Celebrities for Palin. Not.

Nick Gillespie | September 15, 2008

Lindsay Lohan chimes in on the big race:

"I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor, which is probably all she is qualified to be.

"Oh, and... Hint Hint Pali Pal—Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!"

Lohan—who is rumored to be in a relationship with DJ Samantha Ronson—also referenced Palin's views on homosexuality.

"Is it a sin to be gay?" Lohan asked. "Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?

"Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?"

In conclusion, Lohan cited an Associated Press story reporting that Palin's church advocates a conference about prayer curing homosexuality. Wrote Lohan: "Palin's Desire to "save and convert the gays"—really??"

I think all of these are valid points and, given the quaility of insight emanating from most cable yak shows, I'm all the more impressed that the case made by the star of Herbie: Fully Loaded and Mean Girls. That said, Palin has said she's pro-contraception, and seems to have answered the questions about sex before marriage and out-of-wedlock births in pragmatic, not moralistic tones. I've read mixed reports on whether the governor believes homosexuality is a sin, but she doesn't seem to have the paper trail of a Mike Huckabee when it comes to attacking gayness as evil. I would prefer to hear her, like Barack Obama, push for equality under the law for all folks, but Obama has fallen too far short of endorsing marriage for gays.

As the People cover above suggests, pace Lohan, the tabloids are in the political mix for the long haul (as John Edwards could tell you). And whatever her politics, most of which I don't agree with, Sarah Palin a bona fide phenomena through whom detractors, supporters, and others feel they can speak; in this she is like a Princess Diana or an Angelina Jolie or an O.J. Simpson.

She has genuinely confused our standard categories, especially in terms of politics, which explains why women-friendly lefties are engaging in misogynistic bashing of a working mother who didn't abort a Down Syndrome baby (what is wrong with her, they seem to say?) and the right is championing a pants-suit swearing tough gal with a handsome, gelded stay-at-home dad (who was George Gilder's absolute nightmare 25 years ago).

Enjoy the confusion while it lasts, because within a couple of months, we'll have forgotten all about the challenge Palin posed to standard gender and political categories, whether she and McCain win, lose, or draw.

|9.15.08 @ 9:46AM|#

"Oh, and... Hint Hint Pali Pal-Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!"

Someone must have written that for her. Otherise it would have been "your and your." And probably "you're."

|9.15.08 @ 9:51AM|#

which explains why women-friendly lefties are engaging in misogynistic bashing of a working mother who didn't abort a Down Syndrome baby (what is wrong with her, they seem to say?)

Examples please.

|9.15.08 @ 9:55AM|#

I refuse to listen to anything Lohan says until she changes back to the red hair.

engaging in misogynistic bashing of a working mother

Thank you! I'm glad someone else besides me noticed that.

anon|9.15.08 @ 9:56AM|#

The nutjob attacks on Palin/McCain are only going to fire up the Republican base more than serve up support for BO/JB. Just look at what Michael Moore did for Kerry in 04.

|9.15.08 @ 10:00AM|#

What a dumb question from Lohan. Of course it's a sin to be gay. That is clear as day for anyone who claims to be a Christian, as all the candidates for the executive branch claim. Well, it's a sin if you lie down. Maybe standing is OK. Also, it's only sinful for two men to lie together - no word on if it's OK for two women, hot women in particular. Barack (or Biden), being a church going Christian, probably has countless beliefs atheists would find alarming (if they knew).

|9.15.08 @ 10:02AM|#

whether the and McCain win, lose, or draw.

Is that supposed to read "whether she and McCain" ?

|9.15.08 @ 10:03AM|#

I agree with the "all this Palin hate may blow up in the Dems faces" camp.

All of my partisan friends are stretching their doublethink muscles when it comes to Palin. But my lefty partisan friends aren't just doing it to poke holes in the GOP ticket, most of them have a full-on Quivering Hate Erection for Palin.

I had toyed briefly with the idea of voting Obama as the lesser evil until all this Palin-bashing showed up. Now I'm definitely sticking with Barr.

Atlanta Matt|9.15.08 @ 10:09AM|#

I believe it should be LiLo. Or, as I like to call her, Cinnamon Chesterton.

|9.15.08 @ 10:09AM|#

Celebrities should be seen and not heard.

|9.15.08 @ 10:10AM|#

Lohan isn't really gay, she's like "college gay" or something.

She should just spend a couple of years incognito at Oberlin and get it out of her system.

Her girlfriend, otoh, looks to be the real deal. The vests are a dead giveaway.

libertarian lad|9.15.08 @ 10:21AM|#

I would need examples of what LiLo is talking about to fully understand her point.

Many many examples.

In color, and maybe some 180 second mpegs...

excuse me please

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.08 @ 10:26AM|#

which explains why women-friendly lefties are engaging in misogynistic bashing of a working mother who didn't abort a Down Syndrome baby (what is wrong with her, they seem to say?)

Examples please.

Are you serious, Mr Van Winkle?

