What do these "conservatives" really think?
 |
I wonder what ex-groupies do with it?
I've written about Bristol Palin's induction into the cult of single teen-aged motherhood when when she attended the Republican National Convention visibly pregnant, here and here.
I've also blogged about so-called conservative women who supported her mother for, amongst other reasons, letting this family drama to play out in public during her campaign for vice presidency, and who even produced a video entitled: I am Sarah Palin.
One of those women is the blogger from Girl on the Right, Wendy Sullivan, whom I have criticized for this very stance - she was also part of the video production.
On Wednesday, Sullivan was on the Michael Coren Show again. And her position on Sarah Palin has changed. It has done a 180 degree flip, actually. Palin's life is a bit of a soap opera these days. Her sisters-in-law keep getting into trouble with, well, the law. And now her daughter's ex-fiancé and father of her grandson was on some cheesy talk show denouncing the Palin family.
At this point, I think Sullivan decided that Palin is no longer a viable candidate, and that she has too much "white trash" in her. Not a word of defense came out of her mouth when the panelists on the show were demeaning Palin.
It was pretty sad. Sullivan produced the video based on an emotional, blind loyalty to "conservatives". Now that Palin is going through personal and familial problems, there is not one word of sympathy from Sullivan. Not even, "Yes, that young man has no business going on TV airing the family's business." Strange. In the name of party loyalty, Sullivan went all out. In the name of basic, human sympathy, she kept her mouth shut.
Who are these people? Where do they get their frame of reference from? How can we trust them to report on conservative issues, and represent our views.
Still, here is more insight into our current "conservatives'" behavior.
On the same show, which included former NDP cabinet minster Marilyn Churley and libertarian/conservative journalist David Menzies, one discussion involved a homeschooling story from Germany.
An Evangelical Christian family in Bissingen, Germany, which is homeschooling its five children, has fled to the United States and is asking for asylum (refugee status) in Tennessee. It is illegal to homeschool in Germany, and people can be jailed for doing so. That is the basis of this family's fear, that the the parents can be jailed, and their children taken away from them.
Now, Coren's and Sullivan's position (and Churley's - a leftist!) is that they should be given asylum, since they are being "persecuted".
David Menzies quite reasonably said that this case is not a matter of life and death, the family should compromise, send their children to public school, and try to change that particular law. If they feel there is no hope, then they should go through the proper channels for immigration. Not request for asylum, at any point.
Both Coren and Sullivan jumped on Menzies. They based their position on freedom of religion, or more precisely, in defense of Christianity. This German family is Evangelical Christian, which is the reason it is opting for homeschooling rather than send its children to the secular German school system.
I suspect Sullivan's position has a lot to do with the strength that Islam is gaining over genuinely harassed Christians. But, this case is not about of freedom of religion, or support for Christianity, but about a family breaking the laws. Like Menzies says, fight to change the laws instead!
Now, this must be the frame of mind Coren and Sullivan have for all immigration.
Your country isn't nice to you, well, just come on over to Canada or America. No, don't stay there and fight your battles. Don't make positive changes. Just abandon ship and we will save you.
Imagine, if they say this about white immigrants, what they must be thinking about those huddled masses of the Third World, who, actually, are quite capable of staying home and fighting their battles.
And this coming from conservatives!
