An old expression says that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But when the expression is used by leftist liberals, there is an exception clause when the gander is a conservative.

A few years ago, much ballyhoo was made over the Left’s attempt to block faith-grounded nominees from filling various seats of the federal judiciary. The implication of liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee when considering, for instance, a Catholic, conservative nominee who held strong religious views, was Catholics need not apply.

Today polls increasingly show women voters shifting toward the McCain-Palin ticket, and the Left is terrified. Therefore the same attack is being irrationally aimed at Sarah Palin and, by extension, all conservative women who don’t toe the feminist party line – despite Palin’s ability to balance family and career.

The problem of course is that Palin is – horrors! – a conservative who, oh yes, just happens to be running for vice president of the United States and attracting voters of various stripes in her candidacy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a married mother of five, was rightly hailed in 2006 as the history-making first female Speaker of the House. But at no time was her ability to balance family and such weighty work ever questioned.

But in two September 17 Washington Times articles, “Women differing on ‘Palin effect’” ( and “Palin triggers feminism reversal,” (, columnists Adrienne Washington and Jennifer Harper highlight the dismissal by liberal leftist feminists of Palin – the epitome of their own feminist ambitions – simply because she’s a conservative not patterned in the traditional feminist mold.

Three quotes bear mention, exposure – and refutation.

In the second article, E. Faye Williams, national chairwoman of the National Congress of Black Women – which has endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket – is quoted as saying, “We want someone who is not following a script, saying what she’s been told to say.”

Is she kidding?! Such a statement is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle, well, black! Where else is script-following and talking-point rubber-stamping seen more than from the mouths of liberals – including Barack Obama – as they persist in sponsoring and supporting policies that buck common sense, Biblical truth, American traditions, the views of the majority of American voters, and just clear, plain evidence (consider the troop surge)?!

Such a characterization of Palin reveals the blind allegiance – which has for decades gone unreciprocated – of many black Americans (of which the author is one) to the Democrat Party, which has succeeded in keeping blacks newly and further enslaved to government dependence and the Democrat Party. (Question: Why is it that we now have more blacks in Congress, and yet today’s so-called civil rights “leaders” whine about the plight of blacks in America as much, if not more, than they did 50 years ago? Alas…a post for another day. Stay tuned.)

Back to Palin. In the first article, Michelle Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, is quoted as saying, “I have had several African-American women call me up and be just irate about Sarah Palin. They don’t think she’s a good role model, and they don’t like her politics.”

And again from the second piece, Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority quips, “We are not against a woman on the presidential ticket. We wish it was [sic] a ticket that stood for women’s issues. Where does the Palin ticket stand?”

“Women’s issues”?! “Good role model”?! Are these people serious? To quote Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, some people really are “stuck on stupid” (and hypocrisy). Just what part of Palin’s background and accomplishments can not be considered a “woman’s issue” or a reason to celebrate her as a “good role model”? Hmmm…let’s see:

– Good health – she likes to run

– Good mind – educated

– An independent, critical thinker able to stand on her own two feet (which Sen. Joe Biden will find out soon)

– Unapologetic about her beliefs – political or religious

– An example of the expression of natural, normal female biology/physiology by bearing her offspring rather than aborting them

– Good family (not perfect, but nobody’s is)

– A strong, supportive, manly husband who is willing to dedicate his fair share – if not more – to the responsibilities of family, husbandry, and childrearing

– No dependence upon the government

– No daycare for the kids

– Personal interests (although I doubt moose would be particularly appreciative)

– A fulfilling, challenging, and influential career

– High aspirations

– Limitless potential

Yep. Nasty. All of it just plain nasty.

The slogan from the old Virginia Slims cigarette ad, “You’ve come a long way, baby,” might not be en vogue today, but the liberal feminist notion that a women can, and should, “have it all” still is. Husband (or not). Kids. Career. Ambitions. Shattering the “glass ceiling.” Personal pursuits. Power over men. But conservative women need not apply.

In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, except…

Dr. Walter Jones is a trained physician, award-winning educator, Bible teacher, and former state and national pro-family public policy analyst. His Web site and blog can be found at

Be Sociable, Share!