As a bit of a follow up to the discussion on this post of the familial scandals confected or exploited about GOP Vice-Presidential nominee and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, here’s two excellent and thought provoking pieces. First, Feminist Philosophers asks why folks might be more interested in all this stuff than, well, actual issues:
Why is the front page of the NY Times full of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy and New Orleans near miss, when the second major political convention is about to start and there are extremely important issues facing the United States about health care, clean energy, poverty and others?
She points to the importance of citizens - and by implication bloggers - trying to refocus debate on the issues, and on the necessity of a critical education in cultivating habits of mind which place the emphasis where it should be.
Secondly, the uniformly fantabulous Rebecca Traister at Salon writes:
How we got from the dispiriting political and ideological record of Sarah Palin — that she is adamantly pro-life and anti-gay marriage, that she is a lifetime member of the NRA, that she has no foreign policy experience and supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools — to the uterine activity of her family, makes perfect, human sense: Who wants to talk about boring policy when we can talk about teens and sex and pregnancy?
Traister is distressed that:
this election cycle could turn from one that was electrifying and energizing for women into one that situates their political prospects firmly back in the feminized territory of sex scandals, babies and mothering.
I’d strongly advocate following both links and reading them in their entirety.
I’d add to all this a third point I’ve been making again and again - the obsessive focus on the personalities of the candidates (and it sure as hell ain’t just about a celebrity cult of Obama - McCain’s whole schtick is all about himself and his personal qualities) is one of the most telling signs that the American political system is badly broken. And so is its civic democracy to the degree that people who are active participants in the “process” think that the politics of gotcha and charge and counter-charge is the way to go. It might be the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but it sure ain’t the way to bring about “change we can believe in”.
I’m still struck by Naomi Wolf’s remarks, which I cited in a previous post:
Of course the real fault is not Obama’s, but ours. We have forgotten the kind of risk and work it takes to build transformative mass movements, and so settle for iconography instead.
And it’s not just the KosBots who are at fault here. I’m increasingly tempted, despite perhaps being one of the few Australian bloggers who actually has a vote in November’s election, to just ignore all the noise emanating from the “netroots”. The hyper-partisanship and general horse-race point scoring all too characteristic of the American political system just finds its mirror in most of the so-called “left wing” blogosphere. There are some honourable exceptions, particularly among some bloggers of colour and/or feminist bloggers, but on the whole - for anyone actually concerned with social justice for the great majority of Americans who are daily damaged by its sovereign autocracy - it’s almost too dispiriting to read about.
I’d just say the main argument against her is that electing fundie Christian Governors from petrostates to federal executive office has not really worked out that well for the US lately.
“the obsessive focus on the personalities of the candidates (and it sure as hell ain’t just about a celebrity cult of Obama - McCain’s whole schtick is all about himself and his personal qualities) is one of the most telling signs that the American political system is badly broken.”
Indeed. Heh, etbloodycetra. Despite the best attempts of some MSM pundits here, Australia still seems to avoid going too much down this path. So far. Not least because both Rudd and Howard had fuck all interesting personalities to analyse anyway.
AFAICR, the most heated moment during the 2007 Aus election debates was a very bloglike squabble over interpreting OECD figures. And that’s how I like my local pollies - shining on about their management credentials not waxing on about values and culture shit. Which now mainly seems to be the preserve of superrightwingers and not their bete noires.
This is nothing new to American politics. Imagine the pleas to remain focused on the issues from America’s left had Edwards won the Democratic party nomination. What about Larry Craig, Cheny’s daughter, Clinton/Lewinsky, NY Governor Spitzer, Gary Hart and the rumours of Kennedy?
Are you surprised? With American, profit driven, infotainment style MSM calling the shots on what is or is not reported? As with everything else, sex sells. If you want issues, go to NPR or PBS. I expect their coverage of the fluffy BS will be minimal if any.
Yeah, it’s broken alright. Calls to focus on the issues are sadly just part of the normal rhetoric by those who get caught holding the short end of the stogie.
Ironically to let Palin off easy because she is a woman, working mother, etc. - would not only be bad for the MSM’s financial bottom line, but arguably sexist.
NABAKOV - What about Rudd’s inebriated trip to the topless/strip bar?
Kim,
I suggest George Lakoff is a good reference for understanding the positioning and electoral strategy of the Palin nomination.
