Print This Post
Aug
31
Beliefnet.com’s Crunchy Con, Rod Dreher (editorial columnist at the Dallas Morning News) points it out, from a female conservative writer Heather Mac Donald, no less (horrors!):
Thanks a lot, John McCain. With his selection of an unknown, two-year female governor as his running mate, he has just ensured that the diversity racket will be an essential component of presidential politics forever more. Had the 44-year-old Sarah Palin, whose greatest political accomplishment before being elected Alaska’s governor in 2006 was serving as mayor of Wasilla (population 9,780), been named Stanley, she would have had exactly zero chance of ending up in the Oval Office in the next four years. But from now on, any presidential ticket that consists solely of white males–no matter their qualifications–will likely be dead in the water. [emphasis mine]
Of course, Democrats have been playing the identity-politics game to the hilt this election cycle; it’s what they do. And it will be amusing to watch them twist themselves into knots to avoid criticizing the Palin pick for what it is: a diversity ploy. As short-term political strategy, the Palin selection has diabolical appeal. Prevented from stating the obvious–Palin was chosen because she was a woman–the Democrats will instead have to seize on her lack of experience. They are right to do so, but then they have to explain why Barack Obama is so much more qualified for the top of the ticket, let alone the number two spot.
Except she’s wrong on that part about being prevented from stating the obvious – damn straight I’m stating the obvious, and I’m not sure why Mac Donald thinks we can’t – that is part of why I’ve written that the Palin Pick is a huge miscalculation. The Palin Pick possesses more enough gender-neutral weaknesses than Annie Lennox owns men’s suits.
[Read all of Mac Donald's column and the comments at Dreher's post - she is not a happy conservative voter. Here's more about her if you're not familiar. Given her Yale undergrad and Stanford law degrees, I'm guessing she's one of many, maybe millions of bright women who happen to hold conservative beliefs and are absolutely bulls**t over the selection of Palin. I actually really thank her for writing what she did because talk about bucking the system, which is something that Palin supposedly has done - that is what MacDonald is doing but calling an affirmative action move due to genitalia, exactly that - by the very idealogues who decry affirmative action in general.]
There also is no need to have to argue that Barack Obama is “so much more qualified” for the top of the ticket – because there is no argument. He is. In comparison to John McCain or Sarah Palin. Given the dangerously low threshold that enthusiastic conservatives are willing to set for the leaders of this country, there is no basis for requiring Obama supporters to “explain” Obama’s better qualifications.
Even though he will, as will the ticket’s supporters.
I’m starting to get more excited about the 57 reasons.
Coulter Update: No word yet that I know of from Ann Coulter on how she feels about the Palin pick. But here’s part of the transcript from when she expressed her belief that George Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers was wrong because she lacks the competence and the experience to be a Supreme Court judge; here’s one of her columns on Miers:
What I’m critical of is — is the White House attacking conservatives, for saying we’re elitist for pointing out that Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
And by the way, I’m starting to feel sort of bad about — about saying that. And I’m annoyed with George Bush for putting us in the position of having to say that.
I mean, I’m sure she’s a very competent woman. She’s probably in the top half of lawyers in America. She’d be competent for many, many jobs out there. But this is the Supreme Court. Why is he nominating someone — forcing us to point out that she is not Supreme Court caliber?
And:
One [straw man argument being made by the Bush Administration against its detractors on the Miers' nomination] is that it’s sexism, that it’s elitist, that we don’t know how she’s going to vote, that she wasn’t a judge. That isn’t the argument we’re making. I mean, this is the strangest world I’ve entered where Republicans are arguing like liberals, coming up with these crazy straw man arguments that no one is making.
…
The argument is she’s not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. There’s no disputing that. The hearing isn’t going to change anything. And — and the White House is just digging up a hole for itself.
Hmm. Sound familiar? Talk about not learning from history, or from George Bush’s mistakes. Again, reflects very, very poorly on John McCain’s judgement and decision-making processes. That’s the most dangerous issue related to the Palin pick for Americans.
Will Coulter echo Mac Donald? I hope so, I really hope so – because you know what? It would make me respect Coulter. Sincerely respect her. And it would show what bucking the old boys really looks like – compared to what Palin claims to do.
Brief footnote:
Why do I highlight female conservative dissent? Because we know what it was like for women who chose not to vote for Hillary Clinton – they got vilified by those who did for not supporting a woman, sometimes arguing that it was just because she was a woman that she should be supported.
Now, maybe dissent within those who identify as left of center is more common, more out in the open or both. But on the right? Not so much – especially as driven by women – which is why the McCain campaign is trying to trump up Sarah Palin’s image as a maverick against her own party, because it’s so rare in the GOP.
