Sarah and the Feminists

One intelligent pro-Palin piece by Phyllis Chester against two months of frothing, hateful, distgusting, bigoted, sexist blather from"professional" male writers who scribble like spiteful little boys.

That's what I call a fair debate.

"Palin might potentially be a good law-and-order candidate on the issues of domestic violence, rape, incest, child pedophiles, and sexual harassment."

The fact that Alaska has the highest per capita rape rate of any state doesn't make Ms. Palin look like the best law and order candidate, does it? 

Palin is not only prone to burbling incoherently, she's running with a candidate who opposes equal pay for equal work and recently made sarcastic little air quotes when speaking about women's health as an issue. She is, as anyone saw at the Republican convention, nothing like the very sweet Elle Woods from the delightful Legally Blonde, but the meanest cheerleader from hell.

I can see Chesler's point but doesn't every candidate take a ton of ruthless criticisms? Sure, female candidates have to put up with more ridiculous criticisms on the basis of their fashion choices and speculation on sexual preferences due to the typically male traits that have to personify in order to lead, but doesn't everyone take their own hits in turn? Obama has to take all the scrutiny on his Muslim affiliations simply because of race and name. A potential President should be able to handle the scrutiny. The job they are applying for is not going to get any easier. A better candidate wouldn't have this issue (*ahem* Hilary).

A female presence in the white house is so long over due that, in my opinion, this reaction in the feminist community is the embodiment of the extreme frustration women are feeling. Not some "why isn't it me" attituded. That a female candidate is in the position to break this glass ceiling is so unqualified and unelectable is beyond infuriating, especially for women involved in the fight that got her there. Hopefully this mess doesn't affect the choice of qualified female candidates in the future. Of course there is a feeling of betrayal, it's a HUGE disappointment. Women's "issues" may have to take a backseat for yet another 4 years.

I'd be more apt to take this piece seriously, if Phyllis hadn't done exactly what she warns against, namely, "competing "indirectly," in "backstabbing" ways that include slandering and shunning a female opponent—with a smile." She did all of this and more in her slanderous smear of me in Salon.com and my work, basing her attack on a tabloid piece about me published by England's version of the National Enquirer.

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but after a lifetime of watching feminist exclusionary politics, I'm not surprised by the way Chesler covered my work, and I'm not surprised by the insulting way feminist icons covered Sarah Palin, who, though clearly out of her league and a potential disaster of epic proportions as VP, deserved a more savvy response from women who've been agitating for a woman's right to lead for over a century.

So instead of saying shame on them, I have to redirect Chesler's gaze and say shame on her. You can't shame and slander other women but pretend you're a great defender of women who are shamed and slandered by other women. You can't be both a backstabber and a defender of backstabbing. 

Unless, of course, you're a hypocrite. 

I don't think anyone's called Palin stupid. She seems fairly intelligent. Just clueless of foreign affairs. It's not that she hasn't left the country, or hasn't met world leaders. She hasn't given the impression that she has a good, say academic level knowledge of American foreign policy issues--whereas by contrast both McCain and Obama obviously do. She can certainly learn on the job--all it takes is some reading and 'hands-on' experience.

Past that, it comes down to good judgement and common sense [read: actions and opinions with which I agree].

The assualt on Sarah Palin has been mammouth, Zeevico, and yes--the entire point is to call her stupid.  "Unqualified" is no argument since she is far more qualified than the golden child, Obama.  So they calll her a "dunce" and plainly "stupid."  They focus constantly on her penchant to speak in run on sentences and to use folksy expressions they interpret to highlight a lack of intelligence.

Good for Phyllis Chester for writting this and one correction--Tammy Bruce STRONGLY endorses Palin and the McCain Palin ticket.  She is stating on the radio this very evening that she believes McCain will win and she is quick to give Sarah Palin the credit she deserves.

