jump to last post 1-34 of 34 discussions (199 posts)

Palin . Backmann , Why Aren't Women Mad as Hens ?

  1. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I would like to know why our fair and balanced media is so silent when it comes to how these two are treated ?  Migrain headaches , and pregnant daughters  ,  Liberal media wouldn't touch this issue with someone elses hands ! Or in other words. Where is the womans lib  movement ? Where are the "enraged and offended"  politically correct Police from the left on this issue?  Got  their heads burried in the sand?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Did it ever occur to you that many strong, intelligent, capable women might view Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as deserving of the treatment they have received?  In the same way that Donald Trump deserved the ridicule he received from the media for his stupid pursuit of Obama's birth certificate?

      Us women can spot a phony a mile away.  I'm referring to Sarah Palin when I say "phony."  I think that Michelle Bachmann is authentic.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes they can spoy a phony alright , they voted for President Obama didn't they!

        1. donotfear profile image90
          donotfearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          http://photos2.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP494/k4946882.jpg

      2. mikelong profile image84
        mikelongposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The former phoney, the latter loony

        I am wondering why more women don't openly challenge either Palin or Bauchman. These two are like misguided pied pipers, leading unknowing-naive women (and men) politically and socially astray..

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27QTX46X … ure=fvwrel

        Barbies gone wrong.....but still getting paid (including hook-ups for the kiddies):

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliab … _paid.html

        This is a tangental doozy:

        http://truthquake.com/2011/06/18/sarah- … ve-values/

        Fraud is an understatement..

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Palin and Bachman are idiots.

      Women deserve a much higher standard of expectations than those two project.

      As much as I oppose their political philosophies, Michelle Obama or Hilary Clinton are MUCH better candidates for "women's rights-esque" politicians.

      When I hear Palin or Bachman, I think "ignoramus". When I hear Hilary, I think "intelligent and principled, if wrong... and her husband was a scumbag". When I think of Michelle Obama, I think "Principled and intelligent, but wrong".

      No -- it's not because the media treats them that way, it's because Clinton and Obama don't say idiotic things.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They didnt huh?  So its OK to dis a woman  because you think that they think  shes an Idiot. Uh HUH !

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ... ... what?

          It's ok to "dis" ANYONE if they're an idiot.

      2. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I want to give you kudos for not having your agenda color your evaluation of these two women.  You do not have a knee-jerk need to defend everything conservative, and I give you credit for that.
        When I disagree with you in the future, it will be with a proper amount of respect.  LOL.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol, thanks.

          Hil-dawg and Michele just seem... competent, y'know?

          Bachman and Palin... ... ermm...

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Pelosi on the other hand.... she looks like an evil side kick who doesn't know what's going on.

      3. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "As much as I oppose their political philosophies, Michelle Obama or Hilary Clinton are MUCH better candidates for "women's rights-esque" politicians."

        Those two are glaring examples of the self made Woman.

        lollollollollollollollol

        1. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          and the problem is? 

          women who can think on their own?

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There is no problem.

            They may be able to think on their own, they just couldn't get anywhere on their own.

            1. rebekahELLE profile image90
              rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I would love to see a woman president, but most certainly the first woman president is going to need to be strong, decisive, intelligent and able to represent what is best for all Americans.

              Is any candidate (male or female) able to make it on their own?  I don't think so, they surround themselves with people smart enough to make it seem like they can.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "Is any candidate (male or female) able to make it on their own?"

                Yes, many have made it on their own. But the two specific people you mentioned certainly didn't.

                "I don't think so, they surround themselves with people smart enough to make it seem like they can."

                True, our current President is living proof.

                1. rebekahELLE profile image90
                  rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I expected this response..

                  No president can make it on his own nor should they. But they need to be strong enough to make the tough, best decisions when necessary.

                  We have politicians in Congress now who simply don't care about the average American. They make it tough for any president. I hope something is resolved this weekend.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You expected it? Good, its true.