But the other reason why I highlight this is because just yesterday a local conservative male blogger, Daniel Jack Williamson, whom I respect, wanted to change my thinking that there are no conservative husbands and fathers who would support their wife and mother of five children including a newborn with special needs being elevated to the VP nominee slot. I believe Daniel when he suggests that he wouldn’t blink an eye if this was his family, but he is an aberration in the conservative world as far as we knew from what groups like the Family Research Council (with Ken Blackwell as a senior fellow there) and Focus on the Family trotting out the family values concept that seems to go against what Daniel is saying.
I urged Daniel to think about making sure that families like his are the ones that are highlighted – the ones where the men arrange to manage while the women seek and procure and maintain and excel in leadership roles while having young families, because I get regular communications from FRC and I have never seen them argue for or emphasize that the way Daniel says he would support his wife is something they value or cheer. So if I’m generalizing and thinking that men like him don’t exist, it’s in part because no one is highlighting men like him – although also perhaps because on the right of center spectrum, he’s still rare.
Okay – that wasn’t so brief. What’s new.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:10 am August 31st, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Elections, Gender, Joe Biden, John McCain, Politics, Sarah Palin, Sexism, WH2008, Women, Writing, leadership
Comments
11 Responses to “Get yer female conservative dissent on Sarah Palin right here; Coulter update”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned Focus on the Family “trotting” out family values. Whether we like it or not, Palin is a show pony. Such a low blow to women who’ve worked hard (and yes, longer than she but I won’t dis how hard she’s worked just yet) to get us to a place where we can say we truly belong. Actually, her choice trots us all two steps backward.
Notice I say “her choice” meaning that the people who chose her, the ones who will approve of her nomination – not her. She was doing a job that she understood well and admitted not even knowing what a VP does. Wow. I so do not want her in that position. What would any of us say if a teacher, just before being introduced as your child’s teacher, said, “I really don’t know what a teacher does all day. I hope someone explains that to me before the little cherubs show up tomorrow!”
Those women, almost every last one of them, I mentioned in your prior post that you’ve referenced here that are so vital to the functioning of the Republican Party in northern Ohio, are women with families who are much more visible as leaders within the GOP than any other members of their family (including spouses), so I am not rare. You just haven’t circulated in GOP circles, as I have. To recap the list: Mary Taylor, state auditor, of Summit County; Debbie Sutherland, candidate for county commissioner, of Cuyahoga County; Nancy McKeen, county commissioner of Erie County; Joyce Houck, GOP state central committee, Huron County; Helen Hurst, Marilyn Jacobcik, Jennifer Wasilk, and Jennifer Fenderbosch, all of Lorain County.
I disagree with Heather MacDonald. Sarah Palin was chosen on merit as the person who best coincides with John McCain’s message about reforming Washington. Here’s my blog entry refuting the charges of tokenism:
http://buckeyerino.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/fed-up-with-the-lefts-charges-of-tokenism/
I cannot understand how the governor with the highest approval ratings in the country can be regarded as just a token appointment.
Mocha, I watched that same interview where Palin questions what the VP job would entail. She obviously knows what the Constitution says of the matter, but the role of the VP is defined by the President that the VP serves under. It was quite obvious to me that she wanted to learn more about what role John McCain wanted his VP to play before taking office. In that interview, she indicated that she’s very active on the job as governor, and she didn’t want to be VP if it meant that she’d be idle without much to do. She wants to accomplish things.
Daniel – I promise – I am not ignoring you or that list.
You are right – I haven’t circulated in those circles – but the folks who do? They aren’t getting those names out there? Do remember Bill Harris’ non-response response to why there are so few GOP female candidates for the statehouse, particularly the Senate – you are about to have NO women in the state senate, Daniel.
But you still aren’t really even addressing the issue head-on – the issue is the husbands, the fathers – what are they doing? How do they feel? Are they as comfy with role-swapping as the demands require? Where are the Focus on the Family photos of the men in charge as primary caretaker while the women put country first?
You know I believe one person can make a difference and I don’t care if anyone notices – I notice when the change or result I want comes about.
But Daniel – the narrative you want me to recognize isn’t even being recognized by the loudest voicest and most visible faces of conservatives. How do you explain that and are you willing to push that they do a better job – so Palin is the norm for your side of the aisle?
(Jill, I apologize in advance for a non-G-rated comment)
The Palin nomination is bad for several reasons:
1) As you’re pointing out, it’s a token. She’s an insult to women everywhere as VP nominee (even my other half said so).
