Gloria Steinem, The Democrats And Sarah Palin (Guest Voice)
Sep 13th, 2008 | 20 responses
This Guest Voice is by New York attorney Kip Zimmerman who read a post by Gloria Steinem that was much like the many other anti–Sarah Palin emails Democrats have been sending out. This is his reaction. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily represent the opinions of TMV or its writers.
Gloria Steinem, The Democrats And Sarah Palin
by Kip Zimmerman
Way to go Gloria! Except, isn’t a bit late for feminism now?
Where were the fems during primary season? Maybe I just didn’t hear them pounding the table with charges of sexism when Dems were letting reverse-racism(haven’t heard that term in awhile) dictate the nomination. I’m sure they didn’t stand idly by while Dems lost not only a clearly more qualified and viable nominee that would have championed women’s rights, but also maybe the best female candidate we’re ever going to see. Nah, they care too much and have been dying for just such a candidate since the ERA. I probably just wasn’t paying attention when they were saying all that stuff like, 6 months ago.
But hey, let’s all keep talking about Sarah Palin!
Aren’t the Republicans loonies for nominating her? And isn’t anyone who would ever even consider voting for them like, a total moron? And they’re not just dumb, but they’re like, kinda evil too. Especially all those really religious people – GOD I hate them! You know, with all those damn church-goers and country-music lovin’, rednecked gun-owners, I think we may be losing the country. I mean, if they should ever team up with people who are in favor of drilling and people without graduate degrees, what are real Americans like you and I ever to do?
This is serious. These weirdos represent the single greatest threat to the future of this country. You may have some legitimate concerns over the economy or the war or even the environment, but look, we all know those are really just the results of the natural business, terror, and um, sunlight & CO2 cycles. Besides, substantive issues don’t even matter that much these days. It’s all about not getting punk’d and keepin’ it real, yo. As long as we keep responding to every thing they throw at us, we’ll be fine. And I don’t mean just respond, but throw the smack down so hard that by the time they wake up, their clothes’ll be even more out of style. That way they and all their sympathizers will know not to mess with us, and we’ll win this election by making everyone else see just how stupid and unevolved they are.
Hey, this election is still almost two months away. We’ve got plenty of time, and we’re sitting pretty since everyone already has a very clear idea of what Obama’s plan is and how great it will be for all of us. Plus, it’s not like there’s any risk to taking shots at Sarah Palin, because undecided Americans would never feel sympathy for a cute working mom that’s getting piled on by people who are intolerant of her background, lifestyle and beliefs.
We should all follow Gloria’s example and spread the word about all our problems with Palin. Pass it on to fellow Dems – especially those in swing-states with friends and family who may be moronic enough to still be on the fence. It’s one of the best things we can do not only for the country, but also to set an example for the new kind of politics that change will bring. And political pundits are a great source of information and strategy for all of us. Since their ratings always suffer when someone they don’t like holds office, you can be sure that they’re trying their damnedest to help their guy win.
Keep Hope Alive! To Hell with those other people! The Politics of Failure may have failed, but together, we can make them work again!!!
Kipp Zimmerman says he doesn’t fit into any modern political definition so he calls himself “an open-minded Realist who doesn’t believe that good and evil is a straight line that runs neatly between our two dominant parties.” He says he perhaps can be best described as “a self-loathing human rights lawyer who trusts no one and thinks he has an answer for everything.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Gloria Steinem, The Democrats And Sarah Palin (Guest Voice)”
I understand that the author of this post is very angry about something.
But what?
And why direct that anger at something called feminism, when it's just as likely that he dislikes anyone who disagrees with him about anything–CO2 cycles, reverse-racism, country music, whatever else?
Perhaps it is possible that there is more to feminism than determining which candidate possesses a vagina and following her blindly, no matter where she may lead us?
Just a few thoughts.
Zimmerman's rant notwithstanding, the folks in this country (of any political stripe) who are excessively challenged when it comes to good decision-making ability, whether through lack of education, poor role models, or over-exposure to phony and biased “news” programs, do in fact present a threat to the well being of the country. I think the evidence for this after two terms of GWB is fairly overwhelming.
