Why Liberals Hate and Fear Conservative Women

[R Lance]

"The broader question if Sarah Palin becomes vice president, will she be shortchanging her kids or will she be shortchanging the country?" -- NBC correspondent Amy Robach

"How dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be Vice-President. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?" -- Rudy Giuliani

Friday, September 05, 2008
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Liberals Hate and Fear Conservative Women
by John Hawkins

Since Sarah Palin exploded onto the national scene a week ago, the American Left, including Obama's press team (AKA the mainstream media), has engaged in a bizarre orgy of sexism, misogyny, and grotesque attacks on her family. Let's see, we've heard accusations that Sarah Palin, while she was governor this year, actually faked a pregnancy to cover up for her seventeen-year-old daughter Bristol -- no, really, liberals pushed this story for days. Then after Palin revealed that Bristol is pregnant now and therefore couldn't have been pregnant earlier in the year, the mainstream press spent a week cruelly using a 17 year-old-girl as a political pawn to get at her mother.

Then there were the Left's claims that Palin had posed for nude pictures and their suggestion that her first son must have been born out of wedlock. Of course, we also can't forget the fake bikini shots.

Additionally, the Left has also focused on Palin's husband and brought up a drunk driving conviction he had 20 years ago (We have heard more about that from the MSM than the fact that Obama has done cocaine) and the Associated Press went so far as to say that Palin's family are valid targets because they're in photo-ops.

All this is on top of the fact that we've been treated to a full week of claims that a woman who is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be John McCain's Vice-President and worse yet, we've heard loud mouths opining that Sarah Palin can't both run for Vice-President and be a good mother.

On top of all that, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of conservatives seemed to be absolutely thrilled with the selection of Sarah Palin, liberals spent much of the week running "when did you stop beating your wife stories" speculating about whether Palin had been vetted or whether McCain would drop her from the ticket.

That's quite a change from the near worshipful coverage Barack Obama has gotten from the media for being the first black man to head the Democratic ticket or even the fawning reportage that Nancy Pelosi received when she became the first female Speaker of the House, isn't it?

But, a conservative woman makes history and next thing you know, her pregnant 17 year-old-daughter is a front page target only a short time after the very same media spent weeks blacking out stories about John Edwards having a love child behind the back of his cancer-stricken wife.

Is the sort of treatment Palin has received a surprise? Regrettably, not to anyone who has been paying attention to how liberals attack women on the Right. Let me tell you what happens if you are a conservative woman who catches the attention of the American Left.

You are going to have liberals openly discuss gang raping you. You'll be photoshopped with a fishhook in your mouth while liberals publicly call you the worst, most obscene things you can imagine. You will be photoshopped into pornography, you will receive death and rape threats, you'll get strange stalkerish emails, you'll receive demeaning, sexualized hate mail, and if they can find out where you live and where your children go to school, the info will start showing up on left wing blogs, comment sections, and forums before you can say, "We know where you live, lady." These sort of attacks are not unusual or out of the ordinary; to the contrary, they are standard operating procedure on the Left when they go after strong, conservative women.

But, what about the liberal feminist blogs? Don't they stick up for the conservative women? Oh, sure they do -- just like they stuck up for Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. To the contrary, the thing I have heard again and again from female bloggers is that the "feminist" blogs at best, turn a blind eye to the most grotesque smears aimed at conservative women and at worst, are leading the pack.

But, how can it be that liberals, who constantly pretend to be tolerant, enlightened supporters of feminism, regularly engage in this sort of crude sexism and misogyny?

There are three reasons for it.

First off, liberals believe that by virtue of being liberal, they can't be sexist, even when they say sexist things. Combine that with the feminists' willingess to turn a blind eye to misogynistic attacks on women who don't share their views and liberals feel like they have a free pass to say absolutely anything about conservative women. If you are a liberal, you can call Condi Rice "Mammy," say Sarah Palin can't love her children and be Vice-President, and post the home address of a conservative woman on your blog -- and you won't have to pay any price for it whatsoever on the Left. In fact, attacking conservative women based on the fact that they are conservative women will earn you nothing but plaudits and plugs from other liberals for "fighting back" against those bleeping conservatives.

Next up, the Left has a creepy, Stalinesque approach to individualism and politics. Unless you are a straight, white male, the Left does not seem to believe you have a right to hold an independent political opinion. Whether you're talking about blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, gays, you name it -- if you're not a liberal, they're going to try to intimidate and browbeat you back into line or drive you out of the public arena altogether. If you're black, you're a "race traitor," if you're a Jew, you're a "neocon" who's loyal to Israel first, if you're a woman, then you're a sexually repressed Stepford wife who's not qualified to hold office, etc., etc.

