BlogHer - The conservative female scapegoat - Comments

What exactly is the "elite media?"

KeegsMom — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:59:57 -0600

Anything besides Fox and Rush? Just wondering. Could you define how it is "elite" and who it is?

Also, regarding B.O., I was taken in by his obvious intellect and demeanor. One can't say he just reads a teleprompter well, as he writes his own speeches and his words give some of us great hope. We haven't had really strong braintrust at the helm in a while now.

He was president of the Harvard Law Review, nominated by CONSERVATIVES who later confirmed they had chosen correctly. That says something. He brought a very fractured student body together and brought sound reasoning to the table.

I'm not looking for a "savior," myself. Just a smart person who can get along with people and make good decisions.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX

My $0.02

Crimson Wife — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:40:33 -0600

I'm not a huge fan of Sarah Palin but I do think she was treated horrendously by both the elite media pre-election and by the GOP powers that be post-election.

McCain lost because the majority of Americans were gullible enough to be taken in by Obama's "cult of personality". People are angry about the way things are in the country and looking for a savior. I suspect that many of them will come to regret their votes when it becomes clear that Obama is unable to live up to the hype about him.

They put a joe sixpack

DaisyDeadhead — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:20:35 -0600

They put a joe sixpack hockey mom in Prada, hoping the sparkle and
bling would blind people. It did, some. Didn't they think the story
would see light of day? Didn't they realize what kind of message that
would relay about what they really think of hockey moms and about their
own priorities (e.g., materialism, wealth)?

Much more successful strategy would have been to spend $15,00 at
Macy's on the family. That'e enough. Even Wal-mart moms shop
occasionally (or dream of shopping) at Macy's, and understand the need
to polish a public image. But Sak's? $100K, or $150K, or even more as
is rumoured? Wow. They just went over the GOP top with this one.

Absolutely! Amen!

How could ANY thinking politician dress like a movie star during the worst economic crisis of our lives, then proceed to talk all folksy and present herself as down-with-the-people?

Sarah Palin invited the ridicule, by not knowing any better.

McCain lost because he had nothing positive to offer

KeegsMom — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:16:17 -0600

MichelleSBOS, you cited some reasons he lost, but one of the main reasons, IMHO, is in my subject line. He only attacked BO, over and over again, and had nothing positive, no real message, no plan of action that spoke to the American people. He was negative, negative, negative. And where BO showed cool and calm, McCain was all over the emotional map.

Southern Girl's point above is so true, and speaks to the clothing debacle:

Republicans like to claim to be everyman and the party of joe-sixpack
and the hockey moms of the world but in truth you want them no where
near the top of your party. These are people you want in the voting
booth scared of the other guy not out there thinking they too can be
president one day.

They put a joe sixpack hockey mom in Prada, hoping the sparkle and bling would blind people. It did, some. Didn't they think the story would see light of day? Didn't they realize what kind of message that would relay about what they really think of hockey moms and about their own priorities (e.g., materialism, wealth)?

Much more successful strategy would have been to spend $15,00 at Macy's on the family. That'e enough. Even Wal-mart moms shop occasionally (or dream of shopping) at Macy's, and understand the need to polish a public image. But Sak's? $100K, or $150K, or even more as is rumoured? Wow. They just went over the GOP top with this one.

And the truth about Palin needs to come out, so we can put her to rest. She is simply not VP or -- heaven forbid -- presidential material. She needs to get her ego in check.

I dont know about you, but I want my crew in the White House to be about ten times smarter than me. At least.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX

Why do we have to keep saying it?

MichelleSBOS — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:28:09 -0600

Why do people have to be constantly reminded that Sarah Palin did NOT ask for, shop for, or pick out any of the clothes that are being talked about. Not only I simply do not care anymore-THEY LOST-I really wish people would get over it; this was not her doing. For those who want to make something out of it, complain to the RNC and stop dogging Palin for it.

