Sarah Palin: Pros and Cons [Thread Retitled]

[Donald Isler]

She has yet to hold a press conference. One will get a much better idea what she understands of the world when they have the guts to let her do that.

[Madame]

Madame asked:

"Has an unmarried man ever been elected President? In our lifetime?"


Two bachelors have been elected President, but not in our lifetimes.

James Buchanan, the 15th President, was elected in 1856. He never married.

Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th President (ie the only man to serve two non-consecutive terms) was a bachelor when first elected in 1884. In 1886 he married the 21 year old daughter of a friend who had died young.

Thanks for the info, Don -- I doubt a bachelor would be elected today. If you recall, Adlai Stevenson who ran unsuccessfully against Eisenhower in '52 and '56 was divorced. I remember two 'negatives' about him -- he was too intelligent, and he was divorced. He was so witty -- he once sent a note to the newly elected head of the Unitarian Church : "Congratulations on your election as president. I know from hearsay how satisfying that can be."

[Chalkperson]

She has yet to hold a press conference.

She has a lot of experience holding babies...

[CharmNewton]

She has yet to hold a press conference.

She has a lot of experience holding babies...

Then I suspect she'll do very well with the media.

John

[Teresa B]

Thanks for the info, Don -- I doubt a bachelor would be elected today. If you recall, Adlai Stevenson who ran unsuccessfully against Eisenhower in '52 and '56 was divorced. I remember two 'negatives' about him -- he was too intelligent, and he was divorced.

As an aside, our governor, Charlie Crist, is a confirmed bachelor (actually he did have some extremely short marriage years ago) who suddenly announced his engagement just as he was being considered for the Republican Veep spot. Now that he lost out to Palin, I'll be really curious to see whether the lovebirds break it off.

Teresa

[Corlyss_D]

I thought Crist was gay.

[Ralph]

From Orlandoweekly.com:

9/21/2006

Is Charlie Crist gay? No, of course not. He’s a Republican candidate for governor. In Florida. Republicans don’t elect Marys in this state. They won’t even elect those suspected of Maryhood; go ask U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, whose 2004 United States Senate campaign was derailed by a report that he was a flamer.

Sure, Charlie’s a hot 50-year-old bachelor with well-coifed silver hair and a fondness for nicely tailored suits. But he just survived a primary against a fundie who premised his whole campaign on the notion that Charlie doesn’t hate gay people (or abortion) enough. You’d think if Tom Gallagher had something to say, he would have said it. Instead, a week before the primary Crist denied that he had fathered a love child.

Now, these rumors have been floating around for a while. We at Happytown™ have heard them for years, always off the record, always passed along as gossip. We’d guess that every reporter in the state has heard them, but as yet no one’s produced any proof, much less a picture of Crist having a Brokeback encounter with the pool boy.

Enter Max Linn, gubernatorial candidate for what’s left of the Reform Party. While on anchorman-turned-right-wing-nutball Bud Hedinger’s radio show (3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on WFLA-AM 540) last week, Linn told the flabbergasted host that he knew, and would swear on a stack of Bibles, that Crist was gay. The two have been friends for 25 years, Linn said, and Charlie had confided in him. Of course it goes without saying that Linn could have ulterior motives for this revelation, given the timing and all. But honestly, the best he could possibly hope for by dumping on his “friend” is to become a spoiler and clear the road to victory for Democrat Jim Davis.

Linn repeated the charges to Happytown™. “He knows that I know that he’s gay because it’s been discussed,” he says. Linn says he didn’t plan to out Crist on Hedinger’s show; it just came up. “My comment was not planned out or pre-meditated. Charlie is a good guy. I think he needs to be truthful with the American people and himself.”

It was all a bit too much for Hedinger. Crist is a Republican, which in Hedinger-land means he’s to be supported, no questions asked … unless he’s a ponce. It’s enough to make a right-wing pundit’s head explode.

Thus, Hedinger pointed out time and again that there’s no proof Charlie’s a pansy. And he was right to. But this is a pressing question, and one Happytown™ is determined to answer to the best of its ability (as Crist’s campaign declined to comment).

So, we dusted off the Happytown™ Gaydar Sensor™ (otherwise known as the B-MANES 3000) and ran some of Crist’s stats through it. The results:

Quote o’ the Week

‘I smell a rat! Are they the Orlando Magic or are they the Orange County Cheap Trick? I’m sick of cheap tricks. … We are playing a lot of games here, and it’s not basketball!’

-Commissioner Patty Sheehan

* Running mate has a mustache: GAY

* Has high cheekbones: GAY

* Prefers tailored suits: GAY

* Has Anderson Cooper hair: GAY

* Is down with civil unions: GAY

* Dots “I”s with stars on website: GAY

[Corlyss_D]

She has yet to hold a press conference. One will get a much better idea what she understands of the world when they have the guts to let her do that.

Guts? You must be kidding. She'll do just fine. Don't be surprised if she gets a lot of softball questions like Obama does. The press is gob-smacked over her too.* Moira Liason reported last week after The Speech that every one of her colleagues was begging their editors to assign them to her.



*And if you want to complain, try remembering that she's the VP candidate, not the P candidate. You all seem to have lost sight of this in the flurry of posts whining about her lack of experience.

[Corlyss_D]

NB:

Listen up, everyone! Because I've merged so many threads to this one and continue to have to do so, please when you are replying to someone's post, even if it is just above yours, quote what you are replying to to maintain some coherence in the conversations.

[SaulChanukah]

Republicans Say Palin's Israeli Flag Says It All

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu


(IsraelNN.com)

Republican vice presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin displays an Israel flag in her office window despite the tiny Jewish population in her state. Republicans say "that says it all" concerning what they charge is Democratic propaganda that she once backed Pat Buchanan, whose name is anathema to most Jews.

Florida Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida came out swinging at Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain immediately after he named Gov. Palin as her running mate. He accused her of backing 'Nazi sympathizer" Pat Buchanan in a previous election and said that Sen. McCain's choice was a "direct affront to all Jewish Americans."

"It's propaganda invented by the Democrats, and it is unfortunate they were trying to make these accusations without any factual basis," retorted Florida Congressman Adam Hasner, who represents the heavily Jewish area of Boca Raton in the Florida state legislature.

Gov. Palin explained that her alleged "support" of Buchanan consisted of her sporting a campaign button for him in 1999 when he visited the town of Wasilla when she was the mayor. Palin explained at the time she wore the button as a courtesy and that she was an official of the campaign of Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has pointed out that an Israeli flag is a fixture on the drapes in her office. "I think it speaks volumes that she keeps an Israeli flag on the wall of her office," the group's executive director, Matt Brooks, explained in an e-mail to Politico.com. "It clearly shows what's in her heart."
I think it speaks volumes that she keeps an Israeli flag on the wall of her office.

Politico's analyst Ben Smith said "he has a point, surely; a Palestinian flag would have told a different story."

