Author: has written 5285 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

105 Responses

  1. Nahida
    Nahida November 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

    A Palin “war against women”? Hah! Not only is she a woman, she’s got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic.

    LOL! This reminds of when Rush Limbaugh was crying confused over why it didn’t work when the Right put forward all their successful hispanic people.

    Why isn’t it wooooooorking?!

  2. Nancy Green
    Nancy Green November 18, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

    No, she should put out a Christmas album instead.

  3. Echo Zen
    Echo Zen November 18, 2012 at 5:36 pm |

    I will donate money if it gets Palin on the GOP ticket. And then I will invest in stocks of Comedy Central and SNL.

  4. Comradde PhysioProffe
    Comradde PhysioProffe November 18, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

    That Op-Ed was the funniest fucken thing I’ve read all day!

  5. (BFing) Sarah
    (BFing) Sarah November 18, 2012 at 7:09 pm |

    “Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.”

    Seriously, how out of touch can they really be? I dream of a Palin vs. Clinton 2016. I positively dream of it. Actually, it might be going too far. It might end up just looking mean to have someone so smart go up against someone so…uninformed. (see? She’s so awful I feel bad to name call!)

    1. Denise Winters
      Denise Winters November 18, 2012 at 7:16 pm |

      I know. When it comes to competence, qualification, and intellectual honesty, the campaign, and especially the debates, would look like a rottweiler wailing on a poodle puppy. I would be inclined to give Palin a hug and read to her the story of Paul Revere and explain the constitutional duties of the POTUS.

      1. William
        William November 19, 2012 at 9:36 am |

        I’ll give you the competence and qualifications, but when it comes to honesty (of any stripe) we can bet that Hillary will be no better than Bill was.

    2. EG
      EG November 18, 2012 at 9:28 pm |

      Oooh! Oooh! I’ll say it! She’s so fucking stupid!

      1. (BFing)Sarah
        (BFing)Sarah November 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm |

        She’s so awful it really almost makes me sad, which makes me angry that I feel sad because she is too awful to get my sympathy. Then I feel sad again because I’ve let her make me angry when I should not even know who she is. Then I feel angry that the GOP subjected me to her. She is killing me!!

    3. Mandela Nelson
      Mandela Nelson November 24, 2012 at 4:51 am |

      Christie /Rubio vs. Rodham-Clinton /Biden!!!!
      or
      Palin/ Santorum vs. Castro /Castro!!!!!!!!!

  6. sabrina
    sabrina November 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm |

    I would totally support the GOP running palin. She can’t win the republicans. Too many of them think that women shouldn’t hold political office- let alone the highest office in the country. There is no possible way that she is going to be elected

    1. BabyRaptor
      BabyRaptor November 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm |

      Nah, that would get hand-waved away like the “Mormonism is a cult” problem did for Mittens.

      She talks about god like no tomorrow, she’s pro-forced birth, she hates Democrats and she’s white. If she somehow ended up the nominee, they’d vote for her.

      1. William
        William November 19, 2012 at 9:42 am |

        Those are all the reasons I really do kind of hope that the GOP puts Palin forward in 2016. She’ll give the Democrats a landslide and then maybe the GOP will have to finally kick the goddamn theocrats out of the tent. You’re not going to win youth, women, principled conservatives, left-libertarians, or minority votes with the likes of Palin (or Paul Ryan, for that matter). The GOP needs to see that because a one party system just isn’t going to cut it and the GOP’s hate-and-ressentiment base is literally dying.

        1. Thomas MacAulay Millar
          Thomas MacAulay Millar November 19, 2012 at 10:58 am |

          William, to my mind, the more election cycles they come sort of close and convince themselves that they can have a painless rebuilding cycle, the better. I don’t want another blow-out. I want them to keep trying the same thing in 2016 and 2020, blaming the candidate for the loss, and discard the idea of kicking the bigots out until 2024, THEN have a civil war in their own party and be noncompetitive due to internal division, and not try to construct a new coalition until 2028.

        2. William
          William November 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

          Thomas: You’ve a lot more faith in the Party Currently in Power than I do, it seems. Personally I don’t think they’re all that much better than the Party Currently in Opposition and I know that if they don’t face some competition they’re ugliest traits will come to the fore. We need reform in this country, I’d like to see it come in the form of additional parties but if all we get is another Goldwater I’ll take it in a heartbeat over what we have now.

        3. Thomas MacAulay Millar
          Thomas MacAulay Millar November 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm |

          I don’t like either party and I don’t like Obama. They’re all taking money from big corporations and carrying on Bush-lite military policies. But I don’t believe that a third party offers an alternative in our structure, only the possibility to pull the current structure in one direction or another. I want the Republicans to keep losing so the two party system can drift back to where it was in the 1960s. Nixon was in many ways more liberal that Clinton and LBJ was well left on distributional issues of anyone except Bernie Sanders now.

        4. TomSims
          TomSims November 20, 2012 at 7:26 am |

          The GOP needs to see that because a one party system just isn’t going to cut it and the GOP’s hate-and-ressentiment base is literally dying.”

          You want the GOP to be a carbon copy of the Democrats? Would it then be a contest of who could spend more tax payer dollars first?

        5. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 10:32 am |

          You want the GOP to be a carbon copy of the Democrats? Would it then be a contest of who could spend more tax payer dollars first?

          Given that Bush 2 entered office with a budget surplus and left it with a huge deficit, this is pretty rich. Or does money spent on unnecessary wars based on lies magically not count?

          In any case, better that than a contest to see who can fuck over more PoC, poor people, and women.

        6. William
          William November 20, 2012 at 5:39 pm |

          You want the GOP to be a carbon copy of the Democrats? Would it then be a contest of who could spend more tax payer dollars first?