Last but not least, because liberals don't think that anyone other than straight, white males should be able to get away with having political opinions that differ from Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean, they do everything within their power to absolutely destroy any prominent examples, that blast their stereotypical view of the world, to tatters. That's why the Left reserves their blackest hatred for people like Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and now Sarah Palin; it's because they're living, breathing, inspirational examples of people the Left is supposed to "own," who don't want or need liberalism to be a success. That, most of all, is why liberals hate and fear successful conservative women.



image
http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/99d...a6aaa61132.gif

[Underhill]

The entire thing is one big lie.

Sure people have badmouthed her. She is extremely right wing and a massive segment of the population doesn't want her anywhere near the white house. But the right complaining about us demonizing her is fucking pathetic after what they've done to Hillary, Kerry and tried to do to Obama. They lie, twist the truth and are much better at it than the left... primarily because they have more experience.

So sorry but no dice.

On second thought, fuck sorry. That article is trash.

[Justin]

Until last week, the liberal media might have thought that they had died and gone to heaven. They had their choice between Obama and Clinton and chose to support the first black candidate (a Democrat of course! Republicans are too racist to ever nominate a black) and the first female candidate (also a Democrat! Republicans are much too sexist ever to put a woman on the ticket.)

The made their choice, and everything was going according to plan until last week when, how dare they, a conservative woman was put on the Republican ticket. The nerve of those pesky Republicans!

This scared the ever living crap out of those in control, and the tone of the media turned drastically against Palin. She had to be destroyed before the nation ever got to meet her.

Bad news guys: it backfired. And, in Sarah Palin, the people of this country seem to be seeing an inspirational, tough, normal woman with a record...though brief...to be proud of. She has given the McCain campaign excitement, momentum and support from the base. A McCain victory is a real possibility now.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Justin

Until last week, the liberal media might have thought that they had died and gone to heaven. They had their choice between Obama and Clinton and chose to support the first black candidate (a Democrat of course! Republicans are too racist to ever nominate a black) and the first female candidate (also a Democrat! Republicans are much too sexist ever to put a woman on the ticket.)

The made their choice, and everything was going according to plan until last week when, how dare they, a conservative woman was put on the Republican ticket. The nerve of those pesky Republicans!

This scared the ever living crap out of those in control, and the tone of the media turned drastically against Palin. She had to be destroyed before the nation ever got to meet her.

Bad news guys: it backfired. And, in Sarah Palin, the people of this country seem to be seeing an inspirational, tough, normal woman with a record...though brief...to be proud of. She has given the McCain campaign excitement, momentum and support from the base. A McCain victory is a real possibility now.

What liberal media?

That line is getting old. The media is as right as it has ever been. Probably more so.

Granted there is a large contigent that is left now, thanks to Bush and his policies, but how can you say the media is liberal with outfits like Fox News out there bolstering the party faithful?

[Justin]

Granted there is a large contigent that is left now, thanks to Bush and his policies, but how can you say the media is liberal with outfits like Fox News out there bolstering the party faithful?

I didn't mention Fox News because it is the obvious exception.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Justin

I didn't mention Fox News because it is the obvious exception.

Even excluding them I don't see liberal media behind every corner. I see some that is liberal, some that is conservative and some that do their best to stay in the middle.

McCain talks about how Obama has had an easy run of it with the media but it's not like he is being ripped to pieces. I mean his speech was downright sad. Uninspiring and dry, but very few in the media had much negative to say.

McCain has had an easy time of it in the media for decades. Considering his history I find his current media bashing to be dangerous. Piss them off and there is all kinds of skeletons they are perfectly capable of bringing out.

Something he, and you should remember when you complain about the 'liberal' media.

[clownboy]

I just gotta ask, since when has the nuclear family and the women staying home with the children for the formative years (if at all possible) NOT been a traditional conservative republican value? Since this convention, that's when. That was the problem with the entire thing - it was an exercise in selective amnesia.

[Justin]

McCain has had an easy time of it in the media for decades. Considering his history I find his current media bashing to be dangerous. Piss them off and there is all kinds of skeletons they are perfectly capable of bringing out.

You're 100% right. For years, the media ate out of "Maverick" McCain's hands. The tide only now seems to be turning, as it becomes painfully obvious that "Maverick" McCain has been replaced with "Neocon" McCain. Only more evidence of media bias.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Justin

You're 100% right. For years, the media ate out of "Maverick" McCain's hands. The tide only now seems to be turning, as it becomes painfully obvious that "Maverick" McCain has been replaced with "Neocon" McCain. Only more evidence of media bias.

