The hate on Palin from the left is plain to see. And it should come as no surprise, either. Palin is a woman, and she is supporting the "wrong" party for herself, as the left would see it. So, the hate is expected.

The deep irony and hypocrisy comes in the form of one of their initial attacks: that Palin is an irresponsible mother. The rationale is that it's irresponsible to have a child at her age, while others have noted that it is irresponsible for her to take the VP position after having had a child.

I'll deal with the latter point first. The Democrats are the party of the women's liberation movement. So it is amazing to hear them complain that a woman should not take a prestigious position on account of her family. After all, wasn't it the women's-lib movement that initially told us that a woman could be a professional and a mother at the same time? And yet, we have a situation that would perfectly prove that case, and suddenly a Republican mother can't do it. One might argue that this special needs child is a different case, though. Hardly. To take that argument, you must assert that a mother would have to put her "mothering" into over-drive for a special-needs child, meaning she is either slacking off normally as a mother for non-special-needs children or that she must "go the extra mile" for a special-needs child. For the former, it is a notion that is hard to defend in the first place. For the latter, isn't being a mother all about "going the extra mile" for your children? To assert that a woman can't be a professional and a mother to a child that needs her motherhood most is, even in this case, an affront to what the women's liberation movement stood for and has always claimed.

As for being irresponsible for even having a child at her age, even that is laughable. Let's look at the situation: Palin is anti-murderabortion and anti-birth-control. Thus, we must assume that she has considered birth-control and still decided against it. Obviously, she also did not have an abortion. Basically, Palin stuck by here convictions, even when it would be difficult for her to personally do so. And that, we are told, is irresponsibility? Or, we should ask her to stop having sex, since she is such an old woman, right? After all, she has no right to use her body for personal enjoyment with her spouse, correct? Hypocritical, since we are told that a younger woman should not be told to stop having sex, right?

Or, is it that she decided to have the child, despite the fact that it would be disabled, that is irresponsible? Once again, sticking by your convictions is irresponsible? Loving a child and promising to take care of it, knowing that it will not be easy, is irresponsible? She should, instead, abdicate the responsibilities arising from the biological consequences of her actions, right? Certainly avoiding responsibility for one's actions shows responsibility after all, correct? She should sell-out her principles and murder a child because it would be more difficult than normal, right? That would show true responsibility, right?

No, the left hates her in this instance because she holds different values from them. She is against abortion, and she is against birth-control. And differing in views is ok, or so we are told. Yet, in this instance, she is irresponsible because she did not have an abortion, or she did not use birth-control, or she did not stop having sex or alter her sexual habits, those being the only way to prevent such a pregnancy from culminating in the birth of a child, obviously. How ironic, then, is it for the party of "choice" for a woman to dictate that in order to be "responsible," a woman must forgo her right to choose an abortion or not? Or how ironic, then, is it for the part of "choice" for a woman to dictate that in order to be "responsible," a woman must forgo her right to choose birth-control or not? Or how ironic, then, is it for the part of "choice" for a woman to dictate that in order to be "responsible," a woman must forgo her right to choose whether or not to have sex or what her sexual habits would be? In this situation, the part of choice demands that a woman have no choice in order to be responsible. The very thing they say is wrong and immoral when it comes from the mouths of the party of life.

Hypocrisy. At. Its. Best.

9/5/2008 12:51:37 PM

I, for one, actually dislike Palin for her politics and don't give a shit about her kids' issues.

From what I understand she is:
pro-creationism in schools.
pro-abstinence only sex ed in schools.
the book banning issue is a big concern.
she is pro-life.

I also don't really care about her lack of experience, that doesn't bother me at all.

I also think she was a bad choice because she is very far right on almost every issue, and while that may bring in some of the far right republicans, I think it will also enrage even the moderate democrats.

I would have been happier to see McCain pick a woman (or anyone) who was closer to the middle of the aisle.


