I have previously discussed at length the extent to which the public mood has focused on the issue of integrity in this presidential election. If anything, the recent credit crisis has heightened that concern – frankly, the public doesn’t understand…..

There is something about Sarah Palin that leftists abhor. This is not the usual loathing that liberals have for anyone on the right, this is such blind hatred that it has crossed into mental illness. …

Lie #1: She wants to force Creationism into school curricula. Truth. Plain believes that discussions in the classroom should not be artificially restricted, and that if the subject comes up, teachers and students should be free to discuss any theory. T…

Rosie O’Donnell too?

SaintOlaf on September 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM

So desperate for a compliment you hide here, Rosie?

“The librarian kept the job, despite a dispute over inquiries by Palin on how to ban books that included language she deemed inappropriate.[25]“

Could someone with a Wikipedia account question them on this?

The note [25] links to a Times article that was posted today. The article states that Palin inquired about banning books, but indicated that they couldn’t vet this with the Librarian. The Times article says that “full support” was the reason Palin ‘threatened’ to fire her but they’re reaching. The insinuation is that because Mary wouldn’t help Palin ban books she’d fire her.

I’ve googled this and it seems that there is some circular logic going on here. The Times floats this without verification in an article online today. Wikipedia adds it to the biography of Sarah Palin today. Now the likes of Air America and Oliver Willis are using it to trash her. Yikes. This is actually scary stuff to me.

This is such tripe and so liberally biased it reminds me of the movie Footloose. Don’t you know that conservative Christians the country over are all about banning books and free speech.

I fail to see how feminism jives with the idea of being “pro-family.”

 
Send_Me, it depends on which wave of feminism you’re talking about. We have to distinguish between “equity feminism” and “gender feminism.”
 
Early feminism in the U.S. was equity feminism. The early advocates of women’s rights focused on improving conditions for women where those conditions weren’t good, and on gaining certain specific legal rights for women such as the right to vote, the right to work outside the home, and the right to manage their own money.
 
Far from “subverting the patriarchy”, early feminists used examples from history and Scripture to make their case, citing successful female monarchs and Biblical heroines, and using support from Scripture to make the point that men’s and women’s souls are equal in the sight of God. (Galatians 3:27-29 is one example.) Early feminism was bound up with Christianity, finding early expression in the Temperance movement. For every “Puritanical zealot” in a temperance march, there was a fed-up, desperate woman whose male protector (husband or father) was a drunk.
 
Temperance as a political movement resulted in the Prohibition amendment, a spectacular failure whose repercussions are still with us, but at the time it galvanized women politically. (I can hardly imagine the helplessness of a woman in those days married to a drunkard who spent the household money on his habit, starving and even beating her and their children, but unable to leave him because there was no way for her to earn a living outside the gutter.)
 
Most Christians are on board with the kind of feminism that enables women to lead good and virtuous lives even if the men who should protect and care for them default on their responsibilities as ordained by God, and the kind that acknowledges women as just as much part of God’s creation as men. Christians believe that God has given each man or woman his or her own gifts of the spirit, and men and women should have equal opportunity to use their gifts to glorify their Creator. (Christians are not unique in this belief, by the way.)
 
It wasn’t until much, much later that equity feminism was succeeded by gender feminism, the hallmarks of which are male-bashing and lawsuits. ;-) Most Christians are not on board with gender feminism, for two reasons: (1) Christians believe that God ordained different roles within the family for a father and a mother, and (2) gender feminism rejects “the Judeo-Christian paradigm” altogether, drawing on an idealized pagan past when priestesses were the spiritual and political centers of their community (and of course there was no war, no slavery, no oppression, and nothing bad ever happened. :-) )
 
The logical endpoint of gender feminism is to reject men altogether under the claim that any relationship of a woman to a man is inherently oppressive. This leads naturally to the idea of same-gender relationships as the only non-oppressive ones. Christians value same-gender friendships and even communities (such as convents and monasteries), but believe that gay and lesbian relationships are contrary to God’s plan for the human race (or else, why would He have made humans and animals both male and female?).

Sarah Palin, member of the Alaskan Independence Party? How about a lifelong registered Republican? Kos, defensive about his own involvement in pushing Trig Trutherism, claimed that his Krazy Koz Kidz were investigating lots of angles here, and pointed …

If he hadn’t made his choice for VEEP at the last second, a lot of this crap wouldn’t be raising its ugly head, cause it would have been talked out somewhat before hand. It’s why a ‘fully vetted’ candidate is important in the ‘do no harm’ scheme of running mates. McCain brought this on himself. Doesn’t excuse the media, but he knows the system better than most.

trailboss on September 2, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Give me a break. Do you believe for one millisecond that had Maverick announced Palin a month ago, the attacks against her would be any less?

A “fully vetted” candidate is apparently one that the media likes. And there is no way that a conservative woman will fit that definition. The entire basis of the leftist coalition is that certain groups are monolithically Democrat. Anyone who saw what happened to Clarence Thomas would have to know the Schidt-storm that would come down on Palin’s head for having the temerity to be a conservative woman.

The playbook calls for the willing accomplices in the media to literally make up charges against Palin, in hopes that either she’ll withdraw from the campaign, or voters will tire of “all the scandals”. That the scandals are concocted of whole cloth, and there is no “there” there

She isn’t quite the lib’s worst nightmare; that would be Baldilocks.

To those who see clearly, yes. Hell of a lot of messed up crap in the way, but … go back and look at Rosie before she lost her marbles.

With a different circle of friends (i.e. not Hollyweird) she could’ve been a lovely person.

Mew

Rosie O’Donnell too?

SaintOlaf on September 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM

he said women not male lesbians who still fear the bicycle bar.

All women are beautiful to one who sees clearly my son.

Immolate on September 2, 2008 at 1:47 PM

*Applause*

*eats*