Despite the silence from left-leaning feminists concerning the disgraceful treatment Sarah Palin is getting from the media, some female Republicans are speaking out against what they believe are "sexist attacks" from America's press.
Makes one wonder when leading female Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi will step up to the plate and defend a hard-working, successful woman despite her political leanings.
As reported by The Hill moments ago (photo courtesy BBC):
Female Republican officials and representatives of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign accused the media of taking a sexist slant in covering Sarah Palin.
"Shame on them," former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin said. "Shame on all of them."
"The Republican Party will not stand by while Sarah Palin is subjected to sexist attacks," said Carly Fiorina, the chairwoman of McCain Victory ’08. [...]Hear, hear!
Marin and Fiorina were joined by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift and others in condemning what they see as the media's decision to focus on Palin's gender instead of her qualifications.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
When?
September 3, 2008 - 15:58 ET by BlondeNever.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Sarah
September 3, 2008 - 16:02 ET by rick007What has the Dem's so upset is that Palin is the new JFK.
He was a nobody except in name. After he did loose a ship during wartime and nothing was said.
How many little ones are running arround that have his DNA
And female Republican journalists
September 3, 2008 - 16:08 ET by HillbillyKingwon't stand for it either!
Peggy Noonan's WSJ piece:
A Clear and Present Danger to the American Left
My favorite quote in the piece;
"And leave her kid alone, bitch."
Read the whole thing it's worth it.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
I heard Carly last evening
September 3, 2008 - 16:10 ET by bigtimerI heard Carly last evening I think it was and today...and Blackburn, some other women too...it has been high time...
These leftist swines are going to regret this all...all of them of both sexes...but especially the women on the left that are hate-filled and afraid, very very afraid of a real woman, with a real family and a real job that she didn't get by being a political whore or isn't hate-filled...she has problems we all have in life with family members, these are fools in the msm and elsewhere if they think this isn't going to be slammed back right at them squarely in the face.
The women in my family are furious...from my aunt who is 82 to my cousins and nieces...these hate-filled ugly inside and some on the outside critters are going to rue the day they have done this...
...and that day is not long down the road....
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Liberats...my favorite new moniker for those dolts....
September 3, 2008 - 16:32 ET by spiderdanI formerly referred to leftists as "pond scum". That may have been a bit too insulting to scummy pond water. Liberats....it fits. There is no lower form of humanity than those occupying stations of contemporary liberalism. America has not endured this level of poison, prejudice, and intolerance since the days of Salem witch hunts. One group prays for death and destruction to strike innocent Americans (hurricanes) while others concoct incredible fables of teenagers hiding babies in an attempt to embarrass the mother of that teenager. The common perception of a liberat blogger being someone, munching Doritos in his/her underwear, sequestered in Mom's basement/attic, loath to achieve, hygienically challenged, sexually inadequate, etc., fits.
Legitimate Americans dispose of these matters with facts and honest appraisal of the situation. Liberats need fairy tales and other such supernatural inanity to sustain themselves. Reality kills liberats just as sunshine kills vampires. If the liberats want debate, bring up the topic, arm yourself with facts, and watch them turn into scummy pond water. Or, watch MSNBC. Either way, you'll need medical treatment if you allow prolonged exposure to those people.
"Liberats". . . As I
September 3, 2008 - 17:13 ET by JasonC"Liberats". . .
As I watch you relentlessly embody that which you ostensibly hate, I am humbled by the reminder that even though liberalism, especially liberally-inclined libertarianism (the actual ideologies, not its practice by certain members of the modern media, the two of which you seem bent on conflating) tends to trump conservatism in most practical, rhetorical, logical, and moral contexts, nobody constructs stupid "liberal + [anything insulting that functions as a suffixed pun]" portmanteaux quite like a knee-jerk conservative.
I've seen libtard, libtron, and something about Kool-Aid here before. Not to mention Shrillary, Hitlery, Obammy, Olbermaniac, &c. "Liberat" is novel indeed. Time well spent on devising that bon mot.
On what topic of debate do you care to be out-argued?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
a-trolling we will go...
September 3, 2008 - 17:18 ET by wizardjra-trolling we will go,
hi-ho the libtard-o,
a-trolling we will go
welcome to the adult world JasonC, I'd like to debate on the merits of the microwave Instrument Landing System versus the conventional ILS; or... whether the 168gr. hollow point boat tail is truly the best round for shots from a .308 at better than 300 yards; or... which configuration is better in water landings - low wing or high wing; or... are motorcycle helmet laws truly Constitutional?
feel free to take either side of the topic, you did brag that you were prepared on any topic, right?
I don't believe that
September 3, 2008 - 17:47 ET by JasonCI don't believe that challenge was extended to you, but nonetheless...let's see, I assumed it was understood that we would debate a somewhat salient left v. right issue, and only your last suggested topic seems even remotely to fit the bill. The civil libertarian answer would be that a motorcycle helmet law infringes on personal choice, same as drug laws. However, I would disapprove of a person becoming a drain on social/monetary/public resources after sustaining massive head trauma as a result of flouting helmet regulations. What say you?
