The media have told us for years how America is so horrrrribly prejudiced against women, especially when it comes to achieving high positions. They've pointed out and bemoaned the "glass ceiling" while dismissing the exceptions as too few to matter. (I guess it only counts if we get there via quota?)
Now along comes Sarah Palin.
It's a funny thing about any candidate who is a member of a party the media dislike: it gives us a magic window into how they really feel (and/or think, though "thinking" is increasingly rare in journalism) about whatever other categories to which the candidate may be deemed to fit. Thus was Ron Paul portrayed as a mere clueless geek, Mitt Romney as -- oh shock awfulness -- a Mormon (probably with an extra wife or two in the basement) and John McCain as a ranting dodderer, and they were and are, as far as the legacy media are concerned, fair game. Old people, members of religions seen as non-mainstream and people who read and attempt to apply the fine print? Big Media thinks you're a joke. At best.
So their reaction to Governor Palin gives us a peek behind the facade at how they view women and their place in the world, and what they're saying between every line is simple: "Get your dim little self back in the kitchen, sweetie, and leave the Real Work to the menfolk."
The Washington Post's recent endorsement of the junior (and still very green) Senator from Illinois coupled with an attack on Sarah Palin as "inexperienced and not ready to lead" is one of the clearest and most recent examples: the Democrats run an inexperienced man for the top spot? Okayfine with the Post! It's hunky and dory, filled with glory! The GOP runs a female newcomer to the national stage for the number two position? Oh, noes!!!!! Post says Do Not Want, grimacing in revulsion.
We should probably thank our lucky stars the Republicans didn't run Condoleezza Rice. I'd just as soon not find out the dinosaur media's real feelings about race.
Vote against prejudice (and give the Irish bookie who already paid out on U. S. Presidential bets a very bad day). Remember, your Mom's watchin'!
As hard as they've been reaching lately someone's gonna pull a muscle.
ReplyDeleteGov. Palin is the only one on either ticket with experience in the executive branch of government.
ReplyDeleteOrganized labor, as usual, has lined up behind the Democratic ticket. Yet Todd Palin is a member of the largest industrial union in the country, the United Steelworkers. Gov. Palin lives in a union household, something one never hears mentioned by the news media.
The Democratic Party has taken labor support for granted all these years. Obama has talked about how he's going to "unilaterally reneogiate" NAFTA in behalf of organized labor. President Bill Clinton made NAFTA a "legislative priority" and it was passed when Democrats controlled both the Senate and House before 1995.
The news media makes no mention of how Obama's regressive tax policies and ill-planned, government-ran, health insurance program will cause more jobs to go offshore. Journalists aren't economists. The endorsements they make aren't supported by fact--they're totally subjective.
Feelings, nothing more than feelings.
"The Washington Post's recent endorsement of the junior (and still very green) Senator from Illinois..."
ReplyDeleteUh-oh, is that a racist code word?
"I'd just as soon not find out the dinosaur media's real feelings about race."
ReplyDeleteWe already know them. Just remember how they tried to destroy Clarence Thomas.
They also have a very limited vocabulary too cuse they are missing a couple of words which are pertinent to this election.
ReplyDeleteSocialist
Black Liberation Theology
scooter
The New York Times in 1984 endorsed Geraldine Ferraro for Vice President. Part of their reasoning was that, even though Ferraro was light on experience, presidential candidates had, in the past, selected male running mates in order to balance the ticket ideologically or geographically, etc. And it was only fair, the NYT continued, that the same opportunities be offered to female candidates, too.
ReplyDeleteWell!
Since Palin was nominated, there have been no fewer than three anti-Palin articles on the NYT website, sometimes four or even five: uncomplimentary news articles, harshly critical editorials, and op-eds from the five horse-persons of the apocalypse (Dowd, Rich, Brooks, Friedman and Krugman).
I don't think the NYT ever spent that much ink on Hitler and Mussolini put together.
This is merely echoes of the same folks who shrugged off any women who accused Clinton of sexual misconduct because he was their boy. They showed that they were not, in fact, so committed to ending sexual harrassment.
ReplyDeleteI do love the fact that there must be a lot of women who identify with Sarah Palin who are offended at the way she has been treated so shoddily. Same with Joe the Plumber-- the media and the left are showing in what utter contempt they hold we mere mortal schlubs who keep the gears turning in this great nation of ours. I'm hoping this maltreatment of Palin bites the left and the media establishment in the ass, as it should.
But I'm not holding my breath, either.
The democratic party has long been a socialist dominated party. How many socialist countries recognise anybodies rights let alone women? Unles they are insiders and party members from early on. Then only at the pleasure of who ever has the bullets.
ReplyDeleteSocialism is on the march and the fix is in.