BlogHer - REPUBLICANS - Comments

Respect isn't a given.

butters88 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:01:47 -0600

I realize this is incredibly outdated, but the first thing that struck me is that most comments are from women saying more or less what you'd expect about women getting screwed in a man's world (I don't meant that as offensive, just to summarize generally what I've read). There is a very basic thing here that nobody ever seems to pick up on Palin. People only paint her as a victim because she is a woman. If everything else stayed the same, but she were just a man instead, favourable opinion of her would be even LOWER. Call it sexist, call it biology, but men resect pretty women more.

But men also understand that respect is earned, not a given. There is the basic repect for fellow Man (as in human, not just men) but when someone has power who shouldn't and is making a move for more power, they will be torn down. Women have this assumption that men just tear down women because their women. False. Men are even more vicious to other men. Only growing up, men have become accustomed to it. Girls, on the other hand, who are considered sacred are sheltered from criticism growing up and are unprepared for it.

Basic fact about Palin, I find her annoying with that constant goofy smile, her annoying accent, constant reference to herself as a "Maverick" and acting like she's some revolutionary changing the political world. But listen to ANY interview with her. She can't answer simple questions and ANY criticism of her that is read back to her is the fault of the person commenting on her. She attempts to discredit the person to discredit the argument.

It isn't about her being a woman in a man's world (that whole idea makes me want to vomit, how bad women have it. but sorry, thats for another day.) its about her being an idiot in a world that needs better. Hilary isn't better because she's a liberal, but because she's intelligent and articulate.

Thanks for the spelling correction

PunditMom — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 14:38:24 -0600

Sorry for my typo! Sorry you don't like my column, but that's your right.

BTW, it's res ipsa

Norma156 — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:56:07 -0600

BTW, it's res ipsa loquitur. And your column does indeed speak for itself.

Who said anything about criminality?

PunditMom — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:37:38 -0600

Although when it comes to potential criminality, did you miss the part about Don Siegelman?

And as for Sarah Palin, as they say in the law -- res ipsa loquitor.

PunditMom

How about stopping the slaps

Norma156 — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:32:15 -0600

How about stopping the slaps at Sarah Palin? I voted the GOP ticket and I'm trying to get behind Obama et. al. as we navigate this crisis. This kind of stuff makes me feel like it's not worth it. The left will never refrain from gratuitous slams. It's just too much fun. Right?

Second, when comparing pardons. I'm not so sure I wouldn't support a pardon of Milken who has done enormous good since he was convicted. Also, why should Marion Jones stay in jail?

This post also invites comparisons to the pardons a previous Democratic President gave on the night his term expired. Does the name Marc Rich mean anything to you? Or perhaps Eric Holder, who as deputy attorney general, processed the pardon.

If this is all you can come up with on Bush's criminality, pull down the shades and take a nap. Or eat another turkey sandwich.

A Minor Quibble - No Really a Major One

Gena Haskett — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:03:56 -0600

Bush did not win the 2000 election. Gore actual won the popular vote. The question came with the electoral votes. Bush was appoint by the Supreme Court due to massive voter fraud in Florida and other states. According to the rules of Congress the election was supposed to be decided by the House of Representatives.

I have always referred to his administration as the occupation and will continue to do so until he leaves and forever more.

You don't have to believe what I believe but this is where my start for my disdain of his administration. Dubya then built upon it and I know he has a solid lock on being a memorable president.

I think the Obama girls are a little young to start binge drinking so we both can rest easy.

Rush and Coulter not prime instruments of hate speech? Puleez.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Yes, You Are Angry - And So Am I...

Gena Haskett — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:43:05 -0600

You do understand that there is a spectrum of women and ideologies right? I did not like Sarah Palin as VP because she was a political newbie. She did not have the information and the ability to articulate her party's positions and goals for the candidate.

Palin, no matter if she was a Democrat or Republican was not fit for the job of vice-president. It was wrong to pick someone that politically green and then thrust her into the public spotlight for 5 weeks. She may have represented your values and that is great. But if elected she would have had to represent an entire country; not just the parts of it she considered viably American.

That is a the other issue than claiming at ALL liberal women are attacking traditional women and their beliefs.

The fight for women's equality was to have a choice, specifically, if you wanted to stay home and raise a family I would support you. If you wanted a career, I support you. It make me crazy to hear that conservative women have been told that homemaking does not count. IT DOES.

Now if you are listing to loony-toons like Dr. Laura who to me represent the far, far right of conservative thinking well ok. That is your choice. She was the one doing the back stabbing.

It is not fair to say that liberal women didn't understand the importance of being able to stay home and raise a family. There are liberal women who wish to God they could financially make the same choices.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Pushing that realization forward...

KeegsMom — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:02:16 -0600

I wonder -- to go back to my long dead, flogged horse -- if a third party for moderate conservatives would help that happen. It seems the far right has the loudest voice, the furthest reach... but it says something that it didn't gather the support needed this time around in order to keep the GOP at the top.

