Sarah Palin, Ordinary Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove
Sep 3rd, 2008 | 29 responses
Sarah Palin is ordinary.
Yes. Ordinary.
Our country, and the world, is populated by millions of women just like her… worker ants, carrying astonishing loads many times their body weight, building, building, nourishing, nourishing, organizing, organizing.
The worker-ant is a pattern of Nature. An ordinary one. A usual one. Not an odd, strange, once in a lifetime one.
Come with me to the South and I will show you the most beautiful and semi-treacherous “steel magnolias” who follow the worker-ant pattern precisely. The entire culture would collapse without those radiant, wily-coyote women; they are often found in legislatures, homes and businesses, propping up all kinds of matters behind the scenes and being wickedly funny topside.
Come with me to the farmlands and small towns of the Midwest and I will show you the most gorgeous corn-fed women who are pretty and pony-tailed and run grim in the blood to get done all that must be done, by their lights. Backbone is how they call it there. They can gentle the horses, rev up the tractor, negotiate with the bank officers, run the corporation, marshal the family.
Come with me to the gaming tables of the Southwest, and I will show you women dealers who have many children, a husband or not, and they may also be building a manse out in the desert while taking care of their elderly folks… and without a complaint, and just a lot of ‘family management style’ in those manicured hands. ‘Never is heard a discouraging word,’ is not just a song. Funny, in MSM, we often hear of those who tangle in the traces, but little about those who remain in harness, pulling hard and strong for life.
Come with me to the East and to the self-built Courts of the Monied and to the huge hives of the Publishing Empires along the coast… and I will show you worker-ant patterns in women taken to such extremes that the women will use their beds as desks to dictate to the family and their corporate sister and brother-ants, even though the woman herself just came from chemotherapy two hours ago.
Anywhere we might go together, you and I, we can easily, with just one or two questions, scout-out myriad women who ‘do it all,’ and continue to ‘do it all,’ until they die.
Some can shoot a gun, others aim ace-accurately and shoot from the hip. Some can skin a coon, others can skin a dollar ’til the eagle screams. Some can dress-out a moose, others can ad-dress injustice and turn it to the good. Some can raise ten kids, others can raise hell and make useful and long-overdue things happen, at last. All this is Ordinary.
Their secret? Often, it is Love with a capital L.
We know that what we are attached to in heart and spirit is also what creates what we might also call – and not with disrespect but just with a reality take – demented loyalty.
Like the most dogged of the worker-ants, to mix a metaphor, we trudge onward, sometimes leaping, sometimes dragging our rear-ends in fatigue. But, we go on. Ask any matriarch of any family. Ask any worker-ant, male or female.
For many women of the world believe they hold the only light that is not inextinguishable by bad turns of fate, by running off-track, by getting to the place where the road runs out and you have to go it alone on foot. They believe they are outrunning the devil they know. Somehow, someway. They believe they are following the God of their bones. Worker ant style.
Thus, Sarah Palin is ordinary. Just like countless other women. Ordinary. Loyal worker-ant. To each her own devils; to each her own vision of Creator.
Setting aside all the projections about Governor Palin’s ‘extraordinary ordinariness’ in family and work life…. let us see then, as she gives her speech today, what actually does set her apart from this ordinariness that most women carry without hype.
Let us watch and see.
29 Responses to “Sarah Palin, Ordinary Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove”
I will never vote for a ticket with such radical views. That being said, I do tip my hat to Governor Palin and wish her and her family well. The fact that her husband quit his job to run the house so she could follow her dreams is fantastic and I think they are good role models.
However, as I said I can't vote for someone who wants to take the choices her daughter had away from my daughter.
Thank you so much Clarissa, it is a refreashing breath of air to see a moderate view rather than some hit piece posted on Palin. The jury is certainly still out on her to a large degree and while folkes may or may not like certain things she brings to the table, or a little of both, its nice to see someone not jumping the shark with a hitpiece on her for a change and taking a “lets give her a chance and wait and see” approach.
Nice post. I agree with the sentiment, having watched what my mother went through (and sister goes through) in raising their children. Their work ethic, moral standards, and pure drive is a spectacle to behold (just don't tell my sister I said that).
I'm of mixed feelings on having a new mother run for such a high political office. Do I believe that she can take care of the office and her family at the same time? Definitely. I've seen such happen in the past, and believe it possible given the right person (be it man or woman). I will admit it a choice that I wouldn't personally make, barring exceptional circumstances.
To me, spending as much time as possible with an infant or young child is extremely important as a parent. The time spent away from them is used to ensure either their safety or way of life, to as much of an extent as I can without disrupting the balance of time that I can spend with them personally… which is where I'm torn on the decision of Sarah Palin to run for VP (obviously an influential position) while having a new baby. For her family, it can be seen both as a wise and unwise decision, depending on which perspective you have.
At least you know that they'll have a great health care package
.