More telling is a close look at her collar in a video of an interview. Israel National Radio show host Tamar Yonah wrote on her blog that she noticed what appears to be a small Israeli flag pinned to her blouse.

Gov. Palin has little reason to wear it because of the Jewish population in the state, which is the largest in terms of area in the United States but whose estimated 6,000 Jews leave Alaska with one of the country's smallest Jewish communities. accounting for only 0.5 percent of the state's citizens.

Surprisingly, 70 percent of Alaskan Jews light candles on eve of the Sabbath, compared with 32 percent of all American Jews, according to Dr. Gerhard Falk, a New York State sociology professor.

Gov. Palin is a likely Israeli backer because she is "a very religious person, and the religious Christians are the greatest supporters of Israel," according to the Hawaii's Jewish governor, Linda Lingle, also a Republican.

[Teresa B]

I thought Crist was gay.

Yep. That's why I predict his sudden engagement to a lovely lady will, after a respectable time, break up.

Teresa

[pizza]

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Column One: John McCain - master strategist
Sep. 4, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Both the challenges of war and the challenges of politics are challenges of leadership. And both military strategists and political strategists agree that the most basic leadership challenge in both arenas is to know and understand yourself - your strengths and your weaknesses - and to know your opponents and their strengths and weaknesses. While this may seem like basic common sense, it is quite amazing to see how often it is ignored.

The rarity of this sort of strategic wisdom in the public sphere was brought to the fore this week in the political uproar generated by US Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. McCain's selection of Palin was remarkable because in selecting her from the list of possible choices, he made a decision that embraced rather than ignored this most basic challenge of leadership.

Given that the universality of the logic that informed McCain's selection of Palin is followed more in the breach than in practice, it is worth analyzing his choice, both for what it tells us about his leadership skills, and about the nature of his domestic opposition. But it is also useful to reflect on his choice of Palin to draw lessons that can be applied more widely by non-leftist political and military strategists throughout the free world.

In the months preceding McCain's announcement of Palin as his running mate, his central challenges as the Republican presidential nominee came into focus. In Sen. Barack Obama, McCain faces a young, vigorous and charismatic opponent who has successfully energized his supporters and the powerful US liberal media establishment. Owing to that excitement, Obama has raised unprecedented amounts of campaign contributions. He has also rallied tens of thousands of loyal foot soldiers who have volunteered to serve his campaign. Both the donors and the volunteers are essential for winning voters and bringing them to the ballot boxes on November 4.

Obama's velvet tongue is also a formidable asset. His ability to mesmerize audiences with soaring rhetoric is compared favorably to president John F. Kennedy's eloquence.

Obama's other massive advantage is the liberal media. Since he first launched his primary campaign, the liberal media - which include the major US newspapers, television news networks and two out of three cable news networks - have been actively advocating on his behalf while downplaying his opponents.

But all of these formidable strengths are matched by countervailing vulnerabilities. While Obama's supporters are energized, the drawn-out primary election battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton splintered the Democratic Party base. Whereas most of Clinton's voters will no doubt vote for Obama in the general election, their support is more tenuous in swing states where Obama's cultural cache is less appealing.

And while Obama is a stunning speaker, his record of actual accomplishments is all but nonexistent. The combination of his extraordinary speeches and his ordinary empty resumé engenders a sense that Obama suffers from extreme arrogance.

Then, too, while the media has done its best to project a positive and credible image of Obama, his past political associations with radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres and corrupt influence peddler Tony Rezko call both his patriotism and his honesty into question.

McCain's balance of assets and deficits is almost the polar opposite of Obama's. He has a wealth of leadership experience and demonstrable political accomplishments. His patriotism is massively recognized and respected.

On the other hand, McCain has been unable to generate excitement in his party. His reputation as a maverick has often been earned at the expense of his political base, which is overwhelmingly socially conservative and suspects him of being a closet liberal. This has made fund-raising a challenge, and raised concerns that many conservatives will simply not vote on Election Day.

Moreover, McCain has never distinguished himself as a great communicator. His war wounds, which prevent him from raising his arms above his shoulders, make him appear even older than his 72 years. When compared to the vigorous, handsome 46-year-old Obama, McCain tends to look and sound like an old man.

This age and rhetorical distinction is only magnified by the disparity of media coverage of the two candidates' campaigns. The media have a pronounced and documented tendency to play up McCain's weaknesses and Obama's strengths while downplaying McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses.

IN LIGHT of these realities, McCain's strategic challenge has been on the one hand, to transform Obama's strengths into weaknesses while bringing Obama's actual weaknesses to the public's attention in a persuasive way. On the other hand, McCain needs to unify his own party around his candidacy without alienating independents and Democrats whose votes can be won.

In recent weeks, largely through the well-conceived, satirical use of television ads, McCain sought to meet these basic challenges. By comparing Obama's speech in Berlin to Moses's parting of the Red Sea, he playfully yet effectively drew attention to Obama's arrogance and called the credibility of his rhetorical skill into question. Other ads effectively brought Obama's slim record of actual achievements into view. Still other ads sought to attract disaffected Clinton voters by using her own primary campaign denunciations of Obama's record and radical associations.

Most importantly, in the lead-up to Palin's selection as his running mate, McCain has successfully provoked a public debate about the fairness of the media's support of Obama.

McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate, then, came after he had set the conditions for a strategic assault on Obama by successfully weakening him and discrediting his support base. The surprise entry of a young, accomplished woman with a compelling personal story who was all but unknown to the national audience, placed the Obama campaign and particularly his media supporters in a state of shock. And in their shocked reaction to her selection, the liberal media destroyed their own credibility - not to mention likability - among the general public.

The media claimed that McCain's choice of Palin was ill-conceived for three reasons. First, they argued that the popular Alaska governor has no experience in foreign policy and with only two years in state-wide office, little demonstrable experience in governing. Yet their assertions merely highlighted Obama's own inexperience while amplifying McCain's wealth of experience.

Second, the media insinuated that Palin is unfit for office because she has an infant child with Down's Syndrome. Either she will be a bad mother, or she will be a bad vice president, they claimed. Yet in so arguing, the liberal media merely demonstrated their own hypocrisy. While claiming the mantle of feminism, the media commentators belittled Palin's right to choose - together with her macho, blue collar husband - to serve her country as a mother of a child with special needs. Their harping on her personal family choices angered the vital demographic of middle class working mothers who felt personally insulted by their attacks on Palin.

Finally, of course, there was the media circus generated by Palin's belated announcement that her teenage daughter Bristol is pregnant and engaged to marry her teenage boyfriend. The news of her daughter's pregnancy evoked the ugliest media assault on a teenager in recent memory. Here, too, the media's pillorying of Palin as a lousy mother and her daughter as morally challenged discredited the media while increasing Palin's sympathy with voters shocked by this scurrilous assault on her daughter and her family values.

