Saturday, August 30, 2008
Hey Sugartits
Heard your big talk yesterday about busting through that glass ceiling in the sky.
Hmmmm ... dunno.
Isn't that sorta hard to do when someone else has their hands in your uterus? I know you can't wait to get your miserable right-to-life paws all over mine.
And my daughter's--especially my daughter's.
I hate to burst your bubble, Sugartits, but the big reason you're floating on such a lofty high is on account of the same attributes that earned you the bouquet in today's pic. McCain couldn't afford to have an ugly broad standing next to him at this stage of the game, now could he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
What was that commercial a few years ago ... "don't hate me because I'm beautiful?" I think it was for a hair product company but I'm not sure.
Al
TRAG
It's even worse than I first thought. She could possibly represent one of the most cynical and exploitive political manuevers ever. To wit: Her 5th child has downs syndrome. She allegedly decided to continue the pregnancy after inutero testing revealed the problem (which obviously is her choice and one with which I have no problem). What I will find despicable is if she is paraded around on the national stage as a paragon of virtue, babe in arms.
I have two daughters. She is my enemy. "To arms, to arms the fascists are coming."
RJ
Al, I don't hate her because she's beautiful, but your man John McCain sure is an asshole for deciding a pretty face doth a good VP make-- you know goddamn well that McCain picked her on account of her looks in some part.
RJ: I have no doubt that she believes in all her Christian righteousness and she is wholly entitled to it. But good christ awmighty, please keep this monster in Alaska--far away from our daughters.
On the plus side, the Hillary is 44 crowd has shown their true colors here: they don't give a damn about Democratic policies, they just want to elect a woman.
They even put a disclaimer into their rant that they disagree with her policies, but the entire post still reads like a fangirl crush on her favorite superstar. This type doesn't give a damn what McCain & Palin do the the country, just that this puts a woman in position to become president.
I'm still not sure if the whole thing was just a Republican front to mess with the Democrat primaries but, regardless of who is running it, they're milking this for all its worth to get a Republican victory in November.
Welcome Geek. Thanks for visiting and commenting.
That Hillary 44 site is TERRIFYING!
And Al? Puzzle me this:
Would McCain h ave chosen Palin if she were a man?
Erin,
I have no clue why John McCain chose Palin and not someone else, man or woman. I have not talked to him so it is useless for me to speculate. He chose who he chose, and only he knows the true reason. That she is an attractive woman can only be a plus. McCain must have known that, but IMHO I don't think that's the only reason he picked her.
I have to ask this, though - what does her looks have to do with her being able to lead? Absolutely nothing. I don't care if she looks like the spawn of Raquel Welch, Elizabeth Hurley, and Shania Twain combined - is she qualified? Will she be an effective VP based on her abilities? That's what I care about anyway.
What does the fact that she has a child with Down's Syndrome have to do with her ability to lead? Not much, other than it shows that she believes in pro-life so much she had the baby even though she knew he had Down's Syndrome. I for one admire that as she really practiced what she preached. You can agree or not agree with that, but I think you have to respect the fact that she backs up what she says with concrete actions. It says a lot about her character, and based on observing and leading myself for the past 20 years I can say unequivocally that leadership is all about character. But the fact that she has a kid with that syndrome will not influence my vote at least. What she says, her record, her qualifications (or lack thereof) will drive the train for me at least.
The pundits will jump on her for inexperience, as well they should. It won't be the first time, however in our history that a vice presidential candidate was less than experienced. John Edwards comes to mind, as does Spiro Agnew (man, did Nixon screw the pooch on that one, but he was after all, Nixon). Many thought Harry Truman less than qualified, as they did Nixon when he was Ike's VP. So to me, this is nothing new.
Would McCain have chosen Palin if she were a man? I have no idea. Again, I haven't talked to the guy. Might be a good question for a reporter to ask him though. The truth is political candidates pick running mates for any number of reasons, looks among them.
I wonder, if she were not attractive would you be reacting the same way? Your comments lead me to believe you're not happy that's she's attractive, was a beauty contest contestant, etc. and that McCain chose her solely on that. If she looked like, say, Billy Crystal's mother from the movie "Throw Momma From The Train," would your reaction be the same? Or would you be boring in on what I think most people will bore in on in the coming weeks - her lack of experience at the federal level?
Perhaps we should canvass Henry Higgins of My Fair Lady fame, who once famously uttered, "Why can't a woman .... be more like a man." ;-)
Al
TRAG
P.S. Getting packed for school. Pain in the ass.
