Just Because She Sings and Dances in Her Underwear...

Cross posted from Motley Moose on behalf of Sarah Churchwell

Be careful what you wish for. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was an earnest neophyte feminist at Vassar, earnestly debating the meanings of feminism, sexism, and choice, I used to wish, earnestly, that we would have a political campaign that actually discussed these issues. And this year I finally got one. Sort of. Only the disingenuousness of the conversation we're actually having is something that I, in my actual ingenuousness then, could never have envisioned. But democracy being what it is, and Republicans being what they are, it's turned into something very twisted, indeed.

Most of the time, it feels like a parody of the conversations we used to have, as when Camille Paglia argues in Salon.com on the basis that any woman who has power must ergo be a feminist, regardless of trivial bagatelles like her policies and principles, otherwise known as "requiring an ideological litmus test for membership". So Palin's feminism is just unorthodox? Since I'm quite the hetero-doxy myself, let me just say that I'm not taking this crap from Camille...

Feminism is not in the eye of the beholder. It is a set of principles, like liberalism. And yes, that makes it ideological. (Isn't it funny how they're ideologies when they're feminist, and values when they're anti-feminist?) Arguing that Palin is an unorthodox feminist is like arguing that Rush Limbaugh is an unorthodox liberal. You could say it, but what the hell would it mean?

Feminism isn't rocket science. I debated it when I was a girl, but then I became a woman and put away childish things. For the record (Camille, sit up and pay attention, you might learn something) feminism is belief in, and advocacy of, the rights of women, based on a principle of equality of the sexes. If you do not believe in, or advocate the rights of, women from a principle of sexual equality, then you're not a feminist. To paraphrase Joan Cusack's immortal line in Working Girl, singing and dancing around in her underwear doesn't make Sarah Palin Madonna, and never will.

There is a reason why feminists put reproductive rights at the center of their political agenda: because "the rights of women" are not merely the right to vote, or to equal opportunity, or to equal pay, or to safety from violence and threat. (None of which seem to concern Sarah Palin or John McCain overmuch, either, needless to say.) It is also the right to control our own bodies the way that men are able to control their own bodies.

It is possible, although tricky, to define yourself as an anti-choice feminist, who believes in and advocates all other rights of women but does not advocate a woman's right to choose whether to bear children against her own will. This is a difficult logical position for any number of reasons-which were shown perhaps most clearly by the Daily Show's trip to the Republican National Convention, and their exposure of the absurd double standards, double talk, and disingenuousness (did I mention that they're disingenuous?) of the Republican stance over Bristol Palin's "private choice" to keep her baby and her mother's anti-choice political agenda.

Samantha Bee went to find some Republican delegates to see how they felt about this pesky little question of choice:


Although it might seem like shooting fish in a barrel to target the idiocies of ordinary Republican delegates at the convention, the incoherence they drowned in as they attempted to argue for Bristol Palin's choice while being against choice as a policy were entirely representative--and the consequence--of the semantic confusions that have come to characterize this election. Confusions which are deliberately created by the Republicans, entirely self-serving, and entirely ideological. Who knew that French theory-hating Republicans would be such adept poststructuralists? Floating signifiers are everywhere.

The woman who informs Samantha Bee that "freedom of choice -- that's different from being pro-choice" gets at the heart of the matter. There is, of course, no difference at all, but Republicans have successfully perverted the meaning of "choice" into its precise opposite, some kind of sinister agenda of mandatory abortions for all women.

So to clarify for that dangerously befuddled woman, and anyone else who's wondering what the word "choose" actually means, it means, as Samantha Bee reminded us, to decide among alternatives. Those of us who are pro-choice are in favor of freedom of choice. Freedom of choice means you are free to choose whichever option is better for your life, and the lives of those around you. This choice, ideally, will be well-informed, well-considered, well-educated, and supported by family and friends. Failing all that, you still get to choose. This means that any woman in the world who wants to can stay pregnant with my blessing. (Congratulations.) But that is not how my principle-and yes, it is a moral principle, and it is a family value-is characterized by its enemies. The outrage is that they are the ones who are mandating a single policy for every woman, while convincing their followers that we don't really mean choice. But we do. Really.

