One of "the most conservative female columnists" on the radar has this to say:



Too late. Apparently everyone (ok, almost everyone, judging by the slander directed at Ms. Parker for this elsewhere) is of the opinion that the move was a cynical ploy on his part and this after dancing around last year courting (then repudiating) the endorsements of the usual suspects: Hagee, Parsley, et al.

Make no mistake: I have absolutely ZERO patience with the "igloo trash" remarks making the rounds myself. The simple fact that she's unqualified to hold the second-highest office in the land for about 100,000 different reasons (and counting) should be enough.

Actually, I have zero patience with all of it at this point. Just what makes either camp think they have to engage in political ploys? The approval rating of Congress hit an all-time low in July. 85% of Americans are fed to the teeth with Washington and a whopping 63% of Independents with both parties. "Ridiculous" and "silly" do not even begin to describe the state of the political landscape in America.

Unofficial poll: Does anyone (besides me) think that the Oval Office is actually the least important being vacated?

More on that landscape ...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/a...r-palin-be.aspx

JB

Yep, yep. Read a commentary from the liberal perspective the other day (it's kind of amazing how these wires are beginning to cross) that agreed with conservatives that the McCain camp was actually doing that much more harm with all the shielding and secreting away of her after the Republican convention.

Charging that that's the sexism and they should just allow her to be herself (though we know what her self entails and probably 90% of us have seen enough of it over the past eight years alone), the effect its probably having is to destroy any confidence she had. Would she be stumbling around quite as much if she'd had increasing exposure leading up to tomorrow's debate?

You can tell she's being coached to the extent that when she does try to answer a question, it all comes pouring out at once and jumbled together to the point that it makes no sense at all. Couric's expressions of "Arugh?" Classic.

It's almost tempting to feel some sympathy but not because it would've been so easy for her to say "no" having already asked, "First, somebody has to tell me exactly what the Vice President does -- every day."

Oh, and incidentally, I've seen sexism before (never here, of course, or I'd not make a peep about the "Palin problem") and whatever-this-is, it's not sexism. Since I'm probably "anti-woman" all-around as far as the pundits are concerned for refusing to support either her or Clinton, I feel I can say that. At least, Clinton was qualified to run.

While I've got the floor (all to myself) .... If anyone wonders, "feminism" was originally about the vote and, later, equal pay for equal work. Not women becoming men; not women being treated like men in the workplace; and certainly not displacing men. Equal opportunity and pay (for anyone) does not entail applying for or being given positions one is physically or otherwise unable to perform. If a woman is built with the kind of frame it takes to be a wrestler or has the education and expertise to do a less physically-demanding job -- and actually wants to do it rather than feeling pressured to do it by "the sisterhood" (or the brotherhood) -- great. Otherwise, it's not sexism, it's not chauvinism and it's not anti-"feminism" to say, "Sorry. Your qualifications do not match the position we're seeking to fill."

Call me Jurassic, but both brands of "feminism" illustrated in the pieces I've alluded to seem really strange to me. Are we really that far gone?

Thanks to all ye RJ for the vent. Now, off with me to write "The Feminine Manifesto". (Not for public consumption.)

Not only is her monumental incompetence at issue, but her fundamental lack of intellectual curiosity that makes me

Funny you should say that. The flak Ms. Parker took over her suggestion began with "she's one of those 'intellectual conservatives'". As if that's a bad thing.

BTB, no one answered the poll question, so I will.... The most discussed topic around here is the extensive powers now vested in the Executive Branch. Thinking a Democratic-controlled Congress would at least reign it in when they took majority, all the ignored emails and phone calls to "our representatives" proved that idea dead wrong. Seems clear a good number of incumbents should go home. A shaken up Congress probably wouldn't do it, either. I'm not sure anyone could be trusted with that much power, but most definitely not McCain. Obama has a record of transparency and ethics reform, along with the unheard of habit of placing rule of law at the head of the line. If he can resist wielding it himself, Obama-wan is probably our only hope.