Hopefully, as the media wakes up to the lie-machine that is the Palin-McCain ticket and calls them on the wrong facts, distortions, deceptions, exaggerations and outright lies / gutter smears, people, including sensible women, will come to their senses. After all, I am sure women - and men - don't want to support someone who made rape victims pay for their rape kits and forensic examinations, so tax-payers wouldn't be burdened...
In the mean time, here's a tremendous show of force by Women Against Sarah Palin:
"It's been one week since we sent out a letter to a few friends and family members asking them to respond to Sarah Palin's candidacy for Vice President. We had never done anything like this before. What motivated us? It's pretty simple: we were tired of feeling angry and helpless. We were thrilled to receive the first 100 letters in reply. Their eloquence and passion were inspiring, their rage and frustration palpable. Our disbelief began to mount as those 100 letters turned into 1,000 letters, which then turned into 10,000 letters. And as we sit here writing you now, we have reached nearly 100,000 letters."
Thankfully, not all women are vagina-Americans.
5 comments:
I just popped over to see what is the latest from my favorite Dissenting Indian, in time to see the new post.
Food for thought, this is.
I wonder why you didn't take note of the distortions that have been thrown so energetically about the the MSM and liberal media, as well as by "civilians" who frequent websites of our mutual affection.
To wit - not just the claims that range from distortions to flat out lies cited by factcheck.org, the source to which you link to debunk distortions/lies about Obama; but also items factcheck.org doesn't have, such as the truth about Palin's position on sex education.
I'm also amused by the alacrity with which folks have seized on Palin's mistakes in her first national MSM interview.
Have we forgotten the mistakes Obama made in his early Presidential campaign appearances? The negotiating with preconditions, going into Pakistan with or without their permission, divided and undivided Jerusalem, moral equivalence over Georgia?
What was it you said about those blunders - he misspoke, the format didn't allow for the necessary detail and nuance, he clarified what he meant in subsequent statements, he has learned since then?
Why not extend the same generosity towards Palin?
And for one who talks dismissively about litmus tests by PUMAs for what is a "real" feminist, you seem pretty comfortable applying your own litmus test for who is or is not a "vagina-american."
(Which appears to be - women who agree with me are smart, thoughtful, "real" feminists, etc.; women who don't agree with me are only voting for a woman because she's a woman, or are "vagina-americans." Which, when you think about it, is pretty close to just calling those women c****.)
Is it okay to mention one side's distortions, but not the other? Is it okay to mention one side's mistakes, but not the other? I think it depends on the degree to which the analysis is overtly partisan.
To reiterate - I'm no Republican, I wouldn't vote for Palin, and I am no fan of many of her policies. But I hate inconsistency, moving-the-goalposts, and selective criticism. Of course, a lot of that is subject to the eye of the beholder as well.
If nothing else, I imagine we can admit that Biden was a pretty lame-ass choice for VP.
Thanks, as ever, for a stimulating read :-)
One more comment - I am having trouble making heads or tails out of the polling on white women voters. On the one hand, movement towards McCain is obvious, because he numbers went up (per Professor Franklin, as charted both in national polls, and in post-convention polled individual states). This appears to be movement from the undecided category to the lean or decided McCain. On the other hand, I think its Gallup that is saying there has not been movement among white women voters that stands out from voters overall. But I don't seem movement among other voting groups, just white women.
So which is it, or am I just getting all of the information confused in a great big gobble of uselessness? Any [non-partisan] insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated. I don't know what to think. Obviously I'm interested in movement among white women voters, but if its not pertinent, its not pertinent.
The Gobble of Uselessness is the pundit's version of the Fortress of Solitude - where you go to sort yourself out. I just made that up. :-)
Really quick, more later:
Obama's past statements - negotiating with Iran/North Korea, striking Al-Qaeda sites in Pakistan, the moral equivalence of Georgia and Russia - are all very defensible and solid positions. I don't think I have said Obama mis-spoke on these issues.
Heck, even Bush and Rice are now negotiating with North Korea (for sure) and possibly Iran; the US did strike targets within Pakistan without permission (much to the Pakis' chagrin); and Russia invaded Georgia because Georgia invaded South Ossetia (gotta get the facts right). I am a little less clear on Jerusalem.
All I say is, the one big "achievement" of Bush-43 is the "preemptive war even if the threat is not imminent" doctrine - the Bush doctrine. A note that you might find amusing is that one of the authors of that Sept 2002 document, Stephen E Biegun, is actually Palin's foreign policy advisor. See the WaPo defense of Palin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203324_pf.html
So when Gibson then specified "Sept 2002", Palin should have known. Then again, she did say she was too busy with Alaska to bother keeping up with Iraq...
When someone makes the claim that the ability to see another country from a remote island in one's state gives one foreign policy experience... and that someone could be POTUS very soon - all that gives me pause. I mean, how stupid do we have to be to believe that?
The vagina-American statement actually links to a Daily Show segment... One could say, however, that The DS is the best journalistic enterprise out there...
I don't have a problem with women supporting Sarah Palin - as long as it is on the issues (and many women do). Someone who supports Hillary Clinton - ostensibly on the issues or even "experience" - has no business supporting the McCain-Palin ticket for Sarah Palin. Creationism, anti-science, anti-abortion rights/choice, making rape victims pay for their rape kits/forensic examinations, *bad* health care policy... Much of Palin's "executive experience" relies on her two terms as Mayor - but apparently firefighting and schools were out of her jurisdiction!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302596.html?sid=ST2008091302649&s_pos=
If a woman only supported Senator Clinton because she was a woman, that person is free to follow Governor Palin... But it is NOT on the issues. Calling such folks vagina-Americans may be a tad crude (and very DS!), but is spot-on.
Men who vote for Obama or McCain because they are men, are, of course, d***-heads.
On the movement in the ABC/WaPo poll: Methinks the data is less than it seems.
On a sample size (# not specified) of 1000 with 75% Whites and of that, 50% women, the MOE is 5.1%. So a 50-42 edge among women (as in August ABC/WaPo) may as well have been a tie.
In fact, a CBS/NYT poll about the same time agrees with Gallup: CBS says McCain wins White Women 43-38 (MOE 5.4%), while Gallup says McCain 47-40 (MOE 2.9%).
Couple this with the lame explanation ABC/WaPo gave in August for the Obama lead among WW even as they noted that Kerry lost WW - "women are more apt than men to be Democrats." GoU!
I'd go with Gallup.
Post a Comment