So Sarah Palin came to town yesterday to support Michele Bachmann, drawing as many as 11,000 people on a Wednesday afternoon to a rally at the Convention Center. A few thoughts:
- It has to be said: the most useful thing about both Bachmann and Palin is the mirror they hold up to the face of the Left. The blind hatred and spittle-flecked rage that both of these politicians engender (pun intended) can be absolutely amazing. I forget who said it, but there is a lot of value in being hated by the right people and both Bachmann and Palin have that going for them.
- While I support Michele Bachmann over any candidate that she might face in the upcoming election, I'm baffled at the support and enthusiasm she garners, along with the hatred on the other side. I realize this is a minority view around here, but I don't think Bachmann is necessarily that great a representative. She's streets ahead of Betty McCollum or Keith Ellison, but I tend to think of her more as a Bob Dornan/William Proxmire type than as a true leader. She delights in being a gadfly and lightning rod, and she serves several useful purposes in doing so, but a politician who takes that approach rarely has much influence on larger policy matters. If Bachmann is serious about being part of the leadership on Capitol Hill, we probably ought to see less of her on television. I'm not sure that she is, though.
- While Sarah Palin shares a number of characteristics with Michele Bachmann, she's a different animal. There are two strains in her personality that are at war: her formidable happy warrior persona and her unfortunate tendency to be a bit of a grievance monger. Now it must be said -- no modern politician has had more ridiculous crap thrown at her than Palin has, but the problem she faces is that the defense she mounts can turn into an overall posture of defensiveness, which ultimately erodes the happy warrior persona. I don't know if she will run for President in 2012, but she's doing a lot of smart things right now, especially in using her star power to help other candidates. If you come in and raise a million dollars for someone, they'll think well of you down the line.
24 comments:
There are things I really like about Palin, but the whole grievance thing pours cold water on it. It seems so fundamentally opposed to the principles she espouses. I'm happy for her to hit back, but I don't want apologies demanded or any of that.
I don't mind Bachmann being a lightning rod and I think there might be a real usefulness there. It's very easy, instinctive even, for Republicans to cringe from making statements the press might criticize even though they reflect genuine concerns. Does someone like Bachmann tug the party to the Right by playing that role?
Oh the hatred is not blind at all, Mr. D. It's painfully, strikingly clear, and I wish I had time to elucidate that at the moment. One thing I can immediately point out about Bachmann that I hate - very clearly - is HER hatred, distrust, and bigotted attitude toward homosexuals, and her blatant ignorance as to how one "catches teh gay," or how gay people "recruit" children. She doesn't just say it though, she's acts - she attempts to screw with curriculum and the hiring of gay teachers. That is wildly discriminatory and by the way, unconstitutional.
She repeatedly embarrases MN and women by going on Tv and saying outlandish things - while I don't hate that so much (I focus on content) - she doesn't come out looking so well when even Glenn Beck won't agree with her on camera. (As per her ignorant rantings about the US Census on his show.)
As for Palin, for those scratching her head about her contradictory behavior, it makes much more sense when you take into account that nothing about her is genuine. For example, how about the one where she traveled the country spreading lies about HCR (according to the right, shouldn't the truth be enough to reject it?), famously the supposed "death panels," when she later admitted that she has gone to Canada to get free healthcare?! She's a hypocritical liar.
(If people are reading this as ranty or sneering, please stop. I am speaking matter-of-factly.)
I don't see these sisters as doing it themselves. They were put into places to support the rights of men to control women and big business, by men and big business who want pretty, conservative lady faces fir wooing the masses.
Argh, the spelling and grammar errors above can be attributed to unwieldy phone-typing.
(If people are reading this as ranty or sneering, please stop. I am speaking matter-of-factly.)
Well, one thing I've always found is that if you're going to speak "matter-of-factly," it's helpful if you offer facts. And your post is chock full of talking points.
The biggest howler is this one:
when she later admitted that she has gone to Canada to get free healthcare?!
Uh, Amanda? She was 2 at the time. Don't bring stuff like that in here -- you're embarrassing yourself.
As for Michele Bachmann -- if you hadn't picked up on it, I'm not that a big a fan of hers. I have other reasons than you do, but on her worst day she's way better than Patty Wetterling, or E-Tink, or either Tarryl Clark or Maureen Reed would be.
And as for this assertion:
That is wildly discriminatory and by the way, unconstitutional.
You'll have to present some evidence of why it's unconstitutional.
And then there's your big conclusion:
I don't see these sisters as doing it themselves. They were put into places to support the rights of men to control women and big business, by men and big business who want pretty, conservative lady faces fir wooing the masses.
Who are these men? And who are these businesses? If you're going to allege conspiracies, let's have some names.
