Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sarah Palin slams feminists -- and makes an interesting point

The last time I saw Sarah Palin speak live was in 2008 when she accepted the Republican Party nomination for vice president. And she gave the performance of her life. The ensuing 20 months for me have been like watching the political equivalent of an actor on ER playing a surgeon. Get that "surgeon" off her lines, and she can't possibly speak intelligently, if at all, about the intricacies of an operating room. Palin speaks in such broad generalities ("time-tested truths" or "common-sense solutions") that you'd be crazy to even think about putting the body politic into her care.

But when the spotlight turns to pro-life issues, Palin shines bright. Abortion is a wrenching and emotional debate that's waged as much with the heart as with the head. And Palin speaks from deeply held convictions rooted in personal experience.

I went to see her speak at the "Celebration of Life Breakfast" fundraiser for the Susan B. Anthony List. My colleagues Amy Gardner and David Weigel
do a good job detailing what went down, particularly Palin's comments on her decision to give birth to her son, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.

But what fascinated me was Palin's thought-provoking slam against women's rights groups. She began by reminding the audience that suffragist Alice Paul once said that abortion is "the ultimate exploitation of women." Palin then referred to recent polls that show more young women agreeing with "their feminist foremothers" on the issue, thus "empowering women by offering them a real choice." And then came this:

"The pro-woman sisterhood is telling these young women they are strong enough and smart enough. They are capable to be able to handle an unintended pregnancy and still be able to, in less than ideal circumstances, no doubt, to handle that. Still be able to give that child life, in addition to pursuing a career and pursuing an education, pursuing avocations. Though society wants to tell these young women otherwise. Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, "Nope, you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education. You're not strong enough. You're not capable. So it's very hypocritical of those... pro-women's rights groups out there."

While I don't agree with her ultimate stance on abortion, I understand where she was coming from and think she makes a very interesting point. Am I wrong?

By Jonathan Capehart  | May 14, 2010; 1:21 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An elegant defense of Kagan from an unlikely source
Next: Why Chris Christie is catching fire

Comments

I do believe that you are wrong, because the point is not really interesting. In fact, it is quite disturbing. Nobody is advocating the belief that women cannot have children and maintain a good education and career. Palin's point is a distortion of reality, because you can still be personally anti-abortion and yet advocate for a woman's legal right to disagree with that viewpoint and choose abortion. And because Palin is well-known for bending truth, the fact that she has done it once again is rather plain and not that interesting.

Posted by: jcpgh23 | May 14, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan, the problem with Palin's thought proccess concerning abortion is that feminist groups and society are NOT telling women that "you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education." They ARE telling women that they have the right to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to have a child. There is a major difference between the two, and it is disingenious for Palin to argue that a woman isn't smart or savvy enough to decide on her own what is best for her.

Posted by: c_attucks | May 14, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is right in that it is admirable for a woman, no matter what her age, to choose to have a baby that came about from an unwanted pregnancy. But that woman has that right today. Does she not? So what,indeed,is the point?

It could not be that Sarah wants to make that choice mandatory? Could it?

Posted by: BillyJBradley | May 14, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan, I think you're being charitable towards Palin and other anti-abortion ideologues on this. The point is that most teenagers CANNOT bring up a baby and still get the education and work experience they need to be competitive and successful in today's world. Young women who have extremely supportive families are the exception, and they will turn to advice from their supportive families on this most personal of decisions. The "feminist groups" that Palin decries are speaking to and for the majority of teens and young women who are not represented by the mostly white, well off, evangelical men and women (mostly men) who make up the rabid right wing in today's America.

Posted by: sambam | May 14, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin brags about her choice to give birth to her fifth child, but it was a choice. That she wants to take that choice away from other women, and make pregnancy mandatory, is not admirable.

Posted by: bettenoir | May 14, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin's "point" is to put imaginary words in people's mouths. That's "interesting"?

In the words of Brad DeLong, "Why can't we have a better press corps?"

Posted by: res099c9 | May 14, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

There is much to what Palin said. Take for example the case of Tebow. His mother had a choice and chose to carry the baby to full term. Many of the 'pro-choice' crowd gave the impression that they disagree with the choice she made. They should have instead been glad that she had a choice, and cheered that the result is an apparently healthy individual.

FYI: I am presonally both pro-choice and anti-abortion. And no, there is no contradiction.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 14, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, you are wrong. Palin's framing of the issue is rather simplistic, isn't it? "Oh, I won't have this baby 'cause the feminists say I can't hack it." Surely the reasons are more complex than that. This is a classic Palin tactic. Frame an issue in some red, white and blue way. Then cast her target (i.e. feminists) as the enemy of all that is American. It's nothing more than superficial rhetorical manipulation.

Posted by: rwh1024 | May 14, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Palin's comment is misleading on a number of fronts. First, the 'feminist movement' (if it even existed as such a monolithic concept) is not trying to tell young women that they can't do anything. In fact, the goal of pro-choicers is to ensure that women across the country have access to a broad range of options, under the radical assumption that each of us might have a better understanding of our own circumstances than some random lady from Alaska who's never met us and knows nothing about our lives. The only group trying, pretty desperately, to tell young women that they *can't* do something is the prolifers. The second main reason Palin's comment is disingenuous is that most women who get abortions aren't childless teens--they are older women, who already have children and are doing their best to support the family they have. Is Palin really condescending enough to think that these women, who already have personal experience with pregnancy and parenting, are just choosing abortion because they're not thinking the matter through enough? Does she really think that the 'feminist' thing to do for these women is to tell them that they should stop worrying their pretty heads about not having access to day care, employment, a supportive partner or good health are , because all they really need is a little girl power and spunk?

