Why Not Sotomayor?

Ever heard the expression, “stop the world I want to get off?”  Suffice it to say that if the world were ever to stop for me, I wouldn’t be disembarking, I’d be tossing looney toon butt wiping twits left and right into the stratosphere with gleeful abandon.  Maybe then, the rest of us could return to some degree of something that in some way at least resembles something approaching normalcy and reason.

Over at The Widdershins, in  the comment section of the post, “Hillary Clinton: Ready To lead On Day One” which examined the differences and similarities between the media treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, by “Be Mindful,” commenter “La-t-da” was moved to ask this question near the middle of the thread:

Where is all the Sarah rah rah fest coming from? Aren’t there some liberal women out there that we can be rah rahing about?

I responded that yes, there is an ostensibly liberal woman we could be rah rahing about: Sonia Sotomayor, which touched off a pretty spirited discussion.  I pointed out that just the day before, the Associated Press had run an article, which was reprinted many places, including Salon, noting that women’s groups were, by and large, taking a “wait and see” approach to giving full support to the newest Supreme Court nominee.  Yet, throughout the PUMAsphere, and elsewhere, support has been given much more freely to the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska, sometimes becoming full-throated, energetic, and downright passionate.  Christianity Today pointed out that when David Letterman made his insulting “slutty flight attendant with the daughter that should be knocked up during a baseball game” jokes, women’s groups rushed to her defense.  The groups named in the article range from the conservative “anti-feminist” Concerned Women for America, to that bastion of feminism, the National Organization For Women, though they seem to be unaware of the vigorous campaign launched by PUMA Pac, participated in by women all over the PUMAsphere and GretaWire.  Those combined efforts forced the unrepentant talk show host to issue a series of “apologies.”

Since Palin’s resignation as governor, it seems her support from women has only grown.  Yet, when G. Gordon Liddy asserted that Sotomayor’s rulings might be negatively influenced by her period, or, when “journalists” speculated about her sexual orientation, the response was not quite as concerted or robust.

The obvious question is, what’s up with that?

The obvious answer is, Barack Obama picked Sotomayor, and Palin is perceived to be his nemesis, though in actuality, she’s his alter-ego.

(Uh-oh, here we go!)

First of all, I did blog about Michael Wolff’s unwarranted speculation about Stomayor’s sexuality, and I have also stated that her record on issues I care about has been reported to be thin.  Given that, and the fact that I don’t trust Barack Obama as far as I can throw a Chevy Tahoe, I want to hear what she has to say herself in her upcoming confirmation hearings.  Thus, the laid back approach taken by women’s groups regarding her is perfectly understandable and fine with me.

On the other hand, while I “get” that the tasteless, baseless misogynistic attacks on Palin, and all the vile, cruel attacks on her children are intolerable, I don’t “get” how that seems to translate into the sort of Palin 4 Ever PUMALove mania I’ve witnessed.  I’ve also stated that I think she’s smart and competent, and kicked Jo(k)e Biden’s righteous ass in their debate.  However, I’m on record, too, as saying I’d never vote for her.  She’s stated emphatically that abortion should not be federal law, but the province of the states, which would require a repeal of Roe v. Wade…

I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

…and, though some have credited her with not imposing her views as governor, one of her staunchest defenders put the lie to that just today:

Anybody who had the opportunity to score political points against Palin took a shot. The Alaska judicial council, a body that recommends jurists to the governor, forced the pro-life Palin to appoint a pro-choice judge to the state supreme court. (emphasis mine)

Additionally, she believes people should be able to walk around packing heat.  Since way too many people get shot where I come from, (Chicago) and everywhere I’ve lived (L.A., San Francisco, New York, Vegas, etc., none of your business) I think that’s stupid.  I’d also like to see the government take over healthcare and remove the insurance companies from the mix altogether, even though I know that’s probably never gonna happen.  But, I’m certainly not gonna vote for anybody who runs from that idea like somebody put boogers in her hair and set it on fire.

