BINGO, it's all about survival

[Christians4LessGvt]

I suppose I am a bit naive
But I was thinking last night when Governor Palin was speaking
I thought "wow, why do they hate her so much?"
Why is it more than the normal bashing?
Why the full court press?
Why the over the top fear of her "catching on"?

Watching the speech it suddenly dawned on me!

Watching the women in the audience
You could easily see the connection
In the speech, you knew she was really connecting with women
Yeah she was speaking to the all voters, but particularly to women

Bingo!
Thats where the near panic fear comes from
Democrats traditionally get 55-65% of the women vote
If the Republicans could take away just 10-20% of that voting bloc the democrats would be dead in the water
So the nastiness does not come from the usual back and forth banter
No the reason it is a full court press from Us Magazine to almost all the major networks is one of SURVIVAL
This isn't about one candidate from Alaska, no that kind of hardcore full court press has much wider implications
The democrats...the Left knows full well if they were to lose a large chunk of the women vote they are doomed!

This was the case with Clarence Thomas.
That was a full court press too.

It all is very clear to me now, it's all about SURVIVAL.
And when a rat is cornered it will turn and fight like hell.

This is what they fear:
rememeber
even if they just lost 20%===doomed!
their anger, their rush to destruct is about SURVIVAL

[Xavier_Onassis]

She is some sort of extremist woman. She's hardly Hillary. She was McCain's third choice, and hardly the best qualified person to serve as VP.

I don't hate her, I just don't want any more thieving, incompetent fatcat Republican servants of the oligarchy running my country. They have screwed it up enough already.

The audience at the GOP Convention are a bunch of hooting morons.
YEW HESS HAY! YEW HESS HAY!
 
It's an embarrassing to watch them. It makes me think how much more I would be enjoying watching the Simpsons in Spanish at Dirk's farm in Concepción and sipping yerba mate and Pilsen beer.

As for Clarence "Uncle" Thomas, he's an embarrassment as well. As solid as a rock and twice as smart.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The fear by the left is Overwhelming. How do they treat Sarahphobia?
By Dr. Laurie Roth  Thursday, September 4, 2008


The leftist media and Obama camp not only have their knickers in a twist because of McCain?s brilliant, maverick pick for V.P. Sarah Palin, they can't find enough therapists to deal with the fear. I don't recall in my life time Presidential elections where children have been savaged and attacked so readily. Of course, as the masses have heard of Sarah's pregnant daughter who has plans to marry and keep the baby by the way, Obama has come out and said that kids are off limits. If course we all believe and know that he nor his warm and fuzzy campaign had anything at all to do with the spot light on Sarah?s pregnant daughter by the psychotic and judgmental media.

Obama and our mainstream media just want fair ball and real headlines.  I'm sure that's why Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes, had a headline on his blog until a few days ago that was "Did Sarah Palin take proper Pre-Natal care"? In his article, (now mysteriously off his blog, no doubt from the heat) he was attacking her poor judgment to not immediately go to the hospital when allegedly her water broke. Instead she got on a plane. What does the above headline really say about Sarah Palin?  It attacks her judgment as a mother and implies she didn't care for her disabled baby before birth.

I said last night on the air that it was only a matter of time before the wackoid left in our media went after her down syndrome baby.  Instead, Alan went after Sarah's judgment while pregnant with her son.  We?re on a roll now, watching the panic-stricken breakdowns of fear by members of the media?..so, who's next? So far we have smashed her daughter (who after a pregnancy mistake has done and is doing the right thing), we have seen her choices in pregnancy attacked by Alan Colmes, now we see a tabloid accusing Sarah of having an affair with her husbands partner. By the way, Sarah and her husband have come out strong saying it is a vicious lie.  In fact, there is talk of a lawsuit against the magazine that trumped this crap up.

Hark, there is still more to come since the left is SO SCARED! I've only gone after Sarah, her daughter and baby care, at least we have 3 other children we can highlight and ruin publicly. Perhaps her son in the military who is going to Iraq to serve his country can go splat for us.  Maybe the leftists can find evidence of him lying or getting drunk somewhere. Maybe he cheated on a Math test in high school or something.

All this drama against Sarah Palin, of course not by ANYONE associated with Obama, only shows how spot on she really is as the right conservative pick by McCain. It is high time another insider in Washington wasn?t picked, but rather, a REAL person, Mom, public servant and patriot. It is my prediction as people get to know the real Sarah Palin, they will be drawn into a history making maverick team that will dare to take on the establishment and serve the people again "not good old boys"..not the polls and not money.

McCain, in my view is too globalist for me and needs to continue to move to the right on several issues, but he certainly is moving grandly in the right direction by  real conservative, woman and servant who is for drilling for oil, gun rights, protecting borders and security and lowering taxes. Finally, McCain has repeatedly shown us courage, bravery, a maverick spirit and integrity when he served his country in the military and was repeatedly tortured and survived. He's the first to admit his life has been imperfect and the worse mistake of his life was failing his first marriage as stated on national TV during his Rick Warren interview. I don?t know about you but I don't need perfect. I need a leader who will listen, learn from his mistakes and serve and protect our fine country.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4824

[Amianthus]

She was McCain's third choice, and hardly the best qualified person to serve as VP.

So, who were the first two?

[sirs]

I suppose I am a bit naive.  But I was thinking last night when Governor Palin was speaking.  I thought "wow, why do they hate her so much?"  Why is it more than the normal bashing?  Why the full court press?  Why the over the top fear of her "catching on"?

It's really quite simple.....she's a HUGE threat to the status quo, especially to the women's movement.  Liberal Democrats have had a monopoly on the so-called "women's rights movement", advocating how oppressed and held back women are, how poorly their treated in the workplace, how they're ostracized for daring to work and have a family or want to be a single mother.  Here come Sarah....Mother of 5, powerful, successful, professional, articulate, and *gasp* Conservative.  She literally could start a culture war within the Women's movement.  Look at the perverted twisting Tee is doing to proclaim how she needs to stay home, needs to run her family, needs to take care of her house 1st and foremost, and anything outside of that, is downright horrible as a mother.  Precisely what he'd be condemning anyone from the right for doing, who'd advocate a stay at home mom.  All in an effort to try and tear her down, including her family, even if it were to get him fired by Obama

[Christians4LessGvt]

Look at the perverted twisting Tee is doing to proclaim how she needs to stay home, needs to run her
family, needs to take care of her house 1st and foremost, and anything outside of that, is downright horrible as a mother.

whoa
did Michael really say that?
Jezzzzzz, that is sexist as hell

[Michael Tee]

I'll address CU4 first on the issue of sexism.  I have no problem with women working outside the home.  I don't believe in a "one size fits all" prescription for women or anyone.  However, I say that generally.  What I say applies to the average parent of the average family.

There is nothing "average" about this family.  It has a pregnant teenage daughter, which most of us in the real world still have the common sense to recognize as a train wreck and a miserable failure of parental guidance.  Bad enough in itself, but there is the additional problem of a Down syndrome baby. 

I don't think most people realize the "needs" part of "special needs."  I didn't myself until about 25 years ago two very close friends of ours had a fourth child who turned out to be Down syndrome.  Through our friends, over the years since, we've come to meet other parents of Down syndrome children.  The investment of parental time that these kids need is staggering - - due to many factors, the multiple problems in addition to Down syndrome that many of these kids have, the varying possible diagnoses, depending on levels of Down syndrome and additional complications such as autism that can afflict the kid, the various plastic surgical options available to be considered, the ever-expanding panoply of treatments and regimens available to choose from, the intensely personal nature of the bond that has to be fostered between caregivers and the child - - there's a need for parental involvement from day one and it doesn't get easier.  One of the most crucial tasks is watching the interaction with caregivers, personal attendants, teachers, etc. with the kids, identifying problems and discussing them with the people involved and making the changes necessary from time to time.  Same applies to doctors and modalities of treatment and socializing.  I could write a book on parental interaction with the school system and the health-care system, advocating both on behalf of your own kid and for the plight of all of them. 

In addition to the problems of third parties, Down syndrome kids put a big strain on the parent-child relationship with the other siblings, as special frictions inevitably develop and a lot of work has to be done to get the other kids to develop enough maturity and compassion to work through the problems of (a) unsocialized behaviour by the DS sibling and (b) not enough perceived attention from the parents, who are seen to be overly focused on just one of two or more siblings.

Our friends both work as do most of the other parents of Down syndrome children we know.  It's just that they work at jobs with lots of family emergency time off, or flexible hours or else are self-employed.  None of them work as President of the U.S.A. and quite frankly, though some of them would do a much better job than George W. Bush or John Insane,  none of them would want to, given their parental responsibilities. 

So I'm not being sexist regarding Palin, but I am making a judgment call that I think would be obvious to any conscientious parent of any Down syndrome kid.

About the general tone of the rest of the posts here, it seems to be, "Wow Palin is great because the left is screamin in outrage" more or less.  It's kind of a double-edged logic, by which one could also argue that Obama is great because the right is screamin in outrage."  Actually, it's just a way of avoiding the real issues.  WHY is "the left" outraged about Palin and how valid are the criticisms would seem to be the more intelligent way of looking at things.  My own view is that when the public realizes that Miss Almost Alaska is one heartbeat away from the Presidency and that heart is 72 years old, they will really have to start wondering.  When they realize just how thin her qualifications are, how her "judgment" and "wisdom" in family matters are thin to non-existent, as is her record in political matters, they will have to ask themselves how could John Insane put their whole future at risk like this, all for a petty campaign advantage in appealing to special-interest groups (disappointed Hillary fans, NRA members, oil-industry people) and draw the necessary conclusions about John Insane himself and his purported "judgment" and "patriotism."   This IMHO is what lends the tone of shrillness and desperation to most of the right-wing commentary on the "left's" reaction to Palin.  It is just starting to sink in exactly how much of a disaster that choice actually was.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, who were the first two?>>

Romney and Lieberman, but I don't know in what order.

[Amianthus]

Romney and Lieberman, but I don't know in what order.

So, he asked them and they turned him down?

[BT]

WHY is "the left" outraged about Palin and how valid are the criticisms would seem to be the more intelligent way of looking at things.

Well certainly calling a candidate John Insane is the intelligent way to look at things.

There is the presumption that only the mother can be the primary caregiver in a special needs situation, I think that is an archaic viewpoint. And I doubt you can provide valid scientific evidence to back that claim up, intelligently.

While you are criticizing Sarah and Bristol Palin, you might consider this:

Nevertheless, after discovering she was pregnant, Dunham and Obama are presumed to have married on February 2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii, although no marriage certificate exists: the date is reported by Dunham as such on the later divorce filing.[6][1]

On August 4, 1961, at age 18, she gave birth to her first child whom on the birth certificate she named Barack Hussein Obama II.

In an interview, Barack Obama referred to his mother as "the dominant figure in my formative years... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact is that about 90% of the time, the mother is going to be the primary caregiver of special needs children. It is not mandatory, but it is a fact that mothers do more mothering than fathers.

Saying that this isn't so is just blather, and I suspect everyone actually knows this.

Can a hired person or persons take as good care of Sarah Palin's mongoloid child as she would herself? I don't think anyone can say this one way or the other. That is a different issue. I would bet that the probability that they would hire a woman to do this is around 98%.

[BT]

The fact is that about 90% of the time, the mother is going to be the primary caregiver of special needs children. It is not mandatory, but it is a fact that mothers do more mothering than fathers.

Saying that this isn't so is just blather, and I suspect everyone actually knows this.

Can a hired person or persons take as good care of Sarah Palin's mongoloid child as she would herself? I don't think anyone can say this one way or the other. That is a different issue. I would bet that the probability that they would hire a woman to do this is around 98%.

That isn't the point of discussion. The point is that if the child's primary caregiver is the father ( ie a man) the child suffers. And i don't think either of you can show scientifically where that prejudice might be true.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is the point of my discussion. Maybe Mr Palin would be the ideal person. I don't think that this is really germane to the relevancy of Palin's campaign. It's not my child, let them decide what to do.

Would the country suffer because she was taking time out from the usual VP ribbon-cutting and occasional tiebreaking Senate vote because she was tending to "Trig"?

Or would poor little Trig suffer as she ignored him for matters of state?

I really don't think this will be a problem, because I expect McCain and Palin will lose.
There is certainly no reason to assume that the Republicans are even remotely competent after the mess Juniorbush made. They had their chance to put McCain in the W in 2000, and he was obviously the best candidate, but they chose Sockpuppet Juniorbush. The Party was clearly full of crap then, and we all are suffering for it, even those of us who were wise enough to know that the sumbitches were lying like rugs and stealing like Ali Baba's thieves could only dream of.

Now, they are desperate. Many of them are probably scared of serious jail time (which they richly deserve) if the Democrats win by the landslide that logic would dictate must happen in punishment for the total ineptitude of the doltish warmongering Republicans. They only chose McCain because he is their only chance: Giulani, Thompson, Romney and Huckabee would all surely go down in smoke and flames, and deservedly so: each is flawed in some way or another: obsessed, lazy, too slick, and a fundie yokel from the sticks in that order.

I don't think a President McCain would be anywhere near as close to the lying, incompetent stubborn warmongering stupidity of Juniorbush Cheney: they will go down in history as the worst administration ever (at least unless we count Jefferson Davis, who had to escape from his WH in drag to avoid serious dismemberment).

But Jeez, after Mandrake actually saws his lovely assistant in half and we see the gore oozing all over the stage, The bones of her ribs and spine revealed, we really don't want to see the next act that impresario has put together. The only thing we want to do is see something else and get the ghastly image out of our minds.

I do not want to stick around for the second half of a GOP double feature. They have just fed us a fool who differs from Herbert Hoover only in that he is more stubborn and far less intelligent, and cares even less than the annoying Hoover ever did.

Time to put the GOP on hold, at least until enough years have passed that Rove, Cheney and Juniorbush are old enough to need a Rascal Scooter to whiz around their Assisted Living Facility.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, he asked them and they turned him down?>>

Story I heard was that the hierarchy turned them down because of conflicts with the base, and McCain, to lash back at the hierarchy, went and picked Palin.

[BT]

It is the point of my discussion. Maybe Mr Palin would be the ideal person. I don't think that this is really germane to the relevancy of Palin's campaign. It's not my child, let them decide what to do.

Looks like it is up to Tee to validate his sexist position.