Patterico's Pontifications

8/30/2008

Andrew Sullivan’s Sexist Attacks on Sarah Palin

Filed under: General — Alex @ 2:45 pm



Instead of correcting errors on his website, Andrew Sullivan is waging jihad against Sarah Palin. It’s interesting to read his arguments and ask: Would he be saying this if Sarah Palin were a man?

Sullivan cites the example of a Catholic woman and Hillary supporter who sent her friend an e-mail titled: “Sarah Palin is a Bad Mother!” The alleged voter heard that Palin had a 4-month-old child with Down Syndrome, and asked: “How in the name of GOD, can she even think about leaving her child or taking her child on the campaign trail for 70 days?”

(Place to one side, for now, the question of whether this Catholic voter would feel more comfortable with Palin if she had aborted the baby.)

Did it ever occur to Sullivan (or the alleged woman voter) that maybe Palin’s husband could take care of the child?

I guess not. You’ve come a long way, baby!

In another post, Sullivan responds to comparisons between Palin’s and Obama’s experience by arguing that Obama campaigned his way to the number one spot, and Palin didn’t. (Neither did Hillary, Andrew.) Sullivan then lets loose with this shining example of patronizing condescension:

I find the comparison with Obama ludicrous. But it will be made. Palin looks to me like a lovely person and a good local politician, with some inevitable rough spots. I’d be delighted if she took a leadership role in the GOP in the future. But in the same league as Obama? Do Republicans really think that little of him?

(Actually, we think even less of him.)

Shorter Sullivan: Can you believe they’re comparing Obama to this, this . . . woman?!

When he dismissively refers to Palin as a “lovely person,” you can almost see him giving her a pat on the head.

I’m interested in knowing how women commenters react to these arguments.

207 Responses to “Andrew Sullivan’s Sexist Attacks on Sarah Palin”

  1. Just who is “Alex”?

    Another Drew (4b90b4)

  2. Ah, Jeez. It has me posting as “Alex” again.

    Patterico (514fd5)

  3. SOCK PUPPET….

    Another Drew (4b90b4)

  4. Alex,

    Perhaps this is a good time to mention, once again, that there are issues with this latest update.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  5. As for Andrew Sullivan, I like men who patronize women. They’re much easier to beat and I spent a good portion of my legal career doing just that.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  6. Boy, you guys are as quick to throw out “sexist” as the Obama team are to throw out “racist.” Looking at the McCain campaign generally, with it’s pick of Palin, I have to say, the student has become the master.

    Phil (3b1633)

  7. Phil,

    Do you, then, not see anything sexist in Sullivan’s arguments?

    Feel free to make the argument. So far you haven’t.

    Patterico (94d1a4)

  8. Just wait for the claim of ageism, Phil – the more they carp about McCain’s age and his doddering around in the WH, the more they’re going to monumentally piss off the elderly vote, not to mention the millions of Boomers coming up right behind him. They’re just reaping what they’ve already sown.

    Dmac (874677)

  9. Do you, then, not see anything sexist in Sullivan’s arguments?

    Not in Sullivan’s analysis, no. He clearly doesn’t think Palin is the level of public figure that Obama is. I actually agree (and I also think McCain made a good choice). Does that make me sexist? Or racist? Or both?

    Phil (3b1633)

  10. Nice dodge, Phil.

    My first point had to do with her being a Bad Mother for taking a Down’s Syndrome child on the campaign trail (or leaving the child at home). You ignored that one.

    Let’s start there.

    Patterico (1c00ca)

  11. Do you, then, not see anything sexist in Sullivan’s arguments?

    No I don’t. You might call the woman who e-mailed him sexist, although I’d consider that an oversimplification. But Sullivan is trying to get a pulse on how females will react to the choice of Palin as VP. Even if the reaction he’s quoting is sexist, that doesn’t make him sexist.

    The other post you linked to makes it clear Sullivan doesn’t think Palin is the level of public figure/leader Obama is. I actually agree, but maybe that makes me sexist, too. You’d have to hear my reasons to decide.

    I don’t see (yet) a spot where Sullivan says he thinks Palin is less of a public figure than Obama because she’s a woman. Maybe I’m missing it. I certainly acknowledge that Sullivan COULD be being sexist here, I just don’t see it.

    My overall point is that there’s some quick trigger-pulling going on regarding the sexist charge. Doesn’t mean there won’t be some sexist reaction at times — just as the Obama campaign’s oversensitivity to racism didn’t mean that there wasn’t racism out there.

    Phil (3b1633)

  12. I can’t spend the rest of the day dealing with Phil’s inevitable continuing dodges. I leave that to other readers.

    Patterico (a961fa)

  13. Huh, I didn’t notice that my first post went through, I thought it just got deleted halfway through, so I started over. Sorry about some redundancy there.

    Phil (3b1633)

  14. Phil (3:06 pm)

    Boy, you guys are as quick to throw out “sexist” as the Obama team are to throw out “racist.”

    — The difference being that when the label actually applies, there is no harm in pointing out incidences of sexism.

    Looking at the McCain campaign generally, with it’s pick of Palin, I have to say, the student has become the master.

    — Implying that the reason she was chosen was so that the campaign would have an excuse to then jump on every questionable comment made by the other side? That in itself is sexist, as it implies that not only were her legitimate credentials not at the top of the list of reasons why she was picked, but that those credentials weren’t on the list (and therefore did not matter) at all.

    How does that jibe with the comments from conservatives in the wake of the news that she was the pick? the vast majority of which indicated that the number one reason they liked it was because of her values?

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  15. “No I don’t. You might call the woman who e-mailed him sexist, although I’d consider that an oversimplification. But Sullivan is trying to get a pulse on how females will react to the choice of Palin as VP. Even if the reaction he’s quoting is sexist, that doesn’t make him sexist.”

    So if I quoted a racist comment about Obama and failed to distance myself from it, you wouldn’t call me racist, eh, Phil?

    Patterico (7246b7)

  16. Phil writes:

    “But Sullivan is trying to get a pulse on how females will react to the choice of Palin as VP.”

    Um, not so much. Excitable Andy is doing nothing more nor less, in any of his posts, than cheerleading for his new crush.

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  17. Boy, you guys are as quick to throw out “sexist” as the Obama team

    Question – are you guys officially taking credit for Sullivan now? (for some reason he still tries to mull around with the “conservative” moniker occasionally)

    Anon (this is remarkably easy isn't it?) (03ab2e)

  18. So if I quoted a racist comment about Obama and failed to distance myself from it, you wouldn’t call me racist, eh, Phil?

    Once again, I’d call the letter-writer’s reaction something more complex than mere sexism, just as I tend to resist characterizing much of what is called “racism” by such a broad brush.

    That said, I don’t consider Sullivan to be adopting the e-mail, and he didn’t say he did. Any more than you’re adopting Sullivan’s words by quoting them. You’re playing “gotcha” with him here.

    Phil (3b1633)

  19. Comment by Anon (this is remarkably easy isn’t it?) —

    Sorry, left my tag on from earlier.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  20. That said, I don’t consider Sullivan to be adopting the e-mail, and he didn’t say he did. Any more than you’re adopting Sullivan’s words by quoting them.

    Come on, it would be one thing if he did that occasionally, but that’s Sullivan’s MO. When he doesn’t have the balls to say something himself, he’ll toss out a bunch of e-mails without contradicting or arguing against them and say “I’m just tossing this out there…”

    Anon (03ab2e)

  21. I think Sullivan has provided a forum that legitimizes sexist attacks on Palin. I don’t know if that makes him sexist but it does make him devious.

    As for me, I like how Palin combines her family and career. I applaud that she takes her baby with her to events and meetings, but maybe that’s because I did the same thing and we still do. Our staff brings their babies to work with them whenever they want and one of them does it every day. It works out fine.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  22. (Actually, we think even less of him.)

    Great line Patterico and it sums up my opinion of Obama very well.

    Fritz (46a651)

  23. I don’t consider Sullivan to be adopting the e-mail, and he didn’t say he did.

    — If he prints it, but takes no clear position in relation to it, the assumption by his readers that he tacitly approves of the comments, is understandable.

    I’d call the letter-writer’s reaction something more complex than mere sexism

    — Is it above your pay grade to be a little less opaque?

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  24. Phil thinks that we all want to kill, jail, or oppress brown people. He would never use the overly broad brush of racism. No way. No how.

    Racists.

    JD (5f0e11)

  25. As for Sullivan and his beagles, here is the most appropriate response, from the wonderful “Palin Facts” website:

    http://www.palinfacts.com/?p=63

    Laughing is better than being angry, after all!

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  26. I find it incredible that anyone would actually believe that someone sent Andy this email. Every time he needs to distance himself from an inflammatory position, he says it wasn’t his position.

    JD (5f0e11)

  27. Sullivan likes to get his panties in a twist and Palin simply presents a new opportunity of unchartered territory.

    Its disingenuous to say that Sully is just looking to take the pulse of female voters – if that were so, he would present emails from opposite views. Instead he has selected one that works in his favor – a Catholic, stay-at-home- pro-choice mom. Please. Can we at least pretend to seek objectivity?

    I see Sully as less sexist (in this) but just a weak man. IMHO, men who are sexist are inevitably weak. Men who are weak men are not necessarily sexist.

    Dana (084de8)

  28. So if I quoted a racist comment about Obama and failed to distance myself from it, you wouldn’t call me racist, eh, Phil?

    You’re white and not an open-borders fanatic, of COURSE Phil thinks you’re racist. (realized the first part wasn’t even a requirement in PhilWorld.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  29. In all seriousness, it is a bit ironic to see many guys—including me–debating whether or not Sullivan was being sexist.

    I think that the opinion of women would be, well, more fundamental!

    But I suppose that statement could be called sexist, too. Sigh.