WBP,
I take your point about lightning rods; I guess growing up with Bill Proxmire as a senator makes me see things a little differently. He didn't move the needle for his party one inch. And I don't see any evidence that Bachmann is moving the needle either. She does get Amanda going, though.
Okay, well then always assume I am speaking calmly, and I won't have to clarify my tone. Anyway, my use of the phrase was correct whether or not I was stating a fact. It describes tone, not content.
I wasn't implying that everyone here just loves Bachmann and Palin - I got that. I was just describing my first statement - that my hatred isn't blind. To describe hatred as blind is to say that it lacks direction or sense.
Ah yes, one time when she was two, right? Sorry, I'm not embarassed. Her family repeatedly sought healthcare from Canada's evil, socialist system, and she has the audacity to preach that the same system in the US would be bad, even though it took care of her loved ones. And then there's the lying - about the death panels.
Finally, I shouldn't have said "men." I should have said "by people who want men to control women." (The conservative agenda is all about supporting big businesses over people, honestly you do not need a citation for that.) In reference to controlling women, that's all about social policies and controlling birth control, abortion - reproductive rights. The point of fighting against these implements is to allow men to continue to assert dominance over women and preserve our patriarchal system.
I'm sure that statement will be met with faux shock or rhetoric about how it's all about spirituality, and you know what? I understand. I don't expect people to defend their personal choices to me, but on the whole, to fight against reproductive rights is to fight against autonomy for women.
It doesn't mean that ALL female politicians or activists are tools, but yeah, I do think that the women who achieve great success in far right conservative circles are all about anti-reproductive rights and anti-homosexuals for a reason. (Sorry for the thread highjack, by the way. This last topic is too big for a comment. I shouldn't have went there, but I apparently couldn't help it.)
Ah yes, one time when she was two, right? Sorry, I'm not embarassed. Her family repeatedly sought healthcare from Canada's evil, socialist system, and she has the audacity to preach that the same system in the US would be bad, even though it took care of her loved ones. And then there's the lying - about the death panels.
It's not at all clear she's lying about the death panels, Amanda. Read a few posts down and see for yourself. And your logic doesn't follow at all in re: Canadian care. By your logic, once something is used, it can never be rejected later on. By that logic, a smoker who quit smoking could never crusade against cigarette smoking later on. That's silly.
Amanda, I can tell you are serious and presumably you want to be taken seriously, but then you type pure liberal boilerplate.
They were "put into place"? No, they were elected. And then Palin was selected to be a VP candidate, just like Biden was selected.
Conservatives are about the business of controlling women? Sorry, but that's psychological speculation, not an argument. And who made you judge of what "women" want?
As for "hatred" of homosexuals, where's the vaunted liberal nuance? Clearly there is a difference between having a problem with homosexuality and hating homosexuals.
You don't make an argument. You assert your opinion. It being strongly held doesn't make it any more convincing.
By this point you do realize that we don't march in lockstep, don't you? If you actually make an argument based on facts, not invective, you might find some of who would agree with you on certain things.
Amanda, your blind hatred is quite obvious. Your BDS is not health. I suggest you seek help.
The unsubstantiated claims from Amanda truly show her blind hatred.
Maybe, darling, it has been your own limitations that have held you back and not a misogynic society.
Amanda, you might like to know that you certainly have that "grievance thing" in common with Sarah Palin.
Bwwwwwaaaaahahahahahaaaa!
Fro the record, I tend to support the most conservative electable candidate in order to push my conservative libertarian values. It is a fact that the founders of this great union had values much closer to MY political beliefs than Amanda and her talking points.
Yikes. Is Amanda related to Rachel Maddow? Sure sounds like her.
Talking points, indeed.
You still have to give Amanda credit. There aren't many who would put their views on the line in hostile territory.
You still have to give Amanda credit. There aren't many who would put their views on the line in hostile territory.
I agree completely with this statement and I value Amanda's contributions greatly for precisely that reason.
I agree as well. Fortunately this blog doesn't censor comments like most lefty blogs.
Fortunately this blog doesn't censor comments like most lefty blogs.
That's because dissent is patriotic, K-Rod. ;)
amanda: why is opposition to abortion automatically deemed as anti-woman when over 50% of those benefitting from such a position are the women who would be born?
its like saying opposition to slavery is being anti property rights.
it totally misses another debate.
or, maybe since abortion affects negatively on girl babies more often than boy babies, that abortion rights are anti woman.
but, it seems to be whenever you bring up your unblinded hatred of palin, you always have to bring it to the abortion issue. it seems to be the centerpoint of all debate for you.
cant somebody support women and intellectually oppose abortion? is it just remotely possible?
or must all women be willing to abort to be considered whole?
I think the song "Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves" would be a great Palin theme song, but I understand Dave Stewart of the Eurythmics is a supporter of Democratic causes, so he probably wouldn't permit it.
I'm sure he would, for the money.
Hey, how ironic.
