After a nice four-day weekend in Chattanooga, I’m back to the grind and attempting to catch up on the news. I can’t believe the audacity of good friends getting married on what ended up being a heavy news weekend. They should have known better…

Back in TN-03, I noticed the Congressional race is heating up. Van Irion signs are everywhere, and “Send Mrs. Smith to Washington” bumper stickers covered numerous cars. While the entire country becomes more and more divided over politics, my home district is just slugging it out over which Republican to elect. One of the many reasons I love East Tennessee.

What did I miss over the weekend?

1. There was not one, but two new “scandals” involving Sarah Palin. E! News reported that she was a bit greedy at an Oscar event, which conflicted with a number of other stories that I read earlier. Ted Casablanca, who doesn’t have the best gossip track record and is just a tad partisan, spread the vicious story. Earlier accounts said that Palin accepted the free gifts and then donated them to the Red Cross in addition to donating $1,700. Immediately after Casablanca published his version, the blogosphere and media ran with that angle. When you factor in Radar incorrectly announcing the retirement of Chief Justice John Roberts, don’t trust celebrity gossip sites for political news. If these are legitimate sources for politics, Perez Hilton needs a Sunday morning talk show.

The media is also going crazy with reports that Palin’s brother illegally obtained medical care in Canada when they were children. Hot Air has a rebuttal. Good heavens. We need a version of Snopes just to get Palin facts right.

Dear media: we get that you don’t like Palin. Get over it and focus on real news.

2. Christopher Buckley realized that Obama is not that great after all.

Mr. Buckley, you are still my favorite novelist, but you are not your father. Sad that someone who writes razor-sharp satire about the Beltway could be taken in by the slick marketing of the Obama campaign.

3. The Census sent letters to 120 million households announcing that the Census will be mailed in April. How much did this cost? Mail from the Federal government doesn’t require postage like private mail does, but this had to cost several million dollars to print and deliver. Couldn’t those resources have been used more efficiently? Also, what about the environmental impact? How many trees died so that the US Government could tell us something we already knew?

In March, Tina Fey will appear on the cover of Vogue. According to an excerpt of the article in PopEater, she blames the backlash of playing Sarah Palin on being a woman:

“The partisan nature of politics continues to appall me. I’m almost paralyzed by my inability to see things in black-and-white… I felt uncomfortable to be in that discussion. The weird thing is, when Darrell Hammond or Will Ferrell or Dana Carvey did an impersonation of a president, no one assumed it was personal, but because Sarah Palin and I are both women and people think women are meaner to each other, everyone assumed it was personal.

Granted the writer of Mean Girls is probably going to see this as personal, and I believe there may be some truth behind her view. As Fey notes in the article, SNL has a long history of satirizing politicians, and they are never flattering. Why the backlash when she played Palin?

It may have resulted from what she said last year at the Emmy’s:

“I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5,” she said. “So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me.”

With that short statement, Fey went from satirizing the 2008 Election to inserting her personal opinion. Will Ferrall, Dana Carvey, Chevy Chase and Darrell Hammond mocked politicans, but they never made it personal. Fey crossed the line and made the impersonation appear mean-spirited. It was no longer lampooning a politician but was a political ploy to bring her down.

I like Tiny Fey. Mean Girls is a favorite movie (although Baby Momma was terrible), and I enjoy watching 30 Rock. However Fey lost a lot of respect the moment she publicly opposed Palin. That’s were the backlash started.

I’ve been rather critical of First Lady Michelle Obama and rightfully so. For all her gardening and anti-obesity photo-ops, she’s frightfully out of touch with the average American family. I track her wardrobe, and she easily wears $1 million worth of clothing in a year. She wore $50,000 alone last January. When Nancy Reagan did that during the 80s recession, she was vilified.

Kudos to her for being graceful on the topic of Sarah Palin. First Ladies are usually tactful and stay above the mud-slinging. However, this administration hasn’t done a very good job of staying above the fray on anything. The Prez  and his staff like making their opinions known whether they are warranted or not.  Mrs. O easily could have said something catty and the media wouldn’t have called her on it. Good for her for displaying class in an amateur administration.

