layla | (no subject)

Entry tags:

politics

(no subject)

As usual, Dave Barry brings the awesome:

The Republicans are also feeling good about their message, which is that Washington is bad and whoever is in charge there needs to be run out of town on a rail. Interestingly, this is also the Democrats' message. We are now in our fourth consecutive decade in which both of our major political parties are just totally FED UP with Washington. I frankly don't see how Washington can survive this onslaught much longer.

I do love Dave Barry.

I also love this delightfully stabby rejoinder to Palin criticizing Obama for being a "community organizer":

"Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Hee hee. ZING!

I started off with a lot of respect for Palin, but I must admit that every time she opens her mouth on the national stage, my respect for her drops a few notches (by which I assume she must be doing a good job of appealing to her constituency ... *rimshot*). The pre-emptive dismissal of Palin (apparently on the basis of her gender and Alaska's remoteness) really upset me, but it also bothers me because I think the Democrats are fools to underestimate her. She's smart, charismatic and very much a self-made woman, and I just hope she's not going to be what gives the Republicans their edge in November, because the more hypocrisy comes out of her mouth, the more I want to see the whole ticket go down (and I wanted that quite badly to begin with).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Ooo! Burn!

because I think the Democrats are fools to underestimate her

I don't think they should underestimate her, either.

The more I read about Palin, the more my head keeps banging against my desk. If she calls herself a feminist one more time I'm going to jsut kill myself.

Well, I'd say that a woman who is actively working towards one of feminism's major goals (that of women to be accepted as equals of men, especially in traditionally male fields), who is helping to pave the way for other women who come after her, can very legitimately call herself a feminist, even if she doesn't share some of mainstream feminism's political goals. Ditto for, say, Condaleeza Rice, though I don't know if she specifically describes herself that way. She's definitely a trailblazer, as is Palin. I do think it's absolutely awesome to see a woman up there on the Republican party ticket, and to see male voters in a traditionally very male-dominated party cheering for a smart and tough and outspoken woman, because they like her politics and they like her speeches, not because of how she fills out her business suit. That thrills me. That's progress, right there. There's a lot about her political beliefs and how she's running her campaign that makes me want to see the whole ticket go down, but just that she's there, that we're FINALLY living in a country where a woman really can be a serious contender for VP, and (in Clinton's case) for president -- I don't have words for how awesome that is to me.

I guess my problem is that I'm not convinced she was chosen for any of those reasons. McCain seemed to know nothing whatsoever about her and I think he picked her because he assumed as long as he snagged a woman, the miffed Clinton voters would flock to his banner. To me, she's a more grown up version of that woman who just agrees with whatever the boys say so they'll let her stay at the table. The right is loving her precisely because she is in no way threatening to their world-view: she's not crying for equal rights and opportunities for other women, she's basically saying that SHE should get those rights and tough luck for everyone else.

I don't think McCain is/was trying to go after miffed Clinton voters. He may be a lot of things but he's not stupid (nor are the people running his campign.) Most of the women who voted for Clinton are not going to vote for a candidate who is so opposed to so much of what Clinton (and they) hold dear just because said candidate is a woman. They may not vote for Obama - but very few were going to vote for McCain.

He went for Palin because he thinks needs conservative base to vote for him. Palin appeals to that crowd in a way that McCain never has been able to. This risk to me is more is he going to alienate the people who are on the fence - and may have liked McCain's more moderate stances on issues - by picking someone who is so conservative on the social issues.

Well ... I'm not sure if he's trying to appeal to Clinton voters specifically (I wouldn't rule it out), but I think he's *definitely* hoping for Palin's youth and energy and, yes, gender to appeal to young and female voters. No more so than Obama is doing with Biden, though, hoping that older, more mainstream and, hell, racist voters will consider Biden an acceptable consolation prize for an Obama vote. (My dad in Oklahoma knows people - smart people, educated people, lifelong Democrats - who are perfectly open about the fact that they will not vote for Obama because he's black. That it's still so open and aboveboard in 2008 - there are no words for how much that chills and infuriates me.)

