"Where's the Left's Palin?"

Taylor Marsh, who is a very smart woman whose knee does not jerk, asks the question, and it’s a revealing one. Despising her as they do, the question suggests that -beneath the disdain- they appreciate what she brings with her. At least Marsh does:

Mrs. Palin’s politics aren’t for me, and though I pine to see hot headliners from the left, instead we get the likes of Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius and other Obama blue dog duds, with no women of any wattage in sight.

As much as they savage her (beyond anything I’d ever seen perpetrated against a politician) and flip feminist notions in order to denigrate her (who can forget the “shouldn’t she be home with that retarded baby?” meme) the left understood very clearly that -as Camille Paglia wrote- Palin is both photogenic and a powerful natural before a crowd.

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

For all of her weaknesses -and she has them- I have said from the start that if Sarah Palin had brought precisely the same life-story into politics (middle-class woman who worked her way through school, who married her high school sweetheart, owned a business with him, and met payrolls; a mom who started in politics by going to PTA meetings and became the Governor of an energy-rich state while raising kids; a women who could shoot and dress a moose, a runner) plus carried a D after her name, and not an R, why she’d be the toast of the Democrat party, today, the very model of the “do it all, have it all, self-sufficient woman.”

But since Palin does carry that R after her name? There’s nothing admirable there, nothing to see. And it’s perfectly alright to objectify her, sexually, even unto violence.

I’ve become agnostic on Palin, myself. I have reservations about her. Where she is weak, I don’t see her getting stronger; she seems content to ride the wave, for now. But her strengths are politically formidable. The woman can communicate; she is touched with that quality of energetic “American Genius” that is both elusive and tantalizing.

The Democrats see those strengths, too, and they understand that when you have the media on your side -as they surely do- then weaknesses can be covered up or ignored, while the strengths are burnished into phenomena. For them, everything about Sarah Palin is just awful. And boy, do they wish they had one of her.

Related:
The Myth of Held-Back Catholic Women

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • DeLynn

    Very well done. Your points are excellent.

  • SCSoxFan

    I’m curious — beyond a perceived lack of knowledge of national issues, what do you see as her weaknesses? Knowledge can be gained and, if news reports are accurate, she is now receiving daily briefings on international and domestic issues. Her strengths, sound political and, in my view, policy instincts, an ability to connect and communicate with “average” Americans, and that charisma, are God given and formidable.

    [She is terrific before a crowd. One on one, she does not come off so well. She displays a certain brittleness and guardedness that does not suggest confidence. It may be a natural suspicion of the press, but it comes off as tentative and uncertain. I am concerned about her need to "strike back" which is a trait I find unattractive in our president. I know that when one dares to suggest Palin has any weaknesses, there is a contingent who will resent it; that makes no sense. Are we to assume the woman has no weaknesses? That treads very nearly into the "Obama is perfect" territory of the Obots. I dislike bots, of any kind. :-) admin]

  • TonyC

    Yes, I am also interested in knowing what you consider her weaknesses to be.

    [I'm curious, you two don't see any? -admin]

  • Pingback: “CRASH the TEA PARTY” Investigative Report; Bonus Look at COFFEE PARTY « Temple of Mut

  • Mutnodjmet

    Anchoress: In answer to the question: Where is the Left’s Palin.

    In all modesty…it is me! :)

    Just kidding..but I have been told often I look like her.

    I am a Democrat who co-founded a San Diego Tea Party group. I was once stopped by 2 ladies, who asked for my autograph thinking I was “Sarahcudda”. My son also asks “why my picture is on the computer” sometimes when he sees images of her.

    I use my resemblance to her in some Tea Party Skits, per this YouTube video, CLICK HERE TO VIEW.

    I did an event in character to a crowd of PBS-NPR media types, in order to get some face-time with these people to show them Tea Party people were not awful stereotypes, but average citizens concerned about their country’s future. At the end of the event, I think my team did have an impact — it is hard to retain a hard-heart in the light of civil interactions.

    I am a big fan of Sarah Palin, but one reason I don’t frequent some of her fan sites is the attitude that you are sensing — no one can mention a “flaw” without being scorned. Such an attitude does not serve Obama well, nor does it serve Palin.

