Nobody hates as does a Leftist, the West's neo-fascist. And nobody is as hated by a Leftist as a person who "is supposed to be" a leftist, i.e a woman, a black or other minority person. They are considered "traitors".

The depth of instant hatred dredged up for Gov. Sarah Palin really reminds me of that instant hatred dredged up for black Federal Judge Clarence Thomas, when nominated by Pres. Bush the Elder to the US Supreme Court in 1991.

It's conservatives who are supposed to be the knuckle-dragging fascists. However, the demonstrable reality is 180 degrees from that Big Lie.

The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse

It's a great new term and it will become part of our general vocabulary.

I'd clarify the definition. First, I think the description as you outline it is held more by leftist women than men. And I think it's necessary to include the attribute of 'Being successful professionally' despite being linked to the other attributes of: family-oriented, pro-life and anti-abortion. Leftist women don't like woman who have children and actually look after them, themselves, to be successful.

The leftogyny view of an 'allowable woman' is first, a proessional. No blue-collar workers allowed. Then, she is someone who carefully selects whether or not she will have children, selects the child itself as 'OK to live or Not OK to live' - and then, immediately hands the newborn over to a nanny and daycare and numerous professional staff.
It's a very 18th c. elitist view of the Upper Class Woman. The left is deeply entrenched in class snobbery.

The male version of leftogyny is also class-based. The upper class woman whom they gingerly work with is, as described. Other women in the Other Class are viewed as 'sluts'. Period.

So, the leftist perspective is actually a class based elitism.

This is deep seated stuff: Back in the 1980s, Glenda Jackson (the actress turned Labour pol) sniffed that Thatcher "wasn't a proper woman."

Isn't that related to Choicephobia--fear of a woman making the choice of not having an abortion?

With apologies to Ezra, Kathy, Glenda Jackson is an "official women" unlike unofficial women like Thatcher.

The point of being an official women is it is a conferred status, so that means some men get to be official women as well. You obtain that status by holding the correct views and wearing the correct ribbons. Jack Layton is a good example of a man who is an "official woman."

The rights of a man who is an official woman is one who is allowed to pronounce on "women's" issues. However the only restriction is that they are not allowed to speak on "wimmins" issues, but are allowed to clap, nod approvingly and march in the parade, but only at the back of the parade or hidden in the middle behind a sign.

Bill Clinton was an Official woman till he got a hummer in the oval office from an aspiring official woman and betrayed the head of the official woman party. Bill is now pnly allowed to park cars at their events. Bill looks like he lost his "official black" membership card as well for his comments about Obama.

Like or have doubts about Palin, and there is stuff in each column, the reaction from "official women" has been surprising. Perhaps the silver lining is that it really will be about the individual and not their gender in the future, since apparently gender isnt the defining point for official women but the ideology is.

As I told my radical, passive-aggressive lesbian sister-in law, Palin made the choice to have her child.

And, what exactly was wrong with her decision to choose life?

The crickets started chirping.

Can't we all agree that women only make good decisions when they do what society expects of them?

Scratch a leftist and find an 18th century misogynistic aristocrat.

Because conservatives have never derided liberal women as not being real women. Like ever.

No, no conservative ever claimed that only R.E.A.L. Women stay at home to raise their children and have dinner ready to go for the return of their husbands from work.

No, no conservative ever said a professional or working woman was abandoning her children and not a good mother.

No, no conservative ever said a woman in pantsuits wasn't really a woman.

No, no conservative ever said Hillary Clinton was more man than woman.

No, no conservative ever pointed to the pregnancy of a teenage daughter as evidence of why a woman should be at home raising her children.

No, no conservative ever criticized a professional or working woman as being selfish or a bad mother for jumping back into the workforce before two years after a child's birth (let alone three days) after giving birth (let alone a child in special need).

I'd say that leftards learned how to be misogynist from conservatives, but I know that leftards and rightwingnuts each independently developed their penchent for scoring politically hypocritical points on the backs of women.

