• Authors

  •  

    July 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « May    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Categories

  • « Yay, Nay or Present: Barack Obama’s Insanely Maniacal Method of Jumping Hurdles to Avoid the Truth, Whilst Flip-Flopping Under the Rafters | Home | BlogWatch: Social Security in Peril, Candidate Avoidance & Other Budgetary Debacles »

    PALIN: WRONG WOMAN, WRONG MESSAGE

    By Steve Levine | September 5, 2008

    Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

    By Gloria Steinem
    September 4, 2008

    Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that
    even the anti-feminist right wing — the folks with a headlock on the
    Republican Party — are trying to appease the gender gap with a
    first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women — and to many
    men too — who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted
    violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley
    Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White
    House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through
    ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

    But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first
    time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees
    with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.
    Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about
    making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of
    the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking
    a new pie.

    Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is
    no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters.
    Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home,
    divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican
    convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female,
    a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing
    and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does.

    To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody
    stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

    This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even
    on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can’t
    do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if
    they wouldn’t say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from
    imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues
    about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

    Palin has been honest about what she doesn’t know. When asked last
    month about the vice presidency, she said, “I still can’t answer that
    question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP
    does every day?” When asked about Iraq, she said, “I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.”

    She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular,
    and she’s won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth
    to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised
    by McCain’s campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska
    has no state income or sales tax.
    Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he
    doesn’t know it’s about inviting more people to meet standards, not
    lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration
    habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate’s
    views on “God, guns and gays” ahead of competence. The difference is
    that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

    So let’s be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen
    Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can’t tell the
    difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please
    right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or
    ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not
    the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice
    president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas
    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain
    could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who
    determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

    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.

    I don’t doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National
    Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from
    helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn’t just talk about
    increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power
    plant in her own small town. She doesn’t just echo McCain’s pledge to
    criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one
    of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear
    the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right
    but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also
    protects the right to have a child.

    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.

    Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan
    gains from this contest.

    Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and
    most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the
    centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was
    the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the
    last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

    And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time
    jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a
    national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal
    outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe
    Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

    This could be huge.

    Topics: 2008, John McCain, Republicans, Sarah Palin |

    One Response to “PALIN: WRONG WOMAN, WRONG MESSAGE”

    1. Dan Says:
      September 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

      I’m hoping Obama & Biden can pull it through in November!

      Graduation Stoles

    Comments