A Response to Alexandra Pelosi

First, it’s great to see that a liberal is interested in studying conservatives and trying to understand the perplexing ideologies of this subset of the American population. Bravo, Ms. Pelosi. Too many of your peers are content to stay in their 5th Avenue lofts and sneer at Middle America without actually venturing out into this uncharted territory to try and understand why these people cling to their guns and religion.

But unfortunately, Ms. Pelosi, that’s where the kudos end. Your comments show that you approached your documentary from the vantage point that your political beliefs are correct, and that the ‘angry Conservative’s’ beliefs are incorrect. Let’s take a look at a quote from you:

“For me, it wasn't so much the Muslim thing, it was the socialist thing. Respectfully, I wanted to say to them, I live on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. I am on the winning side of capitalism. I work for HBO, corporate America. The Man has been good to me. You, on the other hand, are driving a truck that says, "Obama is a socialist idiot," and you're in a much lower tax bracket than most of the people in Manhattan that are voting for Obama. So the times I would actually get into it would be like, "OK, explain to me why you think he's an idiot. He's trying to give you a tax cut. You understand you're voting against your own self-interest?"

If some of us in Middle America had the same connections you had, we might be able to do our own documentary to study liberals like yourself, who are just as perplexing to conservatives. For example, for someone who purports to be an intellectual, it’s puzzling to understand why you think it’s the most efficient use of your money to first give it to the government so they can then give it to someone else. Those of us in Middle America who believe in old fashioned values and in helping our neighbor understand that when my neighbor is in trouble, I can hand them $100 and guess what? They get to keep 100% of that money. That makes sense to us. But rich liberals like yourselves apparently don’t want to be bothered with getting to know those in need, and would rather hand over your money to the government so that they can keep 70% of it for admin fees and give out the remaining 30%.

We see the passion that wealthy liberals express when talking about those that are hurting and struggling. Great news! We conservatives in Middle America are here to tell you that you do not have to wait for the government to act! You can go to your local bank and take out some greens and head out to the streets and pass it out! (See above explanation for efficiency of doling out money in this fashion) So, just as perplexed as you are about the ‘backwards, redneck conservatives’ that vote ‘against their own self interest’, we are perplexed as to why wealthy liberals cling to their wealth and wait for Obama to tax them further, instead of being proactive helping their fellow American in need right now.

There’s also a sense of pride and freedom in Middle America. One of the surest ways to be free is to keep the government out of your life. Perhaps those redneck, backwards conservatives think our government is bordering on dangerous, and that giving more money to our government gives more power to a small, elite, select few. Perhaps they would rather struggle and weather this storm, knowing that it’s better for all of us in the long run to not have a government so powerful that wealth and power is concentrated in just a select few (I mean, really, Ms. Pelosi, how DID you get your cush job and cush loft? Amazing how the children of those in government all seem to do so well!).

You assume that the redneck conservative is voting against his own interest by not voting in a government handout (after all, you can’t get a tax cut if you don’t pay taxes); perhaps he cares most about freedom and therefore is voting in his own self-interest. Perhaps, at his core, the redneck conservative believes that conservative principles give everyone an opportunity to share in the American dream and the good life that you yourself enjoy; and that liberal principles give power to a select few and gives the rest of us the opportunity to share in the misery. After all, did your mother get behind school vouchers? Wouldn't school vouchers have given the rednecks in a lower tax bracket than the 5th Avenue Manhattanites a chance to receive the same or similar education that you all enjoyed? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you did not go to public school. Let me guess, just like Caroline Kennedy, you're an advocate for public schools but wouldn't ever attend one nor send your children to one) This is what I mean by power and privilege to a select few. To put it in even clearer terms: you are not on the winning side of capitalism, you are on the winning side of nepotism, and 'redneck, backwards conservatives' at their core understand this, and understand that liberal policies will only continue to give power, privilege and wealth to a select, connected few.

Let's All Get Along

The common theme I've been hearing from the libs in the media is that the country is ready to unite and get along. They go soft on Obama because they need to 'give him a chance', and because we're all ready to get along. Translation: the libs want the conservatives to shut up and go along with a president who only represents the values of half of the voting population. The libs are happy with the new president, happy they got their way, and don't want to have to listen to anyone who is not happy or who would dare ask the president elect a tough question.

When did George W ever get a break? Where was this attitude of unity during W's tenure? From the moment he was elected he was given a hard time. "He stole the election!" During 9/11: "Where is the president? Why is he hiding?" (Um, because he IS the president and the extend of the attacks at the time was unknown) After 9/11: "Where is the president? Why isn't he coming to New York?" "What did he know and when did he know it?" "Why did the president take so long to act after being told of the attacks? Why was the president reading books to school children?" Is this the kind of unity the libs are talking about? When did they ever give GW a break?

But now we're being told that nobody wants to hear any kind of talk that is 'divisive', that we all want 'unity', and that we should give Obama a chance. A couple of libs in the media even stated that it is their job to make Obama's presidency a success! Huh? So why wasn't it their job to make W's presidency a success? The role of journalists used to be to dig for the truth and ask tough questions. Apparently now it has become a talking piece for any democrat, going so far as to use democratic phraseology such as 'tax cuts for the rich' (I about fell off the couch when I read that phrase being used in a 'serious' article).

During Bush's presidence we were told that it is patriotic to question your president and that is what being an American is all about. Now apparently being an American means putting blind faith in an inexperienced president with questionable connections. It would be laughable if it weren't so scary at how blind the libs in the media are.

After the Election

Lots of thoughts running through my head today. So many people are falling all over themselves saying that this was a statement against the smear tactics and race-baiting of the McCain campaign. No it's not. It's a statement against Bush and the failing economy, and a statement of our collective will becoming weaker, with the desire for our government to rob Peter to pay Paul.

I found it curious that during the primaries, I continually heard about history being made one way or the other with Hillary and Barack. Then, after McCain chose Palin, suddenly all talk of history being made disappeared, until last night, when one of the news anchors finally said that history would be made. It made me wonder why we hadn't heard more about it these last couple months. Is it because the media, who so wanted Barack to win, were afraid that if they highlighted Palin being the first female VP, Barack would lose women to Palin?

I also question some things that are being said. Because he won, they are saying racism is dead. So what if he lost? Would it have been about race? Since Palin lost, is sexism still alive?

In general, I think conservatives have a more intrinsic locus of control, and therefore are more apt to continue to live their lives no matter the circumstances. Liberals seem to have a more external locus of control, and are more apt to be miserable under a Republican leadership. So, it will be nice to not hear the angry, irrational tirades day after day. Liberals often delude themselves into thinking the country is united under a liberal president, mistaking the lack of irrational tirades for unity. It's just conservatives have been blessed with the ability to maintain a happy life no matter what (Victor Frankl comes to mind).

Despite my belief that many of Barack's policies are bad, it was nice to see the tears from those that have felt oppressed, and now feel there is hope, that they and their children can be anything they want. I'll keep an open mind, but in the end, I'm sure his policies will be disastrous, despite the fact that the mainstream media will spin it for his favor.

Smear Campaign

Barack Obama keeps claiming that the McCain campaign is engaging in a 'smear campaign' by bringing up Obama's ties to Ayers. This begs the question that if speaking the truth about Obama and Ayers is a 'smear campaign', then why didn't Obama exercise better judgement when launching his political career? If he truly doesn't think there is anything questionable about Ayers, then he shouldn't view it as a smear campaign to have his ties to Ayers questioned. The fact that he DOES view it as a 'smear campaign' is telling; he knows Ayers is unsavory but still chose to 'pal around' with him anyway.

Why It Matters

There are a lot of people, "journalists" included, that are railing against Palin's remarks about Obama's connections to some unsavory characters. They try bullying tactics, saying it's veiled racism to bring these issues up. Puhlease! What is racist about questioning the associations of a presidential candidate? Absolutely nothing! The fact that so many libs have their feathers ruffled about these associations being brought up says that they ARE afraid of something, which makes investigating Obama's ties all the more important.

Obama doesn't help himself by evading the questions. What's he trying to hide? What also doesn't help, either, is that groups that he has been a member of scrub their websites to pretend he was never a member. The New Party, which is basically a socialist group, has scrubbed its website of any mention of Barack as a member. Obama campaigns against politics as usual, while engaging in politics as usual by hiding aspects of his past that the average American would find unsavory. Why is the New Party hiding the fact that Obama was a member? Why is Obama downplaying his associations with Ayers? What's up with him and Rezko? Was he sleeping in church when Wright made all of those inflammatory comments? The more that comes out about Obama, the more he tries to hide and downplay his unsavory associations, the more I fear an Obama presidency. I think he will make America a socialist nation.

His soft wording in the debates is really just a fluffy way of talking about socialism. He wants what's "fair". If my figures are correct, 42% of Americans pay NO federal income tax. But for Obama, that's not 'fair'. It will only be 'fair' when he taxes the "wealthy" and redistributes that money to those that are paying no income tax. CBS did a story about how under McCain's tax plan, a family living on a teacher's salary will continue to pay NO federal income tax. Under Obama's tax plan, that same family will receive a check from the federal government, because Obama thinks that is "fair".

The problem I have with liberal politicians like Obama is they want to be generous with OTHER people's money, but not his own. It's sad when my husband and I are more generous than the Obamas, who are MILLIONAIRES. We have to question WHY Obama doesn't walk the walk. If it's so unfair for rich people, like him, to have money, then why hasn't he been more generous with his money? It's because it's about the power. Democrats are about creating a welfare class of dependent voters, and once Obama starts passing out other people's money to Americans who pay no income tax, it'll be hard to take that away from them, and those folks will not vote in a party that would take away that government hand out. And then we have the decline of America as we know it: the America that is entrepreneurial, ambitious, hardworking, inventive. We cease to be the country of ideas and solutions and cures, and join the ranks of the oppressed and unmotivated.