    I will give you an example. My Catholic church sponsor was on a train, having an engaging talk to a woman who then gave her the cold sholder when my sponsor said she didn’t like Palin. Needless to say, that action didn’t inspire my sponsor to become a Palin fan.

    I, on the other had, noted my sponsor’s concerns and reviewed some history. I don’t know if she is a fan, quite yet, but I figure I have time to persuade her should Palin run for national office in the next few years. :)

  • J

    I find it interesting that the only American’s that are willing to confront obama….are women. Sounds as though even pelosi has his number. I hear no strong voices from the republican men in opposition to obama.
    Palin, Bachman, Cheney, these are women I will listen to, contribute money to their campaigns and watch with interest. THEY are what I consider strong women.
    Just a throw away line, but in comparison to the present president of the USA, do you really find Gov. Palin lacking?

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    the very model of the “do it all, have it all, self-sufficient woman.”

    Aye, and that’s the rub. Self-sufficiency is the antithesis of modern liberalism/leftism, which is, instead, about power and conflict (i.e. “justice,” social justice, economic justice, reproductive justice, racial justice, etc.). The modern left’s message is not one of self-sufficiency, much less the freedom to do for yourself; rather, its message is about the powerful government/state/etc. either (a) taking from you or (b) giving to you.

    You find the most telegenic and charismatic woman of the left — the left’s Palin — and you will still invariably have a woman who is as shrill and harsh and petulent as Hillary because of exactly what she says.

    ———————

    I know that when one dares to suggest Palin has any weaknesses, there is a contingent who will resent it; that makes no sense. Are we to assume the woman has no weaknesses?

    And then there are those (like me) who recognize the invitation to point out Palin’s weaknesses for what it is, just like the invitation to concede and point out the weaknesses or failings of Bush or Republicans generally or Pope Benedict. Conceding and pointing these things out is not really about advancing truth. It is not intended to.

    As we see with the attacks on the Pope, those who claim to only want truth and dialogue really only want ammunition with which to attack him and the Church. It is the same with Sarah Palin. And I refuse to play their disingenuous game.

  • Bill

    I would be happy with someone from the “middle” or “middle-lift” myself. I think a lot of this is just the luck of the candidate and perception by the public. Ms. Palin would probably be an unknown if Senator McCain had not picked her. There are probably many people, in the middle and on both sides, who would be competent as President, etc. The big question is whether they would want to put up with the problems and character assasination that is part of politics.

  • Elaine

    I think that is the fine line of “when to strike back” as you say. When is striking back necessary to make a point in contrast to others who she disagrees or are you saying she strikes back to defend herself? Please give me examples because I do find Obama’s criticisms of American citizens very disheartening and I would hate to see Palin doing the same thing. Palin has been burned big time but so was Bush and Reagan who seemed to ignore it. I am just wondering when and if we believe that if something is wrong we have the right to disagree – not hatefully but stop trying to take the high road like John McCain did and not surgically examine Obama’s background from childhood on up.

  • sanly bowitz

    Photogenic, charismatic, nit wit. Hmmm. Why is it that some people dislike Palin? Wait, I know, they hate her for her beauty! That’s like, lame.

    [And if someone here said it, I missed it -admin]

  • Azygos

    John McCain is attacking JD Hayworth like h should have attacked Obama. I question both Palin’s and McCains Judgment because of such actions. Does Mrs Palin have judgment or is she just another politician?

  • Azygos

    John McCain is attacking JD Hayworth like he should have attacked Obama. I question both Palin’s and McCains Judgment because of such actions. Does Mrs Palin have judgment or is she just another politician?

  • Azygos

    Sorry for the double post

  • dick

    Sorry, Anchoress, but I don’t think the problem is that the Sarah fans see no problem areas. I think that all her potential opponents have the same problem areas and to a greater degree. I think too many people are looking for the strong female candidate with no weak points and are opposing Sarah precisely because she does have a couple of weak points. At the same time these same people are not holding the male candidates to that same level. They will accept weak points in the males.

    As to her striking back, I think she has to for the same reason I mentioned in the first paragraph. She is being held to impossible standards by people who excuse failures in the male candidates. She has to point that out repeatedly. She has also been falsely accused from day one of ridiculous things and she also needs to get that stopped before the lies become the accepted truth. She does not have the history to point back to in a lot of these areas that would automatically refute the accusations. She cannot let this disinformation stand if she wants to succeed.

