David Frum Freaks Out Over Sarah Palin’s Supposed Racism

Nov 24 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

With Kathleen Parker getting her own CNN show, David Frum is undoubtedly worried that he will be totally eclipsed among so-called conservatives with Palin Derangement Syndrome. So, in a little 59 word post portentously entitled, “Bigger Problems with Sarah Palin’s new book ,” David Frum finds racism—yes, racism—in the following statement: PALIN FROM “AMERICA BY HEART” : “But from what I’ve read, family life at the time of the founding was a lot like family life for Americans today: full of challenges, sure, but also full of simple pleasures.” I’ll give you boilerplate, banality, throwaway, heartfelt cornpone… but racism?  Really?  Give up the Frum Forum, David, and get a column on HuffPo.  You would have more readers and most importantly, you would be right at home with other PDS sufferers. FRUM: For the 1 in 6 Americans who were held as slaves in 1790 – often unable to marry legally, and always liable to be sold and separated from spouses or children – family life was quite a lot different at the time of the founding than it is today. A would-be president should remember that part of the American story too. Even Frum Forum readers—who are still looking for a right of center reading experience—were put out by this, asking if we had to mention slavery every time we bring up the founders. “ I don’t say so at all,” Frum protested, “I don’t call for national self-flagellation or self-disparagement.” Then he proceeded to demand exactly that—or at least for Sarah Palin—for about 600 more words. FRUM: The point of my little post was just this: Palin’s remark was the remark of somebody who looked back at the 1790s and saw only … white people. This is the kind of thing we expect from Cornel West or Al Sharpton .  Maybe Keith Olbermann , but even Chris Matthews would probably have given the above innocuous Palin statement a pass. (By the way, it’s pretty amazing that David Frum can find racism in the above statement, but not perversion in Alex Knepper’s contempt for calling rape victims “survivors” or his slobbering online over teen idol Justin Beiber.) This is one of 6 (and counting) little snarks that Frum has posted on Palin’s book this week.  The others are more childish and less blatantly out of Left field. It’s pretty amazing how quickly one-time conservative commentators, from David Brock, to Kathleen Parker, to Andrew Sullivan to now David Frum can resort to the hoariest of Leftist clichés and methods they once decried when trying to appeal to the MSM and become the “reasonable conservative.” If this doesn’t get David the invites to the Manhattan cocktail parties he so desperately craves, nothing will.

Originally posted here:
David Frum Freaks Out Over Sarah Palin’s Supposed Racism

No responses yet

Why Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Run — Or Why She Should

Nov 20 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Cross-posted from American Power . ***** Mona Charen spoke at the Jewish Policy Forum panel in Los Angeles, along with David Horowitz . Michael Medved began the talk with a discussion of electoral politics, and at some point the panelists got to talkin’ about their favorites for the 2012 presidential race. Ms. Charen endorsed Mitchell Daniels (not my favorite, for reasons some might recall ). And that’s interesting, since we find that Ms. Charen’s not hip to a Sarah Palin presidential bid. See, “ Why Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Run ” (at Memeorandum ). And this passage is worth consideration: She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate, it’s true. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, the consultants (who get paid the big bucks win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably, according to a recent Gallup poll, along with 81 percent of Democrats. RTWT . Fair enough. But my sense, beyond this, is that Ms. Charen is looking at presidential politics a bit clinically. Extreme emotionalism devolved to a form of secular worship in 2008 and the election of “The One.” Ms Charen’s right to note the dangers of it forming on the right heading into 2012. But skimming over this a bit more, Ms. Charen yearns for a conservative politics almost entirely divorced from popular culture. I doubt we’re ever going back to a time of Reagan, much less Goldwater. But check the comments at the post (Townhall has a well organized comments section). If the sentiment there gives any indication, the GOP nomination is Palin’s for the taking. And why not? Sarah Palin is a force of nature. She embodies all the best of the American spirit, and her family emobodies all the best of the American citizen. We don’t know if she’ll be a good president. Leftists had no clue if Barack Obama would be a good president. Democrats picked Obama on faith. There’s danger there, sure. My sense is that Palin’s attuned to popular sensibilities in a way the Barack Obama has never been. She’s anti-elitist. She stands against the elite-arugula entitlement that is the essence of the Democrat-Socialist hegemonic power agenda. And Sarah Palin learns. She’s open to ideas and feedback. If President Obama had even an ounce of those qualities he’d have a much better chance of avoiding early retirement in 2012 — quite possible at the hands of Sarah Palin herself. RELATED : “ Sarah Palin Rallies GOP at ‘Victory 2010′ in Anaheim .” Cross-posted from American Power .