Posted by: sigh5 | May 14, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, "Nope, you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education. You're not strong enough. You're not capable.

This is more garbage, like telling blacks they have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Well, you have to have boots.
The reality is it is going to be much harder to handle life with an unintended pregnancy.
Some will succeed--most won't. The ones which will tend to succeed are those who have multi-million dollar parents, like Bristol Palin.
Women in poverty or even in a middle-class existence will be much less likely.

Posted by: garbage1 | May 14, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I would have to read the speech, and find the reference to any feminist group making such a statement or taking such a stance. This doesn't seem logical to me. Additionally, whereas I am not for abortion, I am not sure anybody is really; I am completely for a woman's right to chose. The government simply has no right to intervene in a matter such as this. It is personal between the woman, her god, and her physician. Palin is just whack so even if she 'seems' to make sense, I am sure it's a mistake.

Posted by: zenmiami | May 14, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

And don't forget the point concerning Sarah Palin, she chose to have that child, but also had a great family support group plus the $$ to raise Trig (even pre-book signing money, she was making decent bank and Todd was as well). Again, as the previous people have posted, its all about choice. A woman's choice. And let me tell you from personally experience, NO ONE ever has an abortion on a whim and without serious thought. Maybe they regret it later, maybe they don't, but they never forget.

Posted by: myersdonihoo | May 14, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Once the child is born Republicans want to cut off welfare and food stamps for poor unwed

Posted by: republican_disaster | May 14, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Once the child is born Republicans want to cut off welfare and food stamps for poor unwed mothers.

Posted by: republican_disaster | May 14, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Uh yeah, you're wrong. And if you claim to know what in the hell she's talking about, you're a liar.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 14, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Jonathan, you're wrong. Palin's entire argument stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism. Feminist groups absolutely do not tell women they can't raise a child and have a job if that's what they want to do. Feminism is about giving women MORE options, not fewer. The idea that removing an option for women somehow "empowers" them is positively Orwellian.

Faux-feminists have been making this argument for a while now; I'm surprised a distinguished journalist like yourself fell for it.

Posted by: dubiouslygreat | May 14, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Sure, given enough resources and opportunities, a woman can "have it all"....tell that to a poor teenager who spends her life in a trailer park with a pack of kids...we see them all the time on Nancy Grace...an abduction, a murder, so many times it is frightening.... uneducated, drugs, poverty, look 50 by the time they are 25...and look at their mothers....same situation

Forget about having it all...make a choice motherhood and stay home and take care of the husband/kids or stay single and childless and pursue a career unencumbered.

The happiest people I know had career, then decided to marry and have kids in their mid 30's...but they have millions, can afford private schools, help, etc. No trailer court there!! They made the right choices early on....and later.

Posted by: blrpalms | May 14, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Yes, your're wrong. An analogy: white supremacists informing African-Americans that they're strong enough to be good citizens even if they can't vote.

Posted by: PhilipL42 | May 14, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

A good rule of thumb is that pretty much anythingthat comes out of this con artist's mouth is a lie. Sarah Palin has one goal: to stir up the Right Wing base so they will give her money. She is thrilled you idiots haven't realized it yet. So are her bankers.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 14, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Your take on Sarah Palin is wrong. Logically Palin's is using a false premise: a woman cannot simultaneously have a career and be a good mother. NO ONE ever says that about men: you cannot possibly father a child, and have a successful career. Emotionally Palin's views are very reactionary. she paints a Norman Rockwell kind of picture of a nuclear family: all meals will be a family time, all homework will be done by 8PM, and everyone will dress their best for Sunday School. Her heart may be in the right place. All mothers are going to strive to be loving, nurturing, caring, except of course, the one's who are running around the flag pole (like Palin trys to do). Intellectually, Palin is very wrong because her position is so contradictory. Her message is about "women cannot think for themselves. So women cannot make the choice on abortion. But I am a woman who can make the right choice, because, geez, I made the choice didn't I? Listen to me, because, I know what I am talking about!"

BTW I a father of two adult daughters. They make plenty of choices without anyone telling them what to think. The ability to think critically is a good example of choice. The need to put abortion into neat little black and white boxes is not really very creative at all. Usually that sort of thinking is called dogmatic. Isn't Sarah Palin leaning into religious dogma?

Posted by: rmorris391 | May 14, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

No matter what idiocy, or accidental clarity, erupts from Palin's mouth, she speaks as a politician whose position on abortion is that it should be made illegal under all circumstances and Roe v Wade should be overturned. Any other "point" she might effort to make on the subject is irrelevant.

Posted by: Len_RI1 | May 14, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The case of Tebow's mom is a bad example. The doctors told her to have the abortion or you have a great chance of dying. She was just plain lucky.