At the same time as McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate pushed the media over the edge, it profoundly rallied his own Republican base to his side. Palin's opposition to abortion, her membership in the National Rifle Association, her remoteness from Washington, her Pentecostal faith, together with the media attacks on her family gave social conservatives reason to be enthusiastic about the prospect of a McCain presidency.

IT BEARS noting that the sight of Palin's pregnant daughter appearing happily with her clean-cut fiancé at the Republican Convention on Wednesday served to reinforce the fact that women who are "pro-choice" actually have the choice not to abort unplanned pregnancies. Their presence in the hall demonstrated that embracing the responsibility of parenthood even at an early age can be a source of happiness and personal fulfillment for both fathers and mothers. That image alone no doubt ensured that on Election Day, tens of thousands of volunteers will work to bring voters to the polls for McCain.

Indeed, the value of the image is so enormous that the possibility arises that using his understanding of the media as an adversary and his understanding of his own political base, McCain viewed Bristol Palin's pregnancy as an electoral asset.

In the midst of the maelstrom swirling around her in the days that preceded her address to the Republican Convention, it was noted repeatedly that Palin's performance Wednesday evening would make or break McCain's candidacy. If she failed to present herself in a compelling fashion, she would destroy McCain's chances of election because her failure would serve as an indictment of his judgment. But if she succeeded, she would advance significantly the Republican ticket's chances of winning on November 4.

Many argued that McCain took an unnecessary gamble by placing such an enormous burden on her shoulders. Yet the fact is that McCain no doubt knew precisely what her capabilities are as a speaker. Unlike the media, he claims that he has been watching her political rise for years. He knew that she was capable of rising to the challenge. Far from a gamble, his move was a stroke of brilliance that showed an acute understanding of who Palin is, how he himself is perceived, and what motivates both the media and his own party base.

McCain's undoing of the elite, leftist media provides a universal lesson for contending with the Left. At base, the Left's ideology, whether relating to women's rights, human rights, academic inquiry or war and peace is not universal but tribal. Moreover, when the Left is challenged on any one of its signature issues, because it cannot actually make a case for the universal applicability or even logic of its views, it tends instead to embrace the politics of personal destruction while ignoring the obvious contradictions between its stated beliefs and actual behavior.

Although a necessary component of political warfare against the Left is the ability to expose its hypocrisy, exposing its hypocrisy alone will not bring victory. Leaders and policies capable of supplanting the Leftist elite and their failed ideas are also required. In the case at hand, had Palin been perceived as under-qualified to serve as vice president on Wednesday night, McCain's chances of winning the presidency would have been vastly diminished despite his successful unmasking of the Left's hypocrisy.

McCain's strategic grasp of the requirements for a successful presidential race provide an important lesson for policy-makers and political leaders. To win in politics and war you must be willing to acknowledge both your strengths and your weaknesses, and those of your opponent. It is never easy to look reality in the face. But unless leaders are willing to do so, they will never win. What's more, they will lose.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... %2FPrinter

[DavidRoss]

Re. Pizza's post of Glick's article above:

Yep. Too bad we won't find this kind of straightforward assessment of the facts in the mainstream media in our own country. Our own press is even worse than anything Orwell or Huxley imagined, because it's subtler. Could the present dismal state of U.S. journalism have happened without first perverting public education to dumb down and indoctrinate the masses instead of informing and enlightening them?

[DavidRoss]

Gov. Palin explained that her alleged "support" of Buchanan consisted of her sporting a campaign button for him in 1999 when he visited the town of Wasilla when she was the mayor. Palin explained at the time she wore the button as a courtesy and that she was an official of the campaign of Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes.

Now that's rather interesting.

[Donald Isler]

Gee, I wonder how popular pins with the Israeli flag were at Buchanan rallies?!

[Corlyss_D]

Re. Pizza's post of Glick's article above:

Yep. Too bad we won't find this kind of straightforward assessment of the facts in the mainstream media in our own country. Our own press is even worse than anything Orwell or Huxley imagined, because it's subtler. Could the present dismal state of U.S. journalism have happened without first perverting public education to dumb down and indoctrinate the masses instead of informing and enlightening them?

Amen. The main reason I started subscribing to the Economist was Niall Ferguson judged the Economist's reportage about American politics to be far superior to anything available from US sources. I would put up a mild disagreement with that assessment only to the extent that IMO the Washington Times has the most reliable and non-partisan political reportage (as opposed to op-eds) on national politics in the nation. It don't get no respect for two reasons: the editorship is conservative and the paper is owned by Moon, whose only visible influence has been that religious issues were always reported on page A2.

[Corlyss_D]

An amusing insight into how much Palin's nomination has "rocked the political world" (Vaughn Ververs, CBS.com), this shows Obama completely befuddled, suggesting that a P candidate would engage with the VP candidate on the other ticket. That's an amateur's gaff. Team Obama better get him back on message - fast.

H-O-R-S-E

By John Batchelor. posted on September 07, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Obama Challenges Palin

“You know, I would play her a game of horse,” Obama said (on ABC's "This Week" when asked by George Stephanopoulos if he'd go one-on-one with Sarah Palin. “She looks like she's got some game. She plays high — you know, I know she's a sharpshooter. … I probably wouldn't do target practice with her. I think she'd be a better shot than me. But on the basketball court (left during the primary campaign), I think I'd stand up pretty well.”

The Rules

The game of horse is a two person game. The first player can take any kind of shot from anywhere on the court, and if the first player makes the shot, the second player must match it. If the first player misses, the second player gets the lead to shoot from anywhere. Whoever misses the other's shot, gets a letter until the loser is the one who spells H-O-R-S-E on the fifth missed shot.

Mr. Obama has now given in completely to the game of matching up with his opponent's vice-presidential choice. This is odd. Very odd. It is definitely unprecendented in modern presidential politics. Consider: Bill Clinton vs. Dan Quayle? Bill Clinton vs. Steve Kemp? Al Gore vs. Dick Cheney?

But Mr. Obama wants to match up with Sarah Palin. Why? Where is Joe Biden? And in debating Sarah Palin, Mr. Obama, who has modest experience as a legislator in Springfield and none to mention in Washington, goes up against the governor and chief-executive of an energy plush and extremely red state. How can this do anything but make him appear mismatched? And does he want to debate the Second Amendment, too? With Sarah Palin (right, at aged 14), the sharpshooter?

[Chalkperson]

What else is there to say...

[Corlyss_D]

When Barack's berserkers lost the plot
* Nick Cohen
* The Observer,
* Sunday September 7 2008
* Article history

My colleagues in the American liberal press had little to fear at the start of the week. Their charismatic candidate was ahead in virtually every poll. George W Bush was so unpopular that conservatives were scrambling around for reasons not to invite the Republican President to the Republican convention. Democrats had only to maintain their composure and the White House would be theirs. During the 1997 British general election, the late Lord Jenkins said that Tony Blair was like a man walking down a shiny corridor carrying a precious vase. He was the favourite and held his fate in his hands. If he could just reach the end of the hall without a slip, a Labour victory was assured. The same could have been said of the American Democrats last week. But instead of protecting their precious advantage, they succumbed to a spasm of hatred and threw the vase, the crockery, the cutlery and the kitchen sink at an obscure politician from Alaska.

