Just Say No

[blinker]

Forwarded by my mom, the blog with the collected responses is at http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com:

>
> Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters,
>
> We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the
> announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the
> Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed
> mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce—on the part of a
> pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate—that has a real
> possibility of becoming fact.
>
> Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin
> and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves
> and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex
> education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental
> protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech (as mayor
> she wanted to ban books and attempted to fire the librarian who stood
> against her), gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar
> bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become
> the second-most-powerful person on the planet.
>
>
> We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a
> mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely
> as a rash, incompetent, and all together devastating choice for Vice
> President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face
> to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and
> great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and that we've so demonstrably
> benefited from.
>
> First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not
> demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that
> the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women
> voters. We want to disagree, publicly.
>
> Therefore, we invite you to reply here <mailto:womensaynopalin@gmail.com>
> with a short, succinct message about why you, as a woman living in this
> country, do not support this candidate as second-in-command for our
> nation.
>
> Please include your name (last initial is fine), age, and place of
> residence.
>
> We will post your responses on a blog called "Women Against Sarah Palin,"
> which we intend to publicize as widely as possible. Please send us your
> reply at your earliest convenience—the greater the volume of responses we
> receive, the stronger our message will be.
>
> Thank you for your time and action.
>
> VIVA!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Quinn Latimer and Lyra Kilston
> New York, NY
> womensaynopalin@gmail.com <mailto:womensaynopalin@gmail.com>
>
> **PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to 20 women in the next hour,
> you could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns seriously.
> Stranger things have happened.

Comments

[geminigirl]

I sent an e-mail. The blog was an interesting read.

[spwebdesign.livejournal.com]

I think the letter would have been stronger if they'd done their research a little more thoroughly. While the "facts" listed are damning, it does more harm to her opponents to be caught in a "lie" or "slander," however sincere the intention to state the truth. According to Snopes.com, the book-banning thing is an unsubstantiated rumor started on the net. If this catches fire like it ought to, and then someone points out that factual inaccuracy, then people can rightfully question the truth of some of these other allegations against Palin, and that would be a shame.

That said, I'm hoping, come November, that voters will be smart enough to see through this selection for what it is. It really is a rotten ploy by the Republicans. But I also think it's going to be like a bright shooting star: it's blazing right now, drawing everyone's attention, but in no time at all it'll fizzle into the worthless stone that it is while the steady light of real substance gradually glows brighter.

[slinkr.livejournal.com]

Check your facts again. Snopes says that a specific list of books supposedly banned by Palin that's been circulated is false (http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp). Snopes isn't disputing that she raised the question of removing certain books from the library or that she tried to fire the librarian for not going along with it.

[spwebdesign.livejournal.com]

I stand corrected.

[wdomburg.livejournal.com]

On the other hand FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html) does dispute it. The librarian herself has never claimed that as the basis of her dismissal and denies ever being asked about specific books. The initial request for resignation was also sent to all department heads, which would seem to belie the idea that she was singled out for this particular issue.

Though this sort of missive may be effective in rallying ideologically predisposed to opposing the ticket, I suspect it's not particularly valuable beyond that. Most of the items range from arguable to laughable (against polar bears! she also eats kittens!) and the remainder are largely party platforms. Not that I expect the average voter to be particularly well informed but those even marginally following the election will doubtless have heard counters to at least some of the claims here, making it come off as the typical partisan distortions and exaggerations.