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  30. – If he prints it, but takes no clear position in relation to it, the assumption by his readers that he tacitly approves of the comments, is understandable.

    If you read Sully’s blog much you know that this is part of his style — he tends to post a lot of stuff without direct comment. He also makes his actual positions pretty damn clear on his blog; if he thinks something, he says it.

    If anything, he’d post something he disagreed with without comment more often than the average blogger. Which I think shows respect for his readers’ intelligence — he trusts us to see obvious sexism or racism ourselves. He doesn’t have to wear his outrage on his sleeve.

    – Is it above your pay grade to be a little less opaque?

    Well, for starters, she’s a woman. So she’s not wanting Palin to spend more time in the home because she wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant so she can keep all the power for her own gender.

    See what I’m saying? Just like blacks saying other blacks “aren’t black enough” is something more complicated than just “racism” as the term was used to describe old-fashioned early-20th-century segregation.

    Phil (3b1633)

  31. If you read Sully’s blog much you know that this is part of his style

    I am not familiar with Andrew Sullivan posting a bunch of e-mails he clearly disagrees with. For obvious reason, though, I will admit I am less familiar with his blog than I used to be.

    Please provide examples.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  32. Palin six years of executive experience. Hussein ‘O days’. The 143 days he’s showed up in the senate while getting paid almost 3 years to not ‘do his job’ is not executive experience. He is without a douby the most sorry member of congress. His foreign policy experience consist of chairing a committee which has never been called to order.

    Scrapiron (c36902)

  33. Phil, why can’t you just answer a question directly, for once? The more you blabber on incessantly, the more is just looks like the same old bob and weave.

    Dmac (874677)

  34. This is what I bet:

    Palin has bigger balls (and more of them) than Obama.

    More brains than Biden.

    Her husband has a bigger dick than both of them put together.

    And she and her husband both have more integrity and honesty than either Obama or Biden. The attacks of the MSM on Palin are putting me off the press completely. Most journaoists are vile fucks.

    Jack (d9cbc5)

  35. C’mon, Dmac. You know how ambiguity and complexity are just exactly the same thing as intelligence? Nuance, to quote Ace.

    Grin.

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  36. Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever, even once, put together a government budget?

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever actually managed anything?

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever been responsible for appointing personnel to key departments and positions beyond personal, office staff?

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever run a business or had to meet a payroll?

    I’ll be the first to admit that I wish Sarah Palin was in her second, rather than first, term as governor, but of the four major candidates, she has had more relevant experience as an executive than any of the others.

    The camera-less Dana (556f76)

  37. Speaking of nuance, Ace’s place reminded me of just how committed to integrity and fact-checking is Our Mr. Sullivan:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjlhNDRjNmI2NmVlOTk5ZTZlMzU1MjkyMzc3ZjZiN2E=

    I’ll bet serious cash money that Sullivan won’t correct or retract. He just moves on, leaving his slime behind him (sorry for the mollusc metaphor).

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  38. The cuter Dana wrote:

    a Catholic, stay-at-home- pro-choice mom.

    You mean an oxymoron. People who claim to be both Catholic and pro-abortion are lying about one of them.

    The camera-less Dana (556f76)

  39. Phil, why can’t you just answer a question directly, for once? The more you blabber on incessantly, the more is just looks like the same old bob and weave.

    Well when you’ve got one person suggesting that “more nuance is above your pay grade” and another one saying you shouldn’t “blabber on incessantly” you’re pretty much doomed from the start.

    I’m a “dodger” because I disagree with you, and I won’t admit that it’s just because I’m “wrong.” I actually have reasons, and I go on and on about them. It’s just so noisy. Why can’t I just accept that I’m wrong and you’re right?

    Phil (3b1633)

  40. If you read Sully’s blog much you know that this is part of his style

    Sullivan’s technique is the blogger’s equivalent of the MSM’s “man on the street” interviews. They simply find someone (or a few) to provide quotes that will expound their viewpoints while claiming to be objective observers. “We’re just printing what they say!”

    Paul (95a8c7)

  41. Oxymoron or not, the e-mail Sully quoted is full of non sequiturs, like Sully himself.

    Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407)

  42. Phil –

    He also makes his actual positions pretty damn clear on his blog; if he thinks something, he says it.

    — What is the clear position he has taken on this issue? or could he not think of anything?

    Well, for starters, she’s a woman. So she’s not wanting Palin to spend more time in the home because she wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant so she can keep all the power for her own gender.
    See what I’m saying? Just like blacks saying other blacks “aren’t black enough” is something more complicated than just “racism” as the term was used to describe old-fashioned early-20th-century segregation.

    Now we know who scripted Obama’s answers for the Saddleback Forum. The clear implication in that message is that the writer beieves Palin is putting career ambition ahead of properly nurturing her family.

    Icy Truth (for Oiram) (75e0f5)

  43. I’m a “dodger” because I disagree with you, and I won’t admit that it’s just because I’m “wrong.” I actually have reasons, and I go on and on about them.

    Without ever answering the question put to you.

    Paul (95a8c7)

  44. Phil, what the heck are you saying??? Please, clarify your comments. I’m relatively sane and intelligent yet cannot understand what your point is. And I would like to.

    Other Dana, I was going to go into that Catholic/pro-choice oxymoronic lie but I got too tired wading through all the other manipulations of stupid in his Sully’s post. That this is the only email he received from a woman is doubtful, that it helps support his pov is what made it postworthy.

    Cuter Dana (084de8)

  45. Here is one woman’s opinion of the selection, and the Left’s reaction to it.

    Pat R. (9828c0)

  46. Dana –

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever, even once, put together a government budget?
    — Well, the three Senators have all voted on budgets . . . ya know, after they were proposed by the executive branch . . . and worked out, and then voted on first by the House of Representatives.

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever actually managed anything?
    — Well, Oprahma managed to blow a lot of money when he served alongside an unrepentant terrorist on a ‘foundation’.

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever been responsible for appointing personnel to key departments and positions beyond personal, office staff?
    — John McCain, as a Navy commander . . . and one other.

    Of the four major party presidential and vice presidential candidates, who among them has ever run a business or had to meet a payroll?
    — Well Biden at MBNA had to . . . oh! You said payroll. Silly me; I thought I saw “off”.

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  47. #42 was for Phil

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  48. – What is the clear position he has taken on this issue? or could he not think of anything?

    Read his blog. Unless you think I know more than you’ve let on so far.

    I’m relatively sane and intelligent yet cannot understand what your point is. And I would like to

    If you address something specific I’ve said I will try to clarify.

    Phil (3b1633)

  49. Palin’s kids are NOT named after TV witches (sheesh)…

    If there were any shred of doubt left as to whether Andrew Sullivan is a ridiculous tool — and guest poster Alex at Patterico’s Pontifications has cataloged several other examples — it’s erased by his uncritical, enthusiastic republication of a r…

    BeldarBlog (4faadb)

  50. – What is the clear position he has taken on this issue? or could he not think of anything?

    What issue? The issue of whether or not he’s being sexist? Come on.

    Phil (3b1633)

  51. If there were any shred of doubt left as to whether Andrew Sullivan is a ridiculous tool

    LOL . . . I really should just give up when this is the level of analysis going on. I might as well watch Olbermann.

    Phil (3b1633)

  52. I did not want to respond to these without fully understanding what you are saying. They are confusing to me.

    Well, for starters, she’s a woman. So she’s not wanting Palin to spend more time in the home because she wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant so she can keep all the power for her own gender.

    I the statement below to be one stating that in modern day (or this campaign) when we use the term ‘racist’ its not a sufficient description because when blacks accuse other blacks of not being black enough, its a far more complicated proposition than just tagging it as racist. Is this accurate? And if so, how does below correspond with the above (which I just really don’t understand)

    See what I’m saying? Just like blacks saying other blacks “aren’t black enough” is something more complicated than just “racism” as the term was used to describe old-fashioned early-20th-century segregation.

    Dana (084de8)

  53. Me: What is the clear position he has taken on this issue? or could he not think of anything?

    Phil: What issue? The issue of whether or not he’s being sexist? Come on.

    — The issue of whether or not he believes that the person who wrote that e-mail was being sexist.

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  54. Mr Truth: I bow to your superior wisdom! :)

    Uglier Dana (556f76)

  55. Well Dana, that’s our Philly – he’d rather play the martyr and do the Ali Shuffle rather than answer a simple question. I agree with our host, it’s tiring just to watch his non – answers unfurl (i.e. hurl).

    Dmac (874677)

  56. This is great fun.
    The more the Left, and its’ minions in the MSM attack Gov. Palin, the more they reveal themselves to be the sexist, family-phobic, Richard-Craniums that they are.
    Each fresh attack has got to be worth a couple tenths in the polls for McCain-Palin.
    At some point, the Left will create so much disgust, that BHO’s negatives will crest the 50% mark – and he’ll be toast.

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  57. Dana, my point is that the words “sexism” and “racism” lose their meaning pretty quickly when you start to apply them to people’s views about others who are the same sex or race as themselves, that’s all.

    “Racism” has generally been used to refer to people’s attitudes towards members of OTHER races that arise out of ignorance or hatred or both. Sexism likewise.

    I’m open to opposing points of view on this, but that’s generally what I’ve perceived racism and sexism to refer to.

    Phil (3b1633)

  58. Silly Sulli has gone apoplectic;
    Sarah Palin has made him dyspeptic.
    He can’t understand,
    ’cause she ain’t a man,
    And now his columns look hectic.

    The Limerick Avenger (556f76)

  59. The left’s attacks on Palin are going to give her 100% name recognition in two weeks. Then she will give a speech as good as that one yesterday and following that, she will wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the debate.

    Andrew Sullivan DOES NOT LIKE women. That’s easy. Maybe he should read Clan of the Cave Bear to get an idea of how women coped with children back when. I am enjoying the fumbling around on the left as they try to figure out how to make her go away.