          Now where the fuck did I say I want to see them be carbon copies of Democrats? Is your imagination really so limited that you cannot conceive of any political stances besides “Democrats” and the school-yard tough guy horseshit of today’s GOP? Read a goddamn book, conservatism (to say nothing of the classical liberalism the GOP likes to feign) has a lot more iterations than theocracy. “Lets fuck with the gays and race bait” isn’t a coherent political ideology. Aside from the christers, your half-bright ilk are whats wrong with American Conservatism today.

        7. TomSims
          TomSims November 21, 2012 at 7:57 am |

          “your half-bright ilk are whats wrong with American Conservatism today.”

          How would a liberal know anything about Conservatism?

        8. William
          William November 21, 2012 at 10:49 am |

          How would a liberal know anything about Conservatism?

          Before I answer your question I’ve one of my own: do you know what the word “liberal” means or are you just tossing it around because you heard El Rushbo say it?

          As for me being a “liberal” I think thats all going to hinge on whether you’re using the knuckle-dragging populist definition of the word (which basically boils down to a pejorative meaning “further left than the speaker”) or if you’re using it in the sense of a coherent political theory that generally has “classical” applied before “liberal.”

          We used to have conservatives in this country. People like Barry Goldwater and William Buckley and Milton Friedman, people who had internally consistent philosophies which could be engaged with, considered, negotiated upon, and understood. Now we have Democrats and Republicans who base their opinions almost entirely on the opposite of whatever the other guy said. You’re part of that problem, Tom, and as a result your party is dying because its become ugly and more obviously senseless than the other team. Your continued failure to display any intellectual ability, and the kinds of votes that result from that failure, is the reason why your party panders to the kinds of troglodytes that consider confuse political engagement with parroting the bile of an ersatz P.T. Barnum spitting into a golden microphone. Lap it up, you’re the reason why the Democrats win.

      2. TomSims
        TomSims November 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

        @William; It is very typical of liberals to answer a question with a question. You also enjoy talking down to those who question what you believe. FYI, I am NOT a Republican and do NOT listen to Rush. I am a registered Independent and have voted for both Democrat and Republican candidates.

        My opinions are formed more by everyday people I see in the real world. I’m not some bookworm that is curled up in a corner reading Karl Marx and sipping expensive wine. I do read, but in a more traditional way. And from real life experiences and reading a full spectrum of opinions I form my own.

        1. Jadey
          Jadey November 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

          *trying to imagine William curled up reading Marx and sipping expensive wine and failing miserably*

          *trying to imagine TomSims literally talking out of his anus with considerably more success*

        2. Past my expiration date
          Past my expiration date November 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm |

          Actually, “Democratic” is the correct adjective for a candidate running as a Democrat (<—noun). "Democrat" as an adjective was made up by the Republic(an) Party to annoy Democrats (and look! it's working!). In my experience, people who say that they have voted for "Democrat and Republican candidates" have mostly voted for Republican candidates.

          (I am wondering what could be a more traditional way to read than curled up in a corner.)

        3. EG
          EG November 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

          My opinions are formed more by everyday people I see in the real world. I’m not some bookworm that is curled up in a corner reading Karl Marx and sipping expensive wine. I do read, but in a more traditional way.

          What could be a more traditional way to read than curled up in a corner with a glass/cup of one’s preferred drink? Do you read on scrolls or papyri or something?

          I like the fact, though, that you claim that as a liberal (and I don’t think he identifies as one), William couldn’t know anything about conservativism, but then you yourself disdain the reading of Marx, because apparently you can’t learn anything by reading texts written by somebody you don’t agree with. Well, here’s a hint: don’t assume other people have your reading limitations.

          And from real life experiences and reading a full spectrum of opinions I form my own.

          Oh, gee, you don’t say? You base your opinions on real life experiences? Because I base mine on virtual reality computer games. And you read a full spectrum of opinions…but not Marx’s.

        4. William
          William November 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm |

          *trying to imagine William curled up reading Marx and sipping expensive wine and failing miserably*

          You know me, Jadey, I’m one of those liberal intellectuals.

          For the record, Tommytroll, I prefer to stretch out rather than curl up, like expensive (or even inexpensive) bourbon a lot more than expensive wine, and would seriously consider root canal over reading Das Kapital again. Give me some Nietzsche or Foucault or Freud, please. I’m sure thats going to make me some kind of typical, godless, liberal intellectual or something, but whatever. I’ve less than nothing to prove to you and you’ve managed to commit a fatal mistake: you’ve bored me. Enjoy your wallow.

  7. Foxy
    Foxy November 19, 2012 at 8:13 am |

    Demographics are destiny.The democrats strategy of flooding the country with illegal immigrants is working.It will be extremely difficult for gop to win in2016.They need atleast 60% of white vote

    1. Revolver
      Revolver November 19, 2012 at 9:55 am |

      Oh no, they’re on to us!

    2. Rick
      Rick November 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

      The GOP is dead. It’s not just demographics, it’s control of the message. The country has been well educated about the evils of capitalism and how government can, should, and will provide an unending stream of cash and prizes. Just look at how the original Tea Party message of smaller government and lower taxes was presented as racism and classism. The GOP could run a candidate that totally echoed a full liberal party line and the media would still destroy her because of the “R”.

      Or how about the current fiscal problem? Do you ever notice that no one ever asks what “fair share” is, or even how much revenue would be generated? Hint – the answer to the first is always “more than you are paying now”, and the answer to the second is “not enough to make a meaningful difference”. There’s a reason our “objective” journalists will never ask a Democrat a hard question. Can you imagine the journalistic investigative fervor that would have ensued if Benghazi had happened 5 years ago?

      Personally, I think the GOP should neither obstruct nor offer alternatives any more. Just let the progressives totally own the country.

      Then again, if the progressives fail anytime in the next 20 years it will still be “Bush’s fault”. At least that’s what the history books will say.

      1. (BFing)Sarah
        (BFing)Sarah November 19, 2012 at 9:41 pm |

        [sprinkling troll-be-gone powder into the atmosphere]

      2. TomSims
        TomSims November 20, 2012 at 4:06 am |

        I agree. Obama and the lamestream media blame Bush for Benghazi.

        1. Donna L
          Donna L November 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

          You can go away too, please. And in the meantime, don’t use terms like “lamestream media” here. Do you even understand what’s wrong with that?

        2. PrettyAmiable
          PrettyAmiable November 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm |

          All of Donna, but first, links please. I would like one mainstream source that blames Bush for Benghazi, and a direct quote from Obama.

      3. Esti
        Esti November 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

        The GOP is dead. It’s not just demographics, it’s control of the message. The country has been well educated about the evils of capitalism and how government can, should, and will provide an unending stream of cash and prizes.

        I don’t understand the Republican alarmism and defeatism of this type. You do remember that it’s only been 4 years since you held the presidency? That two years ago you won back the House, and you held it this election?

        I think 2012 showed that voters don’t like extreme conservatism, and particularly don’t appreciate some of the racism, sexism, and classism that was on dispay during this campaign. The Republican candidates in competitive races who ran on small government and low taxes won a number of those races. It was the Republican candidates who ran on their musings about rape, or their feelings about 47% of the population not having personal responsibility, or made overtly racist statements, that lost (or almost lost) races that looked entirely winnable for them earlier in the campaign.

        If you want to bury your head in the sand and yell about how the liberals have brainwashed America and the conservative cause is doomed, by all means go ahead. But that’s a giant cop-out, because there’s zero evidence that the electorate disagrees with your economic policies and abundant evidence that it’s your social policies and contempt for the lower class that drove the results of this election. And if you continue to refuse to listen to the clear messages voters are giving your party, you’ve got no hope at all of being electable in the future.

        Also, this:

        The GOP could run a candidate that totally echoed a full liberal party line and the media would still destroy her because of the “R”.

        Is just obviously factually wrong. Her name was Susan Collins (and she was actually further right than the Democrats on many economic issues), and the media fucking loved her. Same with Olympia Snowe, and Dick Lugar, and Jon Huntsman, and Lisa Murkowski, and etc. The problem isn’t that “the media” — which is an incredibly large and diverse group made up of different corporations and individuals and don’t actually share a single brain or set of beliefs — hates Republicans, it’s that Republican candidates kept saying terrible things. If Akin hadn’t spouted off about rape, he would have won. If Murdoch hadn’t spouted off about rape, he would have run. I don’t know that Romney would have won without the 47% video, but his share of the vote absolutely would have been higher. “The media” didn’t make those things matter — voters decided they mattered. Learn a lesson from that.

        1. TomSims
          TomSims November 21, 2012 at 8:13 am |

          “The Republican candidates in competitive races who ran on small government and low taxes won a number of those races. ”

          Not true. Name one. Also you as a liberal want bigger government and more spending on social programs and higher taxes.

          “Is just obviously factually wrong. Her name was Susan Collins (and she was actually further right than the Democrats on many economic issues), and the media fucking loved her. Same with Olympia Snowe, and Dick Lugar, and Jon Huntsman, and Lisa Murkowski, and etc. The problem isn’t that “the media” — which is an incredibly large and diverse group made up of different corporations and individuals and don’t actually share a single brain or set of beliefs — hates Republicans, it’s that Republican candidates kept saying terrible things.”

          All those mentioned are RINOs except Lisa Murkowski and she is from a family political dynasty that has run Alaska for decades. Huntsman is a Mormon from GOP controlled Utah. Duh.

        2. EG
          EG November 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm |

          Also you as a liberal want bigger government and more spending on social programs and higher taxes.

          How on earth is that relevant to whether or not her statement is true?

          All those mentioned are RINOs except Lisa Murkowski

          Of course they are! She was responding to your allegation that a Republican with a liberal agenda would be attacked by the media. So she cited Republicans with liberal agendas.

        3. Lolagirl
          Lolagirl November 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

          Huntsman is a Mormon from GOP controlled Utah. Duh.

          I have curious, do you not recall how it was a favorite pasttime during primary season for the GOP power brokers to (also) accuse Hunstman of being a RINO?

    3. Bagelsan
      Bagelsan November 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm |

      Flooding? *sings* “It’s raining (immigrant) men, hallelujah it’s raining (immigrant) men!”

  8. Foxy
    Foxy November 19, 2012 at 8:16 am |

    If sarah palin is the candidate which is unlikely,the white womens vote for gop will increase

    1. Briznecko
      Briznecko November 19, 2012 at 5:55 pm |

      So…white women vote with their vaginas and WOC vote with their skin color?

      Yeah. That’s not racist or sexist in any way.

      1. Foxy
        Foxy November 19, 2012 at 10:02 pm |

        What are you taking about?Cant handle the truth.White women have been voting for gop for a long time

        1. (BFing)Sarah
          (BFing)Sarah November 20, 2012 at 9:44 am |

          The truth? The truth is, you all lost. Period. I’m sick of all of your “white women this” and “non-whites that.” Its divisive and its bullshit. Move the fuck on. Maybe next time, alright?

    2. BabyRaptor
      BabyRaptor November 19, 2012 at 9:13 pm |

      No, it won’t. The majority of women in this country see Sarah PayMe as a liar and a fraud. She’s a terrible mother, she’s a theocrat and she’s a chronic liar.