How is it evidence of bias when the media starts to recognize something you yourself would be hard pressed to deny?

I don't see it as bias, I see it as truth in journalism.

[Justin]

How is it evidence of bias when the media starts to recognize something you yourself would be hard pressed to deny?

Maverick McCain voted against his party for years (they loved him when he played Maverick in 2000, remember?), now that he's neocon McCain, they've beginning to turn on him.

The individuals in the media are free to think whatever they want about the candidates, but the tone of the media needs to be neutral when it comes to Presidential elections...it has been anything but.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Justin

Maverick McCain voted against his party for years (they loved him when he played Maverick in 2000, remember?), now that he's neocon McCain, they've beginning to turn on him.

The individuals in the media are free to think whatever they want about the candidates, but the tone of the media needs to be neutral when it comes to Presidential elections...it has been anything but.

I haven't seen a negative tone. I have however seen them report unfavorable information or rumors about McCain, as they have about Obama.

There is a difference but its in the canidates history, not in the media. I think that is the problem republicans will face in this race. McCain has decades of history, not all of it good. Obama has a huge advantage in that regard and so the media and politico's will have much more to draw from McCain.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Justin

Bad news guys: it backfired. And, in Sarah Palin, the people of this country seem to be seeing an inspirational, tough, normal woman with a record...though brief...to be proud of. She has given the McCain campaign excitement, momentum and support from the base. A McCain victory is a real possibility now.

Dream on sonny. Your boy McCain jumped the shark when he picked Palin.

He wanted Lieberman which would have put him in serious contention but he bowed to the extremists in his party. Your girl Ms. Mooseburger isn't going to cut the mustard.

Be sure to remember this post so you can bring it back up on November 5th and rub my nose in it.

[toolman846]

"What liberal media?

That line is getting old. The media is as right as it has ever been. Probably more so."

[RLN]

I remember 2004 and the Swift Boat Veterans; I remember some party telling a certain lawmaker sitting in a wheelchair what a coward he was. Hm...funny how a person can compare things, huh?

[Bonniedundee]

I think that the liberals have been denouncing and attacking her way too much and on way too trivial issues.

The problem is that this faux shock by the right is extremely hypocritical. The American right have made savage personal attacks often on trivial issues a major plank of their policy for some time now.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes a show where Hannity has been attacking Obama on irrelevent points quite savagely for months and he was having a fit of disgust about the "liberal media's" reporting on Palin. I almost threw my shoe at the wanker.

Btw the media is not liberal.

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by clownboy

I just gotta ask, since when has the nuclear family and the women staying home with the children for the formative years (if at all possible) NOT been a traditional conservative republican value? Since this convention, that's when. That was the problem with the entire thing - it was an exercise in selective amnesia.

What the hell? The WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY is about selective amnesia...

[Black Lance]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Dream on sonny. Your boy McCain jumped the shark when he picked Palin.

He wanted Lieberman which would have put him in serious contention but he bowed to the extremists in his party. Your girl Ms. Mooseburger isn't going to cut the mustard.

Be sure to remember this post so you can bring it back up on November 5th and rub my nose in it.

Nothing was going to motivate the conservative base quite like putting a former Democrat with a liberal Republican...

I would ask you to prove that McCain wanted Lieberman, but we all already know you can't do it.



Back when Hillary Clinton was running for the Democatic party nod we heard a lot of talk in the media about how "historic" it would be to have a woman in the oval office. Where is all that talk now? What accounts for the difference if not the fact that Hillary was a liberal with a (D) in front of her name whereas Palin is a conservative with an (R) in front of hers?

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Black Lance

Nothing was going to motivate the conservative base quite like putting a former Democrat with a liberal Republican...

I would ask you to prove that McCain wanted Lieberman, but we all already know you can't do it.



Back when Hillary Clinton was running for the Democatic party nod we heard a lot of talk in the media about how "historic" it would be to have a woman in the oval office. Where is all that talk now? What accounts for the difference if not the fact that Hillary was a liberal with a (D) in front of her name whereas Palin is a conservative with an (R) in front of hers?

It would still be historic. But the fact that she's an extremist conservative probably has a lot to do with our not wanting her there. I would think that fact is obvious.

[Mouth Full of Teeth]

This thread is the equivelant of asking why vegitarians don't support Hilter...after all, Hitler was a vegitarian...