                    And you think the best decision is to tax more and keep spending? Yeah, thats a tough decision. roll

                    Those congressman were sent to make it tough on Obama, you didn't get that?

      4. SparklingJewel profile image67
        SparklingJewelposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ...you mean the media doesn't report to mainstream America the idiotic things that may be said... right? hmm

    3. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A moron by any other name....is still a moron.  Do you feel Palin represents all women?  smile

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think Palin represents women as much as Hillary , its just the double standards you use to chose which you like!  The migrain issue is okay if you don't like her ,  Palin isn't likeable by liberals so its ok that shes dissed for being a hunter or having a loose daughter ! HUnbh!

        1. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          She's not dissed for having a loose daughter, she's dissed for continuing to push abstinence-only sex ed despite its blatant failure in her own family. tongue

          1. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It was a blatant failure in Clintons house too but you're willing let that slide for Hillarys sake!

            1. thebrucebeat profile image61
              thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What are you referring to?

              Besides, Hillary wasn't pushing abstinence only.  She wasn't trying to sell herself as the uber-Christian.  She wasn't trying to sell the idea of one set of family values for all.

              What are you talking about?

          2. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It was a blatant failure in Clintons house too but you're willing let that slide for Hillarys sake!

      2. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So its Ok  to allow migrains to be the issue ! Your people jumped all over the media that called Hillary  for dressing "frumpy " when she ran . But Backmanns migrain is fair game ......Hypocracy rules the forums ?Again.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Are you a suggesting a possible political nominee dressing "frumpy" would affect their decision making abilities as much as them being a "moron"?  lol

          1. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No Randy that came from her own party .....You.

          2. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No Randy that came from her own party .....You.

    4. I am DB Cooper profile image66
      I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you truly believe the "liberal media" wouldn't touch a story about a male Democratic vice presidential candidate's teenage daughter getting pregnant, especially if said candidate supported abstinence-only education, you are naive.

  2. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Most of them are laughing at the people who actually believe that these two represent the best the right has to offer.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Laugh all they want , we've seen what what the left offered!

  3. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    My point is , serious voter immressions or not , where is the anger from the all inclusive left ? From the standpoint of fairness or offensive media treatment. Is it Ok now because it's your media pundits attacking a republican ? Because thats the impression I get from the silence that has ensued!

    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Believing that women will defend someone solely because they share the same gender is itself stereotypical and condescending.

      "Mad as hens"?  LOL

      1. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Then, I guess he also must have no problem with blacks supporting O.J. Simpson solely because he's black.

      2. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yup. I get annoyed when any media - liberal, so-called liberal, or conservative - uses sexist insults (b****, c***, etc.) in relation to these women, or attacks them on ludicrously sexist grounds like "what would happen if the president had PMS in the middle of a terror attack."

        However, the most common epithets I see leveled against either of them are "moron" and "idiot," neither of which is sexist in the slightest. If you say stupid things, then you can expect to be called an idiot, whatever your sex or gender identity.  tongue

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          once again, the video of Colbert re-enacting Paul Revere's ride the way that Palin described it is classic.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Colbert is one smart cookie. I love his show and the Daily show as well.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.  Idiocy is not a gender-specific characteristic. 

          tongue

      3. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        +

        1. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          HubPages really needs to add a "like" button to forum posts. smile

  4. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    So did a few republican states horse. That trend will continue if the GOP continues to promote people like this.

  5. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Evan, I missed that one. is it on youtube?

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    I didn't like Margaret Thatcher either. I do not vote for people solely based on gender.

    Palin was attacked for her pregnant daughter because she pushed a "just say no" agenda for teens.

    I don't know enough about Bachmann other than some of the silly things she stands for. I believe her migraine issue was brought up by a potential Republican opponent... male of course.

    Yes, occasionally male journalists have sexist attitudes. But like kerryg says, idiot or moron are not genders specific.

