If honesty bit her in the ass, she’d shoot it and make burgers out of it. Other politicians might not know honesty, but she’s different.
Yes, but the blink story makes her look like someone ready to jump in dtake charge and stuff.
And to her base, appearance is more important than truth.
She was preceded by Frank Murkowski, the least popular governor in Alaska history; as incumbent, he came in third in a three-way race for his party’s nomination in 2006. Palin won the nomination and ran on a platform of not being Murkowski.
Indeed. Palin has spent an entire career fighting honesty. She probably has its severed head mounted on her wall.
I don’t get it, magellan. You cherrypick criticisms.
Why do you fervently admire Palin? As a conservative? Seriously. If you’re a social conservative/fundamentalist then I get her attraction. But otherwise…there very little to respect beyond brazen chutzpah, much less admire. She’s a fiscal nightmare, ludicrously unqualified and there’s pretty strong indication she’s also corrupt. And stupidly, pettily corrupt at that.
Palin was a big–and self-proclaimed–barracuda in a very small pool until McShame netted her out. She’s no where near able to play in the big leagues. Tough, big-talking Creationist Barbie can’t handle frickin’ press interviews, not even the one that was controlled to a ludicrous degree. She’s painfully uneducated in anything she can’t bully through based on her precious ‘beliefs’. She’s ignorant. And there ain’t a frickin’ chance in hell the real power players in Washington, much less internationally, won’t eat her alive.
I’m not suprised NOW didn’t endorse her. What I don’t get is how many purported ‘conservatives’ embrace her. I want to know where the hell are the tearful cries of outrage for Olympia Snowe, Linda Lingle, Kay Bailey Hutchinson? You know, the smart, hardworking, informed, ethical Republican women who McShame tossed aside like snot-filled kleenex.
magellan01, are we talking about the same Palin? The one who knows energy because Alaska produces 20% of the nations energy (never mind it’s only 3.5%, or, if you’re only counting oil, 14%). They one who understands international issues so well because she can see Russia from Alaska? The one who understands financial issues because she sold a jet on eBay?
And you’re criticizing people for holding the same views many women in America hold? Women’s issues aren’t necessarily limited to women. I’ve got daughters and I want them to have a better life than Palin offers. So, I’m a male cunt.
I noticed, in all your above posts, you’ve never called Palin intelligent. We do agree on that point.
I dunno, the group is an organization for the advancement of female rights. How can any group be silent about the one thing that binds them together? How can anyone expect them to be?
I suspect by neutrality they mean a wish to withhold endorsement until their course becomes obvious.
Phyllis Schafly is a feminist, too! She is ardently working to preserve “Barefoot and pregnant” as a life-style choice for young American women.
And I suspect by “neutrality” NOW doesn’t mean anything at all.
Nobody with two IQ points to rub together believes that NOW is working on behalf of all women - just the ones who toe the party line. Anita Hill is a saint; Paula Jones is trailer trash. Why? Because Thomas is pro-life, and Clinton was pro-choice.
There’s nothing more to it than that.
Regards,
Shodan
You know that’s not true. Phyllis allows for shoes.
magellan01:
I never said the woman is stupid. I don’t know the woman; I couldn’t make such a judgment. I said that she comes across as an idiot in her speeches and interviews, which is true. In both her convention speech and the infamous “Bush doctrine” interview, she came across as a partisan parrot. She just didn’t sound very thoughtful.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about abortion (wrt politics), so I don’t see what that has to do with anything…
Just thought I’d supply the link here :
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/palin-blatantly-lies-to-hannit.php
I think you misunderstood my point.
I don’t disagree that Palin must possess some kind of strength or ingenuity to be in the position she is currently in. Maybe she even has a certain kind of intelligence which is not presenting itself when she opens her mouth. From a feminist perspective (I think… I’m no expert on this matter), her position in a traditionally male-dominated field and party might be something very impressive.
But I think a lot of feminists view Sarah Palin in the greater context of what she stands for politically. Her professional merits alone are not sufficient to elevate her to the status of ‘‘woman we might all look up to.’’ This is because the very thing she stands for is the very thing that undermines the success of the feminist movement.
She is:
–vehemently pro-life
–against comprehensive sex ed
So right there you’ve got two reasons for any feminist movement to hate her. It’s not rational to expect NOW to support anyone with these positions.
Let me put it this way. Suppose Barack Obama consistently favored policy that was frustrating and degrading for black people. Suppose he went out of his way to make life more difficult for them. Then imagine that he positioned himself as a strong black Presidential Candidate. Could you blame NAACP for coming out strongly against him?
Sarah Palin is not disrespectful to women because she is a conservative woman. She is disrespectful to women because she favors policies that degrade and frustrate many of them. The fact that she is herself a woman, positioning herself as a strong woman’s candidate, adds insult to injury. NOW is only calling her out for that. That does not make them hypocritical. Actually, it makes Sarah Palin hypocritical.
Though I will add, NOW suggesting they were at any time non-partisan or neutral on this issue is ridiculous. They are pretty much a political vehicle in and of themselves.
Olive, I just spent half an hour responding to you. I then hit “preview” and I was sent to a log in screen, without any way to get back to what I had written. I don’t have the energy to do it again.
I’ll just say that as a pro-choice supporter, I don’t see a pro-life position as being disrespectful to women. I see it as being respectful of life. Couching it as you do I think is both unfair and untrue.
The analogy with black people is apt. Just look at a black politician who might have the audacity to be against affirmative action. A position that views black people in a more positive light than its counter position.
That is all. Time to hit they hay.
I agree. This nonsense of teaching Creationism in schools must stop. It isn’t a viable alternative to evolution, it is a different belief system. It is also not a religion, but a sectarian doctrine. Do the public schools teach Joyful and Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin? No. Nor should they teach the Biblical story of creation other than in comparative religion discussions.
This credulousness so widespread is a great embarrassment to our country.
I’m pro-lilfe too. For MYSELF. And I think it’s a tragedy that any woman feels she has to have an abortion and wish it were not so. It’s an awful thing. However (and here’s the difference between me and Sarah Palin)-- I don’t think I have the right to tell another woman what to do with her own body. I would not seek to legislate my personal morals. I find that practice abhorrent and think it is a serious transgression of the separation of Church and State, and a violation of the spirit of “small government” and “government stays out of an individual’s personal life.” That is why I think it’s disrespectful of women. I also think my POV is closer to what used to be the conservative ideal, that less is more when it comes to government.
Yet there were some black people who supported Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama. If the NAACP had endorsed Hillary because it thought she would better represent the needs of African Americans than Obama, based on concrete policy issues, would you be calling all of them cunts too? Or would you say, hey, that’s their opinion, they have the right to endorse whomever they want? I suspect the latter.
There’s no need to call Palin an embarrassment to women. I find that offensive as a man, because it ignores how much of an embarrassment she is to human beings in general.
Yes, she is. However, she is being touted as a strong WOMAN candidate. This disturbs me, because I **really **don’t want the first female VP to be someone voters look at and say, “What were we thinking?” I’d like her to be someone that makes voters say, “Why did we wait so long?”
Well, based on what you wrote, which I appreciate on more than one level, you’d have no problem with a woman having an abortion in month 7, or 8, or 9. After all, it’s her body. Or, to be fair, you don’t think the government should have a law preventing an abortion a day before the child is born. You say you are pro-life, as you define it. And that’s fine. But others define it differently. And in doing so, it compels them to prevent what they see is murder of an innocent life.
The idea that this issue has something to do with a separation of church and state is incorrect. While some religions do consider that 1) life begins at conception and 2) that it is sacrosanct, one not adhere to a particular religion—or any religion—to hold such a belief. Many atheists would agree that “life” begins at conception. The question then arises is it to be considered human? Does it have any rights? If not then, at what point. People can disagree with where the lines are drawn without them being a religious nut, or religious at all.
You bristle that people like Palin MIGHT want to impose those beliefs on others by way of laws. While I disagree with the pro-life stance, I do respect their position. If I believed that the killing of a 2-month old fetus was the same as killing a nine-month old fetus, or a nine-day-old baby, I’d seek to have laws passed, as well. How about you? Is there a point that you would vehemently object to the ending of a young life and want laws passed to prevent it.
This is an issue that we have to each grapple with for ourselves, yes. But that doesn’t mean that we should not seek to have laws passed one way or the other.
There’s a difference. I would welcome them looking at things other than race. I would also applaud NOW for looking at things other than sex to find the best candidate. But that’s not my issue with them. They are hypocrites because not only do they automatically discount someone just because of a stance on an issue or two, but they demonize her. When, in reality, they should be commending her for what she has accomplished as a woman. Face it, part of the reason they hold the position they do on abortion rights is that they want more and more women to be able to accomplish as much as Palin has. She has it all: husband, kids, career. It is disappointing, though hardly surprising that they (and other here) cannot assess that she is not the candidate for them based on the issues, yet celebrate and commend her on what she has accomplished. Hell, shooting up from the PTA to Governership in the time she did is amazing! I think we’d all agree that that feat is even harder for a woman, never mind a woman with a full family. sheeze, she should be gawked at as a force of nature, not disrespected and demonized for doing what the feminist movement has been wanting for women for decades.