Sunday, August 31, 2008

Far Left Fundies

I don’t ordinarily surf the liberal blogosphere, but Friday I was surfing the web to gauge conservative reaction to the Palin pick. Beginning at a conservative blog, I found myself, just two clicks away, transported to the alternate universe of the liberal blogosphere. It’s a truly alien landscape:

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Sara Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska, a state that has 13 people and some caribou.

By all means remind the electorate that the Democratic Party is the party of coastal and urban elites.

Obama is a member of the United States Senate from Illinois.

Obama is a first-term Senator whose Congressional experience consists of running for President.

At some point, voters will have to ask themselves who they would want running the country if it ever became necessary: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin.

That was easy: Sarah Palin.

Here’s my question to you: And here’s my question for you: Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?

And here’s my question to you: Does Barack Obama undercut his own message—that judgment is more important than experience—by naming someone far older and much more experienced than himself to be his running mate?

Are former Obama supporters going to vote for someone else now that Obama undercut his own message by picking Biden? Should they?

If not, then why is Cafferty’s question relevant to McCain voters but not to Obama voters?

Darcy Brady

Also, investigative reporters might be interested in the recent scandal involving Palin over her firing of the state safety commissioner.

That’s a valid concern. But from what I’ve read, there’s nothing to it:

And what about the Clinton scandals? Did that deter Democrats from voting for Hillary?


You already said it Mr.Cafferty.

A) She’s no Hillary Clinton!
B) She’s no Hillary Clinton!

Well, I should hope not! Why would we expect a Republican candidate to be a Hillary clone? You might as well say that Hillary is no Palin!


What a horrendous insult to Hillary, her experience and policies

Why should a Republican candidate be a compliment to Hillary? You might as well say that Hillary is a horrendous insult to Palin, her experience and policies.

Kelley in North Carolina

Finally, by putting her military son out there as an example of her patriotism, she drew a major difference between her and Joe Biden - he did not use his son’s service to show his character - he didn’t need to - the American people already know Joe Biden.

Many liberals have accused conservative politicians of hypocrisy for supporting the war when they’re not prepared to “sent their own children” (as the phrase goes) to war.

I was never impressed with that argument myself, but Palin is answering the liberal critics on their own grounds.

Terry in Hanover County

He’s pandering to get women’s vote.

Wasn’t Hillary pandering to get the women’s vote?

And what message would it send if the GOP snubbed the women’s vote?

hilary suppoter decides for obama

If he wanted to pick a women why not Condy Rice

i) Condi has expressed no interest in higher elective office.

ii) If she were interested, she could have run for the top job.

iii) Is she a social conservative?

iv) She’s identified with an unpopular administration. She’s also identified with an unpopular war.

v) If she were McCain’s pick, feminists who currently attack Palin would turn their guns on Condi as a traitor to her sex for serving in the Bush administration.

Why not Kay Hutchinson

i) Wouldn’t the same feminists who attack Palin find reasons to attack Hutchinson?

ii) Wouldn’t they demonize her Texan roots the same way they demonize Bush’s?

iii) Wouldn’t they treat her as a traitor to her sex for belonging to the GOP?


I supported Clinton because she was a woman – a qualified woman.

Qualified for what? She spent most of her adult career riding on her husband’s coattails. She then ran, as a carpetbagger, for a NY senate seat, for the exclusive reason of using that position as a stepping-stone to the White House. When she did run from President, she ran, not on her Congressional record, but her experience as First Lady—which amounted to ceremonial functions. She’s complicit in most of her husband’s scandals—including a pardons-for-votes quid-pro-quo.

Suppose McCain had chosen Laura Ingraham instead of Sarah Palin. She has an impressive resume. She’s at least as smart and articulate as Hillary. Would disenchanted Hillary supporters praise his pick? I don’t think so.

I also have question about her character when she has a special needs child (as I do) and goes back to work when the baby is just 3 days old and now the baby is just a few months old and she is taking a job that will almost never allow her to be home.

That’s a valid question, but what of it?

i) It’s a question for whom? For me, the voter? No. I’m only concerned with a candidate’s policies. I don’t have to answer that question for myself.

I do think it’s a question that Palin should ask herself. And question for Palin and her husband. But I’m not responsible for their domestic arrangements. That isn’t relevant to me, the voter.

ii) Does a baby with Down syndrome need more attention than a normal baby? When he reaches a certain age, he’ll require more supervision, but as a baby?

iii) Why would being the Veep almost never allow her to be home? The Veep is not a full-time job. It’s a job without job description. The Veep does as much or little as the President tasks him (or her) to do.

iv) I’ve heard that Palin takes her baby to work with her. That’s one of the perks of high office. And she’s not a single mom.

v) Has Kim ever seen the Vice Presidential mansion? I’m sure it has an office.

vi) Obama has young children. Is it okay for the man to neglect his family? Is it okay for the man to “take a job that will almost never allow him to be home”?

Here we see feminists suddenly endorsing the traditional double standard. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Marie Spearman

GOP family values? Gov. Palin has a 4-month old baby boy who needs his mother perhaps more than most. But power brokering is more important than her family. I assume she is not wearing a nursing bra - and her Downs Syndrome son is being fed formula. He deserves a better start on his rough road of life.

i) For liberals who constantly scream “hypocrisy,” it’s pretty rich to see feminists say a woman’s career should take a backseat to her maternal duties.

ii) The campaign will get very interesting if Joe Biden gets into a debate with Palin over Vice Presidential policy on breast-feeding v. bottle-feeding.

iii) While a man can’t breastfeed a baby, he can certainly bottle-feed a baby. It’s funny to see feminists suggest that child-rearing is the exclusive duty of the mother. They’re like a parody of fundamentalism. But fathers have parental responsibilities too, ya know.

donna sherman

Palin can’t speak, her voice is grating…

As if Hillary has such a soothing, dulcet delivery.

I am also appalled at the decision to force her child to lead a life with downs syndrone because of Palin and her husband’s neglect to practice safe sex at her age of 44. The child should always be considered first, not the parents’ self righteousness when confronted with a decision of abortion. This family actions speaks loudly to the need for women’s rights, saying; Take responsibility for your failures in birth control. Don’t make your child the victim.

i) The notion that a married couple has a duty to practice safe sex is unintentionally comical. Only a liberal could be that Victorian.

ii) Then we have the twisted logic in which you victimize a child by not aborting the child, in which abortion is a case of putting the child’s interests first. I somehow doubt that abortion represents the viewpoint of the child.

iii) How is a baby with Down syndrome wronged by allowing him to live? Is this condition especially painful?
The people with Down syndrome I see appear to be quite cheerful. They need a lot of love, but they give a lot of love in return. Indeed, they seem a lot happier than the angry, self-loathing feminists I see and hear.

iv) Donna is simply judging someone with Down syndrome by the standard of someone without Down syndrome. But that represents her viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the person with Down syndrome.

v) It’s true that someone with Down syndrome doesn’t have the IQ of a normal person. For that matter, Donna Sherman doesn’t have the IQ of Isaac Newton or Da Vinci.

Imagine a world in which Isaac Newton or Da Vinci were the norm. Imagine a genius deploy the same argument against Donna Sherman. Eugenics would weed out defective babies like Donna:

“I am also appalled at the decision to force their retarded child to lead a life with a stunted IQ of 100 just because Donna’s mom and dad neglected to practice safe sex. The child should always be considered first, not the parents’ self righteousness when confronted with a decision of abortion. This family’s action speaks loudly to the need for genius’s rights, saying; Take responsibility for your failures in birth control. Don’t make Donna the victim by allowing her to live!”