If only this is true!!  An Obama defeat would be a real July 4 celebration on November 4.  Turning away the socialist con man who will not disclose much about himself and is a thin-skinned empty suit would be a great victory for America and quite a defeat for the media which has made his election their mission.  If Obama loses--every talking head at the NYT, the WPost, the LATimes, Slate.com, Newsweek etc should simply resign and let America have balanced coverage of our world instead of cheerleadiing for the socialists.  Could it be true?  Could America really win and avoid this tragedy of a President from Baal-Peor?

It is still unlikely but it could happen.  How great a win it would be for the last surviving beacon of freedom for the world.  America still standing tall?  Please, God--let it happen. 

I wish to make two points about your comment, David. The first regards attacks on Palin. The second regards your belief that Obama is a socialist.

I don't think we can speak of a calculated, organised attack on Palin's intelligence by anyone. I think that is a reductionist analysis. Palin's credentials have been attacked by Republicans and Democrats alike. Many of the people who attacked her credentials qualified their remarks with respect to her intelligence. You write that 'they focus constantly on her penchant to speak in run on sentences and to use folksy expressions'--but there simply is no they, David.

Secondly, David, I find it difficult to understand why you term Obama a 'closet socialist.' It's nothing more than conspiracy theory. Who else is in on it, David? Is Biden a closet socialist? Or the Democrat elite? The Democrats rank and file? Independent Democrat voters? How about Lieberman, who endorses McCain? Not too long ago he was a member of the elite seeking nomination and afterwards the vice presidency. The vice-presidency, for God's sake. And now he endorses McCain and Palin full-heartedly. Has he gone on about Obama as a closet socialist? He should know: he's a Democrat himself. Has he talked about a Democrat conspiracy to install a socialist into power? No--and yet he supports McCain. So what do you make of Lieberman and others like him? Are they socialists? Or Socialists for McCain?

I think you misunderstand the democratic process. The Democrats and Republicans do not exist solely for the sake of power. They are not a ruling class in the vein of the nobility of old or the former Communist Party of Russia or and the present ruling class in China. They must either reflect the views of their membership and  voters or they will simply die out as members vote using their feet and the ballot. Politicans in liberal [I use the term to denote support for freedom of speech etc, not economic policy] democratic countries cannot lie about their nature or character and get away with it. It's a losing game for 'closet' anything to play, as you will be found out. Until there is proof that Obama thinks and believes in socialism, and there is none, you cannot assert that he is. Most people do not think that there is any credible proof of that at all.

Zeevico, you have to take David's comment in the current right wing context: Any deviation from free market fundamentalism is de facto socialism. Funny, though, that when rich people get tax breaks and banks get bailouts, that's capitalism, but if the government wants to rewrite your mortgage to a fixed rate, that's communism.

Hell, there are people who think that funding public transportation is communism.

Zeevico, I did not say Obama is a "closet socialist"--I stated that he is a socialist and this is not opinion, it is a very valid conclusion.  What is hidden about this man is a whole heck of a lot and this is a compelling reason to decline to vote for him.  He has lied about his history with Wm. Ayers who is a communist and a real radical and this is because he wants his ideology to be hidden until after the election.  If he thought he could win on a socialist agenda, nothing would be hidden.  His con game is to confuse voters into thinking that he is a moderate person and he wants approval ratings so he hides his ideology.  If you read his mentors: Allinsky and Ayers--you see Obama's plan very clearly.

Of course he can lie and get away with it--this is exactly what is happening right now.  Regarding Lieberman, he is willing to go with socialist policies but only so far and not all the way.  Socialism is the prevailing political ideology of the universities and Europe.  It is the de facto assumption of many millions of people.  At its heart, it requires atheism, it empowers elites at the governmental levels to set rules and the entire Robin Hood or so-called "progressive" agenda.  It is enlightened to steal from one class of people and give to others, the argument goes.  This kind of line is assumed by the left--it is the right thing to do, the normal thing to do.

