"I don't know where he's getting all of this," she complained,"we never discussed any of this in high school." One might have let the matter rest here as simply an example of a high school history teacher's sins of omission being visited on the hapless old history prof. had the student not informed the TA in an indignant postcript, " I'm not a Democrat! I don't think I should have to listen to this stuff!"
Given the current student and,in some places, administrative, pressures to put absolutely everything-- notes, study guides, all potential exam questions and answers, etc.-- on the Web, I can envision the day when the Web pages for our classes might read: " In order to insure that the professor's lectures will not offend your political sensibilities or challenge any of your other beliefs and perceptions in any way, please indicate by clicking the appropriate box below whether you prefer the Republican or Democratic version of this course."
Jim Cobb
University of Georgia
On their way to blaming the South for the whole country’s shift to the right, liberal pundits have overlooked the fact that when the Republicans swept the South in the 1980s, they swept the nation as well. What may have begun as their “southern strategy” turned out to be a pretty nifty national strategy as well. In my perhaps-not-humble-enough- opinion, the “Republicanus Interruptus” of the Clinton era was no more the result of Clinton’s ability to convince some southern whites that he was more conservative than his Yankee colleagues than of his success in persuading some northern white voters of the same thing. Needless to say, I certainly agree with Ralph that the Republicans can continue to win in national elections without the South until the cows come home. They won’t have to, of course, so long as the Demos continue to impose a comprehensive ideological litmus test on prospective supporters. Remember the eruption of blue-state outrage when Howard Dean suggested that his party actually needed the support of folks who sport Confederate flag decals on their pickups? More recently, as Ralph points out,
Kevin Drum agonizes over this issue as well:
“Most of the time I think that of course we need to contest the South: it's just too big to cede without a fight. But then I begin to think about abortion. And gay rights. And separation of church and state. And racial equality. And labor rights.
And I just give up. Given the way the majority of southerners think about this stuff, how can we win regularly in the South without completely selling our souls?”
There’s a formula for political victory if I’ve ever heard it: “Let’s focus on where we disagree.” My recipe for the Democrats in the South may not be any better, but I believe there is real traction on the issue of the working poor, who abound in all colors throughout the South. Continued Republican opposition to raising the minimum wage is both unconscionable and impossible to dodge. This is not about welfare or even unemployment assistance. It’s about people who are clearly doing their best to provide for themselves and their families and simply can’t do it on wages that are totally out of line with their productivity and the profits it generates. The race issue has been manipulated throughout southern history to thwart the politics of economic interest, and the Republicans may well trot out that tactic again, and it may work again. Even so, focusing on the plight of the working poor would at least give the Democrats a chance to be Democrats again while appealing to a constituency they clearly need and one that just as clearly needs them.
The fifth anniversary of 9/11 is clearly tailor-made for"W"'s shameless fearmongering. Yesterday's visit to Ground Zero reminded him that “there’s still an enemy out there that would like to inflict the same kind of damage again.” With the Bush people running around telling folks that we should support them because we are no freer from fear than we were five years ago, it seems appropriate to dust off this piece that appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Sept. 12, 2001:
"Americans Left to Fear Unseen Enemy"
On January 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt promised to forge"a world founded upon four essential freedoms." In addition to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from want, there was"freedom from fear," which in Roosevelt’s view meant"a worldwide reduction of armaments" so that"no nation will be in a position to commit an act of aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world." Rather than securing freedom from fear, however, our victory in World War II soon dissolved into a nuclear arms race fueled by the Cold War.
The generation that spent portions of their childhoods practicing for direct nuclear hits on their elementary schools by putting their heads under their desks or had its adolescence punctuated by the sheer terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis can hardly look back with much nostalgia on that era. Yet, even as the Cold War ended and we breathed a collective sigh of relief at the diminished likelihood of a global nuclear holocaust, we were already slipping into a new era of fear and uncertainty, one in which the enemy could be internal, as well as external, and essentially invisible to boot, one in which extravagant defense budgets and massive missile stockpiles count for less than the ruthless and calculated fanaticism of relatively small numbers of unseen and often unknown enemies.