Last night on Larry King Live, she managed to support women while staying apolitical:

“I think it’s wonderful to have strong female voices out there, but I don’t know her,” said Obama.

“What’s your read on the former governor of Alaska?” King had asked, setting up an exchange with classic cable television cat-fight potential.

“You know, I don’t have a read. I try not to make, or set, opinions about people that I haven’t had any, you know, substantive interaction with. I mean, I know what you see on TV and when –” Obama replied.

“Does it irk you when she criticizes?” King pressed.

“You know, democracy is about critique. And the president is not immune to criticism,” said Obama.

Obama also declined to be drawn out on the subject of the Tea Party convention. “You know, I’m — I’m focused on what’s in front of me. And right now, that’s ending childhood obesity in a generation — getting this done,” she said.

On Good Morning America yesterday, she also could have attacked Palin:

“I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course,” Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on “Good Morning America.” “That’s what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the president of the United States.”

Michelle Obama’s comments came in response to recent criticism from Sarah Palin, who told Tea Party conventioneers in Nashville, Tenn., this weekend that she wants to ask Obama supporters, “How is that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for you?”

Nearly every news outlet and blog has a post or story about the pro-life Tim Tebow commercial to be aired during the Superbowl on CBS.

I fail to see why this is a big deal.

The Tebows, a strong Christian family with misguided football loyalties, made a commercial with Focus on the Family about their choices. Focus then came up with the cash to buy the spot from CBS. Why then does this create controversy? Free speech works both ways.

If this ad was purchased by NARAL or EMILY’S List about how Tebow supported his girlfriend in her choice to abort due to an unplanned pregnancy, wouldn’t these groups applaud?

When did our society arrive at a place that “celebrating life,” as Focus on the Family puts it, is controversial? This ad highlights one woman’s choice. She chose not to abort and look what happened. (Who knows what might have happened if all the aborted people were allowed to live?) Women need to know that choosing life is just as valid a decision. That option is rarely given any attention. Just look at all the anger aimed at Palin for knowingly giving birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome.*

Educating women about all of their choices should be a priority of the women’s movement. However, this is only one more example of how the anti-life crowd only educates women on pre-approved “choices.” Women deserve to know all of their options. How often do they get those at an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood facility? Lila Rose has exposed how often women hear about adoption or life at those facilities.

Anti-life forces are in an uproar, but they can only speculate about what’s in the ad. All Focus on the Family has said is:

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because “families need to be inspired.”

“Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive,” Daly said. “They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values.”

Broadsheet admits that no one knows what is in the ad, but since the Women’s Media Center has launched a petition, it must be alarming. Oh my gosh! A petition! Tracy Clark-Flory writes:

A Focus on the Family spokesperson told the Washington Post that the ad isn’t overtly political, but a petition by the Women’s Media Center argues otherwise: “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” There is no denying the organization’s founder, James Dobson, is about as polarizing a political figure as they come.

The problem isn’t that CBS sold the spot to Focus on the Family. The problem is that the anti-life crowd is losing the messaging war. It’s possible to talk about celebrating life without politicizing it. It’s easy to sell pictures of happy families and babies. How many mothers have ever publicly said they regret choosing life? Compare that to the numbers of women who regret having an abortion. Life is the positive. Abortion is the negative.

How do you sell abortion? It’s almost impossible to talk about abortion or “choice” without involving polarizing politics. The images are always of angry women protesting and holding signs. What’s their alternative? Pictures of aborted babies that highlight the truth of abortion?  The anti-lifers are losing this issue. Poll numbers prove it. It explains why anti-life feminists lose it when Focus on the Family celebrates life with Tim Tebow and his family, or Sarah and Bristol Palin are on the cover of a tabloid.

Abortion is still legal in this country. Even though Roe vs. Wade is a horrible judicial decision (an opinion asserted by all sides) it’s unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future. However, every positive pro-life message, every Bristol Palin magazine cover, every photo of amazing neo-natal surgeries, ultrasounds or medical advances put another nail in the coffin of abortion’s public image.

