Informed voters and feminists,

In response to an anti-Palin email forward being widely circulated, we thought it might be interesting to compare, both in tone and substance, the opposing arguments:

 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 the
 part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate hat 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.

•  What is truly the “dangerous farce” that has “surpassed mere partisanship” is the reprehensible and largely baseless attacks on Governor Palin coming from women that profess to be feminists. If there’s anything to fear here it’s the very concept that the vicious lies, baseless ridicule and blatant attempts to twist the truth about the Palin record could actually succeed in smearing an excellent candidate into submission. If you read nothing else, READ THIS: http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Familiarize yourself with her actual positions and compare them with the following from the original email:

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.

• The first link shows that Gov. Palin has stated on a questionnaire during her Alaska gubernatorial race that she opposes “explicit sex education”. The second link outlines many of the reservations a reasonable person might have to question sex ed as it currently exists in the U.S. Perhaps in a society that bombards our kids with sexual material of all sorts from birth, Gov. Palin might want our kids at least exposed to a more responsible view:

     http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332508

         http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_2_a3.html

• Against birth control?

      http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080901050859AAoomu2

• Pro-choice: There’s a lot of people, perhaps a majority depending on whose polling data you believe, that don’t think that a pre-born human being should be denied equal protection under law simply because he/she is too young to scream as you suck their brains out with a vacuum. 

• The truth about the censorship issue: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/05/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt

• How Obama and the Democrats deal with views different from theirs:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/the-coming-thugocracy/print/

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWNmYzZhZTZmZGM0ZGYyNmY1OTU5OGI3Yzc1ZTc2Nzk=

• Alternative energy: Palin did veto $1.5 million in state and federal funding for a new energy research center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks as part of her trimming the overall state budget but I can find no evidence that she personally came out against developing alternative energy. Please note that there is a huge difference between being “against alternative energy” and working to insure there’s enough of the energy sources we currently use until something better comes along.

       http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/may/29/palin-cuts-money-energy- research/

• Anyone who truly opposes crime also opposes gun control, actually:

       http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

• Separation of church and state?   There’s a lot of people that don’t want GOD in our society on any level, and if that’s you, you won’t like Palin. In the link, I do find it amusing that the Anchorage Daily News sneers at her for reading and trying to follow the state Constitution too closely. Personally, I find leaders that pay close attention to the rules they’re supposed to govern by quite reassuring in this day and age. Some will undoubtedly take issue with her bucking the Alaska Supreme Court on a matter of constitutional law, but others will see this as evidence that she will stand up to activist judges.

        http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/08/first-look-at-sarah-palins-religious.html

• She’s not selling out the polar bears, she’s responsibly opposing bad policy:

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/08/problems-with-the-polar-bearglobal-warming-link/

To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-most-powerful person on the planet.

• Palin’s complete lack of real preparation” ?!?!?!?! What could be better preparation than a Governorship? Bear in mind that Obama only has a year more in the Senate than Gov. Palin has as a State Governor, and he spent most of his 3 years of Senate time running for President. Gov. Palin has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket COMBINED. She’s got more real accomplishments, by far, than Obama. Actually, the only things that Senator Obama has shown competence in have been winning elections by forcing his opponents off the ballot, handing out pork (and more) to groups like election fraudsters ACORN and reading off a teleprompter. Gov. Palin is debatably the most popular (at home) governor in the nation … what has Obama actually done?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/barack_obama_pork_barrel_champ_1.asp

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

• Take a look at what Obama has accomplished in the Senate … He’s passed one whole bill into law in his 3 years, “to provide relief and promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo”(!?!). Pay special attention to the last two paragraphs that speak of his “pragmatic” avoidance of controversial issues.   To quote, “Obama’s absence from heated political battles make it difficult to assess his effectiveness as a legislator.” Is this the kind of leadership you want in the White House? A guy that ducks out when things get rough? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271/

• Compare this summary of merely a portion of what you may not have heard that Sarah Palin did as Governor … and for all the baseless slime being thrown at her, nobody is accusing her of avoiding “heated political battles”. Even against her own party, she leads the charge as a true leader does! http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/006280.html

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.

• “Rash, incompetent” must be left wing code for “supports positions we don’t agree with”. Rash might be defined in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8&feature=related

I might also add that those of us that attend church regularly know that no-one sits in the pews for 20 Sundays, much less 20 years, without agreeing with the pastor. 

If you define competent as “getting something meaningful accomplished”, then Gov. Palin is infinitely more competent than Obama. Some good information on what he actually did as a “community organizer.” It isn’t much, really:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021466.php

• By the way, how do you think that Biden pick is working out for Obama? He’s supposed to be able to unify the country, but he can’t even get his VP pick to stop criticizing him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbnLiQxUvT8

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/10/21/biden_obama.html

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.

• We could have another email debate over whether the half baked socialism that the Democratic Party stands for these days is what our heroic forebears wanted for us. Let’s face it, the Left in this country has no qualms about smashing any woman (ask Condi Rice or the long list of women sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton), or black person (Clarence Thomas) or Latino (Alberto Gonzales) that disagrees with them. They couldn’t care less about advancing women … to these people rights for women, or blacks, or any other minority are merely convenient excuses to advance their big government agendas. That’s what really offends the leftist hypocrites that wrote this original email; Sarah Palin epitomizes “the woman that has it all.” You know, the woman with a great career who didn’t sacrifice her family or need affirmative action to get it. She didn’t take the easy way out and kill her child Trig in the womb when she discovered he had Down’s Syndrome. She now could very possibly become the first female President of the United States. And, unlike someone else we could mention here, she didn’t get there by being a poster child for victimhood as she clung desperately to the coattails of a man that cheated on and generally humiliated her throughout their marriage. Sarah Palin got where she is through her own considerable merit instead of feeling entitled to the highest office in our great land through a long martyrdom to a man that anyone with any true self worth would have dumped years ago. Sarah sure would have! The ability to rise to the very top on your own terms, on your own merits, and without becoming some dried up man hater in the process, is truly what our grandmothers fought for. They fought so women like Sarah Palin could be possible … and I’m sure they’re spinning in their graves over the ridiculous trash being thrown at her. Then again, they knew that dealing with rank hypocrisy is the price of real change … as opposed to the glittering generality nonsense kind Mr. Obama offers us.

First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women.

• If you need lies to make your point, or feel that the government is better capable of running your life than you are, Sarah Palin certainly doesn’t represent you.

It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. We want to disagree, publicly.

• Is it really so difficult for Democrats to grasp that a woman is merely the best qualified person for the job? 

Therefore, we invite you to reply here: 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 possi ble. Please
send us your reply at your earliest conveniencehe 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
 
**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.

• The complete text of the original Latimer/Kilston email as I received it is here. If their point of view represents you, you have their contact info. Their blog is here: http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/ . It amuses me that this blog is filled with the same tired and baseless smears they used to use against Reagan. Funny, it seems that he did OK. But if you believe that substance should prevail over blatant lies, you may wish to “forward this email widely”. This election is close, but still very winnable. If rational people lose the fight to defeat the Democrat smear/lie/socialism machine this election we’ll likely have to live with the consequences for decades. Please, get the facts and follow your conscience. Vote!