    Personally, I think she could be the American Margaret Thatcher.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  60. Phil, Sullivan posting a bunch of e-mails that he clearly disagrees with –

    Do you have any examples?

    Anon (03ab2e)

  61. – The issue of whether or not he believes that the person who wrote that e-mail was being sexist.

    Nobody’s directly asked him. It’s too much fun, apparently, to decide for ourselves what we think he believes.

    If you already think he’s a “ridiculous tool” as some people on this blog expressly do, then he must believe whatever makes him look like a ridiculous tool. Thus the answer is self-evident.

    Interestingly, Sullivan’s argument is that choosing Palin was sexist in itself. He’s got some interesting reasons for that.

    Phil (3b1633)

  62. Governor Palin has the whole further left crowd scared fecesless. They keep telling us how diverse and noble and non-sexist and opposed to the misogynist patriarchy they are, but let one woman succeed on her own, defeating powerful men in the process, but not toe the liberal line, and watch their own misogyny come bubbling forth.

    You can find speculation about her sex life — only has sex once a year, when she gets drunk — about whether she uses contraception, about her failure to abort her last child when she found out he had Downs’ Syndrome, about which men had propelled her to the top, just the whole ball of wax, all because she isn’t a liberal. If hypocrisy caused pimples, the libs would all be nicknamed “pizza face!”

    Uglier Dana (556f76)

  63. Nobody’s directly asked him. It’s too much fun, apparently, to decide for ourselves what we think he believes.

    If he insists on letting other people speak for him, we don’t really have a choice in the matter.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  64. I have a family member with Down’s.

    It is usually ignorant people that don’t know anyone with Down’s, have never met a family with a Down’s member, that actually act like this is some tragedy.

    These are usually the same people who would have wanted it the other way, and said Sarah Palin was HIDING her Down’s baby if she didn’t bring it onstage. This is a part of life, the family will take care of things as best they can, just like every other family.

    TimesDisliker (27f526)

  65. Eric Blair:

    Speaking of nuance, Ace’s place reminded me of just how committed to integrity and fact-checking is Our Mr. Sullivan:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjlhNDRjNmI2NmVlOTk5ZTZlMzU1MjkyMzc3ZjZiN2E=

    That link says:

    Alas, one problem for this theory is the timing: Buffy the Vampire Slayer didn’t start airing until 1997, whereas Sarah Palin’s daughter Willow is described as being 14 years old. I don’t know whether she turned 14 this year or will turn 15 later this year, but I’m pretty sure that 2008 minus 14 equals something before 1997.

    Alas, one problem for the theory that this theory has a timing problem: the movie came out in 1992. I don’t know whether Willow turned 14 this year or will turn 15 later this year, but I’m pretty sure that 2008 minus 14 equals something after 1992.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  66. more dissing of Sarah Palin…
    Another aspect of this is that each attack brings forth the idea that Gov. Palin is just a small-town hick, who was only chosen because she’s a Babe.
    Doesn’t the Left understand that they are continually lowering the bar that she has to reach by their attacks.
    When she goes on national TV, and starts hitting line-drives into the power-alleys, they Left is going to look pretty stupid (I know it’s redundant, live with it).
    Her performance is going to be measured against that of the Lip-That-Cannot-Stop-Itself, and the expectations that she is woefully unqualified.
    If her performance in Dayton is any indication of what she is prepared to do in the future,
    She Is A Star!

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  67. I’m pretty sure Willow wasn’t in the movie. See IMDB here:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103893/fullcredits#cast

    Yeah I’m a dorky Buffy fan.

    Phil (3b1633)

  68. the words “sexism” and “racism” lose their meaning pretty quickly when you start to apply them to people’s views about others who are the same sex or race as themselves, that’s all.

    — The ‘people that are too close to the issue cannot possibly be objective’ excuse. That’s nothing.

    Sim-ple

    Basic difference: Conservatives believe in calling a spade a spade;

    Liberals believe in calling a spade a garden implement.

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  69. Bah, the spam filter ate my link to IMDB.

    Willow wasn’t a character in the movie.

    Says the dorky Buffy fan.

    [I found it, Phil. It’s now #67. — DRJ]

    Phil (3b1633)

  70. Basic difference: Conservatives believe in calling a spade a spade;

    Liberals believe in calling a spade a garden implement.

    Huh . . . remind me never to play cards with you.

    Phil (3b1633)

  71. Phil:

    1. Thanks for the correction.
    2. You actually saw the friggin’ movie? Jeez.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  72. Interestingly, Sullivan’s argument is that choosing Palin was sexist in itself. He’s got some interesting reasons for that.

    — That’s right. McCain was going to pick Romney but decided against it because Romney is a man, and you know how shaky it is to put a man on an election ticket . . . especially for an office that for its entire history has only been held by . . . men?

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  73. Comment by Phil — 8/30/2008 @ 5:09 pm

    I would make fun of you, but then I saw it was written by the same guy who wrote “Firefly” – so everything’s cool.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  74. Heh, if I remembered the movie I wouldn’t have had to check IMDB. Loved the show though.

    Phil (3b1633)

  75. Huh . . . remind me never to play cards with you.

    — Uh, go look it up, Dude. The phrase originated with the garden tool.

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  76. Icy, no the theory is that he thought women (who only supported Hillary because she was a woman) would see another woman and say “Oh my, another WOMAN! Must vote for McCain!”. Which would be rather sexist toward women.

    Mind you that’s just the theory. I’m not saying I agree with it.

    Another funny layer — Men are actually the ones who seem to be getting won over by Palin in much higher numbers than women. At least according to initial polls. Is that because she’s an attractive woman, and so they’re thinking with their pants? Or am I sexist for thinking that?

    Phil (3b1633)

  77. Well, Xrlq, I am glad that someone pointed out that “Willow” wasn’t a big time character in the sucky 1992 movie—much as I respect Kristi Swanson. Hat tip, big time, Phil!

    Very true comment about Joss Whedon.

    But more to the point was Mr. Palin’s explanation of his daughter’s name, which is in the link. Here it is…

    “TODD: Sarah’s parents were coaches and the whole family was involved in track and I was an athlete in high school, so with our first-born, I was, like, ‘Track!’ Bristol is named after Bristol Bay. That’s where I grew up, that’s where we commercial fish. Willow is a community there in Alaska. And then Piper, you know, there’s just not too many Pipers out there and it’s a cool name. And Trig is a Norse name for “strength.”

    Here is the link for Willow, Alaska.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow,_Alaska

    Nice looking place.

    Very satanic.

    And how long did it take for someone to find that link? Why didn’t Sullivan, if he is going to post nonsense (and strangely, nonsense that damages his ex-boyfriend, the Republican Party). Witch worshipping. Imagine!

    And here I thought that Democrats didn’t care about that kind of thing, and were accepting of all faiths, or none at all!

    Hmmm. Karl Rove’s plan proceeds apace; and the Left is inexplicably helping him.

    Mind control rays. Speaking of nerd stuff, think about “Scanners.”

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  78. – Uh, go look it up, Dude. The phrase originated with the garden tool.

    I just thought it was a funny image, us playing cards, and you laying down a couple garden tools and some jewelry and saying “full house!” And then calling me a liberal if I disagreed.

    Phil (3b1633)

  79. “…Men are actually the ones who seem to be getting won over by Palin in much higher numbers than women…”

    Didn’t the same phenomenon occurr in Great Britain with Maggie Thatcher?
    No one would ever say that Lady Thatcher was a Babe (other than Dennis perhaps a long time ago), but she enjoyed tremendous support in the XY community IIRC, both in GB, and here in America.

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  80. Phil – Do explain how it is sexist to select Palin.

    While you are at it, I still have not forgot that all we want to do is kill, jail, and oppress brown people.

    JD (5f0e11)

  81. Phil – Do explain how it is sexist to select Palin.

    I don’t know if it’s sexist or not. And don’t care. All I care about is making sure that an illegal alien steals your job and then hires you to do his yard work.

    Phil (3b1633)

  82. Phil, Sullivan posting a bunch of e-mails that he clearly disagrees with –

    Do you have any examples?

    Again, dude – do you have any examples, though? (cause it’s starting to seem like you don’t)

    Anon (03ab2e)

  83. Icy, no the theory is that he thought women (who only supported Hillary because she was a woman) would see another woman and say “Oh my, another WOMAN! Must vote for McCain!”. Which would be rather sexist toward women.

    — 1) You can second-guess, which all of you are doing, McCain (the “he” in the above sentence; right?) for why he chose her all day long. In the end it means very little. Anyone who actually factors the VP pick into their voting decision (very few people according to polls) is going to look at what she stands for, not why she was selected. 2) Obviously he wants to attract female voters, but not specifically from the ranks of disaffected Hillary supporters. He will take them from wherever he can find them.

    Another funny layer — Men are actually the ones who seem to be getting won over by Palin in much higher numbers than women. At least according to initial polls. Is that because she’s an attractive woman, and so they’re thinking with their pants? Or am I sexist for thinking that?

    — Again, the reason why does not matter. If you had read, or will read, the initial reactions both here and elsewhere it should become pretty clear that a major reason — maybe the major reason — why so many have been won over is the fact that she is a solid conservative. Given the shaky feelings so many had towards McCain (not justified in my opinion), this move has reassured the (if you will) good ol’ boys network. The Republican base, which — surprise! — turns out not to be sexist.

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  84. Icy, by the way, I’ve said several times that I like Sara Palin and think McCain made a good choice. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying.

    I personally think Sullivan and Obama’s team are still stunned by the choice, and aren’t sure what to think, no matter how confidently they insist otherwise.

    Phil (3b1633)

  85. Icy is clearly a racist misogynist.

    JD (5f0e11)

  86. I’ve always suspected that JD was a black woman. Now the truth is out!

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  87. and a bigot!