Part of the problem, of course, is that feminists didn't set the terms of this argument: in the wake of Roe v. Wade, its conservative opponents began defining themselves as pro-life. As there has been some debate about this, and this posting is about language, let me say that my source is the OED, which tells me that the earliest usage of "pro-life" in the context of abortion comes from a 1971 Los Angeles Times editorial, while the earliest use of "pro-choice" in this context is three years later, in a 1974 policy paper with the catchy title Economic Discrimination against Women in the United States (no, we haven't solved that one yet either); its first mainstream usage was in Ms. magazine in 1975. So pro-choice was a belated rebuttal to the appropriation of "life." But it isn't a bad one. There is a reason why "pro-abortion" never appeared. It was never really used, because no one advocated it.

The OED doesn't record an actual printed usage of the word "pro-abortion" until 2004, in the US News and World Report, describing someone's opponent as a "pro-abortion Republican," which I suspect the Republican in question didn't call himself (or herself), because, for the record, no one sane is pro-abortion.

No one is actually advocating more abortions. No one is going to OB-GYN clinics around the nation, buttonholing pregnant women, and exhorting them to abort their baby. Because they are not in favor of abortions is precisely why feminists are in favor of sex education, owing to the myriad evidence that it results in fewer abortions --  because unwanted pregnancies go down when 17-year-olds aren't surprised that sex causes pregnancy, or that withdrawal isn't an effective means of birth control, and neither is hope, belief, or prayer.

Sarah Palin is not anti-abortion, because she has said that she would permit abortion if a mother's life would end because of a pregnancy. (Her life as she knows it and chooses to lead it ending doesn't not seem to pose a problem to Palin. The mother would have to actually die for her to think the mother gets to choose--which some wouldn't consider a choice at all.) Palin doesn't allow that there are any other circumstances under which a woman might be granted the right not to have a baby if she becomes pregnant against her will.

So let's clarify the terms. It seems that everyone in Palin's camp are for freedom of choice, but are under the impression that this is different from being pro-choice, because they've been convinced that being pro-choice is just a nefarious euphemism for being pro-abortion. No wonder they hate us. I'd hate anyone who ran around with an I "Heart" Abortions button, too. Abortions are not good for anyone. They are painful, and difficult, and traumatic. But at least now they are clean, and safe. And sometimes they are the best option available.

Sarah Palin is not pro-choice, and she is not for freedom of choice, except evidently for her daughter. But as the MSM accepts her characterization of herself as "anti-abortion", it follows that the rest of us are pro-abortion. And thus once again they are setting the terms of the conversation, through mystification and double-talk.

Sarah Palin is anti-choice, and pro-coercion. She is a Republican who is for government intervention in the private reproductive decisions of citizens, and in no other arena. Although there is one way in which she is consistent: she does think that no matter who screws you, from rapists to HMOs to corrupt corporations, you're stuck with the consequences.

She is for taking the choice away from everyone else, while celebrating her daughter's right to make the "right" choice-a choice that would be rather nugatory if her policies were implemented, and that owes everything to the hard-won battles of feminists on the front line of the reproduction wars.

What the anti-choice lobby doesn't want anyone to remember is that the debate is not about abortions versus no abortions. It is about safe abortions versus unsafe abortions. Because one of the many inconvenient truths that evangelicals like Sarah Palin choose to ignore is a little theological quandary called "free will." Women who don't want to be pregnant will not just lay down and turn into unwilling baby machines because the Sarah Palins of the world object to abortion, and want to sanctify the life of the unborn fetus. Unless the mother considers an unwanted fetus more holy than she is, abortions will ensue. That's as much an unwelcome fact as is pregnancy for women who don't want to be pregnant.  

Abortion is not some  evil new post-feminist invention. Abortion is as old as pregnancy. It's as old as creation-and older than creationism. If Sarah Palin is right that men and women walked the earth with the dinosaurs, I guarantee you that women--and men--were attempting to abort unwanted pregnancies with brontosauruses watching them. (Except it turns out they weren't really brontosauruses, doesn't it? Which is the same kind of games with words and history that the Republicans are playing--and winning.) And women will have been dying from abortions then, and they'll be dying again if we forget what choice means.