Obama is going to deliver material things to people and this is why they love him. Forgive me if I said this previously, a woman who attended an Obama rally recently spoke for many of his supporters when she said she was so happy Obama is going to win since "I will not have to worry about paying for gas for my car or making my mortgage payment anymore."  People love Obama because they are bribed to vote for him.  Power animates the left since power means control.  Note that the left never speaks about freedom (except for sexual freedom and freedom to have abortions)--this is the language of the political right.  

Europe is going down the drain because it has embraced socialism and will not let go if it.  They heartily endorse Obama as Obama speaks of being a citizen of the world.  This is another aspect of the socialist agenda--we are responsible not only for our lives and our taxes but for the world's problems--that is to say that Americans are to be taxed to benefit people less affluent.

Your posting here, Zeevico, is simply dreadful.  You are obviously the product of a typical college education.  Let me supply soome additional links to articles explaining and defining the socialist threat.  Biden is a socialist, sure--his problem with plaigurism was over a Birtish socialist and he has stated very famously that the rich need to get in thr game by paying more tax--and he is a stingy freak of a politician for giving almost zero money to charity over a long period of time.  This is classic liberal behavior--demanding that others pay huge taxes while they give almost nothing away charitably.  Lieberman sides with McCain because Obama's position on national security is simply impossible.  This danger trumps his interest in liberal economic policy--I would not call Lieberman a socialist but he ran with the monster Al Gore and had to remake himself in the process.  So we can say he is a principled person regarding defending America and not very principled regarding his hypocrisy involving his standing as a modern Orthodox Jew vs. his liberal politics.  McCain's moderation also makes it easy for McCain to vote for him since McCain--beyond being pro-life--can be very moderate and Lieberman is also moderate.  The Dems cannot stand moderate people and they must be wild-eyed liberals to take center stage and that is why they will surely strip Lieberman of his standing with the Dems as soon as the election is over and whether or not Obama is President.

We are told constantly that America must change--what is the change??--very obviously towards socialism.  This is the goal.  Why does Europe "hate us" --because we cling to our guns and our Bibles.  They tell us housing is a right, health care is a right, marriage contracts for homosexuals is a right, retirement is a right, and if you want to help people--what is needed is the government.  Reagan loved the line about the fear in our hearts when someone says: "I am from the government and I am here to help you."  To actually be that "helping" man is  Obama's claim to fame and program. Because we have not tasted socialism, not everyone is programmed to run instead of cheer.

Rank and file Dems, as opposed to the leaders, do not like anti-Americans and this is why Obama hides his true feelings.  Rank and file Dems may want a mixed economy but don't like socialist solutions.  Obama is getting their vote because Obama is not talking--they see in him what they want to see and not what is really there.  He is not asked about his plans and everything he reveals involves socialism.  He wants to make energy prices "skyrocket"--who gives him the right to set energy prices and set them high?  It is because he believes he knows best, not us.

Let me add a link or two for your to consider.  Re-educate yourself and please be prepared to change your mind.  Real change is positive and when I entered college, I was a liberal.  

Finally corporate welfare  is opposed by conservatives and celebrated by the Dems who are the party of the rich and big business.  Small business is overwhelmingly Republican.  The Republicans in the House opposed the bailout and so did I.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_repugnance_of_socialism.html

David, with respect, I cannot accept your definition of socialism. I would remind you that by your definition Israel is equated with Stalinist Russia or Maoist China both ideologically and economically. Even the most wasteful welfare cheque is not a Serbian prison. For many many years Israel had quasi-socialist economic, as distinct from ideological policies. Was Ben Gurion an Israeli Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? The writer of that article makes no moral distinctions between the two. That is irresponsible and disrespectful towards those who have experienced the conditions of Stalinism, authoritarianism and Russian/Chinese socialism.

Nor do I think there is any convincing evidence that Obama is a socialist in the traditional sense of the word.

I know we all dread the Stalinist Gulag known as Canada. What a hellhole!

Zeevico--everyone admits that Israel's socialist past is very real and they have tried to break through many of those dead ideas of the past.  Economies may be mixed.

