Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Sarah Palin: on special needs, gender bias and those clothes”

Here, a story on Palin and special needs children — as filtered through NBC:

Then there’s this, from the LA Times Blog :

In Pittsburgh, Palin, as part of her belated but expanding activities with the media, also granted one of her first newspaper interviews, to the Chicago Tribune’s Jill Zuckman.

Some highlights from Palin’s interview / dodging of the press:

[…] Palin insisted she did not accept $150,000 worth of designer clothes from the Republican National Committee, as widely reported, and “that is not who we are.”

“That whole thing is just bad!” she said. “Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. It’s kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported,” said Palin, saying the clothes are not worth $150,000 and will be given back, auctioned off or sent to charity.

Also:

She called the disabilities issues “a joyful challenge.” Todd showed off photos of many people with Down syndrome who have come to her campaign events, and the candidate said one advocacy group sent her a bumper sticker that said “My kid has more chromosomes than your kid.” “These children are not a problem, they are a priority,” Palin said.

“We’re on this journey with other families,” she said. “We’ll learn a lot from those other families, as they can count on us in the White House doing all that we can for them also. It’s going to be a nice team effort here.”

Palin said: “I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race. Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don’t talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That’s a bit of that double standard.”

“I’m not going to complain about it, I’m not going to whine about it, I’m going to plow through that, because we are embarking on something greater than that, than allowing that double standard to adversely affect us,” she said.

In her speech today, Palin will lay out the campaign’s plans to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, boost funding for special-needs children from birth to age 3 and allow parents to choose whether federal money for their child is used in a public, private, religious or secular school without navigating a cumbersome administrative process.

The federal government originally committed in 1975 to paying 40% of the cost of educating children with special needs, with the states paying the rest. But that has never happened; full funding would require approximately $26 billion a year, and the federal government currently pays $10.9 billion. The McCain campaign plans to phase in that increased money.

Zuckman’s complete story is available here. A full transcript of the interview is available here.

Reached for comment, neither Joe Biden nor Barack Obama could be reached for comment.

24 Replies to ““Sarah Palin: on special needs, gender bias and those clothes””

  1. dicentra says:

    She called the disabilities issues “a joyful challenge.”

    And that challenge draws you out of your egotistical self, forces you to discard superficial notions about what makes people important, and if you let it, makes you a much better person than when you started out.

    Which is, IMAO, the prime reason why They hate Sarah: she’s shown them up royally on the moral high ground.

    People will forgive you for being wrong, but they’ll never forgive you for being right.

  2. steveaz says:

    When Sarah Palin says that she’s gonna “plow through all that,” I get big lump in my throat.

    I can see her putting the snow-plow attachment on her Chevy all by herself in a blizzard, and then, just for kicks, plowing the snow off of the local post office parking lot.

    You know, so’s folks can get their mail and stuff.

    Lordy. We need her in Washington right now. I sure hope she wins.

  3. Bob Reed says:

    But…But…But…Jeff!, you’re forgetting about the clothes, man…TANNING BED! THE CLOTHES!

    Forget the fact that the wardrobe, or the proceeds from an auction of it, will go to charity after the campaign…

    Who cares what she’s saying to the press now, I mean, it’s sooooo obviously a distraction from the issues…TANNING BED! THE CLOTHES! OUTRAGE!

    Now the fact that the Barackopolis cost 5.3 million? Not important; obviously a necessary expense…BUT THE CLOTHES!

    Because we want to talk about, you know, the real issues facing Americans

  4. psycho... says:

    I’m not a fan of the I’m-kind-of-a-libertarian-except-about-everything-I-care-about thing she seems to have going, but…meh.

    Only really evil politicians agree with me about much of anything, or they wouldn’t be politicians.

    one of her first newspaper interviews

    We should over/under the last time this gets said.

    I’ll take her 3,259th interview as the last “one of her first” (or “rare,” which is the standard) — though I’d also bet she’s done that many already, being a mayor and governor for years, and yakking with reporters every day for weeks now.

    I’ve done too many interviews to call any more of them “one of [my] first,” and I ain’t shit. (I was kinda shit once.)

  5. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    “I’m not a fan of the I’m-kind-of-a-libertarian-except-about-everything-I-care-about thing she seems to have going, but…meh.”

    psycho, that was perfect. I, at times, have absolutely no idea what you are saying, all the while betting it’s poignant, salient and cogent, but this time I knew…and knew I agreed. Pet projects that people want to nationalize are kind of going against libertarian principles? No?

  6. Bobby Appleton says:

    Maybe she can give some of the clothes to Joe the plunber`s wife. Or another hocky mom.

  7. mcgruder says:

    this is genuinely moving stuff.
    she is an impressive person.

  8. Jeff G. says:

    Well, psycho, I agree in principle, but with her it’s so minor. I mean, she obviously doesn’t believe in gay marriage but she vetoed her own party’s bill denying same sex partner benefits on the grounds she thought it likely unconstitutional. She also has said that prosecution for marijuana offenses are a rather low priority.

    In many ways, she’s about as close as one can get, in today’s political climate, to a politician willing to govern from federalist and libertarian principles.

