Thank yous go to The Onion.
9.09.2008
LONG post
I know this is a bit long, but my mother just forwarded this to me and I thought it was an important thing to post:
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message ...
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even
the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican
Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice
president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have
picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so
women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the
"white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a
boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and
opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been
about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for
women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too
many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no
way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin
shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and
deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that
has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential
candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that
opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that
Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be
like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on
issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the
job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't
say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the
spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero
background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37
years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month
about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question
until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every
day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on
the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and
she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a
$1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's
campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income
or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long
that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not
lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration
habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on
"God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is
filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out
of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between
form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues;
the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of
reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a
woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq;
someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of
Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs
who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against
Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every
issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that
creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global
warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's
wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only"
programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and
abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to
shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state
school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation;
she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500
million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has
opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle
Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does
it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels
but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just
echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade,
she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest,
she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a
human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it
also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James
Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely
waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for
Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains
from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most
women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist
majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to
support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite
government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs
than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national
stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home
until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on
their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their
children.
This could be huge.
...and there you have it.
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message ...
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even
the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican
Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice
president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have
picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so
women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the
"white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a
boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and
opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been
about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for
women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too
many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no
way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin
shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and
deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that
has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential
candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that
opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that
Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be
like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on
issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the
job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't
say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the
spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero
background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37
years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month
about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question
until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every
day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on
the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and
she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a
$1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's
campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income
or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long
that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not
lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration
habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on
"God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is
filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out
of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between
form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues;
the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of
reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a
woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq;
someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of
Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs
who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against
Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every
issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that
creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global
warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's
wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only"
programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and
abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to
shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state
school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation;
she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500
million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has
opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle
Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does
it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels
but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just
echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade,
she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest,
she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a
human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it
also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James
Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely
waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for
Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains
from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most
women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist
majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to
support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite
government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs
than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national
stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home
until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on
their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their
children.
This could be huge.
...and there you have it.
how it all started
I'm not sure how many of you regularly watch The Colbert Report, but just in case you don't, here's some news: the whole "Sarah Palin for VP" idea came from some college kid living in his mom's basement.
No, I'm not kidding.
Blogger Adam Brickley first suggested the idea around the beginning of 2007. You can read his blog--which has been updated often, and is already boasting an entry today--here.
And I know, I know...but here's the clip from Colbert:
Mr. Brickley makes his appearance at around 5:50 in that video.
No, I'm not kidding.
Blogger Adam Brickley first suggested the idea around the beginning of 2007. You can read his blog--which has been updated often, and is already boasting an entry today--here.
And I know, I know...but here's the clip from Colbert:
Mr. Brickley makes his appearance at around 5:50 in that video.
yes, another one.
Not to post two Daily Show clips in a row, but I just found this--Mike Huckabee is quite hilarious in this clip, I think, so I figured I'd post it:
I know it looks like the same video I just posted below, but watch it--I promise it isn't!
I know it looks like the same video I just posted below, but watch it--I promise it isn't!
another one
The Huffington Post has posted a really good article regarding Sarah Palin:
Did Sarah Palin wrongfully push to have her ex-brother-in law fired? Was she really against the "Bridge to Nowhere?" Did she really sell Alaska's plane on eBay, or just list it on eBay? Did she actually have any substantial duties commanding the Alaska National Guard? The correct answer to all these questions is: who cares? Which isn't to say these aren't valid questions, or that Palin and the McCain camp aren't playing it fast, loose, and coy with each of them. The point is that Palin, and the circus she's brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.
Read the rest of the article, titled "Sarah Palin: A Trojan Moose Concealing Four More Years of George Bush," here.
"no thanks"
Oh, Sarah.
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.
Didn't your mother ever teach you that lying is wrong? And the thing about lying is, the truth always comes out. Just like it did when you told us you said "no thank you" to the "bridge to nowhere" a week ago, and then the media and blogosphere sniffed around and showed that you did, in fact, support said bridge.
An article on the Huffington Post discusses further:
Though Palin did abandon her onetime support for the bridge after winning Alaska's governorship, she did so only after federal dollars dried up. Moreover, she kept the federal funds already given to Alaska. Yet Palin still continues to use the line in each and every stump speech. In response, the Obama campaign is turning to humor. "On the same day that dozens of news organizations have exposed Governor Palin's phony Bridge to Nowhere claim as a 'naked lie,' she and John McCain continue to repeat the claim in their stump speeches. Maybe tomorrow she'll tell us she sold it on eBay," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Read the rest of the article here.
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.
Didn't your mother ever teach you that lying is wrong? And the thing about lying is, the truth always comes out. Just like it did when you told us you said "no thank you" to the "bridge to nowhere" a week ago, and then the media and blogosphere sniffed around and showed that you did, in fact, support said bridge.
An article on the Huffington Post discusses further:
Though Palin did abandon her onetime support for the bridge after winning Alaska's governorship, she did so only after federal dollars dried up. Moreover, she kept the federal funds already given to Alaska. Yet Palin still continues to use the line in each and every stump speech. In response, the Obama campaign is turning to humor. "On the same day that dozens of news organizations have exposed Governor Palin's phony Bridge to Nowhere claim as a 'naked lie,' she and John McCain continue to repeat the claim in their stump speeches. Maybe tomorrow she'll tell us she sold it on eBay," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Read the rest of the article here.
quote of the day
“I believe John McCain chose Gov. Palin because he truly believes that women who supported Hillary — an experienced, brilliant, life-long public servant — would vote for him because his Vice President has two x chromosomes. McCain’s selection of Governor Palin is a transparent and irresponsible decision all in the name of trying to win this election. John McCain has served this country. No one in this election is denying him that. But his selection of Governor Palin has demonstrated that he is willing to put his desperation to win this election above the welfare of the American people."
-Barbara Streisand
-Barbara Streisand
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)