J.V.|9.15.08 @ 10:29AM|#

Here's an asked-for example of the lefty bashing:

"Sarah Palin Bounce" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiIURSJIjOw

Crazy, crazy.

jtuf|9.15.08 @ 10:32AM|#

A quick note before going on to more substantial points: I don't think gelded is an accurate term for a father of 5.

|9.15.08 @ 10:35AM|#

I intend to be relentless for the next six weeks, morning, noon and night, weeks and weekdays, exposing the lies of the McCain-Palin campaign and showing their unfitness - in terms of competence, decency, intelligence, and experience - to become president and vice-president of the US. I will be making arguments and presenting facts in ways I do not expect and do not want Obama himself to engage him.

But these last two weeks - and this absurd, insulting pick for veep - has roused me. As I know it has roused many. McCain needs to be more than defeated. He needs to be exposed as the dishonest, despicable, desperate and dishonorable cynic he has become.

-Andrew Sullivan

Would Huckabee have been an "absurd, insulting" pick?

|9.15.08 @ 10:45AM|#

Would Huckabee have been an "absurd, insulting" pick?

To any sense of intelligence and common decency? I think the word I'm looking for is "duh"...

jtuf|9.15.08 @ 10:53AM|#

When Lohan makes a big deal over a politician calling something sinful, she's neglecting the argument that politicians should not use the law to enforce their opinion of sin. Is it a sin to call your neighbor a derogatory term? I say yes. Should it be illegal? No. Is it a sin to let your neighbor starve if you are able to prevent it? I say yes. Should the government run food programs? No. I could list a bunch of behaviors that progressive outlawed because they consider them sinful. If Lohan said she was worried about a politician legislating morality, I would support that concern. Since Lohan complained about Palin having a morality that differs from her, I have to wonder which morality Lohan wants to send the troopers out to enforce.

|9.15.08 @ 10:53AM|#

I think all of these are valid points and, given the quaility of insight emanating from most cable yak shows, I'm all the more impressed that the case made by the star of Herbie: Fully Loaded and Mean Girls.

You must've missed the part where she said "is it a sin" and not "should it be illegal." Because last I checked, we aren't electing a Vice Priest. She has every right to believe those things are sins as long as she doesn't feel the need to enforce them with law.

libertarian democrat|9.15.08 @ 10:56AM|#

I agree with jtuf. I don't agree with what she says, but I was impressed by her comments compared to... commentators comments.

jtuf|9.15.08 @ 10:58AM|#

bigbigslacker | September 15, 2008, 10:00am | #

What a dumb question from Lohan. Of course it's a sin to be gay. That is clear as day for anyone who claims to be a Christian, as all the candidates for the executive branch claim. Well, it's a sin if you lie down. Maybe standing is OK. Also, it's only sinful for two men to lie together - no word on if it's OK for two women, hot women in particular. Barack (or Biden), being a church going Christian, probably has countless beliefs atheists would find alarming (if they knew).

Good point. Many clergy believe that the religious prohibition on birth control (including homosexuality) only applies to men. Their viewpoint puts a couple's reproductive decisions in the woman's hand.

Warty|9.15.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Why is there no bikini pic of Lindsay Lohan? I am displeased.

Bikin pic of the good Lohan, I mean. Not her bag-of-antlers cocaine phase.

Dagny T.|9.15.08 @ 11:05AM|#

I refuse to listen to anything Lohan says until she changes back to the red hair.

And when when the drapes match once again, she's going to be your go-to pundit? Not my first choice, but better than, say Krugman or Kristol. And less hysterical than Sullivan.

Franklin Harris|9.15.08 @ 11:09AM|#

Is quoting Lindsay Lohan an excuse to continue "all Palin, all the time," or is her Palin comment an excuse to quote Lindsay?

Either way, there's no accompanying photo of either of them.

Fail.

|9.15.08 @ 11:23AM|#

And when when the drapes match once again, she's going to be your go-to pundit?

Absolutely. I will pay as much attention to what she has to say as I do to everyone else. Which is the same thing as −273.15 degrees Celsius.

alan|9.15.08 @ 11:27AM|#

Lindsey is sitting down with Peter and the gang at the Clam, when she brags:

"I'm doing that hot new boy on the scene, Sam Ronson."

Peter tells her: "Lindsey, Sam is a chick."

Lindsey: "No, it can't be. No. No." (runs away screaming)

Rhywun|9.15.08 @ 11:38AM|#

seems to have answered the questions about sex before marriage and out-of-wedlock births in pragmatic, not moralistic tones

Yeah, that explains her daughter's upcoming shotgun wedding to that charmer who knocked her up.

RE: Lefty bashing of Palin

None of it is any worse than the Right has said about Mrs. Clinton in the past.

Folks, partisan sniping is to be expected from both sides.

|9.15.08 @ 11:41AM|#

Sexism is a funny thing.
It appears that where you sit is where you stand.

Why did you assume that it was "Mr. Van Winkle".

I looked at the video. I fail to see what is sexist about it.

Again, I ask. WHere are the examples of prominent liberals who are saying Palin shouldn't be VP because she is a woman.