2) She has absolutely no executive experience, save for the fact that she knows how to deny her involvement in events in the face of clear evidence to the contrary — and still be able to expect people to believe her. Evidence: Link 1 and Link 2.
3) Her stance on the issues indicates that she is inconsistent and illogical, at best. When I see political assessments like this listing, I know that eventually, someone’s going to find out something and knock them down a peg or two. It hasn’t happened to Palin yet, but you can bet heavily that it will happen — and soon.
4) Her management style demonstrated so far clearly shows that she’s the stereotypical “vindictive bitch” that we absolutely DON’T need in Washington right now. Maybe later, but not now.
There’s no way I’d vote for McCain simply because he put a
vindictive bitch like Sarah Palinwoman on the ticket.A reformer??? What state do you live in that you’d accept the Alaskan version? It ain’t Ohio.
Jill regarding your point about conservative husbands supporting their wives as VP. I was e-mailed a comment from someone at the Moderate Voice that said Todd Palin quit his job to focus on the family (with some help from a nanny).
First if this is the case, I will not make any further judgments regarding the family decisions of the Palins. I think there should be at least one Parent who is always there for a child, it doesn’t matter if it is the mom or dad. I actually salute the Palins for going against convention and making choices that would best suit their children.
That being said, I would never vote for Palin, she is on the wrong side of all the issues I believe, lacks the vision to lead this nation in these tough times and has a difficult time understanding why government isn’t the best way to get at a nasty family member.
Finally, if there were more conservative men like Todd Palin, willing scale back their careers and attend to their kids so their wives could reach the top in their careers, I think conservatism as a political philosophy would look very different and perhaps it would be safe for thinking women to go back to the Republican Party.
I do not care what Ann Coulter thinks after she showed her jealousy where Harriet Miers was concerend. I like Ann Coulter, but when she would pick Hilrary over John McCain she lost me – in the brains department. Meaning what does she really stand for? I’m not a prude, but Ann stop dressing like you do, maybe lower your skirt a bit. If you want to be up to date, style you hair just a bit, cheaps cuts can do it.
No woman out their be they Geradine F., Hillary Clinton and mostly certainly not Nancy Peolosi or Ann Coulter can hold a candle to Sarah Palin. They don’t even play in the same ball park. She is what Bill O’Reilly is not a culture warrior. WHAT Hilary Clinton, Ann Coulter and Nancy Peosi are not a beautiful women doing what only a women can do – get the job done! And with grace and conviction.
Like it or not John Mc Cain and Sarah Palin are going to win in November.
Sarah Palin is 100% female and is exactly what the Doctor ordered for moderate Americans (regarless of party) who just want America to take their country and Christian values back to normal. And would quite a change.
Ann Coulter does not have children, is far too mouthy no matter how right she should be and way too arroygant. So she sells a few books, but in the end she can’t hold a candle to Sarah Palin. May God BLess Sarah, no matter what others say all the women I know are excited about her. She is a voice for righteousness and for Christian women.
Jeanie,
You must move in a very small circle if you think there is something “moderate” about Sarah Palin. I’ll easily admit to being a left Democrat, but I’m aware of a lot more than my viewpoint.
[...] Hillary Clinton for president if John McCain was the GOP candidate. Then, on August 31, I wrote this post wondering about how Coulter would handle Governor Sarah Palin’s resume and pursuit of the VP [...]
I must say that as a former Hillary supporter, I was highly insulted by the obvious attempt to pull in “disgruntled” Hillary supporters by picking Sarah Palin. For one thing, I think it’s a myth that there are any (or many) “disgruntled” Hillary supporters. I and the people I know who voted for Hillary in the primary did so because we thought she was more qualified than Obama (especially in the environmental arena, which is important to me being that I’m an environmental regulator) not because she was a woman. Perhaps this is because I travel in circles of people who share similar views to my own, but if there were “disgruntled” Hillary supporters, I never met any of them. And I would think that Hillary’s endorsement of Obama after he won the primary would signal any “stragglers” to head on over to the Obama bandwagon, so to speak.
Anyway, aside from the fact that they share similar reproductive organs, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be farther from similar. And because of this, it was quite infuriating to find out that the McCain camp apparently thinks that people (probably particularly women) don’t have the ability to look any farther than gender or to spot a ploy when they see one. I won’t start in on his ad about hot chicks digging Obama…
I was also slightly surprised at this move from McCain. I thought him to be a bit more on the moderate side and perhaps even a decent human being, but as it turns out, it seems that he is either a) not a decent human being and willing to play on the people’s perceived ignorance or b) he just makes incredibly poor decisions based on bad cousel. In either case, I don’t want him or Sarah Palin (especially the latter) in the White House.