So my question isn’t really “why not Sotomayor?” but “why Palin?”  They’re both smart, accomplished women, (though Sotomayor has more experience in her field) who have been attacked for just being women ever since they stepped into the spotlight.  Why the “rally ’round Sarah,” when she, by her own choice, for her own reasons, isn’t running for anything?  After all, women’s organizations demanded Sotomayor, or another female, be nominated to the Court, while John McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate was arguably as much a surprise as her sudden resignation.

The only common thread is Obama.  Hating Obama causes us to be unduly suspicious of Sotomayor, and overly supportive of Palin.  Sarah represents the “anti-Obama” agenda, while the fear is Sotomayor is his stealth agent.   Yet, once confirmed, is a Supreme Court justice really beholden to the pretendident who nominated her?

Also, on closer inspection, it seems Sotomayor, though difficult to pigeonhole, just might represent the liberal values the Celebritician ran on, while Palin is more closely aligned with the conservative-lite way he governs.  When you look at what he has, and has not, done since elected, his agenda seems a lot like Palin’s, especially on social issues.  In fact, instead of the dreadful Ms. Magazine cover, “This is What a Feminist Looks Like,” maybe it should have read, “This is What an Anti-feminist Looks Like.”

There is no doubt that anti-feminist, anti-abortion, conservative organizations think Sarah Palin has their back, and will soon be pushing their shared agenda from up front, where it counts, especially in regards to the upcoming 2012 presidential elections:

One element of the conservative movement is much more excited. Anti-abortion activists, who embraced Palin after the birth of Trig and after the unmarried pregnancy of Palin’s daughter Bristol, are ecstatic about the possibility that Palin, freed from the duties and turmoils of office, could become a historic leader and spokeswoman for their cause.

“Sarah Palin is the ultimate speaker on pro-life issues,” said Jane Abraham, a former chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party who co-founded Team Sarah, a project of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List that supports anti-abortion female candidates. “We surpassed 70,000 members over the weekend, after her speech. People respond to her. She’s absolutely the most effective advocate the pro-life movement could have.”

Contrary to the image that the term “anti-feminist” might conjure up in some minds, the truth is, in just about all ways, “anti-feminists” look, sound, and act just like regular feminists – to a point.  Just like Satanists often hold services much like Christian ones, and, the Anti-Christ would probably come across as very Christ-like until the message he was preaching turned from comforting and inspiring to creepy and weird, so too do anti-feminists appear to be regular-old, garden variety feminists.  And they are, until the message they’re preaching gets creepy and weird.  This, of course, is deliberate, and possibly, even unavoidable.  Frankly, sometimes it’s almost impossible to tell the difference.

The Susan B. Anthony List makes no bones about their agenda, according to Source Watch:

The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) is a U.S.-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization with a “connected political action committee SBA List Candidate Fund.” SBA List states that its “ultimate goal is to end abortion in this country.” [1]

On its website it states that central to achieving its goal “is getting more women active in the political and legislative arena. We need both women candidates, as well as grassroots activists speaking out against abortion.”

Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, even Ladies Against Feminism, and other groups, male and female, seem perfectly reasonable, especially the sneaky ones who deliberately try to lure you in before they get creepy and weird, like Feminists For Life.  And, lest anyone think this is a new or national phenomenon, this book examines anti-feminism in Victorian and Edwardian England, and there’s Australia’s Endeavor Forum, and, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada.

So, what do these folks believe?  Well, FFO wants to reduce the number of abortions, (on their way to abolishing the right to have them altogether)…

If we are serious as a nation about significantly reducing the number of abortions, then established, credible pregnancy resource centers should be eligible for federal funding. Nearly 4,000 pregnancy care centers and maternity homes guide women in crisis through the maze of available support services – food, clothing, housing, furniture, medical care including high risk pregnancies, legal assistance, help with employment and education, drug abuse and domestic violence counseling, childbirth, breast-feeding and parenting classes – all at no charge. Some specialize in bilingual/bicultural services, adoption and/or post-abortion counseling. These centers are where many pro-lifers “walk their talk” to help women in need. They leverage financial and in-kind resources from individuals, businesses, churches and communities across the country, yet they cannot consistently meet the demand for services.