As far as the way women in politics are treated, it is abhorrent. I am tired of being marginalized; I am tired of feeling like my values are not being represented; I am tired of candidates who don’t actually stand for anything. I like Sarah Palin, but I would not presume to know if she will be the next GOP candidate or not. I WOULD presume to know that it was more than refreshing to finally have a candidate stand for something, to have actual conservative policy and to actually stand for it without shame or reservation. It is completely ridiculous for anyone in McCain’s campaign to blame Palin or try to hold her feet to the fire over issues that have NO BEARING at all on policy. McCain lost because he was soft on anything that matters to a conservative voter. McCain lost because he actually took a stand on very little. McCain lost cause he was like soaking wet wood-soft and spongy with no ability to provide a stable base to build your life on.

Finally, I would just like to point out that even if every single accusation of Palin was true (at this point, it has become increasingly clear that none were) people who concentrate on that are missing the point. How unprofessional and disgusting is it that so called leaders and their staff at that level would say those things to anyone? And please don’t try the argument that “we deserved to know”. Ummm why is that? THEY LOST. Nothing that was “revealed” has any bearing on moving forward. It’s petty and 5th grade-ish. I agree: who’s the diva? The next Presidential election is 4 years from now; if there are actual issues that need to be discovered about Palin, I have every confidence the media will dig them up between now and then without relying on this tripe trash.

I'm sure John McCain's suits

evilslutopia — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:07:35 -0600

I'm sure John McCain's suits (as have Obama's) are equally big-ticket items, yet no one questions that. Why? Because they're men.

Or maybe it's because they PAY FOR THEIR OWN CLOTHES and don't use campaign donors' money to buy them.

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia

Scapegoating True - But McCain Lost Independents with Palin

MLOKnitting — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:17:57 -0600

I know many independents that, until Palin was on the ticket, would have voted for McCain. They either voted independent 3rd party or Obama because of Palin's far right stances.

Remember, it isn't the party that decides the candidate - it is the unwashed independents who think you are all full of nonsense - Dem or Rep.

MLO / Melissa

A Democrat, Obama-supporter agrees...

ByJane — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:06:22 -0600

The behavior of the McCain camp/GOP is reprenhensible where Sarah Palin is concerned. But then their behavior was reprehensible during the campaign as well. I've written else where that McCain was done in by his own party. I don't think Sarah Palin will go down as easily. She looks like she can play with the big boys, and I can't help cheering her on. Now if only she'd temper some of her hardline views.....

By Jane

http://byjane.blogspot.com

http://midlifebloggers.com

Hair cut anyone?

Southerngirl — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:24:09 -0600

You know the amout of distortion that is protrayed by republicans when speaking of Palin is extrodinary. Remember John Edwards' $400 haircut? In case you don't here it is:

April 17, July 9, and even media maters weighed in here on the coverage of the haircut vs Mitts makeup expenses. Google is a great thing there are 3 months worth of stories and even youtube videos on the matter. Maybe Palin did not know this but the price of the clothes became public because they had to be listed as expenditures fron the RNC. The easiest way to have avoided this was to buy her OWN clothes.

I know that you are intelligent enough to get that the clothes were a big deal because what other wal-mart, hockey mom, joe sixpack can afford to spend 150k on clothes? That is 9k less than the 4 bed 2.5 bath HOUSE I am trying to buy. Since I am sure you knew that were you banking on the rest of us not knowing? The thing about Obama and McCain's clothes is that they were not paid for by the campaign or any other donor.

Having said that I will say that even I feel for the scapegoating of the woman. The real issue is as it has always been. Republicans like to claim to be everyman and the party of joe-sixpack and the hockey moms of the world but in truth you want them no where near the top of your party. These are people you want in the voting booth scared of the other guy not out there thinking they too can be president one day. But in her own words she did't blink, maybe next time she will.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Stay classy, McCain

KBestOliver — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:51:02 -0600

Politically, I rarely agree with you, but I think you're spot on here. I don't pretend to like Palin's politics, and I sure as smack wouldn't vote for her or her ticket, but her treatment by the campaign (McCain in particular) has been downright disgusting. As if she, in the relative short time she was on the campaign trail, singlehandedly sent everything into the toilet. McCain lost this on his own, and even if Palin did have some role in it, he chose her. Dude needs to own his role in his own loss. GOP seriously needs to rethink it's en masse treatment of the ladies if they want to be succesful.

Makes me wonder if all the rumors about McCain's true nature (in re: his misogynist/racist treatment of others) aren't just rumors.

The conservative female scapegoat

Dana Loesch — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:16:54 -0600

By the time dusk fell on the evening of November 4th, the GOP party
looked at their Reaganite ideal of a "shining city on a hill" now dust
under their feet. History was made, in more ways than one.

West coast results still flitted across television screens, for
those Americans who hadn't called it a night by 10pm central, and
pundits began commentating on the grumblings from within the GOP,
specifically McCain aides: that Sarah Palin had cost John McCain the
election. After being attacked because she was a mother, because she
was a woman, after her clothing expenditures were attacked (while the
matching price tags on Barack Obama's clothing went ignored), after her
children were defamed, the GOP turned its suicidal barrel on her, one of the only people left in the party that the Democrats have
not finished off.

Melissa Clouthier says this of Palin's nameless, GOP attackers:

"They have decided that rather than specific failed policies (can anyone,
anywhere, to this day articulate McCain’s plans for the economy?) or
strategies (Mr. Nice Guy) or leadership (running around like a headless
chicken and suspending the campaign to participate in doomed
negotiations), the real problem was Sarah Palin. No rigorous
self-examination. Instead, they did what the least savory sorts do:
find a scapegoat."

Cowardly GOP attempts to paint her as the stereotypical dumb
hausfrau, just some silly woman, underscore the necessity for the
Republican Party to flush out the sexist, aged patriarchy from its
leadership. In doing this, they are playing up to the left's
assumptions that, because she's a conservative woman on the ticket, she's nothing but a ploy of identity politics. I don't think the GOP expected just how
integral Palin would be to this campaign. As Doctor, Wife, Mom, said:

"This is part of the reason why John McCain lost. Before he added
Sarah Palin to the ticket his support was luke warm, but after adding
her to the ticket, there was a rush of support that went in the
direction of McCain. In fact, it is likely that many Republicans cast a
vote for Sarah Palin rather than a vote for John McCain. If he had
added someone else to the ticket, I feel that his loss would have been
even more dramatic."

John McCain lost for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do
with Sarah Palin: horrible campaign management, his moderate record,
failure of his campaign to fully use the technological tools available,
poor marketing, allowing the campaign to be out-manned; despite the various admitances and studies of mainstream media slights against him, despite his
determination to stick to a sparse, publicly-financed budget, McCain
dropped the ball, conservatives, as a whole, dropped the ball by
allowing him to assume party leadership in the first place. That Palin would receive any blame is ridiculous.

Amongst the charges leveled at her from "nameless aides":

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain
adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us,
her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the
next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves,
as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

I find this so deliciously ironic. Shocking, from a campaign that
has uttered the word "maverick" so much it's lost all meaning. Yes,
Palin is the future of the Republican party; is this aide being
deliberately obtuse or is shortsightedness considered a virtue in the
McCain camp? Of course, the latter would completely explain the
election results and the litany of errors which dated their campaign. It was apparent from the get-go
that the GOP never intended Palin for use as anything other than a
means to an end; they picked one of the most successful, top-tiered
female Republicans (of which there are only about twelve) under the age of 60
(which leaves four) and marketed her according to their dusty copy of
"How to Market a Woman," circa 1950. They surrounded her with
"handlers," busy-bodied aides desperate to make names for themselves,
who viewed her as a newcomer late into the game of Team McCain. She was
barred from speaking (I was brusquely told "no deal" when I asked if Palin
would be taking questions before her debate here in St. Louis) without approval, she was criticized when she strayed from poorly-parsed talking points (thus
providing some of her better sound bites). Seriously - which aide was it
again that chastised Palin for talking to Glenn Beck? And trounced her
for setting up (and then canceling) an interview with Bill O'Reilly? But thought talking with Katie Couric was a good idea? Please.

(Who are the divas again? That's rhetorical. We know who the divas are and they have press envy.)

I love Ann Althouse's response to the above quote:

"But the one thing we know about the adviser is that he is
untrustworthy. He's stabbing Palin and McCain in the back. Why take his
word for anything?

She doesn't have a "relationship of trust" with anyone, not even
her own husband? Aw, come on, that just reads as implausible on its
face. And "diva"? She's the candidate. She should be demanding, and she should be served.

Who is this weasel, calling her a "diva"? What are his political
interests? I think they show through as he whines about Palin's future
prospects on the eve of McCain's probable loss."

And one of the comments she later quoted:

"jdeeripper said: "Diva" is a sexist, homophobic code word, a dog
whistle whose use is cynically calculated to play upon deep seated
sexual fear and patriarchal hatred."

The fact that someone within the GOP used "diva" to dismiss a female
candidate doesn't suprise me; the GOP marketed Palin the way a CEO
presents his wife: arm candy. Except that in this matchup, Palin has
more potential, she bears a higher approval rating than the man behind
whom she was forced to trail. She went to bat for McCain, she defended
him when he didn't deserve defending, she spit out the truth when he
was too afraid to, she was the Lady Lazarus to a dead campaign. A
week-and-a-half after the accusations began to fly and the best defense
McCain can give her is some half-hearted "she's great" on Jay Leno that
didn't even make the Web-cut highlight reel. She was left to defend herself.

Just by looking at how some within the GOP are trying to take her
down lends credence to the charge of sexism. For instance, trumping up
controversy on her clothing. CNN's brilliant Campbell Brown discussed
the blatantly sexist double-standard and slammed that criticism in a hard-hitting vidtorial. Palin has also addressed it in numerous interviews. I'm sure John
McCain's suits (as have Obama's) are equally big-ticket items, yet no
one questions that. Why? Because they're men. It's far more usual for
the press to focus on substance rather than fluff when the subject is a
man. I'm not being hyperbolic; it's simply the truth. The majority of
the country couldn't name a single one of Palin's accomplishments, not
for the lack of Palin having any, but because the media chose to air
incessant coverage of how she dressed, mothered (still, sigh), and if she was really pregnant when she said she was.

Palin possesses more brass than most of the men in the Republican
party combined and this scares them. It scares them because they've stuck
to their dated strategy for so long and here comes along a woman, an
honest-to-God reformer, and she turns the conservative movement on its
head, something that 16 years of forever male-dominated Republican
leadership has been unable to do. Clouthier makes a good point:

"But this one is going to bite him in the rear. Sarah Palin did
everything in her power to get John McCain elected. That the election
was even close was a testament to her connection with the voters
despite the press treatment ...

Sarah Palin continues to give her all to defend John McCain and his
candidacy. It is honorable and makes her look like a leader. It also
puts John McCain’s stubborn, self-serving silence in stark contrast.
It’s a shameful conclusion to a failed candidacy."

Some in the GOP would rather compromise their party's future by
pinning their mistakes on a true reformer rather than admit that their
years of inter-party leadership and crusty old candidates were to
blame; doing the latter would mean that they have to assume some sort
of personal responsibility. That costs political capital. It also begs
the question of whom the party is serving, America, or themselves? As I
said in my Sunday night radio show this election, more so than in any
election we've had previously, women were a force, regardless of party.
This election has sparked a new movement within conservatism.
Conservative women are tired of the stereotype that they're only good
for filling pews and turning out a vote. We're tired of being
marginalized. If anything, the Republican party failed Sarah Palin, the Republican party failed US.

It took a woman to revitalize conservatism and it looks like it will take many more to rebuild the Republican party.