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  88. 87 is a follow-up to 85…

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  89. Are we seriously going to have to put up with liberals pretending to be concerned Catholic conservative mothers of children with Down’s for the entire 62 days remaining in this campaign period?

    I can’t take it. My sides are hurting from laughing. At them. Not with them.

    w3bgrrl (5b8906)

  90. Again, dude – do you have any examples, though? (cause it’s starting to seem like you don’t)

    Visit his frickin blog.

    andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/read-all-about.html

    Or this one:

    andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/sarah-palin-as.html

    Or this one:

    andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/dissent-of-t-12.html

    All are from today. Do you think he agrees or disagrees with what he’s quoting in them?

    Phil (3b1633)

  91. Me? I’m just loving how one smart, attractive, happy baby making politician has straight men, gay men, angry women and who knows who else, all in a dizzying dither. Talk about power!

    Dana (084de8)

  92. Dana…Ain’t Life Grand?

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  93. Phil (5:52 pm)

    I personally think Sullivan and Obama’s team are still stunned by the choice, and aren’t sure what to think, no matter how confidently they insist otherwise.

    — Agreed. I will bet big money that she was not on their strategic shortlist, and maybe not even on their long list of potential running mates. I’m certain that when they announced Biden,the possibility of McCain choosing a woman (ostensibly to match a Dem female pick) evaporated in their minds. Now, Biden, he of the run-on mouth, is going to have to be extra careful during the debates. Is that unfair or sexist? Maybe, but it’s also simply the way things are.

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  94. Thank you, Phil #57, for clarifying.

    “Racism” has generally been used to refer to people’s attitudes towards members of OTHER races that arise out of ignorance or hatred or both. Sexism likewise.

    I agree with this however, I myself have applied both terms racist and sexist to other American-Indians in my family or other women displaying said behavior. Its not unheard of nor that unusual. However, I think in some circles you are right – these labels get used so loosely and indiscriminately that they do indeed suffer a loss in meaning and become pedestrian.

    As far as the Sully piece and Palin go, it feels like he is responding like many pundits and public figures – they aren’t sure what to think of this new twist in heels or which way to run with her so there is a reflexive response of following their own company line (see Obama’s staffers initial responses and then Obama & Biden’s subsequent more thought out (i.e. pre-emptive strike) response.

    Dana (084de8)

  95. 87 is a follow-up to 85…

    — Oh, now I get it. Another Drew is a sound-alike for Another Jooooooo! Jeez! Are there no reg’lar Americans left on this blog? Y’all make me sick. . . .

    … ‘cept fer DRJ. And I’m not too certin ’bout her. I mean, the only DRJ I know played Forward for the Sixers 30 years ago. And, well, you know . . . he was one of them.

    Guys who wear moustaches!

    Icy Truth (75e0f5)

  96. Visit his frickin blog.

    Hah, in hell.

    andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/read-all-about.html

    not an e-mail

    andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/sarah-palin-as.html

    I don’t see what there is for him to disagree with in that one. At most the person says she’ll be formidable and help McCain tactically (something Sullivan seems to have already implicitly conceded and something he explicitly seems to support below it). The person also so says “it’s clear she was chosen solely to game the system.” That doesn’t seem to be much of a disagreement at all, but pretty much what he’s been stating.

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/dissent-of-t-12.html

    There we go – now that’s a dissenting e-mail. Any others?

    Anon (03ab2e)

  97. Patrick,

    I spent most of the last 90 minutes browsing Sullivan’s website and I have two comments:

    First, I can’t believe the things I do for you.

    Second, Sullivan strikes me as someone who gladly uses sexism and racism to prove his point if he feels it’s justified. He’s an ends-justifies-the-means type. Maybe that makes him a sexist or a racist on occasion but mostly it makes him a hypocrite for purporting to embrace values that he tosses overboard when they get in the way.

    Of course, I bet he would feel the same way about me if he even knew I existed. Fortunately, now that I’ve read his website and responded to your post, I can resume not caring what he thinks, too.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  98. #57 Phil
    my point is that the words “sexism” and “racism” lose their meaning pretty quickly when you start to apply them to people’s views about others who are the same sex or race as themselves, that’s all . . . I’m open to opposing points of view on this, but that’s generally what I’ve perceived racism and sexism to refer to.
    O.k., that’s a clear statement and I get what you’re saying, now.
    I have an opposing point of view. I’m a woman, and I know tons of women who treat women badly because they–the ones being treated badly–are women. I’d call that one example of sexism: the full slew would be anyone of either sex treating anyone of either sex badly *because* that person is that sex. I expect that female women-haters have latched onto that attitude because they’ve seen others succeed by doing it–as they see it. But I am not a psychologist.
    So how about: sexism, in practice, is treating people differentially based on their sex, and racism is etc. etc.

    m (f50f8a)

  99. Anon, what’s the difference between posting e-mails and posting news stories? How is it that Sullivan’s presumed to agree with one, and not the other, unless he says otherwise?

    Phil (3b1633)

  100. VIDEO: Sarah Palin on drilling in ANWR, energy policy…

    You go girl (Via MM):

    After you get done watching that, make sure to check out this side by side comparison of the experience of Sen. Obama versus the experience of Gov. Palin. It’s missing a few things but overall it’s pretty darn effect…

    Sister Toldjah (fd6805)

  101. #57 Phil
    Shorter form: Women can be misogynists.

    m (f50f8a)

  102. How is it that Sullivan’s presumed to agree with one, and not the other, unless he says otherwise?

    The e-mails are opinion. I wouldn’t expect a blogger to post a news story he thinks is made up (at least without a caveat) and if a blogger was in the habit of doing that, I’d quit reading him. Likewise, I wouldn’t expect them to post a letter they think is wrong without at least some argument on the subject – this doesn’t just go for Sullivan, it goes for any blogger.

    The guy gets tons of e-mails, if he takes the time to post one, it’s because at minimum he thinks it’s insightful – and if he doesn’t give you his direct opinion on it, you have to go by what he thinks is insightful.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  103. sexism, in practice, is treating people differentially based on their sex, and racism is etc. etc. Then am I sexist for only dating women? Is it sexist to have men’s and women’s restrooms?

    For that matter, is it “racist” to ever mention race? Is it racist to call Obama “black” — after all, his mom was white. My mom was white and I’m “white,” so why is Obama “black? Is a kid with a black mom and a white dad “white?” No.

    I’m not just trying to be disagreeable here — I really don’t think that the word “racism” just refers to treating different races/sexes differently.

    Now, when a woman treats other women badly because they’re women, is she “sexist”? That’s a very hamhanded way of describing what she’s doing. She may be jealous/competitive of other women; she may feel threatened by women; she may have some kind of self-loathing about being a woman, and be transferring that to other women.

    Describing her as “sexist” lumps her in with the men who see women as sex objects/baby-growing machines because they’re to selfish and self-obsessed to see anything else. What’s the point of that?

    Phil (3b1633)

  104. Barack Obama is going to be spending the rest of the campaign putting out the sexist fires erupting all over his side.

    And as for Sullivan, the guy never has had any class. Who would have expected more.

    dianne (b0440e)

  105. JD…
    Icy has gotten surly.
    Time to chill and enjoy Happy Hour.

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  106. 87 – Oh no you di’nt. You don’t know me. Don’t go there.

    JD (5f0e11)

  107. Anon, I don’t know what he thinks, and I don’t pretend to. I’m certainly not impressed with the assumption that he agrees with the e-mail. But if you want to assume it, go ahead. Otherwise, ask him what he thinks, not me.

    Phil (3b1633)

  108. 103 Phil
    O.k., I’m stealing from the OED here–I’d rather not have drawn on a dictionary, but it’s a clearer snapshot (that’s why we have dictionaries):
    sexism: The assumption that one sex is superior to the other and the resultant discrimination practised against members of the supposed inferior sex, esp. by men against women; also conformity with the traditional stereotyping of social roles on the basis of sex.

    m (f50f8a)

  109. m, “conformity with traditional stereotyping of social roles on the basis of sex” is in my opinion an incomplete definition, because it does include behavior like building men’s and women’s restrooms. Am I sexist because I don’t want an Ally McBeal bathroom?

    Not to say that it’d be wrong to choose that answer on the SAT — that’s the dictionary definition, you’re right. Definitions are only as clear as the world they refer to. And our world is a very indefinite, ever-changing and not-entirely-understood place.

    Phil (3b1633)

  110. What does Obama offer?

    First and foremost: his face. — Andrew Sullivan

    The same Sullivan just called out by a co-blogger for reveling in jew-baiting?

    The same Sullivan who always enjoys airing conspiracy theories about the Bush administration?

    How could he possibly be exploiting sexism in this way?

    /sarc

    Karl (1b4668)

  111. BTW, anyone who has read Sullivan for years knows that the printing of an alleged e-mail w/o definitive comment is the classic Sullivan way of attacking. If it blows up in his face, he thinks he has plausible deniability.

    Karl (1b4668)

  112. If he disagreed with the email, wouldn’t he have said something like “take a look at this douchenozzle” or “look at what this rube said”.

    JD (5f0e11)

  113. He’p me! He’p me! I been hypmotized!

    [Jeez, I’m old. Does anyone even remember that reference?]

    Icy Truth (eaa5db)

  114. I remember it, but I’m kinda old.

    Karl (1b4668)

  115. Nobody sent him an email. He made that up so he could say that, and hide behind it. Phil, is doing mental gymnastics trying to defend Sully’s dishonesty.

    JD (5f0e11)

  116. Icy (6:18) “Are there no reg’lar Americans left on this blog?”

    Me… of course I’m english/german/native american and white, so not sure if I count

    (I denounce myself, male of course)

    Lord Nazh (ce25e3)

  117. I really hope someone continues to document all the sexist attacks against Palin during this campaign…maybe a new website listing the offenders and what they said.

