We’re Emily’s List and if liberal women aren’t inspiring women anymore, then why should Sarah Palin be allowed to do it!

Yeah, that’s the ticket! Let’s target and try to undermine as many independent Women! as possible to prove that you can stand up for Women! by making sure one particular Woman! you don’t like doesn’t keep inspiring and encouraging, uh, Women! Or something.

Oh yeah, and let’s now take a lot of time and money from supporting women candidates we like by spending it on trying to stop other women candidates from being successful. Because, uh, it’s really not at all about Women! It’s about being shills for the Left, which has been so successful in making sure we finally have equality. After all, Obama and the Dems have finally brought us Equal Pay for Equal Workno one has a job and we’re all making the same amount of nothing! So Go Women! Or actually, Go Some Women, but not all!! Yea!! After all, if we can’t inspire Women! anymore, why should we allow someone else to do it?

Emily’s List takes on Sarah Palin’s list (of candidates)

Emily’s List, a fundraising group that has raised and spent more than $43 million to elect Democratic women to office, is taking on Sarah Palin.

Leaders of Emily’s List are holding a press conference in Washington tomorrow to unveil a campaign targeting Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, and the candidates she has endorsed.

The group says it wants to counter Palin’s appeal to women: “Sarah Palin has predicted a rising tide of mothers and women voters will support her so-called ‘Mama Grizzly’ candidates,” says a just-issued Emily’s List press release.

“We call upon women — and men! — to let their voices be heard and to reject Palin’s reactionary candidates and backward-looking agenda.”

The Emily’s List project? It’s called “Sarah Palin Doesn’t Speak for Me.” Sounds a little…reactionary, no? What is the project? They’re “Launching an On-Line Arena Where Americans Can Speak Out Against Sarah Palin’s Backwards-Looking Candidates.” Great–they’re setting up a forum where Women! can trash other Women! Sounds Progressively Liberally Intolerant and Misogynistically Hopey-Changey-ish to me. After all, Palin’s work has been a forward-looking, positive support of candidates–women and men. In typical fashion, instead of countering that effort with a positive project of their own, the only thing liberals can do is create something to attack and demean others. Keep going Leftists–every time you react to Sarah Palin you reveal yourselves as the panicked cannibals you really are.

In the meantime, here’s a reminder of what has sent the Left (and their so-called feminists) into a blind, freakish panic–Independent Women finding their voice. If this is what a Backward Reactionary is, count me in!

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
21 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Neox99 says:


    Bless them – They are their own worst enemies a LOT of the time and on a LOT of fronts!

  2. Neox99 says:

    Take a look at the images here and then judge which are the “. . . Backwards-Looking Candidates.”


  3. Joel267 says:

    I say let ’em do it. All they are going to do is bring the issue to light and smart women will make the right decision. I have a few women friends who don’t like Sarah Palin and it has nothing to with her politics. It’s for reasons I’d call catty. And come to think of it, they all (3 of them) have “men issues” in their lives…. interesting.
    In any case my Sweetie/BFF loves Sarah Palin as do I so all is well.

  4. MACVEL says:

    Sounds like a Moslem tactic–kill women in order to save them.

  5. thierry says:

    funny thing about mothers who actually earn that title and all it implies- they don’t like to see their children threatened, hungry, in pain, suffering. they don’t like to see their children sold into future tax slavery. they don’t want them going to work one day and dying miserably and helplessly in a building brought down by planes. they don’t want their children denied medical care because some life saving drug is determined to be too expensive and thus harmful to the collective.

    funny thing about our constitution- it was set up specifically to protect the citizens, their rights and well being. the main job of the chief executive is rather paternal/maternal in nature- protecting the citizens by ensuring that the rule of law is maintained. that’s why giving aid and comfort to the enemy is punishable by death. anyone putting themselves forth for elected positions should be defending this country and the constitution as if it were their child. palin is one of the few politicians acting like america deserves to be protected even daring to name the threats.

    emily tries but misunderstands. and misdirects her rage as often is the case with liberals. these selfish women are only concerned with protecting their perceived political power and standing, propping up the democratic party which actually cares nothing about hos and bros, using both shamelessly for decades. smells like democrat spirit- the gross scent of desperation. obama’s stepford wives fanning themselves furiously and having at the girl (one of the few politicians who isn’t treating women with outright contempt) while in line to be thrown under the bus, again.

    • ffigtree says:

      Well said thierry 🙂

      • thierry says:

        oh it just steams me… sarah palin doesn’t speak for them but ted kennedy and bill clinton did? hillary who works for the man who spearheaded the attacks on her based on gender, hillary who supported the husband who just may have raped a woman speaks for them? would accepting bucket loads of money from a state that practices gender apartheid indicate a politician who speaks for them? do the democrats who took away our rights to our bodies by taking away our rights to make our own health care decisions speak for them? do the democrats who took food out of the mouths of the needy to give to the unions speak for them?

        it appears to speak for liberal women you have to sexually assault a female or kill one by driving her off a bridge, as long as you don’t advocate for limited government and a strong defense of the constitution and country- because that would be really sexist and oppressive.

  6. _1GOPkid says:

    LOL! I just love how panicked liberals get when an AMERICAN candidate seems to be taking America by storm!! No amout of self-righteos indignation by a bunch of unattractive sourpuss termagants is going to counter the resolve and power of the “Mama Grizzlies”, HOOAH! All this gnashing of teeth by liberals is just going to have Sarah Palin, with weapon in hand, laugh all the way to the W.H. and deliver the first State of the Union as the Commander In Chief—then, she will go “Bad-Liberal-Hunting”! Just saying:)

    • markrcermak says:

      Glenn Beck isn’t suggesting that “God does politics”…..he’s informing us of America’s true history; that our founding fathers (political as they were) arrived at their idea of the birth of this exceptional nation through the inspiration of largely the writings of John Locke (who often quoted Scripture) and specifically the Word of God itself. For the record, and we have a library of Congress, John Locke and the Bible are the two sources (by far) that most inspired the founders. So it’s not that “God does or doesn’t do politics”….it’s that this nation was born by men (and women) who looked to God for their inspiration. Hundreds of thousands of writings by our founding fathers prove this out.

      Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are on the same team fighting with different weapons. Glenn Beck is teaching us about American history….something our schools haven’t been teaching for a very long time. And isn’t it funny in a sad kind of way how somewhere it is said that “people perish for lack of knowledge” and how America indeed appears to be perishing?
      Sarah Palin isn’t teaching about our nation’s founding fathers and Godly heritage; rather she is living it by example.

      Sarah Palin in essence is what Glenn Beck is saying that we need to return to if America is going to be renewed.

      In response to Emily’s List, all I can say is, I’m no woman but perhaps as much as anyone else in America right now, Sarah Palin ‘speaks for me’.

      …..and Todd Palin may well be “America’s Unsung Hero”. (think about that)

      • lord-ruler says:

        I will add my two cents to this particular issue by Quoting Neal Maxwell and influential leader in my church.

        “In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play–especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat’s burden, you see.

        Am I saying that the voting rights of the people of religion are in danger? Of course not! Am I saying, “It’s back to the catacombs?” No! But there is occurring a discounting of religiously-based opinions. There may even be a covert and subtle disqualification of some for certain offices in some situations, in an ironic “irreligious test” for office.

        However, if people are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be, anyway? Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?

        If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?”

  7. ConservativePup says:

    I love this post! Funny and completely accurate. These pitiful people seem so empty. Empty of values, a moral core, a center, decency. Empty, shallow people. All of us most likely know people like this; I feel sorry for them, for about 3 seconds. Then I remember all the nasty and vile things they say about Americans they disagree with.

  8. morecowbell says:

    This post is absolutely fascinating. The woman who put this together is brilliant, I am envious of her ingenuity. Somebody out there is going to make a boat load of money. Of course the substance absolutely absurd, but substance doesn’t bring in the bucks, buzz does. My comment: Brava!

  9. RightOnTheLeftCoast says:

    Has Emily’s servitude to the liberal plantation truly devolved…
    so far as to don this metaphorical burkha,
    this perversion of womens rights so falsely claimed by them for all –
    that lets more cowards hide behind it, to join other fanatics in the public square,
    to stone one brave woman who dares speak the truth- to them, and mock the One?

  10. angelaisms says:

    And it came to pass that Emily’s List joined the ranks of the Sandra Bernhardt Feminists. And lo, the land was filled with the sound of millions of head-shakes and face-palms; yea, the sound did continue for the space of many days. And it came to pass, that, in so doing, Emily did indeed flush her remaining shreds of relevance. And behold, the people moved on.

    (This is what happens when I’m sitting up in the bathroom of the hotel room with my laptop, so as not to disturb the sleeping family with my glowy screen. I amuse me, at least.)

  11. […] List in their attempt to co-opt the “Mama Grizzlies” label from Sarah Palin, an effort ridiculed by Tammy Bruce yesterday and featured at CBS today. Palin wants to eliminate “health care”? Check! […]

  12. lord-ruler says:

    If Tammy had to work with women like that I feel terrible sympathy for her.

  13. […] List in their attempt to co-opt the “Mama Grizzlies” label from Sarah Palin, an effort ridiculed by Tammy Bruce yesterday and featured at CBS today. Palin wants to eliminate “health care”? Check! Republicans […]

  14. […] they’ve taken a stand against a new foe.  Women.  To be specific, women who don’t think like they […]

  15. […] LINKS: Former liberal feminist Tammy Bruce calls Emily’s List a bunch of reactionaries. […]

You must be logged in to post a comment.