Go here to see the original:
Why Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Run — Or Why She Should

No responses yet

Palin: I Could Beat Obama. But, Could She?

Nov 19 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Asked (Barbara) Walters: “If you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?” “ I believe so ,” (Sarah) Palin said That’s the $24,000 question with Palin, isn’t it? If she were the nominee, could she beat Obama? Honestly, it’s impossible to answer that question — not just in regard to Palin, but in regard to whoever the GOP nominee will be. Many people seem to be assuming that Obama is doomed in 2012. That’s NOT a safe assumption by any means. First off, Jimmy Carter and George Bush may have gone down after a single term each, but that’s more unusual than you might think. In fact, the last President to be elected, serve a full term, and then lose for reelection before those two was Herbert Hoover, who was defeated by FDR in 1932. In other words, knocking off a sitting President is no small matter. Moreover, a lot of things can change in a two year period — and were he around, Ronald Reagan could tell you all about it. He beat Walter Mondale in a landslide back in 1984, but people tend to forget that in 1983, his approval rating had plunged all the way down to 35% . So, don’t assume that just because Obama’s down, he’s going to stay down. The economy could take off, he could have some surprising foreign policy success, he could move to the middle, the Republicans could blow it big time — there are a lot of ways that Obama could claw his way back up. Of course, a lot depends on whom the Republicans nominate. Aside from Palin, the field doesn’t look particularly impressive at the moment, but most people would have said the same thing about the Democratic field in 1992, which ended up producing Bill Clinton. So, let’s take a hard look at Palin: Continue reading at Right Wing News .

See the original post:
Palin: I Could Beat Obama. But, Could She?

No responses yet

Trainwreck: Where the Mommy Wars Went Off Track

Nov 18 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Recently, I wrote a post entitled, In Defense of Women:  Why the Mommy Wars are Counter-Productive , in which I audaciously asked that those who criticize women’s parenting decisions “back off” and that we “find a middle ground.”  I did not state my personal position in the Mommy Wars, just that it was counter-productive to wage those wars via female politicians.  I can’t understand why, if a woman has made responsible and personal parenting choices, they should be fodder for political pundits. In my post, I wrote, “positions are entrenched, and there is no room for seeing another’s point of view.”  In two new In the Family Way NRB posts, my entreaty for understanding has been met with … entrenched positions. I sense that the authors think that I, too, might be a “feminist”.  I feel like I must respond. You bet your sweet ass I am. Obviously, Ms. Venker and I have different definitions of the word feminist .  Ms. Venker describes it as “any person, male or female, liberal or conservative, whose knee-jerk reaction to the subject of women is that they live in a man’s world.”  My definition, which is commonly accepted, is a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of women.   Why would I accept anything less? I am the daughter of a Ms. Magazine- subscribing, Status of Women card-holding feminist.  I understand that generation’s frustration, even if I disagree with the goals they set, and their methods .  While I do not support the leftist definition of feminism that demands compliance on abortion and legal enforcements of equality, I am still very much a feminist, in the most modern sense of the word.  Sure, I wear a bra, I stay home with my kids, and I’m pro-life.  I don’t answer to the leftist feminists, the media or any political establishment.  I don’t have to tick the Democratic box to preserve my “reproductive rights.”  I don’t need government programs, universal childcare or whatever other victim program they’re selling.  I make my own decisions, based on my own experiences, to make the best decisions for my family. If you don’t like them?  I’m okay with that; however, my life is not lived in the public fishbowl. Sarah Palin’s life is, which to many, makes her a suitable and acceptable target.  Analyzing every word, every gesture, every outfit, her opponents search for hidden meanings and evidence of bad judgment.  This political posturing is designed to demean women and discredit them politically.  We are supposed to see female politicians strictly as women, not as political candidates. Media attacks against women are not limited to conservative women.  Certainly, much of the media vitriol against Sarah Palin is due to her conservative values, but it also stems from her strong personality and refusal to go away.  In a Fox News interview with Geraldine Ferraro, the former VP candidate stated that nothing had changed since her run, using the treatment of herself, Palin, and Hillary Clinton as examples.  Both Ferraro (Democrat) and Palin (Republican) maintained that many of the attacks were based on their gender, rather than their policies.  Any woman who has worked in the political or business arenas understands that patriarchal attitudes do still exist.  To pretend they don’t is to ignore the realities of working in male-dominated fields.  Does it mean that women are oppressed?  Not at all.