“Choice” is abstract. “Life” is concrete and visual. Every time that you show that a fetus is viable and valued, from medicine science news to Lacey Peterson laws, it hurts the public perception of abortion.  These images don’t affect laws or legal precedents, but they expose the fraud that the “choice” crowd continues to disseminate. That’s why they focus on “choice.” As soon as you focus on a baby, you lose the debate.

As the “choice” debate unravels, it shows that the only difference between a premature baby getting the best neo-natal care and an aborted fetus is desire. If the “planned” or “wanted” pregnancies are the best justifications for abortion, these groups are in trouble. That’s a flimsy excuse for murder, and an extremely brutal murder at that. If abortion was re-created outside of the womb to kill a person, it could only be described as gruesome and barbaric. Why do we continue to do this to the most helpless members of our society? Since it’s hidden and only happens on the inside of women’s bodies, not many people understand how brutal the abortion medical procedure truly is.

Medical science is on the side of life. Rather than spending millions to defend abortion, why don’t these groups work on educating impoverished women on birth control or help them earn an education? (I wish more pro-life groups did the same.) All sides should make abortion the absolute worst-case option. There’s enough money and nonprofit infrastructure to make abortion unnecessary in our society. The problem is that feminists need it to survive.

The simple matter is that abortion and all “attacks” on it are cash cows for groups like NOW, EMILY’S List, Feminist Majority and NARAL. Without us pesky pro-lifers, the money stream from supporters would dry up. These groups need to manufacture crises in order to survive since public opinion and the progress of science is against them.

The pro-life side will always have supporters due to our religious faith and the issues of euthanasia, stem cell research and cloning. Our side is evolving. The abortion side is dying. The writing is on the wall for abortion supporters, and that is why their reactions get more hysterical and ridiculous. They ought to be thankful to Focus on the Family for giving them a something to protest since “women’s issues” have become little more than arguments over botox taxes, middle-age columnists regretting not getting married and having babies and debates if Lady Gaga represents feminist ideals.

*Why is the special needs community not more outraged at abortion? Only 10% of special needs children are born, which reeks of eugenics and is a borderline holocaust for this community. What does our society reflect when we only allow the desirable and perfect to be born?

I spend a lot of time here discussing that if feminism is all about giving women choices how come only women who chose liberal positions merit the feminist label? Much of the time it seems that my opinions fall on deaf ears since most people on the right have completely given up on feminism or demonized it as evil. Since very few things in life are black and white, I set out last year to figure what feminism was about. Were all feminist evil harpies, characterized by Hillary Clinton, or had they actually done a few good things like revise rape laws and end workplace discrimination?

It’s very hard to find anyone willing to take middle ground on this issue. Feminists demonize anyone who diverges from the NOW-agenda for the 40+ and the Feministing crowd for the Xers and Millenials. Disagree with them, and it’s character assassination.

I was pleasantly surprised to see an article at MomLogic by two self-proclaimed pro-choice feminists that Sarah Palin is indeed a feminist.They echo many of the sentiments that I’ve shared over the past few months–namely that personal attacks simply because you dislike someone is not a rational political debate. Heather Robinson and Jennifer Ginsberg write:

Many of these columnists do not clearly explain why they believe Palin is not a feminist. But they suggest that her bid for vice president was a slap in the face to women. Their writing is filled with personal digs, referring to Palin, for example, as a “moose-killing former governor and mother of five,” and “Caribou Barbie.”

They believe these names cover a true reason for the attacks:

Women don’t come out and say they don’t consider Palin a feminist because she’s pro-life, because she made the brave choice to give birth to a baby with special challenges, or because she’s religious. But we believe those things (perhaps along with her beauty, and the fact that she hunts, and she’s managed to have both a successful career and a family) are what’s eating them.

I imagine if you’re Suzy Q Feminist and either fought your entire life for “equality,” or became of fan of feminism in order to overthrow the shackles of your middle class existence, Sarah Palin was a huge slap in the face.  A conservative, state-educated woman, a former beauty pagent winner (and we all know that beauty pagents are evil since Naomi Wolf told us so), hunter and PRO-LIFE woman is getting street cred for being a femininst. It would be like getting MVP status at a ball game without showing up to any practices. She didn’t have click moments at her Womyns Center at an Ivy League college, join any marches in DC or file any lawsuits against chauvenistic, capitalistic male co-workers.