Posted by: AMviennaVA Take for example the case of Tebow. His mother had a choice and chose to carry the baby to full term.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | May 14, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The modern feminist doesn't tell young women to do anything. They insist that the women have a choice. Sister Sarah CHOSE to not have an abortion. That was her choice. If she had NO choice, it would have been an un-constitutional infringement by The Government (and some conservative religious groups)of her right to privacy.

Sarah can't take credit for her choice and deny it to others.

Posted by: thebobbob | May 14, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how taking away a choice from women empowers them. I guess this is Sarah Palin's world, where you can see Russia from your doorstep and Africa is a city in France.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 14, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Whenever Palin is around, hold onto your wallet tightly.

$$$$$arah Palin

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | May 14, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

One thing Palin isn't is interesting. Every word that comes out of her mouth is designed to make herself money. She's become rich by being Anti-everything, anything controversial she'll shoot her mouth off about it & usually doesn't have a clue about the subject. 2 years ago McCain & the Republican party had to buy her clothes, now by being disruptive and doing anything that gets her picture in the newspapers she's rich. All you dumb Republicans who give her your money need to get off welfare & get a real job.

Posted by: wasaUFO | May 14, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm not the biggest Sarah Palin fan, but I will agree that she brings up an interesting point here. Most women are strong enough to balance family & career and everything in between. I wish they would quit making it sound like we can only have one or another. Taking another life should not be an option.

Posted by: kholmquist | May 14, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

This is why Obama won the Nobel PEACE prize, and Palin won the Quitter's Award..

Posted by: sanone38 | May 14, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Here in the non-just-say-random-crap-and-not-back-it-up world, we need evidence and facts during disputation. Cite a "feminist" who has said that women "can't" handle both. Then we can have a discussion about whether Palin is making a point or not.

Posted by: Moskva81 | May 14, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes you are not only wrong, you are completely wrong. I am pro-choice, and the mother of three. I’ve never had an unintended pregnancy, and can only guess what decision I would have made at various stages of my life. Pro-choice women do not encourage abortion, or imply a person is not able to handle a baby, and therefore should abort.

I have never heard a single pro-choice advocate indicate abortion is necessary because of the inability of women to rise to the occasion. Could you please site to a single activist who has ever directly said that, let alone strongly implied it. The reason choice is advocated is the belief that a woman should be able to choose what to do with her body. I personally don’t believe that right should be unlimited. Once a baby is viable I believe the competing interests of the unborn and the expectant mother start to favor the baby (assuming prenatal testing indicates a healthy child). Name a pro-choice advocate who has said women can’t pursue an education and have a baby, or that pregnant High School students should be encouraged to have an abortion, as opposed to they should have the option available? Having children is never easy, and no doubt it is more difficult when you are in High School, College, or graduate school, but it is done all the time.

Saying woman should be the one to decide whether to have a baby does not imply pro-choice women believe women can’t handle children, when they are still in school, or have yet to establish themselves in their career. Stating a women who finds herself pregnant should have the right to decide to carry the baby to term or not, does not denigrate young unmarried women (or married women) it is a simple recognition that the women should have the right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term. As I understand it when Sarah Palin, a happily married mother, found out her 5th child had Downs Syndrome, she considered (mentally) how much easier an abortion would be. I applaud her deciding to continuer her pregnancy, but she forgets she had the option, and she decided what to do.

Posted by: sarar1 | May 14, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Yes you are not only wrong, you are completely wrong. I am pro-choice, and the mother of three. I’ve never had an unintended pregnancy, and can only guess what decision I would have made at various stages of my life. Pro-choice women do not encourage abortion, or imply a person is not able to handle a baby, and therefore should abort.

I have never heard a single pro-choice advocate indicate abortion is necessary because of the inability of women to rise to the occasion. Could you please site to a single activist who has ever directly said that, let alone strongly implied it. The reason choice is advocated is the belief that a woman should be able to choose what to do with her body. I personally don’t believe that right should be unlimited. Once a baby is viable I believe the competing interests of the unborn and the expectant mother start to favor the baby (assuming prenatal testing indicates a healthy child). Name a pro-choice advocate who has said women can’t pursue an education and have a baby, or that pregnant High School students should be encouraged to have an abortion, as opposed to they should have the option available? Having children is never easy, and no doubt it is more difficult when you are in High School, College, or graduate school, but it is done all the time.

Saying woman should be the one to decide whether to have a baby does not imply pro-choice women believe women can’t handle children, when they are still in school, or have yet to establish themselves in their career. Stating a women who finds herself pregnant should have the right to decide to carry the baby to term or not, does not denigrate young unmarried women (or married women) it is a simple recognition that the women should have the right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term. As I understand it when Sarah Palin, a happily married mother, found out her 5th child had Downs Syndrome, she considered (mentally) how much easier an abortion would be. I applaud her deciding to continuer her pregnancy, but she forgets she had the option, and she decided what to do.

Posted by: sarar1 | May 14, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Holder is an idiot. He has not even read the Arizona immagration bill but he is so negative against it. Sounds like someone else who made a negative remark against a sheriff before he knew the facts

Posted by: farmsnorton | May 14, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin can't even handle raising children and pursuing the almighty dollar! She of the millions of dollars is away from her children for weeks on end. She is not raising that baby she 'decided' to have. She is not helping Piper with her homework. She is not monitoring Willow's curfew. She is too busy proselytizing to the rest of us that 'young women can have a baby, have a job, AND continue their education' all at once. Why doesn't she check with Bristol on that. Seems to me that Bristol barely graduated high school a year late, and now is working and mothering, and has zero hours for college. Palin is a fraud, rich and attractive, but a fraud.