Continue reading here:
Trainwreck: Where the Mommy Wars Went Off Track

No responses yet

Hot Post:Sarah Palin Shows Her Feminist Stripes

Nov 13 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Read the original post and comments first published on Nov. 8, 2010 In an ever-changing society, one of the things we humans can depend on is that children don’t change. They come in to this world the same way they did one hundred years ago — with the exact same set of needs. Having a parent, particularly a mommy, at home to care for them is one of them. But don’t tell Sarah Palin that. According to her, those who believe moms should stay home with their kids are “Neanderthals” who need to “get with it” and “evolve.” Until now, I’ve been largely silent about Sarah Palin. I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt because conservatives are in desperate need of a spokesperson. Sure, Palin’s unpolished and not what I would call an intellect – but neither was President Reagan. Indeed, there are other important qualities for public office besides intellect — as Barack Obama is proving in spades. But as the author of two books on the subject of feminism, I cannot remain silent in light of Palin’s foolish comment on Fox. In response to why she thinks she was attacked so viciously during the 2008 campaign, Palin had this to say: There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty, little, superficial, meaningless things – like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children – all those type of things where I would so hope that at some point those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern, and a bit more understanding that, yeah, women can accomplish much. Clearly Palin assumes she was vilified by the media in part because of some archaic view that women belong at home, barefoot and pregnant — and that if they come out in public, they’re walloped by American Neanderthals. What rubbish. Sarah Palin has been attacked in the media for one simple reason: she is conservative and the media is not. That Palin happens to be female does up the ante, I admit — women are notorious for attacking other women. But the fact remains that if Palin were a Democrat, and if she were pro-choice, she would have been hailed in the media as the best thing since sliced bread. For whatever reason, Sarah Palin doesn’t get this. So instead she joins ranks with feminists who claim America is filled with Neanderthals who don’t want to see women succeed. In fact, Americans have no issue with women being successful outside the home. But the conflict between work and family is a real one, and absentee parenting has large scale consequences for children and society. That Palin considers working outside the home when you have small children a “petty little” matter shows an astounding lack of appreciation for the significance of motherhood and makes me wonder whether or not Levi Johnston was telling the truth when he talked about the reality of life at home with the Palins. It is true, after all, that Sarah Palin’s lifestyle does not jibe with her politics. She promotes traditional values, but there is nothing traditional about her life. It does feel a bit disingenuous. Indeed, it’s highly unusual to find conservative women with young children in the limelight because they’re usually too busy raising their kids. Left-wing women can get away with it because they don’t tout the merits of American traditions. But those who believe it is bad for society for mothers to be absent from the home when they have small children are not Neanderthals who haven’t “evolved.” They are conscientious Americans who gravitate toward this belief because of the strong emotional pull they feel themselves as parents — and because, as Carolyn Graglia wrote in Domestic Tranquility , “they know their presence in their children’s lives is the single best guarantee of their well-being.” Americans are well aware that women can and do “accomplish much.” But there’s a time and a place for everything. When moms have babies and toddlers at home, they should change their priorities — and I say that not because I’m a throwback to a bygone era but because, despite all our progress, children’s needs haven’t changed one bit. And when these needs do not get met, we all pay the price. I’d hardly call that a “petty little superficial” matter. Suzanne Venker is co-author of the forthcoming book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say (WND Books). Her website is www.suzannevenker.com .

