Media morning with Palin

Gloria Steinem gives one of the best rebuttals to the idea that Sarah's somehow a feminist pick over at the LA Times.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
[...]
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Over at Salon, I have to disagree when Shapiro says:

Palin is unquestionably the Republican vice-presidential nominee least likely to be confused with Dick Cheney, in either a duck blind or the Situation Room. Even as an angry "hockey mom," it is impossible to imagine her browbeating CIA analysts to concoct new rationales for invading Iraq. It seems equally implausible that in a McCain-Palin administration, the vice president's office would be an outside-the-law power center running its own foreign policy. Palin is not a traditional vice-presidential nominee, but if elected she is apt to mark a return to a modest conception of the office that had been the butt of jokes for nearly two centuries.

I can easily imagine Palin bullying people into line. Less capable women have been very successful bullies over the past 8 years- Monica Goodling, anyone?

D. Aristophanes gets serious for a moment with a straight-up assessment at Sadly, No! And while I'm not sure the majority of voters appreciate the nuance, he makes a good point:

- They overplayed the ‘community organizer’ slam. The party that wants to shrink government says service outside of government is worthless? The only service worth anything is as an agent of the state? The Dems need to start talking up community work, church work, charity work, volunteering to coach youth sports, etc. Palin and McCain say Little League coaches and scout leaders and food drive volunteers aren’t doing anything useful?

Meyerson on the golden oldie theme of the evening, at the WaPo blog:

This is Republican Chestnut Night. The speakers’ attacks on the Democratic Party thus far are the very same that Ronald Reagan made 28 years ago, or Richard Nixon 40 years ago. “It’s time to stop the spread of government dependency!” Mitt Romney just vowed -- as if welfare reform had yet to happen. Romney chastised the government in Washington -- even the Supreme Court -- for charting a liberal course, seemingly forgetting who’s on the Court and which president put them there. A more partisan view of history hasn’t been heard from since Stalin wrote Trotsky out of the history of the Russian Revolution.

Over at the local paper, I ventured into the comments thread where people are IN LOVE with Palin's support for abstinence-only sex ed, because it's THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY! And unwilling to question whether Sarah failed in her responsibility to teach her own daughter about birth control and the wisdom of waiting until you're an actual adult to become a parent.
Spoiler alert: if you support comprehensive sex-ed, you're obviously a nazi.

More than one webizen is wondering when teen pregnancy got so popular with the conservative base, by the way.

Sarah!

The writers devised some good, witty lines, and Palin, for her part, delivered them well. Much of the red-meat portion was lies and misrepresentations, of course, but it's a political speech, made at a rather desperate time.

The thing that nearly drove me over the edge was the cheering and screaming over her standard issue economic lines. Dems will tax you, Dems will make you lose your jobs, Dems will spend all kinds of crazy money.... and people eat that shit up.

I realize we are looking at THE Base here, the 27-30% of Americans who still think Bush is a GREAT president.

But my God, it is so obviously demonstrably patently WRONG to suggest that this country's economy is in better hands under Republicans.

Pop quiz: which two modern presidents have busted the biggest budgets and left office with the biggest deficits?

GWB and RONALD REAGAN

And under whose administrations does the middle class stand a chance at growth, while income inequality shrinks?

DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

I mean jesus, you fools: it's numbers. Why are they so hard to understand?

Update: It is true that when I graded her delivery, I didn't consider presidential points. I do think that anyone who came away thinking she sounded in the least bit Presidential really needs to examine some deeply personal issues.

Brokaw is, mercifully, reminding us that Republicans have held the power of the government for the past 8 years, with Dems holding a meager obstruction advantage for the past 2, so it's a bit cheeky for McCain and Co to run on any kind of reform agenda.

And I can't resist this, from the site of the Great Orange Satan:

Another Sarah! update

John Thune (R- echo chamber) is sharing with Brokaw right now that America will really get a sense of Sarah Palin when she gives her speech tonight.

Really? Even though the speech was written for Romney?

Not anticipating that McCain would choose a woman as his running mate, the speech that was prepared in advance was "very masculine," according to campaign manager Rick Davis, and "we had to start from scratch."

On the other hand, every now and again they get caught on an open mic:
Hear that "moderates"? Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy think Palin's a cynical, unqualified, image pick.

Update: Noonan would like to make clear (go to WSJ, I don't have the link) that when she called Palin's nomination "bullshit politics", she was merely hurting for dear Kay Baily Hutchison. Also note: Noonan is a water-carrying wanker.

Regarding Sarah

If you want to keep up on Palin news, Talking Points Memo is probably the best place to bookmark. Such news is slow in coming, because the campaign has decided that shielding her entirely from the mic is their best bet right now, but there are muckrakers around the country digging up bits. Bits which go entirely unanswered by the campaign, which may be as telling as the bits themselves.

I'm going to quote one of their posts at length here, because it's a very very good one. Submitted to Josh from a friend:

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.

Update: I made the mistake of turning on the teevee and checking the web at the same time, and I'm about to vomit.

The teevee is giving me (predictably) a slew of surrogates explaining why American Women Will Love Sarah Palin, and the "journalists" are buying into the mommy-wars-blame-the-media shit.

Meanwhile: why the fuck aren't they asking whether she has a preacher problem? What about whether she has a fringe-freak secessionist problem?

Told you so

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

They won't run on issues because they can't run on issues: all of their positions are proven failures. So they're hoping you'll like their outfits.

Rick Davis is on my teevee right now, reminding me how mavericky John McCain is. And if by "mavericky" you mean stubborn and irresponsible, sure. I'll give him that.

A Moment of Silence for the GOP

The party is over.

The party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, even Ronald Reagan, but most especially George Dubya Bush, is dead.

Let us bow our heads in a moment of silence.

Okay, moment's up.

Remember when we were afraid of them? Remember when Karl Rove was the most brilliant man ever conceived? Remember when Democrats voted for war, condemned Moveon.org, and made Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader for fear the almighty Karl Rove would smite them with his evil genius?

Remember the permanent Republican majority?

Well, that's all over now.

The GOP has been in critical condition for some time. Republican Congressman Tom Davis admitted as much, way back in May, when the traditional media was still distracting itself with concern that Democratic Party might disolve into an all-out Civil War because we had two extraordinary presidential candidates and a bit of option anxiety.

Said Davis:

The Republican brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf.

No doubt today's Republican Party looks back fondly on those days, when the GOP brand was merely in the trash can instead of the coffin.

Last week, we witnessed the rebirth of the Democratic Party. It was a week of all-stars laying out a bright, bold vision for America's future.

Michelle Obama gave us the picture of the all-American family of the 21st century.

Hillary Clinton gave us a history lesson of women's suffrage and the Democratic Party, culminating in that moment when we could all celebrate 18 million cracks in a glass ceiling that surely will be shattered in my lifetime.

Bill Clinton reminded us of all that is possible when a Democrat who believes in science and education and civil rights and equal rights sits in the Oval Office.

And Barack Obama gave us a reason to be proud again, to hold our heads up high and say, "You're damn right I'm a Democrat."

And then, the next day, John McCain gave us Sarah Palin.

The jokes write themselves. In fact, it must be difficult to be a writer at The Onion or The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. What could you possibly say that's any funnier than the headlines?

The Republican Party is so desperate this week that President Bush would rather pay attention to a natural disaster than play politics at the Republican National Convention.

That's pretty damn desperate.

In one weekend, 100 issues surrounding Governor Palin emerged. Read Bobo2020's comprehensive list.

And that was just the weekend.

The Republicans have become so desperate they are now accusing the Democratic Party of sexism.

Carly Fiorina, the disgraced former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, had this to say:

[I am] appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin's experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.

She further condemned Obama for daring to compare his responsibilities as the head of a national presidential campaign with Palin's staff of 50 when she was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

In other words, the Democratic Party is sexist for telling the truth. The party that supports equal pay and reproductive freedom is sexist because it dared to suggest that Palin's "executive experience" as the mayor of a town of 8,000 -- a town that apparently she left in worse shape than she found it -- does not compare with the national and international experience of the Democratic ticket.

That's pretty desperate.

And, as noted by ksh01:

CNN is reporting that John McCain has canceled today's scheduled interview on Larry King due to Campbell Brown's interview with Tucker Bounds yesterday! Holy Shit. This is imploding.

Remember when John McCain called the media his "base"?

This is the end. This where the Republican Party dies. All that is left now is the small group who believes the earth is flat, global warming is a hoax, oil drilling will save our economy, and, oh yes, abstinence-only education works.

Or not.

There will be no permanent Republican majority. There will be no continuation of Reagan's legacy.

Even if Governor Palin removes her name from nomination to spend more time with her -lawyers- family, is there any Republican in the country who would volunteer to be the sacrifical lamb who was second choice to Governor Palin?

I think not.

Goodbye, Republican Party.

Rest in peace.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Pappy and The Broad

Viewing McCain's pick of Sara Palin as anything other than cynical politics is ridiculous.

She's an avowed anti-abortionist; which means that James Dobson and Co are finally on board with the ticket, along with hopes that they'll rally their to date unexcited base.

She's young, so she makes the ticket look prettier.

She's a woman, which, in the minds of people like Rove and McCain means that the rest of us simple little women will not fail to be inspired by the opportunity to put someone with a uterus in the White House.

That, my friends, is what Sara Palin offers the Republicans. And they also know that if anyone on the Obama campaign, say, Joe Biden, calls them out on it, they risk looking condescending at best and misogynist at worst.

I listened to the broadcast media all day refer to the choice as historic, which rankled me. Dems put a woman up for VP 24 years ago, so in setting that particular historical precedent, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, a bit behind the times.

This could be viewed as historic in the fact that she's on a Republican ticket: this marks the day when they decided they could benefit from a skirt or two in prominence. It can be viewed as historic in the context of the full campaign, meaning that come January, we'll either have a black president or a female VP. That's something.

But this is an image pick, not one based on merit or vision. She isn't Hillary, a woman who has worked her entire life toward the respect and opportunity she currently has, and who reached her pinnacle this year on the trust of millions of voters, rather than a single team of political operatives.

She isn't Barack; who, again, rose to prominence on his own guts and skill, bringing millions of Americans to his side.

She's a first term governor of a resources rich small state, and she brings to the ticket pot holes for Joe Biden and anti-global warming pro-oil cred.

She is, in short, the formalization of the same crude, pandering, misogyny that gave us "Happy Hour for Hillary" in Denver last week.

I'm disgusted with the campaign's Rovian use of women as emotional triggers and props.

And that's all I have to say about that at the moment. I'm going to go read Joe Conason now and see what he has to say about it. I am sure it will be devastating.

Update: Conason here.

No, Senator McCain, I Am Not An Idiot

You think I'm stupid.

You think I'm going to fall for it.

You think that because I loved Hillary Clinton, gave money to Hillary Clinton, stood in the freezing rain for two hours to see her speak, put a sticker on my car, wore my pin around town, and supported Hillary Clinton to the very end, that I will vote for you.

You think I will forget every single one of my personal and political values just because there's a vagina on your pro-war, anti-woman, anti-science ticket.

You, Senator McCain, are wrong.

I'd love to see a woman in the White House. I would have loved to see a woman on Obama's ticket.

But not this woman.

Not a woman who thinks decisions about my body should be made by hateful old men in Washington.

Not a woman who thinks science is a myth.

Not a woman who thinks the Republican party has anything to offer besides more war, higher taxes, oil dependency, and hate.

I am not falling for it, Senator McCain.

Because what you do not understand is that my support for Hillary was not about anatomy. It was about values. Hillary Clinton articulated and represented my dreams.

You do not. Not even with a vagina on your pathetic ticket.

This changes nothing.

No way. No how. No McCain.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Calling all PUMAS: you're embarrassing me

The McCain camp's big strategy for this week is to use the simple little women it can get near to sow discontent in the Democratic party and peel away feminist support for Barack Obama. And the disgusting thing is that there seem to be quite a few simple little women lining up to help them do it.

Witness the ad they released: a Washington nurse and Hillary delegate, telling you "It's okay" to vote for a man who voted against the Lebetter legislation on equal pay this year.

Witness the pandering "Happy Hour for Hillary" party they're throwing in Denver.

Are you all so stupid that you don't understand you're being used? Are you all so self-involved that you don't notice when you're being lied to?

Got a problem with Obama referring to someone as "sweetie"? What about McCain referring to his wife as a cunt?