But you're absolutely right about going for the conservative vote with Palin. I mean ... she's the perfect package for him, really. She's young (relatively young), female, dynamic, hard-hitting -- and a die-hard conservative. It's like he drew up a laundry list and she came tailor-made. I just hope that you're right that she'll cause him to lose at least as many votes as he gains from having her on the ticket.

That's a very good point! :)

See - there's my problem exactly - the assumption on the part of many people, even many feminists, that Palin is too ... what? Too naive, too stupid, too gullible, too weak-willed to know her own mind. And why? Because she doesn't subscribe to left-of-center values. Her beliefs are different, so she must be a pawn.

I have no doubt that her selection as McCain's VP was, in part, motivated by politics and designed to pander to voters. So was Obama's selection of Biden. There's no doubt in my mind that, had Biden been black, or a woman, he wouldn't have gotten the VP nod. Obama was going for a non-threatening candidate who would appeal to mainstream Democrats, so that's what he chose. That doesn't mean Biden is unqualified, that he's a tool of Obama, that he's weak-willed and gullible and wrong. Why do people assume that about Palin, then? I've seen her in action in Alaska. She's smart, tough, charismatic, energetic and ruthless -- no one's fool and no one's tool. She's not a politician with whom my value system aligns, but I have no doubt that she's committed to her particular set of values, as much as anyone is. I guess I'll say, if Palin's brainwashed (and we all are, to some extent) then I must be also; it's just that different sets of people got to us. *g*

The right is loving her precisely because she is in no way threatening to their world-view: she's not crying for equal rights and opportunities for other women

She's not stumping for the issues that left-leaning politicos have defined as "women's issues", that's true. And ... honestly, so what? I don't think that, simply because she has a set of female genitalia, she has to espouse a particular set of beliefs. She's pushing the issues that are important to her and to her constituency -- exactly as Obama is doing. Obama's a man: does that mean that he's a sell-out, brainwashed by the left, if he doesn't push gun rights, pro-life values and top-down economic development? (IMHO, gun rights are a women's issue as well - nothing serves as more of an equalizer for the unfair physical advantage that men have over us, and I know women who own guns for precisely that reason. They're simply not a women's issue that has been embraced by the left.)

I'd say that, in some ways, she absolutely *is* threatening to the traditional right-wing view of women's roles -- she's very successfully combining a career with marriage, for example; she's the complete antithesis of a stay-at-home mom. That we've gotten to the point where evangelical Christians can embrace a female politician who's put her career ahead of her family is, in my mind, a huge step forward. Sure, they're not embracing a pro-choice, pro-science, pro-reason candidate, but I don't even consider that a realistic thing to hope for.

None of which means that I want to see her in the White House in November. But, as fast as her star has been rising, I think McCain made a scarily smart choice. He took a chance on a relative unknown for a variety of reasons -- one of which was, yes, a cynical stab at appealing to Clinton voters, but certainly not the only reason -- and I'm very afraid that it has a decent shot at paying off. It's much too early to tell how the whole thing is going to play out, though ....

I guess my discontent with Palin centers around the feeling that she is more than happy to use freedoms other women fought to secure for her to get where she's going, while at the same time she plans to strip those rights away from every other woman. In that respect, she reminds me of Phyllis Schlafly. I mean, she's anti-choice, even in cases of rape/incest, she's anti-gay marriage, anti-equal work/equal pay, she's pro-book banning, the list just goes on and on.

I can definitely see your side of it though, and you present your argument very well.

*hugs* Thank you for the thoughtful comments and discussion - it's hard to talk about these sorts of issues without tempers flaring, and I really appreciate the level-headedness. :) I've also been thinking that, since I don't personally consider myself a feminist, there's no way I could possibly have an informed opinion on what it means to be one. *g* I generally have a knee-jerk negative reaction to seeing people's self-identification labels rejected by others (like, say, claiming that somebody-or-other is "not really a Christian"; even though I'm not a Christian, that kind of judgment still bothers me). But it's presumptive of me to claim that my own definitions carry as much weight as those of someone who is actually a part of the group being discussed. That's very rude of me, and I apologize.