Bottom line - you’ve got to be in it, to win it.
Ed, The table dancer bit only served to underline what a boring square Rudd is.
A male of his age saying he has been drunk only twice in his life, and he marked the occassion by phoning his wife the following morning to tell her all about it?
This is most suspicious behaviour. If he has any mates, you can bet they ain’t regular types who could fit in anywhere.
This is why I so heart Tom Tomorrow.
Pure gold, Helen.
If there were more concentration on the issues rather than on personality and iconography, the Rovian “Messiah” stuff about Obama wouldn’t work nearly so well either - superficially it appears to be just a dig at overly enthusiastic Obama supporters but it’s also a dog-whistle for a sizeable minority of conservative evangelicals who are worried that Obama is literally the AntiChrist of end-of-days biblical prophecy. More at Making Light and at Orcinus.
Apparently some of these fundegelicals believe that the Timothy LaHaye Left Behind books are prophetic in themselves, so that any leader who speaks of Peace as a primary goal is viewed as in reality wanting to enslave and devastate humanity. Nice.
I’m curious:
Did the school Palin’s daughter got to offer contraception education or did it follow the right nutter line of preaching abstinence?
If the school preached abstinence, was this because of state policies supported by Palin?
Faced with reality, does Palin still object to children being taught?
I’m not. Please, dear ecumenical omnipotent omniscient interventionist God, make this go away.
Palin will not go away any time soon, and the Dems just have to deal with her story, confront the issues, and make hay. Dirty politics, my fat aunt.
After all, if the neocons get back into power, the Supreme Court will be fixed for the next decade and american women’s rights will be stripped to the bone, and the rest of us may well follow them back into the dark ages. This is serious.
Too many Dem women are burying their heads in the sand on this, playing nice, on the intertubes anyway. That’s exactly what the men who run the show want, and expected.
Watching american television vox pops just after the news broke about the teenage daughter’s pregnancy, I was impressed by the woman who opined that Palin should think twice about running because she had so many real and tragic problems at home - a disabled baby and a pregnant teen daughter. Top argument.
Progressive women should not avoid discussing Palin’s “female” problems, and should not hesitate to make political mileage out of it all, if they really want to win the election, and not allow this utterly cynical selection to triumph in the end.
And I definitely don’t want a fundie airhead a heartbeat away from the trigger.
The fundamentalist “Family Values” line is there for the taking (and the parodying). Why is Palin not staying at home, at this critical time in her family’s life, to take care of her needy and deserving children? She can run again later (ha), when her family problesm have been taken care of and her personal circumstances are more stable.
That’s what real women do in the real world, all the time - adjust to disappointment, postpone, muster resources, and come back stronger. See Hilary.
If progressive women bang this “family values” drum hard enough, the MSM talking heads will explode, and the neocons will be exposed for the disgusting ratbags they are.
Yes I know, I’m dreaming.
“And I definitely don’t want a fundie airhead a heartbeat away from the trigger.”
Which is of course the problem. Of the 4 VP & P candidates, the other 3 are far bigger dickheads than she.
Well said grace.
In this particular version of ‘the ends justify the means’, the ends are horrendous to contemplate if the Republicans remain in power.
One of the amusing things about watching her appearance to accept the V-P nod (shown on The Daily Show) was her invoking the name of Hillary Clinton (as per the blatant rationale for her selection). The Republican crowd immediately starting reflex booing the mention of the H-word for a few seconds before they collectively realised that the whole point was trying to swing alienated pro-Hillary female voters to the McCain camp. Guess when you’ve spent a decade or more engaging in vile sexist slagging off of Hillary Clinton it’s hard to put it out of the mind in a single moment.
And in news just in (more or less).
Grace, Palin is a member of “Feminists for Life”. There are a lot of evangelical voters who don’t think “a woman should always be in the home” and for that matter most of the abstinence movement mob recognise that sometimes temptation… etc. She’s likely to get kudos for this from those voters. You’re working with a false stereotype of how they think, and that’s a problem for progressives and Democrats as well. Anyone who does think like that is going to be so far to the right that they’re never going to vote for Obama in a pink fit, and so anti-Obama that it won’t stop them coming to the polls.
As Liam was saying on the other thread, where are the voters who would switch to the Democratic column over this? And then there’s the backlash against politicising this stuff in the first place.