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The thing about Bachmann is that (unlike Palin, imho) she actually believes the crazy s*** that spews out of her mouth. Also, she shares the persecution complex common in many conservative Christians, so she's able to tap into the language of Christian victimization in a way that brings the troops rallying to her defense no matter how far-out her claims of victimhood actually are. Every attack on her makes her claims of victimization look more valid, and every claim of victimization makes her look crazier to outsiders, so it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.

      She tends to be underestimated by people who don't understand that aspect of the particular fundamentalist subculture she's emerged from. In recent years, the same characteristic has been spreading to conservatives as a whole, so I think she's a bigger threat than many people give her credit for.

    2. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No I suppose not as long as you dont like them , I love the double standards of Liberal idealists!

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Show me the double standard in my post. You seem to be saying they should not be criticized just because they are female and that if they are it must be sexist.

        I wouldn't vote for any woman...of any political party...just because she is a woman.
        There would have to be substance behind her.

        Any criticism I had of Thatcher...and Palin... and Bachmann has nothing to do with their gender. Other than being embarrassed that they are being used as representative of female politicians.

  7. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    From what has been written about Baroness Thatcher, it seems she didn't like working with women MPs, preferring to surround herself with yes men, who she controlled with an iron rod, even telling those with beards to shave them off or how they should have their hair cut.  However, Thatcher came into politics, when there were very few women, and the odds were stacked against them.  They therefore had to work harder and become harder than the men, if they were to survive.  Even today, the House of Commons and House of Lords are dominated by men, with women still being in a minority.

  8. RooBee profile image83
    RooBeeposted 5 years ago

    What an incredibly condescending post! I'll agree with the other posters in that idiocy and ignorance isn't exclusive to one race or gender. None of what has been said about these women has been gender-specific or sexist.

    Anyone who gets into politics stands to be scrutinized, and unless I hear someone say "she can't run because she has a vagina" I hardly think that the complaints against these women is gender-based.

    I am starting to realize that you like to bait people in this way. You're certainly not after a respectful and enlightening discussion!

    And, again, the migraine thing was brought up by a fellow conservative. Picking and choosing which facts to ignore and which to highlight makes you just the same as the spin-doctor media that you complain so much about.

  9. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    It's completely acceptable to dis (as you put it) any idiot regardless of sex. If she wants it to stop all she has to do is quit saying idiotic things. What are you trying to do here, audition for the Faux News Network?

  10. Danette Watt profile image87
    Danette Wattposted 5 years ago

    Regardless of political party, women will always be held to a different standard than male politicians. There will always be more emphasis on how they dress (too conservative or not), how they wear their hair, if they are perceived as feminine enough (by whatever moving standards society has decided 'feminine' is at the time), if they have children and if so, how many children they have, etc. etc.

    Male politicians don't have to deal with this kind of crap. People want to know what they THINK, what their plan is.

    Long before Obama came along, I told my husband there will be a black man in the White House before there is a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women. Men will always come before women.

    I have never understood why this country just can't get over a woman being in power (oops, dirty phrase here - women in power!!). There are SO many other countries with women leaders, why not us??

    1. 0
      Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Age also seems to matter more for women MPs for some reason.  A woman can be considered too old for the job, yet male MPs can work into their 80s, and no one thinks twice about it.

      1. Danette Watt profile image87
        Danette Wattposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I'm more upset that Elizabeth Warren wasn't nominated because she was way too tough on the banksters, and she likes to fight back with politicians!!

    They had to nominate a man, who the men could feel comfortable being "Owned" by! ,)

  12. thebrucebeat profile image61
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    In answer to the OP, women as a collective are not simpletons.  They see these women for the frauds they are, the simple minded, undereducated pretenders that humiliate them as a gender.
    They aren't as stupid as their sycophantic ideological husbands, boyfriends and dads.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "They see these women for the frauds they are, the simple minded, undereducated pretenders that humiliate them as a gender."

      As opposed to those who further themselves by riding on the coattails of a man.

      They burned their bras and then bought new push-ups.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What does this even mean?

        1. Paradise7 profile image86
          Paradise7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever it means, it's insulting!

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "They see these women for the frauds they are, the simple minded, undereducated pretenders that humiliate them as a gender."

            But this isn't insulting at all, is it? roll

            1. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You mean you really think these women are NOT simple minded, undereducated pretenders?

              In fact, Sarah Palin pretended that she reads newspapers, in a TV interview, yet she could not name one paper that she reads.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "You mean you really think these women are NOT simple minded, undereducated pretenders?"

                No I don't think that at all.

                Does that make me simpleminded as well?

                1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                  thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Is that rhetorical?  If not, I think I have the answer.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And it would be another wrong answer.

                    One would think you would get tired of that.

                    I suppose to some its an art form.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Can't figure it out?

          Keep working on it.

        3. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's Jimspeak.  He takes it as a sign of his cleverness when those he perceives to be liberals can't make sense of his ramblings.

          Hi, Jim!  smile

          1. Jim Hunter profile image61
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi PP, thanks for the...

      2. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "As opposed to those who further themselves by riding on the coattails of a man."

        How so? You could make a case for some coattail riding on Hillary's part (though I think it's partly a generational thing), but Michelle outranked Barack in seniority at the law firm where they met, and held a number of high ranking positions in the public, private, and charity sectors both before and after their marriage.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "but Michelle outranked Barack in seniority at the law firm where they met, and held a number of high ranking positions in the public, private, and charity sectors both before and after their marriage."

          And you know that why?

          Because her husband is President, otherwise she would be anonymous.

          1. kerryg profile image86
            kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So? If she sought national name recognition on her own but only achieved it through his actions, then she'd be riding on his coattails. As it is, she was originally opposed to him seeking national office, so the evidence suggests she didn't.

            Moreover, the fact that she acquired national name recognition as the wife of a candidate for national office does nothing to detract from her earlier independent accomplishments, which are considerable.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Moreover, the fact that she acquired national name recognition as the wife of a candidate for national office does nothing to detract from her earlier independent accomplishments, which are considerable."

              If you say so, her accomplishments are not why she is known. It is because she is the wife of the President.

              That is how Hillary Clinton became known.

              Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman managed to do it on their own even with being under-educated simpletons.

              1. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Palin and Bachmann sought national office, and in one case achieved it. National name recognition was necessary to achieve their goals, therefore they sought national name recognition. I'm not knocking their accomplishments, only the judgment of anybody who votes for them. tongue

                We have no indication that Michelle Obama ever had the slightest interest in national office, or was ever anything but satisfied with her career as a respected individual in her own field of work, a position that did not require national name recognition and that she attained on her own merit and hard work, no coattails necessary. You can't criticize her for not achieving somebody else's goal.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  We know you are not knocking their accomplishments, you would seem foolish for doing so.

                  Especially since they both have accomplished things on their own merit.

                  Hillary Clinton had her husbands name and Michelle Obama has not done anything that millions of women haven't done all over the world.

                  Except to marry a narcissist.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Let's see.
                    Palin has lost her only national election, very probably because of her.  She has quit her only statewide job.
                    Bachmann has sponsored 38 bills, none of which have become law.

                    These are the people you admire?  Neither of them have any real grasp on American history or current events on a national or international level.  They have proved themselves repeatedly to be of limited intellect and simply are operative on an ideological level.

                    What is it you admire about them?

  13. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Oh Oh .......This forum has been overrun by The eight percent winners ! Time to book out of here now ! What ? .....you want to know what eight percenters are .   

    Eight percenters are the ones in the jury pools that defence attorneys love to pick for juries . No matter what ....they will never agreee with anyone , they are there only to go against the current , if someone says the sky is blue .  Nope sorry! ...its  aqua or teal or  sea green!.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thats different than a 1%er.