…and, so does Obama:

He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to “work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

…even though he says they should be safe and legal, as well as rare.  However, ensuring that they remain legal, by passing the Freedom of Choice Act, is no longer the legislative priority it was when he was on the campaign trail.  Anti-feminists also believe in the traditional family, and that fathers should be involved in every step of every pregnancy, blaming society’s ills on the lack of said participation, and by extension, women.  So does Obama.  Nor do Obama, or the anti-feminists support marriage equality for gays and Lesbians.  The only semi-”progressive” thing he’s done is continue the Bush initiated policy of spreading the wealth from the citizens to the banksters who elected him.

Yet, so-called “progressives” used every dirty trick in the book, and invented a few new ones, to get him into office.  According to the Washington Times, a similar movement is afoot on behalf of Palin.  This time, though, instead of “progressives” c0opting the Democratic party and installing an Obacracy, “conservatives” are set to go outside the Republican box to institute Palinism:

Brushing aside the criticisms of pundits and politicos, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she plans to jump immediately back into the national political fray — stumping for conservative issues and even Democrats — after she prematurely vacates her elected post at month’s end.

The former Republican vice-presidential nominee and heroine to much of the GOP’s base said in an interview she views the electorate as embattled and fatigued by nonstop partisanship, and she is eager to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and “energy independence.”

Oh, yippee-ky-yi-motherfucking-A.  Like Obama had his former Republican progressive Cheetohead HuffPuffians to advance his Illinois Combine-inspired cause, Palin has her staunchly Democratic, conservative antifeminist Tammy Brucian advocates solidly in her corner.  Why, Bruce has even been endorsed by the Palin Twitter campaign, which is, of course, the natural next step in the new generation-American Idol-politics-by-Facebook progression.  From Bruce’s web page:

**UPDATE: It’s an honor to note that Governor Palin has linked to this post at both her official Facebook page and at the SarahPAC site.**
In an interview with the Washington Times, Palin makes her most direct comments yet about Conservativism versus the Republican Party. In my humble opinion, it’s clear the GOP, unfortunately, is lost beyond the point of return. When you’re one year out of key campaigns to take back Congress in 2010 and Meghan McCain is The Oracle of the party, you know it’s over. If Tina Brown thought Ms. McCain’s willingness to be a Useful Idiot for liberals would undermine the conservative movement (and consequently Sarah Palin), she should take a serious and long look at what their attacks on Palin provoked: a stronger, more independent, more determined conservative leader and base.

Oh, goody, goody, joy, freakin’ joy.  I can just see it now.  Picture it, 2012, the campaign trail: rambling, incoherent Teflon TelePrompTer Reader, “Ken” Obama, versus his rambling, incoherent, I Quit My Job To Serve, “Barbie” Palin alter-ego, Tweeting away on Facebook in scripted “debates” from the same side.  Partisan voters, with, and without, grudges against either, or both, of the Bobbsey Twins, will cast their ballots out of manipulated habit, oblivious to the fact that their preferred candidates might as well run on the same ticket.  In fact, the only reason they won’t, is because that would leave their nominal, ineffective, neutered-into-impotency, respective “parties” with nothing to fight about, and, the Mainscream Media and Blogviatosphere with nothing to pretend to report.

It will be interesting to see which Touched By An Angel candidate ends up sitting at the right hand of their lovingly embraced Father, politically speaking, however.  While we know the ObaMessiah has secured his place in the line of succession to the Big Kahuna-In-The-Sky, American Thinker informs us that Sarah Magdalene just might be in position to give him some “Yeah, but I know His secret name,” Isis-to-Ra-like competition:

Sarah Palin loves God. God loves Sarah Palin.

And that is why they hate her…and Him.

And why she — and He — will be back.

That love, an essential part of her everyday life, holds out the hope of a return to the nation envisioned by the unapologetically spiritual generation that birthed the U.S.

I bet y’all thought I was kidding.  Tee hee.  Don’t you know by now, Cinie don’t play dat?  Seems to me, when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, Civil Rights, and marriage equity, to name three, with Sonia Sotomayor, you can’t be sure yet what we’re getting in terms of support.  But, between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin?  Either way, we’re screwed.

Aaaaaaaaannnnnd, theeeee wheels on the train a’comin’ go ’round and ’round.  People get ready.