Posted by: smgess | May 14, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

No you're not wrong, in fact its the first time you've been right about anything. Congrats

Posted by: cajunkate | May 14, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Republicans sure do like narrow-minded candidates. They haven't had an original idea since Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by: ppsikogios | May 14, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

I'll bet this same jackass who makes snide remarks about Palin's intelligence is in the "obama is brilliant" crowd. Where is one shred of evidence of obama's brilliance, other than liberals saying he is brilliant because he is liberal? Why haven't we seen any of his academic records to back up these claims of "brilliance"? WHy is the media so disinterested in doingany research on the subject?

Posted by: standard_guy | May 14, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart

Anytime Palin decides to come out and play female Obama, is surely interesting point. It is just funny that it takes her several weeks to put a an hour of speach, while Obama has it naturaly. Now, DO I HAVE AN INTERESTING POINT? Am I right?

Posted by: BOBSTERII | May 14, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin is right. Why all the hatred coming from the pro-abortion feminists if the truth wasn't smacking them right in the face? Let me tell you why. Here you have a mother and daughter that didn't abort their babies. The American people are going to watch these two babies grow up before their eyes. Women are going to start regretting that they had aborted their babies. They will remember their pro-abortion buds who told them they can't have it all. That it's a man's world. The legacy of the pro-abortion movement is 50 million babies aborted. What ticks me off is that Obamacare was passed and made me a member of the Abort The Baby Business. You claim to be pro-choice but I didn't have a choice in joining this Abort The Baby Business. That was a big mistake because their are millions of us who were pretty much on the sidelines on this issue. We don't take kindly being told that we are going to fund aborting babies without consent. That was a big mistake and you will pay for it at the ballot box. How dare you think that I would want to be part of your 50 million abortion legacy. How dare you.

Posted by: Truth35 | May 15, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin is right. Why all the hatred coming from the pro-abortion feminists if the truth wasn't smacking them right in the face? Let me tell you why. Here you have a mother and daughter that didn't abort their babies. The American people are going to watch these two babies grow up before their eyes. Women are going to start regretting that they had aborted their babies. They will remember their pro-abortion buds who told them they can't have it all. That it's a man's world. The legacy of the pro-abortion movement is 50 million babies aborted. What ticks me off is that Obamacare was passed and made me a member of the Abort The Baby Business. You claim to be pro-choice but I didn't have a choice in joining this Abort The Baby Business. That was a big mistake because their are millions of us who were pretty much on the sidelines on this issue. We don't take kindly being told that we are going to fund aborting babies without consent. That was a big mistake and you will pay for it at the ballot box. How dare you think that I would want to be part of your 50 million abortion legacy. How dare you.

Posted by: Truth35 | May 15, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

So many Palin haters out there. It is truly sad. You can't get past your own feelings towards the woman to really hear what she is saying. Yes, Sarah Palin makes an excellent point. The tragedy of abortion is that it destroys human life, and that tragedy is compounded in the lives of everyone touched by that abortion. For the secular society, the fact that a fetus is human is beyond debate. Science has proven that. Society should offer women real choices and options. Abortion just eliminates the immediate "problem".

Posted by: eileenk425 | May 15, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Gov Palin understands that there is a real difference in the tone and effect of a legal regime that sanctions abortion as 'sacred right' and a regime that sees abortion as a tragic reality, which is legally tolerated in order to worse evils (like backstreet abortion). Can there ever be a 'right' to choose to extinguish the life of another, which is what Roe/Wade asserts. Palin is far more pragmatic in her prolife views that ideologues like Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom are pro-abortion extremists.

Posted by: GeneCar | May 15, 2010 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Sarah nailed the hyprocrisy of the pro-abortion movement. You betcha!

Posted by: 5thmilitia | May 15, 2010 6:23 AM | Report abuse

"Palin speaks in such broad generalities ("time-tested truths" or "common-sense solutions") that you'd be crazy to even think about putting the body politic into her care."

When can we expect similar criticism for Barack Obama, who subsists on a steady diet of cliches and platitudes?

Posted by: relictele | May 15, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

I wanna get on the pro-choice bandwagon!

Whaddya say we extend the vote to fetuses? Aren't they stakeholders in society? Let's be FAIR! Are they not full citizens or do we assign them a fraction--say 3/5ths? And let's make their registration really easy, like motor voter laws do. This influx could easily be handled by ACORN. No literacy tests, no poll taxes, no I.D., not even a visible body required! Equality before the law! Conception equals enfranchisement!

Naaah! Mom would veto and Dad would dodge.

Posted by: elgropo1 | May 15, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Interestingly, I am heading out to volunteer for the Walk For Life this morning in Roseville, CA. Feminists are pro-choice if the choice is abortion. It's always been amazing to me how animal rights ...even plants and trees ....are rabidly defended, but the unborn are not. Bottom line is you can't say you are expecting a "baby" when you want the child, and it's not viable (not a baby yet) for those who wish to abort. The dirty little secret is that a huge percentage of women have had abortions and are living with their choice. It kills them so no, you are not wrong with your observation. I only wish that more women like Sarah Palin had been vocal throughout the years. It may have empowered women to have their babies and if they weren't ready for children, give them up for adoption. This is far more humane than killing them, and a decision that is a lot easier to live with. I believe it was Pope John Paul who called abortion the holocaust of our generation.