Also, the Steinem post he was responding to made some valid points, including the following – which cuts through Zimmerman's clever, sarcastic rant and goes to the meat:
“Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama's still does.”
Amen sister.
I'm an independent voter, whose vote is usually up for grabs. I have at least one major disagreement with both major parties and end up voting for third-parties, write-ins, and/or independent about as often as I vote Republican.
(Depending a bit on how one weights recency and governor vs. senator), a plurality of the time I vote Democrat. But I always root for the Republicans. I voted for Gore, for example, and I never THOUGHT that was the wrong thing to do or regretted the vote. But on election night and as Gore v. Bush wended its way up the judicial ladder, my gut and heart were rooting for the Republicans. This election, I'm about 90% sure I'll vote for Obama, but I'm rooting for McCain/Palin.
Too many (not all, but too many) of those who support Democrats come across as smarmy, condescending, no-it-alls, and convey the message that you'd have to be evil, moronic, or both to consider voting Republican. Olberman, for example, is unwatchable (as the owner of a grand total of, what is it, 20 shares in GE, I say good riddance that they took him off the live political coverage).
Granted, Republicans can throw some sharp elbows, too. (Though, note to both parties: If you're trolling for votes among those of us in the middle, we REALLY get tired of the “Maybe our guys did dumb thing X, but the other side did dumb things Y” form of argumentation.) Overall, though, it's with better humor, and I don't feel insulted if I'm not agreeing with them. What's the old saying? Republicans look for converts, Democrats look for heretics. That's my experience of how the two sides court my vote.
This isn''t about femimism or the Steinham post, which I haven't read, but the broader point I think Mr. Zimmerman is making about the style of discourse that some in the Democratic-leaning part of the body politic throw at those of us in the middle. At least do a better job of disguising how superior you are.
This post is full of nothing but heavy sarcasm, directed in a scattered pattern at everyone from feminists to people who don't like country music.
Is it really evidence that I think I'm “superior” if I point that out?
And I don't care for Olbermann either. But I could go through a long list of broadcasters who spew disinformation and mockery, even hatred. I'm sure everyone knows who they are.
Does recognizing this make me “superior”?
Undoubtedly, some see a sense of superiority among Democrats. But isn't there also a sense of resentment among Republicans?
And isn't that sense of resentment exactly what this post is playing to?
C&D, it seems to me that it's a little condescending to pretty up direct and clear points by smoothing out all the edges and being afraid to call a spade a spade. To my way of thinking this would be like grading on too much of a curve. Who benefits from pandering to the political self-esteem of people who don't have a good grasp of the landscape? Rather than level charges of democrats being smarmy, etc. how about just asking questions? For example, this comment of yours:
“This election, I'm about 90% sure I'll vote for Obama, but I'm rooting for McCain/Palin.”
I have trouble understanding what that means since it comes across as a contradiction. Could you help me out with a little clarification??
So, Georgie, derisive sarcasm only makes a good point when you're spewing it here?
Spencer, sounds like your superior judgement is being wasted living in this country….at least for what the next 4 years looks to bring.
Ciara, good post……….you ought to pipe in more often. Your views are actually more in keeping with the namesake of this website.
I agree with other commentors here. I found Kip's review of Steinem's comments to be at least as “noteworthy.”
It seemed to me to be more loaded with stereotypical cliches regarding the “categorical Democrat” than Steinem's original post suggested.
I find the psychology of party loyalty interesting, but I'd have to confess that the predictable patterns of “attack” throughout my adult years have come down to petty smears and character attacks that have been master-minded and perfected by the Republican party. The Swift Boat Veterans put the final seal on the winning strategy of smear, regardless of substance. It may be a mark of mental illness, but I'll not likely forget the Swift Boater campaign.
Steinem seemed to be saying that it was a mistake to assume that a female would automatically come to the rallying cry of a female candidate simply because the candidate was female. I didn't see much of a character attack aimed at Palin (unless you count a comment regarding lack of experience a personal criticism.) I didn't see much about “dumb Republicans” and snobbery or intellectual superiority or “dumb rednecks” in her column. That was all pre-supposed by Kip. Additionally, she was absolutely correct when she pointed out that it is the Republican party who like to paint themselves as “down home” and “folksy,” (“Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech”) and then claim that the Democratic party calls them “down home” and “folksy,” in a derogatory way. Soccor mom? Hunter? Super-Mom? Who has characterized Sarah Palin in those terms?