I see a lot saying that she shouldn't be VP because she has bad or non-existent ideas.

I'm waiting for sarah palin nut crackers to show up at airport gift lounges. Then I would say that that is sexist.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 11:42AM|#

lefties are engaging in misogynistic bashing of a working mother who didn't abort a Down Syndrome baby (what is wrong with her, they seem to say?)

Smacky, if you edit the statement like you did...then many have noticed the questioning of the working mom thing...but I have yet to see/hear any implication that SP should have had an abortion.

So, I second qingl78's request for an example.

My guess the example will be a lonewacko level troll from some comments thread if one is produced.

alan|9.15.08 @ 11:44AM|#

And when when the drapes match once again, she's going to be your go-to pundit?

Absolutely. I will pay as much attention to what she has to say as I do to everyone else. Which is the same thing as −273.15 degrees Celsius.

Here, here. Lohan on politics sounds no more stupid than Krugman on economics.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 11:45AM|#

None of it is any worse than the Right has said about Mrs. Clinton in the past.

Lenin in a pantsuit.

vs.

????

I haven't heard the Sarah Palin equivalent yet.

alan|9.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Lenin in a pantsuit.

vs.

????

I haven't heard the Sarah Palin equivalent yet.

how about:

Norman Podheretz in a plaid print?

Rhywun|9.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#

Lenin in a pantsuit.

I'm sure you can find more extreme stuff than that. OTOH, they mostly went after her daughter's looks.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Rhywun,

I'm sure you can find more extreme stuff than that.

Of course, but that was the most commonly repeated one.

The democratic party needs to find a catchy one-liner to hang on Palin. I mean that's what political debate is about these days, right?

alan|9.15.08 @ 12:03PM|#

I'm sure you can find more extreme stuff than that. OTOH, they mostly went after her daughter's looks.

Late night comedians went after her daughter's looks. I'm very much on record as stating Chelsea is very hot.

|9.15.08 @ 12:05PM|#

I'm very much on record as stating Chelsea is very hot

You want to be on record as having no taste? ;-)

alan|9.15.08 @ 12:10PM|#

I would suggest for the left lose the cultural critique, that is an argument you wont win, and concentrate on the areas that Palin is plenty scary. The fact that she doesn't have foreign policy experience makes her intellectually vulnerable to Neocon tutelage where if you watched the interviews she is quite the apt pupil in absorbing the horrifying Neocon mindset. The worst thing about Palin and, of course, McCain is the resurrection of the NeoCon frankenstein into our foreign policy when we have had the good fortune of the current administration largely abandoning those dunderheads.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Why did you assume that it was "Mr. Van Winkle".

Because it wasn't Rip Van Winkle's wife who slept for twenty years while the world around her evolved.

:-)

|9.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#

Here,

I'll give you a hint.

John Roberts the CNN bingo caller said:

Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?

That is sexist. But he isn't a liberal. He is a bingo caller. And a bad bingo caller at that.

If you could find me someone who has some power in the liberal movement who has said something similar, have at 'er and I will concede the field. Not some 3rd rate assistant professor at a midwestern college or some blog comment but someone like a liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh of that ilk or a US Senator.

Just so you know, I'm not a liberal gun slinger, I'm a Paul fan but he verges on the crazy for me. I'm not really a fan of either big party presidential candidates. It just bothers me that there are so many people walking around with this Conventional Wisdom about how every liberal is sexist about Palin and I don't really see it.

alan|9.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#

You want to be on record as having no taste? ;-)

Hey, if any one still believes I have taste after
at least a year of reading my comments on this board, well, as the Southern ladies would say, bless your heart ;)

The Wine Commonsewer|9.15.08 @ 12:16PM|#

I'm very much on record as stating Chelsea is very hot

You want to be on record as having no taste? ;-)

She's not bad these days, but Lord, that poor girl sure took a beating when she was 12-13 years old. Those "Guys" were unmerciful and in-you-face about her looks.

libertarian democrat|9.15.08 @ 12:20PM|#

I wouldn't call her hot, but Chelsea looks pretty lately.

libertarian democrat|9.15.08 @ 12:21PM|#

I meant to say pretty good, but I guess either works.

|9.15.08 @ 12:34PM|#

Here, here. Lohan on politics sounds no more stupid than Krugman on economics.

Or Ben Stein on any scientific subject at all.

-jcr

I agree with the "all this Palin hate may blow up in the Dems faces" camp.

Yeah cuz you know -- the GOP has never effectively used negative campaigning to sink a Dem opponent. Nope never.

All this negativity in politics suddenly becomes a bad thing when the Dems start attacking.

Dems suddenly bring a gun to a gun fight instead of a knife and lo and behold a bunch of concern trolls show up to tell Dems "hey you are being too negative and it might back fire"

Uh-huh -- and rumors of Obama being a Muslim Manchurian candidate ( ironically after the whole Reverend Wright fiery Christian Church sermons "scandal") and attacking his wife as a militant angry black woman really blew up in the faces of the GOP.

