Sarah Palin

[Roxanne Appleby]

Wow.

That's especially snarky coming from you, Rox. Especially the second time.

But don't you worry. Palin's stance on abortion is just one of many issues that concern a great many U. S. voters.

Maybe too snarky, but the original point was so on-target I'll go for three - Palin's accomplishments are awesome, and especially impressive for someone who didn't have many of the same advantages as the doyens of the liberal elites. If she had different opinions on social issues the lefties here would be falling all over themselves to lionize her. The double standard and rigid ideological litmus test are stunning. To quote Paglia again, "Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes."

As for "Palin's stance on abortion is just one of many issues that concern a great many U. S. voters": Yeah - about 40 percent of voters. Half of whom are passionate on one side of it and half are passionate on the other. As for the other 60 percent, they don't really care all that much. In technical terms, it's not a salient issue. If you ask them how serious they think it would be if abortion was illegal in a third of the states, unrestricted in a third and in between in a third their answer would be, "Not very serious."

That would be their answer regardless of which of those options they would prefer in their state. You'd get the same answer most of these other silly social issues that generate so much heat and so little light - people have opinions, but don't get excited one way or another. They roll their eyes at the 20 percent on either side who do get so excited.

Stipulate for the moment that I'm correct about the low salience of these issues to most voters and ask yourself this: What must they then think of the left, especially so-called "feminists," when they see them dismissing this woman's stunningly impressive accomplishments because she fails a litmus test based solely on those issues?

 

[Guest]

Did you actually just say - "liberal elites?"

Shame on you.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's difficult for a woman to understand how vicious berating and insults can psychologically emasculate a man. But to a man who seeks respect and gets nothing but cruel belittling and public humiliation, it can have that effect. Especially at a young age. It's not about frail male egoes- it's about respect and dignity. And the loss thereof.

And much of it depends on how close one is to the woman in question. Though your girlfriend's mom shouldn't be one in which you place your hopes. If she is, 90% of the time, you're in for a disappointment.

 

[Edward Teach]

Maybe too snarky, but the original point was so on-target I'll go for three - Palin's accomplishments are awesome, and especially impressive for someone who didn't have many of the same advantages as the doyens of the liberal elites. If she had different opinions on social issues the lefties here would be falling all over themselves to lionize her. The double standard and rigid ideological litmus test are stunning. To quote Paglia again, "Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes."

As for "Palin's stance on abortion is just one of many issues that concern a great many U. S. voters": Yeah - about 40 percent of voters. Half of whom are passionate on one side of it and half are passionate on the other. As for the other 60 percent, they don't really care all that much. In technical terms, it's not a salient issue. If you ask them how serious they think it would be if abortion was illegal in a third of the states, unrestricted in a third and in between in a third their answer would be, "Not very serious."

That would be their answer regardless of which of those options they would prefer in their state. You'd get the same answer most of these other silly social issues that generate so much heat and so little light - people have opinions, but don't get excited one way or another. They roll their eyes at the 20 percent on either side who do get so excited.

Stipulate for the moment that I'm correct about the low salience of these issues to most voters and ask yourself this: What must they then think of the left, especially so-called "feminists," when they see them dismissing this woman's stunningly impressive accomplishments because she fails a litmus test based solely on those issues?

Rox, do you really support Palin?

 

[Corylea]

It's difficult for a woman to understand how vicious berating and insults can psychologically emasculate a man. But to a man who seeks respect and gets nothing but cruel belittling and public humiliation, it can have that effect. Especially at a young age.

Vicious berating and insults are bad for EVERYone; it has nothing to do with gender. Vicious berating and insults are child abuse when parents do it, spousal abuse when spouses do it, and plain ole emotional abuse when anybody does it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Rox, do you really support Palin?

Gods, I hope not. I would like to think that no one here would be naive enough to trust her.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Vicious berating and insults are bad for EVERYone; it has nothing to do with gender. Vicious berating and insults are child abuse when parents do it, spousal abuse when spouses do it, and plain ole emotional abuse when anybody does it.

Well said, but my point is that it has a different effect on each sex. To a man, dignity and respect are crucial. Any sign of weakness, and it's over. To a teenage boy, it doesn't take much for him to feel emasculated under the primal laws of nature, since a young man is less secure than a grown one.

I'm sure that there are negative effects on women similarly dissed, especially younger women. But I can only relate to men, just as you can only relate to women. I can imagine the pain and humiliation that women can feel, but it's only imagination provoking empathy. I can't actually experience it. And neither can a girl experience what it is like for a boy.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Oh, Doc, I didn't expect YOU to talk about castrating females. Geeze, Louise. A man's masculinity is a part of him and has nothing to do with what a woman does or doesn't do. If a man feels "castrated," it's his feelings of insecurity coming to the surface, nothing more. Should women behave in such a way that the men around them never have to face their insecurities?

Should birds stop flying because it makes humans sad that we can't?

Let's remember that even though they're officially candidates for President and Vice President of the USA, semiotically they're Sugar Daddy and his Piece of Young Stuff. Those are the archetypes they fill. If she keeps on making demands on McCain and deferring to him in ways that he can't fulfill, she's going to create the image of a man who can't satisfy his woman's desires, which for someone like McCain, who on more than one occasion has referred to his wife as "the cunt", is public humiliation, i.e. castration.

Why do you think he looks so uneasy in public with her of late? McCain is of the older generation that doesn't defer to women. He can't adopt that laid back, post-feminist shuffle of the First Dude, Todd Palin. McCain has to be Alpha dog but he's starting to look like Palin's bitch and he damned well knows it.

 

[Edward Teach]

Let's remember that even though they're officially candidates for President and Vice President of the USA, semiotically they're Sugar Daddy and his Piece of Young Stuff. Those are the archetypes they fill. If she keeps on making demands on McCain and deferring to him in ways that he can't fulfill, she's going to create the image of a man who can't satisfy his woman's desires, which for someone like McCain, who on more than one occasion has referred to his wife as "the cunt", is public humiliation, i.e. castration.

Why do you think he looks so uneasy in public with her of late? McCain is of the older generation that doesn't defer to women. He can't adopt that laid back, post-feminist shuffle of the First Dude, Todd Palin. McCain has to be Alpha dog but he's starting to look like Palin's bitch and he damned well knows it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rox, do you really support Palin?

Here's some of the main things I've said on this, ET:

The social issues that get 20 percent on the far right excited, and 20 percent on the far left excited, do not excite the 60 percent in between. In the parlance of political scientists, they are "low salience" issues.

. . . My conclusion is that the thing that makes her popular with the broad middle is . . . her not being part of the self-serving, inbred political establishment that people hate and believe is taking them for a ride.

My further conclusion is that this has the hard left discombobulated, because they don't get the "low salience" thing, and so can't understand why lots of people in the middle who may agree with them on abortion, ID in schools and gay marriage nevertheless are favorably disposed toward a political figure on the other side of those issues. It's because they agree with her on issues that have higher salience with them. They care more about property taxes than abortion, and sticking it to the political class more than gay marriage.

She's anti-abortion - big deal. So are lots of people, and all its about is whether abortion will be banned in some states while remaining legal in most. That's as far a the thing will ever go. On the goofy creationism thing, she said she would not prohibit a school from teaching "intelligent design" as well as real science. Again, big deal. The library books thing is made up.

Palin has based her political identity on being an opponent of the inbred political establishment, not that social conservative stuff. THAT is the really important issue, and it's why she's a hit with so much of the public, including many regular people who don't agree with her about those issues. They realize those issues are overblown by the hard core righties and lefties, and they rightfully just don't care very much about them. But they do care about the inbred political establishment thing.

The real problem our country faces today is two-fold: First, an inbred, self-serving poltical class is has escaped the people's control and is manipulating the government to perpetuate their control of it. An aside: The perception that Palin is an opponent of that class is the true source of her appeal, and almost certainly the reason McCain picked her - social conservatives are a dime a dozen, and if that's all he wanted he could have picked Hucksterbee.

Second, government's size and scope has become so massive and its actions so intrusive into so many areas that its inevitable dysfunctions are truly weakening the country. We'd really be screwed if most of the other countries in the world didn't have just as serious a case of this disease - if that ever changes we really will be trouble.

On that last post, I believe that Palin's on the right side of those two big issues. As an atheist libertarian naturally I think she's on the wrong side of all those social issues. And all these posts suggest what I think is important vs what is not.

 

[Edward Teach]

Here's some of the main things I've said on this, ET:

You're incorrigible.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

With all due respect to Rox, and I do respect her, I wonder why a Libertarian would spend so much time defending Republicans. Why not just vote for a Libertarian and verbally support them?

 

[Guest]

With all due respect to Rox, and I do respect her, I wonder why a Libertarian would spend so much time defending Republicans. Why not just vote for a Libertarian and verbally support them?

With all due respect to Rox, I don't believe the Libertarian claim.

Cantdog is Libertarian.

The two of them are so far apart on most issues it boggles the mind.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

With all due respect to Rox, and I do respect her, I wonder why a Libertarian would spend so much time defending Republicans. Why not just vote for a Libertarian and verbally support them?

Voting for a Libertarian, even if there is one on heer ballot, is just throwing away her vote. The Libertarian is not going to win, so the next best thing to do is to campaign and vote against the candidate who is perceived to be in favor of big government.

 

[sr71plt]

With all due respect to Rox, and I do respect her, I wonder why a Libertarian would spend so much time defending Republicans. Why not just vote for a Libertarian and verbally support them?

From my observation, she just likes to argue--and show off that she can google for article texts on almost any arcane subject.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Voting for a Libertarian, even if there is one on heer ballot, is just throwing away her vote. The Libertarian is not going to win, so the next best thing to do is to campaign and vote against the candidate who is perceived to be in favor of big government.

No offense. I really like and respect you, but I don't see how you can believe that the GOP is for smaller government these days. This isn't the GOP of Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America. The Bush Administration has expanded the size of the Federal Government, and now McCain wants to create a new Federal bureaucracy. That's not the party of smaller government and fiscal restraint.

 

[DeeZire]

No offense. I really like and respect you, but I don't see how you can believe that the GOP is for smaller government these days. This isn't the GOP of Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America. The Bush Administration has expanded the size of the Federal Government, and now McCain wants to create a new Federal bureaucracy. That's not the party of smaller government and fiscal restraint.

Yes and no. The Bush deficits are part of the 'starve the beast' tactic - run the deficit up so high, congress will be forced to cut government programs to get spending back under control.

The problem most of the red state voters ignore is the wealth redistribution going on in the process - the money is shifting to the top, leaving less for the working class, or middle class, or whatever you want to call it. The fact that the rich elite write all the legislation these days is lost on these voters, who see Palin as 'one of them' even though her policies will flush their prosperity and security right down the toilet

The good thing about that is, like the 'starve the beast' tactic, the 'screw the workers' tactic will also find a tipping point. When that tipping point occurs, Republicans would be wise to move to their offshore financial havens where they would be safe from the wrath of those who've been getting screwed by them over the last 8 years.

I'm really surprised Obama didn't chide McCain about running back to the senate to fix the financial meltdown, telling him: "John, I don't think you understand; it's too late. You can't go back to Washington and 'unvote' your support for the deregulation that caused this mess."

I swear, the dems need a better PR person. Or perhaps the so-called 'liberal press' needs to do a better job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

She's said to have foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia. She's an energy expert because Alaska has so much oil.

It's no wonder they love her up there. She sends out the oil money largesse back to the citizens. They've been doing that in Alaska for years. She's never had to deal with a deficit in her life.

Do you want her deciding what to do about Iran? Is she going to bring Hamas and Israel together? Is this the visionary foreign policy we need to repair what was done over the past 8 years? You want a Creationist deciding science policy for the US? Energy policy?

Biden is going to smear her on bread and eat her up in the VP debate. There's no way she can be made ready for national service in a month. What the hell were they thinking? She's cute, but not that cute.

I fear that the debate between these two will become a gaffe-o-lympic event boiling down to who shoots themselves in the foot least often.

 

[colddiesel]

Gandhi? Bandaranaike? Bhutto? Why is it that the women leaders that feminists seem to admire are always nepotistic tyrants? There is a reason that all 3 were voted out of office- because they abused their powers to cover their asses.

Don't forget, in Gandhi's case, she resorted to illegal tactics because she was convicted of campaign violations related to the 1971 election in her own district. .

No I won't forget that and I won't forget either that Nehru her father used his influence to prevent Indira Gandhi standing for Parliament at all in his lifetime because he was anti nepotism- check the record if you like. She seized her chance when Shastri died.

You are quite right Ganhdi was nailed for poll violations in 1971 but you also neglected to say she was good enough to come back and win the 1980 election.

