This is how we will lose

Palin scares me, but what worries me more is that we will screw up again and hand the executive office over to another gang of losers, and we can’t afford that anymore. Now look at the open thread I set up last night, and you’ll see why I’m concerned. What did people do? They got distracted by irrelevancies, such as the opportunity to exercise a little macho sexism, and then that turned into a nasty, full-blown knife fight with everyone snarling at each other. This is exactly what the Republicans want, writ small on this little tiny island of the blogosphere.

That’s not how we’re going to beat back the troglodytes.

Palin is a stalking horse for failed social and economic and military policies. We don’t want to get drawn away from the important message of defeating those bad policies by the temptation of cheap shots at her appearance and sex, especially because those cheap shots make her look like a sympathetic victim and help advance the Republican agenda.

So please, think. Casual sexism plays into the hands of the bad guys on both sides. What frightens me most is that Palin got up and lied and said nothing of substance, and people are so distracted by the fact that she has breasts that the lies were allowed to slide by. This is how the Democrats can self-destruct, once again.


  1. cureholder says

    I have an honest question for those involved in the Obama/late-term abortion discussion. I am not trying to be provocative, just seeking information and explanation. (Just so you know where I am coming from, let me say up front that I am completely and unabashedly in favor of total abortion rights for any woman who wants to have one at any time in her pregnancy. Let the right-wing stoning begin. In addition, I despise both Obama and McCain and wouldn’t vote for either one at gunpoint.)

    I read the words Obama said about the state being able to restrict late-term abortions, but I also looked at his voting record while he was in the Illinois Senate. In 2001-2003, there were attempts to pass something called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have defined as “persons” fetuses that survived abortions and were” born alive.” Defining them as “persons” would have given them rights under Illinois law.

    In 2001, Obama voted against the bill in committee and voted “present” when it came to the floor. This is a standard procedural move in the Illinois Senate (contrary to Republican talking points, which ridicule Obama for voting “present”). Voting “present” means that the voter wants the bill sent back to committee because there is a flaw in it (usually constitutional). Obama said he voted “present” because the bill did not contain a “mental health exception” for the mother, which probably would lead to its being declared unconstitutional by the courts.

    In 2002, Obama again voted against the bill in committee, and this time voted against it on the floor. He again argued for a “mental health exception” because unwanted fetuses that survived an abortion might “burden” the woman’s decision to have an abortion. (His language on the Senate floor was kind of jumbled and not clear, but I think this is what he was saying.)

    In 2003, at Obama’s behest, language was added to the bill to make it identical to the federal version that passed the Congress nearly unanimously. Obama then voted against that bill as well when it reached the floor. He kept saying he would have voted for it if it had been the same as the federal law, and not until last month, in an interview with the New York Sun, did he acknowledge that the Illinois bill language was identical to that of the federal bill, and he still voted against it.

    So my question is this: Obama is pretty consistent verbally in opposing late term abortions (or at least upholding the power of the state to proscribe them). But his votes on this bill, which attempts to prevent the abortion (or whatever we want to call it) of fetuses that survive and are born alive by defining them as “persons” with rights, seem to bely that stance. I haven’t yet heard him explain why he talks one way and votes another on this issue.

    Anyone know whatever facts I am missing that complete this puzzle? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give.

  2. Rick says

    Go to and type in Obama and my faith. It should come up. 9-08-08 interview with George Stepphanolous.
    I don’t know if that is the correct spelling of his last name but I don’t think you need it.

  3. CatsAndDogs says

    PZ, folks like YOURSELF are the troglodytes.

    The trogs (non-cro-magnon) were the losers who stayed in the caves with their “old ways”, and lost to the innovative (REAL feminists as opposed to “Feminazis” and “lovers of life” as opposed to “lovers of demographic suicide”) ways of their “extinguishers”.

    Not too many trogs around any more. Outside the lairs of societal leech’s, such as yourself, the so-called “blue cities” as the only “blue entities” are dense democrat-infected cesspools otherwise known as “big cities”, all of America is “RED” to the bone!

    But then, to “anti-normals” such as yourself and your ilk, that is perfectly sensible, and just a “natural” consequence of the elitist superiority of the “master race”.