    Ron Paul, for instance, scared me to death.

  9. Carlos says:

    It was not just the choice of an idiot for VP, but the lies, the smears, the total lack of honesty…

    They are fabricating assaults, etc. to generate ANGER towards the Obama campaign.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350530/

    They are fabricating assaults, etc. to generate ANGER towards the Obama campaign. I tell you, there is nothing the republicans will stoop to. It is just amazing… and the worse thing is how low they have set the standards… now nobody pays attention anymore when a candidate lies, or flip-flops, etc. This is just disgusting…

    I tell you, there is nothing the republicans will stoop to. It is just amazing… and the worse thing is how low they have set the standards… now nobody pays attention anymore when a candidate lies, or flip-flops, etc. This is just plain disgusting…

  10. dicentra says:

    Hey Carlos:

    Don’t recognize the handle, but the cut-and-paste stuff was a nice touch. If it’s worth saying, it’s worth saying again.

    You also might want to check out the front page of LGF right now — as well as dig into its archives and those of Hot Air — to see how often our side debunks the rumors that our side generates, including but not limited to the “Obama is a Muslim” and “Obama isn’t a citizen” scuttlebutt.

    But let me get this straight:

    One somewhat disturbed woman stages an attack against herself but confesses the next day = an indication of systematic Republican ANGER-generating tactics

    Thousands of fraudulent voter registrations across the country, thus to cast a pall on the whole democratic process = YOU RETHUGLICANS ARE TRYING TO GENERATE anger AGAINST THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN BY DISTRACTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH YOUR RACIST ATTACKS

    Because “fraudulent voter registration” is a code word for “black.”

  11. McGehee says:

    there is nothing the republicans will stoop to

    Whereas with the Democrats, there is nothing they will NOT stoop to.

  12. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    I bet Palin knows how to comment on a blog, Carlos. You seem to be too stupid to figure it out, though.

    As for the link, well if true, then what an idiot that woman must be. But, hardly an indictment on the McCain/Palin ticket. Just like the numerous examples of graffiti/vandalism/now shootings being perpetrated by O! supporters, don’t indict O!/Biden. Their policies do that.

  13. KTM says:

    I am not impressed at all with Sarah Palin’s parenting choices. Parents of “special needs” children have a “special obligation” to those very needy children to provide the best structure and environment possible. This is how they develop to their fullest potential. Not by being paraded around like a mascot for the benefit of the parent’s selfish agenda. If the parents aren’t making their child their first priority no one else is certainly going to.

  14. pdbuttons says:

    parade? yeah-frame the argument/narritive- not having any of it here/
    either/or-she’s exploiting-or-neglecting her chilluns
    she’s abusing her power in taser-gate-but god forbid the trooper went psycho and hurt otre peeps-then she’d be a negligent bitch
    she’s got 70-80% approval ratings with people who know her!
    quoth the “top of ZZ”-everyman’s crazy ’bout a sharp-dressed woman’or ‘legs’
    she got legs-be afraid-be very afraid!

  15. Rob Crawford says:

    I am not impressed at all with Sarah Palin’s parenting choices.

    That’s nice. Good thing she’s not running to be elected national mother.

  16. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    I am not impressed at all with Sarah Palin’s parenting choices.

    I am not impressed at all with your clumsy astroturfing.

  17. JD says:

    Carlos – You are an idiot.

    KTM, on the other hand, is a mendoucheous asshat.

  18. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    “I am not impressed at all with Sarah Palin’s parenting choices”

    Ok, now who the fuck cares about your opinion?

  19. happyfeet says:

    Baracky’s parents pawned him off on his racist grandmother and he turned to drugs and masturbation. I’d say Governor Palin was way ahead of the game.

  20. Jim in KC says:

    It was not just the choice of an idiot for VP

    “My smile is my fortress…”

    (h/t to Jeff)

  21. Mikey NTH says:

    It is one thing to argue that Congress should not have the federal government take on some obligations; it is another thing to argue that the federal government should not meet the obligations it has taken on (unfunded mandates).

    It said it will do this; therefore it should do that, or say it won’t. Easy promises that won’t be followed through with are as much a problem as anything; a real cultural issue – if you want another cultural issue to chew on. You want to change something? Make your word your bond, make/encourage others to do the same.

    A hared row to how, eh?

  22. Mikey NTH says:

    I meant, ‘A hard row to hoe, eh?’

  23. meya says:

    “In her speech today, Palin will lay out the campaign’s plans to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”

    To each, according to their special needs. Almost socialism.

    “In many ways, she’s about as close as one can get, in today’s political climate, to a politician willing to govern from federalist and libertarian principles.”

    Except that in Alaska, just about any need is a special need if it comes from their congressional delegation. But I could see that as her just doing whats to be done for Alaska.

  24. Andrew the Noisy says:

    Fullly funding an act that the government has had on the books for years but refused to lay out the resources for is not socialism, meya. The act itself, arguable, but making the government pay what it promised to fund the requirements it lays on local schools is simple justice. Unfunded mandates play hell in school districts. The Feds should pay their share or shut the fuck up.

    I know which one I would prefer, but I don’t get to make these decisions.

Comments are closed.