View original post here:
Hot Post:Sarah Palin Shows Her Feminist Stripes

No responses yet

Sarah Palin Shows Her Feminist Stripes

Nov 09 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

In an ever-changing society, one of the things we humans can depend on is that children don’t change. They come in to this world the same way they did one hundred years ago — with the exact same set of needs. Having a parent, particularly a mommy, at home to care for them is one of them. But don’t tell Sarah Palin that. According to her, those who believe moms should stay home with their kids are “Neanderthals” who need to “get with it” and “evolve.” Until now, I’ve been largely silent about Sarah Palin. I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt because conservatives are in desperate need of a spokesperson. Sure, Palin’s unpolished and not what I would call an intellect – but neither was President Reagan. Indeed, there are other important qualities for public office besides intellect — as Barack Obama is proving in spades. But as the author of two books on the subject of feminism, I cannot remain silent in light of Palin’s foolish comment on Fox. In response to why she thinks she was attacked so viciously during the 2008 campaign, Palin had this to say: There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty, little, superficial, meaningless things – like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children – all those type of things where I would so hope that at some point those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern, and a bit more understanding that, yeah, women can accomplish much. Clearly Palin assumes she was vilified by the media in part because of some archaic view that women belong at home, barefoot and pregnant — and that if they come out in public, they’re walloped by American Neanderthals. What rubbish. Sarah Palin has been attacked in the media for one simple reason: she is conservative and the media is not. That Palin happens to be female does up the ante, I admit — women are notorious for attacking other women. But the fact remains that if Palin were a Democrat, and if she were pro-choice, she would have been hailed in the media as the best thing since sliced bread. For whatever reason, Sarah Palin doesn’t get this. So instead she joins ranks with feminists who claim America is filled with Neanderthals who don’t want to see women succeed. In fact, Americans have no issue with women being successful outside the home. But the conflict between work and family is a real one, and absentee parenting has large scale consequences for children and society. That Palin considers working outside the home when you have small children a “petty little” matter shows an astounding lack of appreciation for the significance of motherhood and makes me wonder whether or not Levi Johnston was telling the truth when he talked about the reality of life at home with the Palins. It is true, after all, that Sarah Palin’s lifestyle does not jibe with her politics. She promotes traditional values, but there is nothing traditional about her life. It does feel a bit disingenuous. Indeed, it’s highly unusual to find conservative women with young children in the limelight because they’re usually too busy raising their kids. Left-wing women can get away with it because they don’t tout the merits of American traditions. But those who believe it is bad for society for mothers to be absent from the home when they have small children are not Neanderthals who haven’t “evolved.” They are conscientious Americans who gravitate toward this belief because of the strong emotional pull they feel themselves as parents — and because, as Carolyn Graglia wrote in Domestic Tranquility , “they know their presence in their children’s lives is the single best guarantee of their well-being.” Americans are well aware that women can and do “accomplish much.” But there’s a time and a place for everything. When moms have babies and toddlers at home, they should change their priorities — and I say that not because I’m a throwback to a bygone era but because, despite all our progress, children’s needs haven’t changed one bit. And when these needs do not get met, we all pay the price. I’d hardly call that a “petty little superficial” matter. Suzanne Venker is co-author of the forthcoming book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say (WND Books). Her website is www.suzannevenker.com .