Finally, you seem a bit confused about what constitutes a troll. While you may dislike my politics and my rhetorical style, I always respond to my detractors.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture."
Ooooh....you used the word
September 3, 2008 - 17:26 ET by Blondeportmanteaux
How impressive.
Not bad for a liberal elitist.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
What can I say, it's a
September 3, 2008 - 17:57 ET by JasonCWhat can I say, it's a great word. And much more succinct than saying "that thing where you combine part of one word with part of another word to make a new, sort of epithetic word."
And Blonde, you are far too intelligent to try to claim with a straight face that spiderdan's comment wasn't
a) Outrageous
b) Hypocritical
c) Deserving of scorn
I mean, being bitter at magazines like OK! and UsWeekly is one thing. But that post was absurd.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture."
Libtard
September 3, 2008 - 17:32 ET by Sergeant ROCKFeel free to explain how great socialism is.... how we can tax ourselves into prosperity... where exactly in Constitution we can find abortion on demand... etc., etc...
Fire away, master-debater!
PALIN/McCain 2008
How on earth do you equate
September 3, 2008 - 17:53 ET by JasonCHow on earth do you equate "liberally-inclined libertarianism" with socialism? And taxation is not about prosperity per se, it's ostensibly about providing basic services and providing help to those who need a leg up. I disagree with both the (d) and the (r) models of taxation in their current incarnations. One takes it too far, the other not far enough.
I'm not one of those fools who believes abortion choice must be articulated in the constitution in order to be regarded as a modern right/necessity. Nor do I feel it necessary to answer the absurdly unanswerable metaphysical question "When does life begin." I am pro-choice because I believe it is right, not because I'm overly concerned with what age of gestation a fetus develops fingernails or whatever. I do not feel compelled to water down that belief in the service of a conservative-friendly ethical appeal.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture."
JasonC...
September 3, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Clear thinker"absurdly unanswerable metaphysical question"
So you admit to having a very black heart?
Sarah Palins Bodyguard
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I have my convictions as to
September 3, 2008 - 18:19 ET by JasonCI have my convictions as to when abortion should, temporally, no longer be an option. My point is that I will not get into the debate about whether a 5-week fetus is more or less of a life than a 5-month one. I don't see it as pertinent. Obviously, an abortion ends an organic life. But I don't believe that a fetus can experience or recognize that ending as inherently 'good' or 'bad'. And I believe that our culture has made abortion necessary. I would, of course, prefer that nobody ever get an abortion, that it never even be necessary - I'm not a Planned Parenthood lobbyist - but I recognize it as personal choice and I would be reluctant to vote for someone who would restrict it. If you would like to characterize me, and millions of other Americans, as black-hearted for this, that;s your right.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture."
Liberalism is liberalism
September 3, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat's a cute term there son. But, when you put lipstick on a pig, what a do have?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say government must provide for the 'basic needs' of the people. Not anywhere close to how you would have it defined. We've had 40+ years of government services to provide a 'leg up'. I suppose you're inclined to insist on more?
Nice dodge and parry. So, let me answer the question for you - abortion is not in the Constitution. Nothing metaphysical about it.
Same ol' liberalism.. take from the haves and give it to the have-nots.
PALIN/McCain 2008
True, abortion is no more
September 3, 2008 - 18:25 ET by JasonCTrue, abortion is no more present in the constitution than assault rifles or the FCC are.
I didn't say anything about providing basic needs for a populace. I'm referring to New Dealish type things like government works projects, short-term welfare, &c. As I said, I believe that Democrats, currently, are taking it too far. While I believe in many aspects of laissez-faire capitalism as far as allowing businesses to operate as they see fit, I have no problem with reasonable government programs and a non-flat tax code.
How did we get to this, anyway? Ideological differences aside, do you think spiderdan's original post, to which I originally responded, is out of line?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture."
Socialism is socialism
September 3, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Sergeant ROCKStraight out of a liberal talking points memo. The fact remains that: abortion is not in the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is. Nice try.
New Deal? Short-term welfare?? First, New Deal is socialism. Hence, liberalism = socialism on many levels. Second, many states are already doing this, for years in fact.
Liberals always use that term, reasonable. Like reasonable gun-control. Which means, any means necessary to disarm the law-abiding.
As far as I could tell, you took offense at the terms he was using with regard to liberals/democRATS. That reminds me of the ol' saying that "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that hollers is the that got hit." So, I gleened from that and your statement about debating that not only are you a liberal, but are ready and willing to defend liberals.