Posted by: betsymurray | May 15, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

You all are missing the point. There is NO RIGHT WAY to do a wrong thing. Abortion is murder for convenience. What Palin is saying is - yes, the pregnancy is inconvenient - but you can still be a right thinking, productive, engaged, vibrant woman and not resort to killing the baby to have it all.

Is life so inconsequential, that we, as a society, can blithely terminate a life, as if it is nothing more than a cold cup of coffee or turd being flushed down the toilet? Come on folks. You are alive because someone thought you worthwhile enough to let you live. WOW!!! What if they thought otherwise? You wouldn't be here to argue this very point. Are you so callus as to want to prevent another life from having the same opportunity. What if Einstein's mother thought him inconvenient?

Many want to make this issue about religion or God. It could certainly be about an ultimate price to pay, but beyond that, I think this is about virtue and doing what is right. It is NOT right to kill something that is alive and helpless. How can that be right?

I wonder how many of you argue at the same time, to eliminate guns because they kill, or to stop eco destruction because it hurts the environment and innocent animals or a myriad of other rights issues that are constantly being debated because of the innocent and unprotected. Yet, you think nothing of killing an innocent life? Can't you see the hypocrisy in these positions? At least be consistent.

Posted by: guy3 | May 15, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Snow White vs The Seven Dwarfs

The GOP will soon be known as Snow White vs The Seven Dwarfs with Sarah "Snow White" Palin leading such GOP Dwarfs as Huckabee, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Thune, DeMint, Romney and Ron Paul. When Snow White leads, The Seven Dwarfs follow.

Posted by: ymchoo | May 15, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Snow White vs The Seven Dwarfs

The GOP will soon be known as Snow White vs The Seven Dwarfs with Sarah "Snow White" Palin leading such GOP Dwarfs as Huckabee, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Thune, DeMint, Romney and Ron Paul. When Snow White leads, The Seven Dwarfs follow.

Posted by: ymchoo | May 15, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Is Sarah Palin smart enough to be president??????????????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ6x_TS8Oxs

Posted by: douglasmproduction | May 15, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Jonathan, you just took the first step toward Wisdom - - the admission of ignorance.
I'm sure you also know that abortion was and is heavily promoted among black women as a method of reducing the black population. Pay attention to your sisters!

Posted by: jdmedarb | May 15, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

"Palin's point is a distortion of reality, because you can still be personally anti-abortion and yet advocate for a woman's legal right to disagree with that viewpoint and choose abortion. And because Palin is well-known for bending truth, the fact that she has done it once again is rather plain and not that interesting."

I'm wondering how someone can be "personally" opposed to killing babies (abortion), but still believe that someone else has the right to kill babies (abortion). After all, no reasonable and moral person would ever argue that one can "personally" oppose slavery but believe at the same time that others have the right to own slaves.

Second, what "truth" is Gov. Palin distorting, exactly?

Posted by: gjtitus | May 15, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

There seems to be nothing more scary to liberals than a conservative woman against big government and higher taxes with a moral compass. It must be frightening for some to watch and hear Sarah Palin espouse life, liberty, and true individual courage. An interesting point indeed, Mr. Capehart.

Posted by: BernardL | May 15, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

You are not wrong, Jonathan. It is ironic that the abortion choice is typically "needed" only after a series of bad choices--to be sexually active at a young age, having sex with someone who is uncommitted, risking pregnancy by not using protection, and sometimes repeating all of the above after having an abortion. And yet, despite all these poor choices, feminists want to give these same girls/women a life or death choice over their baby. What feminists should be doing is empowering young girls not to be pressured into having sex and empowering those who do become pregnant to have and care for their baby or, if they truly feel they cannot do so, to place the baby for adoption.

Posted by: AnnReid | May 15, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Since abstinence education does not seem to be working, could we have a push by the government to provide various forms of contraception free? And promote addition research into other forms of male contraception. If the seed isn't planted, there is no need for abortion.

Posted by: marc419 | May 15, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I've read the comments and my question is: Are most of you people freakin' nuts? The "pro choice" community is predominantly (note I didn't say exclusively) interested in promoting abortions. They are not interested in promoting choice. You want proof? 1) Opposition to parental consent for minors. 2) Opposition to informed consent laws. 3) Hysterical support for partial birth abortion.

Yes the Pro Life side has an agenda. We believe that when a woman is given ALL the facts she will choose life. And we believe that parents of minor children should have a say in what major medical procedures are performed on their daughters. The other side limits information to steer a particular choice, the one they advocate.

So Sarah Palin does make an interesting point. The feminists promoting a woman's right to choose are rigging the rules of the game to make abortion the only choice. Think I'm wrong? Why do they mock Ms. Palin for her choice?

Posted by: jgsnowman | May 15, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Jonathan, you're wrong. Our "foremothers" were probably against abortion because theirs was a totally male dominated culture and I doubt that they had any say over whether or not they got abortions. Also, the abortions were probably deadly for the women. Regardless, that was then, this is now, and I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do with a group of cells that can't live outside my body. Abortion is not the only choice, but it is a choice and we need to respect that.