      Add in that she’s pro-pro forced birth and anti-equality, and….Just no. Did you not learn anything from the election we just had? The majority of America does NOT agree with Conservative “values.”

      Or are you claiming a vagina-owner version of “Blacks voted for Obama because he’s black!”?

      1. Foxy
        Foxy November 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm |

        Are you serious?You dont care about statistics.White women voted for romney 57-42,what makes you think they wont vote for palin

        1. EG
          EG November 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm |

          Wait, didn’t you say 55-45 elsewhere?

        2. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 11:27 pm |

          EG, more white women are voting for Romney all the time!

        3. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 7:37 am |

          Wait, didn’t you say 55-45 elsewhere?

          Different polling agencies have different numbers, but if you aggregate with some appropriate statistical tools (if anyone cares, this is mostly variance testing) you wind up with a sample size of about 25,000 and a breakdown of 56-42. At that sample size you’re pretty accurate, though the interactions of multiple sampling errors does result in a higher confidence interval than you’d normally get, on the order of about three-fifths of a percentage point (unless you cheat and just count each poll as a datapoint in a locally weighted regression, which is technically breaking all kinds of rules but in reality gets you so close that most aggregators like RCP do it anyways, because most reputable pollsters follow a similar methodology).

          Anyways, that’s a complicated way of saying it’s reasonable to get somewhat different numbers from different sources, but if you add them all up you get a fairly accurate picture.

          /end nerd rant

          /apologies if nobody cares/ everybody already knew this

        4. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve November 20, 2012 at 10:44 am |

          Are you serious?You dont care about statistics.White women voted for romney 57-42,what makes you think they wont vote for palin

          She might be running against a white guy.

        5. tomek
          tomek November 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm |

          someone does know how many white men vote for romey? i do not know where to find such statistic. i am curious to see which gender vote which party

    3. amblingalong
      amblingalong November 19, 2012 at 10:12 pm |

      I hate to agree with Foxy here, but objectively most white women vote Republican (55-44 in 2004, 53-46 in 2008, 56-42 this year), and Sarah Palin’s approval rating with white women is higher than Mitt Romney’s (or at least it was over the summer- things might’ve changed since the election ended). Oh, and most white women are pro-life.

      Not fun facts, but empirically true.

      1. DonnaL
        DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 10:42 pm |

        5 points over 50-50 = “most”? I have higher standards than that for using that word!

        And “pro-life” is a weasel word that covers a hell of a lot of territory. I defy you to prove that “most” white women (or most women, period; I’m not sure why you’re dividing it that way), fall into Akin and Mourdoch territory and believe abortion should be illegal 100% of the time no matter what the reason, and that doctors and the women themselves should get life in prison or the death penalty for “murder,” or go to jail at all.

      2. DonnaL
        DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm |

        Also, Obama won among single white women 56-44, and I’m almost positive he won among white women 18-29 (since Romney only won by 7 points among all white voters under 29).

        I will add that Obama won 77-23 among single Jewish women, the obviously perceptive category I’m in (among others!).

        1. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 1:07 am |

          I defy you to prove that “most” white women (or most women, period; I’m not sure why you’re dividing it that way),

          Wasn’t me. Foxy made a factual assertion that (as I read it) a majority of white women who vote in Presidential elections, vote Republican; two posters claimed said assertion was offensive; I pointed out that said assertion was, in fact, true.

          Also, Obama won among single white women 56-44, and I’m almost positive he won among white women 18-29 (since Romney only won by 7 points among all white voters under 29). I will add that Obama won 77-23 among single Jewish women, the obviously perceptive category I’m in (among others!).

          I’m not arguing with you, and I’m definitely not arguing that hey, the GOP is a pro-women party after all! I was just pointing out a statement that was factually untrue (and it’s important to know these things if you want to win elections).

          And “pro-life” is a weasel word that covers a hell of a lot of territory. I defy you to prove that “most” white women (or most women, period; I’m not sure why you’re dividing it that way), fall into Akin and Mourdoch territory and believe abortion should be illegal 100% of the time no matter what the reason, and that doctors and the women themselves should get life in prison or the death penalty for “murder,” or go to jail at all.

          Yep, again, no disagreement; what I should have said is that, when asked, a majority of white women describe themselves as “pro-life,” a label I personally consider inaccurate.

          5 points over 50-50 = “most”? I have higher standards than that for using that word!

          …really? I’ve always used the term ‘most’ to mean the larger part, i.e. a simple majority. Weird (not you, just that it’s so different to our ears). This might be like ‘a couple,’ which to me has always meant ‘a small number,’ but which my roommate insists means ‘two, and no more than two.’
          /off topic

        2. DonnaL
          DonnaL November 20, 2012 at 1:16 am |

          I get what you’re saying; I know that to some people, “most” just means a simple majority. To me, it’s always meant a lot more than that, as in the phrase “most if not all” — something a little bit short of “all,” maybe 70%?

          By the way, I agree that “a couple” means exactly two. Three is “a few.” Four can still be a few; I don’t know about five!

        3. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 10:34 am |

          A couple means two! That’s why we refer to two people who are dating as a couple! Two! Two!

          (This is the kind of thing I get really exercised about, to the point of incoherence and multiple exclamation points!)

        4. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 5:37 pm |

          A couple means two! That’s why we refer to two people who are dating as a couple! Two! Two!

          (This is the kind of thing I get really exercised about, to the point of incoherence and multiple exclamation points!)

          “Hey, I’m meeting up with a couple people tonight.”
          “This has happened a couple times now.”

          Those don’t sound similar to ‘a few’ to you?

          And, for the ultimate authority on everything, Dictionary.com:

          Couple, Adj. 1. a couple of – more than one but indefinitely small in number; “a few roses”; “a couple of roses”

          (*watches as a grammar debate slowly develops into bloody flame war, laughs evilly*)

        5. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm |

          Oops, Mirriam Webster defines it “two, a pair.”