Regardless of whether Tuesday’s death total exceeds that of Pearl Harbor, one of these terrifying new enemies made September 11, 2001, a day that would live not only in infamy, but in irony as well. As president, George Bush, Sr., sought to take credit for the end of the Cold War and promised to create a new world order. Yesterday, he saw another president named Bush forced into hiding in an underground bunker. Our inability to protect even the Pentagon and perhaps even the White House or the Capitol served chilling notice that, when all is said and done, Osama Bin Laden can get closer to George W. Bush, Jr., than the latter, for all his resources, can get to him.
The hysterical reporters and the scenes of genuine public panic in New York seemed more the stuff of B-movies or a TV mini-series than that of live"as-we-speak" reality. Obviously, we are stunned by the apparent ease with which planes at major airports could be hijacked and used to demolish what should have been a tightly secured potential terrorist target. Yet, neither our shock or our dismay at the paralyzing fallout of this atrocity at all the nation’s airports and in its major cities defines the true significance of yesterday’s horrors. That significance lies in the capacity of an unseen enemy to make not just the residents of New York or Washington, D.C., afraid, but to implant that fear into the hearts of millions of Americans who have never been (and probably never intend to be) near either New York City or a major airport.
This reality came through to me in a number of ways, including the cancellation of classes at the University of Georgia and the anxious investigation of a"suspicious" van parked near the federal building in Athens. However, it was local reaction here in Hart County to yesterday’s horrors that I found most enlightening however. Our local radio station, WKLY,"The Voice of the Upper Savannah River," largely suspended its regular programming (save, of course, for the obituaries and mid-day devotional) and broadcast the programming of WGST and the Georgia News Network. The mayor of Hartwell, a woman of Lebanese extraction and Episcopal faith, urged citizens to offer their prayers for the victims and their families"in their own tradition." To that end, churches in town and throughout the county opened their doors to the prayerful. Yet, for all the sincere expressions of grief and compassion for the victims and their families that were uttered in Hart County yesterday, I feel certain that explicitly or not, those prayers also embodied a personal plea for the freedom from fear that, despite our victories in World War II and the Cold War, seems more elusive now than it did when Roosevelt promised to pursue it sixty years ago.
PS. For a truly balanced assessment of Bush's response to 9/11 five years out check out The Economist, which is particularly criticial of"the idea that it is the West and its values that are everywhere under attack, and everywhere by the same seamless front of what Mr Bush has taken to calling “Islamic fascism”, as if this conflict is akin to the second world war or the cold war against communism."
His senior year he made all A’s and B’s. It nearly killed him, but he did it. The Briarcrest academic marathon, in which Michael started out a distant last and had instantly fallen farther behind, came to a surprising end: in a class of 157 students, he finished 154th. He had caught up to and passed three of his classmates. When[former Ole Miss basketballer] Sean [Tuohy] saw the final report card, he turned to Michael with a straight face and said, “You didn’t lose; you just ran out of time.”
He had had a truly bizarre academic career: nothing but D’s and F’s until the end of his junior year, when all of a sudden he became a reliable member of Briarcrest’s honor roll. He was going to finish with a grade-point average of 2.05. Amazing as that was, however, it wasn’t enough to get him past the N.C.A.A. He needed a 2.65. And with no more classes to take, he obviously would not get it.
Now it was Sean’s turn to intervene.
From a friend, Sean learned about the Internet courses offered by Brigham Young University. The B.Y.U. courses had magical properties: a grade took a mere 10 days to obtain and could be used to replace a grade from an entire semester on a high-school transcript. Pick the courses shrewdly and work quickly, and the most tawdry academic record could be renovated in a single summer. Sean scanned the B.Y.U. catalog and found a promising series. It was called “Character Education.” All you had to do in such a “character course” was to read a few brief passages from famous works — a speech by Lou Gehrig here, a letter by Abraham Lincoln there — and then answer five questions about it. How hard could it be? The A’s earned from character courses could be used to replace F’s earned in high-school English classes. And Michael never needed to leave the house!