It's one of the oldest political games in town. Women have been and will always be a political foil for political and ideological opportunists.

The self-righteousness of leftogynists and rightogynists on this issue is really enough to make anyone puke.

leftogyny

Oh yeah, that's a keeper.

As is choicephobia, per andycanuck.

ted - your attempt at equivalence doesn't have any validity. The left and the right are not equilvanet in their treatment of women. The leftist hysteria over Gov. Palin, her success, her behaviour as mother etc - has not been matched by any 'right' hysteria; the right has been supportive.

I know you are trying to declare the left and right as equally against women but I think you'd have to prove this rather than just assert it.

The situation to be dealt with, is why is the left, which self-defines itself as strongly supporting the 'advancement of women' - so angered by the 'advancement of Gov. Palin'? The MSM feminists are outdoing themselves in vicious and malicious attacks against her. Why? They ought to be cheering her on!

The leftogyny treatment of women accepts, as a 'woman' only someone who fits into their class-based description:

-a professional, not a blue collar worker;
- who chooses whether or not to have a child, chooses the sex and health of the child, and then, when born, hands the child over to a nanny/professional.
- doesn't look after the house/meals

Ahh, the 18th c. class-based ideology returns in full force within the domain of the Left.

The very thing I've come to admire about Gov.Palin IMO is the very thing that leftards despise about her. This woman went out in the world with the intent to compete, and not just compete, but compete hard. She is winning the game of life on her own merit, no hands up, running full speed into the wind. Political feminists loathe this because it flies in the face of everything they spew. Palin is not disadvantaged, she doesn't need help, she just kicks a$$(and she's HOT).

Leftards are desperate to blackball this woman because the example she sets for women and girls(men and boys) is far beyond anything that blood sucking social feminists could ever accomplish, defeat is their mantra and Gov.Palin is a winner. As the father of two young girls I am very excited at the prospect of this woman being POTUS in 2012.

Talk of the potential assassination wrt O has been floated around all year, in my mind this has always been poor satire. I believe that there is a REAL THREAT to Gov.Palin. Palin is a threat to socialists and their supporters all around the world, she is the bane of all of those who would play victim politics. She has made some very dangerous enemies around the world, I just hope she can leave her mark in time.

Leftogyny "...is a mental disorder held by most left-wing men and women who feel that women are betraying their gender by exhibiting signs of conservatism. i.e. Christian, family oriented, Republican, NRA member, pro-life."

As pointed out by ET, this mental malady particularly afflicts leftist feminist women.

When I chose to stay home with my children in the '80s, the scorn heaped upon me by "professional/official" women was never-ending. They routinely treated me with extreme condescension and/or snubbed me as of no-account.

Actually, I was worse than being of no-account. I was hated because I had supposedly let the feminist side down: I didn't work for power or money, I was a pro-life volunteer, and I was "a chattel" of my husband.

Pro-choice meant only that a woman agreed with abortion as a solution to an "unwanted pregnancy." It had nothing to do with the genuine choices that a woman makes after she's had children: to care for them herself or to have others care for them?

This is a choice that the leftist feminists didn't allow: If you were a woman, you worked for money and power, you believed in abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies, and you outsourced the care of your children.

Period.

Ted, taking your analogy further, because the Liberanos found paper bags full of cash all Libs are thieves.

The left find it convient to have women as perpetual victims. That way the social activists can increase their own income via government programs to help the "victims".

Michelle Malkin also rips the right in another article.

One thing that has become clear over the last couple of days, is that the pro-choice meme of the left doesn't mean choosing whether or not to abort. What it really means to the left is whether to choose a career over a pregnancy. The sentiment as has been explained by many left female MSMers is that you must choose between a career or motherhood. That you can't mix them.

This is consistent with the victimhood fundamentalism of the left. If you choose a career over a family, poor you, you're a victim because you've had to sacrifice a loving family.

If you choose a family, poor you, you're a victim because you've had to sacrifice a career. You can't do both because then you're no longer a victim.

There always has to be a victim in any leftist life equation. This is why you're hearing all of the ranting about the leftist factoid that Sarah Palin can't be both an effective VP and an effective mother. There's no victim in her life equation, so the leftogynists invent one - poor little neglected Down's child Trig, already a victim, only to be further victimized by his mother.

Its hugely ironic that the "party of enlightenment" can't endorse what every all together disabled person says: "I can do it", even as they profess to champion opportunities for these "victims".

What a bizarre mindset. "Loser" built into every equation. Cup always half empty for somebody. Troll Real the other day jumped on my comment that the VP would have a true understanding of the issues when families with life issues like a Down's child come a-knockin' (and they will) and his counter was that that empathy would be anti-republican. Always have insert a victim.

Obamarama needs to rethink his support for the Democratic party and its nutroots, if he actually believes any of the floss he's upchucked in the last year. His beliefs don't square with the ideology he's the sockpuppet for. Really, if he's the man he says he is, he'd resign.

[Peggy Noonan on Palin: “A real and present danger to the American left”]

[She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it’s going to be brutal. It’s already getting there…] PN

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-on-palin-a-real-and-present-danger-to-the-american-left/

Καλημέρα ελληνικά Leftogyny… καλό.

Translation ...

Good morning Greek. Leftogyny ... good one!

Although there are many angles to Palin story, one is most likely very infuriating to the left. She has very feminine qualities, where for the leftards equal means identical.

Ted....modern day conservatives respect fellow human being who comes in very diverse forms and every one has own limitation, where the problem with centralized thinking of the left is that everyone should fit their mold. For the left individualism is a fantasy.

Even the usually crazie lefties know the Jig is up:

From Michelle, Babble moderator on McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP:

P.S. That said, I think the Republicans have done a good job at choosing a woman who will bring out all the misogyny hiding under the surface (and not so under the surface) of many Democrats. The Republicans are just dying for Democratic bloggers and supporters and pundits to paint Palin as some bimbo beauty queen soccer mom who can't do anything but plop out kids and be a token candidate - not to mention, questioning whether a woman with children "has time" to be Vice President. And from some of the first reactions I read when the announcement was first made, there are Democratic pundits and bloggers and supporters who are only too happy to leap right into the trap. The Republicans must be dancing with glee right about now.
...

http://tinyurl.com/6fr662

Leftogyny: also causes the delusion that women must be 'freed' from ...something...
to be be tightly constrained in a small world that scorns choice(baby or abortion?), scorns ambition(How dare she choose to have children and be in politics?)
and forms it's own religious laws.
(Thou must not commit to marriage.Thou must control your children.Thou must let the Nanny state take over cradle to grave)

via hot air from WSJ

"Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing — who is really one of them and who is not — and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to a future Obama candidacy."

"...and to a future Obama candidacy"

That only exists in the wet dreams of leftards and other journalists.

skip - very nice analysis. This goes along with my suggestion (and I'm very sure others have made it as well) that the leftist ideology is really an elitist class-based ideology. With themselves inserted as Wise Rulers.

Since the left ideology is class-based, there has to be a lower class. However, this lower class is split into two parts. The victims and the peasants.

The victims can be 'uplifted' with the assistance of the Rulers. These people are, for whatever reason - being a member of an ethnic or religous minority, being a woman, being a man-who-is-gay, or whatever, are defined in a particular homogeneous manner. And they can be, if and only if assisted by the Wise Rulers, moved into higher class positions. They require constant assistance. These are the victim class. It is worth noting, however, that they must retain this original minority identity; they don't merge with the Rulers.

It is interesting to see how Obama is set up as a member of this sub-class. He's a victim; he's supported by the Rulers - and can only operate with such support. His whole verbiage is directed to this entanglement of the Ruler and the Sub-class of Victim. He's not necessarily supported by other black people!

The peasants - the blue collar workers, the mothers, the whatever - are meant to be Ruled. In Canada, we define them as 'beer and popcorn'. They aren't victims; they are peasants.