Al, I'd feel the same even if Palin looked like Harriet Miers.
Damn ... I thought Harriet Miers was HOT! ;-)
Al
TRAG
Al,
I think you missed my point. The downs child is not the issue. The issue is that a person would exploit the fact they have a downs child to gain a personal advantage and, at least in this case, that a political organization would use that fact to promote their (prolife) agenda. If I was a crack addict and was using my disabled child as a means of supporting my habit I would be vilified by the "moral majority" as a lowlife scumbag, as well I should. Pray thee, what's the difference? if I was a woman using my good looks to climb the social ladder I'd be vilified by those same people as a harlot. In this case, it's called "leadership." Peculiar, no?
But, at the end of the day, if those are the folks you want to hang with, knock yourself out. But don't force me or my daughters to play by your rules.
RJ
RJ,
Like most (I suspect), I'd never heard of Palin until today. What I'd ask is this - what examples can you give that support your assertion that McCain/Palin are exploiting Palin's son for either personal or political gain? By examples I mean:
Statements by McCain or Palin to that effect
Photo ops (other than the usual parent's holding their newborn type pictures, or family outing pictures, etc.)
Any other actions that clearly demonstrate use of her son for personal/political gain and/or the advancement of the pro-life agenda
I think a lot of folks are jumping to conclusions here. Until they begin using Palin's kid in debates, statements, campaign ads, etc. and it is undeniably linked to a pro-life platform, I'm going to reserve judgment before I agree that what you're saying is true.
I for one am not forcing anyone to play by my or the Republican party's rules. I'm on record as having said I support pro-choice. I'd be against such a policy agenda as much as you would be.
I'm equally against legislating such a policy against the will of the people - to me the whole abortion issue is a very personal thing, one that is best left to individuals and not the government or any interest group. As I said, the persons making the decision to abort a pregnancy are the ones who must deal with the consequences of said decision, and thus it is not my concern.
Al
TRAG
I must say one thing, though - she had her son in April - the kid is only 4 months old. Yet she accepted the offer to be on McCain's ticket. I don't have kids, but I've got to say that if I had a kid with Down's Syndrome, I probably wouldn't be running for Vice President. The child obviously takes priority. So I'm wondering why she accepted. Either she has a nanny or someone who can do the day to day care for the child, she's a "supermom," or she's an extremely effective multi-tasker. My guess is someone anti-McCain/Palin will seize on this (if I were in Obama's camp I would). Hope she has a good answer for it.
Al
TRAG
I fucking love you Erin O'Brien. I couldn't have said it better than myself.
Hey Alice.
Al, let me put it to you this way. As a woman, I see Palin as someone who will do anything in her legislative power in order to mandate every single pregnancy comes to term no matter what--rape, a difficult situation with the fetus, whatever. Then she'll effectively bounce baby Trig and say, "See?"
I don't know her stance on pregnancies wherein the mother is in danger or how she feels about birth control, but her bio is inundated with staunch religion, so the answers don't bode well to me.
I'm sure in her heart, she believes she's doing right by god--but at whose expense?
You can't imagine how terrifying it is to have a daughter and watch a right-to-lifer like this dangling before such power. You really can't. It is a terrible thing and perhaps why I am so up-in-arms over the whole thing.
Erin,
Keep in mind that the Executive Branch (the Vice President is part of that branch under the Constitution) doesn't pass laws. The Congress does. The only power she'll have, if elected, as the President of the Senate. As such, she can cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. As the Democrats are in control of both houses at the moment (and it doesn't look good for the Republicans come the next election cycle), chances of her influencing any of that is most likely slim to none.
Again, I disagree with the pro-lifers. Certainly in cases of rape such nonsensical thinking shouldn't apply.
I'm equally terrified of a Democrat getting into office and legislating any number of things I oppose. And while I can't truly know what it's like for you as regards your daughter since I'm not a parent myself, I can understand your extreme trepidation at the thought of Palin being elected, as powerless to legislate anything as she may indeed be.
Having a stong faith is fine, but I must say I can't stand it when it's forced down my throat. If someone's faith provides them a source of strength, comfort, cool. I just don't care and really don't want to hear about it. Keep it a private matter, thanks. I'll do likewise.
We had a minor controversy here in lovely Fayetteville a few months ago. This nut job church down here wanted to have a booth at a local festival. One of my co-workers is a member of the church. What they wanted to do was hand out free bottles of water. Along with a little card talking about God, their church, and who knows what else.