Dr Sarah Churchwell
Senior Lecturer in American Literature and Culture
School of American Studies
University of East Anglia
Norwich, United Kingdom

Tags: Camille Paglia, Dr Sarah Churchwell, Motley Moose, Palinology, Sarah Palin (all tags)



Highly Rec'd....

...especially due to this gem...

Sarah Palin is anti-choice, and pro-coercion. She is a Republican who is for government intervention in the private reproductive decisions of citizens, and in no other arena. Although there is one way in which she is consistent: she does think that no matter who screws you, from rapists to HMOs to corrupt corporations, you're stuck with the consequences.

Excellent commentary!

It's amazing to see how enlightened folks outside of the U.S. see what's going on here now with (perhaps) the greatest clarity of all!

by bobswern 2008-09-15 02:59PM | 0 recs
Sarah is an American...

...working in the UK. Our first guest blogger on the Moose (I thought certain other celebrities would crash the server)

Looking forward to seeing you there soon bob

by duende 2008-09-15 03:05PM | 0 recs
Well, the fact remains that....

...when I'm seeking out fair, objective and balanced coverage of events here in the U.S., I still have to tune into the BBC to get it. That kind of says it all, now doesn't it?

by bobswern 2008-09-15 03:17PM | 0 recs
During the first few weeks of the war,

many of us had to get our news from the Al-Jazeerah English website to get something more useful than the rah-rah coverage of cable news.  And then some dickheads crashed that.

by Dumbo 2008-09-15 09:13PM | 0 recs
What is astonishing

is to so see women who are living feminist lives in their professional careers and in the personal lives, but run from applying the term to themselves or allow it in any way to influence their identity of their politics.

I run across them all the time.  Hell, I have worked for them.

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:33PM | 0 recs
This was a really good article.

Although, I was confused because I thought that you wrote the article and I was almost certain that you were not a woman.  But I was willing to let you characterize yourself that way if you chose to.  ;)

Thanks for sharing this with us.  I sent it to friends and family, especially the ones who don't care about women's issues.  I thought this might help to reframe the anti-abortion argument for them.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-09-15 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This was a really good article.

Hopefully Sarah will join in the debate and post more, but of course she has to wait to be able to comment. In the meantime, come and interact directly on the Moose

by duende 2008-09-15 03:20PM | 0 recs

Is it impossible to be "pro-life" in your personal life and still support pro-choice points of view?  If abortion is something you can not allow yourself to do, does that mean you are anti-choice.

by Classical Liberal 2008-09-15 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clarification

Absolutely should be possible, but given the fundamentalist absolutism of one wing of american politics, they seem to forget that founding principles of the US: a separation between personal or religious morality, and the demands the STATE makes upon individuals to conform.

I personally hate fox hunting in the UK - but I disagree with the ban imposed.

And many many people disagree about various policies, invasions, tax cuts - but they accept the democratically expressed will of the electorate.

Morality and politics are overlapping but different spheres. And part of my own morality is not to assume that everyone shares it, even if I believe they should.

by duende 2008-09-15 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clarification

Hey there.

Let's say that I own a restaurant...

I want to use transfats in my restaurant but I am legal denied the right to do so. There is no "second hand smoke" type situation to put my employees at risk. Yet a law was passed making it illegal to use trans fats. I read the news and have heard that there is an obesity epidemic. I'm not withholding information from the consumer and to eat in my restaurant is voluntary.

Frankly, the food that I am producing is inferior to the food produced containing transfats. My business is suffering.

In other words,
"... given the fundamentalist absolutism of one wing of american politics, they seem to forget that founding principles of the US: a separation between personal or religious morality, and the demands the STATE makes upon individuals to conform."