Thus began the great Mormon grade-grab. Mainly it involved [advisor]Sue Mitchell grinding through the character courses with Michael. Every week or so, they replaced a Memphis public school F with an A from B.Y.U. Every assignment needed to be read aloud and decoded. Here he was, late in his senior year in high school, and he had never heard of a right angle or the Civil War or “I Love Lucy.” But getting the grades was far easier than generating in Michael any sort of pleasure in learning. When Briarcrest gave him a list of choices of books to write a report on, Mitchell, thinking it might spark Michael’s interest, picked “Great Expectations.” “Because of the character of Pip,” she says. “He was poor and an orphan. And someone sort of found him. I just thought Michael might be able to relate.” He couldn’t. She tried “Pygmalion.” Again, he hadn’t the faintest interest in the thing. They got through it by performing the work aloud, with Michael assigned to the role of Freddie. “He does wonderful memory work,” Mitchell says. “It’s a survival technique. You can give him anything, and he’ll memorize it.” But that’s all he did. Engaging with the material in any deeper way seemed impossible. He was as isolated from the great works of Western literature as he was from other people. “If you asked him why we’re doing all this,” she says, “he’d say, ‘I got to do it to get to the [National Football] league.”’
As the article indicates, with a tremendous amount of love and support, Michael accomplished a great deal. However, although he and those who helped him deserve tremendous credit, when he faced the final obstacle to his admission to the University of Mississippi, instead of overcoming it, he was not only allowed to but encouraged to go around it. One might well argue that the final verdict in the case lies in Michael's classroom performance at Ole Miss. However, continuing evidence of widespread willingness to help college athletes beat the academic system surely justify concerns that Michael may get through college the same way he got in.
Citing Democratic congressional gains outside the South since 2004, Schaller sees an opportunity for the Dems to"build a national majority" that would enable them to call off their courtship of"an encircled and no longer triumphant Southern minority." Here Schaller seems largely to overlook southern blacks,who are consistently the nation's most ardently Democratic voters, but under his strategy of writing off the South, would become a truly"encircled minority." No matter how you slice it, having a sympathetic congressional ear in Indiana isn't the same as having one who knows firsthand what going on in Georgia or Alabama. Not only has Schaller's perception of newfound Democratic strength yet to be validated in a presidential race, but two years of Democratic control on Captiol Hill will give us a much better idea of how permanent the party's congressional gains really are. If you are a certifiable glutton for punishment, you can read an expanded version of this post over at Cobbloviate.
Consider this anecdote from a former Israeli cabinet memberconcerning the construction of “Jewish only” roads in Palestine:
Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night — all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated, and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away.
"Why?" I asked the soldier.
"It's an order. This is a Jews-only road," he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it.
His answer was nothing short of amazing."It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here, and let some anti-Semitic reporter or journalist take a photo, so he then can show the world that apartheid exists here?”
Few scholars would dispute the distinguished historian Neil McMillen’s observation that Mississippi was once ”the heartland of American apartheid.” It may seem a bit of a stretch to suggest a connection between Mississippi under Jim Crow and Palestine under Israeli control, but as McMillen notes, ”early in the automobile age… some communities arbitrarily denied black motorist access to public streets. Many towns informally restricted parking to whites on principal thoroughfares. For a time following World War I, Jackson’s Capitol Street, portions of Greenwood, the entire city of Laurel and doubtless all or parts of many other communities were known to be open only to white motor traffic. None of these proscriptions were matters of law and they varied considerably from one place to another." As a black educator put it, ”every town had its own mores, its own unwritten restrictions… The trick was to find out from local [black] people what the ‘rules’ were.” In other words, for a black traveler in Mississippi just as for a Palestinian traveler in Palestine, it was “his responsibility to know it.”
It would be foolish, of course, to argue that life for Palestinians in contemporary Palestine is generally comparable to life for black Mississippians in the Jim Crow era. However, if apartheid is defined to include “using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups,” there is more than ample evidence of it in both contexts. More accurately, perhaps, we might conclude that both situations suggest, as many historians of segregation in the American South have shown, the law itself is often of little import, either as an expression of the will of the powerful or as a protection against it, in a society where the dominant group is so dominant that it can demand adherence to its preferences and whims merely as a matter of custom and practice.
