Knives out for Palin

[blueblood]

As I've said before , you can't pinpoint single-issues where Harper is in line with xyz politician on the left and then wonder why Harper is singled out.

No politician is ever going have all the same opinions as anyone. We base our opinions on the candidate as a whole and compare it to the alternative as a whole. Sure, I don't share all the same opinions as Obama, Dion, or Layton. Just the same, I may agree with Harper, Bush, McCain etc on certain issues... but in the end, it's the politician's overall platform that wins me or loses me.

Harper's overall agenda is simply too 'right' for me.... before I continue, allow me to make a distinction between what I perceive to be one of the biggest differences between the right and left. IMO, Bush_Cheney's signature line ('economics trumps virtue') is the quintessential right-wing worldview. OTOH, I see centre-left as an equilibrium between virtue and economics (or at least an attempt to find that equilibrium).

Obama has yet to govern, but his ideology so far is much more centre-left where economics and virtue are not mutually exclusive. Harper is much more centre-right where morality is only black or white, where might is right, and where economics trumps virtue.

In the end, that's what sets the two men apart, and the fact that Obama is so much more charismatic is just the icing on the cake, not the deciding factor.

Oh, and for the record, I would never argue that the 'centre-right' is wrong and the 'centre-left' is right.... but rather, that we see the world differently, and as such, we place our priorities in different places as far as the role of government is concerned.

The centre-left platform just resonates with me the same way the centre-right platform resonates with you. No biggie, to each their own.

That's a better answer. Time and again there are "leftists" who are all about Obama and say "oh its alright if he goes to church, he won't impose legislation based on his beliefs" and in the same breath will go "its not alright if Harper goes to church, he will impose legislation based on his beliefs" WTF, that sounds like a double standard does it not. Judge the people based on their policies.

I actually "support" Obama based on his ag policies that are beneficial to grain farmers, it helped him win his first primary. He also knows that free trade is good to the US and won't shoot the golden goose. I thought McCain would win though and was wrong. I liked McCains foreign policy, but didn't like him picking a wingnut such as Palin.

[M.Dancer]

You state your opinion as fact and then imply that I am incapable of understanding just because I disagree with that OPINION.

Stick to the one-liners buddy, your debating skills are feeble to say the least.

No I think your incapable of comprehending what are essentially to similar directions of policy.

Foreign affairs has not taken any U-turns from the Martin Chretian years and follows what essentially has been a pragmatic approach

I think no one can argue which is better a environmental strategy, a so so policy that is effected or a wonderful policy that doesn't take off...

And the Conservative financial policies are without question built upon solid rock.

So what exactly can't you stand outside of your narrow I hate conservative views can't you stand?

[M.Dancer]

Sarah Palin wasn't aware that Africa was a continent and she and her brood behaved like a band of "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," aides to Republican John McCain are telling prominent news organizations.

Less than 24 hours after McCain lost the presidential election to Democrat Barack Obama, those close to him apparently wasted no time burning up the phone lines to dish the dirt on Palin, the Alaska governor who portrayed herself as a sensible hockey Mom when she was chosen the Arizona senator's running mate in late August

What did take long was the debunking....

Sarah Palin redeemed by fake tipster?

By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Update: Apparently the fake Martin Eisenstadt wasn't the source of the Fox News story, according to this post from MediaBistro.com. It still begs the question: Who was?

So the 24-hour cable news spin cycle got spun.

You know that story about how Sarah Palin didn't understand that Africa is a continent?

MSNBC thought it knew the source of that tidbit, originally leaked on Fox News Channel. It was, according to the station, a John McCain adviser named Martin Eisenstadt, senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy.

One problem: There is no Harding Institute. There is no Martin Eisenstadt.

They are both figments of the very active imaginations of a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, according to the New York Time

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2803

[Sir Bandelot]

http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/

[kengs333]

No I think your incapable of comprehending what are essentially to similar directions of policy.

dontcha mean "you're"?

[kengs333]

Looks to me like someone doesn't want to defend her hero... oh, well...