What you're saying above -- I can certainly see why you'd be hurt and upset if you work hard to offer someone freedom, and then they take it and do something you wouldn't do yourself, even something that hurts themselves and others. But isn't the whole point to granting someone freedom in the first place that they have the right to use that freedom however they like? Even if what they do with it is toxic? I can understand pointing at someone like Palin and going I disagree and You are doing wrong here and I am going to try to stop you, but I have a much harder time with People worked hard to give you this freedom, and now you're using it wrong! which seems to me only one step removed from You don't have the right to it! and You shouldn't have it in the first place! Because it's their freedom now. You don't offer someone free speech so that they'll only say things you agree with. I'm very grateful to everyone who worked hard to give me the freedoms I have now, but I really hope they didn't do all that hard work just so that they could offer me so-called "freedom" that actually has strings attached.

*hugs* Thank you for the thoughtful comments and discussion - it's hard to talk about these sorts of issues without tempers flaring, and I really appreciate the level-headedness.

Hey, no problem, and same here! HUGS BACK! :) I just wanted to assure you I'm not stewing or anything -- I like having this discussion with you. It's making me think.

since I don't personally consider myself a feminist,

If you think you deserve equal pay for equal work, and that your worth is not determined by your gender -- welcome to the club! I think those are the basics for entry. ;)

I guess I see it more that Palin is mouthing a lot of stuff she doesn't really stand behind. She's the one calling herself a feminist, after all. Also -- I think Gloria Steinem said it really well in an op/ed piece she wrote earlier this week: "Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere."

Edit:

Finally put my finger on what bugs about her. It pisses me off that she calls herself a feminist. If it were up to her, she would reverse most of the modest gains that women have made over the past 40 years in this country. It would be like a factory-farm loving meat eater wandering around telling everyone they're a vegetarian. You'd have to expect real vegetarians to take issue with that.

"That doesn't mean Biden is unqualified, that he's a tool of Obama, that he's weak-willed and gullible and wrong. Why do people assume that about Palin, then?"

I guess the difference (as I see it) is that Biden brings something to the table in a potential Obama administration (knowledge of foreign relations, experience on How Things Are Done in Congress, the ability to talk the leg off of a coffee table....) in addition to his being the token Establishment White Guy on the ticket. What does Palin bring to a potential McCain administration?

I know that, historically, being Vice President isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, but I think Cheney (and Gore before him) have shown that an active VP can really influence an administration. If Palin was picked primarily because (1)she's pro-life, and (2)she's young and female and energetic, what's her portfolio going to be in office?

I definitely grant your point about Biden's experience. I think what's getting to me about the criticism of Palin's experience/qualifications is that Obama really doesn't have that much more. And while it certainly ticks me off to no end to see the Republicans still trying to play the "experience" card when they went and put Palin on their own ticket, it annoys me just as much the other way -- know what I mean? So, yeah, it's not just Palin, Obama's getting it too -- but it's often the same people, or the same generalized group of people, defending the one while slamming the other on the very same grounds, and it makes me really twitchy.

It's also easy for me to forget that Palin is completely unfamiliar to most people (since, obviously, I've been totally steeped in Palin this and Palin that for the last two years). From my point of view, she seems like a savvy politician who's good at getting what she wants out of the opposition. But it's true that most people haven't seen that -- and also true that she's untested at the national level, so there's no telling how it's actually going to develop.

Well said.

Palin might a bit a bit naive - but so are a lot of upper-middle class white folks. (Even liberal upper-middle class white folks.) But she just as much right to her core set of beliefs as I do to mind. I may think she is dead wrong on the issues - but I don't think she is stupid or weak or letting herself become "a tool of the patriarchy" because of them.

One a side note - in reply I posted on another LJ I said (half in jest, half serious) that one of the reasons McCain chose Palin was that she really is a "life-long member of the NRA"

Ah...I just love Dave Berry. He has a way of getting to the heart of the matter.

Great Zinger... I will have to point it out to some friends of mine.

I am with you in that I hope that the Democrats don't underestimate her. If we do then we are going to face four years more years of the same old thing.

I know! *sob* I cringed when I saw that he'd picked Palin, because I really do think that she's got a shot at injecting enough vigor into the Republican ticket and giving them the White House. I mean, for pete's sake, even leaving aside my own personal (quite liberal-leaning) politics, out of the last 40 years we've only had 12 years of Democratic presidents -- isn't it time to give the other side a shot at screwing up for a change? *g*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only