Sarah Palin baby sling
Friday September 5, 2008
John Dickerson in Slate: Palin's attacks are potentially dangerous [to Democrats] because they are aimed at the crucial voting bloc of women and middle-class voters who can see their lives in her life. Obama talked about coming from a middle-class...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I find this insulting to woman and vaguely sexist. Do you really think female voters are so unsophisticated that all it takes is a woman holding her baby to get their vote? Dream on.
Sweet. Who cares. Put her in a room with Fred Kagan, Fareed Zakaria, Greg Mankiw, Tyler Cowen and Paul Krugman for a few hours. Let us find out what she actually knows about our foreign policy issues and our economic issues. What will she do if she becomes president? What people would she choose as advisers?
Steve
+1 with Steve
RaginCajun, do you really think that's what Rod was suggesting?
The picture speaks to her authenticity. And thus, it's worth 1,000 words.
I hope all these commentators send out the memo when it's okay to criticize St. Sarah of Wasilla without enduring the wrath of insecure women and victim-centered conservatives. Otherwise, it's going to be a long 60-days if no one is allowed to have a conversation about her credentials, less white conservative women fall weeping to the ground.
I'm with Steve.
Is anyone suggesting that Palin's ability to bear children is not authentic?
The question is simple: what does it have to do with her ability to step in to the most powerful job on the planet, should McCain have a debilitating health problem that requires removal from office?
Nothing.
Given the amount of rage elsewhere on this blog about "working mothers" as a major blot on the culture, one has to be amazed at the deafening silence about this in Palin's case. All of a sudden you're all feminists. This is great.
Certainly the McCain campaign is hoping that pictures are worth more than words, because they're going to keep Palin away from reporters.
"Judging from his public statements shortly after he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain thought she had opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. She hadn't. He thought she had sold the state's executive jet on eBay and made a profit on it. On both counts, she didn't. He thought she had cut taxes as both mayor and governor. She hadn't. He apparently thought she had fully explained her part in pressuring the state police chief to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She hasn't. He thought she was an enemy of earmarks and federal pork. In fact, she was a pioneer of both. And now Marc Ambinder confirms that Palin is being kept deeply under wraps:
A senior McCain campaign official advises that, despite the gaggle of requests and pressure from the media, Gov. Sarah Palin won't submit to a formal interview anytime soon. She may take some questions from local news entities in Alaska, but until she's ready — and until she's comfortable — which might not be for a long while — the media will have to wait. The campaign believes it can effectively deal with the media's complaints, and their on-the-record response to all this will be: "Sarah Palin needs to spend time with the voters."
The McCain campaign is scared to death. They knew nothing about Palin before they announced her, they relied on a cursory vetting process that has turned out to be shot full of holes, they realize now that she has no settled views on any issue of national importance and could blurt out anything at any time, and they're terrified about what might crop up next. So they're keeping her in the deep freeze.
Will it work? I guess it's possible. If she does one or two friendly interviews it will prevent reporters from saying flatly that she "refuses to meet with the press," and the slightly more complicated explanation may be just complicated enough to keep voters from noticing what's going on. In a way, it's sort of a test of just how gullible the American public really is. Are they actually willing to vote for someone who's afraid to meet with Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, and Meet the Press? Will they accept a tissue-thin excuse about what big meanies they all are? We're about to find out."
[linked version with proofs available at Kevin Drum's site]
I can't believe that this will work...how will she campaign? But you know what they say about suckers.
"Otherwise, it's going to be a long 60-days if no one is allowed to have a conversation about her credentials, less white conservative women fall weeping to the ground."
Pardon, Daniel, but your sexism is showing. (Not to mention a touch of racism--do you seriously think Palin's only going to attract white women? I'm betting pro-life Hispanic women are thrilled with her.)
I find this insulting to woman and vaguely sexist. Do you really think female voters are so unsophisticated that all it takes is a woman holding her baby to get their vote? Dream on.
I love that your understanding of how politics works is so primitive that you don't see the power of images like this. Read the political reporter John Dickerson's simple words that I posted along this image. Or not. Doesn't bother me.
The picture speaks to her authenticity.
Posted by: Houghton | September 5, 2008 6:05 PM
Help me out here - what does that mean, exactly?
Some of us may restrict our cable viewing in future to one channel only, after catching moments ago what is far and away the most autotherapeutic Palin Family clip of all, on the 6pm repeat of Little Jimmy Kimmel at The Grand Old TV Guide Channel:
youtube.com/watch?v=zY6Fv3xvjfo
"Daniel, but your sexism is showing. (Not to mention a touch of racism--do you seriously think Palin's only going to attract white women? I'm betting pro-life Hispanic women are thrilled with her.)"
Oh dear. It was your friend Rod who continues to suggest women were so fragile that they couldn't bear criticism of Palin and take it as a personal affront.
As for Hispanic women, the GOP is as white as an Alaska winter. The number of Hispanic, non-Cuban, women who are going to be sent into convulsions by criticism of Palin is so miniscule that they barely register.
Look, this is a non-issue. I've been caught up in this silliness because I'm flabbergasted by how quickly someone, Rod, who I thought had a little more critical distance from the right-wing political machine has jumped onto the train.
As I've said before, Palin is a blank slate. The McCain campaign will keep her that way for as long as possible. The Obama campaign will ignore Palin and continue to focus its "more of the same" attacks on McCain.
To keep the Palin story in the media, the McCain campaign will use people like Rod to carp about victimhood of the religious right and evils of the culture of death and the media elite.
You'll notice that in all of Rod's posts there are no direct references to reputable major media outlets that are making fun "of Palin's church, her moose-hunting skills, her family and her small-townness". That's because there have not been. There have been credible and expected questions about her qualifications and about real scandals, namely the trooper issue. The rest is trash from the blogs. No one can stop these people, so you can always find someone who said anything you want to hear and gin up outraged about it.
The narrative the McCain campaign wants around Palin is a populist reformer with christian values under seige by the intellectual left. Ideas are way beside the point.
In these terms her selection will succeed. But, this was a cynical political selection of the worst kind. I don't think it will work. John McCain has shown that he is willing to compromise himself in every way possible to be elected president. This is another example. It won't work.
She gets her hair-Trig'ger fingers from her mom...
Re the flak over the distaff Palins, to adapt a line from the late George Carlin, "Say whatever you like about the girl - just leave *me* alone."
You know what I don't like about Palin? She drops her g's in -ing words. Where is it written that normal regular people have to have sloppy diction?
*sigh* I guess I'm an elitist.
And I'd like to hear some of you address elizabeth's comment:
"Given the amount of rage elsewhere on this blog about "working mothers" as a major blot on the culture, one has to be amazed at the deafening silence about this in Palin's case. All of a sudden you're all feminists. This is great."
Right, Daniel, because finding partisan-style media attacks against Palin offensive is the same thing as falling weeping to the ground over any legitimate criticism of her. And I think the Texas Hispanic Republicans I know would be amused that you think they don't exist, or don't count (you'll have to clarify which it is, I'm afraid.)
Right, Daniel... 'cause nobody's questioned Palin's credentials yet. It's just been one big praise and worship session for St. Sarah! We "victim-centered" conservatives just can't tolerate criticism, don't ya know. 'Specially us white women. We tend to get the vapors... kinda like that professor up at Harvard who fainted when Larry Summers made that tacky suggestion that men and women might be – gasp! – different.
