Sarah's Thoughts
Attack Dog vs. Pit Bull
Let me begin with this — I really like Sarah Palin. I love the energy she has brought to the ticket. She gave a tremendous speech last night. She has a good first name that is spelled correctly. I don’t think she is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the bee’s knees, or any other silly metaphor. But, I have no problem believing she can be the Number 2 person on the ticket. Just wanted to share my general two cents about Palin. Now for this …
Biden Plays Second Fiddle (and Attack Dog) — NPR
Biden Goes on Attack in Acceptance Speech — CNN
Biden Fills Attack Role — Yahoo! News
Obama’s Attack Dog: Outspoken Biden Joins the Democratic Ticket — The Independent
Last week during the Democratic National Convention, pundits were wondering when the attacks on Bush and McCain were going to begin. It’s been two days and still nothing! When are the Democrats going to attack McCain and his Bush-like policies? Surely Biden will go on the attack! It’s the assumed role of the Vice Presidential candidate to attack the opposition! Please, Joe … attack, attack! And, he did. Good for him.
Then, yesterday, Sarah Palin went on the attack against her opponent … again, the assumed role of the Vice Presidential candidate. Immediately, she was deemed as “insulting,” “sarcastic,” “shrill” and various other adjectives. What’s the difference between her role and Biden’s role? She did exactly what she was supposed to do! Are people just upset because she did it too well? Or, maybe the critics forget she is running for Vice President, since they keep putting her head-to-head with Obama?!
September 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Gee, Sarah, do you think those adjectives have anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman? Or does sexism just not exist anywhere in politics for you?
“Shrill”? Sounds like the same descriptors used for Hillary…hm…
(Note: I am not a Sarah Palin fan, and I supported Obama over Clinton).
September 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Yes, my beloved sister, I do believe there is a level of sexism at play here. Just like they don’t question Barack Obama for spending so much time on the campaign trail when he has two young girls at home. The sexual double standard is definitely part of the problem.
I also think, based on the overall way in which the two conventions have been covered, many of the pundits (mostly on MSNBC, some on CNN) are very defensive of Obama. And, I think they have an exaggerated problem with this particular woman.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Do you agree that media coverage of Hillary was also tainted with sexism?
September 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Oh, and I do agree that MSNBC is WAY over the top about Obama. It’s strange to watch. I still like Obama, but I want to feel like I am watching SOME level of objectivity in my media coverage (or at least closer to objective). I choose to watch other stations. Mostly listen to the radio, though…
September 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Actually I don’t think there is a level of sexism at play here. I believe there is a fear factor here that the Dems did not expect.
They have not figured out “How” to counter her.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Yep, the media is scared! They were not prepared for this battle. Sarah has outclassed them and they don’t even know where to begin attacking.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Oh, and I thought how she called the media out was perfect.
A smidgen of condescension (and snide sarcasm) with a smile. You bet she’s a woman and she knows how to fight this battle like a man! There’s no doubt sexism is involved, but the attacks that she’s receiving seem to be coming more from the fact that she’s not Hillary (Thank goodness!!!).
Can a woman really believe in a conservative platform? You bet and she’s their biggest fear!
The general stance of the media has been sickening. In the end, I believe the people will see through the bias and hopefully, make their decisions on the issues.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Cindy…
“…she knows how to fight this battle like a man!”
What the hell does that mean?
And does a woman have to display masculine qualities, whatever that means, to be taken seriously?
You make her sound like a woman who is “playing the man’s” game, which is probably how many conservatives see her, and is probably why she is so popular right now with many conservatives.
She has the thrill of a “tough chick” without advocating any political views that are threatening to white male conservatives.
(Yes, I know women support her, too…including my sister…Sarah, my sister, when did you become so socially conservative…even if it’s the other views of Palin you support - government reform, energy policies, etc. - you cannot deny her social conservatism, and its importance to her).
Ooooh, lookee at the Republicans nominating a woman for VP. I hope no Hillary supporters fall for this. She is a woman, biologically, but her views are not good for Hillary supporters.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Catherine,
Is she only non-threatening to white conservative males, or conservative males of all hues?
What gives you the impression that her social conservatism is so important to her? Her speech did not focus on such issues. What made you reach the conclusion of where the issues fall on her priority scale?
September 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I looked up the definition of “social conservatism” and find it interesting that the conservative mindset would agree with the majority of the points, maybe not all, while the liberal mindset of the world seems to disagree, with levels of anger, to all of the points..
from wikipedia…
“*Present social conservative issues in the United States
*favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy
*support restriction of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in homosexual relationships
*promote public morality and traditional family values
*protect key American industries like defense, certain raw materials, and agriculture from foreign competition
*promote the nuclear family model as society’s foundational unit
*support government’s involvement in values education and character development
*oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief
*support prison reform, with greater focus on punitive measures rather than rehabilitation
*oppose human cloning and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (see stem cell controversy)
*protect Second Amendment rights
*oppose illegal immigration and support extensive government monitoring of national borders ….
I have not the will ,or the power, to convert even one liberal mindset to any conservative view that I may have, even though I think there are no rational thought processes behind what they believe,but at the same time, I have never been given the same courtesy from the left.
All a person has to do is favor one aspect from above, and they are branded socially conservative. With this knee jerk reaction, conflict is unavoidable, agreement impossible. The conversation can only end when all agree to disagree.
Gov.Palin advocates, and has had success, reducing waste and corruption in gov. and basically getting gov. out of peoples lives. This threatens only those who want to be in the charge of your lives ,or have corrupt desires. Lib ,or conservative, I would vote for anyone I believed to have “that” desire for our country. It’s refreshing to see someone say what they actually think, instead of what they think you want to hear.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Sarah - apologies, “male conservatives” could replace “white male conservatives” (which is mostly redundant anyway) in my statement above.
I get the impression that her social conservatism is important to her by looking up speeches she’s given in the past, not by looking at the speech written for her for the RNC.
I don’t know if this falls into the definition of “social conservatism,” but in the following video, she refers to the war in Iraq as “God’s will” (which, frankly, is mixing government with religion a bit too strongly for my tastes - religious war, anyone?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k
And…if Rick can quote Wikipedia, then I can, too:
“Many of Palin’s political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled,[99] and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,[100] and opposes same-sex marriage.[42″
Rick - you want the government NOT “to be in charge of your lives”? Yeah, me too, which is why I strongly disagree with several of the social conservative viewpoints listed in your post above, ESPECIALLY this one:
“*support restriction of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in homosexual relationships”
Tell me: how is restricting the rights of homosexuals the same thing as keeping the government out of people’s lives? Sounds pretty controlling to me.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Catherine….. the rights of homosexuals to marry matters little to me, one way or the other,just don’t throw it in my face, as the homosexual society does. Most Americans still oppose marriage, while a few more would tolerate a civil union. maybe an LLC would work.
As to religion, the founding fathers applied their religion a great deal more than most today. As you should know, the law restricts a national mandated religion, not the exclusion of religion in one’s life or the government.
Also, why is someone expressing something that has happened as God’s will so radical or harmful? Christian beliefs are that nothing happens outside of God’s purpose. We may not know why God allowed something to happen, but if you believe God is God, he did for a purpose, and He knows what He is doing. This belief does no harm to you, you have the right to believe God has, or has nothing to do with anything. I just choose to believe he does, and leave the rest to Him.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Rick - homosexuals are throwing their desire for equal rights in your face??? Does this mean that Suffragists were throwing women’s inequality in people’s faces when they sought the right to vote for women? Maybe it does, but how is there anything wrong with that? Shouldn’t we all, as Americans, enjoy equal rights, as long as we are not harming others?
And, yes, I know that our founding fathers were generally a Christian group, and I am not calling for exclusion of religion in a person’s life - if I did, I would be denying fundamental rights to a segment of the population just because I don’t agree with their beliefs (much like some people want to deny marriage rights to homosexuals because their personal beliefs prejudice them against homosexuals).
BUT - religion SHOULD be excluded from government - as you say, we have no national mandated religion.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Catherine,
I understand that you believe that religion should be excluded from government, but that is not the law of the land. The First Amendment simply guarantees that the federal government cannot mandate a national religion (as they wanted to avoid that whole Church of England problem). In fact, under the Constitution, individual states still could mandate a particular religion. Religion is a part of government … every session of Congress opens with a prayer, chaplains go overseas with our troops, etc. Should federal lawmakers use their religious beliefs as the basis for legislation? Of course not. But, they should feel free to express and embrace their beliefs … or lack of beliefs.
I want to address your question about how I can support a McCain/Palin ticket since I am not a social conservative, but I believe it deserves more than a comment. I plan to write a blog post later tonight, God willing (ha, ha!).
September 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Dearest sister,
I eagerly anticipate your next blog post.
Love,
Catherine
September 11th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Dear Catherine,
A little background to help explain “..fight this battle like a man!” All too often, women act the victim in their fights (for example, Hillary and her emotional breakdown).
Men handle confrontation differently from women. The arguments tend to be more logically and less emotionally based–this is how I viewed Sarah Palin’s speech. In addressing the media, she proved she was not going to crumble under pressure. This isn’t to say that ALL Women are going to be emotional. General behavioral patterns of women tend to lean toward emotion.
We would be fooling ourselves if we didn’t believe that running for any elected position is not part of “a man’s game.” The majority of positions across local, state, and federal politics are filled by men even though women are half the population.
However, that’s not why I think she’s taken seriously. It’s her ability to clearly state her position, demonstrated successes in Alaska, and strong convictions for the Conservative platform that has the Party so excited.
What I find interesting is that Hillary Supports believe they are the one’s McCain was trying to capture. I believe he knew he needed to capture the Conservative vote of America. He needed something to happen in his campaign that would energize those that believe in a more conservative platform. He found his answer in Sarah Palin. I don’ t think there was ever any doubt that Hillary Supporters would vote for Obama if their voting based on logic and their stance on issues.
Now, for those voting on emotion, there just might be a few votes coming over because “she is a woman.”
Why should there be an expectation that she would be advocating “any political views that are threatening to white male conservatives?” How about Conservatives? As has already been pointed out in the following comments, there is a wide variety of ways to express our beliefs.
She holds the same social leanings as our family as well as stance on issues (especially less federal government interferance). She is the kind of person that I would want to represent my views which is why I vote.