For once, the postmodern theories so many of them were taught at university are a help to the rest of us. As a Christian, conservative anti-abortionist who proved her support for the Iraq War by sending her son to fight in it, Sarah Palin was 'the other' - the threatening alien presence they defined themselves against. They might have soberly examined her reputation as an opponent of political corruption to see if she was truly the reformer she claimed to be. They might have gently mocked her idiotic creationism, while carefully avoiding all discussion of the racist conspiracy theories of Barack Obama's church.

But instead of following a measured strategy, they went berserk. On the one hand, the media treated her as a sex object. The New York Times led the way in painting Palin as a glamour-puss in go-go boots you were more likely to find in an Anchorage lap-dancing club than the Alaska governor's office.

On the other, liberal journalists turned her family into an object of sexual disgust: inbred rednecks who had stumbled out of Deliverance. Palin was meant to be pretending that a handicapped baby girl was her child when really it was her wanton teenage daughter's. When that turned out to be a lie, the media replaced it with prurient coverage of her teenage daughter, who was, after all, pregnant, even though her mother was not going to do a quick handover at the maternity ward and act as if the child was hers.

Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.

In this, American liberals are no different from the politically committed the world over. David Cameron knew that he would never be Prime Minister until he had killed the urgent hatred of the Conservative party in liberal England. A measure of his success is that hardly anyone now is caught up by the once ubiquitous feeling that no compromise is too great if it stops the Tories regaining power. Hate can sell better than hope.

When a hate campaign goes wrong, however, disaster follows. And everything that could go wrong with the campaign against Palin did. American liberals forgot that the public did not know her. By the time she spoke at the Republican convention, journalists had so lowered expectations that a run-of-the-mill speech would have been enough to win the evening.

As it was, her family appeared on stage without a goitre or a club foot between them, and Palin made a fighting speech that appealed over the heads of reporters to the public we claim to represent. 'I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion,' she said as she deftly detached journalists from their readers and viewers. 'I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country.'

English leftists made the same mistake of allowing their hatred to override their judgment after the Iraq war. If they had confined themselves to charging Tony Blair with failing to find the weapons of mass destruction he promised were in Iraq, and sending British troops into a quagmire, they might have forced him out. They were so consumed by loathing, however, they insisted that he had lied, which he clearly had not. They set the bar too low and Blair jumped it with ease. 'When a man believes that any stick will do, he at once picks up a boomerang,' said GK Chesterton, and when the politically committed go on a berserker you should listen for the sound of their own principles smacking them in the face.

Journalists who believe in women's equality should not spread sexual smears about a candidate, or snigger at her teenage daughter's pregnancy, or declare that a mother with a young family cannot hold down a responsible job for the pragmatic reason that they will look like gross hypocrites if they do. Before Palin, we saw hypocrisy of the right when shock jocks who had spent years denouncing feminism came over all politically correct when Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky.

In Britain, the most snobbish attacks on Margaret Thatcher did not come from aristocrats but from the communist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who opined that Thatcherism was the 'anarchism of the lower middle classes' and the liberal Jonathan Miller, who deplored her 'odious suburban gentility'. More recently, George Osborne, of the supposedly compassionate Conservative party, revealed himself to be a playground bully when he derided Gordon Brown for being 'faintly autistic'.

In an age when politics is choreographed, voters watch out for the moments when the public-relations facade breaks down and venom pours through the cracks. Their judgment is rarely favourable when it does. Barack Obama knows it. All last week, he was warning American liberals to stay away from the Palin family. He understands better than his supporters that it is not a politician's enemies who lose elections, but his friends.

[Corlyss_D]

Sarah Palin: it's go west, towards the future of conservatism
Her thrilling convention speech showed that the Governor of Alaska is a force to reckoned with. But she might be more than that
Gerard Baker

The best line I heard about Sarah Palin during the frenzied orgy of chauvinist condescension and gutter-crawling journalistic intrusion that greeted her nomination for vice-president a week ago came from a correspondent who knows a thing or two about Alaska.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Now we know, thanks to her triumphant debut at the Republican convention on Wednesday, that Mrs Palin not only slaughters her prey. She impales its head on a stick and parades it around for her followers to jeer at. For half an hour she eviscerated Mr Obama in that hall and did it all without dropping her sweet schoolmarm smile, as if she were handing out chocolates at the end of a history lesson.

There's a powerful danger in the sheer thrill that has followed her astonishing performance that we could get carried away with John McCain's running-mate. Some of the coverage has a hyperbolic tone to it. Not since Paris handed that apple to Aphrodite has a man's selection of a woman had such implications for the future of our civilisation.

So let's stipulate one obvious and important piece of wisdom about US elections. The choice of a vice-presidential candidate rarely makes much of a difference. The pundit class waxes historical in the excitement of the moment but usually the vice-presidential choices go back to playing second banana. However mawkishly we dwell on the mortality of the presidential contenders, it is they who determine the voters' decision.

This one, to be fair, could be different. For at least the next few weeks the press will follow Mrs Palin's present and dig deeper into her past, still hoping for some morsel of stupidity or evidence of cupidity to doom her. But in the end, barring such a discovery, this is still an Obama-McCain contest.

But let me try to explain why Mrs Palin, whatever impact she might have in November, may be a figure of real consequence in our lives.

It's partly about what she represents and partly about what she has already done, but mostly about where she and her ilk might take the Republicans - and possibly America.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls again and again into the old trap of underestimating politicians whom they don't understand. From Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to George Bush and Mrs Palin, they do it every time. Because these characters talk a bit funny and have ridiculously antiquated views about faith, family and nation, because they haven't spent time bending the knee to the intellectual metropolitan elites, they can't be taken seriously.

So the general expectation was that Mrs Palin would stumble on to the stage in high heels, clutching her sprawling, slightly odd family (five children! how weird), mispronounce the name of the Russian Prime Minister, mutter a few platitudes about God, and disappear for ever to a deafening chorus of sniggers.

No one paid much attention to the fact that she had been elected governor of a state. Or that she got to that office not because, unlike some politicians I could mention, her husband had been there before her, or because she bleated continuously about glass ceilings, but by challenging the entrenched interests in her own party and beating them. In almost two years as Governor she has cleaned out the Augean stables of Alaskan Government. You don't win a statewide election and enjoy approval ratings of more than 80 per cent without real political talent.

