Sarah Palin versus Emily’s List

An article from The New York Times about women, their differences and how they vote, contrasting Sarah Palin with Emily’s List (a political action group that aims to get pro-abortion women into office). I like this part:

Women are divided but not by gender — the old saw that women must stick together doesn’t work anymore, if it ever did — nor necessarily split by party. They are polarized, like the nation, between the growing conservative-independent camp and the liberal-progressive bloc led by the political classes — or more simply, between insiders and outsiders. And this is the time for the outsiders.

I’m also keenly interested in the California election:

But it is the marquee race in California between Senator Barbara Boxer, a three-term Democrat and longtime feminist, and Carly Fiorina, the anti-abortion former Hewlett-Packard executive endorsed by Ms. Palin, that will most rigidly test who holds sway: Sarah Palin or Emily’s List.

In all this, it’s intriguing to me that a Sarah Palin endorsement still holds sway. Works for me, particularly when we are talking about life issues.

Not easy but always right

Recently on the Washington Post website a few questions were posed, which included a quote by Sarah Palin, “choosing life may not be the easiest path, but it’s always the right path.”

I like that. It’s honest, because choosing life really isn’t always the easiest path. And the right path often isn’t the easiest anyway. It’s usually the more difficult one because that’s kind of the way life is. It is the path that helps people learn how to become better people and persevere and build character, and that’s one of the things I really like about it. You might even call it . . . the rocky road. Like if you’re in Texas right now like I am and the weather is ridiculously hot so that you’re thinking about ice cream all the time.

Anyway, the Washington Post asked about 16 different panelists from different backgrounds to respond to the quote and a question about abortion. One of the panelists, Colleen Carroll Campbell, whose short piece was titled Pro-life feminism is the future, overwhelmingly had more reader comments than any of the others.

It is a consequence of [the abortion-rights lobby and the feminist establishment's] decades-long campaign to make feminism synonymous with a woman’s right to abort her child and to marginalize any free-thinking feminist who dares to disagree.

It only takes a quick look at the comments at the end of her article to confirm that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman (of course!). Never mind the fact that feminists are supposed to be pro-choice and one of the choices has traditionally been life. Choosing life is anti-woman. Woah, my head is spinning.

For many American women, the feminism that once attracted them with its lofty goal of promoting respect for women’s dignity has morphed into something antithetical to that dignity: a movement that equates a woman’s liberation with her license to kill her unborn child, marginalizes people of faith if they support even modest restrictions on abortion, and colludes with a sexist culture eager to convince a woman in crisis that dealing with
 her unplanned pregnancy is her choice and, therefore, her problem.

Many women are not buying it. They are attracted instead to the message of groups like Feminists for Life, which tells women facing unplanned pregnancies that they should “refuse to choose” between having a future and having a baby. They believe that the best way for a woman to defend her own dignity is to defend the dignity of each and every human person, including the one that grows within her womb. And they reject the false dichotomy of abortion-centric feminism that says respect for human dignity is a zero-sum game in which a woman can win only if her unborn child loses.

The intellectual dishonesty of the old feminist movement is what is driving young women away from it. I don’t know about anybody else, but to me it says “you’re not smart enough to make a good decision, so we’re just giving you these two: success with an abortion or failure with a child” and that sort of insults my intelligence. The new pro-life feminist movement respects us and knows we’re smarter and stronger than that – women can both have a child and be successful.

Hope and change

Rex Murphy on Sarah Palin. I like the column but disagree with his last line:

No wonder Obama claims he won’t respond when she tweets. The Hope and Change President still owns Hope, but real Change in current American politics is on Palin’s side of the ledger.

I’m not sure that Obama owns hope anymore, anymore, either. This is not to say that Sarah Palin owns Hope and Change (what are we talking about here, anyway, who “owns” those things?) But rather that Obama decidedly does not. They are “for sale” I suppose.

Types of ammunition

I watched Sarah Palin on Jay Leno, and I have to say, I don’t find much of what she said to be controversial. A key difference between her life and mine might be that when my dad advises me on what ammunition to use, it’s figurative, not literal. Plus I got in big trouble for writing on my hands back in the day. Other than that, tax cuts, energy security, revitalizing the American spirit? Really, who can disagree with that?

Well, that’s tasteless

Joking about Down Syndrome. How hilarious.

Fox could be heading to Sarah Palin‘s doghouse after the animated show “Family Guy” appeared to mock her son’s Down syndrome on Sunday night.

In the taste-challenged episode, one of the show’s characters dates a woman who apparently suffers from Down syndrome. The woman makes comparisons to Palin’s 22-month-old son, Trig.

“My dad’s an accountant, and my mom’s the former governor of Alaska,” the mentally disabled character said, without mentioning any names.

One day someone will explain to me why it’s apparently OK to step way the heck over the line when making a show of disliking Sarah Palin, right? Good. Because I really don’t get it.