    Cory (6b4784)

  118. Icy (6:18): Me…Amer/Injun, German/Russian Jew…and female. No need to denounce myself!

    Dana (084de8)

  119. Hey. Karl!

    JD (5f0e11)

  120. If he disagreed with the email, wouldn’t he have said something like “take a look at this douchenozzle” or “look at what this rube said”.

    Yeah, like a REAL blogger does.

    If there’s one thing that drives me nuts, it’s how bloggers so often have to tell their readers what to think.

    I wish they’d try to persuade me. Don’t tell me “he’s an asshole” — let ME decide for pity’s sake! Give me the evidence you’ve seen, and let me make up my own damn mind.

    Phil (3b1633)

  121. The rest od you are racists. Quit oppressing me.

    JD (5f0e11)

  122. 68 Icy Truth-
    Republicans call a spade, a spade? I condemn myself for racism. That term is considered taboo, like the term black hole. There are worse epithets, such as what the acronym of NAACP means. I first encountered it before the ’68 election. I’m sure it isn’t hard to guess..think various animals. You’ll also recall what racial joke got sec. of agriculture Earl Butz fired.

    Anyway some may also recall the original House Party movie circa 1990 when hip hoppers Kid n’ Play were arguing and one complained to the teacher that the other student had called his mother a ‘ho. Teacher asks, “Did you call his mother a garden utensil?”

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  123. Sullivan’s “Is Sarah Palin a bad mother?” meme is spreading. Here it is at Democratic Underground.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  124. The libertarian in me of course says “hell no” to the question “Is Sara Palin a bad mother?”

    Part of me does ask the question, but I don’t think it’s any more sexist than the part of me that automatically thought John Edwards was an asshole for continuing to run for president when his wife discovered her cancer had returned and was terminal.

    Phil (3b1633)

  125. If Sarah Palin is a bad mother for working with kids, there are a lot of bad mothers out there.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  126. Now, I’m pretty sure that “running for vice president of the USA while you have a four-month-old with Downs syndrome” is different from just “working with kids.”

    Phil (3b1633)

  127. My Illini are getting drilled. My temperment is less than ideal.

    JD (5f0e11)

  128. Peter –

    For that matter, is it “racist” to ever mention race?
    — No. In a nod to the favorite liberal buzzword of this campaign, used most often in reference to Rev. Wright, it’s all about the context.

    Is it racist to call Obama “black” — after all, his mom was white. My mom was white and I’m “white,” so why is Obama “black? Is a kid with a black mom and a white dad “white?” No.
    — Obama self-identifies as black; so NO, it is not racist to call him black. However, it is unnecessary to call him ‘the black candidate’. And it may not seem fair, but if a person’s physical appearance indicates at least one black parent . . . chances are that person will call themselves ‘black’, and will be regarded by others as being black.

    I’m not just trying to be disagreeable here — I really don’t think that the word “racism” just refers to treating different races/sexes differently.
    — What do you think it refers to?

    Now, when a woman treats other women badly because they’re women, is she “sexist”?
    — Yes.

    That’s a very hamhanded way of describing what she’s doing. She may be jealous/competitive of other women; she may feel threatened by women; she may have some kind of self-loathing about being a woman, and be transferring that to other women.
    — It is the action that defines the term applied. If you discriminate against someone based on their gender, it’s sexism – period. Your particular reason for doing it does not change what you did.

    Describing her as “sexist” lumps her in with the men who see women as sex objects/baby-growing machines because they’re to selfish and self-obsessed to see anything else. What’s the point of that?
    — Because, again, the action is one of discriminating against another person based on that person’s gender. This is starting to resemble a discussion of hate crimes legislation. How many different definitions would you like to create?

    Am I sexist because I don’t want an Ally McBeal bathroom?
    — Nope.

    And our world is a very indefinite, ever-changing and not-entirely-understood place.
    — And by “our world” you mean the world of the never-ending quest for moral relativism in all things.

    Icy Truth (eaa5db)

  129. Why is a mother any different than a father with kids, running for President. Baracky is a bad father for running because he has kids too then. Or, does this only go one way?

    JD (5f0e11)

  130. JD, I denounce you for questioning the veracity, and the deity, of The One!

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  131. The libertarian in me of course says “hell no” to the question “Is Sara Palin a bad mother?” Part of me does ask the question, but I don’t think it’s any more sexist than the part of me that automatically thought John Edwards was an asshole …

    — If you’re saying that the question should be an automatic . . . sorry, maybe that denotes a collective ignorance of Down syndrome. As for asking it at all — ask it, answer with a definitive “HELL NO”, and let it drop.

    Icy Truth (eaa5db)

  132. Phil,

    I don’t think it’s different. In some ways, professional working women/mothers have it easier than most mothers. I know single women who work in call centers and similar jobs. Do you realize a mother working in a call center cannot get time off to take a kid to a doctor’s appointment or a soccer game? They can’t take their kids with them to work if child care falls through or a child is sick. They can’t even take a moment off for a phone call, and there are thousands and thousands of mothers and children doing this every day.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  133. The sexist, sneering anti-women attitude sure was not far below the surface of the Obama cultists, was it?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  134. The liberal double standards obviously apply to Sarah Palin. You know the media is gaga about everything the magic negro does, even if he, um, um, um does a crappy job of speaking off the cuff, flip flopping, disowning various associations, lying through his jug ears, etc.

    Using the definition being applied to Palin’s motherhood, couldn’t we, in retrospect, say that JFK was an even worse father because he left two small children fatherless?

    I thought it was selfish of the teacher (with small kids) from New Hampshire to hazard space flight when it was known to be highly risky. As I recall (hazy memory) there was a 1 in 400 chance of catastrophe on each flight? OK, I’m sure everyone say she was heroic, yadda, yadda. Perhaps you have to be in the situation yourself to weigh the pros and cons. Long after the fact, I pondered my own mom’s decision not to have her leg amputated, resulting in the spread of cancer. You’d think maternal instinct would opt for the choice of being alive for three small kids.
    I don’t see that being Vice President is any more arduous than being governor of Alaska, flying all over the dangerous wilderness in all kinds of weather. Does a VEEP really do all that much, other than ceremonial crap? Maybe McCain would wisely use Palin in her areas of expertise, such as an energy task force?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  135. max @ 8:11…
    Energy task force…
    Yeh, that went so well, PR wise, the last time it was given to a VP.
    Aren’t some of the MoonBats in the House still talking about impeaching Cheney because of his energy task force?

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  136. Charles Johnson caught the Obama cultists in an anti-gay themed attack on Palin.

    There is no limit to how low these people will go.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  137. SPQR (8:05 pm)

    The sexist, sneering anti-women attitude sure was not far below the surface of the Obama cultists, was it?

    — It was right there, waiting to be unleashed on Hillary if she tried to mount a floor fight for the nomination. But Howard Dean managed to do what might be the only right thing he’s done in his life: steer that simmering sexism to a target that is ‘safer’ in their eyes, because she belongs to the other side. Of course if they don’t cool it there will be a backlash, and a rush of undecideds to support Gov. Palin, just as there was for Hillary earlier this year. Based on how well they have avoided playing the race card, it should prove interesting.

    Icy Truth (eaa5db)

  138. Has Biden ever explained how he avoided Vietnam?

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  139. 137 But..but..but Dick Cheney was a big shot at Halliburton and both he and Dubya have long been lining their pockets through the machinations of big oil. Look at all the oil we stole from Iraq.
    But seriously, if anyone bothers to look into Palin’s interactions with oil companies, I think she comes off very well. I can see that the electorate gave her a mandate for change and cleaning up the state corruption. You have to wonder how one woman with limited connections could go so far and have the crooks on the run. I suppose it has something to do with pissed off ordinary citizens fed up with pols feeding at the public trough? You don’t see the (mostly) black electorate bothering to evict the likes of a Kwame Kirkpatrick, Ray Nagin, William Jefferson or Marion Barry. And as far as that goes, I suppose Chicago mayor Daley survives through his own system of payoffs and extortions. It would be interesting to learn just what judges and pols are bought and paid for by other crooks. It begs belief to me that Obama is a clean crusader when he’s never actually done diddley not in the interests of the entrenched corrupt establishment and so many of his pals are right assholes arrogantly availing themselves of illegal or immoral short cuts and influences. Someone allows scum like Wright, Rezno, Ayers, Dorhn and many other friends of Obama to fester and thrive. And it sure ain’t the mainstream media making any effort to call the evil bastards on their crimes, marxist indoctrinations or racism.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  140. My Illini are getting drilled.
    Quiet, JD! Don’t let the greenies hear you say that!

    kishnevi (765df9)

  141. A reader writes:

    Phil is a closet racist. Nobody can say the things he says and not be a bigot.

    Also, he’s obviously gay. Just sayin’.

    Patterico (029002)

  142. Patterico – YOU ROCK.

    JD (5f0e11)

  143. JD,

    You seem to be assuming that the reader’s opinions are similar to (or perhaps identical to) mine.

    Now what on Earth would cause you to leap to such an assumption?!

    Patterico (216c49)

  144. Sexists

    Patterico (216c49)

  145. Patterico – Nicely done.

    Karl – Great to see you.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  146. What’s most interesting about this sexist talk is that it’s the bitter, clingy conservatives who are supposed to be racists and sexists. I’ve seen comments from conservatives that are concerned about her background and experience, but I haven’t heard any conservatives who say Palin is a bad choice because she’s a woman.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  147. Fark him. If it was a guy, he’d say nothing. If a gay guy, he would personally strangle anybody who called the parenting into question.

    And if it were Obama’s baby, he would probably offer to be the presidential wet nurse…

    bskb (632eb1)

  148. I’m pretty sure “Phil” is a Turing test. Needs quite a bit of fine-tuning.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  149. I’m interested in knowing how women commenters react to these arguments.