“JL” (no periods) Strickland, hails from down in “the Valley,” an area on The Alabama –Georgia line once known for its heavy concentration of textile mills. JL describes himself as an:
“Unemployed geezer, frustrated writer, forced into early retirement when the cotton mill where I worked closed and went to China. “
JL is "prolific commentator" who would doubtless slap anyone who called him a “pundit.” My friend Hardy Jackson thinks JL represents “the voice of the people. Or at least a whole lot of them.” I’d like to think so, but, I know one thing, he not only speaks for me, but a lot better than I could do it myself.
To the Editor:
A recent writer to this page suggested that critics of the Iraq War were "unbalanced." I beg to differ -- it was unbalanced people who got us into this stupid conflict. And anyone who continues to support this moronic blunder could themselves benefit from therapy.
There's no danger of this war's instigators going "nuts." They've been nuts from the get-go.
And don't bother saying that opposing the war is not supporting the troops. How is it supporting the troops by leaving them in that meat grinder? Whatever our strategy is now, there will be no good conclusion to this war. Even if you drive off a really high cliff, sooner or later, there will be a nasty end to your trip.
Before our goofy frat-boy president started calling for it, did you ever hear anybody say they wanted to spend our lives, limbs and treasure bringing democracy to Iraq? Did it ever cross your mind, or anyone's you know? I didn't think so.
Iraq is not worth one pinprick of American blood. There has been a civilization in that area for thousands of years. People thereabouts have had ample time to choose democracy for themselves, if they were so inclined. After all, their ancestors were contemporaries with the Greeks who created the concept of democracy.
Iraqis have been involved in a religious blood feud between Shiites and Sunnis for 1600 years. They relish slaughtering each other, and have gotten quite good at it. They even get bonus points for blowing up the other side's women and children. Talk about unbalanced.
While it is not unheard of for our various home-grown denominations to cast vile, nasty slurs at each other, American faithful don't practice murderous hatred to this degree. One local church group who appears on Cable Channel 3 says that 28,000 Chattahootians are going to hell because we are not kneeling at their particular altar. This is drastic, but at least they are not killing us early so we'll get to hell ahead of schedule.
For whatever reason, Junior Bush took our righteous outrage over 9/11 and bent it to his foolish will, so the Army ended up in Iraq, instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan. He let the Taliban off the hook and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape unharmed into Pakistan, which ironically, is now home to the weaving jobs that left Fairfax Mill.
(I'll give the Pakistanis a work tip: they'll never run production on a stand of looms if they stop five times a day to pray. They'll have to pray and eat on the run like we old Martexans did.)
Every day that Osama lives adds another bloody log on the roaring bonfire of Bush's failure. It's a pity that Bush and bin Laden couldn't meet somewhere and have a televised smirk-off on the Fox Network. (Besides, I don't believe for a second the government doesn't know the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Once, I owed the IRS eleven bucks and they didn't have a lick of trouble finding me.)
At this point how could anyone believe Bush's new strategy will make any difference? He's been wrong about everything else: wrong about WMD's, wrong about our reception by the Iraqi people, wrong about the length of the war, the cost, the casualties and the reaction of Iraq's neighbors.
The Congress-- Republicans and Democrats - have let us down, and even worse, let the troops down by throwing them in the middle of a centuries old throat-cutting rivalry. Happily, the delusional wing of the Republican Party seems to be shrinking. Hopefully, their number will soon be so small they'll fit on the short bus where they belong.
Maybe then, Congress can stop arguing about such nonsense as the size of Speaker Pelosi's airplane and get down to the nation's more pressing business. The Democrats have been in charge for months now and they haven't even changed the snacks in the congressional vending machines.
There's no question who's really running the show in Washington. The vice-president led us into this war, with Dubya riding him piggyback like a dim-witted little brother. It is high time Congress told them both "playtime's over."
Surely, there's a mind somewhere who can create an effective plan to combat Islamic terrorism, for this is a threat that will probably be with us a long, long time. I seriously doubt that person's name is Bush or Cheney.
If these two tricksters don't deserve impeachment, no one ever will.
