A lot to read but go through all of it before forming an opinion. Controversial? Perhaps. But oh so true in my humble opinion:
"Sarah Palin is Clarence Thomas 2008. Back when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the United States Supreme Court, the liberal civil rights coalitions and the Media mobilized against Clarence Thomas for one reason: He was profoundly qualified, but he showed blacks, minorities, and every American that you could become something in this country. You could become great. You can reach your wildest dreams on your own. You don't have to follow the liberal civil rights prescriptions to do it. You don't have to go through affirmative action. You don't have to do all the things liberals say you have to do to succeed. One black individual could totally upset the civil rights coalition applecart, and that is why they tried to destroy Clarence Thomas's life.
What is happening to Sarah Palin is no different, and it is no less, and it is going to take all of our support and vigilance constantly to beat this back because she represents a bigger threat to a broader coalition of the Democrat Party and the media than Clarence Thomas does. This woman proves that feminism is not about women. This woman proves that feminism is nothing more than sheer, ultra-liberalism and that feminism is simply a mask for yet one of the many tentacles of liberalism out there. Palin represents everything in a woman the libs used to say they wanted. She has a family and a job. She is self-made. Her husband has a job, but is very much involved in the raising of the kids. She trumps their propaganda with real life. Sarah Palin has lived a real life. No holes in the story. Hundreds of people to vouch for her achievements, her accomplishments, her life. Obama doesn't have that. The only people Obama has to vouch for him are people he doesn't want speaking: Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, wacko priest Pfleger, half-brothers living in huts. She has lived an American life, conservative and all. Rather than supporting them on their views, the liberals support the women they support because of identity politics and because of liberalism, not because they're women and not because they have all these so-called characteristics of strong women that they admire. I think, compared to Sarah Palin, I think Barack Obama comes off as a small little man-child.
If Joe Biden's plagiarism and other knocks against him disqualify him to be president in 1988, and again in 2008, then why all of a sudden is he qualified to be vice president in 2008? This attempt to destroy Sarah Palin's family, this attempt to destroy Sarah Palin's daughter has gone beyond the pale. I know that there are conflicting thoughts, conflicting opinions on who really is behind this. Some people think that Obama has a stealth campaign encouraging the bloggers to do this. That may be the case, I don't know. But these bloggers and the American left today are totally capable of this on their own. They don't need any guidance. This is who they are. Frankly, I hope they keep it up. This is rallying heartland America, this is rallying the Republican base, this is rallying a bunch of voters, a mess of voters; a slew of voters. This is rallying millions of voters who were tepid at best to the McCain campaign.
The Democrats are trying to say that this is just about picking off angry Hillary voters. That is so shortsighted as to be embarrassingly wrong. This is about rallying the Republican base. This is about expanding the Republican base. This is about coalescing the Republican base around the McCain campaign.
As far as experience is concerned, this woman runs a state, Sarah Palin, that produces 20% of America's energy. She is the steward of that state's production of energy. Sarah Palin has been brought to this ticket for a host of reasons, among them that she might pick off some female voters, but she also fits the "drill here, drill now" mode that has become the official Republican Party position on this. She fills so many bills. She can wear skirts, she's got nice-looking ankles, and I'm not trying to be funny. This irritates the American left; it irritates the media; it irritates the Democrat Party that she is exactly what they have always said a woman should be. If they were honest about feminism, they, too, would be embracing and celebrating Sarah Palin.
But they're not honest. They are not about women. They are not about feminists. Well, they are about feminists, liberal feminists. It is about liberalism. It is about the Beltway class ruling. It is about the Beltway class reacquiring its power. The Beltway class is made up of elected Democrats, the Media, think tank people on the left, and career government employees also on the left. I want you to listen to one sound bite very quickly here. This is Barack Obama on March 29th, 2008. He was in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and it was a town meeting and he said this about his two daughters.
quote:
OBAMA: Look, I've got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. Now, so -- it doesn't make sense to not give them information.
He doesn't want them punished with a baby. May I share with you Sarah Palin's statement:
quote:
"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."
Now, somebody has just now brought up Chelsea Clinton. Now, keep in mind Chelsea Clinton was off-limits all during the Clinton presidency and the Media bent over forward, grabbed the ankles, said, "Okay Clinton, whatever you want." Let's not forget that Al Gore's teenaged son, Albert Gore III, was picked up for reckless driving right before the Democrat convention of 2000. There was nothing but sympathy for Algore III from the Media, and I don't recall the Family Research Council making a big deal out of Albert Gore III. I don't recall the Media criticizing Al Gore for the way he had raised his son.
A lot of people are also asking this question: Why did she accept this nomination from John McCain knowing that she has a 17-year-old daughter who just got pregnant, is five months pregnant, and has a very young Down syndrome infant? Why did she accept? Let me tell you why, I'll be very honest with you. This is something that the Media, the Beltway class could never understand. Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd -- I'll guarantee this is true, I don't know, I've never met her, never talked to her, but I'll lay you this is the truth. Sarah Palin would never put the burden on her 17-year-old daughter of passing up a vice presidential nomination because she got pregnant. She would not make her daughter the excuse that she had to turn this down. That would be a lifelong burden her 17-year-old daughter would carry. Sarah Palin is not going to put her daughter through that. I'll tell you, this is just despicable, what we have become in this country, to destroy a 17-year-old girl in the hopes of destroying her mother and her father. The Media leads the charge, carrying the water for the Democrat Party."
so what about the source? Absorb the content and don't get blinded by who said it.
Edit: the point of NOT giving the source right away is because doing so in this case gives automatic bias and reason for most readers on this site to ignore it without actually soaking it in
josh4
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
so what about the source? Absorb the content and don't get blinded by who said it.
LOL thats the biggest load of bull I've ever heard. I'll quote a sermon by Rev. Wright and have you eat your words.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by josh4
LOL thats the biggest load of bull I've ever heard. I'll quote a sermon by Rev. Wright and have you eat your words.
what does that mean? I'll read anything and not worry about the source. Most of the time I'd rather not know until after I've formed an opinion in my own
Lebezniatnikov
That was the most inflammatory article I've ever read in my life. The DEMOCRATS united against Clarence Thomas BECAUSE he was black?
Sarah Palin is a disgrace to women for one reason and one reason alone - her incomptence and imminent failure is going to put back the course of female empowerment for years much in the same way that Geraldine Ferraro did. Why nominate someone qualified when we can nominate someone unqualified who has ovaries?
Get a clue - nominate a female who is qualified and her gender ceases to be an issue.
Polls suggest that it actually infuriates women whenever Palin or a Republican attack dog use the "18 million cracks" line - because Sarah Palin, in her lifetime of sportscasts, PTA meetings, and townhall discussions, is NOT Hillary Clinton.
As Maureen Dowd put it, "When you use sexism as an across-the-board shield for any legitimate question, you only hurt women. And that’s just another splash of reality."
Stop using her gender to disguise the fact that she's embarrassingly unqualified to formulate national security strategy, set educational policy (a creationist for God's sake!!!), engage in talks with the G-8 or Vladimir Putin, talk about international development assistance, reboot a staggering economy, or do anything about healthcare.
If anything, it's YOU that's being cynically mysogenistic.
quote:
Either McCain's vetting process was a complete sham. Or his press operation is the worst in modern presidential politics history. Or some unholy blend of both.
Campbell Brown isn't the story - people are underestimating her, as they always have. No, the story is that Tucker Bounds went on national television without material to answer what is maybe the simplest, most straightforward follow-up question any reporter can ask: "What's your evidence for that assertion?" And I suspect that the reason they canceled Larry King is not to punish CNN (it doesn't work that way) it's that they still couldn't come up with an answer to the question by the time his show aired.
Now look at this comment from McCain honcho Steve Schmidt to Katie Couric last night: "Members of this campaign went to off-the-record lunches with reporters today, and they were asked if she would do paternity tests to prove paternity for her last child. Smear after smear after smear, and it's disgraceful and it's wrong. And the American people are going to reject it overwhelmingly when they see her."
First of all, that's the first time I've heard anyone in the campaign/political press throw out the notion of paternity tests. So Schmidt is to blame for bringing that issue into the mainstream. If anyone is smearing the candidate, it's Schmidt. This is as cynical a tactic as I've ever seen in politics.
Secondly, how can it be a "smear" if it was during an off the record lunch with McCain campaign aides?
Thirdly, hey, colleagues, you're on notice: Steve Schmidt does not respect "off the record." Watch your backs, my friends.
But yeah, you're right, the media and the left are allied in their quest to hold women back. That's why women love Palin so much.
quote:
Poll: Women Think Palin Pick Was Political
As the political world -- and, well, America at large -- gears up to hear AK Gov. Sarah Palin address the RNC this evening in what is shaping up to be the most critical address of the convention, the pro-choice, formerly pro-Hillary Clinton Emily's List is releasing a survey that shows Palin is not helping the GOP with moderate, female voters.