To put it bluntly, not only is this sort of thing the wrong way to go ethically, it’s also going to be completely ineffectual, if not counter-productive.
See also Amanda on the other thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/08/30/obligatory-obama-acclamation-mccain-veep-selection-thread/#comment-501641
Kim, absolutely. I’m not following the logic of the people who think that vile slagging of Palin about her reproductive life (and her reproductive life’s reproductive life) will ensure that the Republicans lose the election. If we’re going to vilely slag Palin, could we please do it because she is a corrupt, confused, animal-slaughtering fundie airhead gun nut?
There’s a clear gender agenda to this debate (about alpha-male behaviour, big swinging dicks and so forth), but I’m so not going there.
That was Amanda’s question, not mine, K. To be pedantic.
How unlike you, Liamista!
Nor am I PC.
“There’s a clear gender agenda to this debate (about alpha-male behaviour, big swinging dicks and so forth), but I’m so not going there.”
Well you just have, and it’s complete and utter bullshit as far as I’m concerned.
It’s about ensuring that everything possible is done to ensure that the Republicans are not re elected. If a candidate is parading her views on sex education. womens’ reproductive systems, and abortion as a key to her electoral appeal then she is fair game. Irrespective. of. her. sex.
adrian, see #15.
As a bit of a meta comment, and returning to what I said in the post, what we should be aiming for is a Democratic victory that actually does bring about something progressive. You don’t shift the agenda of politics by focusing on this shit. Which as I’ve emphasised, and as others have, doesn’t make any bloody sense strategically anyway, if you’re in ‘whatever it takes’ mode.
The problem for me is that US elections seem to be so much about a bogus parading of ‘values’ that it immediately opens up debates about candidates’ personal lives. Pretty it ain’t. Inevitable it is.
But I think Kim is right. The fundies will just see Palin as doing the right thing. She didn’t abort her foetus and her daughter is marrying the father of her child. In that world it’s entirely consistent. And it’s a nightmare.
The Dems are going to have to be so careful about how they play this.
I was so pleased when the Libs tried it on with Rudd last year and everyone just shrugged.
And you don’t shift the agenda of politics by losing. Something the Democratics are far too experienced at.
“If we’re going to vilely slag Palin, could we please do it because she is a corrupt, confused, animal-slaughtering fundie airhead gun nut?”
But if she’s anti-choice and anti contraception, shouldn’t we go after that as well? After all, the fundies aren’t going to see anything wrong with her cheerful, family-friendly moose slaughtering either. Which ever way you go, you lose.
See #15, adrian.
Sheesh, make that Democrats…
Exactly, Fine. She’s consistent. The point behind “values” attacks is to highlight a candidate or official’s hypocrisy, not the behaviour per se.
Whatever else she is in the context of reproductive rights, Palin is not a hypocrite.
“Grace, Palin is a member of “Feminists for Life”. There are a lot of evangelical voters who don’t think “a woman should always be in the home” and for that matter most of the abstinence movement mob recognise that sometimes temptation… etc.”
Not quite what I was saying Kim. Of course fundie women work and have children, and it is unsurprising that fundies have accommodated that fact. My point was that, through force of current circumstances in an imperfect world, progressive and fundie women all have to make compromises - including “time out” from the workplace for childbirth, parent-caring, and other family problems that just won’t be put on the backburner.
And I am not talking about hoping and praying for voter-switching, I am talking about confronting and demolishing the “family values” hypocrisy, by playing in league with all women, fundie or progressive, who understand the realities of being a woman with children.
I am sick of men running these debates because women are too afraid to argue with each other. As one of Huffpo’s contributors said yesterday, the men should just shut up, and we should speak out, its our business after all.
Backlash? Feminists, or progressive women whatever, have been whipped from pillar to post for the last thirty years. When exactly do we get to fight back?
I reckon this election is more than anything about the future of women in western democracies, now that Palin is in the mix, and progressive women should now take up the cudgels and win. This is our moment.
And PC, I am not talking about “vile slagging”, rather arguing strongly and sternly about the real issues that confront all working women, Palin included.
What about her husband? Even if she is VP he is still around.
But the pregnancy was always going to be an issue - as others have mentioned Palin is against teaching sex education in school and instead supports abstinence only education. Perhaps this is an example of how well the latter really works in practice. And as was demonstrated in the interviews of republicans, it also touches on the issue of abortion and marriage.
