MOMocrats™

The Shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the Language of Violence

Before the horrendous assassination attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the shooting of 20 people, leaving six of them dead, Giffords knew that she had been specially marked by by her opponents.  Tea Party conservatives wanted her out of office, even though she is a conservative Democrat, and weren't afraid to use thinly-veiled calls for violence against her to achieve their goal.

Her opponent in her 2010 Congressional race staged an event to "target" her by offering voters a chance to shoot an M16. Her Tucson office had been vandalized after her vote on the health care bill in March of last year, as had other Congressional offices.  And Sarah Palin advocated for getting her out of office -- her PAC site posting a map of the country with a graphic of the cross-hairs of a gun-sight on each of the offices she wanted her chosen candidates to win, one of those being Giffords'.  The Sarah Palin PAC site has taken down the map, but you can see it at her Facebook Fan Page.  Spokespeople for Palin now are claiming that the marks on the map were not intended to be cross-hairs -- you be the judge.  It would certainly be consistent with her continuing theme of calling on conservatives to "reload."

Palin certainly isn't the only extreme conservative who's felt that it's appropriate political gamesmanship to use slightly veiled language of violence to promote political agendas.

Sarah Palin's Alaska: TLC Hands Her One Big Giant Political Ad

MOMocrats welcomes guest poster Yvonne Condes. Cross-posted from her personal site, Yvonne in LA.

I can’t believe that Discovery Communications is actually going to air “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on TLC Sunday, Nov. 14. But more striking is how the Democrats haven’t made a bigger deal out of it.

The show, which is supposed to be a travelogue of Alaska, appears to be one giant political ad that will show the former vice-presidential candidate ice climbing and facing a bear. The title of one of the show’s videos on TLC.com is “Rock climber or rock star.” Some of the quotes from the TLC preview video include “Family comes first. It’s just gotta be that way” and “I’d rather be out here bein’ free.” If these aren’t future political slogans, I don’t know what is.

Palin claims she’s not running for president, but she quit her job as governor before her term was up. She campaigned for several right-wing and tea-party candidates during the midterm elections and some of them were elected.

The Democrats should be flaming mad that Palin has a show that presents an idealized view of her looking tough and commanding on a popular cable channel. When I saw a clip of the show at the Discovery upfronts in April I was reminded of a lesson from one of my journalism classes. The lesson was about what how images impact people’s opinion.

An example was a mostly negative 60 Minutes episode about Ronald Reagan back in 1984. Even though the show was critical of Reagan his approval ratings went up. It is thought that was because many of the images shown in the piece had Reagan standing in front of an American flag or looking commanding. That piece aired once, maybe twice, for about 5 minutes. Imagine what Sarah Palin’s Alaska will do for her opinion polls after the 8 week, hour-long show airs documenting her running around on great American adventures?

In addition to my concern about what this will do to her possible presidential run, to quote my kids “it’s not fair.” What if Palin does run for president in 2012? Will Discovery give her opponent an 8 week show? What if it’s Hillary Clinton? I suspect that the Republican Party would set up boycotts, burn televisions, and call for the resignations of all Discovery executives if Hillary Clinton got a show that pictured her hunting black bear in New York State.

It seems to me, that the only fair thing would be a promise of equal time to whomever her future opponent may be – even Barack Obama. Or maybe drop the show altogether and find another Alaska native to profile. How about Jewel? Or anyone who hasn’t recently run for vice president of the United States!

Don’t get me wrong. I love the idea of the show sans Sarah Palin and I love Alaska. I spent one of the best summers of my life in Denali National Park. To see Palin try to climb a section of Denali, the highest peak in North America made me a little inspired to go back to Alaska. But as for the show itself glorifying Sarah Palin, it made me physically ill.

Yvonne Condes is YvonneinLA, a former journalist and current freelance blogger. She also blogs at www.yvonnesgfgoodies.com and http://yvonneinla.blogspot.com/.

Ceci n'est pas une Sarah Palin Presidential Campaign Video

So today I saw this:

That swelling music. Those billowing flags. Those crowds of adoring, hopeful followers. That leader's hair, blowing gently in the winds of change . . . is it any wonder the political punditsphere has been atwitter all day about this latest SarahPAC video's strong resemblance to a campaign ad? A campaign ad of the presidential persuasion?

