Open Thread: The RNC
by Latoya Peterson
So, I checked out part of the RNC coverage last night. Listened to about 90% of Palin’s speech.
I’m still busy working the day job and working on the last bit of stuff for Feministe, so no lengthy analysis from me.
Though, some scattered points -
1. Don’t sleep on Palin. McCain is going to fight to control the media during this election, and downplay his unpopular stance on the issues and he pulled out a good weapon to do so.
2. I wonder what Elizabeth Hasselbeck had to say about the speech.
3. The Republicans had a hoe down? Seriously? Did I miss the Democrat party? What were Obama and them doing after the speeches?
4. This article in today’s Washington Post is interesting - In a More Diverse America, A Mostly White Convention.
As the country rapidly diversifies, Republicans are presenting a convention that is almost entirely white.
Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago. Each night, the overwhelmingly white audience watches a series of white politicians step to the lectern — a visual reminder that no black Republican has served as a governor, U.S. senator or U.S. House member in the past six years.
“It’s hard to look around and not get frustrated,” said Michael S. Steele, a black Republican and former lieutenant governor of Maryland. “You almost have to think, ‘Wait. How did it come to this?’ ”
Hmmm…I got some ideas for ya, Michael.
Another gem from the article:
“We have to make a better case to the Hispanic voter that the Republican Party has something to offer other than a deportation slip,” Davis said.
No mention of any other minorities in the article, just as an FYI. And that’s a damn shame. Especially considering how many of us are politically independent.
What are your thoughts, readers?
(Photo Credit – Washington Post)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
john mccollum wrote:
Columnist John Ridley points out the amaaaazing levels of hypocrisy displayed by the Rovian spin doctors:
—
If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “token hire.” If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “game changer.”
Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America. White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”
If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.” Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”
Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you’re “unpatriotic.” Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”
If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you’re “reckless.” A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”
If you say that for the “first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country” it makes you “unfit” to be First Lady. If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you “First Dude.”
A DUI from twenty years ago is “old news.” A speech given without proper citation from twenty years ago is “relevant information.”
And, finally, if you’re a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife’s recurrence of cancer you’re a “questionable spouse.” If you’re a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn… Well, we don’t know what that is ’cause THAT’S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.
–
I feel like the RNC exited the spin cycle, and have entered into some alternate, Escherian, reality-rending twilight zone where the most basic principles of logic doesn’t apply.
The Republican platform is built on two planks: national security and fiscal responsibility. That the Rs accuse the Ds of irresponsible, big-government spending while supporting a trillion dollar taxpayer-financed Al Qaeda recruitment video is beyond mystifying to me — it’s infuriating.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:02 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@John –
That the Rs accuse the Ds of irresponsible, big-government spending while supporting a trillion dollar taxpayer-financed Al Qaeda recruitment video is beyond mystifying to me — it’s infuriating.
OMG, tell me about it! I was spitting nails at that part of the speech. “Barack Obama wants to raise taxes, which will take billions of dollars a year…”
And I’m screaming at the TV “Yeah, because this fucking war costs a couple TRILLION, and unlike all you old fuckers at this convention, my generation is paying for it!!!!”
*rage*
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:05 am ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:
I do remember seeing the “hidden” adopted daughter of the McCain’s being trotted out….I think she may have been in the audience…..quite possibly the only face of color there….
and, the republicans of color say…..”what”?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:11 am ¶
Monie wrote:
My first thought; when the convention began yelling USA, USA, USA, it scarred me. I saw what it must have been like to attend a Nazi rally in Germany during Hitler’s heyday.
Second; the corporate media went out of its way to show the few Black faces in the crowd. I’m not sure if they were trying to make the point that yes there are Black Republicans or that there was so few Black faces.
Third; I listened to Pacifica Radio’s coverage as I watched the coverage on TV. Pacifica actually fact checked the speakers whereas the corporate media didn’t.
All in all the Republicans are a scary bunch.
Also I’m wondering if the Green Party will get any corporate media coverage.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:11 am ¶
john mccollum wrote:
@Latoya –
Yes, yes, yes.
I spoke with a relative the other day who said, “Well, yes. I agree. I wish we could afford to insure all Americans and improve education, but in this economy, we just can’t afford it.”
I said, “Can we afford the 10 billion we’re spending every month in Iraq? Can you imagine where we’d be if we had invested that money in schools and healthcare?”
My relative explained, “Well, that’s different. You can’t count ‘protecting our country.’ We HAVE to do that whether we can afford it or not.”
Stunning. I can usually understand, appreciate and even argue multiple sides of a political, social or religious opinion, and hold to many of my convictions loosely. But this one seems so clear to me: You can’t claim to be against big government and continue to write blank checks for trillions [yes, trillions with a T] of dollars to the military industrial complex.
It’s real money, it’s really going to have to be paid for, and it’s really detracting from other obligations. The military doesn’t get a pass form economic reality.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:13 am ¶
queerhapa wrote:
I was most struck by all the disses on community organizers made by Palin and Guiliani. They couldn’t even say the words without sneers and laughter, as if people who work with community members for, uh, affordable housing, safe roads, healthy work conditions, civil rights, etc. are just good-for-nothin’ GODLESS UNPATRIOTIC COMMUNISTS.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:22 am ¶
J.R. Bernard wrote:
Republicans like to say that Democrats don’t promote new jobs because of taxation. However, I think the Republicans are merely just trying to protect lobbying interests, as taxation alone will not create new jobs, but taxation to those companies that move jobs overseas will help deter the loss of American jobs to foreign workers.
I also would like to point out that Giuliani asserted that the only people that get offended when you say Islamic Terrorists are Islamic Terrorists. This really shows how out of touch and insensitive the Republican party can be when it comes to racially-charged issues.
If I use the word ‘n*gger’, do I only offend people that are ignorant? In this day and age, words and their context carry connotations along with them, for better or worse. We should all be mindful of such.
*There are terrorists in this world that are not Islamic!!*
Does that mean we should only seek out the Islamic ones Mr. Giuliani???