    Pat

    I am mortified that Andrew would even entertain these notions. He’s nuts and I am PISSED.

    Andrew fights for gay marriage and I imagine Gay adoption or surrogates, is Andrew really saying that if a Gay coupe happens on a special needs child and the couple are high achievers they are BAD people if they chose to achieve while caring for the child?

    That he would just air “she’s a BAD mother” without any reflection what he’s implying/endorsing/agreeing with is repulsive notion. Way to take a step back to the caveman years Andrew, perhaps she should lobotomize her child like the Kennedy’s did?

    Sullivan is desperate. Desperate for Obama, desperately vile.

    Topsecretk9 (677a84)

  150. What if Ellen adopted or conceived a special needs child – are they bad parents/mothers if they continue to work and leave the child to nannies?

    I guess in Andrew’s world.

    Topsecretk9 (677a84)

  151. Only if they are conservative/republican Topsecretk9

    Lord Nazh (ce25e3)

  152. I know this goes without saying, but Sully does not like girls.

    Pablo (99243e)

  153. O.K. to Patterico’s point: I like Palin….she is a woman, not a Queen Bee as Michelle and Hillary. Andrew Sullivan is a total joke and why anyone reads him is beyond me. He only cares about his issues. That he, of all people, can dump on Palin proves my point!

    Sue (4d3ef7)

  154. “– Uh, go look it up, Dude. The phrase originated with the garden tool.

    I just thought it was a funny image, us playing cards, and you laying down a couple garden tools and some jewelry and saying “full house!” And then calling me a liberal if I disagreed.

    Comment by Phil — 8/30/2008 @ 5:23 pm”

    Nah, the obvious retort would be…

    Lexist!

    Dan S (438146)

  155. I resemble that remark.

    Icy Truth (df70da)

  156. Oh, and regarding my retort to Phil, here is what Sullivan threw up (maybe literally) in the middle of the night:

    It’s the most irresponsible decision by any leading presidential candidate since Bush picked Quayle. For Charles [Krauthammer], it must be a little insulting to have worked many years thinking about foreign policy in high office, and to be facing a potentially catastrophic period of war in the Middle East and find that a woman whose expertise is in fishing, snowboarding and oil-drilling has been deemed worthy of leading the free world at the drop of a hat. But that’s how seriously McCain takes national security.

    This was about marketing not governing; hiring for appearance not competence. And they did it – without apparent irony – on the anniversary of Katrina as another hurricane threatens. From from being a reversal of the Bush administration’s worst instincts, McCain seems itent [sic] on recreating it – as farce. Heckuva Job, Sarah.

    — No, no . . . heckuva job you did, Andrew.

    Have you figured out the complexity now, Phil? Can you discern whether or not Sullivan is being sexist? He wrote that Sarah Palin was ‘hired’ for her appearance, or for the sake of appearance — which is pretty much the same thing.

    One more thing. People have been going on and on about her lack of foreign policy experience; the exact same thing Obama has been criticized for. Well — follow me here — if he can pick Biden for his VP based on Biden’s supposed foreign policy expertise, then why can’t she do the same thing? It’s like no one is considering that if, GOD FORBID, she had to assume the presidency, she would be selecting her own successor! If that were to occur, then, just like Obama, she could choose a Senator with foreign policy experience. Everybody relax; untwist your panties. It’s going to be okay.

    Icy Truth (df70da)

  157. JD @131:

    Why is a mother any different than a father with kids, running for President. Baracky is a bad father for running because he has kids too then. Or, does this only go one way?

    My wife asks the same question…only she includes a string of invective that bubbled up a bunch of paint on the walls and melted some of the vent hood over the stove …

    EW1(SG) (625c58)

  158. Icy and EW – You are wise beyond your years.

    Phil – All if your contortions for Sully were for naught.

    JD (5f0e11)

  159. […] 2) Andrew Sullivan, et al: “Concern” that Palin taking time away from the young defective she should have shitcanned (call it “compassionate eugenics”!) cause even more harm to the useless little drain on society that should never have been born in the first place (call it “the nurturer’s addendum for those greedy breeders who refused to take the high road and just snuff the damaged goods in utero”). A child needs a stay-at-home-mother! — if that child happens to be the child of a Republican breeder! Or haven’t you people been paying attention to the nuances of establishment feminist theory?* […]

    BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY! (7a2640)

  160. Jonah Goldberg hosts emails from readers just like Sullivan does, and Hot Air links him and apparently assumes he agrees with the emails he posts.

    Imagine that.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  161. Ok, I’ll wade into this, since you asked how women feel about it. I feel particularly qualified since Amanda Marcotte has said at Pandagon that she hates Sarah Palin and me because we are women who hate women.

    Well, I don’t hate women. I don’t even hate hypocrites like the feminists shrieking about Palin’s Downs Syndrome child. But it confirms what I’ve said this entire election cycle about sexism and racism; the sexism has been far worse than any perceived racism. But Democrats are far more comfortable with their sexist remarks about beehive hairdos and “inexperienced” women than with their own race card playing. Frankly, I’m having a blast watching the Left implode from its own hypocrisy.

    Sharon (a682a8)

  162. Sharon, I appreciate your remarks, and I’ll be that they are more widely held that most “feminists” suspect.

    I think that it has never been about race or gender. It’s always been about “D” versus “R.”

    And, in the bumper sticker style, the MSM is into the “D = good” and “R = bad” style of thinking. How dare a woman who is all modern and all vote Republican? How dare a black woman or man vote Republican? Why, they must be traitors to their true selves, and deserve to be ridiculed and attacked mercilessly.

    The Democrats say their party is about opportunity and inclusion and diversity. It’s actually just about “D” versus “R.” Remember how “feminists” tied themselves up in knots over WJ Clinton having a White House fling with an intern in her early 20s? Why, some luminaries in the “feminist movement” claimed that it wasn’t harassment at all, and perfectly okay. Except, of course, when Republicans do that sort of thing. Sigh.

    This is all great for the folks at one political extreme or the other.

    But the folks in the middle will decide this election. To coin a phrase, let’s speak truth to partisan power. Let’s shake the election and vote on the people for a change.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  163. This thread at its outset was headlined and concerns sexist attacks on a woman a lot of guys here have found need to describe in various ways as HOT.
    Well, never mind Andrew Sullivan, who lives outside the closet and maybe is good at making such calls. How about the sexism and misogyny right here in the comments section?
    I’ve posted elsewhere at Patterico about the problems McCain has collected with his choice for VP. And what do I get in response by some of the manly men here (cue Arnold): I get called “Mary Reilly” and “girl” in demeaning fashion.
    They don’t like girls here. That’s the message, though it’s being used to jab at a guy. It’s a pejorative term, a great way of emasculating someone with whom you disagree. Effing girl.
    You go, boys. But not very far in this world.
    I’m calling out DMAC or, more anatomically correct, smaller-pud dmac, as well as Apogee.
    Admit it guys. Your way of shooting down someone with whom you disagree, and for the obvious reason that you really have nothing substantive to say, by calling them a “girl,” probably will not sit well with your best-of-all-possible VP candidates, that hot babe from Alaska.
    Gosh, is dmac your real name? Same to you, Apogee…..or is it Perigee, or maybe Nadir? Were both your parents non-girls? Those are horrible names, the kinds only guys could come up with.
    I’ll play your game for a moment.
    Dmac, I can just tell that you are way cute and muscular and a hunk and I just melt when I read your hard-hard-hard-hitting comments. Gosh, I’d like to meet you and maybe if you said something mean about me having used a trowel to put on my makeup like a trollope, and call me the “c-word”, I’d just swoon at the strength of your sh*-*-*-on-girls words. You, too, Apogee, though I picture you as swarthy and un-circumsized, which is a real turnoff for some of us girls.

    Larry Reilly (d11f9a)

  164. Larry, you need to dial up the coherency more.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  165. Can we say Joe Biden is sexist? His first opportunity to address Palin’s selection before an audience and he mentions her….brains? Nope! Her governership? Nope! Her ability to manage? Nope! Her being pro-life, pro-drilling, pro-gun? Nope! Instead he leads with,

    “There’s a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent,” Biden said at an outdoor rally Sunday, getting ready to hit the GOP ticket for their economic policies.

    “She’s good-looking,” he quipped.

    He’s shown his hand from the get-go. What a fool.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/biden-palins-good-looking/

    Dana (084de8)

  166. Larry – We love women here. We respect them. Honor them. Even if they are hot. Or Republicans.

    Sexist racist jingoistic homophobe.

    JD (5f0e11)

  167. Sorry, SPQR.
    If I could, I’d have a caption in the corner with audio on this, as well as video signage for the deaf:

    Put this to your scientific credibilty test:

    Boys/Girls = same politically in modern, non-Muslim-fanatic world.

    Boys/Girls in Patterico comments: way different, somewhat like in Muslim world.

    On Patterico comments:
    Boys = good.
    Girls = bad.

    Simple ’nuff fuhya? Good. Dial that up.

    Larry Reilly (d11f9a)

  168. No improvement, Larry. Your comments remain incoherent. You haven’t been taking lessons from MKDP?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  169. SPQR, I wonder about the whole “Posting While Intoxicated” (PWI) issue. It could explain a great deal.

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  170. Like I said, Larry is a mendoucheous asshat. That is not a knock on his being, it is simply a demonstrable fact. Look up his prior visits.

    JD (5f0e11)

  171. #167 Dana:

    He’s shown his hand from the get-go.

    Good grief. I gave him too much credit.

    I thought he would be able to hold out at least until tomorrow before jamming his ankle past his tonsils.

    EW1(SG) (625c58)

  172. Hey JD. I thought “Asshat” was that British band in the 70s.

    Oh wait, that was “Foghat.”

    Still, it makes me wonder what kinds of arena rock tunes “Asshat” would perform?

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  173. Only a clueless Leftist would say that men and women are the same.
    Mars and Venus, Old Sot; Mars and Venus.

    Another Drew (221871)

  174. #165 – Your way of shooting down someone with whom you disagree, and for the obvious reason that you really have nothing substantive to say,

    Larry – Your writing consists of pejorative, unsubstantiated rumor, innuendo and lefty talking-points. Thanks for the projection, but it is you who has nothing substantive to say regarding Palin, and your way of avoiding challenges to that effect is to invoke personal attacks.

    I’m sorry I hurt your feelings, but you see, when you pepper your screed with secret lunch meetings and ominous imminent ‘happenings’ without any substantive evidence for your allegations, it shows you to be a ridiculous poser who craves attention. Why else run forward with your BS and then avoid backing it up? You began this exchange by mocking yourself. We merely joined in.

    You’re not liked here, but not because of some vast right-wing conspiracy. You’re not liked here, or anywhere you go for that matter (by your own admission), because you are intensely dishonest – with the commenters here, as well as yourself.

    You’re right, the moniker “Mary Reilly” questioning your masculinity is a ridiculous comment.

    Somehow, ridiculous just seemed fitting.

    Apogee (186a12)

  175. Eric Blair –

    Still, it makes me wonder what kinds of arena rock tunes “Asshat” would perform?

    — “Pooh For The City”

    Icy Truth (5bcf70)

  176. Larry Reilly,

    Never mind these barbarians who don’t know the difference between a mooseburger and a Venti Skimmed Mocha.

    You go, girl! Tell it like it is!

    nk (ad4a4c)

  177. I forgot, is questioning someone’s masculinity sexist or homophobic?

    JD (5f0e11)

  178. I have never had a mooseburger, but I am a fan of elk and bison. I have had caribou, freshly carved after being shot shortly before. A slice of heaven.

    JD (5f0e11)

  179. And those fine folks at Kos strike again:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

    I understand that one of the photos that they cite as “proof” the daughter was pregnant is from 2006.

    Classy bunch, those Democrats.

    Not to worry, Sullivan will be linking to it tomorrow.

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  180. Something is voraciously sick and very wrong with people posting photos of a young woman’s body, especially a minor, enlarged so that millions of people can examine whether she appears pregnant.

    What century is this? What country do we live in?

    Dana (084de8)

  181. It’s especially wrong since Chelsea Clinton is off-limits (as she should be) but Bristol Palin isn’t.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  182. But the Democratic party protects womens rights! Or something like that.

    JD (5f0e11)

  183. and Chelsea is how old NOW?

    Mahmoud (221871)

  184. You’re absolutely right, DRJ. And last I checked, Chelsea Clinton is legally an adult who voluntarily campaigned for her mother. No, there’s no discrimination yes I said discrimination, here, eh?

    Dana (084de8)

  185. Larry Not-So-Fine –

    This thread at its outset was headlined and concerns sexist attacks on a woman a lot of guys here have found need to describe in various ways as HOT.
    — In the best liberal tradition, we are being honest with our feelings. Don’t you repress me!

    Well, never mind Andrew Sullivan, who lives outside the closet and maybe is good at making such calls.
    — What calls? What the hell are you talking about?

    How about the sexism and misogyny right here in the comments section?
    — Yeah. Ain’t that a bitch?

    I’ve posted elsewhere at Patterico about the problems McCain has collected with his choice for VP.
    — Do you really write ad copy? How about ‘attracted’? “Collected” implies that he wanted to acquire these problems.

    And what do I get in response by some of the manly men here (cue Arnold): I get called “Mary Reilly” and “girl” in demeaning fashion. They don’t like girls here. That’s the message, though it’s being used to jab at a guy.
    — Ya got it all figgered, dontcha? We say that we don’t like you because we really don’t like girls.

    It’s a pejorative term, a great way of emasculating someone with whom you disagree. Effing girl.
    — Marie: Of course not, you’re a strong and virile man.
    Frank: Said his mommy.

    You go, boys. But not very far in this world. I’m calling out DMAC or, more anatomically correct, smaller-pud dmac, as well as Apogee.
    — “Smaller-pud”? Talk about “emasculating someone”! You’re a rude skank-whore when you get angry.

    Admit it guys. Your way of shooting down someone with whom you disagree, and for the obvious reason that you really have nothing substantive to say, by calling them a “girl,” probably will not sit well with your best-of-all-possible VP candidates, that hot babe from Alaska.
    — When you tell her, the first thing she’ll say is “Nobody likes a whiny momma’s boy narc”.

    Gosh, is dmac your real name? Same to you, Apogee…..or is it Perigee, or maybe Nadir? Were both your parents non-girls? Those are horrible names, the kinds only guys could come up with. I’ll play your game for a moment. Dmac, I can just tell that you are way cute and muscular and a hunk and I just melt when I read your hard-hard-hard-hitting comments. Gosh, I’d like to meet you and maybe if you said something mean about me having used a trowel to put on my makeup like a trollope, and call me the “c-word”, I’d just swoon at the strength of your sh*-*-*-on-girls words. You, too, Apogee, though I picture you as swarthy and un-circumsized, which is a real turnoff for some of us girls.
    — Huh. . . . Must be her time of the month.

    Icy Truth (5bcf70)

  186. Actually, JD, is well established that the Democratic Party only cares about the rights of fellow registered Democrats.

    Just ask Clarence Thomas his opinion on that subject. Speaking of Joe Biden.

    DRJ, Mr. Frey: even though I posted the link to that odious Kos nonsense and the Palin daughter, I might ask that you delete that link—if you wish. I know that Beldar feels that way.

    I was so outraged that I wanted other people to see the hatred and nastiness. But folks like that Kos poster—and I wonder what he (and I am betting cash money that person is a “he”) would look like photographically enlarged—enjoy the attention.

    Sigh.

    What kind of people are these Kos types, anyway?

    Eric Blair (642d37)

  187. Eric @ 8:05…
    Something that Darwin would never recognize.

    Another Drew (221871)

  188. Eric Blair –

    I understand that one of the photos that they cite as “proof” the daughter was pregnant is from 2006.

    — Tell them we’ll trade them one DNA test of Sarah and Trig for one copy of Obama’s original birth certificate.

    Icy Truth (5bcf70)

  189. Re DailyKos: “Moulitsas” can be fairly translated as “little girly bastard” in Greek. I guess it’s in his genes.

    nk (ad4a4c)

  190. On Patterico comments:
    Boys = good.
    Girls = bad.

    Oh yeah, that’s why DRJ is so despised here.

    Larry, you really are a piece of work.

    Paul (95a8c7)

  191. “Moulos” is “bastard”. It’s the origin of “mule”.
    “Moulitsa” is the feminine, diminutive. “Little bastard girl.
    The “s” in “Moulitsas” can indicate either possessive or grammatical male gender. The possessive is not used for men’s surnames in Greek. The are “the” not “o'” “de”, “von”, etc.
    The best translation is “grammatically male little girly bastard”.

    nk (ad4a4c)

  192. Apogee: You call me….Poser? Dishonest?
    And you base that on what?…….Surmise.
    Take away any anecdotal and personal touches and just look at the points made. (Perhaps you think what I wrote is dishonest because you feel no one who has moved about in a world larger than this echo chamber would come to this place and post. Good point. I came here some time ago because a particular issue in which I was interested touched down here briefly in pertinent fashion. Since then, I have returned occasionally to check a particular pulse among many on the blogosphere, as well as to have occasional fun running a pipe across the cage’s bars to watch the animals react.)

    You and dmac wrote what you wrote about women. That speaks for itself and no explanation, no window dressing changes it. To you, as you say here, “it seemed fitting.” That sort of thing is ingrained, not an accident.

    As for what I posted that you find to be unsubstantiated rumor etc…….
    Boiling it down, I said:
    There is a pincer movement at work concerning McCain’s choice of Palin.
    Those pincers are:
    One: Troopergate and whatever else like that comes out in the very near future now that real and serious scrutiny is underway. You can believe, if you wish, that McCain’s people carefully vetted her. I do not. Could be a major mistake.
    Two: The Republican backlash/blowback to McCain’s choice. You can accept or not accept that this choice went against the wishes of the Republican power structure. You can accept or not accept my assertion that the Republicans are pissed.

    If you disagree with those being significant factors at this point, then we have nothing to discuss. For you or anyone else to dismiss it out of hand is either ignorant or dishonest.

    And for Icy Truth, who apparently ventured into Wikipedia to learn about “pincer movement” this afternoon, the primary frontal assault is, by definition in an election campaign, being done by Obama/Biden. The two flank pincers may or may not be stoked by them or coordinated by them. This is not a wholly strategic maneuver in a design developed by all parties, but it is indeed a pincer movement by effect.

    And you, Apogee, want to latch onto what I said about not liked on liberal blogs. I guess I should explain why I wrote that. It stemmed from something I experienced today.
    I’ve let them know that my blood boils when anarchists trash stuff and break windows when they march in whichever downtown for whatever protest. I might understand why some of them do it, but I don’t condone it in any way. F’em.
    But my blood also boils when police/FBI et al. engage in pre-emptory strikes against all manner of people who may or may not have nefarious plans.

    And you, SPQR:
    You set yourself up by vocation or avocation as debunking junk science. And you call me out for coherence while at the same time you support someone who wants my kid to study “Creationism” in our public school.
    Only in the English language, apparently, can two positives make a negative: Yeah, right.

    Larry Reilly (d11f9a)

  193. *They are “the” — not “o’” “de”, “von”, etc.*

    nk (ad4a4c)

  194. @ 8:21…
    Did someone bring up a bunch of phlegm?