Posted by: laraine2 | May 15, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"Palin speaks in such broad generalities . . ."

Broad generalities like "Hope and Change"?

Did she claim to be able to lower the oceans?

Posted by: dante1952 | May 15, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I find Jonathan's first paragraph hilarious. He mocks Palin for her inability to speak if "you get her off her lines" - yet the POTUS can't put a sentence together without his teleprompter.

Calling her out for "speaking in broad generalities" - did Jonathan call out Obama for all his broad generalities and one-word slogans during the campaign? All it consisted of was "Hope & Change", along with a few bizarre "We are the ones we have been waiting for", or "if I'm elected, the planet will heal and the oceans cease to rise" - here's a man with a God-complex and no one in the msm noticed?

Instead of mocking a woman who isn't even a current politician, how about shining the light of intelligent journalism (if there is any) on those who are.

Posted by: ladycatnip | May 15, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Liberals like Capeheart never fail to amuse me. Here is a guy who voted for the least qualified president in our nations history, trying to demean Sarah Palin for "acting" like a surgeon, i.e. a politician and talking in generalities. He conveniently quotes her generalities but omits her specifics to make his pre-conceived point. This is a woman who has successfully run a business, a PTO, a city council, a city, and a state, while this insufferable partisan hack is suggesting she has no substance. Yet he supports Obama who cannot string two sentences together without a teleprompter and hasn't even run a lemonade stand, now preening and pretending to be a nanny for the American people and a world leader and succeeding only in making himself a laughing stock in the world.

Posted by: mgoveia | May 15, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Ha! Ha! Obama won the peace prize!!!! We all KNOW he did not deserve it!

Yes, Sarah Palin is right. You are correct, Mr. Capehart. Perhaps you should listen to more of her speeches. She makes alot of sense because she uses common sense. Not this arrogant preach to the choir speech from academics who really know nothing.

I am pro-choice and pro-life. But I see a falacy in legislating it. Obama has a czar that believes in limiting children to suppress the population. There could come a time when pro-choice is all we have - pro to choose to abort all but a certain amount of fetuses. Too many of our rights have already been taken away or hinted at being taken away to nay say this.

Posted by: annnort | May 15, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm pro-choice, but it always amazes me how so many of my fellow pro-choicers get so bent out of shape when someone like Palin makes the choice she made. They just come unglued, and disparage that choice. Really makes pro-choice advocates look like a bunch of jerks. Which may be one reason that support for their (our) position has been declining.

Posted by: dakotadoug83 | May 15, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

MerrillFrank @ May 14, 2010 4:52 PM: She had a choice to make and made it. That is supposed to be the idea behind the 'pro-choice' platform. As 'dakotadoug83' @ May 15, 2010 5:49 PM, put it "it always amazes me how so many of my fellow pro-choicers get so bent out of shape when someone like Palin makes the choice she made. They just come unglued, and disparage that choice. Really makes pro-choice advocates look like a bunch of jerks. Which may be one reason that support for their (our) position has been declining."

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 15, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Of course you're "wrong" Jonathon. But, there's nothing new about that.

Among other false notions you assume that Palin is little more than "an actor", incapable of properly handling any of the intricacies of "the body politic".

Unlike you and so many others of your equally self cloistered brethren, tens of millions of Americans have no trouble whatsoever with, embracing and fully comprehending everything Palin says, whenever she speaks in what you refer to as "broad generalities" of "time tested truths" and of "common sense solutions".

That's because Palin and all those millions and millions of Americans share many fields of experience, most often, deliberately, that you and your ilk have had little to no interest in embracing, or, in fully or comprehending as well.

With that so, perhaps you're not entirely at fault for having difficulty understanding the full and deeper meanings Palin implies, whenever she "speaks in such broad generalities" of "time-tested truths" and of "common-sense solutions".

You see, it's easily and long been clear that you and your ilk have embraced some form and some degree of existential nihilism.

While Palin and her many supporters have embraced some form of it's antithesis.

Which is, simply put, the belief in an intercessory God that loves and cares for all of us equally, calls on us to be humble in spirit, ferocious in deed, and who inspires us to throw off as much of our animal ignorance and nature as possible, and to aspire to be better people.

Granted, our belief in an intercessory God is much more complex, and it is enriched with many subtleties that you couldn't possibly be expected to fully comprehend. Given your presuppositions, and with the mere overview I've stated above.

However, it is possible to deign your contumacious bias and peer past the shallows of the universe, into a metaphysical realm where what we falsely refer to today as dark matter, dark energy, and the multiverse, are all considered to be merely other components (although mysterious to nearly all of us), of God's omnipotent power and will.

As a former long time and fully committed nihilist, I've done so, and although it has been difficult at times, there is no reason to believe that everyone, including you, can manage to do so as well.

If you do bother to pursue an investigation into the intercessory God of our faith, that we have been blessed to experience within each of our lives, you will be better armed to comprehend us, and perhaps even appreciate us, and the so many things that Palin and tens of millions of your fellow Americans hold as innate, that you clearly can't begin to comprehend today.

Posted by: Just-Tex | May 15, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Of course you're "wrong" Jonathon. But, there's nothing new about that.