You wanna buy the idea that he will support Roe v. Wade? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? Have you listened to anything he has said on the subject during his entire public life- other than one comment in 1999? How about checking something easy- like his campaign website?

"Country before party"? So you think that the economy is swell, war is good, and if we deregulate everything except equal pay we'll be better off after 4 years of McCain? And that's why you were supporting Hllary Clinton?

I understand that there is an argument for acknowledging your disappointment. I know that you aren't fond of Obama, for whatever reason. But if your answer to all of this is to let the Republicans use you, you're an embarrassment.

So apparently I'm really white.

According to the Stuff White People Like blog, I am almost unbearably white in the left-leaning, educated, upper middle class coastal sort of way. How I got to be this white without grad school I have no idea- so maybe I'm just a poseur. Still my love of my Prius, David Sedaris, Wes Anderson movies, and "The Idea of Soccer" alone would seem to cinch my place in the halls of pretentious lefty whiteness.

I have another indicator of unbearable lefty whiteness this morning.

Yesterday at a party, my friend Tina said, "I have to ask you something, and I have to see your face." I gazed earnestly at her (or, as earnestly as I could, given the amount of rum and fruit juice coursing through my brain). She looked intently at me and said:

"Jesse Helms died. What do you think about that?"

And I am certain that I screwed up my face a bit as I tried to formulate a response. Because, as a person who fits so neatly in the category we're discussing, I have standards. I cannot take pleasure in the death of a human being. And I cannot speak ill of the dead (which is why we all love Hunter S. Thompson so much. When Nixon died, he alone could pen a an obit that refused to elevate a figure we all considered despicable.)

I have other standards, too. I love art, loathe racism (especially in its hateful mainstream form- something that Helms was exceptionally good at exploiting.)

My standards, in this moment, are completely at odds.

When Ronald Reagan died, I could acknowledge that he was the President, and give respect. I could say, honestly, that in his personal writings he seemed to be such a sweet person, such a good friend.

I cannot imagine having a friend like Jesse Helms.

I think I finally said something not quite witty, like what a tragedy for him that he died before realizing his dream of getting all the artists and uppity negroes into gulags.

But I didn't feel good about it.

The revolution can start now

After the senate GOP blocked passage of the Ledbetter legislation, Senator Barbara Mikulski had this call to action:

"Women of America: Put your lipstick on, square your shoulders, suit up" and get ready to fight, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said moments after the bill's opponents denied supporters the 60 votes needed to proceed to full debate and a vote on passage. "The revolution starts tonight."

The F word

Feminist

Aside from the fact that I consider people of my gender to be...people, there are still palenty of social/legal reasons to continue loudly proclaiming myself a feminist. St. McCain provides us a primer:

NEW ORLEANS — Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

FIRST OF ALL: the legislation in question does not "seek equal pay for women". The legislation in question seeks to clarify filing rules so that women who have been discriminated against can seek legal recourse according to existing law.

Lilly Ledbetter was almost 60 years old and on the verge of retiring when she first caught on that she was being shortchanged at work by what her lawyer called a "good old boys" network.

An anonymous letter turned up out of the blue and revealed to Ledbetter she was making substantially less money than male co-workers at the Goodyear tire plant where she worked.

A federal jury would later find she was owed almost $225,000 in back-pay over her 19-year career.

The Supremes decided last year- breaking with what has been a standard application of the law- that Lilly Ledbetter had waited too long to file a complaint against her employer.

Ledbetter filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission less than a month after receiving the letter, but it was already too late. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes a six-month limitations period on discriminatory acts, preventing her from even bringing the claim to court.

So, unless your employer tells you up front that he pays you less because you're a woman, what are the odds you'll be able to seek recourse within the 6 month limitations period? And note: the 6 months starts the day that the discriminatory practice is engaged in- in Ledbetter's case, that would be back in 1979.

If you're a staffer, how does your employer feel about you sharing salary info with your colleagues? I'd bet there are rules against that sort of behavior, no? Companies I've worked for have all had such rules.

So the Ledbetter legislation attempts to fix the limitation period. That's all.

St McCain thinks women just need more training. That's what he said today.

Clearly, if we all inherited beer fortunes so that we could support the careers of our illogical husbands, this legislation wouldn't matter so much. But we don't. We have to work. And we have to work trusting that we're being paid equitably with our male colleagues.