Amy Siskind is a feminist who has in the past written positively of Sarah Palin, but in her latest commentary reveals that she doesn't "get" Gov. Palin at all:
Neither party is going to bestow their 2012 nomination on a woman simply because it is time to do this for our country. The Democratic National Committee had this opportunity in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was betrayed by the ever-present boys club. If voters want to get a woman into the White House, it is time to stop using a shoehorn and start using a sledgehammer.Following the links provided by the author in her original post, we see that her perception of Sarah Palin having "failed to endorse important women" of the GOP is based solely on the former governor's endorsement of Rick Perry over Kay Baily Hutchison in the Texas GOP gubernatorial primary. That Sarah Palin has endorsed and will campaign for Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) -- who last time we checked was very much a woman -- doesn't seem to have been a factor in Ms. Siskind's reasoning at all. Nor does the fact that Hutchison lost the Texas primary primarily because she was never able to explain either why she was running for governor or why voters should have chosen her over Perry.
Sarah Palin alone can wield this tool. Having resigned as governor, she no longer answers to the Republican National Committee. In fact, as the de facto leader of the up-and-coming Tea Party movement, the Republican Party answers to her. That is, if the Republicans hope to avoid what Dan Quayle describes as letting the Tea Party go Perot. If they hope to pull off a victory in 2012, they need Palin. And if Palin wants the White House, she needs to earn the votes of the disenfranchised women.
Yet it is unclear whether Sarah Palin will rise and capitalize on women’s sentiments. Since her re-emergence on the public scene, she has done little to show herself as a woman who will stand up for women, as a self-described feminist in Going Rogue.
Palin has failed to endorse important women of the Republican Party, and is actively supporting numerous challengers to Democratic women incumbents. She has become outspoken in her antiabortion views, turning away from what was a key factor in making her one of the country’s most popular governors and the de facto leader of the Tea Party: letting the people decide.
Ms. Siskind also criticizes Gov. Palin for "actively supporting numerous challengers to Democratic women incumbents." Well, excuse us for pointing out the obvious, but why should a mostly conservative Republican such as Sarah Palin not campaign against mostly liberal Democrats? File that one in the folder marked "Well, duh!"
The author also laments that Gov. Palin "has become outspoken in her antiabortion views," as if this is some recent turn of events. Sarah Palin has always been pro-life. She was pro-life as governor of Alaska, and she wasn't shy even as a candidate for mayor to let that fact be known. While it is true that she became an even more outspoken as an advocate for life after the birth of her youngest child, Trig, who has Down syndrome, that happened well before Amy Siskind ever wrote her first word about Sarah Palin.
Truth be told, Amy Siskind wants Sarah Palin to support female politicians simply because of their gender, with no weight given to the political philosophy which guides them. In the Siskind view, no other factor has any relevance. Sarah Palin is simply not as one-dimensional as is Ms. Siskind, a fact of life that the author can't seem to come to terms with.
Yes, it is indeed high time for our nation to elect a woman to the presidency, but not just because she is a woman. To vote for a woman simply based on gender is as wrong as voting for a person on the basis of race, even though it has also long been time for our nation to elect a president who happens to be a member of an ethnic minority. That so many people voted for Barack Obama for no reason other than his ethnicity has saddled our nation with a radically left-leaning administration which has been woefully ineffective in dealing with the problems that are hurting so many American families. One would think that someone as seemingly bright as Amy Siskind would have learned something from that lesson, but such is apparently not the case.
- JP
If she is running for President, she has to be the Madame President for USA. It not because she is a women, she will win because she has the character, intelligent and courage to run as the next President 2012. This 2012 elections are not about a party, gender, race or even some social ideas, is about the Liberty USA!
ReplyDeleteThe New Agenda, an organization that Siskind founded, is all about supporting women. They are the one "feminist" organization that has supported Sarah through all of the sexist attacks. However, they play into identity politics way too much! Sarah is about principles, not a specific demographic. Siskind doesn't understand how when Sarah speaks about being pro-life, it's about empowering women. When she speaks about limited government, it's about helping female owned small business. Conservative politics knows no gender constraints.
ReplyDeleteSarah has proved consistently that, on the abortion issue, she can be unapologetically pro-life yet also let states decide--to their own glory or to their own ignominy.
ReplyDeleteFor those of us who are proud to have a working intellect and who are, like Sarah, adamantly pro-life, Palin represents common sense in this regard as well as she does in others. I see her growing stronger as a leader. I see, in her and others, some way out of this socialist abyss.
I see what Siskind thinks of Sarah Palin. To wit, Palin should be more like Siskind.
ReplyDeleteSiskind is a hyperpartisan whose litmus test is simply sex. She does at least acknowledge that her views are extreme when she confirms voters have their own their views: "If voters want to get a woman into the White House...."
More telling I suppose would be Siskind's context. What does she think of Pelosi, Boxer, Waters, Sotomayor? We already see that she thinks Clinton was "betrayed", not 'out-maneuvered' nor 'marginalized' nor 'race-carded'.
Siskind asserts Palin is in control of the Tea Parties, and therefore the Republican Party. Yeah, right. Division is the route to success. Not.
Siskind is a lousy politician, clearly. She highlights Palin's speeches to pro-life groups, yet seemingly doesn't notice the other venues and other groups -- Forest Products Convention in Redding, indeed.
Siskind is in the forest, but she sees just one kind of tree. She is, frankly, lost.