Oh, wait... I forgot. She wasn't a conservative. Sarah Palin IS a conservative, and you'd better believe there's nothing victim-centered about her. Don't be looking for her, or any of us, to fall weeping to the ground.
Is no one else disturbed by the fact that McCain's advisors have basically admitted that Palin is being kept away from the press in order to "study"? And it's not like, her brushing up on the minutia of economic policy or foreign policy, it's , you know, "This is where Georgia is located on the map. This is what GDP stands for."
She s 60 days away from potentially being our vice president, and the question from the media should not be "What doesn't she know about" but "What DOES she know about?"
If any of Rod's readers can honestly say that, previous to any McCain campaign coaching, she could recite the first ten amendments of the constitution, or the members of G-8, or what NATO does, or what NATO is, or ... or anything. She's never even THOUGHT about foreign policy. Sullivan has been asking readers to send him any statement she has even made on any foreign affairs issue, and the best he's found is her sermon in church where she mentions Iraq being a task from God!
Just as an example, take Russia. Even if her "advisers" brief her like, "Okay this is Putin. This is who he is, what he thinks. This is Medvedev. We adviser that you do this." How would she even be in a position to question their advice? What context does she have? What relevant experience? Do you think for a second that anything she learns between now and ... forget the election ... now and next year say, will possibly prepare her to make decisions about the extremely complex relationship between the US and Russia?
I mean, having good advisers is one thing, but if your advisers can tell you that the world is flat, and you wouldn't know enough to contradict them, then where does that leave us?
I'm not saying she isn't smart. I'm not saying I discount her executive experience, but how can you prepare to be the vice president of the United States in two months?
"Given the amount of rage elsewhere on this blog about "working mothers" as a major blot on the culture, one has to be amazed at the deafening silence about this in Palin's case. All of a sudden you're all feminists. This is great."
Posted by: | September 5, 2008 6:29 PM
I think "Dr. Laura" said something about it.
....Googles.....
Here we go:
www.drlaurablog.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-and-motherhood
You know what I don't like about Palin? She drops her g's in -ing words. Where is it written that normal regular people have to have sloppy diction?
*sigh* I guess I'm an elitist.
That brought a smile to my face.
Given the amount of rage elsewhere on this blog about "working mothers" as a major blot on the culture
Kindly show evidence of the "rage" about working mothers on this blog. I think as a general matter, moms should stay home if they can. But I'm not mad about it. I'm not even emotional about it. Quit projecting.
You know what I don't like about Palin? She drops her g's in -ing words. Where is it written that normal regular people have to have sloppy diction?
Posted by: | September 5, 2008 6:29 PM
A regional dialect is not the same thing as "sloppy diction." My parents both have graduate degrees (Mom's an economist and Dad's a lawyer), as do I (in English), but we hail from North Carolina and Alabama, and we all drop our g's pretty regularly. I thought Palin was surprisingly articulate, myself. (But then, I'm just a bumpkin from Alabama living in South Carolina....) My mother always stressed that bad grammar is inexcusable but an accent is nothing to be ashamed of.
That last post was mine. I'm the bumpkin from Alabama living in South Carolina who drops her g's:)
"The picture speaks to her authenticity. And thus, it's worth 1,000 words."
Haven't any of you people ever seen A FACE IN THE CROWD?
(Not that I think Palin is secretly some kind of Larry-Rhodes-style coarse demagogue; I've got nothing in particular against her and I'm sure she's a nice person. But the point is: I'm a little suprised by how many people here (and elsewhere) have fallen so hard for her aw-shucks demeanor. Yes, I know, people vote with their emotions, but don't most people at least PRETEND that this Oprah style of politics is a bad thing?)
(And, yes, I know, that counts for Obama too.)
Anon., 6:29: "You know what I don't like about Palin? She drops her g's in -ing words."
To adapt my Pop, I think it's ___kin' awesome!
A Commander-in-Cheap some called Bubba
Liked 'em best when they burned his rubbah
Whether dropping stringed g's
Or down to their knees
Most often endowed well with blubbah
Pete, I'm an average conservative woman with a bachelor's degree from a small, definitely-not-elite college--but I know where the country of Georgia is on a map, and I know what GDP stands for, that it's measured by the BEA and forecast by the CBO, too (I also know that current-dollar GDP leaves inflation effects in the calculations, but that's irrelevant just now).
So, while I've no doubt Gov. Palin is having to study some current national matters so she can discuss them intelligently with the press who are going to be inimical to her, I also think that there's a bit of "rope-a-dope" going on in this talk of letting her "get ready." That is, I think that she'll be speaking to the press by next weekend at the latest, and any sense that the campaign intended to prolong that step any further than that will be met with amusement by McCain's people--which will make anybody in the media who complains about it in the coming week look pretty silly.
"Quit projecting."
Lock and load.
When I took linguistics in grad school, the professor told us that slavish insistence on pronouncing the "g" in "ing" was a bourgeois, teacherly affectation dating from the turn of the century. This article--
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000878.html
--doesn't exactly bear up that assertion, but it attests to the fact that the dropped g is not such a clear-cut class and education marker as it may seem.
"Don't be looking for her, or any of us, to fall weeping to the ground."
Tell that to the male conservative commentators who are consistently linked to here who insist that women will be so offended by the treatment of Palin that they will vote for her based on no other reason but that they "relate to her."
The meme appears to be that women are so emotional that they don't make serious political decisions about which candidate to choose, but instead are motivated by cooing babies and "victimized" women.
Okay Erin. We'll see. Obviously, or maybe not, I was hyperbolizing in the first instance, about Georgia and the GDP. I don't know whether she can answer those questions, although you don't either.
But knowing that you, as an average conservative woman, know the answer is neither here nor there in re: my concern about her readiness to lead. A person that is in line to be leader of the free world should not need a week to get ready to answer question on foreign policy, or for that matter, a hundred other issues that the president should be well-versed in, let alone show basic competence, let alone know the first thing about. She (or he) shouldn't need a day. She should be prepared with answers on day 1. Hour 1. Next weekend at the latest is two full weeks since she's been the nominee, and her only interview is with People magazine! Do you think Biden had to cram? What about Obama, after he accepted the nomination? Think he needed coaching from Lieberman? Doesn't this whole thing give you pause at all? We're not talking about a candidate for the House or the Senate — I love her as a Senator! — we're talking about the Number 2 in the land! Behind a 72-yo, who, just by his age alone stands a 15% chance of dying before inauguration day, not even taking into account his bouts with cancer! And her never expressing so much as an opinion on foreign policy before this week doesn't give you pause?
The (de)merits of Palin aside, is the point that Palin's using a sling is what shows her to be middle class? Because I don't know anyone outside of the young urban/old crunchy class (not well put, granted) that uses a sling. The Atlanta burbs? Full of shoulder towels and giant SUV-like strollers. Slings? My b-in-law called them "gay."
"Behind a 72-yo, who, just by his age alone stands a 15% chance of dying before inauguration day, not even taking into account his bouts with cancer!"
Just to clear up possible confusion, this is inauguration day 2012, not 2008.