And those purple bandages to mock John Kerry's 3 purple hearts -- that failed miserable too.

And basically calling Gore a fag and a liar throughout the whole campaign failed miserable too.

The GOP basically put a fucking pageant girl a heartbeat away from the White House (she doesn't even know the fucking Bush Doctrine) -- but Dems shouldn't be mean to her. Maybe she will cry or something.

Concern trolls being all concerny are an amusing bunch. I am sure they all sincerely have the Democrats best interests in mind.

Raphael|9.15.08 @ 12:37PM|#

The scary thing is that some people actually listen to celebrities in order to know what to think.

|9.15.08 @ 12:38PM|#

If you could find me someone who has some power in the liberal movement who has said something similar, have at 'er and I will concede the field

Since you've set the bar so high, because there really aren't any flame-throwing liberals like Rush, you'll get a pass on ignoring this:

Pissed about Palin:
McCain's running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it's time to get furious.

Highlights:

"What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter unequivocally prove, however, is that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform that ensures her own political ambitions with the conservative right."

"I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class, three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my lifetime."

"In her support for women on women's issues, she has done everything but volunteer for her own circumcision."

|9.15.08 @ 12:39PM|#

The Hollywwod left need to get in the real world and out of their selfish stupidity. They need to take some of their unearned and undeserved money and donate it to a good charity then go and do some mission trips and stop thinking about themselves. That is what is wrong with this world today, too much, I, me, mine, what's in it for me. Disgusting!!!

ed|9.15.08 @ 12:43PM|#

Well, I've woken up in hell. There's an evidently serious discussion on H&R about what Lindsay Lohan thinks. (Note to self: Stock up on booze. All hope is lost.)

|9.15.08 @ 12:44PM|#

She's not bad these days, but Lord, that poor girl sure took a beating when she was 12-13 years old. Those "Guys" were unmerciful and in-you-face about her looks.

Any grown man who is commenting about a 12-13 year old's looks is a creepy pedophile and his comments should be immediately discounted on those grounds.

|9.15.08 @ 12:48PM|#

The scary thing is that some people actually listen to celebrities in order to know what to think.

A lot of people do. They listen to Rush, Olberman, Matthews, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, etc. These people are nothing but a different type of celebrity, yet people actually listen to what they have to say.

|9.15.08 @ 12:53PM|#

Neu Mejican,

The democratic party needs to find a catchy one-liner to hang on Palin. I mean that's what political debate is about these days, right?

You seem to missing the fact that the "pantsuit" line is an anomaly, such a divergent one, I bet you a Republican didn't even come up with it.

Republicans and Democrats insult the leaders of the other party in very distinctive ways.

The Republican method is to turn the words or names themselves into an insult. "Liberal" is actually an insult when they use it, not a description of policy position. "Clinton" became an insult. (The road two streets behind mine was named "Clinton" in the 1950s. Two GOPers tried in vain to get the name changed for years during the 90s... wasn't there a small town that did the same?)

The Democratic tactic is primarily pun driven. "Ronnie Raygun,""Bushilter," "Rethuglicans," "McSame," and when they couldn't come up with a good Cheney one, they emphasized Dick Cheney.*

Therefore, don't expect an anti-Palin phrase, but rather a name pun. The one I've already seen is Palin->Failin' and the inevitable McFailin'.

*The "Sore/Loserman" construction is therefore a bit out-of-place, but I've pointed out before how adept the GOP is to adapting to their opponent's tactics.

alan|9.15.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Concern trolls being all concerny are an amusing bunch. I am sure they all sincerely have the Democrats best interests in mind.

Advice is sincere, but you are right that I have no concern or care for the Democrats in the slightest. The best thing that could happen to America would be for the Democratic party to wither on the vine and die and be replaced with an anti-socialist Libertarian party as the alternative to the Republican jackals.

But the underlying argument I'm giving you is sound on the pure basis that, as JFK once said, 'life isn't fair.' Sure Republican attacks on Obama in some instances have been beyond the pale, but so what? How does countering those attacks win you any more states in the electoral college? Until you actually figure a way to do that, a 'tit fot tat' strategy is not going to do you any good.

However, Republicans managed to solidify their base and raise cash based on the frankly weird response of the media and the left blogosphere
to Palin's lack of domestic tranquility. If they are better at the game, and have an 'unfair' advantage in the kultur kemf, that is not my problem, but yours.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 1:22PM|#

SugarFree,

Good analysis on the word play.

Pissed about Palin:

Nicely hyperbolic and mean, but I am not sure it is sexist to call the RNC pick sexist and degrading to women.

If anything that article shows that Palin is being given no deference because of her gender-- at least not from her harshest critics.

|9.15.08 @ 1:36PM|#

The best thing that could happen to America would be for the Democratic party to wither on the vine and die

Funny, I was thinking the same about the crony capitalist GOP.

But the underlying argument I'm giving you is sound on the pure basis that, as JFK once said, 'life isn't fair.' Sure Republican attacks on Obama in some instances have been beyond the pale, but so what? How does countering those attacks win you any more states in the electoral college? Until you actually figure a way to do that, a 'tit fot tat' strategy is not going to do you any good.