[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 12:56:27 PM

you do realize the "book-banning" issue is bullshit, right? Even NPR reported yesterday that she never tried to "ban" any books. She discussed the matter with the librarian, given that her constituents brought the matter to her, but she never demanded any books be removed from the library...

She has never tried to institute the teaching of creationism in schools, again as reported by NPR. And let's not get into the actual issue of that, anyway. How dare anyone question the religion of science, right?

keep the liberal spin machine rolling though, right?

9/5/2008 1:01:43 PM

Quote :

"The deep irony and hypocrisy comes in the form of one of their initial attacks: that Palin is an irresponsible mother."

you wrote a fucking essay.... all on a false premise. I really don't see that one of the main attacks on her is that she's an irresponsible mother .

9/5/2008 1:02:03 PM

Quote :

"She has never tried to institute the teaching of creationism in schools"

it's enough that her personal view is that is should be taught, not that she's actually tried to implement it

9/5/2008 1:03:02 PM

trust me. it is NOT a false premise. That view has been parroted by many, including by many on this very message-board.

Ahhh. So she can't even have a differing belief and value, yet not act on it in the public circle? I believe that creationism should be taught in public schools. But, I also accept that there is a separation of church and state, so I would never push for such a thing. Does that make me a terrible person?

9/5/2008 1:03:50 PM

Quote :

"you do realize the "book-banning" issue is bullshit, right? Even NPR reported yesterday that she never tried to "ban" any books. She discussed the matter with the librarian, given that her constituents brought the matter to her, but she never demanded any books be removed from the library..."

The fact that she asked about it is bad.

9/5/2008 1:04:15 PM

far, far too many words.

9/5/2008 1:04:45 PM

tl;dr

9/5/2008 1:06:39 PM

^^^ the fact that she took an issue from her constituents is bad? We have no other reports on what was actually said, yet it is a horrible thing for her to represent her constituents... hypocrisy at its best, folks!

9/5/2008 1:06:50 PM

Quote :

"you do realize the "book-banning" issue is bullshit, right? Even NPR reported yesterday that she never tried to "ban" any books. She discussed the matter with the librarian, given that her constituents brought the matter to her, but she never demanded any books be removed from the library... She has never tried to institute the teaching of creationism in schools, again as reported by NPR. And let's not get into the actual issue of that, anyway. How dare anyone question the religion of science, right? keep the liberal spin machine rolling though, right?"

re: book banning
The fact that she brought it up at all bothers me enough.

re: creationism
Just as someone who believes in creationism would use that as an issue of whether or not to vote for someone, how is it hypocritical of me to do the same? I personally believe that creationism has no place in public schools, so I vote for people with like beliefs.

I'm not sure what "liberal spin machine" I'm helping to roll here, I've only pointed out that her personal beliefs and politics are enough to keep me from voting for her.

9/5/2008 1:06:53 PM

I honestly haven't made up my mind about this election, but all the hate for Palin is pretty disgusting in my book and I'd like to see a backlash against this kind of negative crap. I look on the front page of Digg and every other article is bashing her based on hearsay and innuendo.

Attn Democrats: It's possible to disagree with someone's political stances without turning into a raging douchebag with all the personal attacks.

9/5/2008 1:07:47 PM

and again, how can you call it "book-banning" when she NEVER even brought up the notion of banning books? EVER!!!

9/5/2008 1:07:52 PM

Quote :

"and again, how can you call it "book-banning" when she NEVER even brought up the notion of banning books? EVER!!!"

because the quote was her asking "how do I go about banning books?"

Quote :

"^^^ the fact that she took an issue from her constituents is bad? We have no other reports on what was actually said, yet it is a horrible thing for her to represent her constituents... hypocrisy at its best, folks!"