The left clearly sets up a superior class which rules the lower class.

Gov. Palin is seen as a tremendous threat to the class-based structure of the Left. That's because she's not operating within a class structure; there's genuine equality within her outlook.

She commits the Leftist heresy of Mixing the Classes. She's a professional woman but does things that only peasants do (skins a moose; shoots a gun). She's a professional woman but does things that only a peasant does (has children). She's a member of the sub-class (woman) but doesn't accept any assistance from the Ruling Class; she doesn't need them.

The leftist class system doesn't allow ignoring the class structure.

Sara a trailblazer my as*. Hey, we had Alexa McDonough leading a federal party when Sara was still in college. She was pretty hot! And she was only about 15,000 heartbeats (or 30 desk widths, your choice) from the Prime Minister's position. lol ;-)

Back to you in station Kate.

Ahh, maybe the left is just choked that a women may get to the VPOTUS or even POTUS without the help of affirmative action. To have pushed all these years to achieve this type of goal only to find it fulfilled by a woman who is an evil conservative, self-made, a redneck hick, a family values throwback and a beauty contestant...the horror.

P.S. That said, I think the Republicans have done a good job at choosing a woman who will bring out all the misogyny hiding under the surface (and not so under the surface) of many Democrats. The Republicans are just dying for Democratic bloggers and supporters and pundits to paint Palin as some bimbo beauty queen soccer mom who can't do anything but plop out kids and be a token candidate - not to mention, questioning whether a woman with children "has time" to be Vice President. And from some of the first reactions I read when the announcement was first made, there are Democratic pundits and bloggers and supporters who are only too happy to leap right into the trap. The Republicans must be dancing with glee right about now.
...

http://tinyurl.com/6fr662

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at September 3, 2008 12:42 PM
-------------------

That's exactly what my Globe & Mail-reading, Liberal-loving, Trudeaupean-believing, CBC listening mother-in-law said yesterday. The bigotry was astounding.

Leftogyny is not a new notion - I remember very well the absolute scorn heaped on Margaret Thatcher by other women in the 1980's.
In my youthful naivete then, I was puzzled - here was a woman who was Prime Minister of Great Britain and a strong, forceful leader - shouldn't feminists be CELEBRATING her? (The same feminists, by the way, who are constantly whining that men cannot stand strong, tough, outspoken women and that is why women have such a hard time succeeding in business and politics).
The flip side is that when a female politician does spout the correct (i.e. leftist) ideology, the leftogynists embrace her wholeheartedly and attack anyone who questions said politician's lack of credentials. Belinda Stronach is a prime example.

Don't have time to check and see if someone's already suggested it but I would certainly put that one up at www.urbandictionary.com.

To support ET's theory on elitism and the ruling class mindset, here is an article in the LAT. (via hotair)
"Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority....
This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars.

McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work. "

This reminds me of Clinton's dalliance with young Monica. The uber-feminists at the National Organization for Women flamed Monica and painted Bill as a victim. Sickening. Now these same feminists are hurling anti-feminist vitriol at Governor Palin on the pages of that yellowist of rags, the NYT. If one has no principles, critical thinking and mindful behavior is unnecessary.

"Sara[sic] a trailblazer my as*. Hey, we had Alexa McDonough leading a federal party when Sara was still in college. She was pretty hot! [...] Back to you in station Kate." - "PhilM at 12:59"

How soon even the NDP forgets about Audrey McLaughlin... oh, right, she was "pro-gun" (anti-C-68).

History begins every morning.

I am glad to see the new word. Classic!. I like reading these posts because it is informanet, educational and to watch, read and listen to left wing objections, explanations and analyzing powers are very entertaining and basically showing you how shallow can they get.

I think that the left wing has been trying to get the tigress by the tail, it's not going to happen.

Still full of glee for the old man that TKOed them with one punch.

Jeez, I hope that PMSH can do this to Canadians.

Definitions? Ah good!

The Left - a group of people (persons?) who are genetically incapable of understanding that there are those that do not hold thier beliefs. Normally found in university staff lunchrooms discussing tenure, cafes discussing Lindsay Lohan and wandering aimlessly near where groups of adults have gathered to make important decisions.

Face it, anyone that dare escape off of the Left's victim plantation will be hunted down and destroyed. Bill Cosby's message of personal responsibility was voraciously attacked by the NAACP and Jesse Jackson. He's a pariah. You will be blacklisted in Hollywood if you are a Republican. Talk Radio's Tammy Bruce is vilified by the Left because she has the audacity to be both a lesbian and a conservative. Ouch.

I have my concerns about Palin but she resonates with me as a genuine article not some publicist's or political handler's product. We'll see tonight if she can deliver.

THE FOUR STAGES OF MALKIN DERANGEMNET SYNDROME

1) Out of control ego.
2) Soapbox URL
3) Pander to rightoids
4) Invent outlandish conspiracy theories

Ol Ron here just sorta validates my definition.

Well, this has been very entertaining to read!

And I have a rumour, admittedly from a quite unreliable source, but here it is anyway. The staff at the National Enquirer and at PEOPLE and at Entertainment Tonite are all praying on bended knees for Palin's second daughter to become pregnant too!

Then they want Palin's husband Todd to head over to the Johnson's place to "discuss business" with young Levi, and for the state police to be called to disentangle the discussion. Their prayers ends with a plea that Trooper Mike Wooten be first on the scene.

AtlanticJim

sorta?

Your definiton actually validates my point with one exception; I don't frequent any of those places.

Ron, you don't have a point.

Well, as someone has already pointed out, if John Edwards was the father of the Palin baby (pick one), the storied would be buried.

As for Liberal leftogynists, can't get much worse than this guy, if his alleged crimes are proven:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/08/27/6584861-sun.html

Skippy,

Yes I do, you just don't get it!

ET: She commits the Leftist heresy ...

Although most on the left would not consider their world view to be a religious belief system, they certainly do have an ideology that is demonstrated by many dogmatic points. To deviate from one or more of these points (particularly if it is considered to be a, er, fundamental point) does incur the wrath of the Ruling (or Priestly) Class.

To use another analogy, they seem to view themselves as comparable to some celestial star that has just had a major planet escape its orbit. The strange part about this analogy is that the star in this case never noticed the existence of the planet (much less its significance) until a rival star captured the planet into its own orbit. Or so the story would be told. In truth, the planet always belonged in the orbitof the second star. As the left has a problem with the free association/ownership of property, so it has a problem with the freedom of ideologies.

Agreed, Brent, the left ideology is treated as dogma, which makes it beyond dispute and therefore, a religion.

But as I said, a key axiom in Leftism is a firm belief in the class system. It's a two class structure.

There is the Ruling Class. It's a class, essentially hereditary and it has a particular point of view or ideology. All members are professionals; no 'blue-collar workers'. Preferred professions are within the govt bureaucracy, teachers, lawyers, journalists.

A key factor in their own lifestyle is an insistence on controlling their life, via intrusive actions: lawsuits, hostility to debate, professional assistance to do everything from having a party to raising children. Oh, and of course, extensive plastic surgery .

Women are major players but only if they fit into the above, are in favour of abortion, hand over any children to professional care..etc.

Within this elite ruling class, there are subclasses: ethnic minorities - up to a certain ratio, and gays and lesbians. These are view as minorities dependent on the goodwill and alms of the ruling class. As long as they know their place, they may participate with the Ruling Class.

The rest of the population are peasants, meant to be ruled and governed by the Wisdom of the Ruling Class.

The attitude of the Left to the rest of the world is equally elitist and class based. Most of the rest of the world are viewed as peasants and fit for Aid packages but not self-government. The left puts a great deal of focus on Aid packages, both financial and otherwise - and rejects assisting these peoples to move into self-governance.