He also had the audacity to ask if Osama bin Laden ‘won’ the war post-911. I’ve got to say, he certainly has yet to lose, that’s for sure. I guess you could say Saddam lost, but how can you lose if you’re not playing the game?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:24 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
I have problems dealing with the GOP right now, and I’m not afraid to admit it. Fiscal conservatives are definitely part of the balance we need in good governance. It’s part of the reason I was listed for years as Independent (but since PA doesn’t let me vote in any primary that matters, I changed that). But fiscale conservatism is not what I’m hearing from the GOP this year.
It’s possible i’m missing it over the noise of social conservativism issues and energy policy frameworks. Everything I’m hearing from them works best when you’re majority-everything and well-off, living in nice neighborhoods …. Great for them, but that’s not reality for most of us, majority or not.
Through my acknowleged filter, I hear the GOP energy policy as anti-science and anti-ecology/environment/conservation. I’m still waiting to hear something I can agree with, as an environmental scientist working in a for-profit company.
As for the ethnic diversity (HAH!) of the GOP convention, I see it as a symptom of the bigger problem: if all of your policies tend to benefit a certain socioeconomic class, and a majority of the people of that class remain one hue, and you’re OK/comfortable with that, then don’t be shocked when 98.5% of your people are also of that same hue.
This statement: ““We have to make a better case to the Hispanic voter that the Republican Party has something to offer other than a deportation slip,” Davis said.” Means that Davis doesn’t get it. As if all Latin@s care about deportation? as if all are illegal? Now if we’re talking about feeling welcome, in what for many is their native or chosen country, that’s a whole nother story, but I don’t get the idea that that was where he was going.
I read the GOP platform, past and present, and I find it hard to see it as anything but a threat – to me as someone brown, and to my family as a mix of white and brown and black people; to myself and my friends whose families don’t necessarily fit the “man-woman” binary; to everyone I know who doesn’t have access to those great schools and financial instutions and job security that comes with it; to my career where having agencies use science and not politics to make policies is essential; to my spouse’s career where benefits are essential to keeping him and his coworkers and their families healthy and functional (he’s a commerical driver); and the list goes on and on… I get the sense, over and over again, that they don’t want anyone like me, so why should I want them? If that makes me partisan, so be it.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:31 am ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
I just noticed that a supporter in the photo above is holding a sign that says “G.I. John” and “Superwoman” I haven’t watched any RNC coverage so that’s the first I’ve seen that sign. It’s interesting to think about how that sign plays into (white) ideals of maleness and femaleness.
That’s an interesting slogan: “McCain and Palin: they perform their respective gender roles really really well!”
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
Sarah Palin is the most repulsive human being besides John McStain and Bush. I want to punch her in the face so bad. She fills me with violent feelings.
that’s all I can say.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:50 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
DFP: Really? Palin ranks above Karl Rove? As far as damage done to date, I’d choose Rove over Palin…
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:19 am ¶
PureGracefulTree wrote:
Wow, John McCollum, thank you for posting that. I usually find these types of parallels to be somewhat contrived, but each point on this particular column just rings so true.
I didn’t watch any of the RNC coverage, but Monie’s description of the “USA! USA!” cries sure sound scary. What the heck does “Country First” mean, anyway? And when the people shouting it are mostly white, rich, heterosexual, etc., it makes me ask “Whose country?”
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:22 am ¶
Chris wrote:
@Latoya:
Similarly, I heard on the radio that the US is planning on sending $1bil to Georgia for aid. Do we even have a billion to spend?
Wasn’t it the GOP that opposed the new Post-9/11 GI Bill because it would cost $4bil over a decade?
Then I hear about the oil pipeline running through Georgia into Turkey. Makes perfect sense now.
Basically, when it comes to social welfare programs, it’s “tax and spend” and “big government,” but when it comes to oil flowing through a pipeline, it’s “fiscally sound” and “to protect our freedoms.”
Cue video of the waving American flag, soaring bald eagle, and fighter jets doing flybys over giant churches…
…and make sure you all have your flag lapel pins!
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:26 am ¶
Ivy wrote:
@ DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!!
I agree!
The republican spin is so infuriating because I can see so clearly the bullsh** behind it. Yet I *know* there are some people who will believe what they say.
Sarah Palin read a prewritten speech from a teleprompter and that proves “she belongs in this race!” according to a writer at HuffPost.
I can WAIT until the debates. Our dream team of Obamden will wipe the floor with them. They need to hit back on the rethug lies and constantly bring it back to the ISSUES!
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:30 am ¶
goc wrote:
“Drill baby Drill” _ OMG I WANTED TO THROW SOMETHING AT MY TV!
I felt like I was watching an aging, KKK frat party …
And why the hell was she not even taking Barack Obama’s name? Show some respect, he did built a country wide multi multi million dollar campaign pretty much with his and his supporters sweat and blood. Oh wait, it was community based and community based organizations don’t have any real responsibilities right? #$^@#$@!!
I cant wait till a community based network sets her ass back to Alaska in Nov, and could she take McCain with her too?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:32 am ¶
jmn wrote:
But there were POC at the RNC. I mean Diana from disgrasian infiltrated it to pretend to be an RNC member …
http://disgrasian.blogspot.com/2008/09/rnc-updasian-sham-continues.html
:p
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:56 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
A few random thoughts:
1) Palin (or her speechwriter) has a killer instinct for soundbites. There’s a reason every single media outlet is repeating that line about pitbull and lipstick ad nauseum.
2) I’m not down with criticism of Palin centered on her ability to balance the VP job and her large family and young baby (e.g. the last point in John Riley’s piece). She has a stay-at-home husband for god’s sake. We would not be asking these questions if she were a man.
3) Related to point 2, Obama supporters really need to avoid falling into the trap of using sexist and racist attacks on the McCain camp. I’ve seen a couple bloggers I otherwise respect using words like “cracker” and “ho” to describe McCain, his wife, and Palin. You can’t criticize sexist/racist attacks on the Obamas if you’re doing the exact same shit.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:00 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Chris~I think you would really like this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Allahs-Mountains-Battle-Chechnya-New/dp/1850439796/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220546927&sr=8-3
Lyonside~I’m with you. I’m always have been and always will be an independent. I’ve voted mostly for Dems (certainly on the national level). But I’ve also voted for Green and 2 [local] GOPers. This convention did not speak to me. I love to shoot and believe DC needs business investment, but these people scare my black female atheist self.