And I would consider book banning to be unconstitutional. So I don't care what her constituents want if it is unconstitutional.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 1:08:44 PM

Quote :

"the quote was her asking "how do I go about banning books?""

that wasnt the quote...she asked a rhetorical question...no specific books were EVER mentioned, and the librarian was never fired...most posts in this thread seem to exemplify the thread title

Quote :

""Sarah said to Mary Ellen, ’What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said. "I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, ’The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.’" Palin didn’t mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article. Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed."

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=home&position=emailed

9/5/2008 1:09:39 PM

and who is saying that she said such a thing (ban books)? Not the librarian. Rather, the loser in a bitter failed re-election campaign. That quote is taken directly from the mouth of Stein, NOT the librarian.

^ gives far better synopsis of what was actually said. And you'll note the word "ban" was never used.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:12 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 1:11:26 PM

Quote :

"the fact that she took an issue from her constituents is bad? We have no other reports on what was actually said, yet it is a horrible thing for her to represent her constituents... hypocrisy at its best, folks!"

when her constituents are asking for something unconstitutional, then yes - she should tell them to shove-off

9/5/2008 1:14:32 PM

I was going off the only article I had seen on the issue:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

Quote :

"Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor. "

If the other article is more accurate, then so be it. I can take that off my list above and still not be interested in voting for her.

And to be fair, I've never made a bad remark about Palin or her family, because I couldn't care less. Everyone has issues.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 1:15:43 PM

Quote :

"The deep irony and hypocrisy comes in the form of one of their initial attacks: that Palin is an irresponsible mother. "

This is a ridiculous thread. And I'm going to dismantle it right away.

Here's my big problem with the McCain Campaign and GOP right now in reaction to Palin's scrutiny -- they are tying it to the Democratic party, furthermore, tying it to their opposition (Obama) which is completely off base and misdirected.

Quote :

"The Democrats are the party of the women's liberation movement. So it is amazing to hear them complain that a woman should not take a prestigious position on account of her family. "

Yes, I know there is scrutiny of Palin..no one saw the pick coming and no one knew shit about her....plus she wasn't vetted fully....so that's what happens. Now, the whole 'their initial attack about being an irresponsible mother' is actually not anything supported by the Democratic party, it is not the Dems talking point or attack, it sure as hell isn't something coming from Obama's campaign and he pretty much denounced the shit out of anyone doing that.

So what you are left with is just general media scrutiny, sensationalism, and trying to sell a story. There's a lot of 'general hospital' type fluff to sell stories with around Palin...but why is this somehow the Dems and Obama's fault? Why are we getting the gender card pulled on us by the most unlikely of women supporters like the fucking republicans of all people? You guys are milking this like a cow hoping for some type of backlash of suburban and rural women and it's so transparent its sick.

We shouldn't have to be lectured by the ilk and dregs of your party that's for damn sure..

Unintelligent.Post.At.Its.Best

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : - ]

9/5/2008 1:18:43 PM

This is an interesting topic of discussion, but the way you framed it and the fact that you view "the Left" as some monolithic group is problematic. I read a number of left-leaning and moderate forums and there's been a TON of discussion about what's a legitimate grievance with Palin's platform/personal life and what's a sexist argument that would never be leveled against a man.

Quote :

"So it is amazing to hear them complain that a woman should not take a prestigious position on account of her family. After all, wasn't it the women's-lib movement that initially told us that a woman could be a professional and a mother at the same time? And yet, we have a situation that would perfectly prove that case, and suddenly a Republican mother can't do it. One might argue that this special needs child is a different case, though. Hardly. To take that argument, you must assert that a mother would have to put her "mothering" into over-drive for a special-needs child, meaning she is either slacking off normally as a mother for non-special-needs children or that she must "go the extra mile" for a special-needs child. For the former, it is a notion that is hard to defend in the first place. For the latter, isn't being a mother all about "going the extra mile" for your children? To assert that a woman can't be a professional and a mother to a child that needs her motherhood most is, even in this case, an affront to what the women's liberation movement stood for and has always claimed."