Rather than pick a political issue and spend her life talking about it and complaining about it, Palin lived it. She didn’t spend time navel-gazing and writing op-eds about the difficulties of being a working mother or a woman in politics, she just overcame the obstacles and was successful. (There seems to be a lot of that on the right.) As the authors note:

All her life, this woman competed with men on an equal playing field, and in terms of concrete achievement, has done far more than many feminists who stick within their own homogenous enclaves and, frankly, spend a lot of time complaining.

Their last two paragraphs summarize why I write this blog, and why I furiously fight any attempt to be labeled by the f-word:

If feminism’s overall goals are advancing women’s freedom and empowerment, and promoting equality with men, we should have a great big inclusive tent that welcomes different religious and personal philosophies. We can recognize there is room for significant disagreement in our ranks, but that we share some core values.

In years to come, technology may radically alter the way we view issues like abortion. It’s tragic that the real definition of feminism, a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women, has become blurred over this single issue.

In a move that will likely inspire in snobby retorts from liberal elites and SNL jokes, Sarah Palin will attend the Daytona 500.

Aside from taking a tour of the country’s WalMarts, I’m not really sure what else Palin could do to court Middle America. Honestly, if Palin didn’t already have the hokey American vibe going, this would come across as pandering. Where this any other candidate, it would be. In the case of Palin, I get the impression that she will actually enjoy herself.

Is Palin’s strategy to distance herself from the political world and ingratiate herself into American culture? She’s on a tabloid and is a Fox News contributor. Next month, she’ll headline the controversial Tea Party Convention in Nashville. She’s doing a good job of keeping her name in news. (Although, I doubt liberals would allow that to happen. They are far too addicted to trashing her. I’m starting to believe she’s the outlet for repressed disappointment in Obama.)

Has any other potential presidential candidate taken that route? I’m drawing a blank. Is 2012 her endgame or is she content in creating a personality-driven empire more akin to Oprah?

This is a first. Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol are the cover story of In Touch this week.

Definitely taking a pro-life approach, the article features the two women and their roles as mothers of young children.

Jezebel mocks the Palin’s decision to grace the cover of In Touch:

According to its media kit, In Touch has a circulation of about 800,000 — 85% of whom are women, at a median age of 30. Will these people, who usually look to the magazine for Brad and Angie “news,” be curious enough about the former Vice Presidential candidate to buy the issue? (Wouldn’t they much rather see an in depth at-home with the Jolie-Pitts? We would!) On the other hand, the Palins could broaden the magazine’s reach: Those who have never picked up the celebrity glossy may find the Palins intriguing, and sales could get a bump that way. As for Sarah Palin, is she reaching out to these women, trying to convince them that she’s just like them — a working mom with issues, trying to make the best of it? Maybe.

My first reaction was surprise. Palin has the star power to be on the cover of practically any magazine. Why In Touch? Why  lower her image to a supermarket tabloid when she could do respectable press? Then I thought about it. I think giving an exclusive to In Touch does broaden her appeal to women. Jezebel discloses that the median readers are 30 and female. What they don’t mention is the median household income is $66,592, putting them comfortably in the middle class. These aren’t Glamour readers, nor are they picking up Town & Country.

Let’s think about this. Who are Palin’s supporters? Average middle class Americans. Who makes up In Touch’s readers? Average, middle class women who are bored standing in the checkout line at Wal-Mart. She’s transcending the political world and reaching directly out to her base, and I seriously doubt any of the Jezebel writers would grace Wal-Mart.

The general public doesn’t read political media. Sure, most people watch the news, but only a small segment follow it obsessively. If Palin is going to get her message beyond the politicos and echo chamber of the blogosphere, she has to do press like this. Once you get past the snobbery of the tabloid, there’s a smart strategy here.