So you think the ban on transfats should be lifted?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-09-15 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Clarification

Sorry - that's a pretty fatuous example here: this is just a classic harm reduction argument and doesn't concern any particular clash between morality and law

by duende 2008-09-16 02:35AM | 0 recs
The seperation

of church and state is one of the issues around which the history to which you subscribe to is dependent on your political philosophy.

I was lucky enough to take Constitutional Law from Archibald Cox, Kennedy's Solicitor General and a Special Prosecutor during Watergate.  One thing I remember him saying was that there was not one view about church and state even at the country's founding.  If you talked to Madison or Jefferson you would get one reading, and if you talked to others you would get a completely different view.

The debate about the role of church and state has been going on as long as the country has existed.  It is in many ways part of an undercurrent of a debate between the reformation and the enlightment that in some ways defines American Politics.  

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Clarification
I don't think so- take Joe Biden as an example.
He doesn't believe in abortion as a matter of faith (he's Catholic), but at the same time feels he cannot impose his religious views on other people.
I think the term pro-life is a misnomer, as those who call themselves pro-life are only that way up until the baby is born, after that it's "You're on your own!".
by skohayes 2008-09-15 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clarification

Pro life and then pro capital punishment. Enough said.

by duende 2008-09-15 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clarification

I am that.  I would not have an abortion, but I would never, EVER presume to tell someone else to do.  

by trustno1 2008-09-15 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances in Her Under

just great

I too was confused by your sudden womanhood

by wrb 2008-09-15 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances in Her Under

Yes, maybe I should just get rid of Sarah's byline, and change my nationality and gender in one stroke

by duende 2008-09-15 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances in Her Under

Is that Change we Can Believe In?

by wrb 2008-09-15 03:26PM | 0 recs
computer... screen... spattered...


Wiping myself down now.

Heard a great line today about McCain's lame economic policies

Change we can't afford

by duende 2008-09-15 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: computer... screen... spattered...

Hang on. Duende? You're a guy?

You're kidding.

I thought you were female. I really... weeelll doggies...

LOL Sorry.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-09-15 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: computer... screen... spattered...

Read the diary.

by duende 2008-09-16 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances

Good one! LOL!

by skohayes 2008-09-15 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances
I must say, Brit, that I thought this was the best diary you've ever written!
Then I thought, wait a minute, he's not a woman!
Really good insight from Dr. Churchwell, thanks so much for sharing.
by skohayes 2008-09-15 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances

Damn. The best diary I've NEVER written. That's harsh.

Only jazzing ya.

by duende 2008-09-15 04:00PM | 0 recs
Oh but I did suggest the title and find the vid

So I'm not just another useless man

by duende 2008-09-15 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh but I did
Well, I must admit that most men are not completely useless. ;)
That video was great, by the way, I saw it when it aired on TV.
The cluelessness of the Republicans was hysterical.
by skohayes 2008-09-15 04:52PM | 0 recs
Just for the record

From the eclectic desk of Andrew Sullivan, 'bout says it all:

For the past two weeks serious commentators and columnists have been asked to take the candidacy of Sarah Palin for the vice-presidency of the United States seriously.

Formerly sane people have written of the McCain campaign's selection of this running mate as if it represents a new face for Republicanism, an emblem of can-do western spirit, a brilliant ploy to win over Clinton voters, a new feminism, a reformist revolution, and a genius appeal to the religious right.

I'm afraid I cannot join in. In fact I cannot say anything about this candidacy that takes it in any way seriously. It is a farce. It is absurd. It is an insult to all intelligent people. It is a sign of a candidate who has lost his mind. There is no way to take the nomination of Palin to be vice-president of the world's sole superpower - except to treat it as a massive, unforgivable, inexplicable decision by someone who has either gone insane or is managerially unfit to be president of the United States. When, at some point, the hysteria dies down, even her supporters will realise that, by this decision, McCain has rendered himself unfit to run a branch of Starbucks, let alone the White House.

Andrew Sullivan - Sarah Palin: the most underqualified vice-president ever? The Sunday Times 14 Sep 08

Interestingly enough I really enjoyed, and largely agreed with, Camille Paglia's opposing views as well, though for different reasons.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-15 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

Paglia is a fantastic cultural commentator. But her politics basically sucks IMHO.

