The Right to Choose

[bana05]

While I think Sarah Palin gave a great speech for her base, Sarah Palin cannot,  CANNOT, be my vice president.  She almost scares me more than Cheney does.

*shudders*

I'm glad I read the transcript of her speech instead of listened to her, because I would've shut my ear off to her within seconds of her opening her mouth.  To be fair, I barely watched

Comments

[mulder200]

Yeah, I am not feeling Palin at all. Then again, I have never really liked the Republican party too much anyway.

[bana05]

She did what she was tapped to do, and the fact that she's a woman going after Obama . . . they aren't stupid. Let Obama say one word against her and that ramps up all the racial/gender fears that McCain's predecessors have won elections with in the past.

[rebirthified]

UGH PALIN. >:

I shouldn't have watched the speech but I wanted to see what she was about. Me and Mom felt like she wasn't including people of color at ALL. I mean, I hardly saw any black people in the audience ... two at the most. ( Maybe I blinked and missed more? XD )

And don't get me started on the whole class thing, I don't even think she was talking about people in the same income bracket as she, regardless of color. I didn't feel like Palin was speaking to me. At least when I was watching the DNC it felt like I was being included!

It's crazy how she criticizes the 'good ole boy' network and said 'thanks but no thanks' but yet and still - she - Alaska made over $10 billion in oil tax revenue for 2008.

Maybe I just should've read the transcripts cause the tone of her speech annoyed me. She wasn't saying anything new ... XD

[bana05]

Right, transcripts. It seems much more benign than hearing the oratory.

And EXACTLY. There's a problem when an entire party writes off entire demographics and can get away with it. Why is that a good thing?

[evilgeniuslady]

The clip of her speech that gets most airplay on the Danish news channels is the one about how the country is under threat from terrorist and '"he" would read them their rights' (I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the gist, I believe). I'm left going "... why shouldn't he read them their rights? You really can't claim moral superior ground if you're not going to behave properly!"

But then again, I'm politically left of pretty much everybody in American politics, including those radical free-thinkers (even though I'm only slightly left of the middle from Danish politicians), so what do I know?

[bana05]

Heathen :-P

[evilgeniuslady]

Yup!

*waves little flag proudly*

;P

[bana05]

:-D

[catchester]

I never trust a woman who is anti abortion. Ever. They either have a hidden motive for that stance (ie it's popular in some places) or they have been brainwashed into being mysoginists. No true feminist would ever be anti aborton.

Well, okay, i might trust one who wanted a law to say that the father MUST, by law and under threat of imprisonment, raise the child for at least 50% (up to 100% if the mother wishes it) of the time, giving the mother a chance to work and restricting his life just as badly as hers. But lets face it, that aint going to happen!

Anti abportion is always about repressing women, no matter what cloak it's covered in.

And anyone who would repress women just for being women, will want to repress anyone who slightly differs from their own view of what is right, normal and moral.

As a brit i have never understood your Republican party. Right wing here used to be like the Democrats, in recent years though, our right wing is more liberal than even your democrats.

[bana05]

But I respect her because she's completely anti-abortion. She's not doing that half-assed no abortion unless rape or incest mess. I can't get with that. That would be covered under pro-choice.

[catchester]

Thats even worse, in my opinion. Anyone who thinks that way needs to sit down with a child like this

[bana05]

But if you're going to be "pro-life" then it doesn't matter how life is conceived, you are pro-life; you cannot say "Oh, it's okay if you were raped/incest victim to have an abortion" because you are still, fundamentally killing a life if your definition of life is "Moment of conception", which mine isn't.

That's why I don't believe most of the people are pro-life; they are just anti-abortion.

[box_in_the_box]

Someone tell me how they can't be uncomfortable with the lack of diversity the RNC showed, and continues to show.

Because "it's not a bug, it's a feature."

Having met and worked with a lot of rural white conservative Christians over the years, I can tell you that they seriously believe that they are the most oppressed people in America.

They've long felt "oppressed" by the fact that certain people in society are asking them to be tolerant, educated or even open-minded - these are the people who rail the loudest against "political correctness" and the teaching of "evilution" in schools - and in recent years, they've grown so entitled and reactionary that they now feel "oppressed" by people who expect them to follow their own rules - Palin's support among this demographic went UP when her own family proved that abstinence-only education does not work, because more people in this demographic said they could "relate" to her, because she's "more human" and "not perfect" (ie. they LIKE the fact that she gets a free pass, even though she'

[bana05]

But all Republicans aren't like this, but that's the image I got at the RNC convention and I cannot tell you the dread I feel because of it. They don't know what oppression is . . . they make a mockery to the term. And IF they are oppressed, they can blame their Party for it, because they're the one who've been in power for the past decade!

[box_in_the_box]

But all Republicans aren't like this, but that's the image I got at the RNC convention and I cannot tell you the dread I feel because of it.But it's how their "base" feels, and their base is the reason why McCain is the closest thing to a moderate that they've nominated in decades, and even he was "too liberal" for a lot of them, which is why they brought in Palin in the first place

[biichan]

It's because White Christians (especially Protestants and especially people of Anglo-Saxon ancestry) have enjoyed so much privilege in this country for so long that they don't even notice that they have it. It just seems natural to them. So if suddenly other religions and races get anything then it seems like the world is ending because that's something they aren't getting.

Also, the entire country has been brainwashed against socialism thanks to the cold war, so most working class people tend to vote against their interests as a matter of course.

[fa_ikaika]

word! Palin is energizing the base of Republican die-hards and dead-enders. These are people they have to have because they are the foot-soldiers and small donors they need for their own ground game. They've realized they have to take on Obama at the grass-roots level and McCain has not been able to bring the angry Right out. Palin has shown that she can.

OK, it IS scary, but remember, the people who love Palin would never have voted for Obama anyway. The crucial issue here is to make independants and the Catholic middle/lower-middle class comfortable with the real Obama and his policies.

Palin complicates the mix by reviving the old divisive mindset of Karl Rove and his clones, but this strategy will ultimately fail if the Dems get sneakers on the ground and get more people from the right parts of the country involved in the political process on the basis of more than fear and contempt.

[bana05]

But why are they comfortable having a base like that? And they wonder why they don't have as many PoC members as they should. They appear exclusionary, and that's not kosher at all.

[fa_ikaika]

Why should they want a base like that? Because they are the party of AUTHORITY. It's like why certain kinds of people join the cops and others become teachers

oops

[fa_ikaika]

anonymous was me. Sorry, low blood-sugar at the moment.