Now, I'm all for free water on a hot day. But I'm against proseletyzing to someone who most likely doesn't want to hear it. My co-worker stated handing out water wasn't proseletyzing, and she would be correct. When I pointed out that handing out information about their church, their beliefs, God according to them etc. was proseltyzing, she told me "oh, we're just telling them about our church." I asked her why they were telling people about their church. She said "well, to get people to come to church, join ours, etc." So I told her they wanted to attempt to influence folks to go to their church, change or adopt the beliefs of that church, etc., and that that was indeed proseltyzing. She then went into a nonsensical rant about how it wasn't, they just wanted to give people water, etc.
The point is I can't stand these folks either. Keep your religion to yourselves, and out of the business of Government.
Al
TRAG
I don't hate her. She hasn't done anything (yet) to warrant that. But I do hate her positions and policies.
Regarding the child with Down's... If she'd left him at home, people would think she was embarrassed by him. There's a flip side to the coin.
Regarding why she'd accept the veep nomination... Well, according to her, she's "just a hockey mom" who accidentally got into politics. It couldn't be because she's an ambitious woman. The GOP would hate it if she was nakedly ambitious.
That she (and others) are comparing her with Hilary is a disgrace. Palin is only two years into a governorship of Alaska, a state that can't be too hard to run (in comparison to other states.)
Palin is purely a fembot at this stage of the game.
Al,
You make a valid point. I have not heard Palin make statements. I have based my assumptions on the statements of her
supporters and her online bios so I'm willing to concede I may have "rushed to judgement."
I live in Tennessee, a very red state. The conservative talk radio shows (WTN 99.7, Nashville, 24/7) were buzzing like it was Christmas after the announcement and the issue of her child and her prolife stance were lauded right along with her lifetime NRA membership and other resume highlights. It was stated that the legislation she proposed to ban abortion allowed no exception for cases of rape or incest.
All of the above came amidst a situation where commentators from both parties thought McCain needed to "hit a home run" with the selection. It seemed to me the conservative response was that he caught a hanging curveball and launched it. Now, being a long time observer of politics I'm thinking if I'm McCains campaign manager I want to capitalize on this opportunity. Ergo I concluded that it would only be a matter of time before Mrs. Palin was wall to wall media drilling for North Slope Oil, shooting Moose (mice?), conducting foreign policy with the Canadians(!) and being supermom, particularly with her special needs child. There was one report that a reporter asked how she balanced the obligations of work and motherhood and her response was allegedly "I put down the blackberry and pick-up the breast pump." I also assumed that when McCain observed the response of the faithful that he would taut the same conservative positions.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with her beliefs with one important exception. She would pursue an agenda that would eliminate choices for women that do not subscribe to her views.
If my daughters get pregnant in or out of wedlock I believe the decision to carry the pregnancy to term or end it should be their decision. Doctors who choose should be able to perform medical procedures, including abortion, without concern about violating laws. Choice. Choice. And the other component is freedom from unhealthy shame and guilt. I have served as an escort at an abortion clinic being protested. The demonsrators screamed at the women trying to utilize the services of the clinic that they were going to hell. At a time when they are trying to cope with an unwanted pregnancy that is the last thing they need. It is psychological terrorism. Someone talks like that to my daughter in my presence, I'm going to jail.
RJ
Al--you forgot to mention that the Executive branch appoints Supreme Court Justices (ahem).
Spants: all good points and I so love your name.
RJ: Meese?
In political historical retrospect, this will turn out to be a huge mistake for the McSame campaign. Also...she and Tina Fey. Separated at birth? Only she would be the un-funny one.
Erin,
Actually, the President nominates candidates for the Supreme Court. The Senate approves them. From Wikipedia:
The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS)[1] is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Justices serve "during good Behaviour,"[2] which terminates at death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.[3] The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but has original jurisdiction in a small number of cases.[4]
In the even that McCain/Palin win, there is no gurantee that they'd get a guy or gal with a pro-life stance through the process and approved by the Senate. Indeed, I'd submit that with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, such a prospect is highly unlikely, though not impossible.
RJ,
We are in violent agreement on pro-choice. Again, I do not feel it is the government's job to legislate what is an intensely personal decision and choice. I would oppose any campaign to institute policies or laws limiting the individual's ability to choose a course of action best for them and in some cases the child.
Al
TRAG
Post a Comment