[OddSox]

Sarah is in charge of the turkey - perhaps that really is the upper limit on her ability?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/s...o_n_145375.html

Some videos you just have to see to believe. On Thursday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared in Wasilla in order to pardon a local turkey in anticipation of Thanksgiving. This proved to be a slightly absurd but ultimately unremarkable event. But what came next was positively surreal. After the pardon Palin proceeded to do an interview with a local TV station while the turkeys were being SLAUGHTERED in the background!! Seemingly oblivious to the gruesomeness going on over her shoulder, she carries on talking for over three minutes. Watch the video below to see for yourself. Be warned, it's kind of gruesome.

[Oleg Bach]

Killing a chicken is not gruesome or a turkey for that matter. What did you expect her to do - Parachute heavily armed PETA members in to kill the butchers? Now that would be gruesome. Palin is old school...and old school may have some important lessons to be taught about the chain of command and the food chain. I like her...and I don't care if she's a tad dumb - she's a mature sexy lady.

[Shady]

OH MY GOD, you people are still talking about her!

[Oleg Bach]

Every body just wants to hug her - cos' she is the old girl next door that we all should have married - you know - hot and loyal with a sexy simplicity that makes you feel studly. Seeing McCain was not kissable - He needed Palin as bait...the difficulty resulted in the underestimation of male drive...everyone forgot that the majority of the guys are now fully feminized..so the plot failed.

[kimmy]

Looks to me like someone doesn't want to defend her hero... oh, well...

What is that? A plea for attention or something?

She's not my hero. I said shortly after she was selected that "I love the woman, hate her views." I still feel about the same, although I now also hate that she turned out to be so poorly informed.

I thought it was great that a feminine woman had a high profile role in the US election. I hope that in the future, female politicians might be inspired to be feminine. I found myself unable to relate to that asexual, defeminized woman running around in her shitty lime-green pant-suits and trying to act like an angry little dude with little-man issues. Presumably the result of focus-groups or image-consulting that concluded that if she came across as feminine then people wouldn't think she was strong enough to be President. If that was supposed to be the model of the future for women in politics in America, it was pretty uninspiring.

Palin had some serious shortcomings as a candidate. That said, I didn't see any reason to let stand the repeat of the misquote regarding "God's plan". We discussed that, you got pwned, and that was about all that needed to be said, and I didn't see much point in continuing. I assume you've "called me out" because you think you've posted some awesome zinger and wanted some satisfaction?

I can't imagine what that would be, unless it's this:

You seem to be mighty sensitive about this; am I to assume that you are of a similar religious mindset, that you perhaps even feel a certain amount of affinity towards her? God only knows that Alberta is filled with people of various fundamentalists outlooks...

I didn't even think this merited a response, but if you insist...

I will first off point out that my religious beliefs shouldn't actually be at issue. It doesn't alter any of the facts. It strikes me as an extraordinarily juvenile tactic to try to bring that in to the discussion. While you obviously fancy yourself a real scholar, you frankly don't convey that impression.

Second off, I will point out that only a complete idiot would make assumptions about somebody's religious beliefs based on what province they're from. And, for the record, despite the reputation, Alberta has the lowest proportion of church attendance in Canada.

And finally, even though it shouldn't be an issue, it bugs me to be accused of being a religious kook. I'm an atheist, raised by atheists, and I have strong feelings about religion intruding into the public sphere.

I have had a number of dustups over the years with people like Jefferiah and Sharkman and Betsy over the issue of religion in society. However, I also strongly respect the rights of religious people to hold their views. I think it's extremely unfortunate that some people are unable to see that those two viewpoints are not in conflict, but are actually necessary parts of the whole in our multicultural society.

-k

{Contact the Holeee Jeeeezus Church of Strikes and Spares for information about God's special plans for your life, so that you can follow him with your whole heart and make him take you and love on you a lot!}

Edited November 21, 2008 by kimmy

[Oleg Bach]

Bush was poorly informed and we did well by him. America could have taken four years of Palin while McCain sat in the back ground eating prune soup. It would have been interesting to see a totally uniformed VP guide a totally uniformed America - would have been buisness as usual.