No, Pete, it really doesn't. She's not a career politician who has been planning a run for the White House for twenty or thirty years; on the other hand, she's not a yokel from the Yukon who is too dumb to know what GDP means. I think a week or two to get up to speed will be pretty impressive, and will probably reflect her journalistic background as much as it does her time as Governor of Alaska.
And given that McCain's 96-year-old mother has been rather visible the past few days, I think all those laying odds on McCain's chances of dying before inauguration are being unduly pessimistic.
What I find odd about the sudden concern about Palin's qualifications and experience is that it almost seems that anyone who *isn't* an Ivy-league educated United States Senator should automatically be deemed incompetent for the presidential ticket. Every time in the recent past when a governor has run for president or vice president this question of how he could possibly know anything about foreign policy has been raised, as if nobody other than a member of Congress has any clue about Georgia, or Rice's trip to Libya and what her meeting with Gaddafi hopes to accomplish, or the status of Brazilian oil, or any one of dozens of other international concerns that a reasonably attentive citizen might pay attention to on a day-to-day basis.
But there's a difference between having a decent grasp of foreign policy and a willingness to learn more, and being ready to face a hostile press most of whose members dislike your party and want it to fail in November. Many people who are perfectly ready to govern need coaching on how to handle the media, and I don't see anything odd about taking the time to do just that.
"Kindly show evidence of the "rage" about working mothers on this blog. I think as a general matter, moms should stay home if they can. But I'm not mad about it. I'm not even emotional about it. Quit projecting."
You may not be emotional about it, but a whole lot of regular commenters here are. There's a regular chorus here about "selfish" women who are more interested in material things than they are in having/raising babies. The chorus gives women a pass when they have to work to help the family make end meet, but Palin doesn't seem to be in that category.
I grew up in the Deep South in a town that was 55% black and 45% white and where 100% of us dropped our g's from time to time.
I invite all you wonderfully "urbane," "well-educated," and "progressive" elocutionists on this thread to take a trip back home with me, so you can show my African-American friends the error of their linguistic ways.
I hold a doctorate myself, so I may qualified to handle those neanderthalic Scots-Irish whom ya'll -- and yes, I do mean *ya'll* -- would melt into puddles of goo -- like salted slugs -- if you ever had actually to *listen* to, let alone get to *hear.*
But there's a difference between having a decent grasp of foreign policy and a willingness to learn more, and being ready to face a hostile press most of whose members dislike your party and want it to fail in November. Many people who are perfectly ready to govern need coaching on how to handle the media, and I don't see anything odd about taking the time to do just that.
And all God's people said Ay-men!
I'm the bumpkin from Alabama living in South Carolina who drops her g's:)
Well a' course y'all do. So do we.
Nice to meet you, MargaretE. I a hick attorney with a classical education born and bred right here in Tulsa.
I'm sure that the Palin-bashing crew wishes we hicks and bumpkins had spent less time reading Thucydides and Aristophanes and more time watchin' Star Trek.
Many people who are perfectly ready to govern need coaching on how to handle the media, and I don't see anything odd about taking the time to do just that.
The point is that, off the top of my head, I can come up with about 10 women and 40 men who could have hit the ground running as McCain's veep choice. They wouldn't need training on how to answer question from a tough media. They wouldn't need a foreign policy and economic policy boot camp.
While St. Sarah of Wasilla clearly has charisma and appeal and social conservative bona fides, we shouldn't be bullied into not asking questions about her readiness to be sitting on national security meetings or answering basic questions at a press conference or on a Sunday morning news program not broadcast on Fox.
It's a reasonable question to ask about her readiness and people don't need to be accused of being sexist or elist or anti-Christian when they ask it, even if it allegedly offends white rural conservative women.
Michael - Thank you for correcting me. Wherever I read that I must've missed that very important piece of info. Will have to reconsider.
But Erin, I said above I don't think she's stupid. She is however, ignorant. As I said above, Sullivan has been scouring the Internets looking for a single instance where Palin has expressed ANY opinion on anything related to foreign policy. That's what it's about. McCain isn't Ivy league educated. Biden isn't. I'm not complaining about them.
And please: Once you play the liberal media card, I know what I'm up against. The media argument will get us nowhere. You point to something alleging liberal media bias, I point to something alleging GOP bias, we can go on all night ad infinitum. Poisoning the well isn't going to help you. And besides, Joe Lieberman isn't coaching her on how to handle a hostile media. He's coaching her on foreign policy.
Look, you say "a reasonably attentive citizen might pay attention to on a day-to-day basis." Well she's more than that. She's the governor of a state. She, unlike the rest of us, makes speeches and writes policy proposals. Hell, if I was the VP candidate it would be pretty darn easy for anyone who was looking to find out what I thought about a lot of foreign policy issues. But for her, who has way more on the record interviews and stuff than I do or ever will, nothing! So yes, I think it's safe to assume that she is less knowledgeable that a reasonably attentive citizen.
If she were, then the McCain surrogates wouldn't be all over the news channels trotting out ridiculous canards like "Alaska is close to Russia." It's embarrassing.
It's just mind-boggling to me that conservatives, who have been beating the drum about all the threats we face from abroad, are willing to do an about-face for this governor who's never so much as expressed a public thought on ANY world issue (other than energy).
Some people aren't buying it: Ponnuru, Krauthammer, Sullivan, Frum. They see the same thing as me. Honestly, imagining her face-to-face with Putin petrifies me. Keeps me awake at night. And it's not because she's a woman, and it's not because I question for a second her intelligence.
The point is that, off the top of my head, I can come up with about 10 women and 40 men who could have hit the ground running as McCain's veep choice. They wouldn't need training on how to answer question from a tough media. They wouldn't need a foreign policy and economic policy boot camp.
You know what pisses me off most about this whole affair? I have to sit here and agree with Daniel. DANIEL!!!
But the man is right. McCain went the identity route, as Rod's blogposts keep confirming. Palin is not ready for the presidency (which is what VP means). After a term or two, she promises to be a great candidate, but this too soon. By pushing her too far too fast, McCain has fired his parting shot at the GOP's conservative base, and they're praising him for it, the saps.
Two things, Daniel:
One, you keep beating that poor strawman and he's going to look like Dorothy's Scarecrow after the Wicked Witch of the West got to him. Ask all the questions you want about her readiness! I'm one conservative woman who isn't remotely offended by such questions, as I hope my civil replies to Pete--who *is* asking such questions--can demonstrate.
What I, and most conservative women, object to are things like this little gem posted by Mark Steyn over at the Corner, from an email he received:
"This abortion prohibitionist hag won’t cut it among women with brains.And BTW she is a good example of reproduction run amok. 5 kids; 1 retard. I wonder if the bitch ever heard of getting spayed."
I don't know any conservative women who *wouldn't* find that sort of thing offensive. And if the objection is that the media aren't saying those exact things, there have been enough pieces like the Ted Rall editorial titled "Sarah Palin, Queen of the Nobodies," which contains the following paragraph:
"As far as we know, Sarah Palin faced her biggest personal challenge a year ago. According to official accounts, she learned that she was pregnant with a child with Down Syndrome. She decided to keep him. It has to be heart-breaking. Still, as a right-wing opponent of abortion rights, however, the decision not to abort had to have been simple to make. Also on the knocked-up front, she and McCain actively attempted to cover up the fact that her 17-year-old daughter has a bun in the oven. Icky, icky. Zero integrity points for sucking up to the Christianist Right."