          Darn.

      3. William
        William November 20, 2012 at 9:39 am |

        Not fun facts, but empirically true.

        I’d like to see the age breakdown there, though. I’d suspect that older white women break more heavily Republican and I know that younger white women break pretty Democratic. Four years is a lot of time for some people to turn 18 while others die. Thats really the big problem the GOP has right now: it’s isn’t just not building, it’s base is shrinking. When you’re losing with young white women its just a matter of time before you’re losing with middle aged white women unless you do something to convert those Democrats into Republicans. When you’re losing with single white women you face a demographic challenge because more women will end up not marrying, creating a stable demographic you’re losing with, and those who do marry aren’t likely to suddenly become Republicans because of new jewelry and a tax-status change. When you’re winning with white women in general but the percentage of the population identified as white is shrinking you, again, have an overall loss in influence. Finally, when your stronghold is older folks and a rapidly shrinking church you have a problem because you base can’t vote from beyond the grave and is at least somewhat less likely to vote once they’ve rejected the absurd values of the pedophiles you pander to.

        1. Foxy
          Foxy November 21, 2012 at 7:56 am |

          Dream on mate.The share of white woman voting for gop increased between 2008 and 2012.As white woman become older they are more likely to become conservative

        2. Briznecko
          Briznecko November 21, 2012 at 10:44 am |

          So…what is the magical switch that will turn white (because women of color don’t exist, according to Foxy) women into conservative voters?

          Is it sweatpants? Because, damn, those are comfortable.

        3. William
          William November 21, 2012 at 11:10 am |

          Dream on mate.The share of white woman voting for gop increased between 2008 and 2012.As white woman become older they are more likely to become conservative

          You’re still failing to grasp what demographics mean. Obama dominated the 18-29 vote as well as the 30-39 vote. Romney’s advantage was in older Americans but, and this is very important, they are dying. That 65+ demographic that Romney took handily? In 15 years they are going to be voting less and the 50-64 voters will have taken their place. Romney had a smaller advantage there. Today’s 18-29 vote will be, given 30 years, tomorrow’s 50-64 vote. The “youth vote” today is going to be the “young adult vote” and then the “middle aged vote.” If the GOP can’t do something to attract those voters time alone isn’t likely to make them become Republicans. The same is true for women as a whole because conservative women are older. And lets not forget that Obama had a 16 point lead among single men which does not bode well for the male vote in 15 or 20 years. By being the party of yesterday’s values the GOP puts itself in the position of having nowhere to go but down.

          And thats really what we’re talking about here, values. By playing the social conservative shit the GOP is alienating an increasingly libertarian culture. Do you really think that a kid today who knows someone who identifies as trans in high school is going to have the same kind gut reaction to gay marriage in ten years? Do you think that a six or seven year old today, who will grow up with marijuana legalization being a significant part of the political landscape, is going to be worked up about winning the war on drugs? The world is changing and the GOP is trying to go back to an era that never really existed.

      4. TomSims
        TomSims November 21, 2012 at 8:18 am |

        “I hate to agree with Foxy here, but objectively most white women vote Republican (55-44 in 2004, 53-46 in 2008, 56-42 this year), and Sarah Palin’s approval rating with white women is higher than Mitt Romney’s (or at least it was over the summer- things might’ve changed since the election ended). Oh, and most white women are pro-life.

        Not fun facts, but empirically true.”

        I salute you for presenting actual facts instead of the usual liberal spin.

        1. Foxy
          Foxy November 22, 2012 at 7:45 am |

          Yes right people on this site cannot face facts.They believe somehow by choosing hillary as candidate they can win white womens vote.Also other fact married woman vote gop

  9. Thomas MacAulay Millar
    Thomas MacAulay Millar November 19, 2012 at 10:55 am |

    My pet theory about Palin: when Couric asked her to name a periodical she read, she froze not because she doesn’t read, but because she was self-aware enough to realize that everything she actually read was so fever-swamp-right-wing that she couldn’t say it, and just blanked. I think she actually reads the John Birch society newsletter, publications by the Assembly of God (which she left when she sound a bigger political stage) and … who knows what else. Secessionist materials? Black helicopter propoganda?

    Hand-picked dream opponent. If they would seriously entertain this idea, I would be very happy. Maybe Palin/Bachmann? Or Palin/Franklin Graham? Palin/Limbaugh? I know! Palin/Allen West!

    1. William
      William November 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

      Hand-picked dream opponent. If they would seriously entertain this idea, I would be very happy. Maybe Palin/Bachmann? Or Palin/Franklin Graham? Palin/Limbaugh? I know! Palin/Allen West!

      Unfortunately I think all this business about Palin is likely a feint and what we’ll really see in 2016 is some combination of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and possibly Colin Powell (depending on the weight of foreign relations in this race) with Palin being used as a fundraiser. We’ll get the same Ron Paul sideshow we got the last two times around and Gary Johnson will attempt another doomed primary run, thus splitting the libertarian vote in the GOP and reducing their influence. The ticket will end up being a pairing of a successful northern GOP politician with someone brown (in an only marginally more sophisticated attempt to win POC voters in the same way Palin was intended to win women) in the VP position and a big push to win independents who still loathe the Clintons if Hillary decides to run. In 2014 we’ll see a resurgence of the tea party, this time calculated not to invade Congress but to build the infrastructure for a more aggressive ground game in battleground states. Look for defense cuts to be an area of compromise so that they can be used as a wedge issue.