[Sir Bandelot]

I found myself unable to relate to that asexual, defeminized woman running around in her shitty lime-green pant-suits and trying to act like an angry little dude with little-man issues. Presumably the result of focus-groups or image-consulting that concluded that if she came across as feminine then people wouldn't think she was strong enough to be President. If that was supposed to be the model of the future for women in politics in America, it was pretty uninspiring.

I don't look at it that way, I think there's leadership and then there's baby-makers. Hillary is married and a mother so she must have a feminine side, but some women (and men) are dominant and some are recessive. let the leaders lead, by whatever style works well. Also let the babymakers stay home IF THEY WANT TO.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't look at it that way, I think there's leadership and then there's baby-makers. Hillary is married and a mother so she must have a feminine side, but some women (and men) are dominant and some are recessive. let the leaders lead, by whatever style works well. Also let the babymakers stay home IF THEY WANT TO.

Some say Margret Thatcher was not fit to lead untill her uterus turned to stone and it did and she led well! She also had a very supportive husband that had some brains and was of excellent character. Palins husband could barely wear a suit in comfort. He was just as he appeared - a beer drinking hick. Hillary is not married in the real sense of the word. Her union with Bill has always been one of convenience. She has never been very femine - and has a vicious temper that she hides well...plus she is materially ambitous and running out of time - all the scarves and detracting necklaces she wears to hide her aging throat are to no avail - she has had her kick at the can - she already ruled the roost like a snapping hen at the Oval Office. Palin though simplistic may have been a good leader - but in time her husband would have become an embarassment - a Billy the beer Carter. Neither Hillary nor Palin have proper mates...and a leader needs the santuary of a home base to maintain focus.

[Sir Bandelot]

Palin though simplistic may have been a good leader - but in time her husband would have become an embarassment - a Billy the beer Carter. Neither Hillary nor Palin have proper mates...and a leader needs the santuary of a home base to maintain focus.

Perhaps but I don't think it's a position that should require so much on-the-job training. There should be minimum requirements.

I don't think she had any special merits that made her better than the others. Except for her personal popularity, which was enormous and accounts for most of the support that she got. Thus she was truly just a publicity stunt...

Edited November 22, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[BC_chick]

I thought it was great that a feminine woman had a high profile role in the US election. I hope that in the future, female politicians might be inspired to be feminine. I found myself unable to relate to that asexual, defeminized woman running around in her shitty lime-green pant-suits and trying to act like an angry little dude with little-man issues. Presumably the result of focus-groups or image-consulting that concluded that if she came across as feminine then people wouldn't think she was strong enough to be President. If that was supposed to be the model of the future for women in politics in America, it was pretty uninspiring.

But then there's always Pelosi, Palin, even Condoleeza Rice is quite feminine in her demeanor in spite of her physically masculine appearance. Hillary Clinton is hardly the prototype of the successful woman politician.

Having said that, I do agree with you that she was encouraged to portray herself as asexual in order to appear presidential. If you look at her younger days or her years as first lady, she has changed a lot. She used to be much more feminine in the past.

Edited November 22, 2008 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Quote= I found myself unable to relate to that asexual, defeminized woman running around in her shitty lime-green pant-suits and trying to act like an angry little dude with little-man issues. Presumably the result of focus-groups or image-consulting that concluded that if she came across as feminine then people wouldn't think she was strong enough to be President. If that was supposed to be the model of the future for women in politics in America, it was pretty uninspiring.

I don't look at it that way, I think there's leadership and then there's baby-makers. Hillary is married and a mother so she must have a feminine side, but some women (and men) are dominant and some are recessive. let the leaders lead, by whatever style works well. Also let the babymakers stay home IF THEY WANT TO.