WBP -
They were "put into place"? No, they were elected. And then Palin was selected to be a VP candidate, just like Biden was selected.
She was selected specifically because she is a woman, too woo the female voters, while comforting the ultra conservatives. Unfortunately for McCain, most women weren't fooled by her brand of "feminism."
Conservatives are about the business of controlling women? Sorry, but that's psychological speculation, not an argument. And who made you judge of what "women" want?
Social Conservatives are. In an individual sense, it's psychological, but it's definitely not speculation. When you choose to not have an abortion because you're against it morally, that's your decision. But when you attempt to inflict your own moral code on other individuals, publically, and ALL of those individuals happen to be women, that's not so secret anymore. I don't judge what all women want, but I know what I want as a person - to be trusted to make my own moral judgements regarding my body and my welfare. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get that this is what *all people* want.
As for "hatred" of homosexuals, where's the vaunted liberal nuance? Clearly there is a difference between having a problem with homosexuality and hating homosexuals.
Honestly, I don't see any difference. (And I don't know what you mean by Liberal nuance. I am guessing that Liberals have to capitulate in this matter to some regard? But this isn't something I would support.)
You don't make an argument. You assert your opinion. It being strongly held doesn't make it any more convincing.
Well, then I won't argue with that.
I think people need to get over being wounded about the fact that they occasionally say and do and support ideas that are racist, homophobic, or misogynist. Those words sound awful, and people think to themselves "I am not an awful person. I am a good person. I do this good thing, and this good thing, and this good thing, all the time!" But the problem with that black and white kind of world, is that all people aren't either good or bad. Sometimes really good people do bad things. I know what I have been guilty of racism, homophobia, AND sexism at various times in my life, due to not understanding, or lack of sympathy, or basic inexperience. But that doesn't mean I am a bad person. And it doesn't mean anyone reading this is a bad person. The good in a person is the ability to recognize the ways in which they can be a better person, and to go from there.
Gino -
amanda: why is opposition to abortion automatically deemed as anti-woman when over 50% of those benefitting from such a position are the women who would be born?
...but, it seems to be whenever you bring up your unblinded hatred of palin, you always have to bring it to the abortion issue. it seems to be the centerpoint of all debate for you.
cant somebody support women and intellectually oppose abortion? is it just remotely possible?
or must all women be willing to abort to be considered whole?
Because the only people who have abortions are women.
You can't say that someone who hasn't been born yet is benefitting if abortion were made illegal. I could never say "Oh, I'm so thankful my mother didn't have abortion," because that statement doesn't make sense to me. Am I happy to be alive? Well - I'm well enough off, I am loved, and I am healthy, so hell yes, I am happy to be alive. But if I weren't alive, I wouldn't know anything different. There wouldn't be an I. I am thankful to my mother for raising me and loving me, providing me with an education and nutrition, but I am not thankful for the fact that she chose to give birth to me. That part had nothing to do with me. It was her decision, I had no idea what was happening. It wouldn't make sense to be thankful.
Hah, I appreciate the way you wrote "unblinded hatred of women."
It's true, I probably bring up the abortion thing more often, with Palin. Truly, there are many things she supports which I object to, the abortion thing is the easiest, though, and it's the most clearly anti-feminist. So no, I do not believe at all that someone can completely support women and oppose abortion. I mean, not in the voting booths anyway. Personally - I don't care what people think personally. I *personally* feel repellent toward abortion, but that's the whole point - I should not allowed to infringe my values on another person. It's not my life. It's a spiritual decision. To say an unfeeling, unborn fetus' rights trump the rights of an adult woman (or teenage woman) is just wrong. I used to be pro-life. I used to have arguments about how people should be pro-life, and how abortion is wrong. I know what that feels like. I don't think most anti-abortion people literally believe that they "hate women" and I do believe that they genuinely feel compassion and concern for unborn babies who are aborted. But I have since come to regard (and many people smarter than me have written about this) that the system of opposing abortion is misogynist (regardless of the good intentions of individuals), and that it is about controlling fertility, and therefore, controlling women.
"I *personally* feel repellent toward abortion, but that's the whole point - I should not allowed to infringe my values on another person. It's not my life. It's a spiritual decision."
so, i take that you would oppose public funding for abortions,too, because you wanna be consistent about value infringment.
but that would make you anti-woman, just a little bit,right?
but what is it about abortion that repells you?
you are repelled by what is just a choice? sounds crazy to me.
"And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get that this is..."
Amanda, what type of work did you do in that industry to say that? Did you design vertical missile launchers too?
....
Projection:
"I think people need to get over being wounded about the fact that they occasionally say and do and support ideas that are racist, homophobic, or misogynist."
Amanda, you wear it well, but that aspect of you is not pretty.
Amanda, why do YOU consider killing human life "anti-feminist"?
Post a Comment