History has shown that negative campaigning works. And It works well. Why is it different this time? Why is Sarah Palin the exception? Because she is an attractive pageant girl? Because she is a woman? Because you concern trolls want it to be?

Other than your own wishes what evidence do you have to present that these attacks on Palin will backfire? In fact, this seems to be a GOP talking point as every conservative pundit has been making the same point lately -- yet no one really explains the why. Probably because you can't -- because it's an illogical argument that is based only on what people like you want to happen, not what reality and history has shown.

It isn't about "fairness" it's about the logic of the argument you and other concern trolls are making. The GOP has effectively attacked every Dem nominee with mean-spirited attacks and in many times baseless lies. Yet somehow we are supposed to believe that THIS time it will fail. Why exactly should we believe that?

Finally, let me just say that the opinions of anyone who believes that the Democratic party is a "socialist" party really should not just be ignored, but mocked incessantly.

|9.15.08 @ 1:42PM|#

Sugarfree,

Wow, yes I missed that. I read the article and I agree, it is pretty sexist.

I don't agree however that I've "set the bar so high" I think that I set it too low because I asked for only one example but I am chastened by my own words. touche.

Yes there aren't as many or as loud leftists but I sure wish that James Carville would get off my TV screen and I did give you an out with the US Senator aspect.

I guess I just remember the relentless drumbeat of gore is a fibber from 2000 and was comparing it to that. Gore had other problems from my perspective but lying wasn't one of them. After all Vint Cerf stood up for him and I believe Vint.

As for:
You seem to missing the fact that the "pantsuit" line is an anomaly, such a divergent one, I bet you a Republican didn't even come up with it.

I'll take that bet. Are you hinting that "Lenin in a pantsuit" was created by leftists as praise? I think that you underestimate republican operatives.

So the Hillary nutcrackers were also created by liberals as praise?

Come to think of it, I'm sure that Sarah Palin nutcrackers would be considered as praise by some in the Republican party.

libertarian democrat|9.15.08 @ 1:44PM|#

I think the best thing would be for the republican party to die, and to be replaced with a broad libertarian coalition party (you know, without worrying about absolute purity). Second best would be the democratic party failing etc. Either way, failing would be a good thing.

|9.15.08 @ 1:44PM|#

Neu Mejican,

In a political environment where making fun of Hillary Clinton's pantsuits was called misogynistic, Cintra Wilson's screed would be pilloried if flipped by party.

I don't really have a dog in the fight. Don't really give a crap about Palin; just the liberals who keep defining sexism not to include talking about Sarah Palin as an unholy mixture of Jerry Falwell and Patrick Bergen from Sleeping With The Enemy. The "retarded baby" stuff is out there. I've posted it a few times. Talking about a human female as not being a "woman" because of policy disagreements is fairly off the deep-end and the people who keep stopping by to deny it is getting a bit silly.

|9.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#

qingl78,

I'll take that bet.

Sorry. Could have phrased that better. I mean that it was probably someone outside the Demo/GOP seesaw. A libertarianish sort.

Rhywun|9.15.08 @ 2:19PM|#

off the deep-end

It's hard to believe that Palin wasn't chosen for exactly this reason. She pushes all the buttons on the left at the same time as stimulating all the pleasure centers on the right: religious, anti-abortion, huntin' and fishin', "small town". The nastier remarks are simply a result of the fact that people are nasty. It's nothing personal.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 2:23PM|#

In a political environment where making fun of Hillary Clinton's pantsuits was called misogynistic, Cintra Wilson's screed would be pilloried if flipped by party.

It already has been (right in this thread even), but that doesn't make it so.

The "flipped by party" thing is a red herring.
The politics of "we are the victim of an unfair attack" is a strategy, not a trait of the left or the right.

The trick is to misdirect attention away from the meat of the attack. In this particular case, however, the meat of the attack is that the RNC were being sexist to pick Palin when there were other more qualified women to choose from. The meat of the attack is that Palin was picked for her looks and sex appeal, not her qualifications. The attack uses mean language to make that point, but the attack is not, itself, sexist, imho.

|9.15.08 @ 2:25PM|#

Rhywun,

Slate articles about nightmares featuring Palin

I'm sticking with "deep-end."

|9.15.08 @ 2:34PM|#

NM,

I'm not saying is not a tactic, that's it's not all part of the plan.

I'm saying that if the left can claim that every criticism of Hillary was thinly-disguised sexism, and that nothing, no matter how vile that they say about Palin, is not sexism, then sexism becomes a purely partisan phenomenon.

Does it really advance the cause of feminism for sexism to become something that can only happen to liberals?

|9.15.08 @ 2:43PM|#

I'm not saying is not a tactic, that's it's not all part of the plan.

Wow. Grammar nightmare. Reads like a lolcat.

[shame corner]

|9.15.08 @ 3:00PM|#

"misogynistic bashing of a working mother who didn't abort a Down Syndrome baby (what is wrong with her, they seem to say?)"

