Here is a very insightful look at the language used in the campaign, specifically by Palin, while throwing out these outrageous accusations and smears: What Sarah Palin is Saying. He makes thought-provoking points about Palin’s choice of language and its danger. The “code-switching” argument makes SO much sense, and it has made me start to think that Palin isn't as dumb as she sometimes acts, but far more dangerous. Excellent post!!
On "Socialism"
Conservatives have been raising the specter of socialism for many decades - any time anyone comes up with a good health insurance plan, for example, it's "Socialized Medicine" - oooooh. Scary. And why is it scary? Hard to say, actually. Especially since most plans have been a pretty far cry from actual socialism. But people are not very bright, and they equate socialism, a type of economy, with communism, a type of government. They forget there are lots of very successful social democracies, and that socialism doesn't threaten democracy. And they forget there are many gradations of hybrid systems between pure free market capitalism and socialism, and our current brand of capitalism is one. Here are some more thoughts on this...
"We're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."Wow. Just wow. That sounds a LOT more like “socialism” than any mundane progressive tax plan by a democrat. The Collective owns the resources and shares the wealth. Yeah....
- Gov. Sarah Palin, quoted by the New Yorker, a few weeks before she was nominated for vice president.
(and, I’m not sayin’ I think that’s a BAD thing, I'd like it if I lived in Alaska, I’m just sayin’, you know, Palin is pretty ballsy to talk about Obama wanting to “share the wealth” and “sounds like socialism” for his TAX plan – sheesh.)
And, comparing tax plans, there’s not a whole lot of difference, except McCain’s HUGE tax breaks for the wealthy, and Obama’s bigger (yet still moderate) tax breaks for the middle and lower income folks:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
And even Alan Greenspan has lost faith in pure free market economics (and also realized Ayn Rand is dead... and a novelist):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/24/BUI513N8QM.DTL
And, comparing tax plans, there’s not a whole lot of difference, except McCain’s HUGE tax breaks for the wealthy, and Obama’s bigger (yet still moderate) tax breaks for the middle and lower income folks:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm
And even Alan Greenspan has lost faith in pure free market economics (and also realized Ayn Rand is dead... and a novelist):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/24/BUI513N8QM.DTL
On "Voter Fraud"
Everyone heard John McCain say in the last debate that ACORN
"is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."This is a pretty ridiculous statement, considering all ACORN is doing is registering people to vote. There are much greater threats to the "fabric of democracy" which result in actual votes being uncounted, such as voter suppression, faulty machines, not to mention the dreaded "hanging chads" type of issue. Thousands of registrations that don't quite match up to identity information may be discarded - because of things like one using a middle initial, and the other not, or transpositions, etc. Disenfranchisement, to my mind, is a much greater threat to democracy that some poor schmuck who wanted to make a few extra bucks off of registering voters turning in registrations for entire football teams and the like. ACORN itself flags suspicious registrations, but is required to turn them in. Because it is helping by turning in large numbers of flagged registrations, it is now a threat to democracy? I think not.
On the other hand, anonymous fliers posted in poor neighborhoods, warning people not to vote "for their own protection" (because they might be arrested for unpaid parking tickets, etc), constitutes voter suppression, and that IS a threat to democracy. Using foreclosure lists to deny those with a foreclosed home listed as their address the right to vote is also voter suppression, and was rightly discarded as a tactic recently. Who do you think those foreclosed upon homeowners and poor people in blighted neighborhoods are likely to vote for? The guy who wants to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy? I think not. None of them ever saw any good from "trickle down" economics before, and they don't expect to this time, either.
Donna Brazile again, on ACORN:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/27/brazile-acorn-issue-a-republican-hype/
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/27/brazile-acorn-issue-a-republican-hype/
Speaking of language used, McCain calling ACORN a "threat to democracy" is so over the top and ridiculous - a cynical tactic to enflame right wing fear, in my opinion. See my previous post on ACORN and how they, themselves, flag all suspicious registrations but are required to submit them. These so-called "fraudulent" registrations do not represent actual voters that will turn up at the polls - who's going to risk a 10 year jail sentence for a vote? Most are mistakes (people not sure they are registered, so they registered more than once), many are from over-zealous people registering voters - some just encouraging multiple registration (to be sure), and some trying to make extra money by turning in more registrations.
Slate has a great article from 2 weeks ago about this: Nuts About ACORN. They get to the heart of the matter in the second paragraph when they say,
I heard Jonah Goldman, of the non-partisan voting group National Campaign for Fair Elections, talking about this on NPR/Fresh Air yesterday – it was great to hear it being discussed rationally. There have been accusations of voter fraud on both sides, with the right wing targeting ACORN, a community activist voter registration organization, and the left shouting about voting machine conspiracies and voter suppression. Being on the left, I'm more worried about the latter, but they do have a voter hotline set up to help secure voters' rights on Nov. 4: 866 Our Vote.
"Evidence of voter-registration wrongdoing is no more a sign of widespread, Obama-sanctioned vote fraud than evidence of minorities being misled and intimidated on Election Day is a sign of official, McCain-sanctioned vote suppression. What's the real point of turning voter-registration shenanigans into "one of the greatest frauds in voter history"? The object here is not criminal indictments. It's to undermine voter confidence in the elections system as a whole. John McCain wants to build a better bogeyman, and he needs your help to do it."
I heard Jonah Goldman, of the non-partisan voting group National Campaign for Fair Elections, talking about this on NPR/Fresh Air yesterday – it was great to hear it being discussed rationally. There have been accusations of voter fraud on both sides, with the right wing targeting ACORN, a community activist voter registration organization, and the left shouting about voting machine conspiracies and voter suppression. Being on the left, I'm more worried about the latter, but they do have a voter hotline set up to help secure voters' rights on Nov. 4: 866 Our Vote.