John~exactly! Why don’t we talk about Bristol’s pathology and the lack of family values/parental involvement in the Palin home?
Diosa~I lost all respect for McCain when he let his daughter be thrown under the bus in 2000 in SC. Was she even there? If not, what about the family values?
On the war cost~ it is virtually incalculable, but we are into the trillions. Most people outside the beltway don’t even know what defense spending IS. Don’t get me started on Faith Ba$ed Initiative$
YES Rudy…I saw the skyline. I’m surprised they just didn’t go ahead and have the damn thing next Thursday.
When Dubya was on the screen the other day….All I could think of was Pink Floyd and America Prevails!
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:00 pm ¶
Chris wrote:
@Lyonside:
Well said. On all points.
Just a thing about energy policy: why is McCain touting drilling for oil and an expansion of nuclear power a solution? Why are we going to invest more money into creating energy or sustaining an energy infrastructure that relies on non-renewable fuel?
Why not focus more of our time, energy, and money on finding solutions that will create faster results (instead of waiting 7 years for oil from the OCS to reach our gas tanks, or 20 years for our new nuclear reactors to come online) and, better yet, sustainable energy production at a lower ecological impact and provide more lasting jobs (on all tiers of the socioeconomic scale) instead of further committing ourselves to an outdated and quickly dissolving fuel-based infrastructure?
Reminds me of an article I read about the whole GOP attack on Barack Obama’s suggestion that Americans fill up their tires to save on fuel: the GOP as a whole tends to try and find a clear-cut, single solution for every problem… even when a single solution won’t cut it.
High gas prices? Drill for oil. Done.
Energy problem? Nuclear power plants. Clean coal. Done.
It seems as if, when it comes to McCain’s energy policy, Solar and Wind power production comes as an afterthought, more to appeal to tree-huggers through the use of buzz-words than anything else.
In fact, that’s a lot like how this whole campaign, and the past two GOP campaigns have been about: words like freedom, security, working-class, etc.
As for the tax issues, as I understand it most of the money Barack’s going to spend on his policies are going to come from repealing the Bush Tax cuts. “Raising taxes?” Sure, I guess… if by “raising taxes” you mean levelling out the playing field between socioeconomic classes.
Because hey, if I have to pay 15-20% of my $37k a year paycheck, you should have to pay 15-20% of your $37M paycheck, too. I’m sure you could still live adequately on the $29-31M you’d have left over.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>Just a thing about energy policy: why is McCain touting drilling for oil and an expansion of nuclear power a solution? Why are we going to invest more money into creating energy or sustaining an energy infrastructure that relies on non-renewable fuel?
Why not focus more of our time, energy, and money on finding solutions that will create faster results (instead of waiting 7 years for oil from the OCS to reach our gas tanks, or 20 years for our new nuclear reactors to come online) and, better yet, sustainable energy production at a lower ecological impact and provide more lasting jobs (on all tiers of the socioeconomic scale) instead of further committing ourselves to an outdated and quickly dissolving fuel-based infrastructure?
Chris, there is a much longer answer possible here, but the short answer: because many in the GOP get their funding, directly, or indirectly, from the petroleum industry, whether that means oil, gas, or coal.
When people talk about opening new power plants, or mining/drilling in new areas (when the existing licenses on federal lands are NOT being tapped first – the hell? greedy much?), the first thing I think is NIMBY. The people promoting such actions live far, far away from the locations where it happens… they get little of the direct environmental, social, or economic costs, but they’re most likely to reap the economic benefits.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:29 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Sorry – should be a “————–” between “infrastructure” and “Chris”, to differentiate.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:30 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Carmen –
Cosign on all. I just got into a fight about that this morning with the boyfriend. I don’t even want to go down that road with the whole “well, it would be different if she didn’t have an infant/down’s baby/pregnant teenager but since she does, she shouldn’t be running!” No one would even blink twice if she was a man.
And yeah, not down with racism/sexism either. These conversations are going to get really heated, but if we wouldn’t want it done to Obama/Biden/Clinton, we shouldn’t be doing it. (As much as I chafe at saying that, knowing that the Repubs wouldn’t show *nearly* as much courtesy.)
Finally, I came away feeling that Palin was a smart pick. They can play her all kinds of ways, and if you aren’t informed on her platform, she comes off as a likeable working mom. Lipstick indeed.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:32 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
BTW: This is the op-ed political cartoon in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer (from Tony Auth):
http://www.gocomics.com/features/166/feature_items/380633
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:32 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
I was going to stay away from watching the RNC for my sanity, but I couldn’t help myself last night. I heard the 2nd half of Guliani’s speech and all of Palin’s. By the end, I was sick to my stomach and pissed off. Republicans lie A LOT. They just announce things like “Palin has more experience than Obama and Biden combined,” and everyone cheers, even though it’s clearly false. I heard a soundbite from McCain on the news this morning, and he was saying the same thing. It’s like he decided that instead of dropping his whole “Obama has no experience meme,” due to his VP pick, he’d just embellish it and claim that a half-term governor has more experience than a senator.
I was also pretty freaked out by the chants of “USA! USA! USA!” and “Drill baby, drill!” The whole tone of the RNC creeped me out. Also, the complete whiteness.
I finally got my first look at what Palin’s all about, and I am not impressed. As expected, the news stations are replaying her 2 or 3 quotable lines ad nauseum, which makes her speech seem better than it was. She mostly talked about her family, the fact that she’s a “hockey mom,” and Alaska. There was little substance. And her tone was very smug. All in all, the tone with which both she and Guliani (esp. him) spoke about Obama was so lacking in respect that it made my stomach turn.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 12:48 pm ¶
Adriella wrote:
@ goc:
“Drill baby Drill” _ OMG I WANTED TO THROW SOMETHING AT MY TV!
I felt like I was watching an aging, KKK frat party …
I sooooo agree. I was yelling at my TV!! It was disgusting.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶
Squidfly wrote:
Sarah Palin is the RNC’s Evita.
A Secessionist and extremist.
Why does Sarah Hate America?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:06 pm ¶
jmn wrote:
Jay Smooth makes an astute observation about the RNC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAc0OmQ1PpY
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶
Chris wrote:
@thesciencegirl:
No, the GOP doesn’t necessarily lie when you put it into their context.