Among other false notions you assume that Palin is little more than "an actor", incapable of properly handling any of the intricacies of "the body politic".

Unlike you and so many others of your equally self cloistered brethren, tens of millions of Americans have no trouble whatsoever with, embracing and fully comprehending everything Palin says, whenever she speaks in what you refer to as "broad generalities" of "time tested truths" and of "common sense solutions".

That's because Palin and all those millions and millions of Americans share many fields of experience, most often, deliberately, that you and your ilk have had little to no interest in embracing, or, in fully or comprehending as well.

With that so, perhaps you're not entirely at fault for having difficulty understanding the full and deeper meanings Palin implies, whenever she "speaks in such broad generalities" of "time-tested truths" and of "common-sense solutions".

You see, it's easily and long been clear that you and your ilk have embraced some form and some degree of existential nihilism.

While Palin and her many supporters have embraced some form of it's antithesis.

Which is, simply put, the belief in an intercessory God that loves and cares for all of us equally, calls on us to be humble in spirit, ferocious in deed, and who inspires us to throw off as much of our animal ignorance and nature as possible, and to aspire to be better people.

Granted, our belief in an intercessory God is much more complex, and it is enriched with many subtleties that you couldn't possibly be expected to fully comprehend. Given your presuppositions, and with the mere overview I've stated above.

However, it is possible to deign your contumacious bias and peer past the shallows of the universe, into a metaphysical realm where what we falsely refer to today as dark matter, dark energy, and the multiverse, are all considered to be merely other components (although mysterious to nearly all of us), of God's omnipotent power and will.

As a former long time and fully committed nihilist, I've done so, and although it has been difficult at times, there is no reason to believe that everyone, including you, can manage to do so as well.

If you do bother to pursue an investigation into the intercessory God of our faith, that we have been blessed to experience within each of our lives, you will be better armed to comprehend us, and perhaps even appreciate us, and the so many things that Palin and tens of millions of your fellow Americans hold as innate, that you clearly can't begin to comprehend today.

Posted by: Just-Tex | May 15, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood because of her belief in eugenics; she wished to rid the gene pool of the "darker, duskier races". That's why the clinics are in low-income minority neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood also posted a billion dollar profit in 2007; but I notice that that's the one evil corporation I never hear complaints about.

The Progressives push the illusion of choice: but only as long as the choice is to kill. They don't want mothers to see ultrasounds, they don't want any discussion of adoption, and any discussion of actually keeping a child (never mind a disabled one) is kept quiet and openly ridiculed. It's a shame on motherhood, it is. Brave and courageous girls have abortions; only stupid farm girls become moms. Feminists have destroyed the one thing women can do that is truly unique: they can give life.

Now with ObamaCare(tm) they'll get free federal abortions for every girl, no matter what age, or what time, no questions asked... and perpetuate a true genocide.

And while they give lipservice to a "woman's right to choose", they don't give a damn about anyone else's. Because for every poor, young, pregnant runaway story I hear... I personally know 10 men who have had their girlfriends stop taking the pill so they can "have their baby daddy" and act out their little susie homemaker fantasies. These guys end up chained to some woman and have 80 percent of their income seized for the next 18 years... because they don't seem to "have a choice".

I say let men "abort financial responsibility" of a child in the first trimester, and see how the dynamic changes.

Just to be fair, of course. Just to be fair.

Posted by: prof_robinson | May 15, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan,

If you are ever trying to impress a women about working for the Post, I recommend that you never mention this attempt to concede Ms. Palin an "interesting point." Particularly when she insinuates that legislating what can and must be done to individual womens' bodies is more feminist than feminism. Trust me on this one.

Posted by: bryanmorris1977 | May 16, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Palin's statement doesn't make sense. First she claims "the pro-woman sisterhood" says that women "are strong enough." Then she concludes that "these feminist groups" say the opposite ("you're not strong enough").

Maybe there's a place in Sara Palin's head where the distinction between "the pro-woman sisterhood" and "feminist groups" is very clear, but that clarity wasn't communicated in her quoted remarks, nor in the commentary.

Posted by: BPMD | May 16, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes. You are indeed wrong.
You are falling right into the trap of pretending that women have the "choice" of not being too poor or disempowered. Remember, if you possibly can stay awake long enough to see the real world, nobody wants abortion, or unwanted pregnancy, for that matter. That's why it is called an "unwanted pregnancy." Some women are left to deal with unwanted pregnancy because they do not have enough control over their life. Just telling them "you can do it!" is not going to solve their problems, whether they be domestic violence, poverty, or any other types of disempowerment. It is when I see this kind of idiocy from men when I think that men should just stay out of this problem altogether, period.

Posted by: motherforobama | May 17, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Yes, you're wrong. And the issue has nothing to do with the choice that Palin made. The issue is that she HAD a choice -- a choice she would deny to every other woman.

Posted by: Jayne | May 17, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

GeneCar writes: "Can there ever be a 'right' to choose to extinguish the life of another, which is what Roe/Wade asserts."

Of course there can. Our Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty, which gives us the 'right' to extinguish the life of another. We should either do away with both or neither.