Never mind all that. She didn't have a passport! She was a former beauty queen! It was so axiomatic that she was a disaster that I was told by lots of savvy men - with deliciously unconscious sexism - that the real problem was what the choice said about Mr McCain and his judgment: cynical, irresponsible, clueless. It was as if Mrs Palin wasn't really a human being at all, but an article of Mr McCain's clothing that showed his poor taste, like wearing brown shoes with a charcoal suit.

So here's why she matters.

First of all she offers an opportunity for an ailing Republican party to reconnect with ordinary Americans. She's conservative, but her conservatism is not that of the intolerant, uncomprehending white male sort that has so hurt the party in recent years. She is much closer to a model of the lives of ordinary Americans - working mother, plainspoken everywoman juggling home and office - than any Republican leader in memory.

The contrast with Mr Obama is especially powerful. The very fact that Mrs Palin didn't go to elite schools but succeeded nonetheless - the very ordinariness with which she so piquantly jabbed Mr Obama on Wednesday - is what will make her so appealing to Americans. And as a pro-life conservative she debunks in one swoop the enduring myth that all women subscribe to the obligatory nostrums of radical feminism.

But there's more to it than that.

The Republicans have decided that they are not going to make the mistake Hillary Clinton made and run against the effervescent Mr Obama on the premise of experience.

Experience hasn't got Americans into a very comfortable place. They want change. Before he signed up to some of the less attractive Republican attitudes this year, Mr McCain's career had embodied that change - the anti-establishment candidate running against his own party. Now he is joined by a woman who, in her short career, has done the same thing.

Democrats think that Mr McCain, with the social conservative Mrs Palin, will launch an old-fashioned culture war at them, using her appealing manner to drive a populist assault on the familiar Republican issues of God, guns and gays.

Perhaps this Manichean interpretation will prove true. But I suspect that it misses the real appeal of the Republican team. The opportunity for McCain-Palin is not reaction, but reform - a reform rooted in a distant conservatism that could be due for a comeback

Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters.

This is an election, as the Democrats have realised all along, about an America on the cusp of change. With the moose-hunting, establishment-taunting Mrs Palin at his side, Mr McCain might represent a bigger change than the one that his opponents are offering.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 677799.ece

Interesting debate going on at the London Times as to whether Hercules cleaned out the Aegean stables or the Augean stables. There will always be an England!

[Corlyss_D]

Sarah Palin: John McCain's secret weapon to win over the Reagan Democrats
John McCain has launched an audacious bid to rebuild the political coalition that Ronald Reagan rode to the White House, tapping the mania accompanying his running mate Sarah Palin to win over small town America, and with it the White House.


By Tim Shipman in Sterling Heights, Michigan
Last Updated: 9:42PM BST 06 Sep 2008
Sarah Palin represents John McCain's attempt to reach out to the Reagan Democrats
John McCain hopes Palin-mania will help him win over small-town America Photo: AFP/GETTY

The Republican presidential candidate signalled his intentions by using his first weekend of campaigning since his party's convention to launch a political raid into the heart of Reagan-Democrat country, home of the fabled blue collar voters who Mr Reagan captured from the Democrats in the 1980s.

Mr McCain, and particularly Mrs Palin, met with a rapturous reception as they held a rally in Macomb County, Michigan, where pollsters first identified the breed of patriotic conservative, blue collar workers who the McCain camp now believes hold the key to victory in November.

On Friday night in Sterling Heights, Mr McCain's selection of Mrs Palin appeared to have utterly transformed his campaign and made easier the task of converting Reagan Democrats to McCain Democrats.

Where he once played to a few hundred people, he was greeted by an electrified crowd of 6,000 chanting "Sa-rah, Sa-rah!", "John Mc-Cain, John Mc-Cain!" and "U-S-A!"

Mrs Palin immediately made explicit how the McCain campaign will take on Democratic candidate Barack Obama in the coming weeks. "We went right from the convention to small town USA," she said. "It's true that they grow good people, people who are working hard for America.

You love your country in good times and bad and you're always proud to be Americans."

The self-described "hockey mom" wooed her peers, holding up a Detroit Red Wings hockey shirt and describing how her son Track, now a soldier soon to deploy to Iraq, once played for a local high school team. "Michigan, you took care of my boy and now that boy is serving in the US Army and he's going to take care of you."

Casting the double act as political outsiders, Mr McCain urged voters to "send a team of Mavericks who aren't afraid to go to Washington and break a little china".

With the polls deadlocked after the most exciting convention season in three decades, both Republicans and Democrats are set to wage electoral war on the small town battlefields of middle America.

Stan Greenberg, the pollster who first coined the phrase Reagan-Democrat in 1985, published a new report in Macomb County two weeks ago, which found that Mr McCain has a seven point lead there because disaffected Democrats are uncomfortable with Barack Obama's inexperience on national security issues and his economic policies. "The Reagan Democrats are back," it concluded.

Mr Greenberg told The Sunday Telegraph: "These are people who have escaped the city to pursue their version of the American dream. Bill Clinton made it his mission to get them back and he partially succeeded. Reagan Democrats are a metaphor for the challenge Democrats are facing in this election."

Mr Greenberg added: "Obama has to fight for the older blue collar Catholic voters. If Obama wins Macomb, he takes Michigan and the election."

Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, said Sarah Palin is now the key to Mr McCain's chances in Macomb County and the election as a whole. "Small town America has leaned Republican since 1980 but was pulled away to the Democrats by the Republican failures of the last few years. In the 2006 congressional elections small town America voted Democrat.

"In her speech at the convention Sarah Palin cut right to the core of who they are and what they believe: the people who work the hardest and fight our wars. The voters who live in small towns in Missouri and Michigan and Ohio will decide this election."

Former White House official Jim Nuzzo, an early fan of Mrs Palin, agreed: "This is an absolutely classic class war fight. It's the toffs in the Obama camp versus the working people. Sarah Palin is John McCain's bridge to the working class."

On Friday in Sterling Heights a poster proclaimed: "Sarah You are The One," a sly dig at Mr Obama's image. Another read "Real Women are Pro-Life", a reference to Mrs Palin's anti-abortion stance.

That point was reinforced by the presence in the crowd of a 40-strong group of nuns in white habits. Sister Thomas Augustin, 44, of the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucarist, said: "I think she really speaks for women in a way that Hillary Clinton does not. She loves her husband and her children and I think that disaffected people who were on the fence are going to support her."

It had been assumed by many commentators that Mrs Palin could not win over those supporters of Hillary Clinton with whom she differs on abortion. But women waving Democrats for McCain posters were highly visible.

Janet Smith, 41, a special education teacher from Flint Township is a registered Democrat who supported Mrs Clinton in the Democratic primary. But she said she was now backing Mr McCain: "I just don't have a good gut feeling that Obama has what it takes to lead this country. I'm an American first before I'm a party member. McCain is an American first; he's bringing back patriotism."

Barbara Fee, 50, another Democrat for McCain who works for a car supplier, said: "I just don't like Obama. Hope and change are just words. I believe his ideas are socialist. I love Sarah Palin. I like what she's done and how she's done it. She's got spunk."