    What I wonder is just what she is aiming for. Is she aiming for the candidacy in 2012 or is she just laying groundwork in case she should later decide to run in 2012 or 2016. Is she creating the history to use in the future. Is she creating a reputation so she can assist the good Republican candidates and have that be her legacy, that of king-maker. Is she appearing so she can use this for advertisement for her own future speeches and books. Is she doing this just to support her own views as to what direction the country should move.

    I definitely think that she is currently a victim of the Northeastern snobbery towards the flyover country syndrome. I grew up in the Midwest and have lived in the Northeast for 40 years now off and on and I have seen two strands of snobbery that are still active. One is the California snobbery which believes that the best things happen only west of the Sierra Nevadas and as far north as San Francisco. I ran into that back in the 1960′s and if you look at the Pelosi/Waxman/Boxer/Feinstein crew in DC you see it writ large. The other is the Northeastern snobbery centered in NYC and Boston and areas between. This is demonstrated by the reporting on television, in the Boston Globe and the NYT and WaPo and even moreso with the academic crew in the Northeastern colleges and universities. They hold that if it is not in accordance with their beliefs, then it is by definition only held by rubes who marry their cousing and they have no hesitancy is stating it just that way. This is the crew that is so adamantly opposed to Palin and I think she does need to respond to them from her position of strength. She knows she is right and she cannot let them make their points without responding.

    As an example look at the editing that was done for the Charlie Gibson interview and the fact that his question re Bush policy was wrong to start with and her response was right. Does that show in the interview? Was that brought out in the reporting of the interview? Yet the people who were responsible for the Bush policy stated in blogs that she was absolutely correct. How does she get that out there if she just shuts up?

  • Myssi

    Sarah’s major weakness is the same as mine: she loses her rationality when she perceives that one of her children is being attacked. It doesn’t serve me well, either, but I understand it because I have a special needs kid too. I’m working on it and Sarah will have to work on it if she wants to be a national politician. That button is so easily pushed that she’s going to have to change her reaction to it.
    OTOH, Bristol’s PSA on teen abstinence is very powerful evidence that she’s a good mom, raising kids who can take the pressure.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny L.

    “I’m curious — beyond a perceived lack of knowledge of national issues, what do you see as her weaknesses?” -SCSoxFan

    I think that is her main flaw and that can be over come. But I think quitting the Governor’s job will be a problem. She needs to have some sort of accomplishment under her belt. Just being a public speaker I don’t think will do it. Democrats may go for the unaccomplished photogenic candidate, but Republicans do not.

  • Pingback: » Links to Visit – 04/10/10 NoisyRoom.net: There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt. John Adams

  • TonyC

    Yes, we all have weaknesses. I was just interested in your perspective. I think that she is being attacked by the left because she is such a threat. They obviously don’t see as many weaknesses as we do.

  • steve

    It’s funny how we each perceive one another differently. I never recognized Sarah Palin as a feminist. She just reminds me of one who possesses the same qualities as that of the type of woman of my long past mother’s generation (born in the 1920s), as well as my young nieces’ up and coming generation (born in the 1980′s) have.

    These qualities are self assurance and a respect for the men they chose to have in their lives. Neither of these groups contain an overarching belief that men are the root of all evil, nor are they slaves to gender politics. Perhaps its just a realistic view of the world that they live in. I think the common sense approach that Sarah Palin possesses is both typical of most who are just trying to live their lives and by its nature reassuring as well. Politics and common sense are exclusive of each other in todays world.

    Is it the lack of a common sense approach the reason why feminism has lost its appeal, or is it the irrational anger that feminists seem to exhibit when they can’t connect with those they are tying to persuade?

  • Pingback: Catholic News Headlines April 10, 2010 « Catholic News

  • daledog

    Never mind Sarah’s weaknesses. I’m worried about mine. I just cannot take the abuse that she takes. I love her and I think she is a wonderful human being, but I hope she doesn’t run for president. I cannot take the bile that is heaped on her.

  • daledog

    Where is the left’s Palin?
    Where is the left’s “insert name here”?

    The left has no bullpen. Nobody. They know it. That is reason behind Obama’s scorched earth policy. It’s now or never.

