“One also must consider that Palin’s gender is potentially as significant in the present race as her politics. Whatever the nature of her conservative stances, Palin is being asked to help McCain make the case that he, too, is on the good side of history. As the manager of a family seafood restaurant remarked to me this evening as he took in CNN’s political coverage, “No matter who wins--a black president or a woman vice president--we’re making progress.” McCain wants Palin to service his progressive narrative, and so far she appears happy to play her role.”

Though I think Obama is even more of a danger to America than McCain/Palin, and I would even support a vote for McCain as the lesser of evils, let’s be realistic about McCain/Palin and the state of the country.
There is something very wrong with a country that sends its young women to go fight its wars, and puts mothers of five children in the position of vice-president.  I’m still enough of a chauvanist bigot to see our electing a woman to lead (or potentially lead) the country as something that ought to shame men.  A woman has to take the role than men are incapable or unwilling to take.  But this is true of so many aspects of our modern, decayed society.

I’m still enough of a chauvanist bigot to see our electing a woman to lead (or potentially lead) the country as something that ought to shame men.

I don’t see how electing a woman is at all shameful.  On the other hand, I don’t think it’s a sign of “how far we’ve come!” There have been women leaders throughout history (in times of growth as well as in times of decline) and there will continue to be women leaders for as long as humanity exists.  They may be rarer than male leaders for a number of reasons (including biological ones) but clearly they exist.  Let them do their thing.

I agree that having women as leaders is not as big a deal as some on either side of the issue say it is, the question is what they do with the power that the cycle of decline awards them.

On the other hand, when it appears to be mostly the women standing up and showing any real backbone, like in Europe regarding Muslim immigration, that is truly something that men should be ashamed of.  There’s a difference between a situation like that and a woman who happens to be a leader, though perhaps a less marked one in the age of mass politics.

I’m still enough of a chauvanist bigot to see our electing a woman to lead (or potentially lead) the country as something that ought to shame men.

Ever heard of Margaret Thatcher?

There’s nothing inherently wrong with an exceptionally talented woman, without child-rearing responsibilities and under extreme circumstances of male unworthiness, reluctantly leading men - all the while celebrating the man’s natural leadership role and the woman’s natural submissiveness and striving to restore that harmonious order.  Such is obviously not the case with Sara Palin.  She has young children; Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin are up to the task; she’s a proud feminist who revels in smashing nature’s glass ceilings; she is not reluctantly seeking political power; she does not seem to possess an exceptional intellect or rare leadership talent; and I seriously doubt that she longs for a return to the blessings of Christian patriarchy.

I have been crusing the hardcore Hillary blogs and other blogs that are opposed to Obama.  The big debate is regarding Ms. Palin’s
right-to-life views. Others see Palin as a brazen attempt by McCain to capture the “women’s vote.”

My personal opinion is that McCain would have preferred Lieberman or Ridge as a running mate.  However, he knew that such a choice would cost him the base. Given his other options; Palin was the best choice to reassert his “maverick” reputation and bring buzz and life to his campaign. 

Is she experienced enough to run the country? No. However, she can make the case for herself that a team of the Secretry of State and
other cabinet members will be there for her.  And, that she will learn as much about foreign policy as possible before the election and inauguration.

She does have a record (however brief) and it appears to be that of a libertarian.  The support of Bay and Pat Buchanan doesn’t hurt.
She likes Ron Paul, and indeed she was recommended to him as a possible running mate.

To to all of you chauvenists out there ... Hello!… even if a woman desires to stay home and be a Mom-housewife; most men don’t make enough money to allow this for more than a few years--if at all.  This is a fact of life.  So, most American women (and many men) identify with working Moms and wives.

Sorry, “Chauvanists.” duh!…

No offense intended to J.R. and others ... I’m married to a
wonderful “old-fashioned” guy (and I stayed home when I had my family)
But, I understand that other women may not choose to configure their lives in my mode.

To Esmerelda Pearl,

My criticism is harshest for men.  I work two jobs so my wife does not have to leave our two small daughters.  My grandfather worked three.

To John Rutowicz,

God Bless you! :o)

My late husband worked two jobs so that I could stay home when our children were young. Of the two of us, my temperment was more suited to childrearing than his…

Fortunately, before I had my children, I received an excellent education.  After my husband’s death I was able secure a teaching position.

I am very thankful for the years spent at home with my children.
However, not everyone can or wants to be a SAHM.

It is true that some men won’t make the effort to allow their wives to be SAHM.  However, many do not make enough money; even with two or three jobs. Some of my friends worked at jobs that provided the family with health insurance. (The husband, although working two jobs--or more-did not have affordable access to health insurance.)

I have to say that I am happy that I was able to work as a secondary education teacher until I could secure a retirement.

Now, if I could just get my “wonderful, old-fashioned guy” (my second husband) to retire!

:o)

Dear Esmerelda Pearl,

Thank you for your kindness.  I don’t think we really disagree.  Of course you are right that not all women have been blessed with the opportunity to stay at home with their children.  Sometimes a husband’s two jobs will not suffice.  Sometimes he may die and leave her no option.  There are circumstances in which women are left with few options and our respect and support toward such women is called for.  But I’m sure you will agree that there are plenty of men and women who find themselves in economic difficulties because they wish to live far beyond their station in life.  And in any case I suspect that poverty is not an issue in the Palin household.

I don’t wish to be overly critical of Sarah Palin.  John McCain could have done a lot worse than to pick her for a running mate.  In fact I’m sure there are many things I would like about her.  I may, in fact vote for her.  But my general criticism is that I do not think it is a sign of a healthy society when women are soldiers, police officers, or heads of governments.  I don’t think these positions are compatible with a woman’s nature (note I did not say intelligence), nor do I think these positions are compatible with a woman’s role as a bearer and nurturer of children.  My other criticism is that, in my opinion, Mrs. Palin ought to be at home with her infant (and tragically Downs Syndrome) son.  I don’t believe her calling is to break any “glass ceilings,” or to be Governor or Vice-President.  I believe her calling is to be a mother.

Once again, I don’t wish to vilify Mrs. Palin.  It is an imperfect world, and I’m as imperfect as she is.  I’d much rather have her as a leader than Barack Obama or even John McCain.  I do, however, mourn the decay of our civilization that is in part brought about by the notion that the sexes are interchangeable.  Men and women are certainly of equal value, but they are not interchangeable.  And men are primarily to blame.  We would not have nearly as much feminist nonsense in the world if men acted like men; the loving, attentive fathers and husbands they were created to be.

I hope you succeed in getting your husband to retire, and that you both have many more happy years together.  God bless you.

It doesn’t matter who Sarah Palin is. She will not challenge McCain on anything and will not help to put paleo ideas back into the fabric of the Republican party.

They thoroughly rejected Buchanan and Ron Paul, and they care about nothing but advancing our slide into empire and eventual oblivion.

The best thing for paleos would be tto vote for anybody BUT McCain. An Obama victory is the BEST THING we can hope for, simply because it would be a repudiation of the neocons. The neocons must be rejected entirely. There’s no way to form an alliance with them. There is no common ground to build on. One may as well attempt to convert to Christianity and Satanism at the same time. it’s not going to happen.