For example, General Mills could put out a commercial saying “Cinnamon Toast Crunch: healthier than Kashi Go-Lean!” and justify it by saying Cinnamon Toast Crunch is fortified with more vitamins than Kashi Go-Lean. Nevermind the fact that Cinnamon Toast Crunch has zero grams of complete protein, relatively little fiber, and a whole boatload of refined sugars.
It’s the same thing the GOP is doing with Palin vs Obama: Palin has more executive experience!!! She was a mayor AND a governor, which Obama’s never been.
Nevermind the fact that Palin was a mayor of a town which had, in her time, around 5000 people, and she’s halfway into her term as governor of Alaska.
Other notable “truths” the GOP has been regurgitating: Palin’s the governor of the largest state in the US!!! (in terms of square miles and not population) Palin’s got military experience because she’s the commander-in-cheif of the Alaskan National Guard!!! (nevermind that the governors of EVERY state/commonwealth of the US is the commander-in-chief of their respective National Guard units, and that while she has been governor she has not issued a single directive to the Nationa Guard).
The most preposterous is the claim that Palin has foreign policy experience because of Alaska’s proximity to Russia. Ha!
At least Obama’s BEEN outside of the country and talked to heads of states. But, apparently, since he’s never held a mayoral or gubernatorial position, HE’S clearly the inexperienced one.
Even though McCain himself has never been involved in the executive branch of any local or state government himself. Oops! Get ready for the backfire!!!
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
Meta-thought about blogs and lying politicians:
In the 2004 debates, Dick Cheney took the art of lying to attract positive media attention to a new level. I don’t remember the exact details but Cheney said that Edwards had supposedly been in the Senate for six years or whatever, and that he’d never met the man before (building on his theme of absent and inexperienced, etc.). Now this was not true, and several media sources were quick to name other instances in which Edwards and Cheney had met, but the net effect was in fact exactly what Cheney wanted. Because by bothering to correct him, the whole point was repeated and belabored and echoed around the news, rather than just forgotten. Thus even debunking Cheney’s straight up intentional lie had the ultimate effect of reinforcing his point, not impressing on people Cheney’s dishonesty and improving Edwards’ position.
My conclusion from that is: debunking is very important, but the blogosophere should keep an eye on the larger balance of news as well.
(And to agree with Carmen, please please don’t let people criticize Palin for not staying home to take care of her kids!!! It’s pretty easy to put the pieces together there and that’s not a position that does well for women. I agree that I personally would rather she did stay home than be our VP, given that she would try to destroy nearly everything I believe in, but let’s not have it be based on her gender, okay? Plenty of male politicians have many and/or young children and they don’t get flak for it!)
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:42 pm ¶
Parisa wrote:
I read about three-quarters of Palin’s speech before I had to stop. I also wonder at their energy policy–first of all, all this talk of nuclear plants. Where are they going to put them? Who wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard? I’m sure they’ll end up where they always do, next door to low-income communities. The resistance to renewable sources of energy is just so transparent to me; McCain et. al. are so clearly in the pocket of Big Oil, no matter what they say.
Also, I was totally disturbed by the statement that “victory is our sight” in Iraq, followed by statements implying that Iran is a dangerous enemy (gee, I wonder what the McCain/Palin solution is to that issue?). It isn’t enough that we’re already entrenched in two un-winnable wars in the Middle East? Just…frightening.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:44 pm ¶
EvilAngelfish wrote:
If Guiliani wedges a 9/11 reference into another speech, I swear my head will explode.
I’ll say that Palin’s speech was fair (although some of the jabs at Obama turned my stomach) but Guiliani’s was utterly disgraceful. And the chanting was really quite unsettling.
Also, did anyone else notice that in spite of the paucity of Republicans of color at the RNC, CNN managed to show one every two minutes or so?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶
EvilAngelfish wrote:
Oops – spelled Giuliani wrong twice!
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
Yeah….pretty nauseating. I’ve really come to the end of my rope here. I’m a physician and as a group we tend ot go pretty republican because of the fear that universal health care has to involve cutting our reembursements even more than they already are (I don’t agree with across the board cutting but I do think certain specialities deserve more of the pie than what they’re getting but that’s a different topic).
As much as I’d like to be a selfish asshole and just vote for my own self-interest, I just can’t. I have a collegue who supports McCain because of the whole raising taxes issue. When I ask her who’s going to pay for all the money the Boomers spent she says she doesn’t know. What she does know is that she doesn’t want to pay for all this shit. How the hell can you argue with that?
My mom always told me that you should care about other people out of compassion. She also said that I should care for selfish reasons because if everyone else is suffering, they’re not just going to stand by and be happy for the few who are able to live well. The last thing I want is to finally be able to trade in my Pontiac only to be bashed in the head by someone who feels that car-jacking is the only way for them to survive in our new “service economy”.
I think this is the last straw for me. I think I’m just going to lose faith in my fellow Americans if the working classes votes against their own self-interests once again out of racism and bamboozlement. I’m not only going to lose faith, I’m probably going to just stop caring to some degree.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
RainaWeather wrote:
I’m afraid to watch the convention.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
I didn’t watch the RNC but did catch Palin’s speech from an NY Times link. At first, I thought Palin didn’t get it: I mean, who would actually invoke HRC’s name at a Republican rally not so widely convered….as a positive? Is this woman for real? Did she forget who she was talking to?
Then I heard her RNC speech and thought, “for the love of all.” Then I forgot who I was talking about. This is a person
who:
–when asked about the number of Alaskan service members losing their lives in the War in Iraq, said in 2007 that she wanted an exit plan. In an 8/14/08 Time interview she said: “Ramping up domestic supplies of energy is the only way to become energy independent, the only way that we are going to become a more secure nation. And I say this, of course, knowing the situation we are in right now–at war, not knowing what the plan is to ever end the war we are engaged in, understanding that Americans are seeking solutions and are seeking resolution in this war effort. So energy supplies and being able to produce and supply domestically is going to be a big part of that.” Into this war, for this purpose (both of which she perceives is her patriotic duty), she’s sending her son.
–though she is pro-contraception, opposes explicit sex-ed programs and abortion, except when the mother’s life is endangered.