  • Lori

    I love Sarah Palin for many reasons, and I think she’d make a wonderful conservative candidate for President – perhaps not in 2012, but in 2016? – with some polish. However, I almost hope she decides against going that route, just because I think as far as the left is concerned, we haven’t seen anything yet. “Bad enough” that she dared to run for Veep in 2008 – can you imagine the deranged vitriol that’ll pour forth if she actually runs for the top job, and, worse, gets it? I don’t think I can bear 8+ years of Bush-Derangement-Syndrome ramped up by another order of magnitude. Or two or three.

  • skeeter

    My husband works with many Alaska business men that say that Sarah is ” the real deal”. She was able to get things accomplished (like that pipeline) that others could not. Real live executive experience! Not to mention that she took on her own party’s corruption, and WON, despite the good ol’ boy network!

    She has been subjected to the lowest, no-holds barred vitriol – I’m told that many AK folks stopped talking to the multitude of op research/journalists that tore around Alaska looking for any crumb of scandal they could wrap around her throat! I can’t think of another politician subjected to such absolutely disgusting, unbridled attacks. (Although Bush would be in contention…) Add to this the questionable support that she got from McCain’s “handlers”/staff in the campaign, and the amazing negative propaganda coming from the lame stream media, and it is unsurprising that:
    1) She looked somewhat lightweight on the issues
    2) She was tentative in her answers at times.
    I’d be more worried about her if she wasn’t a bit paranoid- ’cause they most certainly were after her.

    Given her ability to connect, and her basic principles, I’m more than willing to watch and see with an open mind. She looks better, now, even with all the poo flinging done by the press, than most of the Congressional folks in the news in the last month. She isn’t talking about islands flipping over, at least.

    Given the alternative, why do we castigate our own with such glee? It is only the belief in a loving God that prevents my despair over what this inexperienced ideologue President is doing to our country. If we destroy the good because it is not perfect, this country is lost.

  • Bob Devine

    In reference to the lady asking “what if she had a D instead of an R after her name near the end of her essay. I believe if she had had a D after her name she would be your president right now instead of the dipstick you have.

  • emjay

    The left’s Palin is Obama.

    Beauty queen types (even failed beauty queens like Palin) are nearly always conservative because that’s the side of the aisle that really rewards conventional appearances of femininity. The left has other uses for its conventionally attractive members. It is actually a reflection (and not a good one) on both the political establishment and Palin that she could only get noticed for her looks and get that ‘hot chick’ journalism career by entering politics, where she got a bonus that was impossible to find in any other line of work in the public eye.

    She wasn’t as attractive as an Ann Coulter or that Miss California or that Fox and Friends lady, not until she went into politics, which simply doesn’t offer high rewards for a really conventionally attractive woman, conservative or not. And notice how fast Palin left actual governing once the cash rewards of being ‘good looking for a politician’ made themselves available to her. That is a major weakness and is alone reason enough to not support her in any return to politics, however unlikely.

    It is as impossible to have a Democrat version of Palin as it is to have a Republican version of Obama. Both of them benefit from being in politics and from their own records pre-politics show that they weren’t going anywhere special otherwise. They are ‘attractive’ for politicians, and that is all that either really has going for them and is what got both plucked and groomed by their respective political establishments.

    And Obama still gets the worst vitriol directed his way, including towards his children and his wife, but nobody falls all over themselves rushing to sympathize precisely because he’s black and he’s a man and black families just don’t get the protection that white families do. Nobody insults Palin’s husband the way Michelle Obama is dragged through the dirt. And if Palin makes the least little mistake, there is a horde of folks rushing to make excuses and justifications for her and how she’s super mega blah blah ultra whatever and anyone who disagrees is just jealous/ugly.

    You also see this in the way that Obama’s touchiness is mocked soundly, but Palin’s is vociferously defended as totally justified every single time. White women (specially and particularly conservative ones) get special protection and get to claim victimhood while lashing out cattily as ‘strong women’. Palin is no exception to that rule.

    A left-leaning woman forfeits a little of the protection a conservative woman can lay claim to while wrapping herself in feminist trappings, so no, the left simply cannot have a female politician like Palin because she couldn’t get away with the thin-skinnedness and the complete refusal to engage beyond facebook and twitter and paid speeches and staged interviews.

    Palin gets white-knighted plenty and also gets exempted from many basic rules of politics, so she suffers far less than other politicians while getting a horde of followers boasting that she’s so strong and independent and yadda yadda.

  • patricia

    Though I like Palin a lot, I would hate to see her run in 2012 because right now the right has a really good chance of winning on the issues and with Palin in the race the left will have an easier time making the campaign about anything but the issues. I would, however, love to see her as the new chairman of the RNC. She seems to be able to rally the troops in a way that Michael Steele surely cannot!

  • http://SignoVinces.com Kerry

    If one reason’s to the root of the divide between ‘Left’ & ‘Right’, he will arrive at the question of whether Created Life mayor may not be destroyed based on contingency and whim. One with the latter view, by default, cannot be located to the ‘Right’, regardless of denial and protests to the contrary. “You cannot serve two masters”.
    “IHS”

  • http://westernchauvinist.blogspot.com Western Chauvinist

    This discussion brings to mind a piece of advice I heard about picking a husband. The advice was, “watch how he treats someone of lesser status.” How does he treat the waitress? If he is condescending, or worse, abusive, he’s not the guy. At a minimum, he’s lacking manners and at worst he’s not a good and decent man.

    Palin is the Left’s waitress. Either they believe she is a stupid unaccomplished “failed beauty queen” and therefore, what? Scorn her? Deride her? Insult her? Or they think she is a real threat and therefore launch a preemptive strike at her (Bush Doctrine, Ms. Couric?). Either way, don’t be taking the Left home to meet Momma.

  • SCSoxFan

    Ms. Scalia, I read your reponse to my question of yesterday, and have two comments.

    Regarding her brittleness and guardedness, is it a lack of self-confidence, as you suspect, or can it be explained by the fact that almost every reporter and critic would love either to get her in a “gotcha” moment or to try to get her to speak a gaffe that would damage her reputation even further? As a hunter, I am sure she understands that, to the press, she is the moose.

    Regarding the need to “strike back” as you put it, some of that can be described as a protective mother coming to the defense of her children, an admirable trait in my view. As far as responding to attacks on her personally, she tends to respond more with pointed humor as opposed to the sarcasm exemplified by Obama (and so neatly demonstrated just this week with his petty response to, ironically, Palin). I’d also point you to Karl Rove’s recent comments that he felt that the biggest political mistake he made in the Bush White House was NOT to fight back herder against criticism and misrepresentations. In that light, Palin’s willingness to fight back is not so bad.

    I am a supporter, but not a -bot. She has weaknesses, but none that cannot be overcome. I suspect that her public efforts in 2010 will be concentrated on getting the GOP stronger. Her efforts on raising her personal numbers will occur in 2011.

    [I never said her weaknesses can't be overcome. But don't you think its interesting that the mildest of criticisms -and mine were very mild, and came in the midst of a largely positive piece- can bring such passionate defenses to the fore that a day later people don't simply defend, but come back for more? Let me say unequivocally that what bothers me the most about Palin is not Palin, but those fans who think they have a personal relationship with her, who refer to her as "my Sarah," or "our Sarah" and who will come a-biting like a wolf if anyone dares criticize. Those people make me worry about a cult of personality just as I worried about the cult of personality behind Obama. You have not done that, and I am not accusing you of having done it. Others do, and when I read or hear "my Sarah" my flesh crawls. I don't think it's a good thing for any politician to have that sort of devotion. -admin]

  • SCSoxFan

    Point taken — but my coming back today was less a need to come back for more as a desire to continue a conversation that I had to break off yesterday because I have company in this weekend :) Also, I hope you did not take my comment about her overcoming her weaknesses as a slap aimed at you. It was more of a response that I think she knows where her weaknesses are, but her focus now seems to be on the 2010 elections and working towards a more public demonstration of personal progess would more likely happen after the mid-terms.

    I admit that I defend Palin more than anyone I have never met. Mainly, I suppose, for two reasons. I do feel a political connection with her that I have not felt since Reagan (not to say she is Reagan’s equal — she isn’t, although she has the potential to be close, should she wish to be). Also, I’ve seen much unfair criticism of the woman from both the left and right for, what is to me, no valid reason. She evokes such visceral reactions, especially from her detractors, that one feels the need to defend at times.

    I do, though, agree with you about some of her supporters. I was a regular commenter at one of the more well-known Palin sites for awhile, but got into some heated arguments over what I saw as tactical political errors on her part (which, actually, turned out not to be errors) and over comments I made about what I see as her weaknesses (mostly issues related and her tendency to think faster than she speaks sometimes). So, now I just mostly lurk.

  • SCSoxFan

    Point taken. But, my returning today was the result of my desire to continue a conversation that I had to forego because I had company in this weekend ;).

    I admit to defending Palin more than anyone I’ve never met. I suppose I do it for two reasons — first, I feel a political connection with her that I haven’t felt since Reagan (and I’m not saying she is another Reagan. She isn’t, but she does have the potential to be close, should she wish to be). Second, the sheer vitriol she engenders from her opponents on both the left and the right which, to me, rises for no good reason, makes one want to defend her.

    I do, though, understand your comments about some of her more, shall we say, excessive supporters. I recognize she has weaknesses and have commented on them to friends, family, and other Palin supporters (and have received some of the treatment you discuss for it). But, I think this year she is more interested in strengthening her base in the GOP and in electing conservatives. My opinion is that she will start trying to rehabilitate her public image in 2011, see where she stands in November or December, and then decide whether she’ll run for President or not.

  • SCSoxFan

    Point taken. But, my returning today was more the result of having family visiting this weekend and being unable to return until now :).

    I’ll admit to defending Palin more than anyone I’ve never met. There are two reasons for this. First, I do feel a political connection with her that I haven’t felt since Reagan (and no, I don’t think she is another Reagan, although she could come close to that impact, if she wishes to work at it). Second, the sheer level of vitriol that she engenders from her opponents, both left and right, is, to me, far in excess of anything she has done to deserve it. It does tend to make one feel the urge to come to her defense.

    I do understand your comment about some of her more, shall we say, boisterous fans. I was a regular commenter on a prominent Palin site for a while and was on the receiving end of some of that when I would remark when I felt she had made a mistake in or was wrong.

  • Jeff

    She is intensely likeable and has the guts to make fun of Obama. Her line about all the nuclear experience he acquired as a “community organizer” was perfect.

  • Lori

    daledog, you said it so much better than I could!

    patricia – great idea!! I LOVE the idea of her replacing Steele.

  • Cromagnum

    Palin has strengths and weaknesses. And her ardent supporters only see the first. She does have both, heck we all do.

    What makes her stand out is her willingness to stand up and say what people think, with a large Bullhorn. Its not original, mostly, but it cannot be ignored.
    Her value add in this is her timing, her phrasing, and her political game theory. Her result is a shift in the public impression on that topic. Death Panels is the most noted recent example.

    Could she get the nomination in 2012, if she ran? I give her a fair chance. The Left will stack some of the open primary polls for her, viewing her as the easy defeat in R camp.(Operation Chaos). Currently the Rs arent galvanized behind anyone, so theories are all we have. There is alot of disatisfaction for the current bunch, including Palin. Buts it is dissatisfaction for each of them from other groups. widespread feelings, so no one gains from it right now.

    There still is another year to slog through before we get a real headcount. If (yes, merely an “if”) she faced Obama in 2012, then it’s an interesting matchup, in strengths and weaknesses. (and more posts from the Anchoress)

    I just wonder what dirty tricks the D might be up to, as they fall on thier swords. Methinks they seem too eager to do this.

    Instapundit had a great line he got the other day:
    The Tea Party is the most pro-family org. ever! Everywhere they go, Dems decide to ’spend more time with family.’

  • Jeff

    The good news is that 2012 is only two years away. Whether it’s Palin or Romney or someone else, anything will be better than Mr. Spread-the-Wealth-Around.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    Whether it’s Palin or Romney or someone else

    If it is Mitt RomneyCare Romney, you can be certain that we will have four more years of President “I won,” which is a major reason why I opposed him last time.

  • Doc

    Palin ought to do a series of interviews with talk radio hosts like Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Bill Bennett. They are all good interviewers and will not simply lob softballs, as a Hannity is prone to do. The reason Democrats avoid these guys is that the corporate media are sure to serve up hanging curves, to the point of coordination as a precondition, and elected and appointed Dems know they are likely to get tough questions from talk radio, making themselves look far more foolish than Palin looked with CBS or ABC.

    MJ, have you actually seen or read a transcript of a corporate media/Obama lovefest? Your observations seem to conflict with reality.

  • Jeff

    she is learning by leaps and bounds; notice the confidence she has on foreign policy in this hammering of Obama:
    PALIN: Now, the president, with all the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer (audience cheers), and as a part time senator, and as a full-time candidate, all that experience — still, no accomplishment to date with North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile, this administration alienates our friends. They treated the Afghan president Karzai poorly and then they feigned surprise when he reacted in kind. They escalated a minor zoning decision into a major breach with Israel, our friend, our closest ally in the Middle East. Let’s remind our president: Jerusalem is not a settlement, and Israel is our friend.

  • Micha Elyi

    Q. Why no D-suffixed “middle-class woman who worked her way through school, who married her high school sweetheart, owned a business with him, and met payrolls; a mom who started in politics by going to PTA meetings and became the Governor of an energy-rich state while raising kids; a women who could shoot and dress a moose, a runner…” in the national political limelight?

    A. The D-party is an elitist party.

    The closest counterpart to Sarah Palin the Dems have is Hillary Rodham Clinton, a child of privilege.

    (One must wonder where America would be today had Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice had desired to seek the 2000 or 2008 GOP nominations, respectively, for President.)

  • http://k_bob.smallerpage.com K~Bob

    The dynamics of excitement and angst regarding Palin (on the right) is not about people refusing to see her flaws. Nor is it simply showcased by Palin supporters striking back at those who “merely point them out.”
    Those cliches were worn out last year.

    A common feature of the same, repeated “honest criticisms” of Palin is the (usually implied) THEREFORE. As in, therefore she should not run. Or, therefore she will not win. Or, therefore she is incapable. Some of the less egregious therefore’s are mere spin. The worst are cynical (and poorly hidden) attempts at political sabotage. None address the obvious difficulty they are charged to overcome: Palin says what her supporters want to hear. This is a fact that matters.

    Meanwhile we are to believe all of the other potential candidates, *and* their flaws, are somehow …more acceptable. The additional magic is that these “acceptably” flawed candidates are deemed acceptable without having to match Palin’s positions on the issues. They match “close enough,” we are often told, despite the evidence that Palin’s positions are the ones for which her massive base clamors.

    Being dismissive of the obvious frustration in her supporters over the bizarre standard of perfection (that Palin is expected to exemplify) is pointless (where it is not carried to the extreme of childishness). It is exactly why the occasional honest querent can feel as though he’s stumbled into a maelstrom.

    But let’s be realistic: few commenters, and even fewer “pundits” are truly unaware of the groundswell of support for Palin, and fewer still are as ignorant of it–especially the “why”–as the critics often pretend to be. (I’ll grant that among those feigning ignorance may be found the truly ignorant. I’m not addressing the truly ignorant, here.)

    Palin detractors on the right who wish to make a lasting impression need to get past the fact that Palin supporters are serious, and have studied the issues.

    Make a genuine case, if you can. It shouldn’t be that difficult. Bad faith accusations of “blind loyalty” don’t sell. Do something original. For example, building a case around the Couric interview is as silly as dealing with the occasional Obama supporter who wants to tell you about his time on the Law Review.

    Show us why Palin’s time on the Oil and Gas commission didn’t really give her any relevant experience.

    Show us why her resignation as Governor is a problem. Just stating it carries no weight. Her supporters all know the reason why she made that choice. Count on it.

    Show us why she is capable of generating such a groundswell now, but somehow won’t be able to “when it counts.” And don’t forget how badly Reagan was dismissed by the media, by the youth, by the “intelligentsia”, and by the pundits.

    Bring something into the game besides ordinary doubt. Outside of a courtroom, doubt is a very weak weapon.

    [You make my case for me. Your impassioned defense is longer than my whole piece, which praised Palin a good deal more than it criticized. -admin]

  • http://k_bob.smallerpage.com K~Bob

    Sorry, my comment was actually a bit O/T, and was aimed more at the thread, itself. Your article was what spawned the discussion.

    Also, it wasn’t my intent to defend Palin as much as to exhort people to actually think about the facts and not just run with the noise.

    I can live with your agnosticism about her. I get that way about almost any politician. For good reason. Politics is a slimy business on a good day.

    [I think it is always a wise thing to remain just a tad skeptical about any politician. Put no trust in princes, is my motto! :-) -admin]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X