Posted by: wyatt3 | May 17, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

I think you are 100% correct that Palin makes an interesting argument. Pro-womens rights groups have basically been telling women and girls a lie for the past 40 years. Selling "you can have it all" when in fact, we all live in a world of limits and choices, no one can "have it all". And they are what they are essentially selling is "you can replace men" rather than "you are unique, special and different than men, revel in that uniqueness."

Posted by: bruce18 | May 17, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Yes, you are wrong.
Her statement is nothing more than a dare....if you bring an unwanted pregnancy to term you are strong and smart.
If you choose to abort you are weak and stupid.....
Hope our young teens are not falling for that line.
Different circumstances require different solutions which is why having a choice in this matter is so very important to the individual it concerns.
Rape, incest, deformities/abnormalities,age, healthrisk, environmental conditions,etc. all play a huge role in that decision making process/choice, which is the right, and should continue to be the right, of the woman/women involved....no one else.

Posted by: bertzel | May 17, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

As usual, Palin's argument is built on an erroneous and transparently stupid premise.

To suggest that women who terminate a pregnancy do so because they have succumbed to the (alleged) feminists' arguments that you cannot have a baby and an education and a career is disingenuous in the extreme.

Palin needs to name the "feminists" who supposedly made that argument. (She won't because she can't.)

Secondly, Palin needs to provide evidence that women terminating a pregnancy are doing so because of their belief in these alleged feminists' arguments. (She won't because she can't.)

Palin is a demagogue, appealing to the simple-minded by offering them false arguments and convenient targets for their inchoate, impotent and unstable mental and emotional states

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | May 17, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Yes you are wrong. Palin set ups a straw woman then knocks her down. The Pro Choice lobby is not telling young women that they are incapable of having and raising a child. It is not only young women who get abortions. The Pro Choice lobby is saying that a woman should have a choice whether she wants an abortion or not. Women have abortions for a variety of reasons. Some may in fact feel that they are incapable of raising a child. Others may not want to carry an unviable fetus with gross deformities such as no brain, to term. Other do so to protect there reproductive health. The Pro Choice lobby is saying that it is a personal decision best left up to the woman who has to give birth not a decisions for politicians, the church, radio talk show hosts, or Fox News pundits to make.

Posted by: exbrown | May 17, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The main problem with Sarah Palin is she can't speak or write in English sentences. Education for her, Todd and their kids was never a priority. These are not English sentences:
"Still be able to give that child life, in addition to pursuing a career and pursuing an education, pursuing avocations. Though society wants to tell these young women otherwise. Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, 'Nope, you're not capable of doing both.'"
Did her parents read to her as a child? She, Todd and their kids were not on honor rolls. Who graded her college term papers? Education was and is not a priority for her, Child Find or otherwise. Why can't she do a Master's in English, Todd get a bachelor's in something, be examples for their kids and learn to speak and write English?

Palin for President in 2012? Well, Arnie Duncan needs a laugh.

M. Sherrett

Posted by: virri345 | May 17, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Jonathan, you're wrong. You're buying into the false choice Palin offers: that it is either "empowerment" (women CAN have education, career and a baby) or abortion.

This is a pernicious and brazenly insincere choice. Many young women *cannot* have it all, as Palin suggests; they don't have the resources, family support or opportunities to complete an education while raising a baby.

There *are* single mothers out there who are heroically raising kids on their own-- but how many of these would opt for other circumstances, to control when and how they became mothers, to decide the course of their own lives? If they live where abortions cannot be had, they have NO choice. Which is as Palin wants it. She would substitute her choice for that of all women. That is not freedom or empowerment; it is tyranny.

So yes, Jonatha, you're wrong.

Posted by: dbitt | May 17, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Jonathan, you're wrong. You're buying into the false choice Palin offers: that it is either "empowerment" (women CAN have education, career and a baby) or abortion.

This is a pernicious and brazenly insincere choice. Many young women *cannot* have it all, as Palin suggests; they don't have the resources, family support or opportunities to complete an education while raising a baby.

There *are* single mothers out there who are heroically raising kids on their own-- but how many of these would opt for other circumstances, to control when and how they became mothers, to decide the course of their own lives? If they live where abortions cannot be had, they have NO choice. Which is as Palin wants it. She would substitute her choice for that of all women. That is not freedom or empowerment; it is tyranny.

So yes, Jonathan, you're wrong.

Posted by: dbitt | May 17, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

One more voice in the chorus that says you're wrong, Jonathan. Feminists have never advocated forcing young women to have abortions. That's the argument Palin is making, and it's a lie, plain and simple.

Abortion may be the "ultimate exploitation of women" but allowing women to have that choice and trusting they'll make the right one for themselves is the ultimate expression of "pro-woman sisterhood".

Posted by: simpsonsteve75 | May 17, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Of course you're wrong, Jonathan. Palin's quote: "Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, 'Nope, you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education. You're not strong enough'" is an ignorant strawman argument that she demands the audience accept as as a premise. She doesn't make an interesting point, Jonathan....She makes no point at all, and you fell for it.

Posted by: Rocketman4 | May 17, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, sorry but anyone that is so foolish to back Arizona immigration is resigning from politics, you won't see anyone else jumping to her side. Sorry, we're not giving Hitler another chance. SHE COMMITTED POLITICAL SUICIDE, unless there are enough rednecks to usher a return of the third reich.

Posted by: joshmw | May 18, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company