|
|
|
September 04, 2008
How to attack her
I hate to say this (and maybe I shouldn't be writing this post), but I think the best way to attack Sarah Palin is to make her out to be a far-right ideologue. If I am correct, that might mean that Gloria Steinem (ugh!) has done a better job of attacking Palin than anyone else: 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.True or not, that's a much savvier line of attack than ridiculing her hair and her shoes (or belaboring away at the "inexperienced" meme).. But is it true? I don't know, and as a small l libertarian who believes in the possibility of an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives, I want to go there right now. But if I did, I'd have to ask, if she's such a crazed right-wing extremist, why is she so popular with the voters of Alaska, where a substantial majority believe in abortion rights? So, my question right now is this: will Barack Obama's abortion ad campaign work? Time will tell. MORE: Noting the problems Democrats will have attacking Palin (who she calls "polityically brilliant" and "a hard act for McCain to follow," Megan McArdle quotes Clive Crook, who reached a similar conclusion to mine: ..the Democrats have a problem. They had a few days of calling her a clueless redneck, a stewardess, a nonentity, and she has hurled that back in their bleeding gums. (If I were Joe Biden, I'd start practising for October 2nd right now.) Even before tonight's speech, they had backed off the "no experience" strategy, because (as the Republicans intended) that was sending shrapnel in Obama's direction. Their line right now is their default mode, that McCain-Palin is four more years of George Bush. But this too is a completely untenable strategy, since the Republican ticket now looks stunningly fresh to voters, as fresh in fact as Obama-Biden. Where they will have to end up is obvious: McCain-Palin is an extreme right-wing ticket. It is a team that will prosecute the culture war against all that is decent and civilized in the United States: that must be the line. Via Glenn Reynolds, who also links Phyllis Chesler's post about the dillema posed by the abortion issue vis-a-vis the terrorist issue, and says this: I'd worry about that, except that we're certain to have a two-house Democratic majority anyway, insuring that the legislative stasis on this subject that has prevailed for decades will continue.I have to agree with Glenn. I'd also note that a constitutional amendment (crudely characterized by Obama as "John McCain will make abortion illegal") is a political impossibility. Still, the left has no choice but to spin Sarah Palin as being as far to the right as possible. I think she's too smart to cooperate. posted by Eric on 09.04.08 at 12:29 PM
Comments
Gloria Steinem is a loon, but I think political attacks are more likely to resonate (if they are correct). I have to say, I'm also a Life Member of the NRA and I agree with Palin on Global Warming, and partial birth abortion. Most of the stuff over which we part company are beyond the jurisdiction of the executive office anyway. But making her look like a far right wing ideologue should be the goal of the left right now. The personal attacks only help her. Steinem's attack should have been written by someone like Madeleine Albright. Or Dianne Feinstein. Eric Scheie · September 4, 2008 01:03 PM I think the alliance is natural as well. As another small-l libertarian, I absolutely agree that the way to change attitudes about abortion is not to throw people in jail. My optimal solution is throw out Roe v Wade and send it to the states. On the other hand, as fevered defender of life, liberty and property, I understand how strong the emotions and conviction must be for someone who believes that all abortion is murder, and I don't belittle it. I disagree right now, but I think one or the other of us could eventually be swayed, and we should be in the same tent while we argue it. Phelps · September 4, 2008 01:26 PM Of course, even if Roe v Wade were overturned, that would ultimately throw it back to the legislature, so there isn't a whole lot a governor, or president, for that matter, would be able to do no matter how pro-life he/she was, other than to veto bills (and vetos can be overridden). Maybe that's why Alaskans weren't so distraught over her being pro-life, if your characterization of them and her are correct... Tom · September 4, 2008 01:52 PM "she opposes stem cell research" She probably opposes embryonic stem cell research. Not all stem cell research. dre · September 4, 2008 02:03 PM In my old age I find comfort in imagining that Gloria is miserable, in her old age, about the nomination of Ms. Palin. Like everyone else Palin has some negatives. But not everyone has such a fine list of positives. The left, the Democrats, and the media will use any lie or distortion to discredit her. The trick for Palin is to not lie and to not be drawn into mean behavior. There is no guaranteed defense from political smears. But she can choose among better or worse responses. K · September 4, 2008 02:50 PM As a practical matter, as pointed out above, whatever Palin's views on abortion are they are unlikely to have much effect. Prochoice/prolife is a proxy for cultural issues. Not that people do not care deeply about the issue itself, but it is used as a shorthand for whether one is "our sort of people" or not. As pointed out, the creationism issue is a red herring, and Steinem misrepresents the stem cell issue. I don't prefer abstinence only curricula, but neither type of sex ed does much good and Steinem misrepresents the efficacy. I would love to debate what's wrong with Alaska's educational system with Ms. Steinem, but it's not easy to summarize. Suffice it to say that it is not an honest criticism, just a convenient one. On the environmental issues, I agree with Palin. That pretty much leaves the abortion issue, all decorated with helium balloons to distract us and make the evil look bigger. That is the sacramental issue for Steinem, the issue that says "you are either a mommy-person or a modern woman." Most women don't see that as an either-or choice. Steinem and many old-style feminists do. It is not merely an issue one might disagree about. It is identity. Not to say that these other things aren't clever campaigning. But they are just for show. Assistant Village Idiot · September 4, 2008 03:56 PM Last night I got a couple of chain e-mails about "Sarah Palin will force us all to get pregnant and have babies!" that looked a lot like the chain e-mails I got in 2000 and 2004 about George Bush. I'm pretty depressed that women who consider themselves so smart and educated--too smart to be mothers!--are so ignorant about how the world actually works. Heather · September 5, 2008 10:24 AM "she opposes stem cell research" Hopefully she opposes throwing taxpayer money at any type of speculative medical research. Anonymous · September 5, 2008 12:51 PM Yep. I'm against throwing taxpayer money on speculative research. Taxpayers should only research things that are totally understood. That way the money will not be wasted. M. Simon · September 5, 2008 03:27 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Corruption Eruption
• Some Are Jotting Down Notes • Don't say I didn't warn them! • Inside His Melon • Looking for signs of strength? • Libertarians, conservatives, and open-minded liberals only! (All others stop reading now!) • Sarah Palin In Carson City, Nev. • On The Verge • A New Front Opens In The Culture Wars • They can't help it
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The creationism thing has already been exposed as a lie (or at least a very wild exaggeration).
I hope she disbelieves global warming - most of the people I know don't believe that crap.
As for the rest, Gloria as always, assumes she speaks for half the population even though most women despise her radicalism.
Please Gloria, campaign for Obama.