There have been many, many people who have pointed out that calling out Palin for not taking time out for her family is sexist.

Quote :

"To take that argument, you must assert that a mother would have to put her "mothering" into over-drive for a special-needs child, meaning she is either slacking off normally as a mother for non-special-needs children or that she must "go the extra mile" for a special-needs child. For the former, it is a notion that is hard to defend in the first place. For the latter, isn't being a mother all about "going the extra mile" for your children?"

According to accounts I've read from mothers with special-needs children, it requires a lot more work to care for the child above and beyond what it takes for a "normal" child. As for your last sentence, why is "being a mother" about going the extra mile? Shouldn't that hold for fathers too?

Quote :

"In this situation, the part of choice demands that a woman have no choice in order to be responsible. "

Actually most don't. They respect her choices (even though some would argue they were poor) and take issue with the fact her policies would force other women to make the same choice.

9/5/2008 1:20:02 PM

^^I think your argument that Obama and the Dems have absolutely nothing to do with these attacks is simply wrong, but lets say you're right. I guess that means the media truly does have a massive liberal bias and definitely supports Obama

Quote :

"As for your last sentence, why is "being a mother" about going the extra mile? Shouldn't that hold for fathers too? "

exactly...when is the last time (if ever) a male presidential candidate was questioned about his ability to both be President and also raise a family?

9/5/2008 1:20:52 PM

worthless post twister, that's like a limp nothing to this already terrible thread.

read my post. you've got no evidence to back up the claims that Obama and the Dems are behind these attacks. None whatsoever.

9/5/2008 1:22:56 PM

Quote :

"’What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?""

That is a horrible question and it should never ever ever be asked.

9/5/2008 1:23:11 PM

Quote :

"they are tying it to the Democratic party, furthermore, tying it to their opposition (Obama)"

when the media is doing this on behalf of Obama, then it hardly can be claimed that this attack is NOT coming from Obama himself.

^ even if the question is rhetorical? As in, she knew the answer, knew it was wrong, yet asked anyway? come on , smackr. be intellectually honest.

furthermore, what is wrong with removing books from the collection? Removing books is nowhere near on-par with "banning them," which is, by the way, the original allegation. Some books might be removed because no one checks them out and they take up shelf-space. Some might be removed because they are not in good enough condition to lend out to the general public and should be sent elsewhere for preservation. Now, this question is certainly framed in a different perspective, but simply saying "removing books from the collections is bad" shows a distinct lack of thought.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 1:23:47 PM

^ if she knew the answer, and knew it was wrong, why ask?

Just curious.

9/5/2008 1:25:57 PM

why ask a rhetorical question ever?

9/5/2008 1:27:38 PM

Why discuss things period?

9/5/2008 1:28:05 PM

It's ok, I welcome all the Palin attention. She's the first republican celebrity in a long time. All the lies turn into backlash anyways, so it'll trickle down.


Plus I've seen more of these today and yesterday than i've seen all year:

9/5/2008 1:28:58 PM

I think creationism has no place in schools.

9/5/2008 1:29:42 PM

Quote :

"She has never tried to institute the teaching of creationism in schools"

9/5/2008 1:30:45 PM

I think coke tastes good

9/5/2008 1:31:14 PM

Quote :

"why ask a rhetorical question ever?"

i see what you did there....

9/5/2008 1:32:37 PM

Quote :

"As in, she knew the answer, knew it was wrong, yet asked anyway? come on , smackr. be intellectually honest. "

you are the one being intellectually dishonest here. You know the whole purpose of the question was to gauge the response. If it was favorable, she would go about removing books. It's blatant and your spinning doesn't change that.

9/5/2008 1:33:33 PM

Quote :

"It's ok, I welcome all the Palin attention. She's the first republican celebrity in a long time. All the lies turn into backlash anyways, so it'll trickle down. Plus I've seen more of these today and yesterday than i've seen all year:"

I agree. I am waiting for anyone of my neighbors to put out an Obama sign, then I'll have to put a McCain sign out.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 1:34:14 PM

^^ riiiiiiiiight. Keep telling yourself that.