Sure, the video is titled "Tea Party" not "Sarah Palin 2012" but for a video ostensibly about a grassroots populist movement there sure are an awful lot of dramatic, compelling shots of an individual. Shots that happen to capture said individual being adored by crowds and speaking authoritatively at podiums. 

And then there's that one shot of a guy wearing a Vets4Sarah.net t-shirt and holding a sign that reads VOTE.

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.  

Want Change? Vote for a Mom!

For many, it's primary election season. It's hard to imagine that we're heading out to the polls again, but there you have it. If you have a chance, I'd like to ask you to vote for one of my favorite Mothers of Intention. I'm not going to call them "mama grizzlies" because, well, I'm not a fan of the term and I don't appreciate how Sarah Palin and her crowd are trying to usurp the idea of political motherhood from those of us who were in on the ground floor.

Anyway, here are three moms who deserve your vote. If you live anywhere in the shadow of the nation's capital, you should keep your eye on these women who were motivated by issues that impact their children and their families to take the bold step of running for political office to help make things better for everyone's children, even if that means taking a little less time for their own kids:

Sarah Palin, My Sarah Palin

I learned the hard way about two weeks ago, that when you have an idea, especially a good one, you'd better not sit on it too long because someone else will beat you to the punch.

As all writers, I keep a list of long-term post ideas. And on my list (really, I swear) was one about how Democratic women need a Sarah Palin of our own if we want to give our national political aspirations a good jump start! Not a Sarah Palin who isn't sure what newspapers she reads or the Sarah Palin who can't keep three key points in her head at a time, but the Sarah Palin who seems to excite the women of her political party beyond any logical explanation.

Unfortunately, Rebecca Traister and Anna Holmes beat me to the punch. Of course, because of who they are (Traister has a new book coming out that I can't wait to read and interview her about), they were able to get an op-ed placed in the New York Times entitled A Palin of Our Own.  But their point deserves a little more discussion.

Game Change -- Sexism at its Worst

So let me get this straight -- with the exception of Michelle Obama, all the women who were center stage in the 2008 presidential election (whether they were candidates or not) are bitchy, stupid, whining shrews?

If this is where we are in 2010 when it comes to permissible portrayals of women, I may have to live to be 237 before we're treated with even a modicum of respect.

I am SO weary of men journalists (and some women) thinking they can get away with sexist slams of women in the name of political commentary. The authors of Game Change, the long on gossip, short on real reporting book, apparently want us to believe that all the things we hated about the 2008 presidential campaign can be blamed on the women who were involved.

Yes, ladies -- apparently everything you didn't like in 2008 was all our fault!

Seriously?

Guest Post from a DADocrat: Hey Democrats. Quit Whining. Start Working.

This guest post was written by longtime MOMocrats reader, occasional MOMocrats tech support provider, and official DADocrat, John. Many MOMocrats readers already know him on Twitter as @trianglman.

The Massachusetts election was, without a doubt, a major disappointment to any progressive who fought for months to get then-Senator Obama elected to the presidency. Even days before the vote, sniping between the Coakley campaign and the national Democratic National Committee over a potential loss was already beginning leak into the press.

What we didn't need then, and really don't need now, is an endless blame game or circular firing squad. What we need is a solid plan to go forward into the mid-term elections later this year and win back the filibuster-proof majority we plainly require to get anything past the obstructionist Republican minority in the Senate.

The first thing we need to do is look at the strength of potential Democratic candidates. Democrats cannot run just on the Democratic name, or on the coattails of President Obama. Mr. Obama didn't win the 2008 election because he was a Democrat; he won because during his campaign he proposed policies that a majority of the American people wanted to see enacted, and explained them in a way the majority of American people could understand. People wanted a jobs stimulus program. People wanted transparency in government. And people still want real health care reform and real accountability for Wall Street firms that will help prevent future economic collapses like the one we are currently struggling to recover from.

I believe Attorney General Martha Coakley did support these goals, but if you were an average Massachusetts resident, you probably didn't hear much about what Martha Coakley supported, because she didn't campaign much on the issues. She campaigned on the fact that she is a Democrat just like Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy, and Scott Brown is a Republican like George W. Bush.

Sarah Palin: Going Rogue All the Way to the White House?

Sarah Palin in 2012? Some are chuckling, but they might want to rethink their take on the first woman on a GOP presidential ticket.