      /amateur prognostication

      1. TomSims
        TomSims November 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm |

        Unfortunately I think all this business about Palin is likely a feint and what we’ll really see in 2016 is some combination of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and possibly Colin Powell

        Maybe Rubio and Paul Ryan, but Powell and Christie supported Obama and are both RINOs and de facto liberals. The best guess in 2016 is John Kasich.

        1. William
          William November 19, 2012 at 4:10 pm |

          Christie and Powell supported Obama, but there is little indication that they would have the same loyalty to Hillary or to the Democrats more broadly. Also, if you look at Christie’s stances he isn’t a de facto leftist: moderate forced-birth views, anti marriage equality, balanced a budget through spending cuts, anti-banking regulation, anti-taxes, and a long history of education reform. We don’t know a whole lot about Powell’s politics because he’s always been a soldier. As for the RINO comment: remember, McCain was persona non grata all the way up until he was the nominee and Mitt was a wild-eyed cultist with a jones for socialized health care until it was convenient to memory hole those memes. It would be an insurgent campaign, sure, but the power brokers in the GOP would be hard-pressed to find a better combination of successful executive experience and foreign policy cred. More importantly, their support for Obama would allow them to make the GOP look less like the opposition.

        2. Thomas MacAulay Millar
          Thomas MacAulay Millar November 20, 2012 at 4:02 pm |

          I see you have been listening to the far right so long that you are unable to distinguish between propoganda and reality. Left wing is socialist. Not what Limbaugh calls socialism, which is a welfare state, but the government owning the businesses. Most of the affluent democracies have a mixed economy with a large government hand and also lots of private enterprises. We are on the less government-involved end of this spectrum. For example, we have a government old age pension of sorts and government heathcare for the aged, but not single-payer healthcare — Obamacare creates exhanges and allows for competition, different from Canada, which is single payer, or the UK, which had an NHS.

          It is totally possible to have a party to the left of the current Dems, as Canada, the UK, France and, well, all the western European countries, do. In fact, LBJ’s democratic party was far, far to the left of the one we have now. In fact, in fact, Nixon was well to the left of the Republicans now.

          If you do not understand these, you are unable to have a conversation about the political spectrum.

          You may feel that progressives and liberals look down their noses at conservatives. Well, for my part, I don’t; not at the smart ones. I don’t agree with them, but I take them seriously. However, when you assert that there could not be a party left of the current Dems, I do look down my nose at you and act like I know more than you, because that’s a silly thing to say. Look, if you want to be Jonah Goldberg and say ridiculous things, then I’ll treat you like Jonah Goldberg. If you want to be Krauthammer or Will, say things that are grounded in fact and construct arguments from them.

        3. TomSims
          TomSims November 21, 2012 at 8:42 am |

          “It has happened several times in American history! Yes, it has! Federalists and Whigs, they failed to be viable, and they went away! And in the UK, where the system is less hostile to third parties, the Liberals were replaced as the Tories’ main opposition by Labor. And if the GOP keeps representing only nativist old white social conservatives and multimillionaires, then it, too, will either have an internal coup and be redirected by its own dissidents, or be replaced by a party that puts together a different coalition.”

          It’s happened twice , not several. But you may have a point, the Tea Party may incorporate and replace the GOP. And there is no shortage of rich old white men in the Democrat Party.

          “Conservatism as we know it started with Burke,”

          I don’t know who “we” are, but for me it was William F. Buckley.

      2. Tim
        Tim November 19, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

        Yep. Rubio was already here in Des Moines this weekend for Terry Branstad’s (our old Reaganite retread governor) big 65th birthday bash.

        1. TomSims
          TomSims November 19, 2012 at 5:10 pm |

          “their support for Obama would allow them to make the GOP look less like the opposition.”

          If the GOP is not the opposition, you have in effect a one party system. They had that in the former USSR and still have it in Cuba, China , North Korea and Vietnam.

          Christie balanced his budget, because the state constitution mandates a balanced budget.

        2. Veronica Schanoes
          Veronica Schanoes November 19, 2012 at 9:55 pm |

          Yep, this is exactly how the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam began, with one part in a two-party system losing an election due to their reactionary views. So true.

        3. William
          William November 19, 2012 at 10:05 pm |

          If the GOP is not the opposition, you have in effect a one party system. They had that in the former USSR and still have it in Cuba, China , North Korea and Vietnam.

          You say that like its not basically true already.

          Christie balanced his budget, because the state constitution mandates a balanced budget.

          That won’t stop him from taking credit and people believing him.

        4. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 10:30 pm |

          If the GOP is not the opposition, you have in effect a one party system. They had that in the former USSR and still have it in Cuba, China , North Korea and Vietnam.

          Add California to the list of one-party states. Utopia begins in 3 – 2 – 1…

        5. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 1:35 am |

          If the GOP is not the opposition, you have in effect a one party system. They had that in the former USSR and still have it in Cuba, China , North Korea and Vietnam.

          As silly as the conservative ‘here-comes-communism’ wailing is, I actually think there’s a glimmer of a point here. I’m one of those Democrats who actually thinks a strong, moderate, reasonable Republican party is a really important thing to have, because I actually don’t like unchallenged single-party rule, and because I think debate and disagreement and compromise produce better policies than fiat.

          But what we have is a moderate Democratic party and a totally off-the-rails GOP which has more or less lost all touch with reality (scientific/economic/geopolitical and so on). That’s not a recipe for good governance, because it either results in

          a) compromises which aren’t actually centrist, but pulled way to the right or
          b) absolute gridlock.

          So yeah, I would like to see the GOP win some elections by moderating its views, rejecting misogynist and homophobic and racist ideology, and coming to the negotiating table (not that I’d stop working for Dems). But I don’t see it happening in the immediate future.