If the media, and Democrats in general think that attacking Palin this way is the way to go, fine! I know a few conservative homeschooling moms who'd be happy to schedule a special "Language Arts" session on the meaning of the word "backlash" for the day after the election.
And as to my second point, Daniel, your cute repetition of the nickname "St. Sarah of Wasilla" is pretty rich, all things considered. If I called Obama "The Obamessiah" every time I wrote about him here you'd be all over that, and possibly decide to fill Rod's inbox with complaints about my tone. But you don't appear to see anything at all wrong with that sort of thing from your side and even from yourself--which is pretty revealing when all is said and done.
And besides, Joe Lieberman isn't coaching her on how to handle a hostile media. He's coaching her on foreign policy.
THAT'S a frightening thought.
THAT alone should seal the deal for any anti-interventionist.
"You know what pisses me off most about this whole affair? I have to sit here and agree with Daniel. DANIEL!!!"
ROFL.
St. Sarah of Wasilla is a uniter after all.
As a working class mother of two, I don't identify with Sarah AT ALL! I have absolutely sacrificed my career in order to spend the most time possible with my girls (ages 10 and 12 years, not months!)...and I don't regret a moment of it! Can't think of a more important job than the one I have as mom. The other stuff will come later (hopefully when they are off to college without children of their own!)
Rod,
Where did you find that picture? Wasit taken right after trig was born?
Shelley
I wrote a lengthy reply, Daniel, but it's in Comment Moderation Hades. Since it's Friday night, Rod may not see it or my email, but I can't recreate the thing just now.
I do think you should drop the "St. Sarah of Wasilla" shtick, though. Governor Palin deserves as much respect as Senator Obama, and putting eighth-grade nicknames on opponents isn't really conducive to civil discourse.
Ha! It's true Derek! The other day I was just commenting to my friends about how, in one day, I found myself agreeing with Gloria Steinem and Ben Stein! Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum!
" journalistic background"
My understanding is that she was a sports journalist. Is that wrong?
"And given that McCain's 96-year-old mother has been rather visible the past few days, I think all those laying odds on McCain's chances of dying before inauguration are being unduly pessimistic."
His father died at 70? Grandfather at 61? Most major corporations have plans for what to do if the CEO dies. Actually, both VP candidates should be prepared t take over if needed. She may be able to function in the role, but we know so little about her.
"What I find odd about the sudden concern about Palin's qualifications and experience is that it almost seems that anyone who *isn't* an Ivy-league educated United States Senator should automatically be deemed incompetent for the presidential ticket. "
Bob Gates ok? He would have good foreign policy credentials. Not Ivy League trained. I have very carefully avoided writing that she is incompetent. I have no idea (and neither do you) what she knows. As a voter I want to know. She has political experience, as has been pointed out. Why not answer some questions? Ideally, we should know how long she has held her particular views. I am leery of instant wonders. If Bush had an understanding of Middle East history that went beyond what his aides spoon fed him, maybe his approach might have been more cautious and well planned.
"Many people who are perfectly ready to govern need coaching on how to handle the media"
Who are you thinking of here? What prior VP candidate fits this description?
Steve
Governor Palin deserves as much respect as Senator Obama, and putting eighth-grade nicknames on opponents isn't really conducive to civil discourse.
Erin, I'm just riffing on the nicknames given to Sen. Obama on this very blog when liberals were accused of overpraising him. Now that Gov. Palin apparently has supernatural powers to heal the GOP and cannot be questioned, I was just having a little fun. Kinda like when Rod constantly refers to Obama as the Lightworker.
"I do think you should drop the "St. Sarah of Wasilla" shtick, though. Governor Palin deserves as much respect as Senator Obama, and putting eighth-grade nicknames on opponents isn't really conducive to civil discourse."
This is a joke?
The One
Obamessiah
Lightbringer (or Lightbearer)
If you are serious, I agree with you. I know Rod has used these terms for Obama, but cannot specifically remember, and am too lazy to look, if you have.
Steve
I do think you should drop the "St. Sarah of Wasilla" shtick, though.
As someone who takes full and undeserved credit for the term "Obamaton", I give my blessing to this moniker, though it lacks a certain zing.
For now, I say we call Palin fans the "Sarafim", or for the more "convinced", we can call them "Sarafiable".
Speaking of classism, how annoying is it for a woman to call herself a "pit bull." Nothing is more nekulturny these days than pit bulls and their owners. I have neighbors across my street who breed them, and they are loooowwww class.
elizabeth is totally right. "We are all feminists now!" And don't think I'll ever let you (the general you, as Franklin would say) forget it . . . . I can't wait for the next post about selfish modern mothers. ; ) Moms having nannies care for their children? Off the table. Moms being held guilty for less than crunchy-perfect behavior from their teenagers? Off the table. Moms considering their own fulfillment in the workplace of equal value with their childraising duties? No longer an issue! Women aspiring to positions of high status and great responsibility during their childbearing years? A-OK! Women working on an equal basis with men, and claiming God's blessing on their endeavors? Yeah sure youbetcha. Bwah ha ha ha ha . . . . The smoke of Satan has entered into the cenacle of crunchydom.
The point is that, off the top of my head, I can come up with about 10 women and 40 men who could have hit the ground running as McCain's veep choice. They wouldn't need training on how to answer question from a tough media. They wouldn't need a foreign policy and economic policy boot camp.
And yet, not a single one would have attracted half the enthusiasm of Sarah Palin, or turned this election around for McCain and the Republicans, giving them a good chance in a bad GOP year. Not a single one. You should think about that.
Your problem with the Republicans is that they actually want to win.
I can't wait for the next post about selfish modern mothers. ; ) Moms having nannies care for their children? Off the table. Moms being held guilty for less than crunchy-perfect behavior from their teenagers? Off the table. Moms considering their own fulfillment in the workplace of equal value with their childraising duties? No longer an issue! Women aspiring to positions of high status and great responsibility during their childbearing years? A-OK! Women working on an equal basis with men, and claiming God's blessing on their endeavors?
She's right, all you Sarafim. For the sake of possibly putting an inexperienced conservative in an essentially powerless office, you've ceded your entire cultural argument to the left. You tried to out-PC the PCistas, and only wound up entrenching their arguments further.
"Not a single one. You should think about that."
It's a profound statement about the GOP and the base of the party.
Your problem with the Republicans is that they actually want to win.
As the Good Lord would say, Rod: "What profit it a man to gain the world and lose his soul?" I like the further twist you could take from A Man for All Seasons, "It profits a man nothing to lose his soul to gain the world, but the vice-presidency?"
Yes, of course, perdition isn't on the line here, but as sigilaris has so pointedly made clear, the cultural conservatives' wild support for Impalin' Palin has vitiated their entire philosophy. You've gained a symbol, but at what cost?
"Your problem with the Republicans is that they actually want to win."
Wrong. They always want to win. They just don't value competence in governing anymore.
Steve
Your problem with the Republicans is that they actually want to win.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | September 5, 2008 10:15 PM
My problem with the Republicans is that they want to win with candidates who aren't qualified to govern.