Make no mistake- Zeeivico--Obama wants us under his thumb he does not trust America and our freedoms and our capitalism.  This is why it is often said about socialism that it is similar to the frog in the cooking pot phenomemon.  At what point is the frog cooked?  It will get real 'hot' under Obama.  

Surely, you will admit the government will grow at great deal under Obama and this growth is "socialist" while Bush's increased spending for the military merely enhances American security.  I suppose I make more money than you--I am already cooked.  Why do you need to have your veins popped open wide before you agree this will not be a good path? 

Hi David,

 Long-time no see. Anyway, I just wanted to say I agree with Sarah Palin about one thing. God is guiding the American people in this election. Whoever we vote for, I truly believe that it is meant to be, and it is the direction that God wants the country to go in. Amen.

It seems to me that God does not endorse Obama just because Obama has won the election.  It is up to us to bring God's plan to humanity and perhaps the Obama victory is necessary to galvanize us to turn the country back in the right direction.  As a prominent writer has observed, God did not bring Haman to power as a reflection of His will.  Rather, we responded to the challenge and acted to save the Jewish people and turn the tables.

 Whether we can endure the punishment Obama will bring is the question.

Here is an attempt by a writer to explain the difference between leftists and liberals.  Obama is a leftist and a problem.  Stalin and Mao were murderous communists.  We are speaking about socialists.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001054.html

I can continue to work on you Zeevico. 

How can you still not get it?  You act as if your opinion is in any way representative of the majority of this country or of the Jewish people. I personally know more Jews who voted for Obama in this election than ever before. My Jewish Republican grandmother, who hasn't voted for a Democrat since LBJ, cast her vote for Obama. My Jewish Republican friends either voted for Obama, or cast their votes for McCain while voicing serious doubts about the direction of the Republican party. My Israeli friends overwhelmingly voted for Obama, and believe with all their hearts that Israel is safer under his watch than under the continuation of George Bush diplomacy. All of us are Jews. All of us read Torah. All of us attend services, and pray to God to guide us in our actions.

David, you spend so much time blogging against liberals and leftists, maybe there needs to come a point when you actually sit down and try to just understand why it is that so many intelligent and yes, religious Jews would choose Obama. We're not brainwashed, we're not self-hating. We love America and we love our freedom, and we chose the Democratic party to provide us with both.

I know that you like to post your answers back quickly with some sharp retort and a link to an article by some guy I've never heard of, but honestly David, please take a moment to just sit and try to understand this large group of the Jewish population. We come from the same roots as you, we read the same passages as you, and yet we reached a different conclusion from yours. How can that be?

My family worked hard to get where we are today. We survived fascism and the camps (although some members of my family did not), we survived communist eastern europe, and yet all of us voted for obama. How can that be?  How can a bunch of Jews who so overwhelmingly condemn Communism nevertheless embrace Obama?  According to you David, this would make no sense at all.  And this is why you really need to get it or no one will take you seriously.  If you consider yourself any sort of authority on Judaism, then you really need to take the time to understand.

And when you do understand, then we'll talk.  I wish you all the best. 

believe with all their hearts that Israel is safer under his watch than under the continuation of George Bush diplomacy [sic]

That's fantastic news, because I have an exciting opportunity for them to invest in a bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn that they're going to go positively batshit for. Remember when the EU brushed aside the US at the beginning of the Iranian nuclear imbroglio and confidently declared that their sophisticated powers of diplomatic mastery were going to nip the problem in the bud? Yeah. That really worked out, didn't it?

And now we've brought ineffectual Belgian style center-leftish government to America. Fucking fantastic. You can tell how excited I am about it.

Jewish Youth--I thank you for your response.  I regret that your criticisms are more relevant regarding your side of the ideological divide.

The fact stands that Obama commanded  less support from the Jewish community than just about any other Democrat in recent history and this is because he threatens our values and Israel.  So to turn your question around--why did he get less of the Jewish vote than, for example, John Kerry?  Your grandmother aside--by the numbers--Jews took notice of the skeletons associated with Obama and his "Jewish problem."  From our socialist past, many Jews in our community chronically support the liberal  from habit.  Obama commands no special attraction other than the fact he has a "D" next to his name.  It is for you to consider why Obama failed in our community--I already know about the fact that there are far too many "genetic" Jewish Democrats that vote on reflex.

