Return of the Feminist
The useless talking-head chitter chatter has gone from a background annoyance to a resonant hum following the surprise nomination of Governor Palin. Citizens such as myself who seek to preserve our sanity by avoiding talking heads and the whine of the ruby-throated North American pundit cannot block out the Left’s chest beating and its crocodile tears for the Governor’s children. Even on this sacred site, the comments inevitably turn to the issue of pregnant teens and leadership. Why this fevered fusillade from the Lunatic Fringe?
As usual, Peggy Noonan has the answer. It’s fear.
Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing — who is really one of them and who is not — and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.
She could become a transformative political presence.
So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.
My suspicion is that they will be even more scared tomorrow.
Why, you ask? Your suspicion is wrong. In fact you are missing the issue completely. The issue is choice. No woman who is a true feminist would allow the government control of her body and her reproductive choices.
People may oppose abortion. They maybe so called pro life. They may do that. But they can not do that and claim to be a feminist or interested in womans rights.
That is the issue.
If you care about woman rights, you will let a woman control her own body, you would give her the most basic privacy you can have.
If not, that is fine. But do not claim to be a feminist. You are not.
Sara Palin made her choice. That is why we can rightfully question her commitment to feminism, even if she is a successful woman otherwise.
If you care about woman rights, you will let a woman control her own body, you would give her the most basic privacy you can have.
Killing the innocent is both unjust and unfeminine.
No woman who is a true feminist would allow the government control of her body and her reproductive choices.
How is prohibiting the death of the innocent “government control” of a woman’s body? Unless the government is forcibly impregnating her.
In both the dictionary and the real world, “choice” comes before “conception.”
Lizzie,
Y’all aren’t questioning her commitment to feminism; you’re questioning everything down to the color of her socks.
Now, I appreciate asking candidates hard questions (though it would be nice if y’all would ask some of these questions of Obama), but some of the questions being asked now would NEVER be asked of a man or a Democrat woman.
Noonan is right again, calling the Palin pick “political bullsh** ”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0908/Murphy_and_Noonan_on_open_mic.html
The main stream criticism of Palin isn’t sexist — its mainly the disjoint of the campaign. You can’t make your main point of contrast experience and then pick a serious newcomer as VP without expecting this kind of whiplash. Its like if Obama had all of a sudden picked Lieberman or Zell Miller.
Palin doesn’t make any sense as a VP in the McCain campaign as run till Friday. She has nothing to rise her above the pack except her strong support of social conservatism. McCain has been deemphasizing that aspect of his record since he got the nomination.
She doesn’t have a strong record of reform (for pete’s sake she endorsed Ted Stevens, she supported the infamous bridge until it became a major scandal). She doesn’t have any major accomplishments in Alaska (not her fault, she has only been Governor a year and a half, but having 80% approval rating in an oil state when oil prices skyrocket isn’t an accomplishment).
She has no leadership on any national security or foreign policy issue.
So its social conservatism or the narrative (which as Noonan says is bulls***).
You really expected to not get tagged on experience when that has been McCain’s whole argument till now?
You really expected not to get called on the blatant lie of saying she was a “reformer”.
It seems like the campaign wants to pretend it was all about Bristol so it can ignore the fact that it has presented no reasons why it should have chosen Palin.
Well, since Palin actually has more executive experience than Obama (and yes, the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are executive offices), she comes out comparatively looking very good on the experience front, not to mention that she is running for VP, not POTUS.
As Gov. Pawlenty said, “The GOP at least has its ticket in the right order.”
If it were Biden/Obama vs. McCain/Palin, it would be a relative stalemate on the experience issue. As it is, it’s still a very easy issue for the GOP to push upon.
All I can say about the Noonan thing is, she obviously doesn’t know Sarah Palin very well. I thought she got it, but it appears that she simply writes stuff that she knows people will like, which she doesn’t believe herself.