This sounds exactly like the 18th c mindset to me. The left. Regressive remnants of the 18th c.

Ron starts his reading comprehension course next week.

Brent: "Although most on the left would not consider their world view to be a religious belief system"

Ah, but their leaders do and sell it zealously. It's more faith based than Christianity.

Leftoids (I claim credit for that word btw) actually have no definitive doctrine as per se. The rules and definitions change to suit their purpose, even when the purpose isn't known. It is a herd mentality at the very least. How else can you describe the global warming movement? Or how they can validate the wish to talk heart to heart with the Taliban all the while ignoring the fact that the Taliban are persecuting (like as in killing) the minorities the left hold so dear? Never mind that those of conservative ilk are the ones fighting the Taliban in order to bring human rights, education and such to the aforementioned minorities.

FOX News sent out a young intern to interview some of the protesters that were his age at the convention. Every last one of them did not know who they were protesting about or could recognize any of the targets of their ire. These sheeple were just there to do "their" thing.

Heck, if Bush made a speach about the earth orbiting the sun, there would be a left protest claiming he was wrong or it was his fault.

Sarah Palin is living proof that a woman can be both a mother and have a career. Palin considers herself a feminist and I have no problem with her taking advantage of the opportunity the US affords her.

That goes against the radical feminist dogma that a woman must choose one or the other ... and any pregnancy must the terminated.

Curiously, Nancy Pelosi is also a mother, but nobody questions the senate majority leader about her allegedly conflicting priorities.

Palin's nomination is brilliant on many levels and most importantly demonstrates a woman can be both a mother and a successful career person.

And, unlike the radical fembos, she's actually physically attractive.

I'm hoping that Sarah Palin isn't paying any attention to the hurricane that's swirling around her.

I'm hoping she's in the calm at the eye of the storm, unruffled, composed, and focusing on her speech tonight.

In short, I'm hoping and praying that the Lord is hiding her and her family under the shadow of His wing:

You who live in the shadow of the Most High,
who abide in the shadow of the Almighty,
will say to the Lord, "My refuge and my fortress;
my God in whom I trust."

For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence;
he will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge;

his faithfulness is a shield and buckler,
You will not fear the terror of the night,
or the arrow that flies by day,
or the pestilence that strikes in the darkness,
or the destruction that wastes at noonday...

Psalm 91

I'm hoping that Sarah Palin isn't paying any attention to the hurricane that's swirling around her.

I'm hoping she's in the calm at the eye of the storm, unruffled, composed, and focusing on her speech tonight.

In short, I'm hoping and praying that the Lord is hiding her and her family under the shadow of His wing:

You who live in the shadow of the Most High,
who abide in the shadow of the Almighty,
will say to the Lord, "My refuge and my fortress;
my God in whom I trust."

For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence;
he will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge;

his faithfulness is a shield and buckler,
You will not fear the terror of the night,
or the arrow that flies by day,
or the pestilence that strikes in the darkness,
or the destruction that wastes at noonday...

Psalm 91

Gee, you guys never do have any ideas or principles of your own, do you? Post after post merely reacting to what the Left has done.

It's like your entire movement is based on spite! How many words here have been devoted to those "lefties"? Pathetic! Guess that's why you're on your way out.

Hey, Skip, how come you say I said something here that I never said? Can't win your argument without lying?

real:

I have no idea what your point is.

Individuals have their own way of arriving at the truth.

Robots cannot think for themselves and when they can't understand, they call others names ... hmmmm, let's see .... liar?

real, you aren't making any sense.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't react to the reaction of the left to Palin? Their reaction to her selection as VP nominee has been malicious, spiteful, vicious. It has been filled with lies, innuendo, denigration of her accomplishments, sneers, put-downs..etc.

Are you saying that this spiteful and malicious behaviour of the left should be ignored? Why? Wouldn't that be unprincipled on our part - not to stand up for truth and integrity?

Just take a look at the MSM and its vicious attacks against Mrs. Palin. How many words have been devoted to attacking her? Hmmm?

And what does our reacting to the Left's reaction to the announcement have to do with 'ideas'? After all, this thread isn't about the ideas of the right. It's about integrity in the political realm, and most of us feel that the left's reaction to Mrs. Palin's selection was unethical.

ET, why am I not at all surprised that you are too obtuse to understand my point.

I have read so much invective directed toward the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Copps, Belinda Stronach, etc. etc. etc. - strong-minded women who don't share the conservative viewpoint that a woman should be at home with her children until they are older (something it seems Palin doesn't believe either) - about whether they are real women or good mothers because they chose work as well as families, because they are tough and not "feminine". By Rush Limbaugh. By Sean Hannity. By Ann Coulter. Here at SDA. At Free Dominion. At the Shotgun. etc. etc. etc. Which is not to even go back in time to what was said and threatened against the Gloria Steinem's etc.

And you do see many of the same comments from liberals about Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. etc. - strong-minded women who don't share their liberal values and viewpoint.

It is the same crap.

My point is a simple one so let me repeat: stupid partisans will throw out all principles when attacking the other side. Liberals and conservatives alike will call woment b**ches, and s**ts. Anything goes when you attack "the other side" and the partisan monkeys jump up and down clapping each other on the back.

I'm not saying conservatives and liberals are the same, ET. I am saying you and all the DailyKos and other knee-jerk reaction partisans are pretty much all stooges and the perfect example of "sheeple".

Hope that wasn't too difficult for you to understand this time.

And as for this silliness about "the Left" is a dogmatic religion, really, you can't have it both ways folks. Is the Left dogmatic and like a religion, or as Texas Canuck says and as ET herself has said in a different post, is the Left devoid of any real principles where everything is relative and nothing absolute?

Which is it?

Political types of all stripes will use ideology to get power. That is certainly true on the left and certainly true on the right. They will hoodwink the general voting public by saying they believe in X, Y and Z and then do the politically expedient thing (read: what it takes to get and keep power) and the first opportunity. Like Chretien with the GST or Harper with spending, fixed-election dates, waiting times, etc. etc.

ET: Further to your earlier post:

This does help put into words a scenario from past elections that the Liberals won. I remember a time when Paul Martin said quite emphatically that he would not allow Alberta to have its own private hospitals. While the statement was rather silly on its own merits, its silliness was only exceeded by the hypocrisy of stating it at the same time he was getting services from a private clinic. I also remember a time when Brian Tobin was involved in some Liberal war room strategies when Chretien was running for re-election. Apparently, the guy who was role-playing the Alliance or Reform candidate (I forget which one) made a good point against the status quo on the subject of Canada's national health care that left Chretien without a response. As this was just a rehearsal and Tobin felt sympathy for the speechless Chretien, Tobin came running out of a back room yelling "No two-tier, no two tier". (This would be the Liberal strategy for that election on health care - it is a statement about the depth of Canadians' intellectual interest in the health care debate that it worked.) When one compares this statement against the other scenario that would face Martin just a few years later, perhaps Tobin would have been more honest if he had said: "No two-tier for the peasant class."

They are afraid. Very afraid. And so they should be.

Although McCain's choice of Palin does seem to help him, the election is not over until it's over. Th very nature of US politics suggests that the loosing side will try an October surprise. A book is about to be released in late September that has the potential to cause McCain some trouble. You may want to watch for it.

Gary Chafetz is a liberal Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice--all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man. Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.

Will the electorate believe Chafetz? We will know on the 4th.

It's interesting to wonder what would have happned if Sarah Palin was a democratic candidate, with a gay son who announced he had aids.
There would be endless talk about what a wonderful mother she was and flattering articles about her courage.

Ah, Ted. I love how you accuse all others of being partisan...presumably presenting yourself as balanced...yet you NEVER agree with ANY conservative principle and YOU are one of the only commenters at SDA who has attended a political party's conventiuon and actively campaigned at it.