–believes healthcare must be market-driven and, actually, is a firm believer in free-market capitalism.
–champions the right to bear arms and supports ending Washington DC’s handgun ban.
–opposes protection for salmon from mining contamination and filed a lawsuit to stop listing the polar bear as an endangered animal.
–opposes stem-cell research.
–opposes same-sex marriage.
–supports teaching “intelligent design” and creationism alongside evolution.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
So, I agree that Gov. Palin may be a smart pick because she’s malleable and, yeah, look through the camera and right at the viewers and offer smug soundbites. But, more than ever, this is knowing where the candidates stand becomes a big help.
But the more and more I think and read about this election, I’m really thinking this may be, as my girl crush Melissa Harris-Lacewell says, a “referendum on white supremacy”: from those white feminists who said they’d vote for McCain to how the Republicans are playing and are going to play race:
“The 2008 presidential election is a referendum on white supremacy. I believe that these folks are trying to see just how powerful whiteness is. How many privileges are attached? Can you come from the party that has run the country into the ground domestically and internationally; field a presidential candidate who can’t remember the country with whom we are at war; choose for him a VP with no experience and a trail of scandals; and still win against the most inspirational candidate of the past 50 years? The GOP seems to be saying: “if the other guy is black, Yes We Can!”"
http://princetonprofs.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-09-01T18%3A21%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=7
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 2:50 pm ¶
em wrote:
@ Carmen & Latoya: i completely agree with you ladies when it comes to how we discuss and critique sarah palin. i firmly believe that this election just got a lot harder for democrats to win, and i also think that they’ll only be able to do so by being on the money with the issues.
i was appalled when people started bringing up palin’s ability to govern and mother 5 children. that was a cheap shot that has come back to bite the shortsighted liberals who made it in the ass. big time.
furthermore, we saw last night the result of taking aim at palin’s experience. and in this sense, it’s kind of a catch 22 for both the republicans and the democrats. republicans will have a harder time calling obama’s record into question, and democrats won’t be so hasty to bring up palin’s experience again either.
the one thing that sticks out most to me about BOTH conventions, was the amount of focus given to the PERSONAL history and journey of ALL candidates. I DON’T CARE that palin’s husband races snow mobiles or whatever. and from a policy standpoint, i also don’t particularly want to hear about obama’s childhood. i certainly find his story more compelling, but not when there’s a PRESIDENTIAL election coming up with MAJOR policy issues at stake.
and that’s what i think the democrats are gonna have to do to win: talk about the issues. they’re now faced with opponents that are equally appealing and charismatic, so it needs to come back to issues.
seriously, obama. talk about the war and how you ARE going to get us out SOON. talk about health care and how it’s actually going to happen for EVERYONE. talk about the economy and keep repeating like a mantra your intent to only raise taxes for the wealthiest 5% of americans who have been getting tax breaks up the ass for the last 8-16 years, depending on how you look at it. don’t talk about your story anymore. everyone’s got a story.
sorry, long comment, but i feel like i’ve been doing a lot of political head shaking lately. i might be turning into a bobble head doll.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
The GOP has villainized unwed black mothers for DECADES now, but the Abercrombie and Fitch wannabe is pregnant underage AND out of wedlock and it’s a blessed event? Please.
Also, on Governor Palin’s CIC status of the Alaska National Guard: once the Guard is called out, it becomes federalized which means she ain’t callin’ the shots once she skins the ol’ smokewagon.
The Dems have to be very very careful in attacking Palin’s crappy resume. If they are “mean,” the Republicans will play the “damsel in distress” card again like they did at the convention.
Guiliani’s speech was nauseating. I didn’t appreciate him using 9/11 in this context. The Republicans were in office FOR 9/11. Precisely what is going to change again? Bueller? Bueller?? BUELLER???
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 3:15 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
i thought that the GOP had a record of minority delegates at the 2004 election, 16%. That was a 40% increase from 2000. if i had to wager a guess as to what happend this year i’d just assume that many minority politicians did not want to support anyone other than barack obama- for both political and personal reasons.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 3:31 pm ¶
Will wrote:
I posted this somewhere else, but here goes
I mean, this selection is simply amazing. I guess from the hardcore religious conservatives it makes sense (see point number 4) but let us see
I guess this is the check-list for a Republican VP Candidate.
1: Ties to a cessionist party that wanted Alaska to secede from the U.S [check] (And Obama is the one accused of being anti-American?, funny)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
2: Ethics violations [check]
Troopergate
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_10346061
A letter from a Wasilla, Alaska resident that should give insight into her charater.
http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html
Former Police Chief Says He Was Fired for Challenging Palin’s Campaign Contributors
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866&page=1
3: Hypocrisy [check]
Preach abstinence and family values when it doesn’t even work for your own family
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26496189/
This wouldn’t be an issue apart from the hypocrisy of the Republicans regarding sex and sex education.
4: Religious fanatic [check]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?hpid=topnews
Her statements
Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin’s foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska’s governor asked the audience to pray for another matter — a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.
Her pastors statements (after all, they went after Obama’s pastor, why should hers be off-limits. Talk about a double standard.
If the church had a political alignment, it would almost surely be conservative. In his sermons, Kalnins did not hide his affections for certain national politicians.
During the 2004 election season, he praised President Bush’s performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. “I’m not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I’m sorry.” Kalnins added: “If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.”
Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. “I hate criticisms towards the President,” he said, “because it’s like criticisms towards the pastor — it’s almost like, it’s not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That’s what it’ll get you.”
5: Run as a fiscal conservative but essentially employ a lobbying firm to secure 27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6700 residents while she was the mayor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?hpid=topnews
My feeling is that this choice was essentially forced on McCain by the conservative base. It serves 2 purposes
A: Shore up the conservative base. The more you dig into Palin’s story the more you realize what a religious nutcase she is.
B:Get those PUMA voters who would rather vote for McCain than a black man (Obama). Also, I can guarantee you that any valid attack from the Democratic camp will be interpreted as a sexist attack. The Republicans intent to push the Obama as a sexist meme and push it hard.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 4:26 pm ¶
Elena Perez wrote:
I linked to your post in my “Civics Lesson for Sarah Palin” post at the CA NOW blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/a-civics-lesson.html
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 4:35 pm ¶
Dorian wrote:
Yesterday’s (Wed 3) the Colbert Report and The Daily Show both had some really good highlights of the hypocrisy in the Republican Convention. See Karl Rove go head to head against Karl Rove! Palin vs. Palin!