“All I can say about the Noonan thing is, she obviously doesn’t know Sarah Palin very well. I thought she got it, but it appears that she simply writes stuff that she knows people will like, which she doesn’t believe herself.”
Typical response. As with Kmiec, as soon as someone falls out of line, throw ‘em under the bus.
Wow. The liberals who read this blog are coming un-glued. That can only mean one thing: Palin was the best choice, and she scares the hell out of ‘em! Tally-Ho!
You keep telling yourself that – Palin is an absolute joke and a monumental disaster and everyone knows it, including you.
Mark,
Well, what do you expect me to say? Her reported comments conflict with what she wrote in the WSJ…so obviously she must not be genuine, and I have no time for someone who is not genuine. If that’s throwing her under the bus, then so be it.
Noonan’s entitled to her opinion, of course. I’m not required to share it. Sarah Palin will speak for herself tonight…that will mean a lot more than you, me, and all the blabbing journos combined.
I just did a quick reread of the WSJ piece. I don’t think there’s a contradiction. It’s about why people are excited and then says Palin will either blow the roof off of this election, or she’ll crash and burn and take McCain with her.
Apparently Noonan thinks it’ll be the latter.
“Palin is an absolute joke and a monumental disaster and everyone knows it, including you.”
Then liberals should welcome her as the Republican VP candidate instead of being scared to death of her, of which the above is a glittering example.
KM,
If everyone knows it was a monumental disaster, then why were Feddie and others posting, advocating for the selection of Palin even well before the selection happened?!?
Search the archives, man!
“You keep telling yourself that – Palin is an absolute joke and a monumental disaster and everyone knows it, including you.”
Similiar to what liberals were saying about a “senile, has been actor” who ran for President in 1980. Palin destroys whatever chance Obama had to win this election.
“How is prohibiting the death of the innocent “government control†of a woman’s body? Unless the government is forcibly impregnating her.”
Death of the innocent? What? Innocent what? Innocent tissue? We’re talking about tissue here? Tissue. Next thing you know you anti choicers will say a woman should not be allowed to have a tumor or cyst removed because that may be innocent life. A tumor or cyst is just as much and as little alive as a fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy. It all just tissue. We talking about tissue here. Tissue.
Of course, none of this is addressing the contention. Lizzie’s fringe feminism aside, will the narrative speak to Jane Six Pack in Ohio or Pennsylvania? She went to a state school, not an Ivy; she’s from a small town in a small (population) state. Clearly, she was never intended to resonate in the big Dem cities. Equally as clear, she is mobilizing the Conservatives who have been sluggishly following McCain. If the overwhelming majority of people vote for the presidential candidate and not the VP candidate (witness Gore losing TN), can there really be a “crash” as Noonan suggests? And with the sandbagging of Hillary and the rise of Palin, is the GOP the only party that’s attempting to speak to women? I guess we’ll see.
Black Avenger needs to take a basic course in biology.
When you were 10 years old, were you then you? When you were 5 years old, were you then you? A day after you were born, were you then you? The day before you were born, were you then you? If your answer to all those questions is “Yes”, at what time were you not you?
“Then liberals should welcome her as the Republican VP candidate instead of being scared to death of her, of which the above is a glittering example.”
In theory, bill912, you are correct. But see, Quayle, Dan. That’s why liberals aren’t welcoming the candidacy.
Huh?
Mister Bill. I know biology very well. Do you? Let us look at your own words.
“The day before you were born, were you then you?”
Let us look at this kind of like one of the right wing heroes Anthony Scalia and take words literal for their literal meaning.
NO. The day before I was born I was not born. I was not alive to be anything as I was not born!
When we are born, we are 1 day old. Not 9 months and 1 day. That means anything before birth, does not count.
At 3 months old, do we add that to 9 months of pregnancy and say the baby is now 1 year old.
Of course not because before birth we are nothing but tissue in our mothers body. Tissue. We are talking about tissue here.