First Bush, now Palin.
You have an awful lot of faith in this person, when virtually every hour brings some new disclosure about a lie she's told or a misdeed she's tried to cover up or a vindictive effort she's carried out against political or personal enemies. Are you really going to argue that she is the best qualified person McCain could find to run the country if he kicks the bucket, as there's a good chance he will do if elected? Or are you arguing that all that matters is putting another Republican in the White House (forget "country first") so the person who attracts the most attention from the most rabid wing of the party is the one that should be put on the ticket?
Republicans have NOTHING to run on. Their record is one of almost breathtaking failure on all fronts. Even McCain admitted as much in his speech. And try as he might to separate himself from Bush, he voted with Bush 90% of the time for the past miserable eight years. He shares responsibility for the failure of the RepubliCANTS and he will be unable to escape it. All they can hope for is to attack with lies and smears and fearmongering. But it won't wash this time. And if you think Democrats don't want to win--well, you're just not paying attention. I'm going to give Obama every spare dollar and every free hour between now and Election Day, and so are millions and millions of Democrats young and old who are fed up with the misery this bunch has inflicted and the dishonor it has brought to our beloved country. So you'd better be ready for a fight, because we're bringing it to you in every community in every state from now until November.
And yet, not a single one would have attracted half the enthusiasm of Sarah Palin, or turned this election around for McCain and the Republicans, giving them a good chance in a bad GOP year.
Actually, I think McCain HAD a good chance without Palin, who's still quite the gamble--you don't know what skeleton's going to fall out of that ice closet. He's been either tied or in striking distance of Obama, and he could use the electoral map to his advantage. The thing he had going for him was the perception (false as it was) that he was the safer bet because of his experience. Well, you can kiss that good-bye.
Note here from the Enquirer that Palin was not an "ideal" mom. Here's Lawrence Auster's preview of the article, and Auster is no lefty:
www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011344.html
Sarah has had a stormy relationship with Bristol, said the family source.
"Sarah had a hard time controlling her, " said the source. "She is so busy with her political career that it seems she often doesn't have time for Bristol.
"While Todd is often around the house, there are issues their teenage daughter doesn't want to share with her father."
As Auster correctly concludes:
From the above, we may fairly infer something which will seem self-evident but which needs to be spelled out explicitly: it wasn't just Bristol whom Palin was attempting to protect by concealing the news of the pregnancy until it could be announced in a way that would be less embarrassing and damaging. It was herself she was attempting to protect, because she saw herself as responsible, or at least knew that others would reasonably see her as responsible, for her 17 year old daughter's getting pregnant out of wedlock. Therefore she needed to prevent the information about the pregnancy from coming out prior to the Republican convention.
Her plan failed, but it didn't matter, because, as it turned out, for most Republicans in the McCainized Republican party (though they would fiercely deny it), the right of a woman to pursue a career is a higher good than the proper raising of children and the protection of the family.
Also, wasn't the win at all costs mentality what we on the Right condemned in Bill and Hillary Clinton and their supporters?
Erin,
I agree that the comments you posted are offensive. But I think you've forgotten the dripping contempt the Obama's were treated to by conservatives. Who can forget this one
Michelle Obama turned 44 last month, which meant she turned 18 in 1982, becoming a legal adult. Did she find nothing at all to be proud of about her country until her husband became the Democratic front-runner for president? Was our history nothing but a catalogue of shame until then? Has American history from 1982 until the present moment been nothing but disgrace and misery for this well-off Ivy League graduate?
Suddenly I'm wondering if the Obamas are, underneath it all, the kind of educated left-wing miserabilists who really do despise their country.
Sadly, this kind of snarling contempt against the Obamas we've been subjected to for months.
The last paragraph in my 10:37 post should be italicized, as it's taken from Auster's site. I apologize for my bad formatting.
Lady McCainiac
Baby in a sling
Wonder how you'll manage to make votes swing?
Friday morning came John's big announcement
Wednesday evening's moment in the sun
Mama's child has learned to slick Trig's peachfuzz*
See Mama run
Lady McCainiac
Party's at your feet
Got the red-meat base all lined up at your teat
Wherefore your world smarts, so you're no global fool
Your pals at Fox News say Alaska's quite the school
Lady McCainiac lying on the bed
Heart theme "Barracuda" MP3'ed your head
Tuesday's autumn precincts now need tending
Wednesday-after quarterbacks will Shrum
Thursday past your hotheads took to venting
See Mama run
Lady McCainiac, Party at your feet
Wonder how JoeBama will feel your heat
Rivals turn to torrents your every tiny sprinkle
But have they got a Mommy who dropped Bullwinkle?
I keep seeing these postings that verify that Sarah Palin lives in the real world and is authentic. Great. If I had known that was what it took to be taken seriously and get traction running for the second highest position in the land, I would have told any one of my neighbors to run.
Derek, Sig, from 1992-1996 Sarah Palin served on the City Council. That job requires two whole meetings a month, beginning at seven p.m.--and sometimes there's a special meeting some *other* evening of the month! Horrors! Clearly a woman with, at the time, two young children was seriously neglecting her parenting duties by keeping this arduous schedule.
Her third daughter was even *born* while she was still a member of this six-person council. She didn't even have the decency to stop reproducing long enough to give her full attention to her job. What could McCain be *thinking* nominating someone like her!
I have yet to learn what sort of insane and taxing schedule she kept as mayor of Wasilla from 1996-2002; I fear that Willow, who was only a year old when Sarah took on this job, and Piper, who was born about five years later and at least several *months* before Sarah quit to make her unsuccessful bid for Lt. Governor, must have thought of their mother as a stranger, since when they weren't accompanying her to work and going with her as she conducted town business there might have been whole hours when they were foisted off on their dad or even--gasp!--in preschool or kindergarten (well, Willow, anyway).
But you're right; this is *exactly* like women who put their kids in daycare at the age of six weeks old and work ten to twelve hour days with weekend travel to stay competitive in their careers. In fact, I should hide my face in shame, since I too have been a working mother on those occasions when Rod lets me take the blog for a week or so. For me to suggest that women ought to make their children a priority is clearly nothing but rank hypocrisy on my part, since when I'm in the throes of Crunchy Con blogging my children sometimes have to say my name *twice* before I notice they're speaking to me.
Sheesh.
Erin, I'm on record here as defending Sarah Palin's right to run for VP and to take her chances on neglecting her family fully as much as any male candidate does. Perhaps you missed those posts from me. Anyway, that dog won't hunt, as Fred Thompson would say.
That job requires two whole meetings a month, beginning at seven p.m Oh dear. You seem to be arguing here that it's really okay that Sarah Palin had a job, because it was just kind of a hobby. She didn't actually do any WORK . . . unlike those other, evil, feministy-women who spend some time and energy on the job they were hired to do.
Can you not see that this argument cancels out the other assertion that conservatives have been making about Sarah Palin--that she is fully qualified to be President by virtue of her extensive experience? How qualified can she be if, by your showing, she only spent a couple of hours a week on one job, and little more on the other, which she performed with toddlers in tow? I don't think you've thought this one through.
A final minor point: onstage in the video referenced in the next post up, she thanks a fellow church member for having been her nanny. So I guess she did put her kids in some kind of daycare, after all.