Several voters said that Mrs Palin's arrival on the ticket had made it more palatable to back Mr McCain. Jennifer Raybaud, a 42 year-old small business owner sporting a "Palin has them wailin'" sign, said: "I was going to vote Republican but I feel a whole lot better about it now. Sarah Palin is my age, she has kids. She seems like me."

Sheri Allard-Pruehs, 50, added: "I love Sarah Palin. If McCain in had picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate I probably wouldn't have voted at all."

If that enthusiasm is replicated around the country, Mr McCain could well be taking the oath of office on January 20th.

Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, the state that has picked the president in all but one election over the last 110 years, told The Sunday Telegraph that Mrs Palin's appointment has energised voters in his state too: "I'm hearing reports of great enthusiasm from my staff all around Missouri. On Sunday I had three women who don't usually discuss politics in church telling me that they are now very enthusiastic to vote for John McCain."

Mr McCain, who trails in statewide Michigan polls, was keen to convert the enthusiasm into votes in Sterling Heights: "A little straight talk," he said. "I need to win Michigan. There's 60 days left. I need you to get out there and vote." On Saturday, Mr McCain and Mrs Palin took their message to the swing states of Colorado and New Mexico. Mrs Palin will conduct her first solo campaign event on Monday in Pennsylvania, home state of her vice presidential rival Joe Biden.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... crats.html

[RebLem]

I know of no evidence that the Obama/Biden campaign is responsible for any of the bad taste remarks that have been made about Palin's family, despite reams of right wing character assassination that have been republished above.


Moderator accidently deleted the rest attempting to respond. I hit edit instead of quote. I usually catch myself before I do irreparable damage with that mistake, but I blew it this time. My profuse apologies to Rob. I hope you can restore what you wrote.

[DavidRoss]

IMO, though there is one area of legitimate commentary involving her family. Her daughter's pregnancy, it seems to me legitimate to argue, is one more piece of evidence of the failure of the abstinence only sex education that Mayor/Governor Palin advocates, and which is part of the curriculum in the Wasilla Public Schools.

At least you're not attacking Gov. Palin's character because her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and is having the baby. Do you really believe that she was ignorant about the relationship between sex and pregnancy or the existence of birth control, or even that this particular 17 year old was acting out of thoughtful consideration when she was having intercourse? Or that the only place kids learn about such things is in the schools?

Personally, I favor sex ed in the schools, even though I'm not aware of any data establishing imuch of a success rate in preventing teen pregnancies. Of course, when those kids are subjected from dusk to dawn by a popular culture glorifying dysfunctional behavior, that's very hard for parents or teachers to combat.

Trouble is, for the right wing, the effectiveness of the policy is not an issue. What is important is your moral stand. Facts like whether or not it does any good are simply irrelevant to them. Moral and ideological commitment is what is important.

That sounds like liberalism to me. This is one of my major complaints about liberal ideology, that it is grounded entirely on feel-good-about-yourself platitudes utterly divorced from reality and sneeringly disdainful of facts contradicting ideology--and equally sneeringly disdainful of people who think differently. The vicious hypocrisy of contemporary liberalism is painfully obvious with every ignorant putdown of others by those who preach tolerance and diversity on one hand, but slander folks who "cling bitterly to their guns and religion" on the other hand. This has much to do with why I am not a liberal any longer.

To my way of thinking, anyone who claims to stand on moral high ground automatically binds himself to full, impartial investigation of the facts before forming opinions--especially about what he wants to force other people to do. My complaint about liberals in general is that they don't--instead, they are exactly like your description of "the right wing," above. See almost any thread on almost any topic in this forum for numerous examples of which you, yourself, are among the most egregious offenders.

I'd also like to point out that the people who are making a big deal of the daugher's pregnancy. and who say Gov. Palin ought to concentrate on raising her Downs Syndrome baby are the same idiots who criticized John Edwards (before his philandering scandal) for continuing to run for President while his wife was fighting cancer. Lots of people who were not outraged about that are outraged about the accusations against Gov. Palin. I wonder why? Could it be that this time, its a right winger rather than a liberal, who is being attacked?

You're on thin ice here, only a step or two away from admission of the horrifying bigotry evident in the media's reporting about conservatives versus liberals. I hardly saw any "news" about Edwards's wife's cancer except for some straight reporting without editorializing, and recent revelations indicate that the press knew about but hushed up his clandestine affair. Compare and contrast with the blizzard of slanderous mudslinging about Palin in the last week, and if you have any shred of honesty or decency you will admit that it is grossly disproportionate and only shows just how untrustworthy and irresponsible our mainstream media has become.

By the way, here's a tip on general forum use that will help your posts appear more respectful of others here:
Your posts won't appear with that offensively large font screaming for attention if you simply don't change the font size at the beginning of your posts.

[Chalkperson]

Commentary: Obama wrong to spurn Hillary, pick Biden

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Ten days ago, Sen. Joe Biden was the most brilliant vice presidential pick imaginable. He was going to add the experience and foreign policy credential that Sen. Barack Obama's thin resume was missing.

The so-called expert commentators were arguing that blue-collar Joe was going to guarantee Pennsylvania (because he was born in Scranton) and other states and get Catholic voters because he is a pro-choice Catholic.

I guess they forgot that Joe didn't do so well with Iowa Catholics (23 percent of the population) when he campaigned there for more than a year in the Democratic caucus race. But then getting less than 1 percent of the vote and coming in fifth place showed he didn't do real well with any voter group in Iowa. Nor did he do well anywhere else, other than Delaware.

Then, after Sen. John McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, people laughed and said Biden was going to wipe the floor with Palin in the vice presidential debate. Now, after her incredible convention speech, Biden is saying that he's the underdog because he's not a very good debater.

If Obama had done the smart thing, he would have picked Sen. Hillary Clinton for vice president. If he had, he would have united his party for sure and energized his base.

He just couldn't do it and maybe thought he didn't need to do it. He was wrong. That choice would have meant that McCain probably wouldn't have picked Palin. And if McCain had picked anybody else from his shortlist, the Republican convention would have been boring, and the party's base would not have been motivated.

The one thing we know for sure -- the selection of Biden did the least to enhance any ticket since George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle back in 1988. This is turning out to be another election the Democrats were convinced they couldn't lose. So far, the selection of Palin has been a game-changer and has energized my party like no one since Ronald Reagan did four decades ago.

The polls are back to even again. The only difference is the Republicans now have a communicator to match Obama and the Democrats have on their ticket an older veteran of Washington politics to match McCain's experience. The reformer Obama who was going to be the candidate of change is now running with Mr. D.C. establishment.

McCain, the maverick who is surrounded and advised by the D.C. establishment, has somehow picked the real reformer who has altered the Alaska political landscape by throwing out the establishment "good old boys" of both parties.