Indeed, to judge by the intellectual performance of most commenters at Cafferty’s blog, few would make the cut. Most of them would be prime candidates for eugenic abortion.


  1. I wish the blogs on politics I do watch would dismantle nonsense brick by brick the way you do. Lovely.

  2. Should someone save Donna et. al. some future pain by killing them now?

    Sounds like she thinks so.

    It is remarkable how these folks can't seem to put together a single intelligent discourse.

  3. Whereas previously, a Down’s child could be born without the prior knowledge of the mother, going forward, a parent with a Down’s child will likely (at least in the developed world) have made a conscious choice to have that child. As prenatal testing for trisomy 21 becomes ubiquitous, Down’s children (and eventually those with other genetic disorders) will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents. The children will become public sacrifices made by their parents for their faith. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their children’s heads with swords.
    Genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue. To the extent that their practical benefit is visible to everyone, they do not represent the special domain of religion. To demonstrate religious virtue, it is necessary to sacrifice authentic moral values in favor of “religious” values. The particular object of the sacrifice is not important – there is nothing particularly “biblical” about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.) If Christian fundamentalists decided that cutting of one’s hand sufficed as proof of moral virtue, they would be wrong to do so, but not much more so than the numerous other ways that people find to be self-destructive. What is really vicious about fundamentalists in America is that the prey on the most vulnerable –poor pregnant young girls and women, those dying from painful terminal illnesses, the loved ones of brain-dead patients, — and children afflicted with terrible genetic illnesses. One can at least grasp the moral indifference with which a fundamentalist can force a single young mother to abandon her goals and dreams and condemn her and her child to poverty. But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?

  4. There's no Objectivism quite like cut-and-paste Objectivism

  5. Well, heroiclife, the human race is in a state of genetic entropy anyway. So, why don't we decide to speed-up the process and save us some time and misery by dropping biological agents on every city around the world and wipe out all of humanity.

    Wunderbar! Let's bring back eugenics! Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer!

    [Liberalism is a mental-disorder.]

  6. As prenatal testing ...becomes ubiquitous,...those with...genetic disorders...will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents.

    Suppose Heroiclife, for the sake of argument we postulate a genetic test that identifies homosexuality. Are we justified in advising or legislating the abortion of 'fetuses' that fall into that category? What about those prone to depression? We wouldn't want people to live a life 'of suffering', right? How about the deaf , the mute, the blind, the color blind, what about albinos, those with cleft palettes? Where do you draw the line? Is there a set of objective criteria or are we simply to defer to your obviously superior intellect to guide us?

  7. Donna Sherman said: "I am also appalled at the decision to force her child to lead a life with downs syndrone because of Palin and her husband’s neglect to practice safe sex at her age of 44."

    First of all, its a wonder of nature that liberals are always the first to be appalled and offended by life's vagaries. There really ought to be a law against that!

    On the other hand, it's refreshing to find a liberal who might be inclined to mandate more government intervention in the bedroom; if you live long enough you'll see just about everything I guess...

    "Take responsibility for your failures in birth control. Don’t make your child the victim."

    Take responsibility for not practicing safe sex by what, raising the child that resulted from normal marital relations? Oh no. Take responsibility by having an abortion. That's the way to get elected!

    Unfortunately, for dummies like Donna a discourse on actual parental (& Christian) responsibility would be lost, so I'll spare myself the carpal-tunnel inducing typing exercise.

  8. HeroicLife said:

    “there is nothing particularly ‘biblical’ about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.)”

    Why don’t you justify that claim in light of the evidence I cited to the contrary in a recent post?

  9. These arguments that attempt to make a eugenics policy that would make the Nazi's proud into the morally upright thing to do betray a significant amount of self-deception.

    After all, we all know that no one is buying it. Not even the ones who put it out.

    They know full well who is really concerned about looking like a freakshow with a Down's Syndrome child. I'll give you a hint, in case anyone is too obtuse - it isn't the unborn child.