Regarding Torah and Jewish values, ee cannot simply look at the Jewish vote, please take a look at the obvious split in our community.  Among the most observant Jews, Obama's numbers are horrible--15-20%.  That is to say it is easy to predict if you go to daily minyan, if you are in an Orthodox shul all the time--the chances are overwhelming you will cast your vote against Obama.  Further, if you are Reform or unaffiliated and you know nothing of Torah and you have not put on a set of teffilin in your entire life--I would bet you love Obama.  A significant portion of the Jewish community is Reform and unaffiliated and that explains why the community at large prefers Obama.  Perhaps 80-95% of Chabad Rabbis and 85-95% of the black hat Orthodox world vote against Obama.  65-70% Modern Orthodox vote against him.  40-50% of Conservative Jews vote against him and only 10-15% in the Reform and unaffiiated Jews vote against him.  So there you have your explanation.  Now, it is up to you to consider why do Torah-honoring Jews tend to vote Nobama?  

If you want a further explanation as to why more Jews than the 35% fail to be repulsed by Obama it is because he has hid his message or failed to bring it forward by not answering question or responding to critics.  But it is not required than one be repulsed by Obama, rather, it is only required than one make the better choice and alas, we all make poor choices all the time.  Obama's "advantage" which he has exploited to the hilt is that NO ONE knows anything about this guy and he has refused to talk.  We do not know about his thesis at Harvard, we do not even know if he was born in HI and if he is therefore constitutionally qualified to be President.  Both his parents died young so it would be good to know about his medical history and instead he gave us only a one page summary--not a file.  Some people are convinced he is a solid socialist, some people are convinced he is a pragmatist, some people convinced he is a moderate.  The point is that Obama has the advantage because he is unknown and can therefore appeal to many more people than someone who is known.  For me, I would not put up with so many unknowns about someone who has put himself forward to be a national leader--it is simply disqualifying in my book. 

The people, in their emotion and adoration of his "historic moment" are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  If you ask why some people's emotions overrule their doubts--this is complicated.

Start with this and then get back with me and thanks for trying to have a conversation. 

Media reports trumpet the fact that Obama claimed 78% of the Jewish vote and this is about the percentage claimed by Kerry and other Dems.  This defies extensive pre-election surveys so we need to let the dust clear and get some more accurate data.

So according to you, Jews will only vote Democrat because we're either naive or we vote out of habit. How can you actually believe this? 

I also like how you pull made-up percentages of Jewish votes out of thin air. How could you possibly measure that number in this election. If I were right-wing ultra-orthodox and still decided to vote for Obama, do you really think I would admit that on an exit poll?  Do you really think I would trumpet that fact to my ultra-orthodox friends (who coincidentally may be going through the same dilemma)?  I'm sorry, but given the 20% Republicans who publicly admit they voted for Obama (and those are only the ones who admit it), I'm going to assume the numbers of ultra-orthodox Jews voting for him are much bigger than that.

And one group you need to stop pretending to speak for is Chabad. While Chabad is predominantly conservative, unlike you, David, they seem to have much tolerance for the incredibly large Jewish liberal population, and welcome us with open arms without asking us to challenge our ideologies, or promoting your form of Jew-on-Jew intolerance. They are in many ways capable of what you are not -- accepting perceived differences. Furthermore, Chabad has generously given myself and other left-wing students money over the years, and we greatly appreciate that.

And lastly David, you still haven't taken a moment to try to understand the other side, which is what I asked you to do, and which you still  refuse. No Israeli or Republican Jew I know voted for Obama because we didn't have enough information about him. I don't know how dumb you seem to think the average Jew is, but the Jews I know are smart enough NEVER to vote for someone they don't know anything about.