The tens of millions of Americans who watched on television got a visual view of who makes up the two parties (or at least the delegates). The Democrats had many people of color, women, union members, young and energetic folks dressed casually and having a great time: crying, yelling, cheering, singing, dancing. Many are the workers and teachers and organizers who want change.

Republicans were older, overwhelmingly white, men and women (many as old as me) and some young who looked old, in silly outfits or suits and ties with fancy jewelry and big hair, cheering, yelling, crying and trying to dance and also having a great time. They are the businessmen and the producers (who have much to protect) and through their efforts have made America a better place.

I saw more Veterans of Foreign Wars hats and political buttons from past conventions than I thought still existed. And God love them all, the Democrats and Republicans for still participating and enjoying it. But they each represent different Americas and very different ideologies. And though they don't define it the same, they both want change.

Judging only from the rhetoric of the conventions, I don't know what either party really wants other than the big house that sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Both are going to cut taxes; both are going to have new programs.

By the end of McCain's speech, he was arguing we all need to do something meaningful with our lives to make our country a better place: to become a teacher, join the military, enter the ministry, feed a hungry child, teach an illiterate to read or run for public office. (Just what we need, more candidates.) These were all admirable suggestions, but the speech was the occasion when he was supposed to show the difference electing him would make.

In the end, these conventions became the telling of compelling stories of the lives of the four candidates on the two tickets. All have lived the American dream and have overcome a lot to get to where they are.

But what we want to know in the coming weeks is this -- how do we move forward an economy on the brink, end a war and reassure uncertain Americans who feel their lives are not going to get better until someone leads us out of this mess.

That's the challenge to both tickets today. There are eight weeks left to make the sale.

And so far not enough voters are buying either product.

Seems like a pretty good argument to me...

[slofstra]

Is there a VP debate?

[johnQpublic]

Yes there will be Henry.

Nonsequeter:

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Ralph, Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests

Ralph's in good company

[slofstra]

Yes there will be Henry.

Nonsequeter:

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Ralph, Yahoo [Bot] and 0 guests

Ralph's in good company

I have a feeling that will tell the tale as to all the second guessing.

[Corlyss_D]

Commentary: Obama wrong to spurn Hillary, pick Biden

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Ten days ago, Sen. Joe Biden was the most brilliant vice presidential pick imaginable. He was going to add the experience and foreign policy credential that Sen. Barack Obama's thin resume was missing.

The so-called expert commentators were arguing that blue-collar Joe was going to guarantee Pennsylvania (because he was born in Scranton) and other states and get Catholic voters because he is a pro-choice Catholic.

Yeah. Hehehehe. Instead of selling Biden as the gray-beard paterfamilias of the Dim party, they are touting him as appealing to the Reagan Democrats. There was some talk on the first hour of Batchelor about Biden's phony props as a blue-collar anything and how the MSM has uncritically bought the line that Biden is just a working class stiff from Pa ('cause the Dims need Pa to win), not Delaware, where he lives and represents. Batchelor remarked that he lives in "chateau country" in Delaware, and that if pictures of his house and neighborhood ever got out, his claims of blue-collarhood would be exposed. But the MSM won't bother.

Also on Batchelor yesterday, one of his political professionals reported that Team Obama tried to assign Hillary to deal with Palin, and she politely but firmly declined. Of course, if she had been on the ticket, she wouldn't have been able to decline.

[Werner]

Hillary will work where she's most effective. It will be a good show, and I'll bet on the mature one among the ladies.

Oh yes, there are a couple of guys, too.

[Corlyss_D]

Hillary will work where she's most effective. It will be a good show, and I'll bet on the mature one among the ladies.

What part of Hillary's "No!" don't you understand?

[Corlyss_D]

From my favorite gay feminist:

A feminist's argument for McCain's VP

Tammy Bruce

Sunday, September 7, 2008

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter. E-mail comments to insight@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 12NP3M.DTL

[piston]

In many cases racial and gender identities will transcend most of the political issues that are not clearly related to race and gender. We've already seen it with African-American support for Obama during the primaries and this pattern will stick throughout the presidential election. Gender loyalty may not prove as widespread as racial loyalty but it'll play too. Absolutely! However this sort of response would not occur in either cases if such candidacies were not so unprecedented (or nearly so, in the case of female candidates). Even if Palin is a very conservative candidate, one can't prevent women at large from feeling the hope such a precedent could mean for other women in future presidential elections. Ditto for African Americans with regard to Obama.

[Kevin R]

Saw McCain and Palin (or is it Palin and McCain?) in Mo today. The crowd was really large and rather boisterous for a Republican gathering (the people who could not get in remained outside to listen to the two). The speeches were similar to what I've already heard (though the crowd loved hearing them again), but man Gov. Palin looks great and it seemed the masses were more interested in hearing her than McCain (the crowd broke out into a "Sarah, Sarah" chant in her introduction to McCain). I'm not sure who will win in Nov, but she has certainly fired up the base. And did I mention she looked great

[living_stradivarius]

She sure does. Naughty boy. But The Senator Approves.

[Teresa B]

Even if Palin is a very conservative candidate, one can't prevent women at large from feeling the hope such a precedent could mean for other women in future presidential elections.

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Teresa

[DavidRoss]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

[absinthe]

This is the problem with picking a nice looking bird for this kind of use. People get seduced for the wrong reasons. I'm mindful of merger negotiations a while ago where the victim deliberately chose a big-busted, cleavaged one with the right amount of engaging smile, and with an obvious intent while still being a good negotiator!

[Auntie Lynn]

At bottom, and after rummaging through a lot of the blather and hyperbole on this thread, I detect the faint odor of sour grapes on the part of those who did not think of this move first. The scam is, BO is trying to think of a way to get rid of Biden and get Hillary back...any news on that front??

[Teresa B]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

Come on, it isn't her, it's her ideology. What good will it do women to have their right to privacy (even to the point of the right to refuse to bear the child of a rapist) reversed, their sons and daughters going off to whatever war "God" directs them to, their reading material filtered through a Christian Right censor, their daughters kept in ignorance about sex and the prevention of pregnancy and STD's (Oh, wait a minute, you're 15, "just don't do it."), a Supreme Court that will be so ultraconservative they will swing the nation away from equal rights for all, an attitude of Christian Crusading that will continue to inflame the Muslim world and in turn, rather than encourage the improvement of women's lot in Third World countries, encourage more of the same--burqua'd women with few rights as human beings.

And what if we don't even care specifically about women's plight in other countries? All that oil drilling that will only help slightly to feed our nationwide "addiction" (as proclaimed by our illustrious president himself) will not decrease our desperate dependence on the Middle East even while we Crusade against them. Makes SO much sense.