        6. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 10:36 am |

          The death of the GOP does not automatically mean one-party rule–it’s an absurd idea. One-party rule is enforced by violent oppression. If the GOP withers and dies, another party will arise to take its place. It’s happened before in US history. Personally, I’d be thrilled if the GOP withers and dies, and we get a new party that’s to the left of the Democrats.

        7. Lolagirl
          Lolagirl November 20, 2012 at 11:44 am |

          If the GOP withers and dies, another party will arise to take its place.

          EG, apparently it is my lot this last week or so to follow you around Feministe and yeah, that, to whatever you post. All the here comes Communism hand wringing is pretty silly. The GOP will likely flounder for another 4 to 8 years but eventually manage to get its political house back in order.

        8. Thomas MacAulay Millar
          Thomas MacAulay Millar November 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

          Are there really people who don’t understand the difference between an autocratic state where opposition parties are not recognized and may be forcibly suppressed, and a democratic republic where one party loses its ability to draw a majority with any regularity? In the latter case, the party that can’t win either changes or gets replaced.

          It has happened several times in American history! Yes, it has! Federalists and Whigs, they failed to be viable, and they went away! And in the UK, where the system is less hostile to third parties, the Liberals were replaced as the Tories’ main opposition by Labor. And if the GOP keeps representing only nativist old white social conservatives and multimillionaires, then it, too, will either have an internal coup and be redirected by its own dissidents, or be replaced by a party that puts together a different coalition.

          I think this whole “tyranny is coming” thing among conservatives is part of the essential conservative history of fear that a fairer society will involve the most privileged getting their stuff or their heads forcibly removed. Conservatism as we know it started with Burke, looking across the Channel and seeing the ancien regime sans tete, wrote apologetics for the established distribution of power and resources, basically advocating no change, if possible, or gradual change if unavoidable, because that was in the interest of the people with all the land and money. Of course Burke kept his head, and it was the Cromwellians and not the Republicans who lopped off a crowned head. The revolution in Russia renewed the panic, including in the US, where Palmer violated lots of people’s civil rights and the US intervened in a civil war to protect corporate interests. But here, as in the UK, the advocates of more equitable distribution didn’t take over the behead en masse. Instead, in counties where people get to elect leaders, the conservative parties had to change their policies to appeal to a broad swath of voters, and have done ever since. And will have to now. That’s not tyranny. It is, rather, precisely the opposite.

        9. TomSims
          TomSims November 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

          “The death of the GOP does not automatically mean one-party rule–it’s an absurd idea. One-party rule is enforced by violent oppression. If the GOP withers and dies, another party will arise to take its place. It’s happened before in US history. Personally, I’d be thrilled if the GOP withers and dies, and we get a new party that’s to the left of the Democrats.”

          Yes former Democrat Henry Clay started the Whig Party in the 1830’s and they gave way to the GOP around 1860. So now maybe you have a true vision, that being the GOP giving way to the Tea Party. It is not possible to get a party more to the left than the Dems, they are already left wing extremists.

          “So yeah, I would like to see the GOP win some elections by moderating its views, rejecting misogynist and homophobic and racist ideology, and coming to the negotiating table (not that I’d stop working for Dems). But I don’t see it happening in the immediate future.”

          I agree.


          I’m one of those Democrats who actually thinks a strong, moderate, reasonable Republican party is a really important thing to have, because I actually don’t like unchallenged single-party rule, and because I think debate and disagreement and compromise produce better policies than fiat.”

          I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

          “That won’t stop him from taking credit and people believing him.”

          Of course, he’s a politician after all.

        10. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

          It is not possible to get a party more to the left than the Dems, they are already left wing extremists.

          You are incorrect. Every other first world country has parties far to the left of the Democrats, often including their more conservative parties.

        11. Andie
          Andie November 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

          It is not possible to get a party more to the left than the Dems, they are already left wing extremists.

          Never been up north, have you?

          *koff*NDP!*koff*

        12. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm |

          It is not possible to get a party more to the left than the Dems, they are already left wing extremists.

          This is what happens when people convince themselves nothing exists outside the borders of the US. The sheer ahistoricity and geopolitical ignorance… it’s chilling.

        13. TomSims
          TomSims November 21, 2012 at 10:36 am |

          “This is what happens when people convince themselves nothing exists outside the borders of the US. The sheer ahistoricity and geopolitical ignorance… it’s chilling.”

          We were talking about US politics not world politics. The only thing outside our borders that has an impact, is illegals entering the country to vote Democrat with some help from ACORN.

        14. EG
          EG November 21, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

          Uh-huh. Well, here in the US there have been parties with clout to the left of the contemporary Democratic Party, such as the Socialists. But do explain what is so very special about the US that although every other first-world country has political parties far to the left of the Democrats, it is somehow impossible here.

          The only thing outside our borders that has an impact, is illegals entering the country to vote Democrat with some help from ACORN.

          Now you’re just indulging in self-parody. You know that undocumented immigrants can’t vote, right? Although the idea of a swarm of people sneaking across the US borders specifically in order to vote for Democrats is kind of awesome.

        15. Jadey
          Jadey November 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm |

          Now you’re just indulging in self-parody. You know that undocumented immigrants can’t vote, right? Although the idea of a swarm of people sneaking across the US borders specifically in order to vote for Democrats is kind of awesome.

          I’m definitely going to organize a horde of illicit Canadian voters to cross the border for the next US election.

          No, who am I kidding, we don’t even vote in our own elections…

        16. Lolagirl
          Lolagirl November 21, 2012 at 3:50 pm |

          ACORN

          Really?

          Come one, fapping on about Acorn is so 2008…

        17. TomSims
          TomSims November 21, 2012 at 5:40 pm |

          s. But do explain what is so very special about the US that although every other first-world country has political parties far to the left of the Democrats, it is somehow impossible here.”