Grace, well, thanks for the clarification, but I’m left a bit unclear about what you’re actually suggesting - that Palin is at fault somehow for not taking “time out”? How does suggesting that do anything to bolster a progressive argument?
In the interests of balance perhaps it should be suggested that Mr Obama is not the father of one of his children, and of course, speculation should be encouraged about the sexual activities of his eldest daughter.
“If we’re going to vilely slag Palin, could we please do it because she is a corrupt, confused, animal-slaughtering fundie airhead gun nut?”
More than happy and have done including the… “fundie”.
So, Palin agrees not give contraceptive advice to her own daughter and presumably other daughters all around the world, if given the power, for wacky religious reasons, and it is supposedly a private family matter?
Purlease.
Absolutely. But go after it because it’s crap qua crap, not on the basis of her own personal life, and certainly not at the expense of a 17-year-old kid.
Who said anything about her sex? I was talking about the gendered behaviour of boots-and-all, anything-it-takes commentators (behaviour not necessarily indicative of their sex), not the sex of the would-be VP.
Rather than attacking her all-american values, which she seems to have in spades (shoots moose, raises kids, fires guns etc etc) she should be attacked for hypocrisy, incompetence, unsuitability for the VP office, and bad policies.
Hypocrisy: Nearest thing to it at this stage is “troopergate”, which may or may not amount to much.
Incompetence: Perhaps something in the way she operated as mayor. Stand by for developments, as her record there will be going under the microscope as I type (likewise for all aspects of troopergate)
Unsuitability for VP: Hahahaha… like THAT is possible. VP just smiles & glad-hands B-level international dignitaries and has little chance to put their oar in anyway.
Bad policies: Some scope here, depending how much she diverges from the Republican party line, and how much she seems to want to push any personal barrows.
Everybody: would this be a legitimate subject to bring up? Palin slashed funding for teen moms.[*] It’s a policy decision, so it sounds fair enough to me.
[By 22% - not by 100%. But stating “slashed” without providing figures sounds more dramatic.]
Sorry, PC I can see that I have misinterpreted your comment.
To the wider point, though as others have said, I cannot see how this wouldn’t be an issue given her public statements about sex, abortion and reproduction.
“her daughter is marrying the father of her child”
Is it the same father for both of her children?
On the vote implications, those who say that no voters will be attracted to the Democrats are missing the point, even if they are right. If enough Republicans decide not to vote at all, that would be very important, maybe decisive.
Read my comment at #15 again!
(It sounds fair enough to bring up, I should say.)
Kim, as I have said on the other thread, you and others are discounting the sense of crisis that this engenders arount the ticket, and the fact that it is sending the Republicans off message. If it continues I have no doubt that it will have an affect on the polls and potentially the election. It has the potential to de-rail the whole campaign.
And yes I have read post #15! Three times!!
As I’ve said, there is no dissonance between Palin’s political beliefs and her behaviour. Smearing campaigns based on her family—epitomised by Spiros’s purient question about the number of fathers—are internally incoherent. What, to a prospective Republican voter, is bad about anything so far mentioned?
You might as well “smear” George Bush for being an alcoholic in recovery, or Cheney for being a old white dude fond of guns and wars. That’s why they got elected.
Kim, as a political strategy progressive women should argue that Palin is putting the health and welfare of a disabled child and a pregnant teen well behind her own political ambitions. There is time for her ambition later.
What woman, fundie or progressive, would not understand this argument from their own life experiences?
It is not counter-progressive, or counter-fundie, to argue that mothers have a higher calling than politics when real trouble strikes in the home.
And it does provide a neat twist that would drive the anti-feminist MSM into slavering confusion. Feminists arguing that a woman should stay home? Well yes, in some circumstances, and Palin’s circumstances are particularly dire.
Meta-feminism anyone?
And perhaps, women voters might find their own gendered constituency is more compelling (re the legislative and judicial programs on offer) than the peculiarly unnatural dick-swinging political “narratives” we are currently forced to choose between.
Was talking to Spiros, adrian!
So a sense of crisis around the ticket is fine if spreading sleazy rumours focusing on the reproductive choices of the candidate is the way to engineer it? Isn’t there enough in Palin’s record and positions - and in her public not private acts - to question the validity of the choice?