I have to wonder what "a feminine side" means. There are many women with Barbie doll (some times by plastic-surgery) bodies who wear form fitting dresses, high heels, make-up, who bat their eyes, and are the stereo-type of 'what a man [supposidly] wants in a woman' who know exactly how to use these things to demand and get exactly what they want. Are they more "feminine" than a woman who wears pants and uses intelligence to achieve the same thing? What about a woman in the military. Is it impossible for her to be 'feminine' too? And what about men who aren't afraid to cry or who aren't intimidated by a woman who makes more money than he does and doesn't need to 'be in charge' of the household. Is he, by the same token, not "masculine?"

I find the idea that Hillary wasn't a good role model for women because she wasn't 'feminine enough' abhorrent. Perhaps we should teach all little girls that they have to wear ruffles and lace and never come across as "angry" or care about "little-man issues" (whatever that's supposed to mean) while all little boys should be 'strong,' never cry, and not care about any 'little woman' issues (since I'm assuming there must be a counter-part to "little-man issues").

Like you said, of course Hillary has a "feminine side," and along with that, the freedom to be as strong and as angry as she wants to be. As strong and as angry as any man can be without being criticized for it. The funny thing is, when she did show emotion and weep, the headline read "Can Hillary Cry Her Way to the White House?" But she is a woman, wife, and mother, as you pointed out. Those aren't exactly "asexual" traits. But since when does a leader have to come across as "sexual?"

I find it disgusting when people tear apart a woman for being "strong," as if she's somehow going against the nature of being "female." And when women who defend a woman's being in a beauty pageant criticize another for her clothing and strength, I have to roll my eyes at the absurdity of it.

As a side-note, "baby makers" can also be very strong, and stay-at-home moms can be "leaders" too. More often than not, the stay-at-home mom is the PTA president, the class homeroom mom, the one organizing fund raisers, etc. Choosing to stay at home doesn't make a woman any more or less strong and/or feminine. Being home, raising children, isn't a job for the meek and mild.

Bottom line, I find this whole "feminine/not feminine" 'point/criticism' ludicrous.

Edited November 22, 2008 by American Woman

[margrace]

Interesting, I find the women in our community are running the volunteer organizations, Palliative Care, the Food Bank etc, and that a fair amount of these women's husbands are sitting at home drinking and watching TV.

In Passages, which I read years ago it described exactly this scenario. As women come into their own, their children grown up, they become more proactive and a fair amount of them are also taking on the care of their elderly parents and sometime their grandchildren.

[Sir Bandelot]

True American Woman it's a mistake to generalize like that. Each of us have different personalities and only choose to show them when it's appropriate. No one is just a business person, or angry politician all the time. We all have different roles in our life. Each of us has a business persona and a family one. But they might not choose to put them on public display. The question is, where is that behaviour appropriate... does it have a place in politics, or business. I'm not implying it should be banned or only ugly people should enter politics. Just trying to consider, what is their message. On other words, what is this person selling?

And with Palin... well...

Edited November 22, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

In Passages, which I read years ago it described exactly this scenario. As women come into their own, their children grown up, they become more proactive and a fair amount of them are also taking on the care of their elderly parents and sometime their grandchildren.

...and a lot of them just start collecting cats.

[BC_chick]

I find it disgusting when people tear apart a woman for being "strong," as if she's somehow going against the nature of being "female." And when women who defend a woman's being in a beauty pageant criticize another for her clothing and strength, I have to roll my eyes at the absurdity of it.

You raise an interesting point here AW. I didn't see it so much with Clinton's campaign (admittedly I was too busy rooting for Obama), but I was very offended as woman about the things people said about Palin even though I can't relate to her in the least on a personal level. By the time the Palin-bashing reached its heights, I started feeling sympathy for Clinton as well whom I started seeing in a different light.

Throughout the American presidential campaign, I've had to do some soul-searching because in both the primaries and the general election, I was not rooting for the woman. I've been aware of the woman-hating that goes on amongst women, and I had to ask myself how much my choices in the election were a result of the candidates' views and how much of it was some kind of deeply embedded subconscious disdain for women.