I wasn’t able to make out the “Drill baby drill” chant when I was watching, and I’m sort of glad I didn’t. *shudders*
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 4:39 pm ¶
Will wrote:
I love Jon Stewart
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html
Aaaaah, can you smell the hypocrisy?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 4:46 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:
Working mom with 5 kids–all of whom have runny sounding names of suspect/non-mainstream origins. Her teenage daughter is pregnant and unmarried which will make her a 44- yr. old grand daughter. She’s known as having an attitude at work, used her power to fire her brother in law over some personal stuff with her sister (allegedly). And is being investigated for ethics violations— but writes it off as “people out to get me”. In other words, they’re just playa hatas.
All I’m saying is Sarah Palin is ghetto. G..H..E..T..T..O.
And if she ain’t ghetto, she’s got all the earmarks of a ghetto girl.
Sarah Palin is ghetto…
http://knockthehustleblog.typepad.com/hustleknockin/2008/09/sarah-palin-is.html
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
Dialysis Patient wrote:
My number one overarching reason for voting for Obama/Biden is health care. McCain wants to make employer health insurance coverage a taxable benefit, removing all incentive for employers to continue providing it. He also wants to gut Medicare, including the ESRD program that funds dialysis for 93% of the dialysis patients in this country.
If McCain wins, I will lose my health care coverage, the only thing that is keeping me alive, and will be dead within a matter of a few weeks. As kidney disease proportionately affects PoC more frequently than it does white people and PoC recieve fewer referrals as a percentage of patients to the transplant list than do white people, thus keeping them on dialysis life-long, this is an issue which affects every person who is a kidney patient, has a friend or family member who is a kidney patient, or who is a diabetic, since diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease and also disproportionately affects PoC.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 5:16 pm ¶
Nina wrote:
Carmen, I have to disagree that questions about Palin’s family and how it will afffect her leadership are off limits. Palin constantly brings up her son going to Iraq, her special needs newborn, and now her pregnant teenage daughter. She even gave a cover interview to People Magazine about these topics. Why should she not be asked about these situations and why should such questions be considered sexist? John Edwards was questioned about continuing to run for office when his wife’s cancer returned and that was far less of a political issue than the war in Iraq, abstinence-only sex education or the abortion debate*.
Furthermore, as a mother in the workforce, Palin should shine a light on the challenges faced by working mothers and possibly champion change in that area. She should not shy away from these questions nor claim they are sexist. These are womens issues. Millions of women have to make tough choices everyday about when to become mothers, whether to stay at home with their children or whether to work. If Palin can’t bring these issues to the forefront what kind of a maverick is she?
*I always find it interesting that Republicans refuse to respond to questions about their families (Cheney’s lesbian daughter, Bush’s daughters’ drunken antics) but have no problem attacking the families of democrats (remember the mud heaped on both Jimmy Carter’s and Bill Clinton’s wayward brothers?)
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 5:52 pm ¶
Cara wrote:
i’m ticked off at the community organizer comments….i had problems with other things, but i just thought her analogy was ver ignorant. – my two cents.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 6:10 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:
Palin scares me. John McCain sold his soul to get elected and would send us back to the 1950’s with the stroke of a pen. There are a lot of stupid people out there. I like how cool and collected Obama has been, but…..if the Dems blow it we are going to really suffer.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 6:25 pm ¶
stella wrote:
If I was going to watch fiction I would rather watch the fiction I like. So I watched films instead of the convention.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 6:34 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Someone who opposes comprehensive sex ed and promotes abstinence-only sex ed is NOT “pro-contraception”.
Someone who opposes abortion in all instances “except the life of the mother” is presumed to be anti-contraception in 2008, since the notion that birth control pills cause abortion has taken hold in the anti community.
I do think that the hubby ought to present himself as a full-time child carer, but that’s because I understand that Downs’ infants and toddlers need much more attention and structured coaching than non-developmentally-delayed infants. This is a much different situation, and to demonstrate family responsibility (as the Rs just love to harp upon), someone has to be seen to step up to the plate.
The sexism against Palin is in part a reaction to the sexism of the religious right that she represents. It is a desire to expose hypocrisy, understandable if not necessarily expedient at the moment. I think it is just fine to point out that Palin has opposed an assistance program for poor unwed mothers, and excuse me, why is her own daughter just making a mistake while other people’s daughters are sluts?. I too wish to tell Phyllis Schlafly to obey her own advice, stay home, and be quiet, letting the men run things.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 6:47 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Celeste @ #33, my approach to talking with fellow physicians is to remind them that they are in a service profession that can only sustain large numbers of physicians if there is a large insured population. Without health insurance, including federal health insurance in the form of Medicare etc, there would be a small cadre of Park Avenue / Harley Street doctors serving society ladies, and a large number of proletarian physicians making about as much money as middle-salary-range K-12 teachers.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 7:44 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Black Canseco~
that link is an example of privilege. No matter how it’s interpreted…at the end of the day white women will be forgiven or even lauded for behavior/lifestyle that would be condemned if anyone else had done it.
Nina & Nancy made good points. If social conservatives want to set the rules, they best be ready to play by them.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:11 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
@ Nina: cosign! I find it interesting that Palin has used her family as evidence of her conservative and traditional family values bona fides, but questioning her about how she will balance the demands of that family, particularly with respect to a special needs child and a pregnant teenager, with the responsibility of holding the second highest office in the land, is sexist and off-limits?
As was pointed out, John Edwards’ commitment to his family was questioned when he elected to stay in the race after the recurrence of his wife’s cancer. There were several articles talking about Rudy Giuliani’s strained relationship with his children, their failure to participate in his presidential bid, and wondering if his overarching ambition had irreparably damaged his relationship with his children. The clear implication was, he couldn’t manage his own household, so how fit was he to lead the country? I also recall reading articles questioning whether Mitt Romney’s “too perfect” family would backfire on him as the campaign wore on and people found him too difficult to identify with and suggested that something was phony about him. So how candidates present and interact with their families plays a role in how they are perceived by the electorate, for good or ill, and if carefully navigated, can be legitimate lines of inquiry to pursue.