  14. Paradise7 profile image86
    Paradise7posted 5 years ago

    I've never "ridden on a man's coattails" and never will.  I've resisted gender bias and gender stereotyping my whole life.  I'm about fed up with what's happening on these forums.  Take your male chauvinist attitude and shove it up the orifice, after salting it first.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "I've never "ridden on a man's coattails" and never will."

      And nobody ever said you did.

      "I've resisted gender bias and gender stereotyping my whole life."

      How wonderful for you.

      "I'm about fed up with what's happening on these forums.  Take your male chauvinist attitude and shove it up the orifice, after salting it first."

      The orifice? Which orifice would that be? Its pretty obvious that you may be the problem with the forums, you don't like people to have different opinions than your own. Oh what a wonderful world it would be if everyone just agreed with you.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Fortunately, most of us do.  You will find that out when election results come in and neither of these cretins are anywhere near the office they covet.
        I guess I didn't understand your previous post, because I haven't actually met a mysoginistic bigot before.  Sorry.  It just took me by surprise.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "They see these women for the frauds they are, the simple minded, undereducated pretenders that humiliate them as a gender."

          Thats a quote from you.

          When you say things like this is it ok to call you a misogynistic bigot?

          When will people like you ever learn?

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, that wouldn't make any sense, my simple minded friend.

            You see, I am talking about two specific people.  You are talking about an entire class of people.

            Do people find you interesting?  Takes all kinds, doesn't it?

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm talking about two specific people.

              Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, I guess you missed that.

              "Do people find you interesting?"

              I don't know and I don't care. Do you find calling people names is beneficial to your argument? Does it make you less wrong?

              1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Where did you specify your comments were limited to Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama?

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Why don't you reread this thread.

                  Let me help you with one thing, I never thought you were misogynistic or a bigot because of the views you hold toward Palin, Bachman or any other conservative woman that you say are cretins.

                  I didn't feel the need to bolster my views with ridiculous claims.

                  If you are unable to converse without resorting to the common left-wing tactic of name calling and deflection then maybe you and I shouldn't continue.

                  That seems like a good idea to me, the written word seems to confound you anyway.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image61
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Since you use "left wing" as a pejorative, I would call that the pot calling the kettle black.

                    And I did re-read it.

  15. Jonathan Janco profile image81
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    Many of her Republican opponents will bring up 'feminine' issues of why she is unqualified. The reason for this is because they actually support her stoneage policy stances. The TPers are so stupid that their own economic advisors publicly say they are stupid. And my mother, who is a prominent women's advocate and has been since she was a teenager, tells me she's insulted from her unwavering feminist pov that the Republicans would even let Palin or Bachman run in the first place.

  16. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I have seen enough of both of them to see they are both morally bankrupt.

    1. donotfear profile image90
      donotfearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://us.cdn3.123rf.com/168nwm/pooterjon/pooterjon0912/pooterjon091200036/6143769-a-cartoon-gorilla-who-is-very-perplexed-at-something-or-other.jpg

  17. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    So I'll stick with being a one percenter , than an eight percenter ! The difference ?  one percent of righteousness is better than 30 percent 0f bigotry , bias , liberal idealism , and intectual chaovanist.  Are you liberals reading from a teleprompter again ?

    1. Jonathan Janco profile image81
      Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, whoever runs your teleprompter clearly doesn't know how to spell.

  18. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    I don't know who Backmann is, and know very little of Palin, as she doesn't seem to make the news in the UK.  The couple of times I have seen her made me think somewhat of a female George Bush. So, I doubt she can be what America needs, even is she is being "misunderestimated." 

    Concerning the bigger picture of women in politics, there does seem a need to even the numbers up a lot.  I understand that being female doesn't necessarily equate to having a better or even a different understanding.  It is however time, that politics became less of a male affair.  50% of the population should be equally represented.  Perhaps it is time for some form of positive discrimination, because equality seems to be too slow in coming.

  19. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Sherlock interesting interpretations!

  20. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Johnathan is that the beast you cain do !

  21. AEvans profile image70
    AEvansposted 5 years ago

    "Why aren't women mad as hens?" Because we are not hens. big_smile But on the serious side I don't care for Palin or Backmann so everyone should vote for me next election. big_smile Julianna is officially running for President of the United States! smile

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you a write-in candidate or are you the nominee of the party party.

      1. AEvans profile image70
        AEvansposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am a write in candidate. big_smile You can run with me and be the Vice President. smile

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A member of the Elite choosing a mere commoner (sorry Doug, fos) as a running mate?  That just isn't done!  smile

          1. AEvans profile image70
            AEvansposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            mmmmmm.....******Thinking*****  Will have to go back and research. lolololo ! big_smile

  22. Chaotic Chica profile image82
    Chaotic Chicaposted 5 years ago

    Palin as a person is fine, as a political candidate, not so much.  I have four kids, volunteer actively at their school, I can hunt, I have been shooting sharp-shooter since I was twelve, I am a believer in self-sustainablity, and I am not qualified to run for political office because of it.

    I am not against a woman president but she needs to be more than just a woman's lib headliner.  She needs to be able and qualified, just as any man.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "She needs to be able and qualified, just as any man."

      If thats true then how would you explain Barrack Obama?

      1. thebrucebeat profile image61
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Because he made the case to the American public that he was a sane, intelligent person.  You may not agree, but he made the case to the majority.
        These two have not.  It isn't any more complicated than that, is it?

        1. Jim Hunter profile image61
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We are talking about being "qualified".

          Is he sane? I guess.

          Is he intelligent? I suppose.

          Is he qualified? Based on the requirements to become President the answer is yes.

          Based on the facts and his tenure the answer is no.

          He's a total disaster.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image61
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We could argue the disaster evaluation, but the fact is he made the case that he was capable.  These two women have not.  What don't you understand?  They are failing in the eyes of the electorate.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image61
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              He didn't make the case to me.

              He didn't make the case to about 45% of voters.

              About 12% of the 55% that he did make the case to have figured out that they were wrong.

              Time heals all.

              Is Palin even running for President?

  23. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Sd thing is Chica, they are both just as qualified as the majority of the GOP possibles. They sure don't set their requirement bar very high do they?

    1. Chaotic Chica profile image82
      Chaotic Chicaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.  Somewhere along the line our standards have slipped and nobody is crying out.  Had I realized where we would be by now I would have focused my studies on politics!

      1. Jim Hunter profile image61
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Somewhere along the line our standards have slipped"

        That was November 2008.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We were slipping a long time before that... that was simply the day we landed flat on our face in the shit pile, and I do not believe we will be stumbling back to our feet any time soon,  Jim.

          A sad state our country is in.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I do disagree with your assessment of future prospects.

            By 2012 the Tea Party will be completely discredited and the GOP will either reform or die off and be replaced by moderate conservatism with a new name.

            Radical conservatism in defense of the richest half-percent is going the way of the dodo.

          2. Chaotic Chica profile image82
            Chaotic Chicaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is precicely right, TMMason.  We started slipping while I was growing up and everybody just looked the other way because it was profitable.

  24. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    And just imagine if Bachmann has a migraine while she was having PMS... oh my God!! smile

  25. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Well I am not so sure obama can carry many of these 57 states in this election, or the Dems or Progressives... so i don't think the tea party members are going any where.

    Matter of fact I would wager money that there are even more conservative tea party types in the Senate and House after the next election, and I know the Presidency will be Republican at the very least.

    1. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who do you think will beat Obama right now?

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am not worried about right now, Bruce. The election is over a year away yet, be patient.

        1. thebrucebeat profile image61
          thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          From what's being offered and the polls that show how they'd do against him, maybe a little worry would be justified.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Matter of fact I would wager money that there are even more conservative tea party types in the Senate and House after the next election, and I know the Presidency will be Republican at the very least."

      How much are you willing to bet on each? The House, the Senate and the Presidency?

      Who do you trust to hold the money?

  26. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    You plan on sharing that poll or are we just supposed to take your word for it like we are supposed to believe that tax cuts create jobs?

    1. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -1745.html

      He's absolutely right about the poll.  Unfortunately, they can't run a generic candidate, and the humans they have are deeply flawed.

  27. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    nope my mind is still convinced your last name is really Gump

    1. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

  28. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Progressives on the Right, who have betrayed our principles and compromised away all our values and ideals for 90 years, are a dying breed and even now are on the run.

  29. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I'm late to this party, I know. And Jim Hunter and thebruceat are having their own discussion on larger issues.

    I want to comment on the OP, however.
    The media focus on Michelle Bachmann's supposed migraines (which apparently she has not even had an episode since 2010) is a low blow. But at the same time, the media's glorification of her taking in 23 foster children is equally ridiculous. Like that qualifies her to run the United States?
    So they're giving her special treatment -- on both ends.
    Neither of which has anything to do with her qualifications or electability. Distraction, distraction, distraction....
    roll

  30. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I think theres as much or more presidential ability in in Backmanns socialworking raising kids than in Pres. Obamas  socialworking in Chicago's downtown neigorhoods, If he actually did do that! By the way  what made him presidential material anyway. No corporate experience , now real political experience. Actually he came from withinin Blogadovich's neighborhood isn't it???

    1. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What do you mean, "If he actually did do that?"?  What a silly statement.
      He was a state senator, a U.S. senator as well.  Not bad for someone you claim had no political experience.
      Do you have people around you that let you get by with these ridiculous statements?

  31. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Lets face the facts guys , Democrats blew it this Presidential election.  You started out perfectly getting everyone out to the polls , From 18 to 27 year olds elected Pres. Obama ! Using the grass roots ideals of the great Former loser Governor from Vermont -Howard Dean {My home state ]. Ok. So now what .The kids went back to the frat parties after that "victory" and then partied  right through the 2010 elections. OOOPS!
    I am hearing more and more desent from his followers lately .No one yet has mentioned exactly what made him Presidential material. Except his wall street following !

    1. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If we blew it, what did the Republicans do?

      Oh, that's right.

      LOSE!

  32. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Got you a little worried last year didn't they , and just wait , even liberals are learning the hard way . PC  doesn't work for much!  Its okay to admit you blew it, dont be so hard on yourselves! .  Perhaps one day soon we can all drop the partisan crap and vote for the person .....not the Image!

    1. thebrucebeat profile image61
      thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Non-responsive.

  33. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, I have to be partisan, because I'm pro-choice.

    There IS only one party (of the 2) that I can go to.

    Both Palin and Bachmann are anti-abortion.

    There is only one party (of the 2) that holds women as equals, That cares about personal freedom, and that does NOT throw poor people to the DOGS.

    Sorry--you call it partisan, I call it standing by my beliefs.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lovemychris,   It is sad that the workings and manipulations of the ideals in politics ,  on both sides,   is as simply stated  as you're post!  "There is only  blah ,blah  blah blah"....  One of two parties. ",    My point exactly!  Do you really believe that  abortions  is as simple as black and white.  Yes or no ?    Because you are pro choice there is only one party that can be yours.!!!     I consider myself closer to a conservative ideology and believe 100 percent in a womans choice!     I can live with the idiots who say NO ABORTIONS ,  what I have trouble with is the  blinding affects of political correctness that feed into  the lefts  everyday actions in politics.

  34. thebrucebeat profile image61
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    My turn.  Going to dinner.

 
working