If a more moderate conservative voice were to arise, and strengthen, it seems the far right might lose some steam (at least for a while) ... and I think liberals and Dems of most stripes would appreciate the oppty to have real dialog with the other side of the aisle. I feel like that might get us somewhere. Maybe?

Great conversation here.

KeegsMom blogs at:
KIDSFLIX

How do you push that realization forward?

carol45 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:45:17 -0600

What IS helpful is to realize how much fear-mongering and divisive language has affected us as a nation; it's what drives talk radio (why Radio America fails). We need to move away from it. This is taken directly from KeegsMom above and I fully agree. My question is how do you push that realization forward? An earlier post spoke about payback, when governing becomes about payback, how does that benefit us as a nation? My gut feeling is that if we don't begin strong movement away from all this partisanship and labeling we are in for very, very difficult times as a nation. How do we take the field for civility and common sense again? I am honestly asking this question. we need to move forward, how do we get there. I know people in my personal life who are still just fighting the election and are still so angry but time hasn't stopped. for some of the people i know they are just continuing to relive the past 21 months. November 5th never arrived for them. My question is what now? For me i choose to support my president and my country. period.

Agreed

Nordette — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:50:34 -0600

My main point was, under our constitution even speech that makes us all cringe in horror must be protected under the First Amendment. Without giving such a wide berth to free speech, we would not be a free country.

I think the right to free is something that most people who want a free society can agree on. However, I haven't read all the post here, so I'm not sure that anyone was suggesting we do away with free speech.

I think what people concerned about this nation and hate speech do is point out language that raises a red flag, the kind that may lead to destabilizing the country by stirring up virally violent racial unrest, accusing specific ethnic groups of plotting to take jobs, homes, life and limb. Implying or saying outright that minorities are to blame for our woes is the kind of language that leads to civil war and ethnic cleansing agendas.

We have heard that evil wins when good people do nothing, and that saying is frequently associated with the slow creep of hatred toward Jews in Nazi Germany. And while we use Nazi Germany as an example, we can look farther back in time and find others, such as the burning of people believed to be witches or the persecution of Christians under Nero. We can look at ethnic cleansing since Hitler. Furthermore, we learn in school Santayana's quote, "The people who forget history are doomed to repeat it." I think forgetting hisstory is not only the failure to keep dates and events in memory, it's also laziness in analyzing the factors that led to certain events so you never take precautions to prevent a another occurrence.

History indicates that when people push hate speech with false information about ethnic groups or other blocks of society the majority deems as "the other" and the inflammation goes unchecked with few objections from the people or the powerful, societies fall into their darkest hours. We should never underestimate the power of speech to influence humans to commit either horrific acts or our most noble deeds.

And while we give free speech a wide berth, we must still remember that not all speech is protected. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected. Spreading lies and exaggerations that blame one distinct group (ethnic, gender, religious, sexual orientation, disability, size, age, skin color, hair texture, etc.) for societal ills is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater and is worse because if the information is propaganda and not fact, then the message is more sociopathic.

While we should try to practice civility when dealing with individuals in our world, I don't think we should trivialize the genuine danger of singling out ethnic groups as "the problem" with the nation by equating that type of speech with squabbles between individuals engaged in name calling. The latter is simply not nice behavior that requires personal introspection. The former undermines the stability of society as a whole and may result in genocide.

Let's not turn speaking out against hate speech into a game of he said/she said.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link. Also at Blogher, Obama Family Obsession, The Huxtable Effect, and Black Images on the Screen.

Inflammatory and/or Hate Speech from the Left

NOfreelunch — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:36:53 -0600

KeegsMom, here are some examples of this sort of speech from the left.

"I believe what we are seeing with regard to New Orleans and the surrounding area is a policy frankly of ethnic cleansing by inaction."
--Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side." "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics."
--NAACP chairman Julian Bond (He also labeled Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell as "tokens.")

"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
--USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word."
--Current West Virginia Democratic Senator and former Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd

"Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S."
--Former Georgia State Legislator Billy McKinney, father of former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

"What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?"
--Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

"If you look at folks of color, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white, uh, excuse me, in the Republican Party."
--Former Governor of Vermont, Chairman of the DNC and onetime presidential hopeful Howard Dean

"Hymietown"
--Jesse Jackson on NYC

"Sarah Palin will be gang-raped by my big, black brothers if she enters Manhattan." "Now you got Uncle Women, like Sarah Palin, who jumps on the sh_t and points her fingers at other women. Turncoat b_tch! Don't you f_ckin' reference Old Testament, b_tch! You stay with your new Goyish crappy shiksa funky bullsh_t! Don't you touch my Old Testament, you b_tch! Because we have left it open for interpre-ta-tion! It is no longer taken literally! You (w)hore in your f_ckin' cheap New Vision cheap-ass plastic glasses and your [sneering voice] hair up. A Tina Fey-Megan Mullally brokedown bullsh_t moment."
--Entertainer Sandra Bernhard

(Adolf Hitler was a better man than President George Bush, because even though Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews) "the Bush administration is the first that doesn't even mean well. You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well."
--HuffPost blogger and former Washington Post sportswriter Peter Mehlmann

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately."
--Actor Alec Baldwin

"If there is retributive justice (Senator Jesse Helms) will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
--Nina Totenberg, NPR

"Florida's Cubans are responsible for sleaze and influence-peddling in American politics. In every incident of national torment that has deflated our country for the past three decades - Cuban exiles are always present and involved."
--Michael Moore, from his book "Downsize This"

"Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt"
--Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard, on his challenger for office

"der Fuhrer" "lying bastard" "terrorist" "war criminal" "filth spewer"
--Cindy Sheehan referring to President G.W. Bush

Southerngirl, I was trying to make it clear in my last post that I don't think inflammatory or hate speech is necessary or desired in political arguments. Maybe I didn't make it clear. I think this thread is a good example of how people of vastly differing opinions can have civil discourse over political matters. I believe that everyone--conservative, liberal or anywhere in between--should ultimately be held responsible and accountable for the way in which they speak to others about politics or in general. My main point was, under our constitution even speech that makes us all cringe in horror must be protected under the First Amendment. Without giving such a wide berth to free speech, we would not be a free country.

Inflamatory

Southerngirl — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:46:24 -0600

Most of those examples are statements directed at individuals, not whole groups of people. But like I said above "He did it too" Is a kids game and adults need to act as such. Stop with the excuses and get to fixing the mess Repblican policies have created. The Southern stragety is an ingrained the way to victory policy for the party. Jesse Helms was a racist at best. I too say good ridance. But I do not share their party it is up to those inside the party to condem these things I can stand outside and yell but until you refuse to have them at the table their behavior is accepted and sanctioned by all who sit with them. Your silence is deafening.

For the record here is what Nina Totenburg really said:

Totenberg had this reaction to Senator Jesse Helms stating that AIDS research was getting a disproportionate share of federal research money. Totenberg said of Helms: “I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

There was probaly a better way to put it. But in essense she was saying what would he do if it came home for him? That has been the case with even stem cell research had it not been blocked by republicans it may have been far enough along to help Ronald Regan.

Michelle

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

Well, I asked for it...

KeegsMom — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:04:34 -0600

though, not to pick nits or anything with NoFreeLunch, much of what is cited isn't hate speech (calling Bush/Cheney terrorists, or war criminals, or a weak attempt at humor calling the GOP the 'white party" [did you SEE the convention?], or even Barney Frank's assessment of the Katrina disaster). Those things do not denigrate an entire population based on gender, race, sexual identity, etc.

There are plenty of others cited, however, that are pretty awful and eye opening (some are just hard to belive: I can't believe Nina Totenberg -- not a ranting lefty pundit by any means -- said that - ?)... And as someone else wrote here, we've spiraled downward into "he said she said" which isn't helpful. What IS helpful is to realize how much fear-mongering and divisive language has affected us as a nation; it's what drives talk radio (why Radio America fails). We need to move away from it. Conservatives should loudly lambast and protest those who make a living doing it.

Lisse wrote: Rejection of that message in this election should send a signal to the
Limbaughs of the world to shut up and let George Will be heard.

That's worth amplifying.

Also, my original post here was asking if conservatives feel they need a third party... I don't think anyone has answered that question. I'm really quite curious about that!

Well put!

Nordette — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:35:11 -0600

Conservatives may also need to consider that their message of limited
government decidedly conflicts with their determination to invade the
bedrooms and the hospital rooms of all Americans.

Indeed.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

It is what it is

Nordette — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:31:59 -0600

I can recognize when Farrakhan's gone astray in his rhetoric despite us both being black people and his belief that he promotes our elevation. I can see and not listen anymore.

That is the end of my paragraph about Louis Farrakhan. I hope we aren't going to now play the game of people must explicitly state like we're all lawyers, "I denounce" so and so. If I can recognize that his rhetoric has gone astray and don't listen anymore that should be enough.

Yes, I believe Limbaugh is a psychopathic liar. Also, I said at my own blog that I knew someone would come later chiding me about political correctness or the impolitic choice of my words mainly because I think some people think political correctness is a game of some type. Oooh, first you point out what I said that was not nice and then I point out what you said. WOW! goodie.

Really don't care that you disagree with my assessment of Limbaugh as a total jerk.

Bitterness? Hah! Gee, we all have flaws. Go figure.

Oddly, I would not have been offended in the least if you called Farrakhan a psychopathic liar because it's clear I think something's very wrong with what he says. Why you're offended on Rush Limbaugh's behalf, I'm not sure.

Well, I can make an educated guess, but I won't.

Ah, the world is a mystery. Humans, know thyself.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.