9/5/2008 1:35:55 PM

Quote :

"Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas,""

how dare she talk to a department head to better understand administration agendas

9/5/2008 1:37:57 PM

Bumper stickers and signs popping up from a shock pick isn't going to get you a win in November I'm afraid. Especially those ugly military looking ones.

It's all about convincing the majority of American people you can help them and fix the problems. He needs to do more of that instead of playing politics.

9/5/2008 1:38:27 PM

Quote :

"It's all about convincing the majority of American people you can help them and fix the problems. He needs to do more of that instead of playing politics."

kinda funny you say that...it seems obama is able to convince the american people that he can help them and fix problems BY playing politics

but thats for another thread

9/5/2008 1:40:33 PM

There is no way to know for sure how Palin's question about removing books was meant. The way the article says the librarian responded leads me to believe that Palin wasn't just asking for the sake of asking.

Of course, she could have just been asking a rhetorical question, but it is certainly up for debate. Just because she answered later that she was trying to "better understand administration agendas" doesn't make it so.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 1:40:51 PM

talk about hypocrisy:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

thats about the biggest bunch of hypocrites i have ever seen.

9/5/2008 1:41:44 PM

I love how that little 4% far left corner in america is getting super hot and bothered over a little ole lady from alaska.

tee hee

9/5/2008 1:44:01 PM

Quote :

"exactly...when is the last time (if ever) a male presidential candidate was questioned about his ability to both be President and also raise a family?"

That's one thing that came up. One person pointed out that John Edwards was raked over the coals for running for president with a dying wife (obviously the criticism came before the affair was public knowledge). The commenter, who's a liberal, agreed with the criticism and said there's no way he can be a good father to his children and comfort them after his wife's death and fulfill his duties in office at the same time.

9/5/2008 1:50:59 PM

im not getting hot and bothered, at all. why dont you worry about trying to put together intelligent and more importantly COHERENT posts csharp?

Im just reminding all you koolaid drinkers that think she somehow revolutionizes his campaign that there's much more that goes into winning an election than that.

9/5/2008 1:51:07 PM

hey, popularity and celebrity without substance has worked for Obama so far... It won him the fucking primaries, for crying out loud. Why can't it now work for someone else?

9/5/2008 1:53:53 PM

whatever. you choose not to look at obama's accomplishments as considerable and support his bid for presidency when matched with his abilities and intelligence, well that's your problem. You aren't the target nor will you decide the election.

Come November when the majority of American's do, you can sit in the corner and whine about how we were all hoodwinked for 8 years. At least you get your time all planned out...

9/5/2008 1:58:34 PM

Quote :

"you choose not to look at obama's accomplishments"

he was in the senate and never authored a bill, he was a professor and never wrote a paper

what exact accomplishments am i supposed to be looking at?

9/5/2008 2:00:25 PM

his accomplishments? Like failing to account for millions of dollars on his failed commission? Or would those be all of those bills he has sponsored in the US Senate? Or would it be all of his "present" votes on important issues in the Illinois Senate?

Hey, maybe his accomplishment is having sat in a church headed by a racist pastor for 20 years and having never heard a single sermon?

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 2:00:57 PM

Quote :

"Come November when the majority of American's do, you can sit in the corner and whine about how we were all hoodwinked for 8 years. At least you get your time all planned out..."

I wouldn't count Obama in yet. Still a ton of time left.

9/5/2008 2:01:08 PM

you guys are idiots if u think obama has really done that little. Stop being so fucking biased

9/5/2008 2:05:43 PM

You gotta HOPE that nothing will CHANGE before the election to make the Obamaniacs stop BELIEVING the bullshit, man...

^ tell us what he has done, then. Back up your claim with FACTS.

9/5/2008 2:06:08 PM