, will define itself as a true women’s organization.
I, too, am a liberal feminist. Years ago, when I was part of whatever “wave” of women who were active in working for the ERA, all of our objectives could have been boiled down to a single thought: respect for women–all women. Sadly, even back then there were women fighting that dream, women who tried to maintain that *their* definition of who and what a woman should be was the only correct one. Sarah deserves our respect as a woman, whatever her political and lifestyle choices. We don’t have to emulate her, but I think we would be remiss in not recognizing that much of the criticism of her is due to those who believe that they still have the right to define what a woman should be.
RD — I don’t know if KB or Dak are around. Do you want me to add the social links?
I was going to do it myself but Kbird beat me to it.
Great analysis RD. One thing though, I’m not sure or at least I haven’t seen any evidence of her legislative behavior to support the idea that :
I’m only going by her own words. She is a free-market Republican and NOT a liberal. Liberals are generally for government for the common good.
I understand what you’re saying though. There are some aspects of her political philosophy that set her apart from Republicans. She may be the heiress to the Reagan Democrats. That’s where her strength lies.
Sure looks like the guy with a (D) after his name sitting in the oval office is a “free market Republican” also. No?
Totally. But we saw through him last year, did we not? I guess you could say that we’re moderate liberal Democrats. Obama isn’t. But we’ve always known that. That doesn’t make Sarah Palin a moderate liberal. She’s not. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Only making the point that the labels politicians paint themselves with are no longer meaningful.
me too, I’d like to see our bloggerworld mount a massive shrill campaign to force awareness of corporate personhood into the mainstream world so that the 90 percent of Americans who don’t pay close attention to such things can experience the horror I felt when I first heard that corporations had been declared to be persons. And still feel. Only then can corporate personhood be seriously challenged. It’s not something you’ll hear discussed by politicians: it’s the ultimate transgression. The State creates persons with a piece of paper–that trumps those female creators!
In a way, this is a time for diving in head first, which is sort of what Sarah Palin has done.
Like SOD, I see absolutely no “actions” on the part of Palin to suggest she doesn’t believe in the common good. In fact, raising the state taxes on oil companies and distributing it to Alaskans demonstrates just the opposite.
If you’ve got an example, please provide it. GOP rhetoric won’t do it. I think we saw in the last few elections that we should watch what they do, not what they say.
I agree, and although Palin is
for free enterprise I don’t get the impression that
she would sell out this nation to corporatist interests in the
way and to the magnitude that
GWB and BO have. Also, didn’t she appoint a woman pro-choice judge over a woman anti-choice judge in her state?
You mean the free market GOP that don’t believe that private insurance should have to compete with a government plan? The position is more rigged market then free market.
My observations are that the GOP power structure isn’t so much free market they have absolutely no problem with giving businesses tax breaks that they wouldn’t give to average Americans or providing oil companies perks.
They are free market the same way the Democrats are pro- women. When it suits them only.
They are free market the same way the Democrats are pro- women. When it suits them only.
lol! …true
“words…just words.”
…Bama didn’t even write “words…just words.” That was a direct repeat of
Deval Patrick’s speech written by Axelrod in response to Patrick’s better qualified woman opponent questioned how a man with no experience but with the well-read speeches would actually govern. Bama’s was the Platonic shadow
of the shadow on the cave. Axelrod is the one behind the One.
The voters in Mass. had been subject to the same advertising campaign and knew that Deval couldn’t deliver as gov. That’s why they voted for Hill over Bama by double-digits in the primary, in spite of Kerry and Kennedy’s urging that they vote for the One.
RD ~ this was a great post, enough to make me get a 2nd cup of coffee and read it twice. I agree with SOD above and I personally feel that Sarah Palin is threat to the status quo, so much so that she is being derided by some in her own party and goddess knows the left has gone insane. Obama is the status quo candidate despite all of his shiny promises of change…and the elite have held sway in the last 3 national elections. They are going to go after Sarah Palin like they went after Clinton…. only time will tell if she prevails and in a fluke chance they are unable to rig the next election and she wins. I am not scared of a Palin or a real republican presidency. It is time for a real citizen president to attain the office, and not some pupet of the elite.
Sarah Palin IS a threat to the status quo and the misogynists are out and about today. Luckily they are yelling when no one is listening (too many hot dogs and fireworks). Words like “eccentric, rambling, unpredictable, erratic” are being over-used by the women-hating pundits and bloggers in their posts and opinions. All I can say is “petunia”.
An Eisenhower Republican would put the Democrats to shame for real liberal action. I’d take Reagan any day over the pretendident we’ve got now.
i don’t care who they are what party they belong to what gender they are.what color they are.
all i want is a potus that loves our beloved America as much as i do.
AND ALL OF HER CHILDREN.and does what is good for us and our country…
HAPPY 4TH. (hugs all))
Agreed, SOD. She does not scare me. And I don’t feel the need to preface every polite remark about her with “I don’t have to vote for her” or “she and I are diametrically opposed politically.” I’m getting kinda sick of reading that EVERYWHERE.
RD, I read the thread you’re referring to, and the Team Sarah email as well. The email specifically did say ‘liberal feminist political establishment’ – you and Violet Socks (and I, and thousands of others) may be liberal feminists, but we’re definitely not ‘political establishment’. On the vehement contrary, as PUMAs we’re un-party.
And they’re right in that the liberal feminist POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT’ definitely is thratened by Sarah Palin – they’re precisely the Kim Gandys, the Jessica Valentis and the Naomi Wolfs you refer to. The rest of us liberal feminists non-political-power-holding peeps don’t feel threatened by Sarah Palin, and I have in fact been warm to her ever since she tried to reach out to us with her ‘I’m a feminist’ public statements and her quoting Madeline Albright, etc.
Yep, we’re political outsiders but the party ignores us at their peril. I can’t support Sarah Palin’s political philosophy. We simply operate in different worldviews. But I can appreciate that she appeals to a lot of women and that she has been unflinchingly courageous to have taken such a beating as she did last year without backing down.
She’s definitely a feminist, no matter what the Wolfs and Valentis say. Actually, they’re pretty much on the same side at this point. Sarah is openly anti-choice and Wolf and Valenti ended up in the camp of a guy who’s pro-choice stance is not a priority for him and who considers women a “special interest”. It’s hard for me to respect Wolf and Valenti types for being so easily duped. It makes the rest of us look bad.
She is only a year or two older then I am and I am telling you, there is NO way I could have been as awesome as she was when she announced her candidacy, or in that VP debate. And there is NO WAY I could have withstood the personal attacks. I would have crumbled long ago.
I’d say she is one tough cookie.
I also feel like so many *political elites* hated her because they didn’t want it proven/didn’t think that a *female young pretty hick from a state school, who said ya’ll, and winked* could do their job. And that burns me up.
Whether you like her politics or not, pure and simple, she is not an elitist. We may be liberal and progressive, but I for one am tired of the Ivy league elitist telling me how to live my life here in Michigan. From my point of view, I liked her straight talk. I don’t feel she is going to tell me how to live my life as much as the current elite in D.C. seem to want to. We have been hit over the head with the abortion issue but in truth she lived the “pro-choice” issue when she “chose” to have her baby. Some may not like her decision but it was hers to make. Many of the blogs that I read during the election seemed to want to take that away from her. We live in a world where men can continue to abuse women and some how the woman gets “blamed” for taking the abuse! I think we have to support women and their choices and that means women need to get together and quit beating up on a woman that makes a different choice!
totally agree with you!!!
<<<<>>>>>
Excellent! It is when we support ALL women and their individual choices that feminism will have won its goal! However, we are still arguing among us. (Some here should know what I mean.) WOMEN NEED TO GET TOGETHER!!!! Well said and Bravo!
I just wanted to clarify that I reacted quite differently to the same Team Sarah email – I saw the phrase “liberal feminist political establishment’ and the last two words popped out at me, and I said hey, thats NOT me, so I didn’t happen to feel alientated.