And TerroristS
If you haven't read it yet, READ the article on Palin's language mentioned above, What Sarah Palin is Saying - it is very good. Notice she always says "terroristS," plural, when they are only talking about one guy, William Ayers (college professor, education reformer, on charitable boards funded by the conservative Annenberg with conservatives on the board, but Obama's "pallin' around" with him is equivalent to consorting with terrorists). And she also doesn't use the word "domestic" with terrorist - which heightens that sense of "other" and risk she wants to promulgate among her supporters. Her language is treachery, and I can only hope it does not lead people to take what they see as the law into their own hands at our country's great expense.
So, we know about Ayers, and we know about Palin and the Alaskan Secessionist party, and McCain and G. Gordon Liddy, who he is proud to call a friend, but what about those domestic terrorists near and dear to Ms. Palin's conservative fundamentalist anti-choice heart? Yes, I'm talking about those who bomb medical establishments where, among other things, abortions are performed, and kill or maim doctors, nurses, patients and bystanders in the process. What does Ms "Pallin' Around With Terrorists" think of them? Well, she sure couldn't bring herself to call them domestic terrorists:
Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-dont-even-know-what-to-say-anymore.html
Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-dont-even-know-what-to-say-anymore.html
There are good comments on this post as well! Two of my favorites:
A couple of things immediately come to mind...mainly from bumper stickers..."How can you be Pro-Life and Pro-War?" and "Against Abortion? Don't have one!" I still don't understand how the Republican party consistently, not only blends but, flaunts the overlap of church and state in everything they do. I think that it should be mandatory to read and understand the constitution and the bill of rights before being allowed to cast any votes for anyone on any issue or to run for office.
and, on another topic:
RE: mouse's comment about the media asking Palin tough questions about conservative issues...etc
1. She's totally unknown, so more questions are asked. And she's been in hiding from the media, so every interview is highly scrutinized.
2. The questions are asked because SHE goes there, and the natural follow up is "More information please?" I.e. "Oh, I get my world view from books and other media" the natural follow up would be "well, what specifically,"....It's her problem if she can't answer with ONE name of a newspaper. When SHE makes the claim that Obama is palling around with terrorists, it makes sense for a reporter to say "well, let's revisit the definition of a terrorist when you're talking about domestic bombings."
3. She's way more conservative than McCain, and she's unapologetically vocal about it, so the questions go there. Especially roe v. wade questions, something people want to know in light of the stats that a large majority of American do NOT want roe overturned.
Which brings me to another "-ism": Sexism
Conservatives are crying foul and sexism when the media asks Palin "tough questions" (like what magazines do you read - huh?). I think this is the opposite of sexism - a good candidate, male or female, should be able to answer tough questions, should be able to state their position clearly, should be able to back up their claims, and should be informed on the issues. That is the least we should expect! Palin is asked questions about ridiculous claims she's made, like she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is across the Bering Strait from Russia (huh?), and that she has stronger experience than Obama as mayor of a tiny town and governor for less than 2 years., and that Obama "pals around with terrorists," among others.
I also don't think it's sexist to talk about the $150,000 wardrobe budget, even though I do agree there IS a double standard when it comes to what is considered acceptable for men's and women's clothing. I don't care too much about it, but it's just a little inconsistent with the "Hockey Mom" and "Joe Six Pack" image she promotes, besides being 3 years' salary for many middle class voters. I mean, they could have found better deals, ya know? But, dang, she looks good, doesn't she? Yeah... um, conservatives with "I'm voting for the hot chick" buttons aren't sexist, though.
You know what I think is sexism? The cynical way the McCain campaign picked her for VP - it did a disservice to much better qualified women everywhere and smacks of tokenism and mere political strategy, hardly the "country first" rhetoric of the campaign. But don't take my word for it - I have links in previous posts from Gloria Steinem, NOW, and many other feminists who feel the same, some of them conservatives.
Satire: Great Moments in Election Year Blogging
I'd like to end with another kind of language: satire.
Warning: Satire worthy of his namesake!!
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/10/great-moments-in-election-year-blogging.html
(for those who may not know, Jonathan Swift was a great satirist, wrote Gulliver’s Travels as political satire, and also “A Modest Proposal” about how the solution to the Irish problem is to have them eat their young... He was the Stephen Colbert of his day. Jon Swift, the author of this blog, follows closely in those footsteps. As an example, I give you the author's first paragraph:
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/10/great-moments-in-election-year-blogging.html
(for those who may not know, Jonathan Swift was a great satirist, wrote Gulliver’s Travels as political satire, and also “A Modest Proposal” about how the solution to the Irish problem is to have them eat their young... He was the Stephen Colbert of his day. Jon Swift, the author of this blog, follows closely in those footsteps. As an example, I give you the author's first paragraph:
No matter what happens in this year’s election, the conservative blogosphere deserves to win a collective Pulitzer Prize for its election-year coverage. While the mainstream media has given Americans a very distorted picture of Barack Obama, portraying him as a thoughtful, intelligent, unflappable, decent family man who has the temperament and judgment to be President, the conservative blogosphere has been the only place where you can get the real story. Hampered by quaint, old-fashioned rules of journalism that require citing evidence and reputable sources, the mainstream media has failed to report a number of important stories about Obama and the conservative blogosphere has had to step up and do the media’s job for them. As a public service I have collected some of the most important of these stories in one place. Pulitzer Prize judges, take note!
Guffaw! But really, reading this is not for the faint of heart, or the high of blood pressure, or the easily outraged. In fact, I didn't read it all myself. I couldn't stand it. See if you can do better!