This is part of the reason why Palin is so attractive. Newsweek says she is 'one of us, and that's the problem' (yet, don't they also lament politicians who are 'out of touch'?). I think that is the VERY reason to elect her and McCain. Washington has been run by people who are so not 'one of us', and look where it's gotten us. Incestuous ties that are corrupt and questionable, money being spent to reward their campaign donors instead of being spent on our infrastructure and energy independence and national security. I find it rather refreshing to have a 'one of us' who has an 80% approval rating in her own state, who has no incestuous, corrupt, DC ties, who is not afraid to champion reform, and who truly understands what America wants and needs, and that is politicians who work FOR us when they're spending our money; not campaigning for themselves with the money they take from 58% of the population via taxes.

Aren't most of us disgusted with our bloated, ineffective government? Then why would we elect someone who believes in bigger government? McCain has the record of being a champion of smaller government. When I think of all of my dealings with government, and how inefficient, ineffective, and unpleasant it has been, I shudder to think what a socialist like Obama will do to our country.

Small Town Mayor

I've seen some snarky comments being made about Sarah Palin being mayor of a small town, and governor of a state with a small population. These folks that are poo-pooing her mayoral experience must not have any experience with small town politics. They have big challenges and small budgets, and more 'interference' from their citizens. And not a lot of opportunity for high level corruption that borders on organized crime that we see with some large city mayors. If we want a Washington outsider, someone who isn't corrupted by money and power, then we have to look outside of Washington. Otherwise, it's just politics as usual.

Moving Target

Is there a list from the liberal feminists on what constitutes 'sexism', and what benchmarks constitute 'advances for women'? Because lately it seems to be a moving target.

I used to think I understood the feminists' point of view. Women and men were to be treated equally in all circumstances. If you ask a question of a woman, it should also be asked of a man. It shouldn't automatically be assumed that women are the primary caretaker of the children, and even making that assumption could garner you an angry and hostile response. These were the rules.

But now that Sarah Palin is making her mark in the political realm, a double standard has emerged, or shall we call it a "tightening of the definition of sexism". Suddenly liberal career women are asking about Palin's decision to be on McCain's ticket, and is she too ambitious at the expense of her children. What? Are there any other ladies out there that are as confused about this as I am? I haven't heard anyone ask about Barack Obama's ambition at the expense of his two little girls. And as much as the media likes to harp on Palin's FIVE children, the fact is that two of them are grown, meaning she only has one more child at home than Barack. Yet Barack hasn't been subjected to the same scrutiny as Palin. And now all of a sudden this makes sense to so-called feminists.

So what are the rules? Because clearly they change from situation to situation. Traditional women have been out there for a long time saying that despite our dreams of men and women being completely "equal"/"the same", we are not; we are made differently and built differently. In God's design this makes sense. Men have no problem with discipline and do not harbor feelings of insecurity and guilt. Women balance this out by their natural sense to nurture and love and avoid 'hard core' discipline. The two characteristics of God's design make for a nice balance for a family. Traditional women understand this, and ask for equality based on the differences in our make up. 'Value me as a woman for the traits that I bring to the table; don't belittle me and my traits and my role; and give me the opportunity to do exactly what I want to do, even though I'll do it as a woman instead of trying to do it like a man'. For me, what feminism has done is make it to where I can do anything I want to do, anything. If that means staying at home because it helps my husband and I achieve our goals and the kind of life we want to lead, then I can do it. If it means my friends stay home with their kids, they can do it. It's their choice and not one that is imposed on them. If I or my friends want to work and divide the home responsibilities, we can do it without any guilt. At least, that's what the feminists always told us.

But now, it's those same liberal feminists who are judging Palin harshly. This puts them in a predicament, because now they really need to define exactly what feminism is and what sexism is. Are they ready to admit that all choices come with a sacrifice, and it's a myth to think you can have it all? Staying at home sacrifices career. Having a career sacrifices time with children. Are they ready to admit that? Are they ready to admit that men and women are built differently and that women more naturally take on the role of caretaker? I don't see them being able to admit this, but in their questioning of Sarah Palin, that is what they are implying.

In the end, I think their treatment of Palin has hurt the feminist cause. By having this slippery slope, moving target of feminism and sexism, they're reinforcing the 'sexist' notion that women can be quite irrational and unhappy no matter what; that women always find something to bitch about. After all, my dream as a woman is that all women would have the same opportunities available to them that men do, should we decide to pursue those. That we have the freedom to live whatever kind of life we want to live, without any gender barriers. And Palin is achieving that. Count this true feminist happy.