The current firestorm - media generated - whereby this is “another Thomas Eagleton” and McCain is being urged to dump her is just going to create sympathy for Palin and let McCain stand up to the meejah and the political class - almost universally despised in the States. And look like a TOUGH MANLY PRESIDENTIAL MAN.
I return to the point I made in the thread - the Democrats are more than capable of winning based on the feckin’ issues! Playing the game on the “values” turf will actually be to Obama’s disavantage, because it gives McCain (and Palin) a huge free pass on their actual politics, while all this dumb-arsed nonsense swirls around.
“Kim, as a political strategy progressive women should argue that Palin is putting the health and welfare of a disabled child and a pregnant teen well behind her own political ambitions. There is time for her ambition later.”
Christ, I wouldn’t argue this in a million years. Doesn’t she have a husband? Doesn’t she have a strong infrastructure to support her? Her teenage daughter is getting married, which sound dreadful to me, but, hey, it’s their life.
“And it’s not just the KosBots who are at fault here. I’m increasingly tempted, despite perhaps being one of the few Australian bloggers who actually has a vote in November’s election, to just ignore all the noise emanating from the “netroots”. The hyper-partisanship and general horse-race point scoring all too characteristic of the American political system just finds its mirror in most of the so-called “left wing” blogosphere.”
The problem with this thesis is it simply wasnt the Kossacks who did this.
It was Andrew Sullivan.
The diary you are referencing is one of many, many occasional contributors to dKos - in fact, it was his first diary (no, really. See this http://bloggerjohn.dailykos.com/ ). But the screaming guy with the megaphone was Andrew Sullivan, a conservative blogger for the Atlantic Monthly.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
I specifically refer you to his post of 01 Sep 2008 12:42 pm
“Now they’ve cleared the air on this - and good for them - what harm would it do to release the medical records showing that Sarah Palin delivered Trig on April 18 in Wasilla? This is not hard: there must be an obstetrician, medical records, and data that can easily refute this rumor. It is not out of the ordinary either: candidates routinely issue medical records. So let’s have them. And then we can move on.”
Finally, this is what Mr Sullivan has to say today about his own political opinions.
“The debate over whether the Republican party is now unfit for public office at a national level is now resolved. The longer, deeper explaination for this is in my book. One day, we will revive real conservatism. Right now, we have to ensure that this insane circus masquerading as a serious political party is defeated.”
So, if you want truth not to matter in a hyper-partisan cause, then, sure, blame Kos and the NetRoots.
But it werent them who done this.
This story was part of the uncivil war among the American Right.
Ian Whitchurch
Well, I’m not going to be one of them, grace. It seems a very convoluted argument to me and hardly a viable political one, or a progressive one, and I return to the fact that this is switching the focus to personal choices - away from both the issues and from Palin’s public record.
Well, well.
“Feminists arguing that a woman should stay home?”
Not forever Kim…
Grace, I don’t see that you can argue for women to have choices and simultaneously publicly judge Sarah Palin’s choices.
There are always going to be religious conservatives in the US, and lots of them unfortunately, but the fact that people like Palin and Huckabee are increasingly their public face is progress from the hate-filled culture warriors of the past.
Well, here’s the thing. Lots of Americans are evangelicals. That is not equivalent to being a “fundie”. It’s possible for Democrats to appeal to them on issues such as climate change (there’s a very big “environmental stewardship” movement among some evangelical churches) and justice issues - particularly because a lot are low income whites. A large majority of African-American voters are evangelicals, and they don’t vote on “values” issues.
The Democrats just shouldn’t be playing on this turf in this way.
Most of the negative comments about Hillary Clinton during the primaries were about her personality, very few about policy. Neither Hillary or Barack are policy-lite though there is little discussion in the US media and blogosphere about issues such as responses to climate change or the underlying problems of the economy. Hard to say whether it’s lack of interest which I doubt, or reluctance to tackle the complexities involved. Images such as the one doing the rounds today of Palin in a bikini, toting a rifle, are much easier to present. As was Paris Hilton’s video response to the Republican ad.
Photoshopped.
Administrative question: aren’t photographs of women with guns supposed to go here?
Kim’s right about the US being Evangelical, and that the Evangelical base are steadily shifting away from the Republicans.