Until Palin became a Fox News contributor (which was less surprising than the revelation that Mark McGuire took steroids. yawn.), she depended on Facebook to get her message out. Giving interviews like this one gets her off the same meme that the media won’t move past. I’m sick of hearing he said/she said comments about her VP debate prep. I’m sick of hearing about Wardrobegate. The media seems incapable of moving past the 2008 election. This type of story gives her another means of personalizing herself to average American women.

Traditionally, this group does not vote Republican, so it is critical to woo them if she has aspirations in 2012. This group is also less likely to be the obsessive political types and are busy. Therefore, they’re going to believe whatever talking points the main outlets put out there.

This article also gets a pro-life message out of the religious and political debate. I’ve said before that Christians are losing today because we stopped engaging in pop culture. It’s not very often that pro-life stories are positively protrayed in the media. Usually, we’re seen as religious zealots or potential bombers. Frankly, it’s nice to see a change.

And now more completely unsurprising news about Sarah Palin…

She’s the second-most admired woman in the country after Hillary Clinton. Per Politico:

When Gallup asked 1,025 adults nationwide to name the woman they admire most, 16 percent picked Clinton. Palin was the only other woman to be mentioned by at least 10 percent, being selected by 15 percent of those surveyed.

Clinton has been in the public eye for nearly 20 years now, whereas Palin a little over one. Given Palin’s grassroots following, no. 1 book, and unbelievably successful booktour, this is not a big surprise. Honestly, this poll is probably more of an indicator of who’s been in the news the most. Top of the Ticket notes that Clinton has been ranked since 1993, the year she moved into the White House:

When is the fashion industry going to tire of Michelle Obama? I’m sick, sick, sick of seeing articles about her amazing sense of style.

When I read the fashion piece in the New York Times by Cathy Horyn comparing Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama, I was happy to see someone try to print something questioning M. Obama’s choices, even if she gets some facts wrong about Palin. She writes:

It’s hard to see now why so many columnists got their tights in a twist over Ms. Palin’s spending $75,000 of perfectly good Republican money at Neiman Marcus during the 2008 Republican convention. Have you seen Neiman’s numbers lately? After 18 straight months of declines, it wouldn’t be surprising to find a little shrine erected in Ms. Palin’s honor.

In November, the NYT, the same publication where Ms. Horyn writes, interviewed Lisa A. Kline, the stylist behind Wardrobegate. The article set the record straight that Palin had nothing to do with all of the money spent at Neiman Marcus. Palin even spends a considerable amount of time writing her side of the story in Going Rogue. She remembers looking through the clothes and being shocked to find an $80 pair of pantyhose and wondering why they were better than $5 drugstore brands. She also writes at length about wearing her own clothes, borrowing a pair of black Theory pants from a staffer and supporting Alaska designer, Paige Adams-Geller by wearing Paige jeans on the campaign. When she traveled to meet Senator McCain about the possibility of becoming his running mate, she packs two Ann Taylor suits. The last time I checked, neither Theory nor Ann Taylor are expensive brands. They make up many professional wardrobes of average American women.

I do agree with Ms. Horyn in the lack of scandal in how Mrs. Obama favors expensive labels, and by expensive, I mean expensive.

Mrs. Obama, though, has successfully separated the personal from the political. Indeed, the only thing more surprising than the storm over Ms. Palin’s “Pretty Woman” makeover is that almost no one has raised an eyebrow over Mrs. Obama’s wearing of non-American labels, which include Nina Ricci and Junya Watanabe, and some of the most expensive at that.

In the 1960s, Jackie Kennedy Onassis, a true fashion icon, gave up French designers because the public wanted her to wear American.  In the 1980s, Nancy Reagan was vilified for wearing expensive labels despite close connections to designers and a personal fortune to buy them. Barbara and Laura Bush always wore high-end, respectable labels but they  weren’t fashion industry darlings like the current FLOTUS. They did pull out the designer frocks when it counted, and Oscar De la Renta famously dressed Laura Bush.

While we’re in a recession similar the early 80s, Michelle Obama is praised for wearing expensive designers that most Americans can’t dream of wearing or even walking in their stores.*  Even her “cheap” J. Crew outfits cost over $500 each. When was the last time the average American woman spent $500 on a singal outfit? Hardly a peep is made when Mrs. O wears $500 sneakers to serve soup, orders custom-made, thigh-high boots from an elite French shoemaker or carries a $900 clutch. Because Mrs. Obama is a progressive and mirrors the politics of the fashion elite, they gush over her. As Horyn notes:

Mrs. Obama’s choices are all insider, apart from her shorts and those strategically worn plebe numbers from Target and Talbots. If she got any more insider, she’d be backing down a runway. She wears Rodarte, Jason Wu, Sophie Theallet, Narciso Rodriguez, Thakoon, Isabel Toledo and Rick Owens, labels that in terms of creativity and price are at the highest level of fashion. Go much higher and you hit couture.

That’s nearly more elite than the labels Nancy Reagan wore and she was labeled a cold-hearted fashionista. The only problem is that the Reagans clearly had the money to spend on those clothes. What about the Obamas? Neither of them have the income to afford that level of dressing. That level of dressing requires at least a $150,000 investment each year. To pull that off, you need Cindy McCain levels of income. The President only makes $400,000 plus an expense account of $50,000. Their daughters’ elite school, Sidwell Friends starts at $30,000 per kid. (It’s nice. I frequently used to walk by it when I lived in Upper Georgetown.)

What’s more likely is Mrs. O shares the same elitist, progressive politics of the design world and isn’t afraid to drop names when they gift her items. And when she drops the names of international designers, they make those snobby Europeans feel even more warm and mushy on the inside since the Obamas are “restoring” the profile of America. It’s like having a permanent red carpet on CNN. I was always led to believe that it’s in bad taste to spend copious amounts of money in a recession, even when you can afford it. But then, the Obamas are always the exception to every rule.

Interestingly, the Huffington Post attacks Horyn for her remarks about Mrs. O:

We think Sarah Palin is incredibly attractive, and looks great in a tailored and crisp style that suits her look. Michelle Obama experiments with looks, a seeming reflection of the many moods, roles, and self-images of women today. More power to them both, as they reflect, via their sartorial choices, on the multi-tasking challenge of all modern women.

Odd, “experimenting” with your style is not what’s typically praised in the fashion world. Fashion icons–Jackie Kennedy, Audrey Hephburn, Grace Kelly and modern celebrities like Renee Zellweger, Sarah Jessica Parker and Sienna Miller are known for distinct fashion tastes. In order to be a fashion icon, you’re supposed to have a recognizable style, not experiment. If Michelle Obama is still experiementing with her “style” well into her forties, she’s not an icon. And if her “style” is the frumpy cardigan and belt look, I can see why the labels are falling over themselves to save their precious liberal FLOTUS from worst dressed lists.

If Mrs. O had the politics of say, Sarah Palin, would her fashion choices be lauded?

*During my senior trip to Los Angeles, we went shopping on Rodeo Drive and quickly discovered no one could afford to buy anything. In Gucci, a salesperson closely follow us before escorting us out. The only store that showed any kind of customer service was Ralph Lauren, a plebian American designer. When I splurge on expensive clothes find them on sale at Marshall’s, I usually end up buying one of Ralph Lauren’s lines or Michael Kors, another American designer.

H/T: Don Surber

The emergence of conservative women is invigorating on the right and baffling to the left. A.C. Kleinheider’s piece in the Nashville City Paper would be funny if it didn’t capture the begrudging puzzlement of the larger media as to why the conservative movement suddenly looks so female:

Beyond a steady rightward shift and an increasingly reactionary rhetoric, conservative leadership is taking on another characteristic — it’s becoming more female. Both nationally and in Tennessee, the most beloved and vocal conservative leaders these days seem to be women.

Memo to Kleinheider: conservative women have always been here.  His comments confuse me. Does he not closely follow Tennessee and national politics? The existence of women on the right is hardly new:

Women need to be embraced as leaders — but not out of fear or necessity. It should happen the right way, or else the Right will merely be seen as a bunch of weak-willed reactionary little boys sending their women out to do their fighting for them.

Michele Bachmann was elected before Sarah Palin. Marsha Blackburn’s been involved in Tennessee politics for a long time now. Robin Smith was chairwoman of the TN GOP before Palin was on the scene. In order to have so many women running in 2010 means that women have been working up the ranks of the party and active in their communities for many years. It takes a long time to build up the name recognition, fundraisers and social capital to run for office. I’m surprised that he failed noticed that.

In fact, Republicans and conservatives have seen many of the “first” women across a number of categories. Labels and identity politics are just not as important to us. Just because the media suddenly noticed that women were in the conservative movement, doesn’t mean that we weren’t always there. Most of my political viewpoints come directly from my mother, who became a staunch conservative in the early 80s.  We’ve always been here. Now we’re getting the recognition that we deserve.

Palin is the catalyst not the movement.

Ironically, we owe it to the feminists and liberals in Congress for galvanizing all of the suddenly-visible conservative women that are shocking! Kleinheider.

This movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. Palin was the catalyst and should be analyzed, but the media, liberals and bloggers need to look at the bigger picture. Conservative women have always been in the movement, but Sarah Palin was the first woman to resonate with us. Prior to Palin, I always admired Elizabeth Dole. However, she was a DC insider with an Ivy League education. I could admire her (and the struggles she faced at Yale) but couldn’t identify with her. When Palin arrived, we had someone who reflected us.

Had the media and feminists said, “Great. The conservative movement is finally acting on what we’ve been preaching for 30 years,” I doubt that conservative women would now be so vocal. It was the the angry reaction of the feminist movement and the media that attacked Palin,  her family and her education. Suddenly liberals questioned if a woman could work and raise a large family. Her state education was ridiculed and her middle class existence was mocked. Those were the strengths that Palin represented. She was conservative and lived a very different lifestyle from the career politicians and bi-coastal elites, who are constantly telling us how to live.

By mocking Palin and what she represented, the media and feminists were collectively slapping the faces of every conservative woman in the country. This outrage is what motivated the  conservative women’s movement to come together, and what I’ve been writing about for over a year now.

This anger motivated countless numbers of bloggers. My friend, Tabitha Hale,  started her blog directly because of Palin. It led Teri Christoph to start Smart Girl Politics. It motivated a number of women who are now running for office.

Palin wasn’t the only factor though. Conservative women, just like conservative men, are angry at the government and our free-spending Congress. Women are just as involved as men in the Tea Party. The policies and activities of the Bush Administration and now the liberals in power are motivating men and women alike to stand up. Perhaps it’s a combination of our “traditional values” and anger that have caused women to be visible.

My dad told me this week, “I’m just as conservative as your mom, but I don’t have time to go to Tea Parties.” Ironically, the traditional values and roles that conservatives have long defended are what free women up to be active in the Tea Party movement. If Congressman Blackburn noticed that Tea Parties are largely female, it’s because there are more housewives on the right. My mom has always been a conservative activist because she had the time. If women control most of the purchasing power in this country, is it surprising that we’re actively protesting the wasteful actions of our government? Tea Parties are a reflection of the masses of Americans waking up to what Congress is doing, not a sudden pink-wash of the right.

Kleinheider, and others like him, should try to do a little research.  Again, this movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. My advice to reporters and academics would be to widen your angle beyond Palin, Bachmann and Blackburn. Palin was the catalyst and deserves to be analyze.  It is shortsighted to say that the conservative movement suddenly turned pink. You’re just now noticing us.

Much of the fault lies with academics. As Ronnee Schreiber notes in her book, Righting Feminism, hardly any academic study has been conducted on conservative women…ever. There was a small amount of research done after the failure of the ERA, but they assauged their failure by concluding conservative women are no different than conservative men. Since the 1980s, they’ve assumed that conservative women view politics indentically to men. Since we’re barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, we vote as our husbands and fathers do. They fail to see that conservative women are independently conservative because that’s the political movement they agree with. Since liberal feminists created the field of gender studies and created cushy jobs for themselves, it makes sense that they wouldn’t research areas that could potentially harm the movement and their sources of income.

To be concluded in Part 2.