          I was not saying the US is special. I was talking about US politics because we were on that topic. Also I know something about US politics and very little about the politics of other countries.

          There are 5 Socialist Parties listed , but the only major parties are the Dems, Reps, Libertarian, Green and Constitution. So I made my point, the Dems are as far left as it gets in the USA.

        18. EG
          EG November 23, 2012 at 11:53 am |

          If your original comment had been that there is no current significant party to the left of the Democrats, you would be correct. However, the original comment was that a party to the left of the Democrats was not possible, because the Democrats were as far left as it was possible to go.

          And that’s simply not true.

        19. matlun
          matlun November 23, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

          …the only major parties are the Dems, Reps, Libertarian, Green and Constitution. So I made my point, the Dems are as far left as it gets in the USA.

          As EG pointed out, you are moving the goalposts, but even so the US Green party is to the left of the Democrats.

        20. TomSims
          TomSims November 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

          “If your original comment had been that there is no current significant party to the left of the Democrats, you would be correct. However, the original comment was that a party to the left of the Democrats was not possible, because the Democrats were as far left as it was possible to go.

          And that’s simply not true.”

          Ok for now, I will concede your point. But it seems your sister Matlun disagrees with you. And thanks for at least agreeing that no current party is the the left of the Ds.

        21. EG
          EG November 24, 2012 at 5:49 pm |

          1) I believe that matlun is male.

          2) I have one sister. The experience is not such that I care to repeat it.

          3) I suspect the disagreement is on whether or not the Green Party is significant, not whether or not it is to the left of the Democrats.

  10. matlun
    matlun November 19, 2012 at 11:24 am |

    Irony can be fun.

    I specifically would like to agree with her on this part:

    large segments of the electorate neither know nor care much about serious economic and political issues. What they — a group sometimes euphemistically called “uninformed voters” — do know and care about are the tugs on their emotions, fears, revulsions and heart strings

    That is just depressingly true.

    1. Rick
      Rick November 19, 2012 at 4:53 pm |

      And that is why the GOP is finished. The left has always been the party of emotions – “don’t you care?!”, which the right has been unable to effectively answer. As our fiscal cliff approaches, it is clear that nothing is going to save the US from itself. We are going to “care” ourselves into financial ruin.

      Then again, maybe we will be the first nation to “tax ourselves into prosperity”.

      As the Cap’n says: “enjoy the decline”.

      1. AnonForThis
        AnonForThis November 19, 2012 at 7:14 pm |

        Except the Republicans don’t have a reasonable solution. “Spend more on the military and reduce revenue” doesn’t somehow turn around generations of profligate debt spending and an aversion to the kinds of tax structures necessary to fund an ocean of corruption, an inefficient social security/Medicare system, and a military bloated beyond all reason or resource. Maybe I’d buy the Republican “we could have saved the ship” shit if they hadn’t spent the last ten years whinging about dudes touching dicks, women having sex, and charging headlong into crippling debt to pay for two wars against paper tigers half a world away.

        1. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm |

          Thanks for validating my earlier post about controlling the message. The media is very adept at convincing people that fringe elements represent the majority of the GOP.

          It matters not, the GOP is history. It is populated primarily by old white men. They will die off eventually. History will mark 2012 as the beginning of the end. The only reason they kept the House was districting and gerrymandering.

        2. EG
          EG November 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm |

          Only because the Republicans make themselves vulnerable by doing things like…enacting the agendas of those “fringe elements.”

      2. EG
        EG November 19, 2012 at 9:58 pm |

        The left has always been the party of emotions – “don’t you care?!”

        Sure…if you don’t count racist hatred, smug self-righteousness, contempt, or vanity as emotions. Because if you did, you’d have to acknowledge that in fact, the right is the part of emotions.

        1. DonnaL
          DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 10:24 pm |

          Thank you; it’s just like all those people who blather on about women being ruled by their emotions, and don’t seem aware that anger — which men get away with exhibiting in public all the time — is an emotion too.

      3. Rick
        Rick November 19, 2012 at 10:43 pm |

        Sure…if you don’t count racist hatred, smug self-righteousness, contempt, or vanity as emotions.

        Sounds like projection to me. Or a job description for a college professor.

        But I’m not here to defend the GOP. They wouldn’t have done more than try (and fail) to slow down the coming Greecification of the US. The voters (and non-voters) have spoken.

        California will be our “canary in a coal mine”. It will be an excellent test bed for progressive governance of a large, diverse, high gdp economy.

        1. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 12:29 am |

          Sounds like projection to me. Or a job description for a college professor.

          For serious? Did you just use “I’m rubber, you’re glue” as an actual comeback?

          OK, well, in that case, I think the best response would be to inform you that your mother dresses you funny.

        2. thinksnake
          thinksnake November 20, 2012 at 12:39 am |

          But I’m not here to defend the GOP.

          … then why are you here? Since that’s all you seem to be doing, along with some major trolling.

    2. matlun
      matlun November 19, 2012 at 5:55 pm |

      To clarify my position: I thought that comment was ironic, since empty emotion based rhetoric is much more common on the GOP side. It is all either fear based or feel good, bombastic declaration of simple values and solutions.

      But in truth, the phenomenon is pretty bipartisan. How many people vote because of careful analysis of political positions rather than fuzzy gut feelings about which side “feels better”, or just unreasoned tribal affiliation (I have always voted for that party)? Of those who are even making an effort to make a good decision, how many are actually well informed enough to do so?

      As I said, there is a depressing amount of truth in the statement I quoted taken in isolation.

  11. Rob
    Rob November 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm |

    Palin/Bachmann 2016

  12. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan November 21, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

    Palin/Palin’s Ego 2016!

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.