Be consistent conservatives!
Democrats lampooned Quayle. We thought he was a joke and there was no way he would be elected. Obviously, we were wrong.
“The day before I was born I was not born. I was not alive…”
Uh-huh. And this guy thinks he knows biology well.
Black Avenger said: The day before I was born I was not born. I was not alive to be anything as I was not born!
Wow. It just keeps getting better.
As a convention, we base “age” on the day you left your mother’s body. That does not mean you weren’t alive the day before that happened.
An unborn child is not a tumor! It is a human being with a genetic code distinct from either of its parents. It is alive by every reasonable scientific, philosophical, and theological use of the word.
I for one welcome our new
insectfeminist overlord.Of course, I think Feddie and the rest of you are being played like a bad fiddle.
McCain has no more attachment to, interest in, or intention to advance the pro-life agenda than he does in the agenda of the Esperanto caucus. My only advice to you is to get a tetanus shot after you get that fishhook out of your mouth.
Oh, Wow– you can’t make this stuff up. From Marc Ambinder’s blog:
KATIE COURIC: And– and do you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned?
CINDY MCCAIN: No, no, no, no–
KATIE COURIC: No? Why not? Your husband does.
CINDY MCCAIN: No, I don’t think he does.
(She then recants after a furious “(OFF-MIC CONVERSATION)”)
Seriously, get that tetanus shot.
KM – I may be missing something, but if she’s such a boob (no pun intended) wouldn’t the democrats be happy because this would make her (and McCain) easy to beat?
Attack, attack, attack. That’s all the Dems are feeling right now. Eventually, they will wake up when someone points out that every time they swing the “family” hammer against Gov. Palin, they are strengthening the glass ceiling. Every middle-of-the-road voter they are swaying by saying “She can’t be a good mother and a VP” will remember this next time a mother tries to run for President or VP — and next time it may be their candidate. Next time their candidate may be the one tarred by the acts of her family members. If anything, it will give pause to future Presidential candidates when they are considering a woman for the ticket. Once again, like their strident attitude toward judicial nominees, the Dems are letting the genie out of the bottle without thinking they may be hoist by their own pretard. But so it goes with short-term thinking.
The problem with your argument, Muskrat, is that no one in their right mind believes that Obama will not do all he can to push his extreme abortion agenda.
While I am wary of Sen. McCain’s commitment to life, the Dems haven’t left us with the same “choice” they are giving mothers of unborn children, which is to say, none at all.
And the problem with your counter-argument, Centinel, is that it ignores the burst of enthusiasm that the Palin pick inspired. Obama is the same guy today he was a week ago, so is McCain — but now Feddie’s willing to “go the mattresses” for the ticket? But not before? Uh-huh.
Tip: use a pliers to cut the barbed end off the hook before drawing the rest out, so the barb doesn’t cause more damage on the way out.
Black Avenger,
I don’t read Southern Appeal enough to be able to know where you stand in faith.
But you seriously aren’t Catholic are you?
If you are, you aren’t a practicing Catholic.
Just guessing by your answer that children aren’t alive until they breach the birth canal and survive the suctioning of their brains.
Cute, Muskrat, do you have an cogent argument to go with your little imagery?
Just assume for a minute you are correct– a stretch, I know. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Feddie pictures a President Palin in 4 or 8 years? A stiffening of McCain’s backbone with a stauchly pro life running mate? I know it’s an effort to see the possibilities with those blinders on, but certainly the obvious must be just that.
I can certainly see enthusiasm that this pick cements Palin as the front-runner for ’12 against President Obama. But Clinton was the front-runner among Dems a year ago. Good luck with that.
(p.s. a little mercurochrome around the site of the puncture can help too)
(See, it’s funny because I’m running variations on the theme. Like Bach did, but with lame humor.)
M: I’ll take your new strawman as an admission that your previous argument was a loser.
And you’re very funny. Like Bach.