In fact, in an article on Romney last year in the LA Times, an audience member at a stump speech in which Romney exhorted the crowd to encourage stronger families by teaching teenagers to marry before having children (natch!) nodded appreciatively and said, “If you can’t run a family, how can you run a country”? I’m not saying I agree with this sentiment, but I don’t think the people who do only feel that way about female candidates, especially ones who put their family at the top of their professional resume.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:21 pm ¶
Squidfly wrote:
This is a battle between a white woman and a black man. The Republicans have turned this election into Native Son. Many of them haven’t read it, but they are so aware of it’s themes.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:23 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I would love to make that photo my gravatar if the mods would allow it!
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:24 pm ¶
Maggie wrote:
I just wanted to add that Ken Blackwell, an African American, was the Republican nominee for Ohio Governor in 2006. I know that nominated but didn’t win might not count, but it still shows that there is some (albeit not a lot) in the Republican party.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:58 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ NancyP–since I was the person who made the comment, I apologize for not putting quotes around it, since that was taken from the On the Issues site. With that said–and hopefully not to derail the thread into an abortion argument–I’ll say this: I can see how a person can be pro-contraception *and* be anti-abortion. Such a person would feel that, if a person will not be abstinent, then the person should use contraception to prevent a pregnancy. However, if conception occurs, then the person feels the pregnancy should be carried to term. So, zie doesn’t believe that life doesn’t begin at conception and doesn’t hold the idea that any prophylactics are forms of abortions. But, for whatever reasons, the idea of abortions–be it RU 486, surgical abortions (including 2nd trimesters), and back-alleys–just flies against the person’s personal beliefs.
Now, NancyP, is the above-stated argument Palin’s argument? Probably not, and more than likely not now, if she’s going to appeal to the hardline anti-choice part of the Republican Party. Is that my own argument? Nope–personally, I’m pro-contraception and pro-choice (in fact, I’ve worked at two abortion clinics). Who, then, holds such a conviction? My own mother, a Democrat who’s turning Independent because she feels the Dems need to work much harder to get Black people’s vote. And, I suspect, she’s not alone in her pro-contraception/anti-abortion ideas, either. Now, if you want to argue with her–and she’s a rather formidab
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 9:06 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
Ooops! Hit the post button by accident…
…to finish, NancyP: Now, if you want to argue with with my mom–and she’s a rather formidable debater–I’m happy to refer you to her.:-D
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 9:09 pm ¶
Chris wrote:
@NancyP:
“The sexism against Palin is in part a reaction to the sexism of the religious right that she represents.”
Yeah, but still, Dems, liberals, and progressives should check themselves on the sexist tones towards Palin. Letting sexist attitudes about Palin fly because the religious right she represents is so liberal with their sexism is sorta like saying it’s okay to waterboard detainees in Gitmo because “hey, they’d do it to us, too.
Or, to reference a recent Racialicious post, “we can let sexist attacks against Michelle Obama fly because the black community didn’t defend against the sexist attacks towards Hillary Clinton.
It’s that tit-for-tat mess that the Dems really have to transcend to truly distance themselves from this year. Especially since women’s rights and anti-sexism is touted as a strength of the Democratic party. If the “liberal media” and the liberal blogosphere run amuck with attacks that come off as even the slight bit sexist, the GOP can just point to instances of hypocrisy, or to use the political buzz-word of every election year, “flip-flopping” that could put McCain/Palin ahead.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 9:30 pm ¶
alex wrote:
if you’re thinking about palin, gender politics, and the RNC, then i really think you might like this daily show clip (and yes, i know not everyone loves the daily show for many valid reasons, but this is mostly news coverage at this point…)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:39 pm ¶
em wrote:
@ nina and winn: i guess the reason i have problems with questioning sarah palin’s ability to mother and govern, is that it’s a non-issue for me. and i don’t think it should be discussed in political campaign. the same goes for edwards, giuliani, and any other politician that sacrificed their family and personal lives for their political careers.
my basic assumption is that these people know what they’re doing. their families know what they’re doing, and ultimately, i vote for people to govern based on policy not personal issues. it would be one thing if women were saying, hey, sarah, how do you do it all? but instead they question her ability to govern, when the likelihood is that her family life, if anything, will suffer.
this kind of leads me to the next trend i’ve noticed in criticizing palin: the whole thing with her pregnant daughter. OF COURSE she’s a hypocrite. no politician of any experience isn’t. and of course all the republicans are being hypocrites too, rallying around the palins, when if it was one of obama’s daughters (assuming they were a little older), they’d be having a fuckin’ field day with it. but at the end of the day, and at the end of this race, winning won’t be about shoving hypocrisy in people’s faces. it irks me to no end how republicans and the christian right always manage to play the moral high ground card no matter what fucked up shit they pull. but what do democrats / obama supporters have to gain by throwing this in their faces? it is about actually winning this election, right?
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 11:45 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Hey Carmen and LaToya and the rest…
I completely agree with you. No one would ask about her ability to lead the country with five kids at home if she were a man. However, and this is important to me, so far she has presented herself as someone with very traditional values. In a traditional, Christian paradigm, the brunt of the work of raising and caring for children falls on the mother’s shoulders. If that is not the case for her then she should address it. I only bring it up because of the model of parenting that she seems to present, not because she is a woman with kids. Because she is woman with kids who makes it seem like she doesn’t believe in childcare, that she can do it alone. Her husband does have a job. He has two. He works a union job and he is a commercial fisherman. I would like to know if he plans to quit both jobs and stay home with the kids. Lastly, even if he does, it takes a lot more than one person to care for an infant with special needs, a pregnant teenager, and two other small children. I think it only advances the cause of working women if Palin would say that she will need help, that her family will need adequate childcare, just like all working women need adequate childcare. I have a problem with women who make it seem like other women are “whining” when they complain about needing childcare so that they can work and care for their families. Lastly, and this is also important to me, she doesn’t believe in birth control. So, I think it is important to ask if she will be getting pregnant while in office. I think that is a very good question. While pregnancy is not a health issue in general, for someone of her age, it would be a high risk pregnancy. That is something that we need to really be clear on before her ability to lead the nation is really ascertained.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 12:23 am ¶
butchrebel wrote:
Palin is the perfect lightening rod for McCain and the Republican Party. She will appeal to a significant minority of embittered Hillary Clinton supporters, who vow to vote for McCain in November because their candidate did not receive the Democratic Party nomination. The McCain campaign can & will use Palin to exploit the racism of white women Clinton supporters who believe Obama to be an “inadequate black male” candidate for the presidency, a Muslim, terrorist-loving politiican who will oppress white folks once in office.