Palin was easy because I'm not a conservative in the least. And my dislike for Hillary goes back to her First-Lady years where I resented her decision to stay with a husband who publically humiliated her so much. At the time, as a young idealist woman, I thought she is putting her ambitions ahead of her dignity and I thought she's sending a terrible message to young women everywhere.

Having grown up and matured a since the 90's, I see how judgemental I was with that woman and how my perception of her may have been different if she were a man. It was quite the realisation to see that even I, who firmly believes she is a feminist, could hold such sexist views of women where my expectations of the two sexes is so different.

It is a difficult world for women indeed.

Edited November 22, 2008 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

It is difficult for women in a lot of ways, BC_c; and like you said, there's a lot of "woman hating" going on amongst women, too. I don't know if it's envy, a competitive thing, a feeling of inferiority, or what, but whenever I see women criticizing women for being strong, referring to them as "asexual" because of their clothes and because they get "angry" the same as men have been 'allowed' to get angry throughout the beginning of time, I find it really disgusting-- and I think that's what Madeline Albright was referring to when she said "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help women." She never said "don't support women" as Palin misquoted her, so I don't think she expected women to support women just because they're women, but I think she was annoyed with women who make things even more difficult for women. I had no problem not supporting Palin in spite of her being a woman because I didn't agree with her politically at all, and I truly didn't believe she was qualified at all. As for Hillary, I supported her wholeheartedly at first, then not so much, and then my admiration and support grew for her again as the primary campaigns progressed. The thing is, she's been subjected to "sexism" all along, but it wasn't until Palin came on the scene that it became a real issue with the media, or with the most people, for that matter.

As for Hillary's "public humiliation," I've never understood why she should be humiliated by what happened. That's Bill's and Monica's humiliation since they are the ones who did wrong. Hillary, on the other hand, was never anything other than classy about it in public. She may have reamed Bill out in private, which I suspect she did, but it was, after all, a private matter. In other words, I think she showed great dignity. Most marriages involve "worse" along with the "better," but it's not out for the public to see, so we don't know about it. In other words, many husbands and wives have 'forgiven' affairs by their spouses and their marriages survived, so I don't think Hillary should have made her decision about her private life based on public opinion either. In fact, I think a lot of people who were publicly criticizing her (and Bill and Monica) have been in the same position themselves. I think it takes strength to overcome what Hillary did, and I honestly think she and Bill seem stronger and more caring as a couple because of it.

You said "Having grown up and matured a since the 90's, I see how judgemental I was with that woman and how my perception of her may have been different if she were a man. It was quite the realisation to see that even I, who firmly believes she is a feminist, could hold such sexist views of women where my expectations of the two sexes is so different," so I'm thinking maybe you see it somewhat the same way I do now, or maybe at least agree with some of what I'm saying. At any rate, I enjoy reading your comments and discussing issues with you.

[BC_chick]

You said "Having grown up and matured a since the 90's, I see how judgemental I was with that woman and how my perception of her may have been different if she were a man. It was quite the realisation to see that even I, who firmly believes she is a feminist, could hold such sexist views of women where my expectations of the two sexes is so different," so I'm thinking maybe you see it somewhat the same way I do now, or maybe at least agree with some of what I'm saying. At any rate, I enjoy reading your comments and discussing issues with you.

I know, I read my post a couple of hours after writing it and I realised that I kind of rambled and didn't exactly make my conclusion clear. You figured it out.

What I should have said to wrap things up was: I have realised that I was too harsh on Clinton, and unlike Palin who sees the world completely differently than I do, I still can't figure out how much of my support for Obama in the primaries was embedded sexism against Clinton, and how much of it was the candidates' views and platforms. Sad, but true, I still don't know.

And thank you for the compliment, I share the same sentiment WRT your posts.

Edited November 23, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

I thought it was great that a feminine woman had a high profile role in the US election. I hope that in the future, female politicians might be inspired to be feminine. I found myself unable to relate to that asexual, defeminized woman running around in her shitty lime-green pant-suits and trying to act like an angry little dude with little-man issues. Presumably the result of focus-groups or image-consulting that concluded that if she came across as feminine then people wouldn't think she was strong enough to be President. If that was supposed to be the model of the future for women in politics in America, it was pretty uninspiring.