If you don’t know who Jim Wallis is, chances are you won’t understand what is happening amongst this highly statistically significant demographic.
I side with Kim. There is nothing so hypocritical as one who argues that women should have choices, then arguing that a woman should not have a choice.
The full term gestation date of Bristol Palin’s current pregnancy may reveal that she was already a month or so pregnant when baby Trig hit the ground. This will be after the election of course, but will still make a fark-head of all who claim that Trig is Bristol’s child. (Son, not daughter, as some of the more fact-check challenged have alleged).
I couldn’t care less who is Trig’s mother. But to believe he is Bristol’s & not Sarah’s I am going to want to see more than foamy-mouthed “it must be so!” from a demographic who are so enamoured with Barack Obama that they have a brown-tongue.
Which brings us to those same brown-tongued disciples of Obama. From the lather they have got themselves into over the choice of Sarah Palin it seems that the choice was a shrewd one by the Republican Party, and the election will be decided on much more than just policy.
Kim, depends on which “choices” you mean.
The choice to work or not to work while raising children is available to many women these days, and that’s fine, but there is no real choice for mothers when it comes to a sick kid.
Most working mothers with sick children want to be at home or at the hospital for the duration, and they become sick with worry themselves if they are not. Call it a biological imperative if you will. I don’t know many women who won’t drop everything, grab their handbag and rush out the door when the school sick-bay calls, bugger the office and all who work in it. Next day, or next week, they come back to work and pick up where they left off…or not.
In Palin’s case, I grant you that she has a husband (although the pregnant daughter is doing all the baby-holding in the photos I have seen), and she is presumably wealthy enough to afford home help and specialist care. Lucky her.
Even so, dumping a newly-born disabled baby in the care of her husband, three other kids, and a pregnant and troubled teenager while criss-crossing the country campaigning for high office is still a bit rich, and worth talking about if only because of the “character issues” it exposes. What sort of mother is she really? Does this matter? I think it does.
If its OK to criticise McCain’s character for dumping his sick wife to marry a rich floozy, and I have not seen many left commentators step back from this line, then why is Palin off limits?
A week ago, Palin was not even on the radar, and this week she has suddenly dropped everything to run for office. Is this the right choice given her circumstances? I don’t think so. She is 44 years old, and there will be other opportunities down the track.
Yes, I am questioning the choice Palin has made as a mother (not just as a woman), and so should american women voters. After all, family values are very big in lalaland.
Anyway, its possible that Palin will go the way of Harriet Miers and get the flick simply because she is just too embarassing, and what’s the betting the reason will be: to spend more time with my family. That would be funny.
The baby is not ill, Grace.
He has Down’s Syndrome.
Thanks Another Kim. I was analogising on the basis that Down’s Syndrome babies need special care…
I think his dad’s taking care of him.
…and similarly with the pregnant teen daughter…
A young woman about to start her own family.
As a resident of a blue state, I have to say that Kim has the dynamics of the whole situation pretty well described.
The prevailing attitude is one of sympathy for Palin and her family.
She hasn’t even spoken there yet, but is the focus of the convention already.
But there’s no reason that her husband couldn’t give just as good care as she could (similarly with her daughter). And I think its being exceedingly optimistic to say that as good an opportunity as running for VP will come up in the future.
As for McCain & Palin being “four more years of the same”…the lady is as kooky as Bush & just as determined to use God as a motivational tool to mobilise troops…including her own son:
Palin’s Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview
By Nico Pitney and Sam Stein
02/09/08 “Huffington Post” — - Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.
Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain’s running mate.
Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin’s foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska’s governor asked the audience to pray for another matter — a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20672.htm
The profiteering loops of the CROSS are potentially gonna take us all over the edge if voters continue to give them the driver’s seat.
I can imagine Palin playin’ BTO’s ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet’.
N’
“But there’s no reason that her husband couldn’t give just as good care as she could (similarly with her daughter).”
Of course there isn’t Chris (ado), but my question is, why is this necessary right now, when the baby is so very young and so very vulnerable? And sorry about this, but I really do question whether any father, however loving, can do for a teenage pregnant daughter what a present and available mother can do, when the time comes.
Incidentally, I have no problem with Palin being a working mother and Alaskan Governor, because she is on the spot and presumably at home most nights with her large and troubled family, but I do think its worth questioning whether now is the right time for her to be flying across the country for the next three months campaigning.
that blunts Lakoff’s analysis somewhat..