Palin will appeal to the social conservatives — a critical voting constituency — that McCain’s more moderate & liberal views alienate.
Palin has all the charisma, sexy controversy, and far right conservatism that McCain doesn’t.
Palin can weave a lie with all the deftness of the most corrupt politicians — in her RNC speech she uttered lie after lie after lie (See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check)
She’s all that — and she’s a sign of how desperate McCain and the Republicans are, how very real the possibility (and I think probability) that they will lose the presidential race. McCain chose a white woman as his VP for goodness sakes!! That is a reaction to and demonstration of the vital power of Obama, H. Clinton, and their supporters.
Obama will win.
and we, the faithful readership of racialicious, will rejoice:)
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 1:29 am ¶
Kay wrote:
Amen to this post…
On another critical note, (and I promise that I’m not a partisan blowhard) the hypocrisy of the GOP lately is AMAZING! I mean, I get the double-talk of politics, but MAN (no pun intended).
Now, I don’t usually endorse this show (its obviously liberal, funny, and NOT a well-spring of hard facts/information); but nevertheless please, please everyone check out the Daily Show’s 9/3 segment on Republican criticism, especially the part on women and sexism. Some have LITERALLY done a 360… and quite seamlessly. YIKES.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 3:43 am ¶
Chris wrote:
@Will, Kay, Alex:
That clip was hilarious! I’ve been watching it nonstop.
Classic examples of how really “fair and balanced” Fox News is, especially once the tables are turned.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 8:00 am ¶
JD/ formerly J wrote:
Ten Things I HATE about Repubs
Actually it is one thing expressed in 10 ways
HYPOCRISY
1)Karl Rove had the temerity to say that Governor Tim Kaine did not have enough experience
Direct quote:
With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished,” Rove said. “I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America.”
Yet Sarah Palin’s experience is good enough for him
Direct quite: She is the mayor of the 2nd largest city in Alaska (pop. 9000; Alaska 47th most populous state in America)…She is a fiscal conservative. (Operated in the red her years of mayor so you could finance a sport complex no less)
2) Bristol Palin has the right to choose to keep the baby, you do not have such rights. As an aside: Her mother cut funding to unwed mothers by over 60%
3) America is soooo unsafe we need a POW to be the president.
Who made us unsafe in the first place? The last I checked it was McBush and friends who fucked around with the real war in Afghanistan, entered a war in Iraq and got so stretched thin and distracted that Iran, North Korea and Russia started having a fucking field day.
4) Mayor 9/11 thinks community organisers are crap yet the Republican party claims 2 of the greatest community organisers in history as their sole property : Jesus and MLK Jnr
5) Hillary Clinton is whining when she talks about sexism; Sarh Palin should not be asked any questions about her past or record becuase that would be sexism
6) Sarah Palin’s executive experience is more than Joe Biden and Barack Obama put together but not incidentally more than John McCain who has been a career Washingtonian
7) Alaska Freedom Party is the utmost sign of patriotism these days for white people; Saying you are finally proud of your country -NOT SO MUCH
9) Less government when it comes to socila welfare, mor government when it comes to who you can fuck and what you do with your body
10) THIS IS MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE….
In a mind bending twist of logic, John McCain is trying to sell himself as the change agent…
1) 26 years in the senate- Real change right there
2) Voting with Bush 90% of the time
3) Excuse me sir, why are you suddenly trying to change the economy that last month you thought was sooooo sound
4) I am sorry I am slow but I need someone to answer one question….
Who has been running Washington for the last 8 years, cos for a split second there I was confused.
The fucking Repubs want to change the Washington that the fucking Repubs built…RIGHT
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 8:34 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
Michelle~ I agree 100% w/ this:
I think it only advances the cause of working women if Palin would say that she will need help, that her family will need adequate childcare, just like all working women need adequate childcare. I have a problem with women who make it seem like other women are “whining” when they complain about needing childcare so that they can work and care for their families.
If she wants to represent women, then she needs to get real. AND her househusband needs to step up and talk about his contributions to childrearing. THAT would be a “morals” coup for them, but could anger the traditional values set.
I get what you’re saying about pregnancy. While common
it IS a health issue. Cheney has an ambulance around 24/7 (even while contributor-hunting). Could she be prepared on bedrest? I would love to see the accomodations that would be made for HER to do her job while on maternity leave…
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 9:07 am ¶
Winn wrote:
Michelle and gatamala – Excellent points. These substantiate why I think questions about the relationship of her family responsibilities to her governmental responsibility are germane and not inherently sexist: they are relevant to her public policy positions and to questioning the discrepancies between her own actions as an executive (slashing funding for programs for unwed mothers and special education in Alaska) and what resources she utilizes for her own family. And I’m sorry, but exposing hypocrisy is an aid to critical thinking, and when you present your credentials first as a “hockey mom” rather than a city council member, mayor or governor, you open yourself up to scrutiny, especially when your positions and actions as a public official are contradictory to the “family values” you claim to espouse.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶
longly5819 wrote:
Thank you, JD/ formerly J for the following comment:
5) Hillary Clinton is whining when she talks about sexism; Sarah Palin should not be asked any questions about her past or record because that would be sexism
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 5:38 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
I am not saying that we should be sexist against Palin, merely hold her feet to the fire over her proclaimed value system. She’s the one presenting herself as Christian-Values Soccer Mom and using her bearing a Downs’ syndrome infant (and the actual infant) as political prop material. She didn’t have to gush over her maternal status, merely acknowledge it (as all candidates do) and move on to policy positions.
I’d like the VP conversation to move on to “petty, vindictive” and “flip-flop and prevaricate about earmarks and about fiscal responsibility”.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 11:01 pm ¶