Kathryn,
I can certainly respect your view, I myself am pro-choice up to the point where a fetus is biologically able to experience its first synapse, (I become pro-life at that point) and I see your reasoning as valid. For similar reasons I can't vote for the Obama ticket who seeks to deprive the American people of other choices but would have big government make it for them. I'm in favor of parents being able to chose how their children are educated and provided with vouchers. I'm in favor of placing less taxes on business so that they can be more internationally competitive and bring jobs back to the US. I'm in favor of a smaller federal government and an increased role for state and local governments that bring choices back to the local people who are effected by them and their right to be different in some ways from those of people on the other side of the country who have a slightly different lifestyle.
That being said, I again can totally respect your reasoning that you can't vote for a McCain-Palin ticket, and I just ask in return that you respect the reasons why I cannot vote for an Obama-Biden one. They are really quite similar.
Kathryn,
Wonderful, well written and quite a change from some of your co-authors.
Although I certainly can see your point of view, I hope you keep an open mind about what exactly Sarah Palin’s positions are. I fear that the current media frenzy and rampant misinformation might be distorting the information you will need to make a decision.
I have no doubt Sarah Palin is accomplished, strong, loyal, loving to her family and friends, and even likeable. And after watching the 2006 Governoral debate (thank-you CStanley) I also suspect she is going to be more formidable than some of her detractors (of which I am one) suspect. I believe she will give exactly the speech the R base wants to hear tonight, and she may even give Joe Biden a run for his money debate-wise. Here is a link to that 2006 Alaska Governoral debate for those who may be interested:
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/09/sara…
I feel I'm gradually getting a better feel for who she is. And by this I mean an increased respect for her political abilities. This is what I learned about her from watching that debate:
She engages in much more generalization than in specifics. She is willing to be combative. She has a persuasive personality – when she chooses to use it. I have the sense she gears many of the views she expresses to what she thinks the audience wants to hear. She believes that all Alaskan resources (including wildlife and land) should be under sole control of Alaska without ANY federal influence. She believes that if a girl or woman becomes pregnant against her will i.e. as the victim of rape or incest, she should have NO legal recourse to terminating the pregnancy.
Now… that last is a complete and decisive deal-breaker for me. It's especially ironic she is a member of the party which used to hold itself up as the example of small, non-interfering govt. – which of course we know is utterly untrue. Still, my main beef with this person is her ideology and her inexperience, and not her family soap opera. I think she is another of those republicans who will be good at campaigning – but bad at governing – at least at the high level for which she was chosen. So yes, I'm learning more about her, and while this has increased my respect in one sense, it has also reinforced my opposition, mainly on grounds of extreme ideology and ill-preparedness for the position.
Question for everyone here.
Does anyone think it remotely possible that the McCain ticket if victorious could possibly overturn Roe vs Wade?
I don't, and therefore I see it as an irrelevent point as far as taking a practical view on the campaign.
I think it's far from an irrelevant point. Who will be appointing the next SC justices?
As a pro-abortion person, I can see that through Supreme Court appointments Roe could be reversed.
This wouldn’t be bad, as Roe was a bad decision to begin with, based on constitutional law. However, all it would do is return abortion law to the states, which would each make their own laws.
Of course, if Roe is reversed, the Evangelical wing of the republican party would lose its issue at the federal level and wouldn’t be the unifying force it is today.
From Leonidas:
Presidents (and thus Presidential teams, by extension) have the ability to nominate Supreme Court Justices. While it is rare, the Supreme Court has reversed decisions on various topics. A victorious McCain could conceivably result in an overturning of Roe vs Wade. As such, it's a factor in the decision-making process for me.
jwest, you're the first person I've heard claim to be “pro-abortion”. I know many pro-choice people, but no “pro-abortion” people.
JSpencer,
There is a difference.
Pro-choice (as defined in the democrat party) is the unfettered ability to terminate a pregnancy from conception through delivery. It tolerates late term partial birth abortions.
Pro-abortion (as defined by me, because I’m the only one who uses it) is the unfettered ability to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of viability. Of course, I take it farther in that I believe there are some women who need to be aborted and sterilized when extreme circumstances present themselves.
You know even though I do support Roe vs Wade as to what it achieves, I have to admit it is pretty darn unconstitutional in my thinking and that the decision should go back down to the States. However, I doubt that certain States, including my own would vote to allow abortions. So I'm a bit torn here between what I believe should be the law “pro-choice decided by the states” and what I think is the proper process “adherence to the Constitution”.
I think if it came down to it, I'd have to support the Constitution and just get real active to fight for my State to pass its own protection of the right to choose (up to a certain point). As long as some states had abortion available it would be inconvienient but folkes could go there if they felt strongly about having an abortion. If they couldn't be troubled to drive a few hundred miles, or hop on a plane, they proably didn't feel strongly about it anyhow.
The President AND Congress determine who makes it to the Supreme Court.
And like I said, BigOil won't allow its puppets to rock the boat with such a controversial issue, with Hillary and her millions looming in four years. You'd do well to pick another hip to shoot from. This one is, for all practical purposes, a dead-end street.
The issue is oil. Whoever grabs onto it and runs wins the Whitehouse.
[...] [...]
If big Oil runs everything, why do they pay so much in taxes?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcon…
<snip>
“I saw someone characterize our profits the other day in terms of $1,400 in profit per second,” Tillerson told Gibson.