JL Strickland, Linthead Emeritus,
Huguley Bohemian Quarter
Just when I thought I was making a little headway in convincing white folks down this way that we lost the war and it’s time to move on, here comes a Newsweek piece by Michael Hirsh that’s likely to undo all my good work:
In the summer of 1863, Robert E. Lee led an ill-advised incursion into Pennsylvania. His army was defeated at Gettysburg, and thence afterward Lee beat a fighting retreat until the South lost the Civil War. One hundred and forty-five years later, the South--or what has become the South-Southwest--has won another kind of Civil War. It has transformed the sensibility of the country. It is setting the agenda for our political, social and religious mores--in Pennsylvania and everywhere else. Allright! Up to now, I’d been totally stumped as to how Barack Obama got 43 percent of the white vote in the Georgia primary—with John Edwards still in the race—but only 37 percent in Pennsylvania. Now that I think about it, I wouldn’t be surprised if this could be traced to back to Gettysburg and a mighty clever plan—for southerners, at least—whereby the Rebs would push into Pa. and pretend to be defeated while trained infiltrators would slip quietly from the retreating ranks and begin the subtle program of brainwashing that, a century and a half later, culminated in one in six white Democratic voters in the state’s 2008 primary saying “race matters” to them when they pick a candidate.
These Confederate subversives have not confined their nefarious activities to the Keystone State or to politics, however. Upon reading that an American Idol contestant was bumped after singing the provocative title song from “Jesus Christ Superstar,” Hirsh saw immediately that southern nativism and yahooism have clearly overwhelmed northern eagerness for the new and openness to innovation--art, or at least high craft; In a warp-speed history lesson, Hirsh explains that the radical nationalism; that has so dominated the nation's discourse since 9/11 traces its origins to the demographic makeup and mores of the South and much of the West and Southern Midwest--in other words, what we know today as Red State America. According to Hirsh, RSA was settled by fiercely combative Scots-Irish immigrants who, after whipping up on the Celtic Catholics in Northern Ireland, came over here and fought off the Indians, rallied behind frontier ruffian Andrew Jackson, and clung thereafter to a rather savage, unsophisticated set of mores that was traditionally balanced by a more diplomatic, communitarian Yankee sensibility from the Northeast and upper Midwest. Alas, as of late that latter sensibility has been losing ground in population numbers--and cultural weight.
Hirsh eschews the argument that the final groundwork for the South’s ruinous political and cultural takeover was laid by self-exiled Crackers who flocked to job-rich northern industrial cities during and after World War II, and despite being the nation’s most reviled and ridiculed non-immigrant whites of their era, managed somehow to imbue more rational, better educated northern whites with their peculiarly depraved racial and religious sensibilities. However, he does quote yet another in a seemingly inexhaustible stream of books bemoaning the so-called Southernization of America to the effect that the nation's population center has been 'moving south and west at a rate of three feet an hour, five miles a year.' I must confess that, until reading Hirsh, I couldn’t quite comprehend how our country’s supposedly recent turn to the right could be attributed to the South’s population growth when so much of that growth came courtesy of whites who were abandoning the ostensibly liberal and enlightened North. For the life of me, I couldn’t understand why these folks turned so suddenly and rabidly conservative once they got here. Is there something in the water, I wondered, in anti-gay, pro-gun, pro-creationist Cobb County, Georgia, where nearly 40 percent of the population comes from outside the state? Thanks to Hirsh, I now understand that these relocating right-wing Yankees had obviously already been “southernized” before they got here. Why else would they have come in the first place, right?
To Hirsh, the extent and severe consequences of South over North are readily apparent and beyond question: The coarsened sensibility that this now-dominant Southernism and frontierism has brought to our national dialogue is unmistakable. We must endure 'lapel-pin politics' that elevates the shallowest sort of faux jingoism over who's got a better plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. Note to Hirsh: Take a close look before jumping to conclusions about which flag is more popular in lapels down this way. We have re-imported creationism into our political dialogue in the form of intelligent design OK. I see. It’s actually an outbreak of “Southernism” that’s the matter with Kansas. Hillary Clinton panders shamelessly to Roman Catholics, who have allied with Southern Protestant evangelicals on questions of morality, with anti-abortionism serving as the main bridge. I can’t believe this was happening right under my nose. I clearly missed the strong spiritual bond between the RC’s and their natural allies, the Southern Baptists. Hirsh doesn’t mention it, but I‘ll bet this affinity for Roman Catholics is particularly strong among black southern Protestants, who consistently show the strongest opposition to abortion, gay marriage, etc. On foreign policy, the realism and internationalism of the Eastern elitist tradition once kept the Southern-frontier warrior culture and Wilsonian messianism in check. Now the latter two, in toxic combination, have taken over our national dialogue, and the Easterners are running for the hills. And here I’d thought all along that the Ivy League JFK retreads like Bobby McNamara and McGeorge Bundy were generally encouraging LBJ to jump right in on Vietnam while his southern buddy Dick Russell was trying to convince him to stay out.
If one is not thoroughly convinced by the depth of Hirsh’s analysis and the strength of his logic at this point, there is our man, “W,” the absolute embodiment of nationally ascendant Southernism. In Bush, Hirsh finds little trace left of the Eastern WASP sensibility into which he was born and educated, and which explains so much of his father's far more moderate presidency. The younger Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, but he rebelled against the ethos he learned there. (Drat! ol’ W. was probably on his way to becoming John Kerry until that scurrilous bunch of southernizers who so frequently prey on unsuspecting graduates of Harvard and Yale pulled the Confederate flag over his eyes.) The transformation is complete, right down to the Texas accent that no one else in his family seems to have. Bush is a Jacksonian pod person. Insofar as a “pod person” is either an “impostor” or “someone who mindlessly goes along with the official dogma or party line,” Hirsh has flat-out nailed our current prez, but even the most adamant Jacksonophobe would cringe at this monumental injustice to “Ol’ Hickory.”
All seriousness aside, the biggest problem I have with Hirsh’s piece is not his condescending, stereotypical treatment of the South, but the facile, arrogantly ignorant outrages against history that he commits in the course of concocting a version of both past and present that absolves him and his crowd of any responsibility for the current state of national affairs. To be perfectly honest, when I first read the thing, I actually thought it was a spoof of a northeastern elitist’s view of America. The second time through, however, I realized that, instead of having his tongue placed firmly against one side of his mouth, the writer apparently had his entire head wedged between two more remotely situated cheeks.
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religion Liberties Commission gushed that Palin is "straight out of veep central casting." Land even claimed he urged the McCainiacs s to give her a look-see. This is interesting since Palin's church, the Assemblies of God, ordains women as ministers while the SBC does not. In fact, when the group’s annual conclave declared in 2000 that "while both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture," it was Land himself who explained "We, as Baptists, are people of the Book. . . . Most Christian traditions, in most places, in most of the centuries of the Christian faith, have understood that the office of pastor is to be filled by a man."
Just in case you might be thinking that the SBC’s stance on women in the pulpit applies only to the affairs of the church and not the affairs of the world, take a gander at the more far-ranging 1984 resolution on which the 2000 statement is based: “While Paul commends women and men alike in other roles of ministry and service (Titus 2:1-10), he excludes women from pastoral leadership (1 Tim. 2:12) to preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall (1 Tim. 2:13ff).” If you require further evidence of how extensively some Southern Baptists use weak-willed ol’ Eve’s taking the first bite of the apple to justify the proverbial glass ceiling, how about the response of Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Ft. Worth (and former Southern Baptist Convention president) to a lawsuit challenging his institution’s policy against women teaching theology to men? “ This,” Patterson insisted, “is not a question of occupation. It is a question of an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men."
Richard Land’s professed eagerness to position someone whom he would not allow to take the pulpit in his church only a prune pit in the windpipe away from the most powerful position in the world is all too typical of the hypocritical and reckless political opportunism of the Religious Right’s main mouthpieces.
But what about the rank and file of the SBC flock? Out of roughly seventeen million Southern Baptists, how many are actually sincerely inclined to think St. Paul trumps a not-so-saintly John the non-Baptist? Palin’s stand against abortion may prove a mitigating factor here, but if I am to believe that Hillary Clinton’s gender undercut her effort to win her party’s nod, I don’t feel I am going too far out on a limb to suggest that whether it’s rooted in religious doctrine or simply in plain pure-tee ol’ meanness and ignorance, there’s probably at least as much sexism afoot among the Repubs as among the Dems. Although the McCain camp obviously thought choosing Palin might win over some of the still seriously chapped off Hillary women, this bunch generally seems madder now at McCain than Obama because they are insulted by the GOP strategists’ apparent presumption that their votes could be secured simply by picking a running mate—any running mate, even an anti-abortion one—of the female persuasion. So far, it seems to me that the women who are genuinely enthusiastic about Palin are mostly GOP conservatives who had heretofore been lukewarm at best about Johnny Mac. At this point, instead of hurling the stones that would be filling the air if a high-profile Demo daughter had turned up preggers, the “Jesus-Loves-Me-But –He-Can’t –Stand-You” crowd is showering the scandal and rumor-beset Guv with the understanding and forgiveness they reserve exclusively for themselves. Ironically, however, if the shoes keep on droppin’ in Juneau and Wasilla, and McCain winds up accepting “with deepest regret” her entirely voluntary decision to step aside in the interest of party and country, his new girlfriends on his right will suddenly be on his back and at his throat.
This post expands on parts of an earlier one at http://cobbloviate.com
"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper before his marriage habitually practiced celibacy."
I thought of this oft-told story when I read that, having failed utterly to come up with anything of substantive positive appeal to voters, the McCain campaign is predictably returning to its old strategy of trying to make Barack Obama out as a sinister America-hating radical.
To that end, on Saturday, the perky pit bull Governor P. is even going so far as to admit that she has read the New York Times, or at least one of its stories showing that Barry O. loves to hang out with “domestic terrorists.” Ms. P. is referring, of course, to the now somewhat long-in-the-tooth William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground group that carried out a series of bombings in the early ‘70s. (Never mind that B.O. was only ten years old back then, can anybody be sure what he was really up to when he claimed to be watching “Scooby-Doo?”) As countless news outlets have have reported, a grown-up Obama has denounced the bombings, and his primary association with Ayers came through their joint service on a charity board. Still, there’s enough there to convince at least one no-nonsense hockey mom that the guy heading the other ticket ``is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.''
Although she is better known for blasting away at moose, Palin is likely just as comfortable witch-hunting, given that she has been blessed with protection from witchcraft, as documented in a video that, for some reason GOP types don’t seem to enjoy as much as a certain other tape from their opponent’s church. Of that second video Palin observed to Bill Kristol, who is one the few elite conservatives still trying to convince us that he actually takes her seriously: “Those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character.”
What then, pray tell us Sarah P., did it say about your character, when, scarcely a month ago, you sat perfectly still in your pew while Jews for Jesus founder David Brickner stood in your church and described a July Palestinian bulldozer attack against Israeli civilians as part of God's"judgment" against them for rejecting the Messiah?
While we’re at it, we might also advise the stone chunkin’ Ms. Palin not to forget the glass house surrounding her longstanding cozy relationship with the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party, whose website quotes this rather startling assertion from party founder Joe Vogler:
"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
If that doesn’t get your attention, get a load of this from a taped oral history interview on file at the University of Alaska: “the fires of Hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag.” (Who knows? Maybe Jeremiah Wright has just been channeling this guy.)
Although Alaska’s “First Dude” Todd Palin was apparently an AIP member for seven years, there’s no evidence that the CEO herself ever officially signed up with this bunch of lunatics. Yet knowing full well that the group continues to push for a vote on secession, the good Guv addressed their convention a few months ago via videotape and urged them to “keep up the good work.”
Unfortunately, even well-documented right-wing radicalism has never scared as many Americans as the mere hint of such activities on the left. And, by the way, George Smathers beat Claude Pepper in 1950 and served in the Senate until 1968, distinguishing himself primarily by voting against every major piece of civil rights legislation and staking his claim as, save only for his womanizing pal John F. Kennedy, the least celibate married politician in Washington.
Sarah Palin probably wouldn’t approve of his lifestyle, but she clearly isn’t above his political style. It remains to be seen whether her act is playing anywhere other than the dark red enclaves to which she has been protectively consigned, but judging by what we’ve seen so far,if Ms. Palin intends to drop the lame references to Harry Truman and latch on to George Smathers as her role model, somebody better rush out and buy her the biggest thesaurus they can find.
(Cross-posted at http://cobbloviate.com)