On the contrary, we learned everything we could about Obama and decided that he stood for the things that were important to us. Period.  And until you understand that, David, you still don't have a leg to stand on.

Let me know when you've tried.

If you would like to challenge my estimates of Jewish voting--go right ahead.  I am in this thing every day and I know how Jews vote.  Do you deny anything I have said or are you simply whoofing?  The fact of the matter is that Reform and unaffiliated Jews will always vote for the Dem--no matter what.  It is automatic and although specific the candidate might move some votes at the margins--the general phenomenon holds in every recent election.  So again, would you like to comment on the REALITY?  The religion of the left is liberalism and Jewish liberals will not vote against their religion.

I understand the other side very well.  I lived the first 17 years of my life as a liberal and many of my friends and family are liberals.  I live "liberal speak" every day of my life.  The problem is that on the other hand, in opposition to what you have written, the leftist part of the community has no understanding of the Orthodox world and no comprehension of why Jews can also be political conservatives.  Liberals by and large know absolutely nothing of the yeshiva world or Torah learning.  They never read or hear about a conservative point of view.  They think Fox News is right-wing and MSNBC is normal.

Chabad is in the outreach business but the political preference of the Rabbis in the Orthodox world is very clear. C'mon, chaver. It is tactful to not mention politics since this can chase away interested young people, especially at Chabad houses located near college universities.   Everyone on the Right is committed to love for the Jewish people.  Obama has just named Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff--a hard-core partisan. He is a guy who will not reach out.  And what kind of accusation you seek to level against me?  Huh?  I am on this blog populated by liberals trying to persuade and I will not return  insults.  I thank you for merely communicating.

How can you believe that black-hat Jews voted for Obama because some other Jewish Republicans made the mistake?  First, you fail to acknowledge that a whole lot of Jews in the Dem Party voted McCain--I don't know the number precisely but let's say it is 10-15%--it is obvious that the Republican Jews who voted for Obama tend to not be not observant Jews.

If you think you know about Obama, the mystery man, you are simply not being honest.  No one knows about this man and tragically, no one cares.  To get my vote, I need to have reason to vote for that individual but the electorate disagrees.  Dems have OFTEN chosen the dark stranger for their Presidential choice--Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama and this tendency endangers the country since such a choice is normally bad for the nation.

Everyone knows why Obama won this election and it had to do with the blame and shame game associated with the financial meltdown.  Obama did NOTHING to demonstrate he has better plans than McCain--he was simply the beneficiary of the public reaction against the party in power.  Without this "perfectly timed" economic issue, McCain might have won this race.

You have a chance to be the first person to articulate what Obama stands for that you support--unless you say "change" and "hope."  Listening to Dems today discuss their candidate, they have a widely diverse perception of how he will govern.  Many insist he will be very "progressive"--some say he will govern from the middle and reach out, some say they worry tremendously he will sell Israel out quickly and others say he will be a better friend to Israel than President Bush and I could go on and on.  The reality here that must be acknowledge is the truth concerning "Who is Barack Obama" is a very unsettled question.  

The other matter here that is now entirely apparent is the power and influence of Obama's "historic" narrative.  It is now revealed that McCain simply could not find it in himself to attack a man who could be the first black President and if McCain had this feeling, it is obvious that many Americans fell for the emotion of a campaign that promised some kind of resolution of a historic black mark on our national psyche.  I am not especially sympathetic to this entire mindset but it is is obvious today, as people are interviewed, that this was a significant factor in the election.

Therefore, punishment for the Republican "brand" is one significant explanation, historic commitment to the "D" candidate (no matter who that candidate is) is another, an emotional link to a historic moment one more, and a preference against an old warrior with his inexperienced female running mate also rings true.

What does not ring true is that people took notice of what Obama represents in a positive way (your theory) and voted for the positive.  On the other hand, evidence of his many skeletons and actual record, as thin as it is, created negatives for this candidate that made the election reasonably close.

So you need to refute at least some of what I have said.