Palin – and her supporters on the Republican side – are all at the moment a lot, lot more open to feminism than they have ever been in recent memory. They’ve seen what sexism can do, and they don’t want any part of it.
And we on this side have seen very clearly in the recent past that progressive != liberal != feminist.
You’re right – choice is still probably a big, big hurdle to cross, but I come from a part of the world where choice/abortion rights aren’t by any means such a big battleground of feminism, and I see all stripes of women coming together to fight for whatever is the common ground.
Thats why this is the absolute right time to get together – groups like The New Agenda, people like Violet Socks and you – all can help lead and create the 4th wave of feminism for real.
“the liberal feminist
POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT’”
Yes, this distinction is very important and makes a big difference for me! Even if she had only said “liberal feminist” I would have understood whom she was talking about. I’m certain she knows that PUMA feminists are not her enemy, as it were.
[TO ADMIN: Why does my text not fit
inside the “reply” box? It’s really difficult to post when half of my text disappears into the margins. Thanks]
Having once considered myself a liberal feminist, I do not have a problem with Palin. But, I think the statement about her being a threat to the *liberal feminst political establishment* is quite accurate. Just look at the way the women on the left came after her.
And I don’t agree that just because a woman doesn’t support abortion they are against womens rights… I just can’t buy that.
Abortion is an issue, a line in the sand that some people can’t cross. I NOW get it, that to some people it is in fact murder. I am pro-choice but I get it. Just as some people are opposed to the death penalty. (which i assume most liberal are) There are certain things that we will never ever agree on – legalizing pot, death penatly, abortion… a plethora of issues. Just because one person is in favor and one is against, it doesn’t make either one right. It is a personal decision. LIke believing in god, or whatever.
I used to believe that someone anti-abortion was anti-women but that is not true.
Just as I don’t believe Palin does not believe in the common good…. Some people think people are better served by providing for them, others believe that people are better served when they provide for themselves.
I used to believe in universal programs to help those less fortunate…. but after decades of growing poverty and generational welfare I am not buying it anymore. And after seeing how f*cked up the government is, I see those programs as nothing but big scams. I think small communities can help each other when we fall, but massive gov’t. programs are big clusterf*cks of red tape, taxes, and people profiting off others.
We saw what people did to Hillary, and then we saw what happened to Palin. I think Palin got it even worse. We can disagree with her politics, but to attack someone for their personal beliefs, and personal life was so wrong. A white trash hick with a non-ivy league education? WTF was that? How about a self made woman?
And I do think it was the men, and women who went after them both, but I was most upset by the liberal *feminists* that attacked them. That just made me sick.
To attack a woman who believes in her heart that abortion is killing babies is not something that she should be attacked for. Sure, you can not vote for her because you are afraid she will try to ban it, but to violently hate her because of it… that is crazy, especially when she lives by her beliefs.
I support the death penatly, and there are people who absolutely are opposed to it. There are people who are absolutely against eating meat.. I think they are crazy. I love me a good steak. But, everyone has their own set of values/ethics/whatever…. and you can’t change their mind.
Sorry for the ramble… I am just so pissed that the bastards took her down. Whether I would vote for her or not, she deserved the right to serve her political career, and NOT deal with the bullsh*t attacks on her family. Good lord, attack her daughter because she did what every other teenager in america does – has sex!? You can be mother theresa, and have a daughter that gets knocked up. OOPs, still rambling….
Anyway, great post. I agree with a lot of what you said!
Great ramble. In many respects I agree with you.
As for the whole debate about conservative versus liberal, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the corruption that is ruining this country. Politicians may pander to different audiences depending on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat, but the end result seems to be the same, in that, regardless of what they say, they tend to act in a manner which benefits the monied interests that fund their campaigns.
What good are public housing programs if the money is funneled off to political patrons and the people it was intended to benefit end up living in squalid conditions? What good are more regulations if the regulators wink and nod as the politically connected abuse the system? What good is cap and trade to the environment if the system is corrupted to pump up the balance sheets of the likes of Goldman Sachs and G.E.? What good is voting for so called pro-feminist Democratic candidates if the end result is the continuation of the status quo (Roe v. Wade has been used to get votes for most of my lifetime, and indeed has proven to be the cash cow of easy votes requiring little to no action other than for a politician to either utter the words “pro-choice” or “pro-life”).
In a perfect world, I would support my taxes going to liberal programs, but in our current corrupt corporate welfare system, I’ve been feeling a little more stingy with my tax dollars.
So, Sarah Palin may not seem to be an ideal candidate, but if she can help dismantled the oligarchs or bring some honesty and accountability to our media, then I say, more power to her. (And, if she proves to be no more than another Republican pandering for votes, then I say no thanks.)
“As for the whole debate about conservative versus liberal, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the corruption that is ruining this country. ”
YES!! I was SO blown away by what we all saw this primary. I used to believe the libs *cared* and all that crap. NOW i see they are all just as corrupt and pathetic. One eye opener was a video by ZO, when he said people always say the Repubs are the party of the rich, so they *need* the rich. Dems are supposed to be the party of the poor? So that means they need the people to remain *poor* (paraphrasing)
But, both sides just do what serves their own interests and pocketbooks and i am FED UP!!!
I think we need money in schools and healthcare!!! Murtha f*ckin airports, NO!
Did you see the movie WALL-E? I swear that movie really got to me. I totally believe *they* just want to dumb us down, fatten us up, and make us a bunch of button pushing idiots so the very few can rule the country. And talk about excess…. (why the hell do we keep importing so much crap from China!?)
Abortion is always such a wedge issue, but I never believed it would really go away. I think they know what will happen if they do outlaw it, and that is much worse.
Ok, enough, before i ramble again.
Yes, Sarah, I totally agree with you! Great post!
“As for the whole debate about conservative versus
liberal,” well this has been a canard for some time now.
This deliberate polarization (i.e. simplistic binary thinking)
has left us with only two very bad choice (dumb and dumber)
with no other alternative.
She’s not been taken down. She is a target but she’s not a victim.She about to run for pres.
Time will tell. I have heard so many different opinions, I don’t know what her chances are. I hope she comes back like a steam roller, and kicks ass to punish all those assholes who attacked her.
And, she’s truly transparent about her beliefs and what she would and would not do in office.
If she runs in 2012, her opponent is worse and she should win. If she runs in 2016, we have yet to see whether the D’s have revived their principles or if a third party has succeeded in forming, and she’d have to prove she’s better than the alternatives.
Personally, I think Obama openly called himself a Reagan Democrat, so using that phrase to insult women who feel Palin is a viable candidate deserving of consideration is just outright odd.
Excellent ramble sarahinitaly 🙂
Thank you for the excellent ramble. I agree with every word.
{ nodding vigorously }
The only area I would quibble with would be
She doesn’t believe in the common good, share the risk, allow your neighbors to pull themselves up by their bootstraps by providing them boots political philosophy of a typical liberal.
Liberal women(and I include myself in that category) do not have the market cornered on this.
I would argue that women like Feminists for Life who helped get domestic violence laws, child support enforcement laws and were fighting to get support for young women in college so that they could finish college and provide a better life for themselves and their children are very much like those of us that believe in providing boots before telling folks to pull themselves up by the bootstrap.
Conservative women seem to have a good deal of heart and sympathy. I disagree with the overall premise that abortion is always wrong or that religion belongs in government but I also believe that they truly want a safe, happy world for children to grow up in just like I do.
As I have stated before, from a political philosophy POV, she is by her own definition not a liberal. Sorry, there is no other way to interpret her own views. I believe her. But it is also true that she has promoted some programs to help women that would definitely make her a feminist. That may make her look like she supports some liberal programs but I would caution people to look very carefully at what she says she stands for. I think you would be hard pressed to get Sarah to come out in favor of universal health care, for example. She might not be very sympathetic towards social security either. And she is a keep taxes low person. Well, who doesn’t want to keep taxes low? It’s just that for Republicans, low taxes are an end in themselves without actually reforming and shrinking government as they say they always want to do. The effect of reducing taxes, usually for the wealthy, is to shrink the rest of the government pie for the rest of us in social programs while increasing spending on defense. This is what Sarah believes is good government. She has been very fortunate to be blessed to be running a state that has great energy wealth and the residents of the state of Alaska benefit from the trust created for them out of this oil wealth. That means she can afford to spread the largesse around and make Alaskans happy. But when it comes to national affairs, the economics are quite different and you can expect for her to take conservative Republican economic positions. This is what she is. She might be more honest and ethical than your typical Republican and maybe she’s willing to take more risks and adapt her policies. But if you vote for Sarah Palin, you are voting for a Republican of this generation, feminist or not.
Perfect summary. Perfect.
Sarah is no Liberal, not even a moderate one. However, she is definitely not a neo-con, nor a product of the usual rightwing machine politics. She is refreshingly anti-establishment, and I do like that about her. She actually strikes me as having a very Libertarian bent. That type of philosophy comes with its pluses and minuses. I don’t think she is, at heart, a schmoozing politician. I think she gets impatient with “the game”, steps out of the lines the press and the establishment enforce, and does what she wants. I like that about her.
And no, she does not have the experience and chops to be POTUS, IMO. VP yes, POTUS no. That opinion may change, but that’s my take at the moment.
I still don’t know if I’d ever vote for her, but I do cheer her on if she wants to take on the crusty old boyz club of favor-trading that BOTH our parties have become. She’s someone that I might send a little money too to keep her in the game and in their faces, whether I planned to vote for her or not.
Ditto WMCB. This move is either a true illustration of her maverick, pioneering nature, or a really bad misstep. Of course, the rigid game players aregoing to FREAK OUT & misunderstand & misinterpret what she is doing. We’ll see. If this really is a break out, anti-establishment act–I will cheer for her. At this point, the oligarchical stranglehold on both parties is the biggest threat to all of us. If she has the guts to take that on, she is a true leader. Time will tell.
Here’s the thing, if I send money her way, what is to stop her from giving my name to the RNC? You see, back after the RBC debacle I sent $25 to John McCain (one time donation!), and now get requests from the RNC and other rightwing asswipes on a regular basis. If Sarah steps out from the Republican party, I may consider sending her money. But until then, no dice. On the other hand, I will continue to stand up against the misogyny directed at her.
She’s got the Western brand of Republicanism which is very distrustful of government and does have a libertarian streak. I grew up with it in Nebraska. Prairie and Mountain Republicans differ from the city dwelling type.
She is beginning to remind me more and more of Barry Goldwater rather than Reagan. (Barack W. Obush is the one who reminds me of RR.)
I like her willingness to put the law before her personal views. I can live with someone who’s anti-abortion but doesn’t try to force that view on others via legislation. As a socialist, I like her returning the Alaska oil royalties to the people of Alaska.
The sticking point for me is her environmental views. Alaska’s anti-predator policies, which cater to the tourist and trophy hunter, are ultimately destructive to the whole ecological system. And in simply pracitcal tems of volume of oil available several years down the road v. damage done, drilling ANWAR is simply indefensible.
The traditional Texas GOP, and Democrats for that matter, were the same way. Trust in local government, everyone else is a crook was the general philisophy.
Unfortunately, the “traditional Texas GOP” has been swallowed up by the radical Christian right, the pretty boys with no brains and the xenophobes. Even some Texas Dems are willing to support the Berlin–uh, border–wall project. And it only gets worse from there.
okasha, you are so right. i think of the current rural republican hold on the gop as the texan taliban. most dems here will sell out to the highest bidder like always.
i think if kay hutchison can take the nomination for governor from goodhair, the taliban may be placed in exile. at least, i hope so, since she won’t get the nomination with their votes.
If all the money I’ve contributed to Social Security in my lifetime had been invested carefully, I would get a darn sight more than the little amount I’m currently predicted to get when I’m old enough to file. That “contribution” I make is exactly why I have nothing left to save.
I believe we should have a solid retirement, disability program of some sort, but maybe there is something better than the current SS program.
Same with UHC. Maybe there is a better answer and we just haven’t thought of it yet.
I’ve been a follow the leader, just trust ’em Democrat for way too many years. Obama has opened my eyes…they can’t be trusted, either.
Me Two,
Have your read “Your Money or Your Life” by Vickii Robins & Joe Dominguez?
There’s a new edition out, and it may be available at your public library.
This is a book that opened my eyes as to how I could be more proactive financially. Of course, with our GDP defined by consumerism, Americans are
prone to have to work their way out of debt rather than focus on savings.
This is a great way to continued indentured servitude, that and the dead lock (or 30-year mortgage). Keeps a docile work force. And now that jobs are at
a premium (thanks to off-shoring), we have to suck up even more! I still have a bit of the Sarah spunk in me, so I always want to have options, and in this country, a lot of our options are based on having some money in the bank, I’m afraid.
I didn’t say she was a liberal. I believe your position that only liberals believe in the common good, share the risk, and provide your neighbors with boots before asking them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps is inaccurate.
I make this statement based on evidence such as the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Act which sought to provide aid to college women who find themselves pregnant. I make the statement because I there are studies out there that support the position that there are people within the conservative party that are charitable(moreso than their secular liberal counterparts).
I think the largest difference is that conservatives want minimal governmental involvement and liberals believe that governmental involvement is integral and the government has a responsibility to promote the common good.
I would have no problems voting for the Republican if I felt they were a better choice. I don’t feel bound by party identification at all.
I would really like to know more about her leadership in Alaska — i.e., what has she done? A person can hold a personal value but not impose it legislatively in opposition to the will of their constituents. Every indication I’ve seen is that she is not afraid to state her views, but does not impose them if it’s not what her constituents desire. To believe otherwise I’d need some examples of evidence to that effect.
“Socialized medicine” is a right wing term with a long history. “Uniquely American Solution” is also a manufactured term. When people use these words, i think they have an obligation of being really clear and precise as to what they actually mean.
If the Democrats came up with a healthcare solution that cut out the vast majority of the middlemen who siphon profits from the sick, and really, that’s what everyone wants, the Republican spin machine would call it Socialized medicine. Heck, even some of the Democrats might call it that. But it wouldn’t be necessarily. What it might be is fairer and cheaper. You can imagine that a lot of people slinging around the term socialized medicine wouldn’t like fairer and cheaper.
Conflation of Single Payer with Socialized Medicine?
Then there is the way you define Socialized.
We have Socialized Police and Fire Protection.
We have Socialized protection from enemies foreign and domestic.
We have Socialized Water and Sanitary Sewers.
Socialized does not mean free, we pay for the above with taxes or quarterly fees.
Every other country began from a single-payer or socialized perspective.
About the demonization of socialism, even in its small-d democratic forms:
I read a comment on Hullabaloo the other day to the effect that just because Joe McCarthy himself fell from grace does not mean that McCarthyism failed. It did its job, which was to take the hard left out of public discourse. Since nothing similar happened to the hard right, public discourse in the USA has been skewed rightward ever since.
I would gladly pay more in taxes within our current progressive tax system because I don’t want to see another person in our country die for want of needed healthcare.
This is incorrect and a really dogmatic perspective.
“for Republicans, low taxes are an end in themselves”
Lower taxes are generally a good thing because people can spend their own money better than some bureaucrat. With the government deeply corrupt, which the GOP rank and file has believed for a long time, it makes perfect common sense.
I’m no liberal by your definition.
Given the buzz value of the word “Liberal” to middle red America, my impression is that she is distancing herself from negative connotations and reactionary interpretation middle-of-the-roaders have come to internalize. To voters who bought W in 2004, “liberal” instantly conjured up negative … church-goers equated liberal with soullessness. She personifies “DEPROGRAM!’ Middle America. Re-evaluate each other. Look at what is actually going down, don’t believe their spin. If there is a glass ceiling for women, then Sarah is living proof that there are glass walls around we who aren’t Ivy League, monied and privelaged. The problem is, WE cannot be expected to preserve the wealth of that class. Openness and transparency would penetrate that mystique. The “distractions” and personal attacks are a way to check the genuinely progressive by diminishing their momentum and expending their resources.
Terrific post RD
I mean really, what is it that separates what Sarah believes from what Obama actually practices? …
Indeed. and well said . So I’m suppose to hold my nose and vote for the current Dems…… for GOP policies ?
Huh?
As a traditional Dem base voter , why would I possible do that? And why is Palin being attacked for having the some of same beliefs as media dream boat Obama?
because she’s got scary lady parts.
If we keep in mind the fact that we can work with others on viewpoints shared jointly, we can choose to disagree on those viewpoints not shared. Refusal to see this takes me back to those days when people of a different religion could not possibly have any relevance to our world.
And another thing, what ever Palins believes, what I have seen of her is someone who at least follows the law. Like when she signed the bill that gave the same rights to same sex partners….whatever she personally believes about that , the law dictated it to be signed , and she did. That’s impressive .
Personally i think they call her polarizing because people, esp. person on the other side of her political spectrum like to say “I HATE THAT WOMAN” because she is a woman who doesn’t take shit, and who is seeking power. It was the exact same reason why Hillary was a “polarizing” figure.
Exactly and there is a group who always needs a woman on the stoning ground. Hillary was there almost twenty years, but is currently unavailable.
Really the personal beliefs of the figure seems irrelevant, because the same folks who stoned Hill are throwing rocks at Palin now…What gets them to pick up the rocks is not the reasons given….it’s that they are powerful women connecting the the under class. imo
You’re so right re: personal beliefs. although the people i’ve met, the conservatives seem to really love her. like LOOOOOOVE her. but then again, i’ve only met conservatives through pro palin activities. lol.
Is the term polarizing used for men? Or, is it more often used against strong women?
That’s what i said:
because she is a woman who doesn’t take shit, and who is seeking power. It was the exact same reason why Hillary was a “polarizing” figure.
Sometimes it’s said about honorary women, like Bill Clinton. Honorary women are men, in the political arena, who are treated with the venom and contempt usually reserved for women.
Bill and Al Gore spring to mind.
Indeed !
I will never put Big Dawg and that slimy bastard Al Gore in the same category ever again. Mr. Al “Obama is what we need right now” Gore can go eff himself.
Taking a walk down memory lane…sigh
It’s not her politics that makes them scream “polarizing”. There are tons of male politicians out there who are vastly more hard rightwing than she, and they don’t get called polarizing. They get called wrong.
Yes, i say it’s because she’s a woman. It’s just usually the other side of the spectrum that goes after them so nastily, but you’re right, now that i recall all the hateful dem females i knew of that detested her. Gross.
I like Sarah precisely because she is antiestablishment. I think the Republicans have kicked her to the curb (sounds familiar) and she’s just sick of it.
I also think if Sarah runs in 2012, the Dems will be kicking themselves endlessly for not putting Hillary up in the nomination… Obama’s admin will be in disastrous shape by then and Hillary would have made Sarah look like an amateur.
Now, I just wonder if by 2012, there will be something akin to the National Women’s Democratic Party. Wouldn’t it be just hilarious if Hillary and Sarah ran together (I know, I know! a ridiculous thought!)? Pat Lang has an article up on the conflicts arising between State and the White House.
I wonder just how long Hillary will take it?
Whoa! That’s interesting but not at all surprising. Hillary takes her job seriously. She’s not in it for just the fame and glory alone.
no, not surprising at all… the one department that is working correctly and Obama is screwing with it.
it’s sibling rivalry. *She* makes *him* look bad and so they have to find a way of taking her down a peg. So, it looks like Ross was sent to State to be her mole and she got rid of him.
Good for her. Now, they are playing tit for tat. If the Obama guys win this battle of wills, it will be a phyrric victory. They can’t win without destroying.
And if anyone thinks that both our enemies and our allies are not noticing what Obama is doing in trying to sideline Hillary, they are mistaken.
He is revealing his biggest weakness – his own insecure ego – for all the world to see. That’s not going to win him anything but quiet contempt from the rest of the world.
Obama is a big baby.
The term is WATB
I recall commenters who predicted he would put her in his cabinet just to get her out of the Senate and keep her under his controlling thumb. She serves at his pleasure, and he owns the switch that drops her through the trap in the floor.
Those commenters were ridiculed for being so cynical, as I recall….just another conspiracy theory.
And, we’re still in the first 6 months :O
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I voted for Sarah Pain and against Obama in the 2008 election.
She is not the smooth telepromptering snake oil salesman type that all the O-bots fell in love with.
She does stick her foot in her mouth on occasion but she wasn’t groomed by a team of Axlerovian flying monkeys to appear to be something she’s not.
She fought the corrupt in her own party and she vetoed a law stripping same sex benefits from Alaska state employees on the advice of he AG that it was unconstitutional, so she is willing to go against the status quo if she feels it wrong.
(We know Obama would have tried to vote Present in a similar situation.)
She doesn’t believe in abortion and she doesn’t believe in same sex marriage or benefits. But she has been forthright about that and will try to find a constitutional way to end them. The important word in the above sentence is “constitutional”.
She does believe in same-sex partner benefits. Has the record to show for it.
…. I think the Republicans have kicked her to the curb (sounds familiar) and she’s just sick of it.
Excellent point. When you see someone enduring endless nuisance lawsuits….that is a GOP elite move that was visited upon Bill Clinton quite alot . If she had the backing of the GOP, imo, those law suits would not be there.
I don’t think it’s the GOP that has generated the lawsuits. I do think the lawsuits are politics of personal destruction that have come from “progressives” in Alaska, but that the R’s have not supported Sarah through this in the least – thrown under the bus, so to speak. It serves the R’s, in that hanging Sarah out as wolf bait, let’s the party establishment concentrate on getting back to business as usual.
fire-dog-lake has generated at least 10 posts since the resignation and over 1,000 comments – most of which are just disgusting. This push came from “our” side of the aisle, but it serves the Republicans perfectly.
Indeed. If they didn’t have a Palin to bash, they might have to look at what Obama is actully doing
I can always tell when Obama is doing poorly as the Sarah bashing threads get very active over there.
And they roll out a “Hillary is a subordinate at State to Obama, Neener, neener, neener!” piece. It’s a redflag nowadays. If you see one of those anti-Hillary pieces at Politico, I guarantee you Obama’s numbers are taking a hit on something on the foreign front, like Iran.
I consider them good news now. In fact, from now on, I’m going to shine a big, gaudy spotlight on those pieces and treat them like the bellwhethers they are: Obama is a weakling president and people like Hillary more. Yeah!
RD you are so funny.
Most, if not all, of the ethics complaint were filed by the same people over and over. Some bloggers who wound up working for the Obama campaign in ’08. I imagine they are now being paid by OFA.
Complaints were filed every time she left the state for “using state time for personal business” and once for wearing a jacket with a company logo on it at one of Todd’s races.
Thats the Democrats at work. Are we proud yet?
Does anyone know if Romney has something to do with any of the lawsuits?
He serves to gain from them.
RD, your comment on the “other blog” about Palin possibly being the new Teddy Roosevelt was fascinating. Of course, TR was a Progressive Republican, a term that basically died with him. (How many of us and our offspring will be eternally grateful to him for his farsightedness in protecting thousands of acres of wilderness?) When he ran on the Bull Moose ticket, he effectively created such a schism in the Republican voting bloc that Wilson–a very unprogressive Democrat–was able to win. I’m sure Obama would like to see that happen again rather than have to run on his record next time.
It’s a fascinating thought, though, as it is increasingly clear that we desperately need a viable third party that doesn’t corporate interests. Much has been made of the class issue in defining recent politics, and class definitely has a major role in major media coverage. But I would say that the division now is the voting public versus those who hold elected office. Increasingly, I read the comments of former Obots who now say, “A pox on both their houses.” The problem I see with Sarah running as an independent, should she choose to do so, is that no matter how disgusted voters of both parties may be, I’m not sure the majority are ready for real change (as opposed to using *change* as a slogan) in the current two-party system.
In this case, I think her run could be just as damaging to the Democrats. Let’s face it, a lot of Democrats felt forced to vote for Obama last year. They didn’t like him or trust him and many thought he wasn’t ready. It had nothing to do with race, as we have since found out. But the thing that made them vote for him was that he claimed to be a Democrat and they were sick to death and afraid of four more years of a Republican. So, they voted for the Democrat, not Obama. And what did he turn out to be? A fricking Republican.
So, in 2012, if we are not given a choice of Democrat to vote for, we can expect a lot of people who voted for Obama to take a second look at people like Sarah or independent candidates. And who better to benefit from the scorched earth tactics of the 2008 Obama primary team than a woman? I still am so angry and disgusted by the way we were treated last year by Obama and the DNC that I will NEVER vote for this man. My chances of being converted to an Obama supporter are about as good as me becoming a born-again fundamentalist evangelical Christian. If it hasn’t happened after 40 years of my mother trying relentlessly every day of her life to convert me, it ain’t going to happen.
And I venture to guess that there are plenty of moderate to liberal Democrats like me who will let the Democrats hang themselves before we ever vote for Obama or his friends.
So, Sarah has a rich hunting ground. All she has to do is carefully disguise her more conservative Republican tendencies and voile! She could have a huge chunk of the electorate eating out of her hand. And if she says, “See? The media gave you Obama and trashed me. Who are you going to believe now?”, she might just turn the whole election season on its head.
All exceedingly interesting. If I were Democrats with pull, like Superdelegates, I’d be concerned with running Obama one more time. Of course, Claire McCaskill et al think the superdelegates have served their purpose and can go away now.
We’ll see.
I think the only way the Dems can save themselves is to put Hillary up in 2012.
Now, that would be some interesting apples.
For that to happen, we have to push back relentlessly against the people who hold the party hostage right now. We have to make it clear that they are not true Democrats.
Obama’s numbers may be so crappy by then, he may have to “retire” for health reasons.
Sarah may be the path to putting Hillary in office…
fascinating!
Bush II had crappy numbers in 2004 and still won. I don’t think we can rely on crappy numbers.
a girl can dream, can’t she?
😉
My dad used to say, “Sew buttons on balloons and get a bang out of life” I have no clue what that means but he also used to say, “Wishing doesn’t make it so”, the meaning of which is a lot more clear.
I think your dad may have meant….do something that is believed to be impossible, and enjoy the excitement life has to offer. Well, that’s my take, anyway….I also have no idea what your dad may have meant.
I think the effects of the kool-ade poisoning won’t have worn off by 2012 and Obama won’t have any real challengers.
There are few limited exceptions.
I’m scared they may know the one can’t win against Sarah and then dump Biden and try to force Hillary on his ticket. Like first they would ask her privately and if she said no, then they’d send out their minions to all the media shows and start floating the idea to the public in hopes there would be sufficient pressure on her that if she publicly had to decline she would again be accused of not being a team player and wanting dear messiah to lose re-election, i.e. if did it would all her fault!!
:::sigh:: poor Hillary just can’t win. 😦
Don’t worry about that, Trist. Brand Obama’s misogyny and ego would not likely allow him to consider HRC as a running mate–or else wouldn’t he have asked her in 2008, when it would have been a shrewd outreach to her disgruntled supporters?
*dons freshly folded, stylish chapeau de Reynolds Wrap*
Of course, maybe he knew he didn’t need to do that because his bankrollers assured him that this time the crooked voting machines would be set to favor him, if necessary, as they were set to favor Dubya in the last two presidential elections…
Same situation Sarah Palin is in once the media has it out for you.
I hope so Ivory Bill, but I just put nothing past those people!
Count me as a very libera ex-Dem who will not only let the Democrats hang themselves before I’ll vote for Obama but will volunteer to pull on the rope.
I’ll help.
The Superdelegates were not used for anything more than the threat of the herd stampede should the delegates make the wrong choice. Then, the delegates were also not used in 2008, and anyone who says they were is in complete denial or totally ignorant to what constitutes an election by and for the people.
This life-long Dem will NEVER vote for Obama, NEVER! I may skip top of ticket in 2012 if there isn’t someone I can vote for, and Palin is someone I have voted for once and could vote for again.
I think by the time 2012 rolls around, we will be in a depression that is so-named, and the media and the Dems that brought up the Axelrod cult figure will be discredited. There is going to be a strong need for a populists, someone who is for the people, and the media (GE, Time-Warner) be damned.
Is it just me, or do others experience the eery feeling that there is no one really running the country. People I associate with, many of them politically aware, NEVER mention the Precious by name.
Why isn’t this edit running in every paper in town?
No matter. You are here and that sentence about liberals?
Well, I’m going to unpack it RD. I’m going to unpack it for you and Violet and everybody else. In fiction. It’s going to be gnarly, just like it was.
It’s going to be about being so much in love with those two guys nobody could ever believe it.
Because, i’m speaking for every sister out there.
Just like Hillary did.
Right now, in back alleys in LA women bleed to death.
Just like they were bleeding to death in 1973.
Oh, they might be Latina, btw. I could give you the links to the pieces I found last year as I was trying to make points.
Sotomayor ought to be on that.
Feminism in our gen?
We are now seeing the outcome. Our gen lived it — but not as a cohesive whole like the 60’s.
We were split in that era. Not by politics, but because each woman had to fend for herself.
Didn’t we?
I look at Palin and i’m curious about what will emerge?
She can learn from Liberal women. A lot.
Really alot.
hugs RD & Co.
perfect piece RD. Said everything. Everything.
As usual I’ve come late to this party, you’ve all said much of what I’ve on my mind – SarainItaly, I particularly liked your ramble.
I am what my husband defines as a conservative liberal – I’m not sure what that is – but I do believe in pro-choice as I don’t know of anyone who is “pro-abortion” – I believe the government should keep its hands off a woman’s body. And, yes, Roe vs. Wade has been a very effective tool to keep “wimmens” in line.
The current healthcare plan, IMO has many flaws and I can’t buy into the “guaranteed profit plan” for insurance companies that they are trying to push down our throats. And Cap and Trade will bankrupt all of us. This “liberal” administration is a blatant fraud – and I think I would take someone with the values of Sara over an O any day.
We are suffering in the proverbial cunundrum and frankly, I don’t know how we are going to get out of it.
Um, Obama is not a liberal either and never claimed to be. In fact, he never claimed to be anything politically except non-partisan. So, to say that liberals have failed with Obama in charge isn’t really fair to liberals who are definitely NOT in charge right now.
The Blue Dog Democrats are in charge in Congress and Obama is a political opportunistic animal who sold himself to the highest bidders who happened to not be liberal Democrats.
Be careful you don’t succomb to right wing talking points. it’s their job to make Obama look like a lefty who is spending all our money and failing in his implementation of his socialist leaning policies. nothing could be further from the truth.
But see, the Republicans (the real honest ones) make the same argument. They can’t be tarred with Bush’s brush, because he was not, to them, the embodiment of their ideals.
There are a LOT of people out there, on both the right and the left, who see the leaders of their party as mere oligarchs in Dem/Repub clothing. What rank and file Republicans internally see as the “ideals” of their party may have little or nothing to do with what their leaders spout or do.
Obama IS a failure of the Dem brand, as much as Bush was a failure of the Repub brand. You can’t be intellectually honest and have one without the other. If you say , “Obama is not a real Democrat, therefore his failures can’t be attributed to us”, then you have to grant the other side that same “out”.
That’s why party labels serve to do nothing but confuse and divide us. I am not talking about post-partisan bullshit, like Obama. Obama says “labels don’t matter”, but what he really means is “all actions and philosophies are equal, I’ll do whatever is politically advantageous to ME, and IDEALS don’t matter”.
When I say “labels don’t matter”, then I mean PRECISELY that, and look at actions.
EXCEPT the Republicans have had a lonnnng time to experiment with their ideas. This is typically the response of any failed ideology. When I was on the school board, curriculum supervisors would use it all the time:”It didn’t work because it wasn’t implemented properly!”
Riiiiight.
The problem is that liberals haven’t had a chance to implement anything in the past several decades. Even Clinton didn’t have any luck pushing leftish policies through after Newt Gingrich and his movement conservatives took Congress. We are now looking at the wreckage of movement conservatism which turned out to be a colossal failure. They had every opportunity to experiment with laissez faire capitalism, small government, rugged individualism, private solutions being better than big government and they failed- miserably. They were worse than horrible. They had every branch of government fixed relentlessly on task implementing every fricking think tank idea that the Heritage Foundation could come up with. They didn’t work because they were never meant to. Movement conservatism was all about destroying the very govenmental institutions that most of the middle and working class rely on. They were stopped at social security because it works, almost too well, and Americans know a good thing when they see it.
The liberal philosophy is one where everyone shares the risk and by doing that, the group achieves an economy of scale that the individual cannot accomplish on his own. That’s why there is such a battle on right now over health care. When people are forced to deal with the middle men on their own, they always, ALWAYS lose. But so far, there are precious few advocates for the little guy in Congress for scaling back the power of the middle men. The liberals do not have the critical mass to push any initiative through. Their coalition is too small.
Just as I don’t lump every Republican into Movement Conservatism, don’t lump every Democrat as a liberal. There are tons of Democrats in power right now who are indistinguishable from their counterparts across the aisle.
Democrats were in power for over 40 YEARS! They didn’t have time to do anything. $%^&^?
Newt didn’t take over the House, Tip O’Neil handed it to him by sitting in the House Banking Scandal.
Even though there were dirty republicans Gingrich was willing to sacrifice them because there were more ditry Democrats.
This is what makes Obama’s claim that bill Clinton was responsible for the loss of the House the lie that it is.
I said “the past several decades”. No, Democrats haven’t been in charge since 1994 but even before that, we had 12 years of Republican presidents.
And if you think about it, our greatest period of prosperity happened in the 50 years following the Great Depression when the legacy of FDR was still firmly in place.
I have to say that this thread has been very useful in flushing out the conservatives. This IS a liberal blog, by the way. We’re not just saying that to be fashionable. It’s been that way since its inception. Just because we oppose Obama doesn’t mean we are becoming more conservative. Quite the opposite. I’m more likely to vote for Bernie Saunders than Sarah Palin.
In retrospect, the check kiting scandal was a non-event. It’s hard to believe that we would feel the same degree of outrage today over such a thing. And Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica, while painful for the persons involved, is nothing to the bizarre, inexcusable behavior of the governor of South Carolina.
It’s all in the language you use. Newt Gingrich was able to sweep in the movement conservatives with very clever, devious language.
Yes those years were very prosperous and I wouldn’t mind having them back. The residents of Cabrini Green and other projects of the “welfare state” might not be so eager though. Since FDR the Democrats had a lot of time to do really good things but always seemed to do them half-ass. The funding of Head Start is an example. It was never fully funded in all those years. Same thing for most of the “war on poverty” programs, lip service and partial funding.
The world doesn’t start in 1994. Play games if you want.
There were only 10 years of GOP presidents with GOP controlled congresses since FDR. They were fucking disasters, all 10 of them. That where I think we agree.
Does not being your sycophant make me conservative? If so, I’ll gladly wear the label cause if I’m not free to disagree you can shove it.
I don’t get the backlash on Welfare Reform under Clinton. He put his mark on it by addressing one of the major problems with welfare in that women with children were actually better off being unemployed. The cost of childcare, when factored in, made working a losing proposition. He made sure to cure that with subsidies for childcare and the poverty levels in our country decreased.
Then “W” came along and yanked those subsidies and whataya know, poverty levels increased.
Bill did some amazing things in spite of the pushback he received from both his own party and the right.
wow looks like palin tossed a wrench into guts the good ole boys club with that move . plus she is not afraid to Attack the press & call them on it.
looks like more & more a palin -vs hillary match up in 2012 all the time
That would be so awesome.
You mean Hill as the VP candidate? or top of the ticket? These two women are connected in that who runs on one ticket could dictate who runs on the other.
Never happen. It’s about as likely as Baby Doc Duvalier running with Gandhi. They are politically incompatible.
Oh no I meant who is on the GOP ticket could dictate who is on the Dem ticket. If Palin did a McCain and the GOP base insisted on her being on the top of the ticket , I can see Obama Inc putting Hill on the Dem ticket as VP as an answer.
Let me make this perfectly clear: I will NEVER vote for Obama for president and Hillary is too smart to ever want to be his VP. She took the best job he had up for grabs in his administration, a fact that Biden himself regrets to this day, I’m guessing. And she was entitled to it. She was entitled to the nomination as well and for that reason, I will never give my vote to the man who cheated her out of it so he could go on to run the country as a Republican.
Never.
At one point during last year’s primary season, I thought I could vote for him if he were HER VP. No more. He’s personal non grata to me. He might be president and I expect him to live up to the office, a task that he has so far failed to do. But I will never vote for him if given another opportunity. The DNC better think long and hard about giving us another opportunity.
I’m with RD on this one…nothing and I mean NOTHING will get me to the voting booth for Obama and that includes our dear Hillary as his VP and coming over to my house and cooking me dinner and bringing a great bottle of wine……..
At this point I have no idea about what to do about 2012.
But I do see Palin as a better alternative than Obama…..
I voted for her last time to stop him. Imagine the damage he could do in 8 years. It’s incomprehensible.
I suspect Palin just grabbed the GOP by the balls… if there is no scandal (and I don’t think there is), she may be gunning for the R nomination. But the neocon thieves don’t want her anywhere near the WH – it would screw up their plans to complete the rape and pillage of the Treasury. I suspect Sarah, in making her announcement right before Independence Day, just threw down the gauntlet to the repubs.
I don’t think she’s going to get a proper response from them no matter how weak their ’12 field is. I think she’s going to run 3rd party… in the meantime, she can make money hand over fist from the speaking circuit.
She’s a big ol’ monkey wrench, that’s for sure.
and yes, I will NEVER vote for Obama…
let us imagine for a minute that the ’12 field is Obama, Gingrich and Palin…
hmm….
HRC as VP is no answer to SP as P. Doesn’t work. They’re not equal and SP would be slaughtered.
I take that back. That would just be the worst-case scenario. I honestly can’t think that through any farther.
I will never vote for him either. Even if the repub candidate was the devil himself, I would not vote for B0. After what the DNC did, after what he did, after having a democrat rig and steal an election, no way.
Actually, I don’t know if I will ever vote for pres again, because I now believe that a single hanging chad has more legitimacy than a U.S. election.
I stay at Teamsarah just so they can get over their fear of liberals. they need to know we are not going anywhere & we’re not compromising on some issues.
that doesn’t diminish our support for Sarah. the 60’s wasn’t the last great feminist battle even for us old ones. it took some time for men to get used to the expanded role of women in the military. if you think the corporate world is tough, it’s the girl scouts compared to the military. once they figured out they NEEDED us there was more acceptance. one redeeming quality of the GOP is that they are the ones who brought change to the last election- by selecting a REAL woman candidate. GOP realized they needed us – unlike the Dems. teamsarah has changed a bit to accomodate liberals. they demand civil discourse now. extremists on the right were getting vicious. thank you so much for bringing some calm logic & humanity to Sarah’s dilema, RD. we Pennsylvanians are better know for tolerance than “bitterness”. you’re the proof.
It’s the Quaker thing.
Perfect essay, riverdaughter. Thank you for saying it all so well.
and Hillary is too smart to ever want to be his VP….well many said she was too smart to be his SOS as well. Being Obama’s VP in 08 is not being his VP in ’12….it’s quite different. However the powers that be might just ditch answering a Palin run with another woman, and just go all in on the misogyny .
If the DNC pitches Hillary as VP instead of P, they would be slitting their throats. Why would they think putting Hillary in a position of no power would make Obama a better president? It’s illogical.
Why are they making her stay home next week as he goes to Russia? … that’s illogical as well. …. and them all over lol ! imo , they would not being thinking what would make Obama a better president. They would be thinking , how do we repackage and sell this loser? But 2012 is a world away…lord knows what will transpier . Hill as VP is certainly not what I would perfer…
I don’t think they are making her stay home… I think she’s the one who said she wouldn’t go with him.
Just posted about this higher up. But see I don’t think that’s how they WOULD try and sell it, they would first have Biden say for personal reasons he had to step down, no one wants him there so no one would question it, then they say the next logical replacement is Hillary who was ALWAYS second choice for the one of course (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and now they truly can remake history by giving us our “dream ticket” You don’t think it could happen if they don’t see any other way to get him back in there? I would think again, there is nothing those people wouldn’t try.
I just don’t want to see Hillary put in that situation where once more she must do for the “party” instead of what is right.
Really nice thread! My gut tells me that Palin would have a hard time doing what you suggest by the next election.
You never know. Ross Perot had even less time than Palin back in 1992 and he had a ton of support.
Speaking of Ross Perot, did you know there’s a http://www.perotcharts.com web site? It’s funny to think that his charts are still being produced after so many years.
I found the link at http://www.nader.org after clicking on a link from zerohedge to Nader’s post about corporations taking over the government.
There is not a credible financial analyst nor foreign government that is lending us into further debt to underwrite a stimulus plan, actually believe that full economic recovery is possible now.
Foreign markets are already contemplating when to say no more loans. Then what?
China is already making massive shifts toward its own domestic markets and away from foreign trade dependence on the U.S. (smart move – we should have thought of that before we let our companies move overseas)
Another half a million jobs gone in a month.
Our medicare commitment is 53 trillion of which the largely unregulated health care and insurance industries are making huge profits – while the working middle class are struggling to pay for it all.
In the grand scheme of things, jumping up and down in the valley of our liberal or conservative views to keep the lava from burning our feet isn’t working.
Seems to me that Palin, that dumb, right-wing conservative, beauty queen pretty, stupidly outspoken, wackoishly independent and fiercely protective of The People’s owned resources – what’s left of them to fight for – seems to gets all of that .
I think the real conundrum for Dems and Repubs alike when it comes to Sarah is that she defies all labels. They’re all so use to nicely packaged political-speak and here she comes messing up their game – and with a vajayjay no less. Since she couldn’t be truthfully pegged into any holes, they just started making shit up and creating myths about her — she’s a hick, she’s stupid, she’s a religious kook, she’s a book burner, she’s a rabid pro-lifer, etc. When what she really was is an immensely popular governor with substantial bipartisan support from her constituents — and as RD said the other day, she did all this without political connections.
Yep, that’s what I’m thinking, SOD.
Not to mention that all of that dumbness she used on Alaska could sure screw up the rest of America!
So in other words she’s able to render the ruling class elitist insiders irrelevant, because (gasp) she actually has the people on her side!! So who the hell needs them?!?!
Remind you of anyone else? That is what makes me like Sarah, because I see the same qualities I see in Bill and Hill. Policies aside, at their heart they are FOR commoners like us, and not actively trying to control us or do us harm.
Which is exactly why so many hate her as much as Bill and Hill. They’re opposite sides but of the same coin.
Don’t forget that one reason the Liberals sneer at and mock Sarah is because she is from the west and did not go to their schools and it is clear she finds the US government corrupt no matter if Democrats or Republicans are running it. She is an outsider for more reason than just being a woman. Also more voters feel more closely aligned with Sarah than with the lying, wasteful, politicians and corporate media. Sarah is anti everything the corporate media and their government puppets worship.
Ah yes…the hallowed halls of the Ivy League schools.
Everything she said in her remarks reinforced that she is a focused, first things first, ethical professional who is no longer willing to cede the State’s Agenda to petty celebrity gossips. Her confidence in her TEAM frees her to “pass the ball” to a teammate steeped in the same goal-scoring process that makes her effective. Her job as governor is to fulfill the election promises she made and she has. It is NOT her job to tell the courts or the legislature what to do. Therefore, her personal, religious beliefs guide her approach, not her policy. She remains faithful to her standards while RESPONDING TO THE ELECTORATE. Like Hillary, she’ll make a listening tour and find out exactly what people want, then offer it to them in a package that is inclusive and respectful. Any of us who have children know how grounded they keep us. Her priorities are guiding this decision, not her delusions. Perhaps she’s been inspired by Betty Jean’s “MAJORITY UNITED.” Who needs Republican or Democrat when they have the numbers?
My dream is to see Palin and Hillary unite and completely destroy the good old boy’s two party joke. It is so passed time that women join together and kick some serious ass.
This has been addressed before. It’s not logical. They are politically on opposite sides of the spectrum. Besides, Hillary is a party loyalist, god knows why. The party has given her no reason to be. But for whatever reason, she feels like she can accomplish her goals within the Democratic party. Maybe she’s right. We’ll see.
But getting Sarah and Hillary to tag team each other? Nah Gah Happen.
Actually if you listen really closely, Hillary and Palin are on the same team, a feminist team. You don’t hear those two attacking each other or criticizing each other. They have both adjusted their schedules and canceled events when they felt like the media was attempting to pit them against each other.
Men have crossed party lines before and joined forces. I can’t think of a more logical reason for bipartisanship than women’s representation in government.
I definitely agree with you. They may not be able–or have any desire–to work together, but they have worked towards common goals in the past and will continue to do so. That puts them on the same team, if on opposite sides.
We can dream though can’t we? I mean seems like everyone always says we want bi-partisanship, but do they really? When it comes down to it, I guess not.
People are often not on the same page or side, but it’s not impossible to work together. If anyone could do it, I think Hillary and Sarah could.
“The Campaign for Common Ground” is that a seller or what? ^_^
YES – YES -YES
Just think what these two women could accomplish. Both love the country and want the best for America.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Yup:
Actually I’d have to clarify that. It’s not “anybody” that you can get to quit, it’s specifically female politicians. Male politicians don’t face this problem, if their children are attacked, it’s automatically the mother’s fault.
myiq2xu:
“that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit”
I don’t know about that, myiq2xu, that’s not how my mother reacted when anyone attacked her children. Her children felt the same way about our parents.
Palin’s family has grown up in the vacuum of her public and political vulnerability. There is no way to separate the attacks her or her family, imo.
If anything, for a lot of mothers, when it comes to her family, it’s war! Palin may very well be building a larger army.
At least, that’s what many of her statements indicated to me. I also think she leaked her intentions in the ‘Running” article.
The: “Hah, hah, she wouldn’t dare” may have just bit them on the arse.
Signs you have to look for is whether the Democratic party suddenly gets all nicey nice with women all of the sudden. Maybe they’ll use terry O’Neill’s new presidency as a chance to get a “fresh start” or some other bullshit malarkey. Or maybe they’ll stop letting Politico take swipes at Hillary as being subordinate to Obama in everything she does. Maybe they’ll even drag out a spokesman to make some statement of how the Democrats do not approve of media attacks on Palin.
Watch for it. If that starts to happen, the D’s are worried. Because Sarah Palin sure as hell isn’t going away.
Good thing to watch for. Either they will be afraid Palin will build power and run. Or, they’re worried that without Palin around (the approved focus of all hate in the world), women might actually wake up and notice who’s dishing the most hate towards women. The Dem[onize woman] Party.
That’s pretty much my assessment of why Palin quit. Personally, I don’t think it’s her intention to hold elected office again, although I can see her accepting an appointment to a position if it’s an area where she has strong opinions or feelings. Hillary and Bill Clinton had one daughter to protect; the Palins have five children to consider. It was clear to me when Sarah Palin accepted the VP nomination that the Palins–both parents and children–derive their strength from their family bonds. I don’t see Sarah Palin as a woman who would subject her children to the kind of continued hatred that has been directed toward them. I don’t think her resignation has anything to do with planning for a future political run.
Remember this? It wasn’t that long ago. Has America been saved? Obama is crafting a legal framework for #6 and Naomi Wolf is silent. She is a hypocrite.
“The End of America”
In The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of Fascism, outlining the 10 steps necessary for a Fascistic group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens’ groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law.[31]
ah hell, he has a good start on most of those.
I’m thinking Obama working on numbers 2-8…. and Hillary was the object of number 1 during his campaign…
thank god this post and thread are sane….
what a mistake to venture out there in the wilderness. The PDS is over the top…. either my memory is faulty or this is so much worse than the crap they threw at Hillary.
not worse, just slightly different.
Just another brand. It’s worse in one way since her being a Republican automatically gives the Dems free reign to vilify her all the like. It’s the same because she’s a woman with a family and God knows one can’t be professionally capable and have a successful family.
I’m starting to think the entire establishment is just pissed that they both managed to get really good-looking husband.
The treatment of Secretary Clinton and Governor Palin in this country has sickened me.
I was thinking about this last night, In California the immigrants staged a ” Day without Mexicans” to show just how much in contributed by them to the country and state.
Can you imagine if women stopped being each others enemy and had a day or a week without women?
Women would sell each other out for a man, very rarely do you see men sell each other out for a woman.
We damn well better wake up soon. I almost have given up on the dream of having a women president in my lifetime. We have allowed ourselves to be used and abused for too long. We have brains lets use them.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE, MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Women create men and then surrender to them.
Octavio Paz
I’m thinking something is up since I’m hearing a growing number of attacks and nastiness voiced about Hillary lately – it seems to me a plot be afoot!
I couldn’t believe what I heard the other day from both the left and right – my gut said – wtf is going on?
We don’t allow mixing of metaphors around these parts.
The game is afoot, while the plot thickens.
Ha! I see you beat me to it. I was going to call you a language nazi.
A plot? Like what????
who knows? You’re right Myiq – I do believe it felt more like a plot thickening but I have no idea what – just nasty comments everytime Hill’s name came up.
Maybe I’ve just become somewhat paranoid after last year.
I’m beginning to think they want her to leave. But at the same time, I’m beginning to think they want her to leave because they’re even more terrified of her than they were before. I don’t know, but I’ve noticed that the trend has gone from “Hillary and Barack are the dream team!” to “Barack doesn’t listen to her and everyone knows it” and “She doesn’t come to work anymore. Why won’t that bitch with the broken elbow work through the pain?”
There are drugs for these kinds of mood swings.
no one is perfect.we are all wonderfully special and unique in our thinking and beliefs.
we must respect that and support it in each other.
womens rights have been set back 100 years in the last year.
i will never forget nor forgive the d.n.c. for robbing us of our rightful President H.R.C.
Those people who continued to file ethics charges against her while in office may just have shot themselves in the foot.
Get the controversies investigated and cleared now and there will be no honest dirt to toss later. I would delight in seeing this backfire on the jerks.
From a comment at Liberal Rapture that I really like:
“It is telling that progressives will spend MASSIVE amounts of effort trying to destroy Sarah Palin but almost none fighting for single payer or against DOMA, DADT, expansion of executive powers, torture, looting of the treasury, a meaningful environmental policy…god, what else. i can’t keep track.”
that’s so true! It’s just like the blogstalkers that spend all day copying and pasting our threads.
but noooooooooo….it’s more important to those idiots to play hall monitor.
LR commenter: Hammer. Nail. Bang!–only that should be “fauxgressives”.
SoD: “Obots…yanking each other off”
EEEUUUUWWWW!!!! BRAIN BLEACH, BRAIN BLEACH, STAT!
Before I let this slip. Happy Independence Day!
In case you haven’t read it in a while…
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
It’s amazing to me how many idiots don’t know that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that Obama signed isn’t what they think it is. All it did was mess with the dates within which you could make claims under the 1963 act.
The bill introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton and other women Senators and in the House, Rosa de Lauro is the “The Paycheck Fairness Act” . This is the one that would actively seek to correct the wage gap and this is the one that Obama won’t sign. This is the equal pay for equal work act that would really promote gender pay equality and not just lengthen the damned amount of time to sue if you think you may have been discriminated against.
So, idiot in the SPAM filter… I deleted you not because I wanted to ignore you, but because I don’t tolerate misinformation.
Thanks for taking out the trash dak
how did I miss this – OSexist won’t sign it???
Another reason to hate him . . .
New thread up
My position is remarkably simple. I am against most of Sarah Palin’s politics. I am also against sexism. In addition I am against the braying, brutish, butch political culture currently in control, the one that licenses cruel, slanderous and vile attacks on people’s personalities and families instead of rational dissections of their politics. No wonder democracy is dying when its spirit is closer to bear-baiting than mature inclusiveness. Despite the simplicity of my position, most people seem incapable of grasping it. Apparently I must be for or against Palin – that’s it. It’s an obtuseness worthy of Bush and it is displayed by feminists, lesbians, democrats, liberals, whatever. I suspect thought the vast majority of wired-up, internet savvy, twittering people are actually brain dead!
Damn right about the debased political culture. Who in his/her right mind would want to enter politics and face that crap?
What she says is not relevant if she doesn’t act upon it.
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Me, too!!!!!!!!!
You bring up a fair point, SoD. I don’t actually know much about Palin’s positions on the issues. I’ve just been assuming I’d disagree with her on most issues because she’s a Republican, and the reactionaries who now dominate the GOP have done all too good a job of expelling and marginalizing their party’s moderates–but for all I know, she might be one of the surviving moderates. Like Brian, I just think our Yahoo (Swift’s yahoos, not the Net service) political culture has treated her in a despicable fashion.
Labels are so easily attached by adversaries with many not willing to research if the label is fair or not. I am also interested in knowing all the horrible things that Sarah Palin stands for. I may not support everything she stands for, but I have yet to see a convincing argument from the left that would prevent me from supporting her. She has a common sense persona that the snooty, educated, elitists from both political parties fail to appreciate because she doesn’t walk and talk like they do. She’s the pretty girl from the other side of the tracks who isn’t good enough to belong to their mean clique. But that doesn’t matter because there is a whole other much larger group of people that are willing to listen to her, and who appreciate her uniqueness in a political world that has taken advantage of them and their votes for so many years. She is the breath of fresh air, the true harbinger of change, the real threat to the status quo, the one who dares confront nastiness not with the same, but with dignity which is something that is so lacking in today’s political culture.
Right on, Riverdaughter. I’m with you.
“she remains a threat to the liberal feminist political establishment.”
CORRECTION:
We need to take this phrase & *delete* the words “liberal” and “feminist”…and replace with the words “FAUXliberal” and “FAUXfeminist”!!
There…NOW the phrase is accurate. 🙂
—
CLASS layers over everything & I’m tired of having women being played against other women in ANY party or any class, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or age!
—
Is it not possible to have respect for *ourselves* and still disagree on issues in a respectful manner?!?!
(because when we are bashing someone else solely based on Vagaigai components…then we are bashing *ourselves* simultaneously — this is stupid & unfair & cultural repression of 1/2 the damn population – !bigotry!-)
—
“We pigeon hole ourselves at our own risk.”
YES!
Let’s all stop the *women-as-equal-people* self-mutilation schtick.
I was just over at The Left Coaster giving them hell for calling her “the quitter in pumps.” I mentioned the t-shirts.
Excellent post by riverdaughter.
Sorry to all, I use to be a strong blue dog democrat. I am fisically responsible and socially liberal but because of the whacked out policies of Obama I can now say that I will be voting republican for the reat of my life. I do not give a hoot about social things anymore. I just want fisical responsibility, I want jobs and no deficits and I can no longer count on that with the extreme leftist side of this party. So good bye democrats and hello and I hope you can save us Republicans.
I do not care if she runs I just want her out there screaming at Obama and the deficits, and the spending, and his no stance on Iran and his negative response to isreal. I just want someone who will scream st him.
[…] June 25, 2009 · 2 Comments The Confluence: Black, White and Sarah […]
[…] Black, white and Sarah […]