Well, and another final point (pace Cardinal Fang): you're using that very tired old rhetorical device, the false dichotomy, again. There are many ways to be a working mother. Very few of them involve the extremes you describe as if they were the norm. Most working mothers make the same kinds of accommodations Sarah Palin has been making. So if she gets your approval, I think they deserve it too. Sheesh, yourself.
Well, can't simultaneously talk about how much experience she got at those jobs, then talk about how rarely they met, how little work was involved, and how little time she spent at them.
So, which were they? Good, intensive training for possibly becoming the leader of our country, or part time hobbies?
"Palin's attacks are potentially dangerous [to Democrats] because they are aimed at the crucial voting bloc of women and middle-class voters who can see their lives in her life."
Really? They can see themselves becoming Vice-President? Governor of their states? All you have to is attend some city council meetings a couple times a month and you're golden? Sorry, can't buy that one.
"So, which were they? Good, intensive training for possibly becoming the leader of our country, or part time hobbies?"
Who ever said that Sarah Palin had her eyes on becoming a VP in 1992 and figured that City Council would be just the ticket? "Intensive training?" Come on, no one I have heard or read has claimed that her stint as a member of Wasilla's Council was "intensive" or even "training" for that matter. These terms imply a scheme or plan that Palin or the GOP put into motion 16 years ago to get her into the White House.
Her experience on the council is touted becuase of how close the position is relative to her constituents. She was literally elected to that council by her neighbors, by people who knew her, or knew others who knew her, by those she went to school with, by those who cheered her on in high school basketball games, and those who watched her report on those games during the evening news. The position of City Council member is, to borrow Rod's borrowed term, "touchable." Imagine any of your current city council members, or your mayor, being picked to be the running mate of a major party nominee for president 12 or 16 years from now. Regardless of whether you agree with that person, you know that she has been responsible for making decisions that affected those she saw at PTA meetings, at the corner store, or at Church on Sunday. She had to live with the consequences of her decisions in a very real and immediate way. If that isn't "good, intensive training," I don't know what is.
"Really? They can see themselves becoming Vice-President? Governor of their states?"
Rob, take another look at the picture. Does it need to be spelled out for you? They see in Palin their own trials and tribulations of being a Mom, working or otherwise.
"And given that McCain's 96-year-old mother has been rather visible the past few days, I think all those laying odds on McCain's chances of dying before inauguration are being unduly pessimistic."
Erin: You seem to forget about the difference between male and female life expectancies. His father and grandfather may be more predictive than his mom.
Rod: When I wrote "rage" it was as in "all the rage" - though as someone else has pointed out, there is passion among some of your regulars about women who are not appropriately "traditional," which usually means the ideal of the 50s TV family. Can't say Palin fits Father Knows Best, so the fact that you all are in support of her is some kind of progress.
It is interesting to watch the Repubs sell out everything they claim to stand for to support her! Kind of like watching The Daily Show tonight - with all the clips of McCain changing everything he stands for in the past couple of years. All to win. (Anyone note that in 2000 he was opposed to reversing Roe v Wade?)
"It is interesting to watch the Repubs sell out everything they claim to stand for to support her!"
Um, what do we stand for, exactly?
Nobody said she was planning on becoming VP when she went on the Council.
What IS being said is her experience is appropriate and sufficient to be a Vice President.
Something can be intensive, can serve as training, without a touch of planning. Like.. you know, being a POW somehow is preparation for being President. I'm sure that McCain didn't get himself captured so he'd get experiences that would help him be prepared for the presidency either.
Be that as it may.. IS being on that apparently very light duty council and governorship that apparently left her plenty of time for other things, the sort of experience that makes one ready to take over the Presidency in case McCain became unable to serve?
And you really consider any city council member to be prepared to be president because they made decisions and saw the consequences of their actions...
What Brent writes is exactly what I meant. I see someone like Sarah Palin and I see someone who gradually became more active outside the home, doing the kinds of things lots of women do to make their own communities safer or cleaner or more secure financially--not someone who was determined from college onward to occupy a high government position and who wasn't going to let children or family or anything else get in the way.
I contrast that to a mid-level manager I tracked down at work one day years ago because her daycare center kept calling my number by mistake to get a message to her that her child was seriously ill with an alarmingly high temperature--and when I found her and gave her the message, she crumpled up the paper, muttered "I know he's sick. I knew he was sick when I dropped him off at five a.m. They're just going to have to earn their money for once and deal with it," and turned back to her computer. She apparently had her eye on a higher position and nothing was going to stand in the way.
I think it's fine when women have opportunities both inside and outside the home, and when families share parenting tasks etc. as they plot their own family's best course; I also think that women who do want to stay home with their children should be helped to do so, not hindered by rising costs and taxes from making this choice. I think it's tragic when children are seen as inconvenient obstacles to their parents' success, and I include both men and women there, because the absentee father is just as damaging to his family as the absentee mother. But I see mainstream feminism as poisonous to healthy family relationships, because at its roots it's based on the idea that men and women must always be in competition with each other and never in partnership. It's not a contradiction to see Sarah Palin as a different type of "feminist" as her Feminists for Life membership suggests--it's just the reality. In fact, the tired old angry feminism seems increasingly irrelevant to many women, especially those pro-life women who will never sign on to the old feminism's worship of abortion as a key component of the chief American societal value, sex without consequences.
And you take this photo at face value, rather than a politicized photo-op.
I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, please contact them.
Umm.. Given that she was giving a speech 8.5 months into her pregnancy, and didn't leave even when her water broke, and was back at work 3 DAYS after delivery, and that was as governor, not that part time city council job.. I wouldn't be making that particular comparison.
"And you really consider any city council member to be prepared to be president because they made decisions and saw the consequences of their actions..."
Compared with decisions made by a community organizer, sure;)
Seriously, though, it's not just that experience, it all her experience in public office. In context of this original post, however, it's her experience as a mother that may be important to a sizeable portion of the electorate.
Brent, I think he had quite a few more hours put in. It isn't the generic position that I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the position as Erin described it. And I quote..
"That job requires two whole meetings a month, beginning at seven p.m.--and sometimes there's a special meeting some *other* evening of the month! Horrors! Clearly a woman with, at the time, two young children was seriously neglecting her parenting duties by keeping this arduous schedule."
I believe that Obama was working more than four hours a month at his community organization job.
As for being a mother, that's interesting. Because, a large percentage of the adult female population are mothers. I was one, and I certainly don't consider that, and that primarily, makes me qualified to be President of the United States, no matter how important, how involved, how vital the task is.
Karen, I had no intent of implying that motherhood is a qualifier for president (would that it was, Barrack wouldn't have even been nominated... but then Hillary would have been... on second thought).
My point, and the point of Rod's post, is that many women would be likely to identify with Palin because she is a mother, and the difficulties that Democrats may find in countering that.
Perhaps the final two sentences Rod quoted should have been emphasized: Obama talked about coming from a middle-class life. Palin still lives one.
Slingbabe - title of future Palin chickflick-biopic, doubling as maternal and huntswoman's descriptor
I don't think having an active womb is any qualification for the job to lead the free world! I'm saying there are limits to having a candidate who is "just like me." Whatever happened to choosing excellence (doesn't HAVE to mean elitist). We supposedly elected "W" because he's the kind of guy you'd enjoy playing cards with, and look how it ended up!