None of these three women was admirable and I haven't suggested they were. BUT they were smart tough and electable.

If their careers were assisted by their connections so are the careers of successful male politicians.

It seems to me Sev' that reading recent postings on this thread that it isn't just John McCain (note the Doc's comment) who cannot come to terms with powerful women. I suspect that many, perhaps a majority of American men cannot come to terms with the thought of a woman, any woman in a position of power because basically American men are afraid of their women and cannot assess them without the pre requisite of denigration.

What do the women on this board think??

 

[Liar]

With all due respect to Rox, I don't believe the Libertarian claim.

Cantdog is Libertarian.

The two of them are so far apart on most issues it boggles the mind.

Libertarian is a very broad term. It's, basically a prescriptive philosophy of power - as little of it as possible in the hands of the governing and as much of it as possible in the hands of the governed. And as such it's a philosophy that can manifest itself extremely differently.

 

[Guest]

Libertarian is a very broad term. It's, basically a prescriptive philosophy of power - as little of it as possible in the hands of the governing and as much of it as possible in the hands of the governed. And as such it's a philosophy that can manifest itself extremely differently.

That does make sense.

In addition to Rox and cant, there are quite a few AH folk who've given themselves that label. Widely different AH folk.

 

[neonlyte]

Libertarian is a very broad term. It's, basically a prescriptive philosophy of power - as little of it as possible in the hands of the governing and as much of it as possible in the hands of the governed. And as such it's a philosophy that can manifest itself extremely differently.

Libertarian Pugilist at one end and Libertarian Rastafarian at the other. I thought I was an 'L' till I took the test yesterday - I turned out to be some nancy neo-Hippy

 

[Corylea]

It seems to me Sev' that reading recent postings on this thread that it isn't just John McCain (note the Doc's comment) who cannot come to terms with powerful women. I suspect that many, perhaps a majority of American men cannot come to terms with the thought of a woman, any woman in a position of power because basically American men are afraid of their women and cannot assess them without the pre requisite of denigration.

What do the women on this board think??

I think that the very existence of the word "emasculate" -- and its use by a respected member of this forum -- means that you're right. If another man is stronger or higher in the hierarchy than they are, men don't like it, but they put up with it, because that's life. If a woman is stronger or higher in the hierarchy, somehow they think this makes them less than men.

*rolls eyes* It's that thing between your legs that makes you a man. That's all. Everything else is social construction.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

With all due respect to Rox, I don't believe the Libertarian claim.

Cantdog is Libertarian.

The two of them are so far apart on most issues it boggles the mind.

No, I would characterize Cantdog as a leftist and a civil libertarian, but I won't declare that he is that, since it's extremely rude if not uncivil to declare what someone is or is not in discussions of this sort.

Libertarians beleive the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom. There are two flavors: Anarchists and limited government libertarians all seek to guide to be informed by reason in the views of governement and human action and tend to believe in the "classical" view of human nature, that man is not bascically good or all evil but is a mixed bag. For limited government types like myself, those things means that we don't automatically reject any and all government measures related to defence and security. Civil libertarians tend to hold the Rousseauian view of human nature, which says that man is basically good.

Limited government libertarians accept that part of the Constitution which says one purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. We also accept (by definition) the parts that limit goverment power. One will note that there can be a contradiction between those two provisions, which means balance and reason are needed. Limited government libertarians are inclined to follow the lead of civil libertarians on relevent issues, but believe that their Rousseauan view of human nature skews their perception of reality, and also mistrust their ability and willingness to apply balance and reason to particular questions.

Libertarians oppose the welfare state and the regulatory state ("big government"); civil libertarians in the present era tend to support it and even want to expand it.

~~~~

Incidentally, "fascists" of the variety that JBJ claims to be, and perhaps authoritarians in general, believe in the Macchiavellian/Hobbesian view of human nature - man is basically evil.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CORYLEA

Powerful women bother men a whole lot less than women imagine. For starters, most men dont take women seriously. To us a powerful woman is like a unicorn or mule....a curiosity more than a real creation of Nature.

Women can be excitable and dangerous, but their power isnt congruent in the way a sword thrust is congruent. Their power is more like a log caught in a strong current...undisciplined inertia. When a real guy see's it coming, he gets out of its way, but he's not in awe of it.

Guys just arent in awe of women.