This being the ’silly season,’ my last post was sure to rile a few people up, and it did. To you I say hey - I’m sorry if you took it personally. I’m not attacking any regular readers here. As I stated, my problems are pretty much with the criminals running the Republican party, and not with most conservatives.
Election season continues, however, and McCain/Palin becomes scarier and more annoying at the same time.
I happened across an article today that makes me worry even more about John McCain. This article, entitled “How John McCain Lost Me,” is written by Elizabeth Drew. She, like I, admired McCain back in 2000:
I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans’ whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, “Citizen McCain.”
So you see…I’m not the only one.
I’m getting the distinct impression that Palin would never have been worthy of admiration. From her first campaign for mayor until now, she’s been much more along the line of Bush than old John McCain. Vindictive and vengeful, she’s known for favoring loyalty over competence (heckuva job, Brownie!), and she’s beginning to gather a reputation for being a liar.
Take the Troopergate investigation, for example, which appears headed for a deep, dark hole - at least until after the election:
Palin initially welcomed the investigation, saying “hold me accountable,” but she has increasingly opposed it since Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his vice presidential running mate.
Let’s take a guess here. She welcomed the investigation when she was merely the popular governor of an out-of-the-way state. She’d appointed the Talis Colberg to the office of attorney general, after all, and let’s just say he owes her:
In an article Sunday in the New York Times, a family friend of Colberg described a conversation with him on his move from a one-room law office in rural Alaska to one of the highest offices in the state, supervising over 500 people: “I called him and asked, ‘Do you know how to supervise people?’,” Kathy Wells told the Times. “He said, ‘No, but I think I’ll get some help.’”
Sure, you’ll get some help, Talis, and when the time comes you’ll offer it right back. So here you are, Sarah — the help you leveraged:
Colberg sent a letter to Sen. Hollis French, who’s overseeing the investigation, asserting that the state employees who have been subpoenaed to testify in the probe won’t honor those subpoenas.
Poorly qualified political appointees? Ignoring subpoenas? Obfuscation, doublespeak, innuendo, outright lying, cronyism, obstruction? How in the hell can these people be running on a message of CHANGE and REFORM?
As if we haven’t had enough of this crap from the White House. I can’t be the only one who thinks Palin (and by extension and collusion, McCain) is holding a mirror up to Bush/Cheney and all their shitty machinations with the office of US Attorney General and other cabinet posts. Right?
Tonight she had an interview with that bastion of impartiality, Sean Hannity, in which they had the following exchange:
HANNITY: Should there be an investigation in terms of the relationship between the political donations and then of course the bankruptcy that ensued and the impact on the economy?
PALIN: I think that’s significant, but even more significant is the role that the lobbyists play in an issue like this also. And in that cronyism — it’s symptomatic of the greater problem that we see right now in Washington and that is just that acceptance of the status quo.
Really, Sarah? Your ticket’s campaign manager is Rick Davis, who headed the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie, Freddie, nonprofit groups, real estate agents, homebuilders and consumer advocates. … [The group] worked to oppose congressional efforts to tighten controls on Fannie and Freddie. It’s not like you have a low-ranking pissant lobbyist laboring in some backwater office of your campaign; you have the super-über housing finance lobbyist running your campaign. He may have been sitting on the set during your interview. Perhaps he winked at you when you trotted out that little chestnut.
This is the kind of crap I’m sick of. Surely, I hope to God, I’m not the only one.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Count me in on that.
She can sit on my status quo.
I’d like to tighten control of Fannie, if you’re picking up on what I’m laying down.
I sure hope you don’t think I took it personally.
I just wanted to point out that, unfortunately and not surprisingly, all sorts of derogatory sexist statements were used when referring to Palin.
As usual I will read whatever political posts you want to put on your blog but also as usual I will refrain from commenting on them. It is fairly obvious that you won’t be voting Republican and it would be nice to see the reasons you will be voting for the candidate of your choice (other than he isn’t a republican). Just a thought.
The comments weren’t made by the Obama campaign. They were made by some of the media and some bloggers.
I won’t be voting Republican because that party put up an out-of-touch septuagenarian with a history of cancer; a man who once was worthy of some admiration but has since sold himself out to realize his ambition. That’s not “Country First” — that’s “John McCain First and Fuck the Rest of You.” And for his running mate they chose a scary Bush clone. There’s absolutely no way that woman should be inside the White House unless she’s there on a tour.
I wasn’t referring to Obama. The comments were made on your blog. We were “just kidding” doesn’t cut it. Again, the comments aren’t taken personally. I think it is just pathetic that people feel the need to “go there” when expressing their opinions.
If you’re not taking the comments personally, ‘just kidding’ should be plenty. The ’sexist comments’ were along the same lines as the ridiculous crap guys say to each other over a beer, and weren’t part of anyone expressing any opinion.
I’m perfectly capable of forming an opinion of Palin’s lack of fitness for office without considering her plumbing. The woman brought national-style contentious Republican politics to a tiny hamlet in Alaska. She’s vindictive and vengeful with anyone who has the gall to challenge her. She and the McCain campaign have expended enormous effort in stopping the Troopergate investigation from going forward; an investigation she welcomed right up until she joined McCain’s ticket. We’ve had enough of that horseshit in Washington.
She didn’t even know what the Bush Doctrine is. The cornerstone of his foreign policy, and she was clueless. How in the hell is that possible? And why would we want that person so close to the Presidency? Haven’t we had enough of idiot Presidents?