It's a mistake to assume that all women who vote Republican are stay-at-home mothers with their teenage girls in chastity belts. Republican women go to work, use day care, get divorced, have problems with their teens like everyone else. Perhaps in lower percentages than Democrats, but still.
As far as the GOP being all "lily white," the GOP over the past two presidential elections *has* attracted more Hispanic voters than the Democrats would like. So yes, I would think women Hispanic voters, especially, would find this photo endearing, especially if they haven't (yet) absorbed anti-child attitudes.
Hispanics support Obama 2 to 1 over McCain. Given the GOP gender gap when it comes to women, it's likely that that the pecentage of Hispanic women who support the GOP is even lower.
The trouble with you, Erin, is that you're brilliant but you don't know it.
I think it's fine when women have opportunities both inside and outside the home, and when families share parenting tasks etc. as they plot their own family's best course; I also think that women who do want to stay home with their children should be helped to do so, not hindered by rising costs and taxes from making this choice. I think it's tragic when children are seen as inconvenient obstacles to their parents' success, and I include both men and women there, because the absentee father is just as damaging to his family as the absentee mother.
That's pretty much textbook feminism. That's where you're brilliant. But then you let one personal experience of a working woman behaving badly (according to your limited perspective on her) trump your own understanding. I could tell you similar stories--and plenty of others about stay-at-home mothers behaving very badly indeed. What would that prove? Nothing, really, Your "old, angry feminism" always has been irrelevant, because the caricature you describe never really existed.
I'd be very, very happy if we could declare all personal commentary on Governor Palin's uterus, offspring, husband, and personal life off limits and focus solely on the issues of competence and policy. I don't think the meatheads in either party are going to let that happen.
On principal I agree with you, sig, except that Gov. Palin herself and her supporters have made her uterus, offspring, husband, and personal life her primary claims to being qualified for higher office.
Um, what was the question?
The photo op is a blank slate.
The only thing practical I can find to comment on here is that I like the concept of slings. It is good for young babies to be in close physical contact with their mothers and other caregivers. They like to be snug. They thrive on touch, it gives them a developmental edge. Which Trig will need in order to reach his fullest potential. Slings can also cut back on car seat and stroller and all the other myriad of baby accoutrements our culture deems necessary for survival (don't get me wrong, I do advocate car seats, while babies are traveling by car. But they're ackward to carry and heavy.) And I've heard that some acrobatic mothers manage to breastfeed while using them. Plus, they're very Crunchy - reminiscent of ethnicity AND they come in organic cotton. It is sort of huntswomen-esque, if you reach back for hunter-gatherer archetypes. I'll definitely try one when I have kids.
And I don't know about the rest of you, but our half of the chow hall burst into laughter at the sight of Palin's little girl slicking back Trig's hair with her spit. Live on camera. That just stays funny.
Textbook feminism, sig?
I remember the scorn poured on my mother by most of the women of her acquaintance because she chose to stay at home and raise her children. I remember the relentless media portrayals of the "housewife" as dumb, incompetent, hysterical and emotionally damaged (kind of like how Daniel sees female Palin supporters). I remember visiting some relatives in the DC area and seeing them treat my mother like dirt, in large part because they were so entrenched in feminist ideology that a woman who didn't choose a career was a traitor to the movement and utterly worthless; I remember being complemented for my intelligence by these women, in front of my mother, as they said loudly "Just make sure you don't waste your brains in the kitchen." (Of course, I remember laughing when the relative who said that set the pan of food she was helping prepare on fire, and couldn't think of anything to do except run shrieking with it into the back yard, but that's another story.) I remember attending a girls' high school run by feminist nuns who were angry that they couldn't be priests, angry that they were women, angry that the Church still didn't approve contraception for those of us who would marry (and their lay women teachers were pretty open about their own dissent) who drilled us relentlessly with the idea that we could be anything we wanted to be--except a stay-at-home mother, which was a wasted life fit only for girls not bright enough to go to our school and get into a "good college" afterward.
If feminism today has become more like what I described, which is perfectly in line with a Christian understanding of feminism that respects the real differences between men and women, respects all of a woman's choices including her choice to make the sacrifices necessary for her to be with her children as much as possible, especially when her husband can't be, and puts the emphasis on teamwork with males instead of hostile competition with them, than I'm very glad to hear it. Surprised, but glad.
Erin, I can see that your experience of being rejected and put down has caused you a lot of pain, and I'm sorry for that. I hope you will continue to let me know when you think I am being disrespectful of you. Sometimes a good argument is the sincerest form of respect, if it doesn't get too personal.
You know, every woman has a story that needs to be heard and respected. Some are very much like yours, and some are different. Believe it or not, in my chameleon-like career I've had experiences very much like yours--and also some that were the mirror image of yours, where I was treated like dirt by some very self-righteous and self-satisfied homemakers. Almost any kind of woman will be treated at some time as "dumb, incompetent, hysterical and emotionally damaged." I certainly have been, as have my mother and sisters. That's why I think we still need feminism. ; )
Looking back, I can see how all of those women were angry with just cause about real harm done in their lives. The teachers who picked on me, the boss who persecuted me, the mean girls who excluded me, the professional colleagues who sneered at me and the Christian mothers who did the same--they all had their own reasons for what they did. I try, now, to see those reasons with compassion. It doesn't make what they did right, but it does mean that it was all about them and never, really, about me. The problem wasn't that they were angry; the problem was that they couldn't, or were afraid to, put that anger where it belonged. Instead they took it out on other women. I try not to do that, and I try not to see everyone through the lens of past bad experiences. So when you think I'm doing that to you, let me know. It would be nice if, in return, you would try not to make me into someone I am not, on the pattern of someone you knew in the past. I don't expect it, but it would be nice. ; )
"I remember the relentless media portrayals of the "housewife" as dumb, incompetent, hysterical and emotionally damaged (kind of like how Daniel sees female Palin supporters)"
Har. I was merely reciting back what I was hearing back from people like you and Rod. What I keep hearing male conservative commentators saying is women are so emotional that they will vote for Palin solely because they can "touch" her and relate to her and that they reaffirm their insecurities and victim status.
It's not the media insulting you, it's male conservative commentators.
For me to suggest that women ought to make their children a priority is clearly nothing but rank hypocrisy on my part, since when I'm in the throes of Crunchy Con blogging my children sometimes have to say my name *twice* before I notice they're speaking to me.
The rank hypocrisy lies in your overlooking Palin's poor parenting practice, and there's no other way to describe it. If anyone else was shamelessly chasing after their career at the expense of their kids' well-being (which Bristol's pregnancy is a sure indicator of), you'd be rightly denouncing them. The fact, from the POV of Palin's family, she has way too much on her career plate, and does not need to be adding to it. Remember, this woman is supposed to be an example of model behavior--or have we one the right dumped the whole "character" issue too now?
Unlike, sig, I'm not coming at this from liberal point-of-view. I do think there is something more troublesome about women pulling this kind of thing than men (although men are not off the hook. I'd be saying much the same thing if we were talking about a Samuel Palin). Men and women are not the same, and when the mother, the kids model of stability and security, leaves a family it has a bigger impact on the kids than a father, who properly goes out to earn a living.