The national poll of 800 women, conducted from 8/31 to 9/1, reveals that Palin has not boosted the overall perception of the GOP ticket's understanding of women's issues -- 53% gave the advantage to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, while 35% opted for John McCain and Palin.
When presented with basic biographical information about the two veep contenders, Palin has less overall appeal to women than Biden, 41% to Biden's 64%.
And finally, voters were asked to gauge if the presidential candidates made their veep selections based on experience and qualifications or political expediency. Half of respondents said Obama chose Biden based on his experience, while 29% said he was chosen for political reasons. Meanwhile, 20% said McCain chose Palin for political reasons and 59% said her pick was all politics.
And that's why McCain's own campaign co-chair thinks the coverage has been so unfair:
quote:
Meg Whitman, McCain's national campaign co-chair and former CEO of e-Bay, veered off message today in an interview with Fox News, describing the media vetting of Palin as "completely fair" and saying that there hasn't really been any sexism to speak of in the coverage.
Take a look:
"I actually think it's completely fair for the media to vet Sarah Palin," Whitman said, adding that it was "the right thing to do" for the media to dig into the background of someone who is "running for the highest office in the land."
Asked directly whether there had been any media sexism, she replied: "I wouldn't say there really has."
Someone should tell this to McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt, who actually complained today that the press was "on a mission to destroy" Palin.
Watch out The17sss... you're relapsing into self-parody.
Zild
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
so what about the source? Absorb the content and don't get blinded by who said it.
Edit: the point of NOT giving the source right away is because doing so in this case gives automatic bias and reason for most readers on this site to ignore it without actually soaking it in
I didn't even need the source to realize how full of and biased the article is. I just had to read the first paragraph.
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by Zild
I didn't even need the source to realize how full of and biased the article is. I just had to read the first paragraph.
lets do some tweaking .....
;)
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss edited by a smart ass
He was profoundly qualified, but he showed blacks, minorities, and every American that you could become something in this country. You could become great. You can reach your wildest dreams on your own. You don't have to follow the liberal civil rights prescriptions to do it. You don't have to go through affirmative action. You don't have to do all the things liberals say you have to do to succeed. One black individual could totally upset the civil rights coalition applecart, and that is why they, the GOP, tried to destroy Obama's life.
FIXED!!! :D
flavdave
Using another Supreme Court analogy, one could argue she is more like Harriet Miers.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
That was the most inflammatory article I've ever read in my life. The DEMOCRATS united against Clarence Thomas BECAUSE he was black?
Sarah Palin is a disgrace to women for one reason and one reason alone - her incomptence and imminent failure is going to put back the course of female empowerment for years much in the same way that Geraldine Ferraro did. Why nominate someone qualified when we can nominate someone unqualified who has ovaries?
Polls suggest that it actually infuriates women whenever Palin or a Republican attack dog use the "18 million cracks" line - because Sarah Palin, in her lifetime of sportscasts, PTA meetings, and townhall discussions, is NOT Hillary Clinton
I love the seething hatred...haha. You guys are going nuclear over this issue. How do you know her "incompetance" and failure is imminent? I want your crystal ball. Polls suggest all sorts of things to the person who is reading the particular poll at the time. If you live your life by what the polls say, I feel sorry for you. And the best thing about Palin is that she's not Hillary Clinton. She would never get those ultra liberal votes from those who wanted to vote for Hillary anyway... but she will get votes from regular women who can relate to her. Unlike Hillary, she has achieved success independant of riding her man's political coat tails. She has a loving values based family that normal american's can relate to, and doesn't have to play the victim role that Hillary played after her husband ed an intern in the oval office. Self made, truly successful independant woman... THAT is where the appeal is, and it scares the out of the so called feminists that are supposed to support women's advancement.
edit: speaking of money VP choices:
"Heralding his own experience, Biden also said he “knows as much as anyone in government about” national security and foreign policy.
And for the third time since his acceptance speech a week ago, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confused battalions and brigades. “Over a year and a half ago,” Biden said of Obama. “He said we need two more combat battalions in Afghanistan.”
Actually, Obama called for two more combat brigades.
A brigade is bigger than a battalion — a brigade, in fact, is composed of a varying number of battalions."
Dj Smitty20
how does it feel to be attacked like this?
You Republicans and conservatives have blinders on if you don't think "attacks" like these have been launched on Democrats, the "ANGRY LEFT!" and those "damn liberals in Washington!". For sake, the message at the RNC last night (ie. Fred Thompson :rolleyes: ) was that you aren't patriotic and don't put your country first if you don't vote Republican.