See? It doesn’t have anything to do with her sex. It has everything to do with her unfitness for office, and McCain’s terrible judgement in putting her up for consideration. Aren’t you, as a woman, insulted at the pick?
Why would I as a women be insulted by his pick? She is a person. Not a representative of my gender.
I know your opinion isn’t based on her gender. I just wish, in our society, it isn’t acceptable to make sexist comments at will.
You would be insulted (as several women I know are) because he picked Palin only to court the female vote. She doesn’t have nearly the experience of other qualified Republican women he could have chosen, but she shure is purty, and McCain’s campaign is hoping you’ll look past her lack of credentials and be all agog over her ability to field dress a friggin’ moose.
She has zero foreign relations experience in a time when that skill and experience is needed more than it has been in the last 40 years. And she’s the running mate of a 72-year old man who’s already displaying visible memory lapses. There’s a very good chance she’ll be in charge before his first term is out, and that is a terrifying thought. Yes, terrifying. I’m not overreaching. We don’t need a naive neophyte in charge considering the challenges our country is facing right now. And McCain’s campaign put her on the ticket only to sway disenfranchised Hillary voters.
How is that not insulting?
As for the sexist comments, well…that’s not going to change any time soon. And women won’t stop checking out men’s asses, either.
Again, I’d be insulted if I considered her a representative of my gender, I don’t and neither should other women. I think to assume McCain’s campaign put her on the ticket for the SOLE reason of swaying Hillary votes is probably erroneous. It suggests that women are interchangeable….which is just silly. I don’t think they are THAT stupid.
Anyway, sadly, you are probably right in stating men won’t stop making sexist comments whenever a woman is (or could) be in a position of power. If you notice women do not make sexist comments about male candidates. “Checking out a man’s ass” is not the same as immediately going to sexist comments about a female vice presidential candidate. You know that. Tear her down based upon her beliefs, agendas, political positions at will. Making sexist comments about her will, obviously, distract from your purpose and undermine what you hope to accomplish.
You’re wrong about one thing: men making sexist comments about women in power. Men make sexist comments about women in general. ;)
I think I’m missing something here. Can you point out a sexist comment made on this blog that’s directly related to Palin being McCain’s VP pick? There were the obviously joking comments (”I’d like to bang her gavel”, etc.) but I don’t recall one saying that “the skirt should stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”.
“I think to assume McCain’s campaign put her on the ticket for the SOLE reason of swaying Hillary votes is probably erroneous.”
Can you point to another serious reason for her to be there?
“I’d be insulted if I considered her a representative of my gender, I don’t and neither should other women.”
Sadly, there are entirely too many women who are seeing her in exactly that way. They don’t care which woman makes it into that position, they’re just desperate to see one there. As if a woman politician can’t be just as underhanded and two-faced as any man politician. I know plenty of women, my wife included, who generally prefers the company of men because of the cattiness, pettiness, and vindictiveness of many of the women they know. Palin has displayed those very qualities. I can’t imagine those qualities in the White House. (Well, actually I can: we’ve had them for eight years).
I have absolutely no problem with strong women being in office. Even Condoleeza Rice, though she’s a Bush loyalist, is an impressive person.
Sarah Palin is not that type of person.
Were you referring to my crude comment about her being on top for dominance?
Fine. Look, 8 years ago, there was a possibility that I would have voted for McCain, back when he actually was a “Maverick”. But not now, after sticking with Bushco, he saw how Bush won office and figured if that idiot could do it, so can he by doing the same thing, so he’s following the Bush playbook page for page. So he sold himself out for the last 8 years. I can’t respect somebody that does that, especially when he fought against torture in Guantanamo Bay. (I’m not saying terrorists deserve better treatment either.) Here is a guy that knows what torture is like first hand, fought against it initially, then gave in to fall in line with the other conservatives and Bush. (This is just one example of many that makes me not like the guy.) Then there is Sarah Palin. Sure she’s attractive, but that’s not a qualification, and neither is being a woman, and as Dave pointed out, there will be people voting for her just because she is a woman, just like people will be voting for Obama just because he’s black. You’re fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. The fact that she is a petty and vindictive person that surrounds herself with nothing but yes men is what scares and bothers me, as it should anybody. The fact that she has absolutely no foreign affairs experience scares the hell out of me at a time when it’s needed most. Stonewalling an investigation into “troopergate” … I can go on and on but you’ve read it all before. Why don’t you try and tell us why we should vote FOR McCain/Palin? I’m interested in the other side of the story
Sorry to offend, I shouldn’t bring my firehouse humor in here. I’ll just share it with Dave on the side.
Who said I was voting for McCain/Palin?
and Yes, the “on top” comment was sexist as were other comments.
Just because I have issues with sexist comments does not mean I support a Palin as a candidate. This is just something to think about when you are sharing your views in a public forum. You will detract from your purpose/message by using inflammatory words.
This is not a public forum. It’s my blog. There’s a reason all of this is here instead of ckw.
I shared my views in the original post, which contained no sexism. None of my posts have been sexist. If you’ll go back and look at the comments you’ll note that I am not the one who took off on the “sexist” comment tangent. The first “sexist” comment was made by Joe, who was just being a goofball. The fact that you’re taking offense to this (I know your husband and your friends, after all) is pretty much blowing my mind.
Also, I’m not expecting to change anyone’s position here. I’m venting, not proselytizing. If I thought I had a chance of converting anyone I’d have approached this whole thing from a completely different direction.
And when the hell did you get so sensitive about this stuff anyway?