RaginCajun
You'll notice that in all of Rod's posts there are no direct references to reputable major media outlets that are making fun "of Palin's church, her moose-hunting skills, her family and her small-townness". That's because there have not been. There have been credible and expected questions about her qualifications and about real scandals, namely the trooper issue. The rest is trash from the blogs. No one can stop these people, so you can always find someone who said anything you want to hear and gin up outraged about it.
Heck, even the actual left blogs are talking about lack of qualifications, and going through her actual history and pointing out actual questions, and not talking about the imaginary personal things Rod seems to think they're talking about.
Yes, yes, some of those questions will come to nothing. For example, I suspect that librarian thing is empty, I don't think there's anything there, or at least not enough to prove anything. But this is absolutely no different than any other politician has been treated since the start of time.
Derek Copold
Yes, of course, perdition isn't on the line here, but as sigilaris has so pointedly made clear, the cultural conservatives' wild support for Impalin' Palin has vitiated their entire philosophy. You've gained a symbol, but at what cost?
Like I said in a previous post, the current crop of Republicans have begun salting the earth of their own party in a desperate attempt to win just once more. In this last month:
Being derogatory about 'community organizers'...from the party that insists volunteer organizations can replace government charity. That hasn't come back to haunt them yet, but it will.
Overstepping their 'elite' comments to an absurd level and turning it into a joke when McCain couldn't think of the number of houses he had. 'Elite' is, quite possibly, never going to usable by the Republicans again without a 'So how many houses do you have?' question being asked in return. (And, yes, some Republicans can answer 'one', but this once incident fundamentally turn it into an economic comparison, and Republicans will have to stop pretending to be 'normal folks' when called on being multi-millionaires, and 'elite' stops being 'likes lattees and opera'.)
Deciding that pregnant daughters don't actually reflect on the parents. Especially when the mother works. (Steward had a field day with the one and some others.)
Heck, the original choice to run McCain, when literally half the attacks against Kerry can be used against him, and people actually remember those attacks and feel very stupid for falling for them in 2004.
"The rank hypocrisy lies in your overlooking Palin's poor parenting practice, and there's no other way to describe it. If anyone else was shamelessly chasing after their career at the expense of their kids' well-being (which Bristol's pregnancy is a sure indicator of), you'd be rightly denouncing them..."
Derek, this thread has fallen off the main page so you may not see this. But I think it needs to be said.
There are stay-at-home, homeschooling mothers who've had daughters get pregnant out of wedlock. One mom said when castigated for supporting Palin, if we want to argue that Bristol wouldn't be pregnant if her mother had been in the *room* at the time, fine! But it's pretty hard for mothers of seventeen-year-olds to be with them every hour of the day, isn't it? And it's pretty judgmental to assume that Palin's career and lack of parenting skills are responsible for Bristol's bad decision to engage in sexual activity.
I know plenty of good, religious families with traditional, stay-at-home moms. I've known kids who came from those families, too. Some of these kids are level-headed, mature, and responsible, and some of them go absolutely wild at the first taste of teenage freedom. To pretend otherwise, to insist that nothing but parental failure ever causes kids to go astray, seems like a hidden and dangerous form of pride, the kind that goeth before the Fall, as the Bible puts it.
There are stay-at-home, homeschooling mothers who've had daughters get pregnant out of wedlock.
Erin,
One little, itty-bitty difference here: THOSE MOTHERS AREN'T BEING TURNED INTO NATIONAL SHOWCASES FOR THE ALLEGEDLY CONSERVATIVE PARTY!!!
Let's be blunt: she isn't being chosen for her years of service in Wasilla, nor even for the short time she was on the energy commission in Alaska, and it sure as heck isn't for a full successful term as governor. She is being chosen solely on the basis of her identity, her identity as a woman, as a mother, and as a Christian. That's it, that's all she has, and that identity is not ideal. In fact, it's way less than ideal.
At any rate, given the Enquirer piece (which was good enough for John Edwards), Palin doesn't exactly fit the profile of a conscientious mother doing her all and still falling short because of a bit of bad luck.
Even if that was the case, there's a difference between showing a bit of compassion for a slip and rewarding a downfall. In fact, the McCain campaign, with Palin's connivance, has gone out of their way to use Bristol as a lightning rod. Again, any responsible parent, be they mother or father, would not have taken on the sort of responsibility Palin is with their home situation in such a state. Every time conservatives not only make apologies for Sarahtonin, but actually sing praises for the disordered state of her family they shred they make a mockery of their political and social philosophy.
To be blunt about it: Palin doesn't belong in this race, she probably shouldn't be governor of Alaska. She should be back in Wasilla with her kids cleaning up the mess she let happen for the sake of her career. If she were half the mother she's claimed to be, she'd be focusing on helping her other oddly named children avoid the fate of Bristol instead of playing the patsy for John McCain.
Now, you're going to tell me judgmental. Well, you're right. I am being judgmental. I'm judging the character of a candidate being offered for high office, and she lacks, a lot.
1. Her home life is a mess.
2. She's abandoning a commitment she made to the state of Alaska before her term is even halfway finished.
3. She apparently doesn't have the wit or the integrity to realize any of this, making her either clueless or ruthless. You decide which is better.
So, Derek, how do you excuse Hillary Clinton's decision to run for President?
Her husband has cheated on her multiple times--once, with a girl only about four years older than Bristol Palin.
Her daughter has been photographed drunk for the tabloids, has grown up in the glare of the public spotlight, and has had her every action scrutinized. If we don't know the details about Chelsea's early sexual encounters it's only because she either didn't end up pregnant or didn't let the evidence of pregnancy survive, so to speak. And it's pretty disingenuous to claim that as an adult Chelsea (what an odd name *that* is, btw!) no longer needs her mother; her mother was working most of Chelsea's life.
Clinton's home life is a mess.
She's abandoning her commitment to serve New York as Senator only two years into her second six-year term.
She apparently doesn't have the wit or the integrity to realize any of this, making her either clueless or ruthless. As you said to me, you decide which is better.
Oh, wait, there is a difference, though. HRC lost the nomination, and Obama passed her over. So I guess she can go back to trying to repair her marriage and working in the Senate.
....
I'm being tongue in cheek, here. But don't you see how selective it is to hold one woman to a completely different set of standards, simply because she's a conservative?
All this judging of a woman because she carries her baby in a sling? Is this a way to tell if she is a loving, caring mother?
Erin, I hope you're not under the misapprehension that Derek is some kind of liberal. Or an ally of mine on any front. Or a supporter of Hillary Clinton! Though that is an amusing thought--Derek as a closet Clintonista!
I never got a chance to express my joy that Derek in fact declared me to be right on this one occasion. I realize I'll probably have to live on that one accolade for the rest of my life, but it will always occupy a special page in my book of memories. Like the time a guy took me on a date to the Young Republican Ox Roast, but then explained that he couldn't dance with me, have a beer, or kiss me because he was a Baptist. Thanks, Derek. I can't kiss you either, but it was a golden moment while it lasted.
Frankly, it seems the attacks are the kind caused by worry...
Russ
www.modmum.com
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.