Conservative pundit David Brooks laughed out loud at the suggestion, calling her a "joke". Her former running mate John McCain called her "irrelevant."  Others point to 2008 wannabes Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as more qualified and doing better in polls than Palin when people talk about GOP Presidential hopefuls. Of course, most thought that quitting her day job as Alaska Governor was the death knell for her political career, but I think this is just the beginning of Palin's national political career. After all, she was just on Oprah!

Seriously, as I have to remind some who've accused me of being a closet Republican, I'm no political fan of Palin. But when people dismiss her out of hand, I keep thinking one thing -- remember the last politician we scoffed at as not even close to being competent enough for the White House?

Where are all the Republican Women?

Personally I avoid Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh like the plague. If I’m in the mood for hypocrisies, conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric I can usually find a good Hollywood blockbuster that will not only deliver but be much more entertaining and much easier on the blood pressure. So when I heard about both hosts referring to United States Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) as a prostitute, as much as my blood pressure did rise, it wasn’t exactly a huge surprise. Being respectful and showing regard to common decency have never been strong suits for either man.

What gets me is the reaction from Republican women. I know you’re probably asking yourself, what reaction? Which is my point. There hasn’t been one. Not a thing. Conservative women, specifically Republican Women who actually serve in Congress have nothing to say about blatant sexism against one of the few female colleagues they have? How about Sarah Palin? She has been at the losing end of some of the worst sexists treatment from media in recent history, yet she has nothing to say about calling a Senator a Prostitute?

The reason Senator Landrieu is being called such offensive names is because she offered to vote in favor of moving ahead with health care debate on the Senate floor, (she did not promise to vote for the bill itself, just the vote to move it along) in return for $300 million in federal aid. Federal Aid for Louisiana. Is there really one person in this country who doesn’t think Louisiana needs federal aid more than we need to put off the debate on health care? I wonder how all the people in New Orleans who are still trying to rebuild, who are still without a home, who are still looking for help after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina feel about comparing Senator Landrieau's deal with a whore? I’m guessing not good.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, after all it was last month that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was told she needed to be “put in her place” by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Huffington Post tried in vain to contact fifteen female lawmakers (fourteen from the House or Representatives) as well as two Republican women's issues groups to get their response to the very sexists statement made about Speaker Pelosi. Not one was willing to provide a statement.

Yes, there were many Democratic women who refused to stand up for Sarah Palin during the media frenzy that occurred during the 2008 Presidential election and the year since because of her politics. But there were many who did. There were many women who put politics aside and made sure their voices were heard when sexism came into play.

But where are female voices from the right? Is sexism not an issue for all of us? Doesn’t Senator Landrieu deserve the respect and defense of her fellow female lawmakers regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on?

Don’t all women?

This is a cross-post from the WomenCount blog. 

Meghan Harvey is the New Media Producer for WomenCount and can also be found blogging at Meg's Idle Chatter.

A Response to Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" Comment from a Parent of a Child with Special Needs

Sarah Palin, you are not my advocate. You do not speak for me. You do not speak for my child.

You do not speak for the many good friends of mine who have children with chronic medical issues far more severe than my own son's neurological disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder. You do not speak for all parents of children with Down Syndrome. You do not speak for the member of my extended family who has Down Syndrome.

What you said on your Facebook page, about mythical Obama "death panels"?

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.  -Sarah Palin

If enough people believe it — if enough people are scared by it into opposing any kind of health insurance reform — that politically motivated statement deliberately promoting a dangerous rumor that has been proven to be patently false could cause tens of thousands of children with special needs in the United States to continue to suffer without adequate health care for years to come.

In the United States, children with chronic health issues are often denied coverage by private health insurance companies that consider their health concerns to be a pre-existing condition. Some of those children denied coverage under private health insurance are, thankfully, able to qualify for public health insurance through Medicaid or SCHIP — two of our country's existing socialized medical insurance programs — but some are not. And those children who do have private insurance coverage are often forced to pay high co-pays for routine procedures, and are frequently denied authorization for recommended medical care.

Every day in the United States, children with autism or cerebral palsy are denied occupational therapy. Children with juvenile diabetes are denied insulin pumps. Children with asthma are denied inhalers. American parents of children with chronic health conditions must fight a tangled bureaucratic health insurance system constantly to make sure that their kids can get access to the care recommended by their doctors.

And that's why the National Down Syndrome Congress supports health insurance reform. That's why the Autism Society of America supports health insurance reform. That's why Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Diabetes Association, and the March of Dimes all support health care insurance reform. Because all of these organizations are advocates for children with special needs.