    Another Drew (221871)

  195. #194,

    I have confidence that Sarah Palin is no weak-kneed sissy Leftist and she will make any such, who think they can project their lack of character and talent unto her, into (figurative) mooseburgers. In other words, she will have you _____s for a quick snack.

    nk (ad4a4c)

  196. Larry Reilly –

    as well as to have occasional fun running a pipe across the cage’s bars to watch the animals react
    — Confession is good for the soul, is it not?

    There is a pincer movement at work concerning McCain’s choice of Palin. Those pincers are:
    One: Troopergate and whatever else like that comes out in the very near future now that real and serious scrutiny is underway. You can believe, if you wish, that McCain’s people carefully vetted her. I do not. Could be a major mistake. Two: The Republican backlash/blowback to McCain’s choice. You can accept or not accept that this choice went against the wishes of the Republican power structure. You can accept or not accept my assertion that the Republicans are pissed.

    — How carefully does one need to vet a candidate in order to discover a story that has been out in the open, on local news and the internet for months?
    Who is behind the the pincer movement to increase the scrutiny? Media Matters, perhaps?
    The reason I do not accept your assertion is because you have provided zero, zip, nada in the way of evidence to prove it. Your assurance that it is happening doesn’t carry much weight, I’m afraid.

    And for Icy Truth,
    — He mentioned me! He mentioned me!

    who apparently ventured into Wikipedia to learn about “pincer movement” this afternoon
    — Actually, a very noble tree sacrificed itself to make the dictionary I use. Show some R-E-S-P-E-C-T, if you please.

    the primary frontal assault is, by definition in an election campaign, being done by Obama/Biden. The two flank pincers may or may not be stoked by them or coordinated by them. This is not a wholly strategic maneuver in a design developed by all parties, but it is indeed a pincer movement by effect.
    — See? I question whether or not the analogy fits; you explain how it does. We can work things out. And on that note: can you explain how Obama bin Biden are stoking or coordinating the Republican backlash?

    And you call me out for coherence while at the same time you support someone who wants my kid to study “Creationism” in our public school.
    — Remember, all four candidates believe in creationism.

    Icy Truth (5bcf70)

  197. […] Or havent you people been paying attention to the nuances of establishment feminist theory?* 3) Also via Sullivan: Two of the Palins children, Piper and Willow, share names with characters […]

    A Collection of Sarah Palin's Sins... - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source! (165f39)

  198. Creationism…
    Darwinism…
    Well, we believed in one a whole lot longer than the other.
    Does that count for anything?

    Perhaps we need to take a serious look at Intelligent Design?

    All this BS had to come from somewhere other than a pool of muck; though, it seems we are Hell bent to return there.

    Another Drew (221871)

  199. Larry – Apogee, You call me….Poser? Dishonest?
    And you base that on what?…….Surmise.

    No problem.

    You write:
    Take away any anecdotal and personal touches and just look at the points made. There’s your first problem. There aren’t any points made.

    Let me illustrate. You write:
    Perhaps you think what I wrote is dishonest because you feel no one who has moved about in a world larger than this echo chamber would come to this place and post. Good point.
    No. It’s not a good point. It’s an assertion based on a narcissistic view that you’ve “moved about in a world larger than this echo chamber”. Your attitude is strangely similar to a former commenter with the name of Levi, who imagined himself of superior intellect, and yet, was strangely unable to prove any superiority when challenged with an extremely basic task of simply remaining civil and putting forth an argument devoid of hyperbole and partisan talking points.

    You go on:
    I came here some time ago because a particular issue in which I was interested touched down here briefly in pertinent fashion. Since then, I have returned occasionally to check a particular pulse among many on the blogosphere, as well as to have occasional fun running a pipe across the cage’s bars to watch the animals react.
    So you admit that your goal is simply the throwing of verbal firebombs, and not debate. You, like Levi, are here to ‘rattle cages’ and, also like Levi, believe yourself to be of higher intellect than the ‘animals’ at the site. This is easy to test, from your comments.

    You write:
    As for what I posted that you find to be unsubstantiated rumor etc…….
    Boiling it down, I said:
    There is a pincer movement at work concerning McCain’s choice of Palin.

    Supposition on your part, but okay, let’s see where that goes.

    Those pincers are:
    One: Troopergate and whatever else like that comes out in the very near future now that real and serious scrutiny is underway. You can believe, if you wish, that McCain’s people carefully vetted her. I do not. Could be a major mistake.

    Let me get this straight. What you label ‘Troopergate’ is an investigation into the firing of a senior level Police Captain for failing to suspend, discipline or terminate a patrol officer that you yourelf agree engaged in police brutality, unethical behavior and terrorist threats? Oh, as an aside, you do realize that the investigation was called for by Palin herself? To reiterate, you believe that the Governor or a State, having reported aggregious and unlawful behavior by a patrol officer to that officer’s superior, has absolutely no recorse to remove senior law enforcement management for failing to discipline that officer? Funny, that jibes poorly with your claim that my blood also boils when police/FBI et al. engage in pre-emptory strikes against all manner of people who may or may not have nefarious plans. So your blood boils, yet you want the highest elected official in the state to be powerless to alter such behavior.
    Dishonest.

    As for what ‘might happen in the future’, you can’t seriously think that constitutes a point?
    Again, Dishonest.

    You state that you don’t think McCain vetted Palin. Barring any evidence of this, it isn’t a point, it’s an opinion. The suggestions regarding your masculinity were also opinions, so you can weigh it’s value. The idea that stating an opinion equates to ‘scoring a point’ is either stupid or dishonest. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
    Dishonest.

    Two: The Republican backlash/blowback to McCain’s choice. You can accept or not accept that this choice went against the wishes of the Republican power structure. You can accept or not accept my assertion that the Republicans are pissed.
    Yes, there are a lot of Republicans whose removal and/or indictment was caused directly by the actions of Palin, and yes, they’re pissed. Since you cite no sources to back up your assertion of an imminent torpedoing of Palin’s candidacy other than by Dishonest Leftists such as yourself, we’ll treat this as speculative. Accepting your ‘logic’, what would anger the RNC more, removal and replacement of corrupt Republicans by a Republican, or the loss of the Presidency due to intra-party squabbeling?

    Your summary:
    If you disagree with those being significant factors at this point, then we have nothing to discuss. For you or anyone else to dismiss it out of hand is either ignorant or dishonest.
    They would be significant factors – if they existed. But you’ve supplied no specifics to back up your assertions. Again, you seem to have difficulty discerning between your assertions and objective evidence, which bodes poorly for your claim of higher intelligence.

    Instead of labeling your suppositions as such, you dishonestly attempt to convert each into a ‘pincer’, implying that they indeed exist and are supported by some evidence other than opinion. You then take this dishonest conversion and attempt to create a false scenario whereby Palin’s candidacy is threatened. You further argue that anyone disagreeing that said scenario is ‘significant’ must be stupid or dishonest. Again, Larry, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re dishonest.

    As to your being a Poser, lets examine that assertion.
    A Poser is someone who attempts to pass themselves off as something that they are not, either because of a lack of capability or a lack of work.

    As I explained earlier, your attitude and comments speak repeatedly to your superior intellect comparatively to myself and other commenters on this site. As this exceedingly long comment has proven, you do not possess that intellect, otherwise you would not be making the logical and factual errors previously outlined above.

    Therefore, you, Larry, are a Poser, in addition to being dishonest. I regret calling you a girl’s name, as you are correct, it is an insult to women.

    Apogee (186a12)

  200. Larry Reilly:

    You set yourself up by vocation or avocation as debunking junk science. And you call me out for coherence while at the same time you support someone who wants my kid to study “Creationism” in our public school.

    …and who would that be? Would it be Sarah Palin, who “if elected [as governor], would not push the State Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum”?

    http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

    Obviously, she wants Creationism taught in school so badly that she’s paralyzed into inaction about actually, y’know, having it taught in school.

    CliveStaples (038b1e)

  201. Wow…

    To the poster of the blog article: you are mischaracterizing the purpose of Sullivan’s post. You make it sound by your inflammatory title that Sullivan went on a tirade about how Palin should just stay home and be a good mother rather than run for public office. On the contrary, Sullivan posted this opinion of a 37 year old Catholic mother to give one example where McCain’s strategy of scooping up the vote of fanatical Hillary supporters has failed. Or are you denying that a large part of the reason Palin was chosen as his running mate was to secure these votes, as some of his recent campaign ads and some recent speeches have indicated?

    DGB (7c9b37)

  202. DGB – Read my post #158

    Icy Truth (80b4e7)

  203. Americans must stand up against these sexist commentators, news anchors and politicians. Jack Cafferty of CNN, while discussing Governer Palin quipped today that, “Dealing with Putin isn’t like attending a PTA meeting”. SEXIST!!! Paul Begala ‘complimented’ Governer Palin on her charisma (tongue in cheek) stating that, “Competing in all those beauty pagents must have really paid off for her.” SEXIST!!! These hateful leftists can’t stand a successful conservative woman and are pulling all the stops to ruin her because they can not defeat her on the issues. Where is the media outrage? Where are the feminists? Oh, that’s right she’s a CONSERVATIVE woman.

    Nick Lichter (202666)

  204. Why are the democrats running so scared of Sarah Palin? She is, apparently, more than a small town hick if they are that afraid of her. I think the attacks will just strengthen her. I hope so. The politicians said they were not going to involve her family but the news media just cannot leave it alone. I wonder why that is?? They are hard up for something to report and they are like vultures who wait. In other words, if it “ain’t” dead, lets kill it.

    Patricia Orton (c36902)

  205. […] certain sick minded blogger who isn’t even an American citizen, has been pushing a disgusting rumor that Sarah Palin’s youngest son isn’t her […]

    Sarah Palin Gets The Final Word « American Glob (22f8c7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7206 secs.