Ted, I dare say that YOU are every bit as partisan as you claim everyone else to be.

As for our supposedly viscious attacks against HRC, Pelosi, Copps, Stronach, et al, please point to an instance where we criticized them because of the actions of their offspring. NOW who's being obtuse?

Partisan hack.

The problem, ted, is that your attempt to invoke equivalence as a tactic to smooth over the really vicious and malicious attacks against Gov. Palin by the left - is bereft of content. As usual, you also insert an insult - but that's you.

You can name drop about Conservatives as much as you want, but without actual content of what they said - it's just your word. And, heh, I don't accept your word.

No, Conservative ideology is not 'the woman remains in the kitchen and with the children'. I'd like to see some proof of that as well. It's what YOU say is Conservative ideology, but it's not what Conservatives say. So, again, I don't accept your words.

Belinda Stronach is 'strong-minded'? About what? I haven't heard or read any comments from her that contained any analysis whatsoever. Now - is that conclusion similar to the invective directed to Gov. Palin? No.
Same with Sheila Copps.
Hillary Clinton's ideas are critiqued. What's wrong with that?
Pelosi's ideas are critiqued. What's wrong with that?

But the invective against Gov. Palin isn't against her ideas but against her - being a mother, being a hunter, being against abortion, being both a mother and professional. They are against her daughter, against her husband. They are outrageous.

Yes, the left was vicious against Nancy Reagan and the Bush women - but again, this is a characteristic of the Left. It's you who is trying to deflate the leftist invective against Gov. Palin by trying to set up a scenario of equivalence between left and right.

I disagree with you.

They are afraid. Very afraid. And so they should be.

This is kind of funny, Woodporter. They're so afraid they're laughing out loud!

I think McCain wanted Lieberman, but the religious right wouldn't allow it. So he has picked Palin, who will implode and then be replaced by Lieberman, and then it will be McCain's turn to tell Reed and his crowd to knuckle under.

And besides, this way McCain earns the undying gratitude of the tabloid press, which can come in real handy as EDay approaches.

"Guess that's why you're on your way out."

- real

Travers wrote an op/ed in the Star the other day claiming the same thing. That America had already rejected Conservatism and the world, including Canada, was going to do the same thing.

This despite France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and soon England's swing to the right.

Facts and reason have no place in the brainless world of the left. All they've got is the audacity of whatever they want to think which they present as fact.

One of the immediate benefits of a McCain win will be watching the extreme and pathetic meltdown of the left. It'll be a joy.

Though, thank God they don't own guns.

David, you seem to have a habit of making controversial accusations (religious right would not allow Lieberman as VP) without evidence.

You should have a good reason for making this accusation, IOW evidence/link/quote/something besides your thoughts; if so, provide it.

If not, then don't present your opinion/suspicions as fact.

david - could you provide proof for your allegation that McCain wanted Liebermann but the 'religious right' wouldn't allow it.

Thanks. After all, without proof it's just your view of the world - and heck, that began and ends with ...you. Not reality.

"All they've got is the audacity of whatever they want to think which they present as fact."

Exhibit A: David.

"They're so afraid they're laughing out loud!"

Those vicious attacks are the sound of laughter? Could've fooled me.

File those under inanity along with chickendove.

since Obama's up 8 points since the Palin nomination, I think the laughter might have a different source ;)

"could you provide proof for your allegation that McCain wanted Liebermann but the 'religious right' wouldn't allow it."

Of course he can prove it, it's right there in his talking points memo.

TC

If we're taking credit here, I'm pretty sure I coined the term "leftard":-)and I am sure I invented "Torontard":-P

Speaking of tards, I saw Tropical Thunder yesterday; definiatly NOT OFFENSIVE. What a bunch of idiots(no pun intended).

Frankly I would have trouble taking someone seriously after they called their kids Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. It sounds more aging-hippie than anything.

And if the oldest son were Track, shouldn't the next one be Field?

Mike ... this is probably the most retarded post that has EVER appeared on this site!