“Well, they also need to understand we paid $4,000 a second in taxes, and we spent $15,000 a second in cost. We spend $1 billion a day just running our business. So this is a business where large numbers are just characteristic of it.”
We can't think of anyone who would be willing to pay $4,000 in taxes for every $5,400 they earn in salary or wages. Yet many in our country believe it's OK, even desirable, for oil companies to do just that.
———————–
Does big oil have some influence? sure. Is it part of the Illuminati? nope.
As a pro-choice Democrat, I find it very unlikely that Roe V Wade stands or falls on whether we elect the Republican or the Democratic ticket. SCOTUS justices, no matter who appoints them, have a long history of moderating their views once appointed.
jwest : “Pro-choice (as defined in the democrat party) is the unfettered ability to terminate a pregnancy from conception through delivery.”
I suspect that particular definition does not fit most democrats, who generally believe it should be safe, legal and rare. I am pro-choice, but have issues with abortion beyond the first trimester. But then I've voted democrat, independent, and republican over the years. That said, I'm proud to say I never voted for either of the Bush's or the much over-rated, but well loved Reagan.
Is there some reason why you think that list includes Scalia, Thomas and Alito? You know, people who currently serve on the court .
You're welcome to your opinions. Also to your denial and your rationalizations.
Leonidas,
Fair reasonable and should I dare day it, moderate post. I can understand, and to some extent agree with many of your positions. I actually am still registered as a Republican, and often vote that way in many of the local elections. I think we both like the idea of smaller, less intrusive government, it is just we have different priorities in where we can stomach government intrusion. That being said, I do respect your reasoning, even if I do not agree.
Interesting point Holly, however, the more recent appointees, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts sadly not taken more moderate views. I think the right has with practice been able to refine their picks so they are reasonably sure their extreme picks will stay extreme.
I think the fact that there will most likely be a democratic run Senate might make McCain's pick more moderate, there is no guarantee that it will stay in the hands of Democrats. The court really seems to be at a tipping point.
This email address is protected by EarthLink spamBlocker. Your
email message has been redirected to a “suspect email” folder for
Holly R. In order for your message to be moved to her Inbox, she must add your
email address to a list of allowed senders. She cannot do this until you send
her a message.
https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h…
If 'moderate' = liberal, then I say 'YEAH'!
McCain-Palin is not “radical,” “very conservative” as someone on NPR said today, or “far right,” so don't bother with mischaracterization.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is not an easy thing to do, even though it was an illegitimate activist ruling (the “trimester rule,” most of all, is inventing legislation out of _nothing_ but the Justices' whims and desires), no matter how acceptable the _results_ were to many (including the neurotic-to-psychotic who are obscessed with it and with defending it and other activism at all costs — it is befitting and highly deserved that they should experience anguish about the possibility nevertheless).
Even the feeblest of literally radical reform of Washington (“radix,” “root”) that reverses the growth of government in Washington and can even result in an absolute as well as relative reduction in federal spending, long overdue, is not guaranteed by a reformer McCain-Palin ticket, though the ticket is primarily seen as offering reform and this is why it is more appealing to so many of us Americans than many still fail to realize, even among those of us who never have been impressed by or even liked McCain.
The correct terms are “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion”; “choice” has been the weasel word of choice by those who prefer euphemism and evasion in the form of imprecision through over-generality.
Roe v. Wade is not that much more likely to be overturned than Baker v. Carr (another activist ruling that shouldn't have happened — and why didn't the Justices insist on consistency and completeness and require the US Senate also be forced to under recomposition in addition to the affected houses of state legislatures?). It takes a lot to overturn a precedent ruling, no matter what people may think of that ruling.
* * *
“'moderate' = liberal”
True, for the name of this site and so many users on here (who seem afraid, as even Teddy Kennedy was during his speech, to be open and honest and use the word “liberal” instead — why has that word been avoided? Discreditation?)
From Leonidas:
This restricts the options for those that cannot afford to drive those miles or hop on a plane, specifically the lowest to lower middle class families and individuals. Limiting abortion rights to those that can brings an economic injustice in one of the more basic abilities, namely family planning.
From DLS:
While this is true, the same can be said about the use of “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion.”
A strong sense of duty towards family and the decision for abortion aren't mutually exclusive to each other. Personally, I would like the energy shown by both sides of this debate to shift their focus to solving our adoption/foster problems before more children are brought into such situations as they exist now. Unfortunately, it seems that arguing about potential children is more newsworthy than benefiting the ones we already have amongst us.
Well said Peter.
extreme acai berry…
We have for sale a luxury villa in Spain, on the“ ……
Beatifully written. These women you describe, they are the salt of the earth. Sarah Palin is the artifical vanilla extract of the ice caps. How can you confuse them ?? Julie Andrews is not Maria von Trapp and the Ice Queen is not your Warrior Princess. So I must ask myself why someone like you cannot see this– I believe there are many reasons. Let's start here. Sarah Palin has been rightfully accused of abandoning her children and then running as the family values candidate. This is VERY DIFFERENT from a struggling single mother who had to leave her children for a while so she could grow and heal.
See that, my griot wolf lady- we are beginning to get somewhere.