“Watching american television vox pops just after the news broke about the teenage daughter’s pregnancy, I was impressed by the woman who opined that Palin should think twice about running because she had so many real and tragic problems at home - a disabled baby and a pregnant teen daughter. Top argument.”
I assumed that was sarcasm, until I read Grace’s other comments and my head nearly exploded.
Progressive women should tell another woman she shouldn’t run for politics because her daughter is pregnant and she has a baby with Down’s? WTF?
Should we also tell men with Down’s syndrome babies and teenage daughters up the duff that their place is in the home, and they’re disqualified from public office, at least “for a time”?
I must have missed the whole point of feminism - I thought it was about individual women being able to make the choices that are right for them.
Oh, and, you know, women not being disqualified from public office because they have TEH UTERUS.
Which brings us to those same brown-tongued disciples of Obama. From the lather they have got themselves into over the choice of Sarah Palin it seems that the choice was a shrewd one by the Republican Party, and the election will be decided on much more than just policy.
It’s not just the Kossacks who are in a lather over the selection. From the cover of one of the “Woman’s” magazines in the states: Babies, Lies and Scandal. This story isn’t just for political junkies anymore. We’re in Who Weekly territory, although New Idea may be a better comparison.
Shrewd? Ya must be having a lend.
Once an apocryphal notion embeds itself in lefty heads it won’t let go. August 2006.
There’s a difference between voting against condom handouts to school children and being against sex education, or for that matter being against abortion and being anti-contraception.
It’s quite logically consistent to promote abstinence AND contraception AND sex-education. None of these things are mutually exclusive. It’s also quite possible to do all three and still oppose abortion. You do also realise that contraception is specifically a Catholic hang-up, not a Christian one?
Perhaps I should draw a Venn diagram?
Rebekka, I’m with you. We’re always being told that the main reason that men don’t stay home with the kids is the whole breadwinner thing.
I’d be awfully surprised if Sarah Palin’s salary as governor isn’t significantly higher than the income her husband makes as a commercial fisherman/oil contractor. This family is making exactly the same decision that most other families do - the partner that earns the most money keeps on working, and the other partner shoulders the bulk of the child-care.
Also, she has an obligation after being elected to public office to turn up and do the job, it’s not the same as any other job - she asked people to trust her when they voted for her that she would do the job. There’s nothing wrong with her living up to that promise.
There are so many aspects of her public policy that are flakey and ripe for highlighting and criticism - her family’s reproductive choices should not be front and center, because once again it’s making a woman’s value be all about her uterus and what issues from it. Can we please look beyond a fertile woman’s uterus for once?
I sure hope, for poor Bristol’s sake (sob), that she wants to keep the incipient child, and that she’s not being forced into it by her mother for the sake of her political career.
“I sure hope, for poor Bristol’s sake (sob), that she wants to keep the incipient child, and that she’s not being forced into it by her mother for the sake of her political career.”
So that’s the audacity of hope.
Down & Out @ #69.
Yes, the word I used was “shrewd”. From the lather the extremes of the pro-Obama camp are working themselves into (clearly they have been jarred out of “obamah-messiah complacency and are in somewhat of a panic), from the massive hard-on of the conservatives (clearly they feel they now have a fighting chance of at least a close run race), and the media interest in her which (as you point out) goes way beyond news & current affairs reporting, yes, it would seem Sarah Palin was a shrewd choice for the Republican Party.
“Oh, and, you know, women not being disqualified from public office because they have TEH UTERUS.”
I thought Grace was being sarcastic, or Machiavellian, or something. The same argument would never be used for a man running for VP. Good grief!
Grace, your argument only holds up if you think the man can never be the primary caregiver.
So did I, Rebekka (and Fine).
Surely you haven’t failed to notice the distinction between the Catholic teachings against contraception as a frustration of God’s plan for fruitful wombs, and the peculiarly Protestant teaching (on the extreme wing, I grant you that) that hormonal contraception is just another form of abortion aka murder? And that barrier methods are all (literally) full of holes and will only lead to pregnancy anyway plus STDs?
The theology behind the two attitudes is quite distinct. There are PLENTY of evangelical Protestants in the USA who are against contraception. It’s not Catholic pharmacists, generally, who are refusing to fill prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives.