Should Sarah Palin stay home with her kids?

[Stella_Omega]

Dammit, Stella.... are you gonna help me clean the sweet tea off my monitor?

Windex to the rescue!

 

[Guest]

Should Sarah Palin stay home with the kiddies? Only if John McCain is out mowing the Whitehouse lawn.

Now I need to clean tea off my laptop.

Bad, bad Cowboy.

 

[cantdog]

Upper-level execs in any company are hardly home. You cannot do both; it's a fact, and alyxen's post should be re-read. You make a choice at some point along the ambition ladder between family and career, because the big dogs live it, all the time. In the context, the question is stupid. The point is, can she do the job?

I hope we never have to know. And it's a safe bet we won't have to know. What's happened is, basically, the religious fascists are back in the race, again on the side of the Party of Tainted Meat. If you aren't a purblind ideologue, the choice isn't hard.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Cantdog, you're a big old meany.

 

[cantdog]

Cantdog, you're a big old meany.

Yep. I've about had all the tainted meat and poison toys I need. And long ago I had all the creationist morons I needed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

750,000 teen pregnancies a year ought to be more than enough, too.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You wound me. I have already stated exactly what my opinion of the subject is. I have given an outcry... that I believe the question is outside of what should be considered. I have done so here, on twitter, on my blog, on MySpace. I have done so across party lines.

I resent greatly what you are implying and in this case I want an apology. I have defended this woman's rights to raise her own family and her credibility on this issue despite the fact that I see her in almost every way as a desperate and unsuitable choice for the office.

I will endeavor not to put words in your mouth. Don't put them in mine.

I un-wounded you in post No. 32. It was a fast moving thread there for a bit.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

But I think you need to relax, Rox. One thing the Democrats are doing right now is being very quiet publicly about all of this crap. They are being sweet little angels. No need to open mouth and insert foot.

Oh I don't know. The official Democrats may be - I don't know. But a whole crew of unofficial Dems - the media - are doing every thing in their corrupt power to stir this shit-pot:

- Eleanor Clift, the McLaughlin Group: "If the media reaction is anything, it's been literally laughter in many places across newsrooms."

- Sally Quinn, Newsweek: "It is a political gimmick . . . I find it insulting to women, to the Republican party, and to the country."

- E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "Palin is, if anything, less qualified for the vice presidency (and the presidency) than [Harriet] Miers was for the court. But there is one big difference: Palin passes all the right-wing litmus tests."

- Maureen Dowd, New York Times: "They have a tradition of nominating fun, bantamweight cheerleaders from the West."

- Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: "But as a parent in the media, I also know that the Palins assumed this risk. Anyone who watched coverage of the Bush twins' barroom exploits knew that the avert-your-eyes stance toward candidates' children has its limits."

- Charlie Cook, Beltway pundit, on PBS's "Charlie Rose": "I had a friend that had a young person tell them that they had three interviews to get a job as a server at Ruby Tuesday! So this is like putting a whole -- for someone that hasn't played on a national -- Geraldine Ferraro had more -- Dan Quayle had undergone more scrutiny, had played on a bigger stage than this. This is putting an enormous risk on someone he didn't know. And he has to just pray that it works!"

~~~~

Ah, now that's neutral, objective, evenhanded journalism. One might even say - "fair and balanced."

~~~~

Oh and that Ruth Marcus crack about the Bush twins? Don't forget, Ruth dear - around the same time Biden's 21 year old daughter got popped in Chicago for getting into a brawl with cops after someone in her group was throwing bottles in the street. Maybe Joe should have been spending less time in the Senate and more minding the kids.

 

[DeeZire]

If you're running on Family Values, I think the state of your family is relevant. If Mr. Palin ends up staying home, great. If not, I would question the integrity of running on Family Values, but ignoring them.

 

[Corylea]

Rox, I think there IS a legitimate reason to ask this of far-right Republicans and not of Democrats: far-right Republicans are the ones trying to tell other women that they should be at home taking care of the children and not asking for something silly like rights.

Notice that I said "far-right Republicans," which is not the same as all Republicans. Some Republicans are centrists who believe that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men, and it wouldn't be fair to ask them this question. Sarah Palin was selected to appeal to the far-right wing of the Republican party, though, and it's only fair that she be held to the standards that she'd like to apply to everybody else.

I think that sexism is prevalent, sure, but I think what a lot of people are sniffing after is hypocrisy, not sexism.

 

[shereads]

What's happened is, basically, the religious fascists are back in the race, again on the side of the Party of Tainted Meat. If you aren't a purblind ideologue, the choice isn't hard.

But didn't McCain have the Tainted Meat vote pretty much wrapped up? Was he really so afraid of losing the far right wing of his party to a black guy? It just doesn't make sense.

I think his advisors were honestly shallow enough to think that just any female candidate would do for us feminists, even a female who wants to confiscate the uteruses of other women for use by Unborn Children.

