In Sarah Palin’s recent video, she talks about “a lot of women coming together to get things done for our country.” I also know a lot of women coming together and enacting change — but I don’t think we’re talking about the same group of women.

The women I know — Republicans, Democrats, and Green Party members — are fighters for women’s equality and defenders of reproductive health choices. They’re diverse, like our country. They believe in giving women freedom to make decisions about themselves and their family. They trust women.

Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women. Now, if Ms. Bennett managed to know every. single. woman. in. the. world., her argument may have some legitimacy. Per her logic, all fans of football must love the Tennessee Vols because the football fans that I know are supporters of the Volunteers.

This is a tired argument. When will liberals get over it? You aren’t real or legitimate if you deviate from the prescribed position of your identity group. If you’re a conservative woman, you deviate from feminists and are some type of faux-woman. If you’re black and attend Tea Parties, you’re an Uncle Tom. As Michelle Malkin notes today, liberals are oddly obsessed with her race since she’s a conservative of Filipino descent. She doesn’t fit their existing frame of Asian women, so she must not be a real one.

Since their liberalness gives them supreme authority over the universe, we must adjust to fit their definitions of “right.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Bennett continues:

I would love to live in a world where all female politicians support these same values. However, given the recent rise of socially conservative and anti-choice women candidates such as Carly Fiorina, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin herself, we know this is not true.

When will feminists drop the ridiculous notion that women need to vote together as a single bloc because we all have ovaries? That’s a sexist and demeaning view. It expresses a belief that women aren’t complicated, intelligent or capable of making their own decisions. We need to overthrow the patriarchy and obey the whims of the matriarchy.

Honestly Ms. Bennett, get over yourself and realize that no one made you or your liberal elite feminist cronies the queen of all women. I’m sick of being told how to react to the media, politics or fashion through your jaded, bra-burning lenses. I’m sick of being told that abortion is the absolute end-all political issue because I happened to be born with a uterus. I’m sick of being told that because I’m socially and fiscally conservative, something is wrong with me. SHUT THE F*!&$ UP, AND STOP TELLING ME HOW TO ACT. I’M CONSERVATIVE AND PROUD OF IT. DEAL WITH IT.

Ironically, Ms. Bennett starts having issue with her own skewed version of logic.

Luckily, Palin’s band of ‘Mama Grizzlies’ is just a small faction of women. But you wouldn’t guess that based on her overly-generalized video or vague talk of women’s collaboration. And that’s why I want to be clear:

Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.

I’d love to know how Ms. Bennett knows exactly what percentage of women in the GOP are “Mama Grizzlies.” As far as I know, no poll has asked this question. It’s a number I’m curious to discover, but no one will conclusively know until after the election in November.

Given polling, I’d say my estimates are more accurate than Ms. Bennett’s. A record number of GOP women are running. More Americans identify as conservative than any other ideology group, more Americans are pro-life (including younger generations), a near majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare and the recent DOJ lawsuit against Arizona, about half of the country disapproves of Obama’s job performance, and a whopping 66% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. I’d like to know what evidence she has to back up her claim.

Oh, it’s a nice little poll from her Women’s Campaign Forum, a “nonpartisan” group supporting women, which happens to link to only left-wing sites, and supports only liberal women (see a lot of political diversity on this list?). Her amazing statistic, upon which her entire column rests, is likely one of those generic polls that group three or four data points together in order to get a wow statistic that absolutely proves whatever policy point they’re trying to make.  What is her basis of logic for this data point? Per her HuffPo column:

In fact, since 81% of Americans believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should have control over their own important life decisions, Palin’s staunchly anti-choice beliefs are in direct contradiction of the majority of not just her party, but everyone.

81% of anything, particularly all Americans, should be suspect. What exactly is the question? Only the highlighted finding is published.

A large majority (81%) believe that regarding these important life decisions, individuals, not politicians or the government, should decide which option is best for themselves and their families, according to their own circumstances and values.

I apologize for my language today, but what the hell does that mean? What are important life decisions? That’s a pointedly leading question. When you drill down, that quote doesn’t necessarily just reflect abortion issues, but contraception and sex education. Those are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities. For example, I’m staunchly pro-life, but I have no issue with the use of contraception. The two issues can’t be lumped together.

The question originated in a Harris Interactive poll from 2006. Hmmm….what year is it? Who was president in 2006? What was the rate of unemployment in 2006? Furthermore, that exact question is not mentioned anywhere in their limited findings, which backs up my assumption. It’s a nice little statistic designed to be a pull quote in marketing materials but is statistically inaccurate. Also, current polling data conflicts with yours.

The time frame on the poll is also questionable.

While it generally takes a bit of time for organizations to release polls, it never takes…four years.

What happened here?

It looks like–in an effort to be relevant given the success of the Mama Grizzly speech–that the WCF dusted off an old poll and tried to make it appear current.

Even if this poll did not ask leading questions, which by all accounts it does, the world is a radically different place in 2010 than 2006. In 2006 most people thought Hillary Clinton would currently be president or lose to a Republican in 2008. Not many people anticipated the housing bubble bursting or the failure of Lehman Brothers. Even fewer people had heard of Sarah Palin, who was just beginning to serve as governor in Alaska. Polling data relating to women’s issues can’t be translated over the course of the last four years. Too much has changed.

Ms. Bennett, next time you decide to write a little op-ed, perhaps you should realize that women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative. You may run a nice little liberal group, safe in your left-wing enclave of feminist sisters, but America is far more politically diverse than you’re willing to admit.

You may also want to find a more current poll next time, too.

The subject of conservative women emerging in politics is one that I’ve covered for more than a year. Since the infamous Mama Grizzly remarks by Sarah Palin, I’ve refrained from commenting* and watched the debate evolve. The role of conservative women in feminism is another, much-needed blog post, but I’m excited to see the discussion. On the right, this is a subject that no one has ever wanted to discuss. On the left, it engages a decades-old debate on how to exactly define feminism. Among feminist circles, this is still a messy internal argument. In the coming months, expect a lot more from me on this subject.

With a number of upcoming primaries with female Republican candidates like Robin Smith in my home district of TN-03 or Pamela Gorman, the game continues.

Update 6/10/10: Even more stories via Google alerts.

WaPo: Can Sarah Palin Claim Credit for Last Night?

New York Daily News: GOP primaries: Sarah Palin helps South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and Calif.’s Carly Fiorina win big

CBS: GOP Women Dominate in Tuesday’s Primaries

The round-up so far today. First the feminists.

Jezebel has a fair round-up posted. Well, as fair as Jezebel (i.e. Gawker) folks get. Since two Democrats were on the list, they couldn’t do hatchet jobs on the rest.

Double X gets a few points wrong about the Mama Grizzly endorsements. Orly Taitz is a birther. I don’t know if even the radical fringes of the Tea Party would accept her. To use her as an example of a Palin loss is inaccurate since Palin never even touched that race. Claire Grossman wrote:

Though they’re just as extreme as their female counterparts, male candidates affiliated with the Tea Party like Rand Paul are shown (in a far less head-scratching spirit) as Ayn Randian, spear-carrying individualists. Whatever you think of their political beliefs, mama bears don’t deserve to be hit with the tired “hysterical woman” stereotype.

I agree with Grossman’s sentiment. Women should be discussed and debated on the same terms of men. If you’re going to do a fashion story, look at male candidates too or refrain from style all together. However, I wish Grossman had used better examples. Birthers are crazy and deserve to be ridiculed.

Debra Medina also waded birther territory. She also ran against an incumbent with high name ID who ran a stellar campaign in Texas. Palin also endorsed Perry, Medina’s opposition. Birthers are so far to the extreme of conservative politics, that pushing them aside and calling them crazy is the only option. To given them any serious consideration would only hurt the entire movement. Grossman doesn’t look at coverage of male birther candidates. They’re viewed just as nutty as the women are.

This cycle does prove that women are treated differently. Much of the coverage of these women did result in mud-slinging and name-calling. Haley’s campaign should enter the record books for new lows in public life, but the race in Nevada also got ugly at times. The California race was largely fair. Neither Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina seemed to be attacked or held to double-standards, despite Fiorina releasing the most bizarre campaign commercials ever. I’m disappointed in Fiorina’s victory,* but both women held their own in a tough state while running against men who were positioned further to the right.

EMILY’s List is scared of Carly Fiorina, which is a silver lining for me personally. Bwhahaha!

Stephanie pointed out that Fiorina is already going on the attack against Barbara — no great shock, since she’d been lobbing attacks on TV at Barbara before she even won the party endorsement. Already, choice is becoming a top issue in this race, and we can’t afford to lose Barbara’s leadership on women’s rights in the Senate.

Fiorina’s got a war chest filled with money from the $21-million golden parachute she received after being fired from her job at HP. We’ve got to help Barbara fill her campaign coffers now and make sure she’s ready to fight back!

Given EMILY’s List struggle to adapt to younger feminists and raise money, good luck with that one.

The Right-of-Center Folks:

Independent Women’s Forum. (Great post, which I completely agree with!)

Regardless of their reasons for running, and regardless of the outcome of the November elections, in my book the primary results have at least one absolutely terrific outcome. Women and girls have a great new set of role models to look up to who aren’t afraid to step up and speak out for what they believe in – and that kind of positive encouragement is good for the whole country. For too long, sitting officials have overlooked the wishes of their constituents in order to advance their own agendas – and the American people have had enough.

Susan B. Anthony List (I encourage them to not use “conservative feminism.” That’s a loaded label, but that’s another blog post.)

What an amazing night for pro-life women across the country! Without a doubt, last night victories were the greatest affirmation of the Susan B. Anthony List mission since our organization’s founding and truly telling of the resurgence of authentic, pro-life feminism–feminism true to our foremother’s belief that the rights of one group can never be advanced on the broken backs of others.

Hot Air via Ed Morrissey:

Why so many women in the GOP? One has to give at least some credit to the Tea Parties. In my experience with the activists behind Tea Party events, most have been women who have become determined to steer the course of the American political agenda back to the Right. The two national politicians most associated with the Tea Party movement? Powerful Republican women: Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN).

I agree with Morrissey here. Tea Parties are largely driven by women. Also, consider the fractured state of the GOP since 2006. With incumbents out of favor, and voters angry at “establishment” politicians, this opened the door for women. There’s a larger post here, but the media doesn’t recognize a trend until a figurehead emerges. Love or hate Palin, she motivated a lot of women who identified with her.

It also takes a much bigger commitment for women to run. Dee Dee Meyers explains in her book that it takes asking a women 5 or 6 times before she’ll consider running. With the GOP out of ideas and fresh blood, they were much more willing to woo female candidates than in previous years.

Red State via Erick Erickson

The Republican Establishment is declaring this their year of the woman. There are five in particular that I want to aggressively support: Nikki Haley running for Governor in South Carolina, Karen Handel running for Governor in Georgia, Sharron Angle running for the Senate in Nevada, Robin Smith running for Congress in Tennessee, and Pamela Gorman running for Congress in Arizona.

More from me on these awesome women later.

Other media:

Blogher: Don’t Get Mad. Get Elected.

I mean, really — isn’t it time to change the all-male South Carolina state senate or the Ohio state senate’s GOP male-female ratio (19-2) (Dems total of 11 are split 6-5)? The SC senate doesn’t even have an election until 2012 — plenty of time! Come on, ladies. Don’t get mad — get elected.

Christian Science Monitor: Women Shine in Tuesday’s Primaries, Especially GOP

The GOP still has plenty of catching up to do in recruiting women candidates – even if many of those candidates play down their gender. (Palin herself refers to an “emerging, conservative, feminist identity” in the party.) These latest primary victories for women show that the party is gaining ground and perhaps that will help bring gender equity in US politics closer to reality.

Politico: Palin’s Backing Pays Off for Pals

Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.

Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.

Palin served different roles for each candidate – sometimes spotlighting conservatives not well known to the national scene while at others validating conservative credentials to an unsure grassroots and even stepping in to deflect nasty attacks.

Fox News: Tea Party Candidates, Women Roar on Primary Night

The primary elections Tuesday amounted to a night of messages — from the Tea Party, from female candidates and for the Democrats.

With hundreds of primaries held across 11 states, a number of candidates made history while others pulled out come-from-behind wins. The elections helped set the stage for a November general election
in which incumbents are girding for a series of hard-fought battles.

Hannity’s Great American Panel will discuss this topic tonight as well.
*Disclosure: I worked on the Chuck DeVore campaign, which opposed Carly Fiorina in California.

Wouldn’t feminist organizations rush to the aid of the woman? Clearly she’s taking on the good ole boy network and the patriarchal status quo doesn’t like it.

As the allegations of Nikki Haley, (R-candidate for governor in South Carolina) reverberate across the web, I’ve noticed one segment of the media and blogosphere that’s been strangely quiet.

The femblogs have barely mentioned the story.

Unlike previous situations when conservative women called out feminists, this story  has been all over the news: Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, CNN, Talking Points Memo, Mediaite, and Daily Kos have covered every second. Since the right-wing blogs have fixated the story, there’s really no excuse for why they haven’t mentioned it.

Could they be purposely ignoring it because it puts feminists in a sticky corner that got them in trouble for defending the actions of Bill Clinton in the 90s for political gain? Or, do they have a reason to stay quiet and watch this situation unfold, hoping that it drags out as long as possible?

By calling out Nikki Haley, which you know they want to do since she was endorsed by the “evil one” (aka Sarah Palin), they would have to side with a guy that has a guilty record for domestic violence, a history of making jokes about beating up women, and a paper trail that veers closely into creepy stalker territory. This video alone should cause feminists to lead the charge that whatever the truth, Will Folks is up to no good.

What’s a left-wing gal to do? Completely ignore the story and hope that it goes away or make the difficult job of defending a (gasp!) conservative female candidate from allegations by an extremely questionable source?

At this point, the evidence is unclear. The released text messages are hardly a smoking gun. Haley very likely could have engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Folks. If so, she should come clean and face the potential consequences. However, as Allahpundit pointed out, Folks is making everyone feel sympathetic to Haley by his sheer creep factor.

Even if Haley is guilty and had some type of affair with the then unmarried Folks, shouldn’t feminists call him out for his blatant misogyny, intimidation tactics and threats towards her physical well-being?

Quite the opposite. Their silence implies agreement. Jezebel, the only fem-outlet to cover it, all but called her guilty. As Erickson stated at Red State, they’ve all but called her a whore. By not defending her, they’re perpetuating stereotypes and the virgin/whore dichotomy that they so detest. But since Haley is a conservative, it doesn’t matter.

The concept of a women having affairs isn’t new to fem blogs. Last year, Politico ran a story on the absence of female candidates and electeds from sex scandals. Reports show that women cheat, but few female politicians have been caught. Either they are sneakier, or they don’t commit adultery while trying to balance a family and career. In April, The Atlantic and Yglesias asked the same question.

You know that feminists have to be salivating over this story. In their quest to show that there are no differences between men and women, especially regarding sex, they would love it if a conservative woman was the first one to make major news over a sex scandal. Wouldn’t it be sweeter for them if it was a Palin endorsee, particularly a pro-life Christian woman?

If definitive proof emerges that Haley did have an affair, how quickly will the smirked cries of “hypocrite!” emerge?

By keeping silent and not bringing up the questionable motives of Folks allegations, the feminists are allowing this story to drag on. With less than two weeks before the primary, it’s in their best interest to make this stick. Even if the allegations are proven false, by keeping quiet, they can potentially damage a Palin endorsement. If the allegations prove correct, they can jump in and yell, “hypocrite!”

Feminists are quick to call out guys for street harassment (and rightfully so) and search for signs of sexism in politics and pop culture, unless it involves conservative women. Remember when Arlen Specter was disrespectful to Michele Bachmann, or the countless crass sexual innuendos aimed at Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin or any other prominent female conservative? Feminists never defend women on the right in those situations. (They are quick to attack a respected 73-year-old black economist though for making sarcastic comments.)

Red State claims to have evidence that this was a set-up to bring down Haley. If this is true, will the feminists finally go after a guy for intentionally using sex and intimidation to continue the good ole boys network in South Carolina? Will they actually stand up for the women that they claim to represent and exclaim that this is not acceptable?

Once again, they have an opportunity to prove that they aren’t just shills for the Democratic Party. Will they do the right thing?

I’ve written at length about the Sarah Palin debates, which always veer from her political views to making personal attacks and even threats. As I pointed out yesterday, they’ve even done it to Lady Gaga. Remember their attacks on Taylor Swift? Now, the target is Tina Fey.

Perhaps portraying Sarah Palin on SNL rubbed off some of Fey’s feminism?

It all started with a few gals on the fem blogs whining about Fey mocking single women and emphasizing stereotypes. The Frisky has a wrap-up of what I’ve seen the last few days on the interwebs.

In a nutshell, the feminist whiners bloggers are upset because they had all these expectations for Fey to channel all of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan to change society through her humor. Bottom line: Fey may be a liberal, but she’s a comedian. She’s going to do anything to get a laugh.

This is what Fey does best. She is hilarious and quite funny…in that one character. Almost every movie role or character she plays is always the hopeless single woman. Her role in Mean Girls was a recent divorcee. In Baby Momma, she was a career woman with a ticking biological clock. Liz Lemon, her 30 Rock character is the neurotic single woman. I haven’t seen her new movie yet, but she actually plays a married woman! Quite the departure.

I’d say that Fey is more typecast, but it’s more fun to debate if she’s a feminist or not!

Feminists did this to themselves. By their own admission, they proudly state that there’s no one definition of feminism. Some people even call it “feminisms” to capture the many versions of the movement. To feminists, everything is a “woman” issue from the economy, health care, abortion, workforce, education, sports, entertainment, etc.

Thus, when you refuse to define what your movement is, how do you have the right to decide who is a feminist and who isn’t? Isn’t that a double-standard?

This is hardly new. While all liberal “isms” are doomed to keep repeating failed ideas (social welfare programs, anyone?), feminists have always attacked their own ranks in search of the “perfect feminist.” In the early days of the radical women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, no one could emerge as a leader because there wasn’t a woman capable of fulfilling all the expectations. She couldn’t be white and black, rich and poor, educated and working class, lesbian and straight. Quite simply, when you claim to have a big tent movement, you’ll never find the perfect leader or icon.

Hence the last 30 years of “Is she a feminist” game. It’s a no-win situation for them, but then it keeps the fem blogs distracted and gives me something to laugh at. Keep it up!

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?

“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.

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?”

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?

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.

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?