Teresa

[pizza]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

Come on, it isn't her, it's her ideology. What good will it do women to have their right to privacy (even to the point of the right to refuse to bear the child of a rapist) reversed, their sons and daughters going off to whatever war "God" directs them to, their reading material filtered through a Christian Right censor, their daughters kept in ignorance about sex and the prevention of pregnancy and STD's (Oh, wait a minute, you're 15, "just don't do it."), a Supreme Court that will be so ultraconservative they will swing the nation away from equal rights for all, an attitude of Christian Crusading that will continue to inflame the Muslim world and in turn, rather than encourage the improvement of women's lot in Third World countries, encourage more of the same--burqua'd women with few rights as human beings.

And what if we don't even care specifically about women's plight in other countries? All that oil drilling that will only help slightly to feed our nationwide "addiction" (as proclaimed by our illustrious president himself) will not decrease our desperate dependence on the Middle East even while we Crusade against them. Makes SO much sense.

Teresa

So we should refrain from drilling for oil because it won't solve our entire energy problem? We shouldn't "inflame" the Muslim world and allow radical Islam to spread its vicious agenda to the West because we over-depend on theirs? We're gonna repeal the 1st Amendment so sex education can't be taught? Women will be disenfranchised and returned to the kitchen where they belong? The Christian right will shut everyone up and rule America with a Puritan fist?

Even Obama's speechwriters and the ultra-liberal MSM haven't conjured up such nonsense. You must be having a bad day.

[slofstra]

I think this catches the concept, eh, Teresa?

[Teresa B]

So we should refrain from drilling for oil because it won't solve our entire energy problem?

Yes, where it's environmentally destructive.

We shouldn't "inflame" the Muslim world and allow radical Islam to spread its vicious agenda to the West because we over-depend on theirs?

What's the point of inflammatory "God is on our side" rhetoric that only fuels the irrational hatred of radical Islamists? And it's pretty hypocritical and self-defeating for us to be in bed with Arabs whilst we Crusade against them.

We're gonna repeal the 1st Amendment so sex education can't be taught?

Well, I didn't say "repeal the 1st Amendment", but if Palin were in charge only abstinence would be discussed.

Women will be disenfranchised and returned to the kitchen where they belong?

I didn't say that anywhere. I did mention women in countries where they are currently oppressed ultimately remaining oppressed.

The Christian right will shut everyone up and rule America with a Puritan fist?

They would if they could.

Even Obama's speechwriters and the ultra-liberal MSM haven't conjured up such nonsense.

Obama obviously has to be more circumspect.

You must be having a bad day.

Au contraire, I'm doing great, thanks in great part to the good fortune of being born into an open-minded family (in an advanced nation) who educated me broadly, allowed me free rein to pursue whatever goals I wished, and encouraged independent thinking. I had a lot of choices my grandmother and mother did not, and the majority of women in the world still do not. I don't want to sit around and watch this country regress, and after the past 8 years, we don't need more Palintological ideology.
Teresa

[Teresa B]

Henry, your cartoon came in just as I posted above. By golly, a picture is worth 1000 words, as someone has said before.

Teresa

[Ted]

Pizza writes:

Women will be disenfranchised and returned to the kitchen where they belong

Finally we've found common ground ******

[pizza]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

They have a basis. It's called paranoia.

[pizza]

Pizza writes:

Women will be disenfranchised and returned to the kitchen where they belong

Finally we've found common ground ******

I always knew you were a closet MCP!

[DavidRoss]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

Come on, it isn't her, it's her ideology. What good will it do women to have their right to privacy (even to the point of the right to refuse to bear the child of a rapist) reversed, their sons and daughters going off to whatever war "God" directs them to, their reading material filtered through a Christian Right censor, their daughters kept in ignorance about sex and the prevention of pregnancy and STD's (Oh, wait a minute, you're 15, "just don't do it."), a Supreme Court that will be so ultraconservative they will swing the nation away from equal rights for all, an attitude of Christian Crusading that will continue to inflame the Muslim world and in turn, rather than encourage the improvement of women's lot in Third World countries, encourage more of the same--burqua'd women with few rights as human beings.

And what if we don't even care specifically about women's plight in other countries? All that oil drilling that will only help slightly to feed our nationwide "addiction" (as proclaimed by our illustrious president himself) will not decrease our desperate dependence on the Middle East even while we Crusade against them. Makes SO much sense.

Sheer prejudice it is. Thanks for making that clear.

[piston]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

They have a basis. It's called paranoia.

Anybody noticed how the "quote" function can be totally inaccurate. Nope, I didn't write that.

[slofstra]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Is there a factual basis for these predictions, or are they just an expression of sheer prejudice?

Come on, it isn't her, it's her ideology. What good will it do women to have their right to privacy (even to the point of the right to refuse to bear the child of a rapist) reversed, their sons and daughters going off to whatever war "God" directs them to, their reading material filtered through a Christian Right censor, their daughters kept in ignorance about sex and the prevention of pregnancy and STD's (Oh, wait a minute, you're 15, "just don't do it."), a Supreme Court that will be so ultraconservative they will swing the nation away from equal rights for all, an attitude of Christian Crusading that will continue to inflame the Muslim world and in turn, rather than encourage the improvement of women's lot in Third World countries, encourage more of the same--burqua'd women with few rights as human beings.

And what if we don't even care specifically about women's plight in other countries? All that oil drilling that will only help slightly to feed our nationwide "addiction" (as proclaimed by our illustrious president himself) will not decrease our desperate dependence on the Middle East even while we Crusade against them. Makes SO much sense.

Sheer prejudice it is. Thanks for making that clear.

Actually, it's called opinion. Fundamentally, election choices are value based; clearly McCain and Palin epitomize values held by some Americans and not held by others.

It came up above - I think piston - but I think it's a bad situation to have women vote for someone because it's a woman, or blacks to vote black, and so on. For a democratic society to work, we have to look past race, ethnicity and gender, and vote based on issues and specific values. This is what has characterized European and NA democracies. Whereas, nascent democracies often do not work because of multiple strong ethnic identities co-existing within one state. For example, democratic elections in Iraq would go totally Shia, since Shia's will vote Shia and Sunni's will vote Sunni (and Kurds, Kurdish) . Since the country is 2/3 Shia, the Shia's will get their way. The great thing about America and Canada is that people see themselves as Americans (or Canadians) first and anything else second. Values and issues are continually in conflict; that's where the focus should be. Just an aside on gender and the election.

[slofstra]

As a--uh, "woman at large" I'll be happy she ran, if she loses. If she and McCain win, the precedent (or even by chance the president, should the likes of melanoma rear its ugly head) will not be a good one for women any time in the near future. (We can perhaps look beyond to Futurama, or whatever.)

Anybody noticed how the "quote" function can be totally inaccurate. Nope, I didn't write that.

You're not a fan of Futurama, piston? I had a young employee who was really big on it. He had also seen each episode of the Simpsons 10 times. This was some years ago - he now has both an LL.B. and a P.Eng. and is specializing in intellectual property issues. I think these two facts are somehow connected.