PALIN/McCain 2008
First, I am not anti-2nd
September 3, 2008 - 20:42 ET by JasonCFirst, I am not anti-2nd amendment, but was merely making the point that the Consitution is not and cannot be the end-all be-all of our ideology and political opinion. It'd be nice, but it doesn't work. If that's all you have to go on, rather than a cogent argument for the legitimacy of keeping and bearing arms, then it's just empty entitlement. To be fair, assault rifles weren't around in the days of the founding fathers, so to say that "They never would have envisioned the 2nd amendment applying to a fully-automatic gun" is roughly on par with social conservatives who want to censor certain things because "Surely the founding fathers wouldn't have envisioned [insert offensive media artifact here] when they wrote the 1st amendment!" Which is why I fatuously mentioned the FCC.
Also, I notice that you, like 99.5% of conservatives who bring it up, neglected to include that pesky dependent clause that precedes the so oft-quoted portion of the 2nd amendment...
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
Liberalism is liberalism
September 3, 2008 - 21:00 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's not an entitlement, doofuss - but a RIGHT. Entitlement, another word that exposes your true nature. The simple fact is that a 'fully-automatic' weapon has required a Class III licensed for several decades now. So, you are evidently ignorant of the facts on this point - like anti-gun liberals. It's quite clear that the Second Amendment was meant to defend against tyranny - foreign and domestic. Not for duck hunting or shooting tin cans like your liberal friends would have you believe.
Again, you demonstrate the fact that you are indeed a liberal by inferring that conservatives would censor opposing viewpoint when it is your liberal buddies that are attempting this with their 'Fairness Doctrine'.
Your ignorance on these two issues alone shows you to be a fraud. So save your sanctimonious claptrap.
PALIN/McCain 2008
You've rather
September 4, 2008 - 07:45 ET by JasonCYou've rather ostentatiously missed my point. I am not, unlike you, defining my terms strictly within a media-friendly Liberal vs. Conservative binary. I'm trying to argue that simply because something is not spelled out in the constitution in black and white does not mean that it doesn't become a necessity or cannot be defended in other terms. Obviously one will not find abortion in the constitution, nor do I delude myself for a moment that the founding fathers had it in mind or wrote anything that could be firmly used to defend it. My point was that if one goes only by the exact, literal words in that document, it enables a sense of entitlement, for both (D) and (R), to pick and choose what laws they support according to strict ideology.
So, my point stands. It would be quite easy to say that the 2nd amendment only pertains to muskets and organized militias and that the 1st amendment is only valid if the FCC approves. I'm making a facetious, rhetorical point here, not arguing for the restriction of guns. I have no interest in that style of politics.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
I've read Sheer Insanity,
September 3, 2008 - 18:41 ET by mastersofdeceitI've read Sheer Insanity, Silly Savage here quite a few times. A knee-jerk reaction by a (fill in blank)
Just sayin'
Pick one...
September 3, 2008 - 20:45 ET by spiderdanThere's not a topic or pressing issue on this planet -- elevated by a liberat -- that can't be easily debunked, destroyed, and devalued in a blink of an eye. I may not mince words -- I actually enjoy employing a very harsh and disdaining tone when describing occupants of that hellish place known as the "left wing" -- but you may rest assured my life experiences and service to this nation have armed me with an abundance of facts and opinions that leave every liberat quivering, shaken, and defeated.
Another important aspect of my contributions here, Jason, that you left wing types cannot comprehend: context. Make sure you understand the context of my comments and to what topic they are assigned. If you do, you'll discover getting pounded by legitimate Americans isn't so bad, after all.
Pick a topic or debating point, Jason. Do choose carefully. Your self-esteem is in great peril.
You're
September 4, 2008 - 07:52 ET by JasonCYou're hilarious.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what issues you care about, since your original post was merely a very vague screed against liberalism in general. So, to what context could you possibly be referring? Was the perceived sexism/hypocrisy toward Palin really what pushed you over the edge to post that absurd diatribe? Because that's the context (or NB story) under which you chose to write it, after all.
So, I don't know: gay rights/marriage, abortion, the current election, the war, teaching intelligent design, Republican exploitation of 9/11, Republican monopolization of the concept of Patriotism, the hypocrisy of conservative pundits in $5,000 suits who act like victims of a liberal media conspiracy. Anything but AGW. I don't know what you're interested in. I just want to prove that I won't turn into pond scum, whatever that means.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
I am so outraged
September 3, 2008 - 17:11 ET by wizardjrAnd I am so ashamed of my country. The evil puss and bile is bubbling up from the foundations of the country. An entire half of the country is participating or condoning this outrageous ad homonim attack on the Governor for the simple reason that she is better than they are in most ways. She is a shining example of the extraordinary Ordinary American. Their terror brings out a rabies like vicious attack on a woman who has harmed no one.
I cannot tell you how disgusted I am.
RKF Kids
September 3, 2008 - 17:36 ET by MSD6How many kids did Robert F. Kennedy have when he ran for President? Eight, with one on the way! Somehow I don't remember the press saying he should stay home with the kids.
Oh, but he was a man and apparently the liberal media thinks fathers don't count when raising kids. How sexist to women and to fathers!