Place a sign on yourself that says “kick me” and then cry “unfair” when you get kicked.
Although I was ready to read a fair rebuttal to Steinem's article, this post by Kip Zimmerman pulled out all the talking-points that are typical of the “deer hunting with Jesus” sympathizers who are no more objective (maybe less so) than the people they criticize. And I often wonder, when I see them in action in a governing position, if they are just as critical of their base behind closed doors.
Honestly, I expect Steinem could have just let the voter decide without any commentary on her part, but the response was predictably typical and not too enlightening on the part of Kip Zimmerman, either.
Sorry for my rant.
CO, you criticize sarcasm in one breath and revert to it yourself in the next. Maybe you need to choose a story and stick to it. Btw, I like living in this country just fine thanks.
Good post Jeff – a thoughtful response to the subject rather than a “reaction”.
casualobserver–
“Georgie”–??
You're not being sarcastic, are you? ; )
“Is it really evidence that I think I'm “superior” if I point that out? ” George, i was writing about the main post, not your comment.
My comment followed JS's, but I hadn't read it when I posted, and wasn't meaning to comment on him in particular. But, it is sort of like what I have a problem with. The meat of the argument he makes is that Palin is right-wing, and that won't appeal to people who are die-hard Clinton supporters.
Granted. But I was thinking about Mr. Zimmerman's point about how Democrats can appeal to “those in swing-states with friends and family who may be moronic enough to still be on the fence.” JS doesn't come right out and call people on the fence “moronic.” But I'm guessing that “excessively challenged when it comes to decision-making ability” is a pretty close substitute.
JS, I'm not sure I can explain further that I have sometimes voted, and will probably again vote this round, for Democrats even though I root for Republicans. I vote Democratic, when I do, because I think it is the best choice for the country (or, for the State, if it's a gubernatorial election). But, I don't know, do you ever catch a random ball game on TV? I generally find myself rooting for one team or another even when I don't know about either. I'm not always sure why I'm rooting for one team rather than the other, but I can tell that I am and I'm honest enough with myself to know which team it is. As I said, I generally root for the Republican team. I'm not entirely sure why that is, especially in those instances when I vote Democratic. But, the point I was trying to make is that I suspect that the condescending manner of some vocal Democratic supporters toward people who are too stupid to be Democrats is an important factor in that. (I use “supporters” advisedly. There are some Democratic, and Republican for that matter, politicians who give that condescending vibe off, but I'm not commenting on the extent, if any, to which I think that is or is not a problem with Obama or Biden.)
C&D: As I said, I generally root for the Republican team. I'm not entirely sure why that is, especially in those instances when I vote Democratic. But, the point I was trying to make is that I suspect that the condescending manner of some vocal Democratic supporters toward people who are too stupid to be Democrats is an important factor in that.
Fascinating point of view you got there.
Some of us do come across as smarmy, condescending and know-it-all, but rarely as no-it-all.
Ouch, hate those homonyms.
Palin continues to draw the scum and worse from under their left-wing rocks.
The person being quoted to start this thread is the _real_ loonie here. Where's the quality control on this “moderate” [sic] site? Is it expendable to show contempt for the US public when its current object of interest and its possible electoral choice this year once again doesn't come with the PC-elitist seal of approval? (For more about this transparent response, similar to other disgraceful examples of valuing the public we've seen before on this site, see Pew poll-related note at end.)
I've been too busy this weekend running between Detroit and east-central Iowa to bother checking this site and what would predictably be here, but it reminds me of the from-under-similar-dark-places-of-the-Left (including empty, closed minds!) I got to hear on NPR early yesterday morning while on the road.
The transparent liberal politics in the media, joining other liberals, is laughable. You really are worried that Palin may have taken McCain to the point where those two, rather than Sammy and Dean-O the Dems, will run the executive branch. You really are starting to get worried, aren't you?
Time after time we hear scummy attempts to discredit and downgrade Palin. It's almost exclusively about Palin the small-town mayor, mayor, mayor. Almost never is it Governor Palin. You know, Governor, a springboard to the Presidency that is as well known as the Senate or the Vice Presidency. You know, Governor, as with our current President and President Clinton before him, for example, as well as other famous and less-famous Presidents.
Sarah Palin is better qualified, with pre-Presidential and Executive experience, she the #2, Vice Presidential, choice, than is Barack Obama, the #1, Presidential candidate and Democratic nominee.
But what do we see?
We see a media and other liberals obscessed with Palin's “lack of qualifications” and “lack of experience.”
We don't hear a word about this about Obama, who is in a weaker, worse position.
With Obama, there is silence or a claim that Obama is more qualified (a lie) or that he has more experience, which is not only a lie, but is hypocritical given that the same liberals in the media and elsewhere earlier defended Obama's lack of qualifications and particularly his lack of experience as an asset emphasizing his claim to represent change (i.e., not being a perpetual incumbent nor well-versed in the ways of Washiongton) rather than a liability. What do we see now? Hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy and the double standard and the one-sided transparently political and propagandistic and frequent-leftist-hatred-filled campaign against Palin offends decent, moral, better quality people and to the extent it continues, there will be a well-earned backlash.
Do those people (including here) realize how stupid and scummy they are tripping over themselves in a hurry to be?
[sigh]
As to the liberal, often but not always elitist, contemporary contempt for the public for not electing Democrats every four years to the White House, it didn't go unnoticed by Pew when Pew took a poll of journalists' view of the media and the public's judgment. Pew did a disservice (in hopes of denial?) by listing last the obvious explanation for the attitude change among the media, who are liberal to a greater extent than the public, obviously, between earlier elections and later elections in recent times. This also applies to surly or smug liberals here and elsewhere, about the public in general as well as the positive response to Palin as our next possible Vice President:
“The percentage of national journalists who have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American public to make good decisions has declined by more than 20 points since 1999. Confidence among local journalists has fallen as well.
What is going on? Does this suggest that as news people get closer to their audiences they conclude people are less wise than they once believed? Is it possible that market research data is persuading journalists today that they understand their audiences better and also that those audiences are dumber than they thought?
Or, is the loss of confidence in the public more tied to journalists' views about the content of news? They see news doing a poorer job of covering complex issues and conclude that this will leave Americans unprepared for making good decisions.
It is also possible that journalists are leaping to another conclusion: They see the content of the news becoming shallower and conclude that this must be what the public wants or why else would their organizations be providing it?
There is also a fourth possibility: liberal journalists unhappy with President George W. Bush's policies could be dismayed that the public chose Bush in 2000 and until recently have largely approved of his performance.”
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=830
Deny the truth all you want, but the scummy response by the Left to Palin's introduction to the public nation-wide is an open book for those of us who can read, not only the lines but the scumminess between them.
DLS's comment is not exactly what I had in mind when I referred to the saying that Republicans look for converts.
That's because DLS is the Republican mirror image of everything he accuses liberals/Democrats/anyone who disagrees with DLS to be.
DLS : “Where's the quality control on this “moderate” [sic] site?”
DLS, you have a remarkable gift for making statements that do more to highlight your own pretensions than they do the objects of your derision. To whit: If the “quality control” on this site was any less forgiving, you might well be the first to feel it's effects.
DLS,
Have you ever considered the possibility that Journalist being “liberal” is due to the fact that the “facts are liberal”.
Ciara, I hope that you will cast your vote, not based on how rude random commenters or posters are on various blogs, but for what the actual candidates are likely to accomplish for our nation. I'm rather liberal and get angry and frustrated at many conservative blogs. However, I think it would be a mistake for me to base my vote on my dislike of such comments. I should use my vote to accomplish something for America.
Looks like Ciara and CO get that Zimmerman was talking about marketing as a whole rather than any one slogan. Fear may motivate, but sexy sells much better. As far as calling your market stupid goes; well, that really is ironic. Maybe Kipp was being ironic in telling his readers as much, but I think he was just being stupid.