This is a cheap shot. I haven't read anyone saying she should have had an abortion (though some blogger somewhere has no doubt said this). The far more common complaint is: she made her choice, fine, but why does she want to take that choice away from other women and have the state decide for everyone? You would think this argument would resonate with libertarians, even those libertarians who are hardcore statists on this issue.

Very little criticism of Palin has been "misogynistic", unless you think any criticism of Hillary is misogynistic and any criticism of Obama is racist.

alan|9.15.08 @ 3:07PM|#

Other than your own wishes what evidence do you have to present that these attacks on Palin will backfire? In fact, this seems to be a GOP talking point as every conservative pundit has been making the same point lately -- yet no one really explains the why. Probably because you can't -- because it's an illogical argument that is based only on what people like you want to happen, not what reality and history has shown.

Democratic negativity is at best a scatter shot affair going after Palin (who, after all is the veep candidate) in a myriad of ways that do not reflect an underlying philosphy deeper than 'eww, we don't like her'.

Given that the Republicans are America's nationalist party, their attacks on Obama have emphasized his otherness at every opportunity they can find. There attacks are based in a coherent belief system, nativist if you will.

Speaking of natives, who are you calling a troll, troll? I'm pretty much in sync with the political philosophy of this website, at least in regard to this matter, you sound like the outsider coming in to step on toes.

Finally, let me just say that the opinions of anyone who believes that the Democratic party is a "socialist" party really should not just be ignored, but mocked incessantly.

You need to learn to parse words more carefully. I said the death of the Democratic political machine and a strong anti-socialist party would be good things. You are supplying a link to these matters that I intentionally did not, as I'm not interested in having a drag out about what is and what is not socialism.

|9.15.08 @ 3:12PM|#

Finally, let me just say that the opinions of anyone who believes that the Democratic party is a "socialist" party really should not just be ignored, but mocked incessantly.

On a juvenile, playground taunt-level, let me say:

I'll stop calling Democrats "socialists" when they stop referring to anyone even slightly to the right of Rachel Maddow as "fascists."

jtuf|9.15.08 @ 3:15PM|#

ChicagoTom | September 15, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Concern trolls being all concerny are an amusing bunch. I am sure they all sincerely have the Democrats best interests in mind.

I don't think I've ever indicated concern that Democrates are declining politically. I've just noted that their personal insults towards Palin are backfiring. During the 1990's, arrests for marijuana doubled. Obama went from bragging about inhaling in the primaries to saying his drug use was a selfish mistake at Saddleback. So yeah, I'm not shedding tears for a party that sells out drug users the moment the White House is in view.

alan|9.15.08 @ 3:39PM|#

libertarian democrat | September 15, 2008, 1:44pm | #
I think the best thing would be for the republican party to die, and to be replaced with a broad libertarian coalition party (you know, without worrying about absolute purity). Second best would be the democratic party failing etc. Either way, failing would be a good thing.

That too, would be an acceptable alternative, perhaps emphasizing anti-cronyism, if you will, if it helps to get Tom on board.

However, a party like this that doesn't rigorously define its guiding philosophy would eventually morph into a right/populist party like the Reform Party. The delegates would swing from 'trade deals are bad, trade deals are good', 'immigration is bad, immigration is good' and other such unholy mush that it becomes just another political machine.

I've been rereading the Dune series here of late, and damn if it isn't turning me into an epoch turning pessimist.

|9.15.08 @ 3:42PM|#

Democratic negativity is at best a scatter shot affair going after Palin (who, after all is the veep candidate) in a myriad of ways that do not reflect an underlying philosphy deeper than 'eww, we don't like her'.

Wow -- that is false on so many levels.

The criticism has been primarily that she is an intellectual lightweight who can't do much more than regurgitate GOP talking points, she is a liar, she is a puritanical religious extremist, she and her husband have been involved in the Alaska seperatist movement and she has little to no experience in anything except beauty pageants (Miss Wasilla and Ms Alaska Runner up I believe). All of which are true. But yeah -- its just that liberals don't like her.

And again -- when has it been necessary for negative campaigning to be about substantive issues or even to be true?

It seems to me that in your mind it comes down to The GOP can do it but the Dems can't because you like the GOP and their positions better.

Speaking of natives, who are you calling a troll, troll? I'm pretty much in sync with the political philosophy of this website, at least in regard to this matter, you sound like the outsider coming in to step on toes.

I called you a concern troll, not a troll on this blog. Quite the difference. A concern troll is someone who feigns concern for and pretends to give "good" advice to people they really want to lose.

The worst thing the Dems could do is take advice from people who wish their party would wither away and die. Maybe Karl Rove could give the Dems some advice on winning this election too, eh ?

You need to learn to parse words more carefully. I said the death of the Democratic political machine and a strong anti-socialist party would be good things.

Both major parties are anti-socialist parties so are many third parties -- I don't know how many more are necessary.

I'll stop calling Democrats "socialists" when they stop referring to anyone even slightly to the right of Rachel Maddow as "fascists."

Uh-huh. Riiiiiiiight. Suuuuuure.

Cuz you know every time I turn on the TV i see the word fascit being bandied about. In fact the only people that have been referred to as fascists have been the NeoCons and Bush lovers who demand we give up all freedoms to save the motherland. Many of these people do in fact have fascist tendencies.

I don't seem to recall the F-word being thrown about during the Reagan and Bush I years or even the Clinton years. I do remember the socialist label being thrown about during those times. So please Spare me your bullshit equivalences. When it comes to vitriolic untruths the GOP is soundly in first place.

Who wrote that book "liberal fascists" ? Must have been a liberal.

I've just noted that their personal insults towards Palin are backfiring.

Except that you know -- they aren't. It's really only been 4 days -- we shall see how much it's backfiring or how much it will succeed, but if history is any indication it won't backfire -- because Americans respond well to attack ads.

So again I ask -- why would it be different this time? What makes her so special?

|9.15.08 @ 3:53PM|#

Chicago Tom,

I'm so glad the SugarFree in your head is a strident Republican. The real one can laugh at you for being an idiot that way.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 3:57PM|#

Chicago Tom,

I don't seem to recall the F-word being thrown about during the Reagan and Bush I years or even the Clinton years. I do remember the socialist label being thrown about during those times.

I remember the Reagan-as-nazi meme being pretty much standard fare.

During the Reagan era, you could go for a full "communist" attack, so "socialist" was pretty weak.

Otherwise, I think you are right. Attack ads will work to sway some voters. Of course, attack ads also turn other voters off, so they are risky. Palin attacks will backfire if they turn off the voters the DNC is hoping to attract. In that sense she is no different than any other candidate.

|9.15.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Just a last word before I go.

I don't disagree with all that much that has been said here. Sexism is very simple to define. Would you say that about a man? And yes, a lot of what has been asked (and not answered) about Palin has been asked of males.

I have to admit that while I don't have a dog in this fight either, I must say that there is a lot of evidence with regards to Palin that would make anyone have second thoughts about her. The crypto-book banning episode should give anyone pause.

But having said that she is only the VP nominee and if McCain won, I doubt that you would see her for the next 4 years except as playing wheres sarah? at foreign funerals. That's usually how the Republicans handle the religious right. Big pander at elections and then 4 years of nothing.

alan|9.15.08 @ 4:10PM|#

It seems to me that in your mind it comes down to The GOP can do it but the Dems can't because you like the GOP and their positions better.

Okay, a list of things that make me want to gauge out the Republican parties collective eyes lids.

every aspect of their foreign policy, I could break it down to military spending, blow back, middle east matters, bases in the majority of other nations, NATO expansion, North Korea/South Korea, Cuban embargo, etcetera, but I don't have the time to go into detail.

About the only thing Republicans sound better to me right now on, is capital gains.

Just to get this straight. Obama is less scary to me than McCain. Most of
what I consider valid negatives only occur when he is placed in the context of his political party.

The criticism has been primarily that she is an intellectual lightweight who can't do much more than regurgitate GOP talking points, she is a liar, she is a puritanical religious extremist, she and her husband have been involved in the Alaska seperatist movement and she has little to no experience in anything except beauty pageants (Miss Wasilla and Ms Alaska Runner up I believe). All of which are true. But yeah -- its just that liberals don't like her.

That isn't scatter shot?!? At the time of the Palin pick, it occurred to me that she lacked experience, but certainly Democrats would be the last
group of people to bring that up as an issue. Nope, I misjudged. Observing Democrats is often like conducting scientific test
to judge the sentience of various species by placing a mirror in front of them and see if they recognize their own reflection. Often times you guys fail that test.

|9.15.08 @ 4:19PM|#

I'm so glad the SugarFree in your head is a strident Republican. The real one can laugh at you for being an idiot that way.

SugarFree,

I don't think you are a strident republican.
Just a typically lazy/wrong pox on both their houses libertarian.

But you are dead wrong when you try to act like in some cases both parties are just as bad when it comes to improper hyperbolic labels. The Right has been calling anyone to the left of Grover Norquist communists and socialists for as long as I can remember. Only during the "The Constitution doesn't mean anything when you're dead" Bush years have I seen the the fascist label being applied (and rather aptly) towards the GOPers. And that was mainly to the neocons not any and all conservatives.

The "idiot" is the one who tries to pretend that "they are both just as bad" when it comes to these types of mischaracterizations. They aren't.

|9.15.08 @ 4:25PM|#

Only during the "The Constitution doesn't mean anything when you're dead" Bush years have I seen the the fascist label being applied (and rather aptly) towards the GOPers.

Then you haven't been paying attention, as Neu deftly points out.

|9.15.08 @ 4:28PM|#

That isn't scatter shot?!? At the time of the Palin pick, it occurred to me that she lacked experience, but certainly Democrats would be the last
group of people to bring that up as an issue. Nope, I misjudged. Observing Democrats is often like conducting scientific test
to judge the sentience of various species by placing a mirror in front of them and see if they recognize their own reflection. Often times you guys fail that test.