"Hey, they want a chick? We'll give them one. And she'll be prettier than Hilary, too!"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu080902.jpg

 

[jomar]

I don't agree. I have the feeling as I've said before, that McCain thought more about what he'd have for dinner that night, than which woman would make a good pick for VP.

So, no-- same old same old gender role there. Step up when called, and never forget your vagina is interchangeable with any other.

I wasn't clear. My point wasn't about the va jay jay vote, though I'm sure McClain's after the Women First-Country Second Hillaryites.

My comment was directed to the question of Palin staying at home with the kids instead of being a busy VP. A single woman can be a high powered, seldom home business woman, but we question a woman with children doing the same, even without knowing her personal circumstances.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rox, I think there IS a legitimate reason to ask this of far-right Republicans and not of Democrats: far-right Republicans are the ones trying to tell other women that they should be at home taking care of the children and not asking for something silly like rights.

Notice that I said "far-right Republicans," which is not the same as all Republicans. Some Republicans are centrists who believe that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men, and it wouldn't be fair to ask them this question. Sarah Palin was selected to appeal to the far-right wing of the Republican party, though, and it's only fair that she be held to the standards that she'd like to apply to everybody else.

I think that sexism is prevalent, sure, but I think what a lot of people are sniffing after is hypocrisy, not sexism.

Fair enough. Two points: There is certainly a fundamentalist fringe who have a doctrinal opposition to women in the workplace, but they are really an irrelevent minority. Many people both R and D are somewhat conflicted about mothers in careers that require massive time commitments, so I'm not sure it's fair rap at one particular party, or wing of a party. And the number of repubs is vanishingly small who have any doubt that it should be up to each mother to establish the balance that's best for her. That's really a red herring that there are a bunch of them, or even any, who want to "impose" limits.

Second, at this moment the balance of hypocricy is off the charts in the other direction - see the cartoon I just posted.

 

[DesertPirate]

Funniest thing I've seen in years. A bunch of Liberals trying to defend a traditional role for a woman
That is even more ridiculous than saying she is abandoning a Republican priciple
Nobody will fall for this line of hipocracy so y'all keep blasting at each other.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Funniest thing I've seen in years. A bunch of Liberals trying to defend a traditional role for a woman
That is even more ridiculous than saying she is abandoning a Republican priciple
Nobody will fall for this line of hipocracy so y'all keep blasting at each other.

Not only will no one fall for it, but there may be a big backlash building. (And you better believe I'll say "I told you so. )

 

[DesertPirate]

Not only will no one fall for it, but there may be a big backlash building. (And you better believe I'll say "I told you so. )

Well we will see in a few min. if she fires back or not.
She hasn't yet, hope she does.

 

[sweetness6280]

Funniest thing I've seen in years. A bunch of Liberals trying to defend a traditional role for a woman
That is even more ridiculous than saying she is abandoning a Republican priciple
Nobody will fall for this line of hipocracy so y'all keep blasting at each other.

DP darlin I love you to death, but if you are referring to me at all, you are wrong on both counts. I am neither a liberal democrat, nor am I trying to defend a traditional role for a woman.

I am an independent who votes the candidate as opposed to the party, because I don't feel that either party has ALL the answers. Having said that, my voting record leaned very heavily toward the Republican party in the past. In fact, I have been on the far right side of the Republican party, the very constituents at which Palin is aimed. Baseball mom (instead of hockey), PTA officer, Sunday school teacher... you get the picture.

I don't question her as a woman. I question her as a candidate, which I do for every candidate I consider as a viable option for the office to which they are running. I rely on logic and my beliefs, as I hope we all will, rather than emotion.

If you read my posts on this thread, you will find that I would question any candidate, irrespective of gender, race, religion, or party affiliation, based on their ability to juggle personal issues with their public responsibilities, in addition to their stance on the issues. This is, to me, especially important when looking for a Presidential candidate.

I will, over the next 60 plus days, question everything about each candidate, and cast my vote according to my conscience, as will all of the posters on this thread. I believe that not only our right, but our obligation.

When an issue makes one ask a tough or even unpopular question, others should not be so ready to cry hypocrisy, before knowing all the facts about why they feel as they do.

and I still love you to death!

 

[Guest]

DP darlin I love you to death, but if you are referring to me at all, you are wrong on both counts. I am neither a liberal democrat, nor am I trying to defend a traditional role for a woman.

I am an independent who votes the candidate as opposed to the party, because I don't feel that either party has ALL the answers. Having said that, my voting record leaned very heavily toward the Republican party in the past. In fact, I have been on the far right side of the Republican party, the very constituents at which Palin is aimed. Baseball mom (instead of hockey), PTA officer, Sunday school teacher... you get the picture.

I don't question her as a woman. I question her as a candidate, which I do for every candidate I consider as a viable option for the office to which they are running. I rely on logic and my beliefs, as I hope we all will, rather than emotion.

If you read my posts on this thread, you will find that I would question any candidate, irrespective of gender, race, religion, or party affiliation, based on their ability to juggle personal issues with their public responsibilities, in addition to their stance on the issues. This is, to me, especially important when looking for a Presidential candidate.

I will, over the next 60 plus days, question everything about each candidate, and cast my vote according to my conscience, as will all of the posters on this thread. I believe that not only our right, but our obligation.

When an issue makes one ask a tough or even unpopular question, others should not be so ready to cry hypocrisy, before knowing all the facts about why they feel as they do.

and I still love you to death!

Brilliant post.

Thank you.

 

[cantdog]

But didn't McCain have the Tainted Meat vote pretty much wrapped up? Was he really so afraid of losing the far right wing of his party to a black guy? It just doesn't make sense.

I think his advisors were honestly shallow enough to think that just any female candidate would do for us feminists, even a female who wants to confiscate the uteruses of other women for use by Unborn Children.

"Hey, they want a chick? We'll give them one. And she'll be prettier than Hilary, too!"

The evidence, interviews with insiders, suggests that a woman was wanted, after Rove had closed off all the heavyweights but Romney (the wearer of the Magic Underwear, whom GW Bush favored for VP). But there is zero evidence a woman was picked expressly to draw disaffected Hillaryites. That idea is just an assumption. Truly. It's not an unlikely assumption. But no insider has linked her gender with the idea of siphoning the disgruntled Clintonites out of the Democratic camp.

I can see that you believe it to be likely, and I agree, but what has actually been seen to happen is an energized Christo-fascist base.

In another thread, her family and her daughter's pregnancy were mooted. One insightful poster noted that:

in a world where inadequate sexual information is given to one's daughters, stuff along the lines of abstinence-only, teen pregnancies will happen.

therefore, those who skate on that thin ice must be rather more than less used to dealing with the consequences

and the idea is, first, pregnancy is punishment for the loose women who failed to practice saintly abstinence, and that is just

then, it's of the very first importance that the baby be carried to term, which her daughter is duly doing

also, it's important that the baby be given up to be raised by a truly adult parent, whether by adoption or otherwise, and the report is, her elder extended family is indeed going to take the responsibility for raising the child.

So, while Liberal critics on the outside of the culture see hypocrisy, those on the inside see that the best has been made of the situation. Palin has in fact covered all the salient bases.

 

[DeeZire]

Funniest thing I've seen in years. A bunch of Liberals trying to defend a traditional role for a woman
That is even more ridiculous than saying she is abandoning a Republican priciple
Nobody will fall for this line of hipocracy so y'all keep blasting at each other.

The funniest thing I've seen in years is the Rs ignoring marijuana use when it's attributed to their candidate. Remember the uproar about Clinton's marijuana use? There's more flip-flopping going on around here than at a bass fishing contest.

I anxiously await the appearance of all the quoted rants from the looney Right about the amorality of teen pregnancies, and how that amorality reflects on the parents. And the quoted rants from the looney Right about irresponsible parents who are more concerned about raising their income than raising their kids.

Not to mention the latest talking points from the Right about how the evil liberal blogs are picking on Palin unfairly, conveniently ignoring the Karl Rove tactics adopted by the Right that have turned American politics into a blood sport. Now there's some hypocrisy for ya.

 

[fieryjen]

So, while Liberal critics on the outside of the culture see hypocrisy, those on the inside see that the best has been made of the situation. Palin has in fact covered all the salient bases.

Just picking up on this for a second -

What I thought had a taste of hypocritical was the one sentence "We are very happy that she chose to have the baby", which implies that her daughter was given the very same choice her mother is trying to deny other women.

 

[DeeZire]

Just picking up on this for a second -

What I thought had a taste of hypocritical was the one sentence "We are very happy that she chose to have the baby", which implies that her daughter was given the very same choice her mother is trying to deny other women.

Good one. The kings and queens of hypocrisy don't disappoint, do they?

 

[cantdog]

Just picking up on this for a second -

What I thought had a taste of hypocritical was the one sentence "We are very happy that she chose to have the baby", which implies that her daughter was given the very same choice her mother is trying to deny other women.

Well, you know, the culture of the loony Christo-fascists is indeed compounded of the fantastical, the outlandish, the hypocritical, and the chiliastic. Of course, they are hypocrites! Yes indeed! But Palin is the genuine article. She really is one of them, and her family's handling of this pregnancy is exactly as they would like to see it. All this stuff, this pointing out of logical fallacy, that the blogosphere is doing, is not going to change any minds. It is intellectual twaddle.

Since when, for the love of good sense, I ask you, since when has any rational argument swayed these people? You may as well bay at the moon. Reason? Lord love you, girl, they don't use reason. They use faith, and they use the dicta of authority.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Funniest thing I've seen in years. A bunch of Liberals trying to defend a traditional role for a woman
That is even more ridiculous than saying she is abandoning a Republican priciple
Nobody will fall for this line of hipocracy so y'all keep blasting at each other.

You have no clue what the word "liberal" actually means, do you?