Since the Palin Disaster that was following on the heels of the Dubya Disaster, has been averted, it's a good time to take a sober look in the rear view mirror and ask why so many men were willing to vote against their own interests because they thought this abominable woman was hot!

On Bill Maher's HBO show, he played a clip of hard up, sexually frustrated conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Britt Hume and a few others fawning over how great she looked at the Republican Convention -- the icing on the cake was National Review's Rich Lowry:

"I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America."

...........I know most people don't appreciate Maher's sarcastic, insulting ways of expressing a point, but he made the best assessment of the Palin Effect on men: "they're not sure if they are supposed to vote for her or f_ _ _ her!"

A hundred years ago, the great social debate was whether women should have the right to vote; after talking to some of my Michigan relatives and guys at work who were infatuated enough with a reasonably attractive, middle-aged woman, that they were hoping she would win because they liked the way she looked in all of those fancy designer clothes - I have to wonder whether men deserve the right to vote! There were a few idiot feminists such as Camille Paglia, who declared soldarity with Sarah Palin, but according to the election results, far fewer women than men were fooled by this ruse!

Palin had some serious shortcomings as a candidate.

No kidding! Let's review:

As Mayor of a town of about 6000 people, Sarah Palin pulled in $27 million in federal "pork." She increased taxes. She increased the budget from $7.6 million to $13.6 million and put the town into $22 million in debt

As Mayor, one of the first things she did was to spend $50,000 on redecorating her office

As Mayor and activist, she sought to install creationists in the government and worked hard to take over a local school board. She also advocated for creationism as a gubernatorial candidate

Under Palin's tenure, Wasilla rape victims were forced to pay for their own forensic evidence kits

Palin strongly opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

Palin's fringe pentecostal community is a major player in the "Third Wave" dominionist movement. This helps put some perspective on her babbling about prophecy and knowing God's will.

She believes in the ability to prophesy and divine God's Will. She said the Iraq war was "god's will." She also said her proposed Alaskan pipeline was "god's will." She also said that there are signs unfolding today and implied that her rise to power in Alaska is something special, having to do with growing up in that Pentecostal church.

She was associated with separatist movement - Alaskan Independence Party, which her husband was a dues-paying member of for seven years.

VP candidate Palin lied when she claimed that she said "thanks but no thanks, and i told Congress to keep the money" pertaining the infamous Bridge to Nowhere.

As Governor, She spent $400,000 taxpayer dollars on a campaign to push aerial wolf killing even though the state had already voted it down twoice.

She lied when she claimed that she "put the governor's jet on ebay and sold it for a profit," and she "fired the governor's chef."

..............I've posted these points previously, with the links. If you want references, I still got em.

Taking a step back and looking at the complete picture of Sarah Palin, the charges that she was unfairly maligned by the media or liberals or whatever rings hollow. If anything, she wasn't maligned enough! The overall picture paints a portrait of an aggressive, deceitful, cunning (though intellectually incurious) woman who would have been a disaster if she got her hands on the highest office in America.

Now that oil revenues are dropping, she will be unable to buy votes in the future with the Alaska Permanent Fund, and Alaskans may focus more on her conduct as their state's governor and dump her out of office up there also. Then maybe she can focus on the job she may actually be qualified for....the one she trained for in college.....sportscaster!

So, even though I never appreciated Hillary's ruthless grasping for power either, I would choose her, lime-green pantsuit and all, over another Sarah Palin, all dolled up in new designer duds!

[Shady]

why so many men were willing to vote against their own interests

I disagree with your premise. Who are you to tell people what their interests are? And who are you to know what their interests are?

..............I've posted these points previously, with the links. If you want references, I still got em.

No, that's quite alright. Don't bother posting your DailyKos references. Most of what you posted was lies anyways. Hope n Change.

Looks like Palin Derangement Syndrome is still thriving, despite the election being long over.