For Skye...and others
Posted 10 weeks 3 days ago byA Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP
By Tammy Bruce
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.
Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.
The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.
Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.
Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.
The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.
They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.
Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.
The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.
It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.
The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.
Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.
Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter.













Thoughts
yeah Swede
Submitted on September 10th, 2008 by John 2000I think another son of hers is coming home from Iraq soon, so I hope you feel better. Joe Biden's son is going in October. Great, eh?
The rest of what you said is somewhat incoherent, to me at least. Is there something more to this hockey stick rumor that you can share, or is it another one of those Top Secrets like Bradley mentions?
The post below...
Submitted on September 10th, 2008 by Swedeis mine and not attributed to the dubious Anonymous.
Clear the air
Submitted on September 9th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerI still haven't decided to vote for McCain but I do like Palin.
What I find funny is that I post a piece by a long time Democrat and NOW organizer and am viciously attacked by "feminists." Sure Gov Palin has a successful career and a family (isn't it a goal of feminism that women can make it in a "man's world" and still have a family) but she is being attacked in many of the same ways as Hillary by the same people who were a month ago decrying the sexist treatment of Hillary. That is hypocrisy.
What my original post tried to point out is that there are issues at the base of all this rather than gender. But with a whole text of issues and implementation to debate I instead receive "she hates women!"
There are many practical issues that I am sure Skye and I disagree on...I know I am way outside the mainstream on many beliefs and relish the chance to debate those when appropriate. But these attacks do nothing to further anything.
This is what I know. The only real difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama will tax us into the ground and McCain will spend us into the ground. Obama will send the military all over the world (just not Iraq) and McCain will send us all over the world. Both will give us more government meddling in our lives, McCain with the Patriot Act (I don't know how or if Obama voted on that) and Obama through taxes, regulation, activist judges and Orwellian social ideas. They are the same and so is Biden. They are all members of an organization with a 9% approval rating the last I heard (that is half what even Pres Bush has).
And then there is Gov Palin who, even if you disagree with her personal beliefs on some issues, enjoys more than an 80% approval rate in an exceedingly Libertarian (no government intervention in how we live our lives - no matter how that is) state. She has proven to lower taxes and lead by example in lowering government spending (remember, the legislature approves budgets and she can only control the executive office expenses which she cut in Alaska).
The way I see it is with McCain and Obama you get the same old thing.
The only reason I would vote for either is if it would help her get elected because, no matter how her personal beliefs stand up next to yours, Gov Palin has a proven track record of less government intrusion and lower taxes coupled with lower spending - and the country desperately needs that.
What we don’t need is issueless personal attacks that avoid any form of thinking and that is why I responded how I did earlier.
Skye NO women running for
Submitted on September 9th, 2008 by janmbSkye NO women running for the VP or PREZ for the republican party will meet with your approval because they have different views of the world.
Since we have TWO MAJOR PARTIES the republicans have had to select a VP and I'm glad it was a woman instead of a man who would have had the same views.
After all---Palin might just inspire MORE women to overlook the mysogenist comments and the sexism and we just might increase the number of women participating in GOVT positions higher than the 16% we now have.
TREE
Submitted on September 9th, 2008 by Skye RiversThere are as many points of views when it comes to politics as there are stars in the sky. As I can appreciate your stance, I can also share the more I hear about Palin the less I like her as well. I have a gay son, I believe in women's rights, this women is a smug radical and a liar, but so is EVERY politician. This is a political blogging site and we are all entitled to our beliefs. Frankly, and I have said this many times, I am fed up with the whole shabang and close to not voting because they are all full of crap. The question remains, how much crap do you want to settle for in the White House.
We have just had 8 years of completely malarky.
I don't want 8 more years.
I would have been more open to McCain had it not been for Palin.
Ask yourself this, who is the one that is so horny for a women on the ticket that they would settle for anything that is a life support system for a vagina? Not me.
I want believe in womens rights. Palin's beliefs are from the 1970's and have not changed with the times. I am still open to hope I am wrong on this and waiting like everyone else.
There is more hoopla around the fact she is a women running that what she is running for and what she will be doing for our country.
She came out in a big bang and charmed the world, and now that everyone is a less intoxicated, they are seeing reality. Something ain't right.
As far as women go my dear, you don't know me, or my beliefs, nor does that matter. I believe in successful women. I believe women, even today are STILL the underdog and have to fight tooth and nail to get ahead and it's not equal ground.
Tree, I admire you. I am happy to see I finally found someone who has all the answers and knows the truth behind this candidate. How fortunate you should be since the entire world is asking the questions you have ALL the answers for. I would call CNN and ask for an interview so you can clear Palins name. The bottom line is this... You and I are just holding different parts of the political elephant and so be it and we see things very different.
Thank you for your candid thought.
WOW...
Submitted on September 9th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyer"At first I was surprised and pleased to see a woman on the republican ticket finally. Too bad they picked one that hates women." ~un-talkable subjects
I can't believe you bought this load of crap skye!
She holds the same beliefs of a vast majority of the country (limits on abortion, handing out condoms and telling kids that there are no consequences to sex with anyone they want hurts the youth, etc) and is successful and pincipled and therefore she hates women. And all you can say is that she dresses like she is out of the 1950s.
un-talkable, your post is totally devoid of any fact and points to you being unable to cope with the fact that your point of view has not helped women as proven by you hatred of a successful, strong woman chosen for VP that you don't agree with on some issues. What is even more funny is that the thinking feminists (Tammy Bruce and yes Sara Palin) who actually believe in promoting equal treatment and strong women (no matter their political stance on issues) are finally speaking out against you people.
Skye, shame on you for buying this load of crap.
un-speakable perfectly shows how "inclusive" those of the radical, unthinking left really are. Way to go.
Thanks treetop
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by John 2000for the excellent Tammy Bruce article. Though I think it necessary to keep the heat on the number 1 issue, Obama (rather than Palin) ... this article sums up very nicely the libdem democratic situation. Facts is facts - egg-on-face is egg-on-face.
NOTE:
"Tammy Bruce is the author of "The New American Revolution" (HarperCollins, 2005) and a Fox News political contributor. She is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter."
un-wishful thinke
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by rom12921According to Tammy Bruce, the Democrats are the party of mysogenists. How do you reconcile the commentators point-of-view and yours?
Media treatment of Palin is statistically slanted against her. A foxnews reporter (Lott) tracked news for 4-5 days after the nomination. You may find those statistics confirm Palin's assertion.
Actually, Palin does not believe in an abstinence-only sex ed. She stated she preferred abstinence-based sex ed opposed to a more graphic program. Most likely her comments are regarding specific curriculum in Alaska. I have not reviewed, nor would I be interested, in reviewing the competing curriculum. However, the point (wondering if I have one myself) is abstinence-based is different than abstinence-only.
Personally, I disagree with the Palin's preference. I think the more matter-of-fact (graphic) dialogue seems to diffuse wrong perceptions. I do not sugar-coat the emotional, physical and financial consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior in talking to my son.
Untalkable.
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by Skye RiversBRAVO! I could not think of the words to say today.... as words seem to be escaping me, but if I had, your words were the ones I was looking for re: Palin...
If she is such a strong person, then why not do the damn interviews? Answer some questions... o wait, she is going to be on CNN ON REVEALED ALONG ON SAT AND SUN BIDEN. Maybe we will have some answers then instead of this double talk from all of them.
I too thought...
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by un-talkable subjectsAt first I was surprised and pleased to see a woman on the republican ticket finally. Too bad they picked one that hates women.
Yes, she is strong and independent in some ways but in other ways she is weaker than a child. She says she is being treated with extreme sexism. I say no more so than Clinton or Ferraro were - if not less so. I think she needs to stop whining and PROVE she can take it. If she really is that strong then she should behave like she is. And stop trying to look like she is straight out of the 1950's! (see the outfit she wore at the GOP convention)
She claims to be on the side of women but she is an ardent believer in abstinence-only education AND anti-abortion AND anti-contraceptive. As you can tell by the increasing incidence of teen pregnancies (including her own daughter) OBVIOUSLY this approach does not work!!
O wait! We aren't allowed to discuss her family. Why not? She put them in front of the court of public opinion herself.
The list of disqualifying views and issues with this woman continues to grow nearly daily. I would rather have a man in office that this woman.
I have been an ardent feminist and democrat since the 1970's but I won't trade reality for wishful thinking by voting for this fake.
TREE
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by Skye Riversbut we are the ones that gave them that power, and what I find sad, no one wants to take it back... we have created a monster re: the government and have fed it well. In return all we get is lies; a government that is completely filled with corruption and 8 years of crap last I looked. I don't have all the answers, but I do know this....... WHAT HAPPENED TO WE THE PEOPLE.............................
Because
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerBecause they are not Obama the anointed one.
What is really messing with many on the left (it is driving the die hard Clintonistas nuts) is that, for the first time since they left Arkansas, the media is going after them like they normally do those on the right instead of giving a free pass.
If nothing else, this should serve as an example to many that never noticed it before just how biased the media is.
Also because they know a strong person takes care of themselves instead of relying on the government. Disempowering people keeps the government firmly in more power.
Seems like
Submitted on September 8th, 2008 by rom12921traditional feminists are criticizing her for being too strong a woman?
Why do media-types (Dem primary debates) and Democrat operatives (Cohen,Dean,bros before hoes) treat women (HRC/Palin) so badly?