Go here to see the original:
Sarah Palin Shows Her Feminist Stripes

No responses yet

Socialist Health Care Supporters Use Alinsky Tactics

Oct 16 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

The left is very unhappy that Americans resent having Obamacare shoved down their throats. They aren’t following the script that leftists had written for them, and as a result these radicals feel they need to attack and insult them. So they put together a commercial featuring comic actor Jack Black that rattles off a litany of the true and well documented problems with Obamacare. Too bad it’s not funny. It’s just stupid and insulting. Black poses as “Nathan Spewman, professional mis-informant.” He plays a corporate propagandist who enters a classroom and pretends to be a little kid so he can fill the kids’ minds with things the left argues are lies. But the things he says happen for the most part to be true, broadly speaking. He tells a little girl not to bother thinking about becoming a doctor because “Obamacare is a socialist plot to take decisions out of the hands of our doctors.” I couldn’t have said it better. The whole commercial is an exercise in Saul Alinsky ‘s fifth rule of “power tactics”: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Alinsky taught that ridicule is a rhetorical weapon of mass destruction. “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule,” he wrote in Rules for Radicals . The commercial is the handiwork of Health Care for America Now ( HCAN ), a well-funded front group for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ( ACORN ) and its labor union SEIU . The two closely tied organizations created HCAN in order to line their own pockets and help push through the radical left-wing political agenda. Both ACORN and SEIU figured they would get new paying members out of Obamacare . On HCAN’s website executive director Ethan Rome childishly called Sarah Palin a “whack job” because she referenced Obamacare’s “death panels.” (Rome only recently joined HCAN. He was previously public affairs director of the  American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees .) In the commercial Black alludes to the “death panels” but only to mock the idea. Although there won’t be an Obamacare tribunal literally handing out death sentences to sick patients there will be rationing boards created that will get to decide who lives and who dies. Life and death will be determined, as in Canada and the U.K., by how expensive the medical care is and by how large the political constituency is that is interested in whatever disease ails the patient. If as a patient you don’t have a strong lobby in Washington, then under Obama’s  program you’ll be allowed to die. (Walter Hudson did a fine job writing on the HCAN commercial Thursday. You should read his post too.) – Follow me on Twitter .

More here:
Socialist Health Care Supporters Use Alinsky Tactics

No responses yet

Michelle Obama, an Empty Power Suit? Not According to Forbes

Oct 08 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Is Michelle Obama  proud of her country now that  she’s been named number one on the Forbes list of the most powerful women?  Or are we still a “downright mean country?” No doubt the patient-dumping, jet-setting  Queen from Chicago exhibited a forceful, commanding presence in her husband’s political ascendancy. Her questionable associations with  criminal Tony Rezko, Chicago slumlord Valerie Jarrett and Reverend Jeremiah Wright make her a force to be reckoned with, that’s for sure. As the godmother of the affirmative-action, social justice,  ‘goddamn America’ family of vengeful race-baiters, she made it all the way to the White House; quite an accomplishment. Lady Michelle embodies the Forbes image: We’ve come up with a new ranking of the female power elite that reflects the New Order of now…[Obama] has made the office of first lady her own. Forbes’ new order reflects the  leftist idocracy now upon us. Just look at the names that made top ten on the  list: Lady Gaga, Beyonce Knowles, Ellen Degeneres and Oprah Winfrey. These women are “ shaping many of the agenda-setting conversations of the day .”  No wonder more and more Americans are declaring themselves ‘conservative.’ Lady Gaga over Sarah Palin, who came in at number 16? Really? The magazine  purposely veered off course this year to showcase the  “creative influence and entrepreneurship ‘ of women. In other words the 2010 role models, led by Lady Michelle, must espouse diversity, sexual liberation and/or host a talk show. Apparently, German leader Angela Merkel, bumped down to number four and in control of the world’s third largest economy, can’t compare to Mrs. Obama’s creative command of the White House garden.  Michelle’s persistent requests for more taxpayer money on top of  a 13 trillion dollar debt does suggest a brazen, forceful personality. But in the end, like her husband,  Michelle Obama is an empty power suit. All of the titles, awards, prizes and entitlements will not fill the void.  The world’s ‘most powerful woman’ sadly illustrates how meaningless and corrupt the world’s standards have become.

More:
Michelle Obama, an Empty Power Suit? Not According to Forbes

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »