Gloria Steinmen claims that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does not have the "experience" to be Vice President or President. She said that in an op-ed piece in the LA Times today.
This from a person who supported the corrupt Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun for President in 2004. Slate.com had a good article explaining the lack of ethics of Braun.
So, who does Steinem support now? She supports another Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. This Senator considers a terrorist, Bill Ayers, a bigot, Jeremiah Wright and a convicted felon, Tony Rezko, as friends. Does Gloria only support people with questionable friends and ethics?
Then you have Sally Quinn, who does not believe that a woman, with children can run for office--unless they are Democrats. If a GOP'er said that, you know the storm that would create./
Just as the NAACP does not consider Clarence Thomas "black" enough. The Bigots on the Left do not consider Palin "woman" enough. Worse, Sarah Palin can use a gun for food, and protection.
The Boston Herald is more concerned with the hairstyle of Gov. Palin, then her qualifications.
The headline reads, "Stylists to passe Sarah Palin: Let your hair down"
Some say that Palin has a four month old child with special needs, so she should stay home.
The Left did not challenge Joe Biden in 1972 when his wife and a child died tragically in an accident. No one suggested that he give up his Senate seat to take care of his two small sons.
The Left is concerned about a 17 year old becoming pregnant, yet supported a President that had sex in the Oval Office, then lied about it. The Left knew that John Edwards had an affair and possibly a baby while his wife was fighting cancer and might be dying of the disease.
Gov. Palin fired a State official for not firing a State Trooper who used a taser gun on a ten year old for n o reason. The same Trooper threatened the life of the Governors father.
Yet the Left is upset that this out of control Trooper was being fired and that she fired an official that would not protect the public from this Trooper. I thought the Left opposed bad cops--except when it is a Republican doing the firing.
I have always said that the last remnant of bigotry in America is the Democrats and the Left.
Democrats believe a woman can not get a job unless government sets quotas. Democrats believe minorities are too stupid to get into school without government mandates.
Watch the opposition to Gov. Sarah Palin. You will see the hypocrisy and bigotry of the Left.
That is what is at stake on November 4th.
I look forward to the Democrat/Leftists defending their double standards. For those who believe in honesty in government, and freedom, do not be shy in responding to the Left.
Sarah Palin: Certified NUTJOB:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war;_ylt=AlC82zj0lyQXHzKchAm4r.VI2ocA
Sarah Palin believes that a 13 year old child who is raped and becomes pregnant should be forced by BIG GOVERNMENT to bear the child of her attacker, regardless of her opinion and the opinion of her parents.
KOOK.
I am with you 100%. Thanks for writing the article!!!
Its funny how the righties are trying to make a case for sexism now that Palin is the VP pick. They are the only ones who seem to see anything sexist about this whole thing, as if the media didn't already run Obama and Biden through the ringer.
And speaking of hypocracy, why is it that whenever someone has a baby out of wedlock, conservatives start ranting about morals and bad parenting, but as soon as everyone found out about Palin's little "family" situation, they spun as a "private" matter of little moral consequence?
Obama was right when he said it was irrelevent to the job, but with all the other things coming out about Palin and her lies about foreign policy experience and government pork barrel, I find her hard to take at face value, regardless of her gender.
And I just know its only a matter of time before someone spins this as an anti-woman/anti-christian/anti-family values kind of post.
I'm a new reader of this blog, but I'm already beginning to see that it's just another haven for GOP rhetoric.
Hmmm, now let's see. Barack Obama, half-term senator/community organizer (zero executive level experience) vs. Sarah Palin (mayor of a city, governor of a state, tons of executive level experience). I think my vote goes to the executive. Oh wait, Obama's not even running for Vice-President.
He's running for President against veteran U.S. Senator John McCain, former naval aviator/fighter pilot, former POW, decorated war veteran and hero, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, ranking member of Senate Armed Services Committee, tons of foreign & domestic policy experience.
Could the choice be more obvious?
Renewable energy, change, working together... For a party that seems to loatht the very existance of Barack Obama, John McCain's speech last night sounded alot like what Obama's been saying all along.
Only when you compare McCain's so-called record with what he said in his speech, his words and his actions simply do not match up.
I'd rather vote for a new guy with some integrity than an empty suit who suddenly copies the other party's ideas when the public shows enthusiasm for them.
It was actually kind of pathetic to hear McCain's "I want change too" speech.
Well, you're forgetting some important facts about John McCain. He is the epitomy of change and has a record that supports this (something Obama lacks).
He has been a maverick and someone not afraid to challenge and upset the status quo when necessary (including fellow Republicans on many occasions). You may recall his bitter feud with George W. Bush during the 2000 election over starkly different viewpoints in many areas of public policy.
His selection of Sarah Palin as his VP underscores his independent, go-against-the-grain reputation. He is clearly out to shake things up in Washington, which his speech last night vigorously reinforced.
This man is going all the way, folks. Next to him, Obama is nothing more than a skilled orator, with no track record on anything to offer the American people.
While it's true that McCain used to be a maverick, he hasn't been since 2000. That's when his own party knocked him down a few notches. Noqw he just does what he's told.
Had he any guts, he would have chosen a VP who could help him reach across the aisle. Instead, he chose to appeal to the party base. How that can be interpreted as going against the grain is beyond me.
As for Obama, it's always interesting how the right loves to discount the fact that for 12 years, he was one of the most effective legislators in the Illinois Senate. And now that so many people are showing a willingness to explore his "new" ideas, McCain and his camp want to join the fun.
I still ahve a shread of respect for McCain, but not enough to waste a vote on him. As for Palin, from the little bit I've heard, she's way too conservative and her attacks were too full of innacuracies for me to trust her in higher office. I'd love to know more about her background, but as we all know, the GOP calls that sexist.
They are the masters of doubdle stantards, which is what makes it so hard to trust them.
McCain does what he's told, huh? That's why he made a totally unpredictable choice for VP. Makes perfect sense to me.
The selection of Palin has the Obama-loving media and the Democrats heads' spinning. Nobody knows what to think or how to react. They can only resort to finding little, insignificant, meaningless things to pick on - like her daughter or her family. How pathetic is that?
Obama, on the other hand, picked a safe, predictable, middle-of-the road, white bread, running mate who was hand-picked by the Party bosses to give him some appearance of experience in the national and foreign policy arena.
Who's doing what their told?
"They can only resort to finding little, insignificant, meaningless things to pick on - like her daughter or her family."
Fact: The media didn't report it until McCain's camp put out a press release stating that they were planning to release the information.
Fact: The reason it bother the GOP so much that they had to stage this "biased media" setup is because it shows the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP. Had it been a democrat the GOP would have been howling about bad parenting and pre-marital sex.
Fact: Palin plays to the party's conservative base, but can't write her own speeches (Matthew Scully)or tell the truth (troopergate, jet auction).
Fact: Obama got railed by the media and the GOP over 19 months. There isn't anything we don't know about him. But as soon as anyone asks a question about a VP choice no one has heard of, its suddenly sexist, as if the country doesn't have a right to know who might end up running this country if McCain has a any medical issues.
Fact: It doesn't matter the dems do or the media does. The republican leadership will say and do anything, however untruthful, to win in November.
They call us elitists because we do our homework. They don't want smart people voting. They want sheep, and fortunately for them, there are plenty of people in this country who are willing to vote without doing their homework.
Are you kidding me? Obama got railed by the media? He's been the media's darling since day one.
They've done a horrible job of vetting this guy (which is supposed to be their primary role) and have given him free pass after free pass on every lack of a position or record on the issues, every bad judgment he's made, every flip-flop he's done, every poor choice of friends or associates (Tony Repko, William Ayers, the Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, etc.).
C'mon, let's get real for moment here.
Thanks for proving my point. Every issue you just named has come to light because of the media. I would hardly call that giving him a free pass.
The only problem with all this is that half of the so-called associations you named are fairly thin, which explains why they are no longer talked about. (Rezko - former neighbor, Ayers - Obama was like 7, Wright - a former pastor whose strong opinions about racial equality) Let's face it, if those "associations" are the best the repubs can do, they are in a world of hurt.
After all, how many republican cngressman have gotten into hot water just in the last years alone? Wouldn't supporting these guys be considered "associations" as well?
Meanwhile, we have the guy who writes this blog posting blatant lies like this... "The Bigots on the Left do not consider Palin "woman" enough. Worse, Sarah Palin can use a gun for food, and protection."
Like I said before, the only ones making Palin's story a "woman" issue are the Republicans.
Or how about these... "I have always said that the last remnant of bigotry in America is the Democrats and the Left."
Frank must have not seen the RNC floor, where all minorities combines made up less than a percent.
Or... "Democrats believe a woman can not get a job unless government sets quotas. Democrats believe minorities are too stupid to get into school without government mandates."
This last one doesn't even warrant my time. People like Stephen Frank are the reason so many people have lost faith in the Republican Party. It's too bad too, because I used to have a lot of respect for them.