Everything isn't Madonna. It's not all about subverting received ideas and images. When it comes to the VP choice of a presidential candidate of McCain's age, it's about potentially the most powerful political office on this long suffering and feverish planet.

I always worry about the crossover between the arts and politics - in BOTH DIRECTIONS. There are too many failed artists - Stalin, Hitler, Robespierre, Mussolini - in the pageant of dictators and demagogues.

Palin may be a fascinating icon. But icons belong in magazines, or churches, not in the Oval Office

by duende 2008-09-15 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

Yeah, I don't disagree, but Paglia is a cultural commentator, not a political pundit, and from that perspective she makes some compelling points which could inform our politics in ways that might have avoiding some of the pitfalls we fell into in our initial dismissal and 'pile on' of Palin.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-15 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

She also is a incredibly contrarian....

She loves to rub the liberal lefts nose in it, just for the sake of doing that.

Half of her outrageousness is for shock effect alone.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-15 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

Yeah, I kinda' admire that, though, I have a bit of an 'inner contrarian' myself.  The thing I like about her the most is that her positions are often iconoclastic and seem to be uniformly, and unabashedly, personal.  In the age of 'dumbed down' media punditocracy where most commentators are preoccupied with insuring they are not straying too far from the safety of the herd it is positively refreshing.  And sometimes she's wrong, too.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-15 06:20PM | 0 recs

is on to something in thinking that culture informs politics, and I do like reading her.

I don't agree with her.  But I do like reading her.

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

That column by Sullivan is quite scathing, I wonder if we will start seeing "buyer's remorse" for the Palin pick from republicans in the near future? It seems her popularity is cooling off quite a bit.

by skohayes 2008-09-15 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

It's happening in the leadership already IMHO. The  Rove thing was the first hint. Now Romney. A lot of senior republicans do not want McCain to win and Palin to become the heir apparent. Just reading between the lines here, but politically it makes sense

by duende 2008-09-15 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

I agree.  She's scaring everybody but for different reasons.  Bet Schmidt didn't see that coming.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-09-15 05:50PM | 0 recs
It's about the RR stranglehold....

Some of the party folks were a little glad to see the stranglehold of the religious right start to wain a bit...

Palin puts those people back in command?

I think, as you mentioned, WHEN Obama wins, the move to make Palin the heir apparent for 2012 has some folks moving in the way of Ms Palin's run to party default leader....

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-15 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Just for the record

Anybody think the wall street money type republicans are really comfortable with Sarah Palin one 72 year old, three time cancer survivor, heartbeat away from their money in this market......I dont think so.  

by realistdem 2008-09-15 07:51PM | 0 recs
One failed comparison deserves another....

Nice Diary, Duende.

Palin is as much Madonna and McCain is Teddy Roosevelt.

Meaning, not at all......

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-15 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: One failed comparison deserves another....

Would love to take credit for this but the author is Sarah Churchwell. You can discuss further with her on the Moose

by duende 2008-09-15 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: One failed comparison deserves another....

Okay, I'll ask.

Who is this Moose?
What is a Moose?
When did it get loose?
Why is this moose loose?
Do I want to know how it got loose?

I won't be able to hear this Moose if'n I don't have the answers to these questions.

Thank you.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-09-15 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: One failed comparison deserves another....
The Motley Moose is a new blog. You will see lots of familiar faces and the interface is similar but avoids the many kinks that you can encounter here with rating posts, etc.
There is a link in the first line of the diary.
by skohayes 2008-09-16 05:17AM | 0 recs
You are the Moose... :~)

At least, that's the idea.

by chrisblask 2008-09-16 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: You are the Moose... :~)

LOL You stay right there mister till I go read this moose and then I'll come back in and tell you if I am offended by being called a moose or not. So you-- you-- and skohays--- just wait here.
While I go see.

chris hello to family type persons. BBL

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-09-18 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: You are the Moose... :~)

Well?  Do you feel Moosy?

Staying obediently.

by chrisblask 2008-09-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: You are the Moose...

Chris...psstt Chris wake up... thanks for waiting... I feel a bit moosy...Chris... hey Chris...HHHHHEEEEEEYYYYYYYYCHHHHHHRIII.. .

Why yes Chris I do feel a bit Moosy.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-10-02 08:56PM | 0 recs
whazza..? just a few more minutes, I'll

take the dog out... wherezuh fishmet salszbury mmmbmm rankle...  zzzzz....

I'm up!

Feels a little moosy does it, my precious?  Come on in, the water's fine!

by chrisblask 2008-10-03 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: whazza..? just a few more minutes, I'll

LOL Hugs Chris.

If I don't get back in here for a bit. I just wanted to thank you for helping me to remember the good in this election.

Hugs to you and your family.

It looks to be a great sight. I hope you are planning on keeping it up after the election.

12 dogs...

psst Chris pss Chris did you let the dog out psst

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-10-06 04:45PM | 0 recs
No, damnit, I hit snooze, he ate the couch and

crapped on the rug...

by chrisblask 2008-10-06 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Just Because She Sings and Dances...

There is a reason why feminists put reproductive rights at the center of their political agenda: because "the rights of women" are not merely the right to vote, or to equal opportunity, or to equal pay, or to safety from violence and threat. (None of which seem to concern Sarah Palin or John McCain overmuch, either, needless to say.) It is also the right to control our own bodies the way that men are able to control their own bodies.

I'm a heterosexual guy, and even I get this.  You don't have women's rights (or anybody's rights for that matter) without freedom of fear from domestic violence, from ability to control one's own reproduction, etc.

The fight for a woman's right to choose whether and when she bears a child is at least as important as the fight for the vote, or the ongoing fight for equal pay.

Excellent post.

by DesertRat 2008-09-15 06:42PM | 0 recs
I think to be an anti-choice feminist...

...one needs to argue that the very legality of abortion somehow creates the EXPECTATION in society that an unmarried woman will terminate her pregnancy.  So in fact, the society views the woman as purely a sexual vessel pre-marriage.  So by canceling the "right" to an abortion one is ending the compulsion.

This strikes me as an argument that could maybe accomplish both goals simultaneously.  But I'm not quite sure why one would want to argue this.  However, it strikes me that perhaps, this is the best way to reconstruct this argument.

It strikes me as supremely counterintuitive and probably not worth much further discussion.  However my intuitions in this field are not particularly clear as I fail to see how Jaggar or Pateman would go about reforming society on a non-contractarian basis.

Even so, none of this describes Sarah Palin.

by AZphilosopher 2008-09-15 10:25PM | 0 recs
Just to clarify...

...this is just an answer to the "is it possible?" question.  None of this reflects my views.

by AZphilosopher 2008-09-15 11:22PM | 0 recs
Abortion and babies having babies

Before I got my current job, I was working as a temp at a mail-order pharmacy which had a specialty in selling drugs designed to help girls who were suffering from "precocious puberty."  

If you don't know about this condition, precocious puberty is the early onset of the physical effects of puberty: in girls, it can cause body hair growth, menstruation, enlargement of the breasts, and rapid bone growth (followed by lower overal adult height), among other things.  Nobody really knows why the age of puberty is getting lower and lower.  READ MORE

Why am I bringing this up?  Well, what do you do when a 7-year-old girl gets pregnant?  

What would Sarah Palin say if her youngest daughter, Piper (she of the spit-based baby hairstyling), were to find herself (by God's will?) with child tomorrow?

There are practical measures which strict ideology are never going to properly handle, and this is just one.  

by Dracomicron 2008-09-16 06:52AM | 0 recs
We need to keep going after Palin....

Richard Nixon once said that in 1968--politically, the most tumultuous year in U.S. history--the only person the Democrats defeated was Spiro Agnew.

Twenty years later--with the opportunitiy to finally end "the Reagan Revolution"--we managed to beat Dan Quayle.

And here we are....yet another twenty years later. Still mired in the same old tactics, which never work....and we wonder why we keep losing elections. Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

by BJJ Fighter 2008-09-16 09:08PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads