She Is a Small-Town Mayor. She Is Not — Repeat, Not — the Governor of Alaska. [Byron York]
In an interview of Barack Obama last night, CNN's Anderson Cooper mentioned Sarah Palin's experience as a small-town mayor and as governor of Alaska. Obama, hewing to his campaign's talking points, ignored the governor part:COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question — your — some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska. What's your response?
OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.
So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.
Just for the record, Alaska's FY2008 operating budget is $11.2 billion, and the state employs approximately 15,000 people. Those certainly aren't huge numbers in federal terms, but they're a good bit bigger than the Obama campaign.
Nice, huh? And Cooper just let that bit of sneering sexism pass. This is exactly what I mean by the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party. They fairly ooze supercilious masculine superiority because they know they have the full and swooning support of today's feminists when they bash a woman not of their tribe.
I mentioned some time ago how much I dislike Hillary Clinton--not because she is a woman, but because her policies suck and I would never vote for her. But the Dems can't even be that honest. And, of course, when she got in the way of their victimhood food chain, she was dead meat.
This is an example of postmodern sexism -- sexism that is perfectly acceptable among the enlightened members of the left because it is politically correct.
For example, we know from experience that blacks, women and gays lose their cherished victim status if they dare to become Republicans; and, to a lesser extent, if they choose to be Christian (except for most Episcopalians, who have seen the secular light).
Being black trumps being a woman or gay (i.e., there is more "social justice" mileage to be squeezed out of the oppression of blacks, i.e., racism, than there is from the oppression of women (sexism) or even gays (homophobia). Just ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
The oppression of Jews is completely ignored because of the animus the "enlightened" have toward Israel; and anti-semitism, which in past times would have had a ranking up close to the level of dark-skinned people (probably because those who founded the Jewish state were dedicated socialists--unfortunately, they soon realized that in real life, their ideology didn't work too well); but anti-semitism no longer is a compelling issue for the socialists. In fact, they are among its worse practitioners as socialism has spread throughout the Middle East.
If you haven't read this gushing and disgusting bit of feminist porn on Muslim sexuality by a person who considers herself to be a modern "feminist" then I urge you to go and see the idealization of feminine victimhood. Oppressed Muslim women? Who the fuck cares? Certainly not today's feminists, who hate American sexism,Republicans, conservatives, George W. Bush--and now John McCain and Sarah Palin--with a deep, abiding passion; but who champion a culture whose very essence is the domination of women and the suppression of female sexuality. This seeming contradiction is really no contradiction at all.
Feminists today are not pro-female. They are collectivists. From the article of mine I quote above:
From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay Righs are the rights of a designated culture. The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the dogma of women's superiority. This is probably because for the socialist utopian, might makes right and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few--and the few better remember that fact, or else. In the socialist utopia, there is no room for individuality or personal preference; or tolerance for differences. You always must subsume yourself to the collective; and the bigger the collective, the more power victimization can be exploited.
Quite frankly, the Democrats and their Messiah make me quite ill. So much for them being "progressive"--their mindset is straight out of the insanity of the 1960's.
UPDATE: Siggy just sent me a another link by Naomi Wolf, the author of that nauseating and gushing little article mentioned above. This article was published in every major English-language Arab news outlet:
Dear World, Please Confront America (by Naomi Wolf)
Is it possible to fall out of love with your own country? For two years, I, like many Americans, have been focused intently on documenting, exposing, and alerting the nation to the Bush administration’s criminality and its assault on the Constitution and the rule of law – a story often marginalized at home. I was certain that when Americans knew what was being done in their name, they would react with horror and outrage.
Not only is she a collectivist and a traitor to women, but she is also a traitor to her own country. I'm sure she'll vote for the Messiah.
UPDATE II: Is this the kind of elevated sexuality enjoyed by Muslim women to which Naomi Wolf refers? I don't think this sort of thing has been perpetrated on women in America since...oh, forever--not even under the BusHitler administration.
Post a Comment