I'm sorry Alan -- I still don't see your point. Why wouldn't the Dems point out that the party that has been making such a big deal about Obama's inexperience just picked a neophyte beaty queen to be the Vice President of the United States? Should hypocrisy not be pointed out?

In fact if they wouldn't have attacked that they would have been idiots.

And the fact that she is a serial liar would seem to undercut the whole McCain is a maverick meme.

And the fact that she has some quite unsettling ties to the Alaskan separatist movement undercuts her standing with the nationalism of the GOP voters, no?

And the fact that she believes in banning books should hurt her standing with civil libertarians, no?

I guess I just don't understand what is the problem with pointing the facts and the weaknesses of Palin as a candidate for VP?

Or are we just not supposed to be mean to the former Ms. Wasilla? Is your point that America doesn't want people being mean to pretty ladies?

|9.15.08 @ 4:39PM|#

Then you haven't been paying attention, as Neu deftly points out.

Oh I have...and as Neu mentioned you have to go back over 20 years for your comment to be based in any reality.

Those attacks weren't common during the Bush I years nor during the Clinton years.

So spare me your selection bias bullshit. I *HAVE* been paying attention, that's why I see that there is a difference between the attacks of the two. It's that lazy libertarians that refuse to pay attention.

Even around these parts the socialist label gets thrown around willy nilly and without regard to what socialism really is. Anyone who wants to provide any type of social services is labeled a socialist or a statist.

So I will say it again, anyone who thinks the the Democrats aren't as beholden to their corporate masters as the GOP is and thinks that the Democrats are some kind of closet socialists are not to be taken seriously.

alan|9.15.08 @ 4:55PM|#

Tom, I did not want to get into a discussion of what is and what is not a socialist because it is not likely to be fruitful, and, unless you are intimately familiar with Mises' work on the matter, you are not likely to have a valid definition of Socialism either, as the definition of it you give would exclude members of England's Labour party who proudly call themselves Socialist.

When, I was a Democrat a life time or two ago, I hated to be called Socialist too, so I understand where you are coming from, but during that time of the seventies and eighties when the label was being thrown around, there were many Democrats who were actively calling for Galbraithian Industrial Planning, and this rightfully can be described as Socialist, just as the Japanese like Industrial Policy advocated by some on the right at the time could be described as Mercantilist or 'crony captitalist' ('production only for the sake of production and not social benefit', as Micheal Kinsley aptly described it).

jtuf|9.15.08 @ 5:13PM|#

ChicagoTom | September 15, 2008, 3:42pm | #

So again I ask -- why would it be different this time? What makes her so special?

In the first case, spam e-mails and blogs most people haven't heard of made personal attacks against Obama. Obama's camp wrongly attributed these attacks to mainstream conservative media. Audiences who watch mainstream conservative media knew that Obama's complaints were directed at the wrong people, so his complaints backfired.

In the second case, mainstream liberal media, libral blogs with large audiences, and popular liberal celebrities made personal attacks against Palin. Since these attacks came from the mainstream left, it backfired on the entire left.

If the attacks against Palin were in spam or on blogs with very small audiences, there wouldn't be a blowback.

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 5:58PM|#

Chicago Tom,

Those attacks weren't common during the Bush I years nor during the Clinton years.

I certainly remember the book Friendly Fascism being an important part of the left library in the late 80's/early 90's.

It's influence was seen in the music of the day...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000008EIX/reasonmagazineA/

Neu Mejican|9.15.08 @ 6:02PM|#

I want to be on record saying that the RNC is, on the whole, across time, nastier than the DNC, but it is more a difference in style than content.

I think that is close to Sugarfree's point.

|9.15.08 @ 6:41PM|#

"I couldn't be more supportive of a woman in office, but let's face it, it comes down to the person, and their beliefs, male or female."

Of couse if those beliefs differ from ur own then it's o.k to say "She can suck it.".

Bi-partisanship where have u gone?, we need u more than ever. I support women's right to chose for an abortion, but I don't like the idea of abortion (it is life and I would at least argue to put the kid up for adoption). I'm not homophobic but don't support gay marriage (I feel it should be up to ur chosen religion, marriage is after all a religious thing). Lohan's obnoxiousness that her view is only right is very fascist and disturbing.

|9.15.08 @ 7:19PM|#

Chicago Tom

Still there? Or are you just weeping in corner somewhere?

|9.15.08 @ 8:18PM|#

Nice piece Nick!

Where has Ron Hart been of late?
I do like his humor.

DannyK|9.15.08 @ 10:09PM|#

That was foul, Nick. I've seen some nasty comments about Palin (tempers are flaring all around the blogosphere, and water is very wet), but I've never seen anyone criticize her for not having an abortion.

On the other hand, numerous Republicans, such as Michael Gerson, have dragged poor Trig Palin into the middle of his mom's political fight. If anyone's exploiting Down's Syndrome kids, they are.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements