On Palin; No Animus, No Condescension

In my piece yesterday at Pajamas Media I wrote:

. . .thrust-and-parry between a candidate and the media can both sharpen a candidate’s edge and enliven his footwork to his benefit; one smooth slice, well-timed, can topple both press and opponent, and linger in a voter’s memory as a satisfying match they want to see replayed . . . This is something Sarah Palin (and for that matter, the Tea Partiers) may wish to keep in mind for 2012. Palin is perfectly capable of deft bladework, but too often chooses to attack when a parry-and-feint will do. Her methods may please her press-hating base but — as we see with Angle and O’Donnell — one needs more than principles and an echo-chamber-emboldened base in order to win an election. One needs to be able to demonstrate skill with a keen-edged sword, so that when one lifts it above the noise and the babble, a majority will want to follow it to victory.

Well, the hate mail has been pouring in:

“I don’t understand this unattractive animus you display toward Palin…”

“You have no right to criticize our Sarah until you’ve put yourself out there, as she has.”

“You stuck-up, elitist, GOP establishment toady…”

“How dare you!”

I expect that in the writer’s mind, that last line sounded like “how daaaaaaare you” replete with a lightening bolt zapping me to hell.

Sissy Willis, who (bless her) does not seem to want to consign me to flames of woe just yet, suggests that in the above excerpt I have been “flirting with condescension” toward Palin.

I am a little surprised to read this. I thought I had pretty clearly complimented Palin in admitting that she is capable of “deft” bladework, and had merely cautioned that she often chooses not to use that skill. For instance, she went all-out-grizzly at the Family Guy for the Down syndrome “date” episode, when she really didn’t need to, and in fact could have done more harm to Family Guy with wit than with anger.

I have already said that I think the Tea Party had a good outing this election, especially for a very new movement that has no “official” leadership. What so many are taking as “establishment condescension” in my piece was nothing of the sort. I am not a Tea Partier (I am not a joiner, period) but that doesn’t mean I do not respect what is being done. Because I’m not in the thick of it, I have no emotional investment in the movement or in Palin, or for that matter, Christine O’ Donnell. I have defended both of them (Palin, many, many, many times) when I thought it right to, and have constructively critiqued her when I thought it was warranted.

Just because I am not starry-eyed in adulation of Palin does not make me a “hater” or “condescending.” It just means that I am willing to process her without emotion, and speak as I find, which–to my way of thinking–is more useful than being too-much-in-love to see a weakness or too-much-in-hate to see a strength.

Sissy makes a very good point about how Palin is going around media to get to the people:

[Sarah's] energetic embrace of the full panoply of media, old and new–from Twitter and Facebook to Fox News, Entertainment TV, her forthcoming TLC “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” series and even her daughter Bristol’s appearances on Dancing with the Stars–allows her to disintermediate the gateway media and reach the hearts and minds of the Country Class on her own terms.

Yes, Palin is doing that, and rather well. However, if Palin is going to run for president–and I believe yesterday’s well-done SarahPAC video was a hint that she will–she will need more than her base. She has a steep uphill battle before her as she tries to win back the centrists and indies who were initially attracted to her in ’08 (thus helping McCain’s numbers rise), before they fell for the unforgettably savage media attack launched against Palin.

Some would like to believe that Palin “will not need to engage the mainstream media to do that,” but the truth is, she will. Their influence is waning, and they don’t quite control the narrative as firmly as they used to, but for now the “gateway” media still controls the national conversation, itself. Those centrists and independents who turned away from Palin mostly took their cues from the mainstream, upon whom they depend for their headlines-and-soundbites. Part of her ability to win them back will depend upon how deftly (there is that word again) she engages that mainstream, who–if I may revisit the fencing analogy–will grudgingly acknowledge a touche. Recall that when Walter Mondale tried to make Reagan’s age an issue in the ’84 campaign, Reagan disarmed him (and the press) completely by genially responding that no one should hold his opponent’s youth against him. The Osric-press announced, “a hit; a very palpable hit!”

The press would never be on Reagan’s side, but all the rest of the country needed was that grudging admission that Mondale had been neatly flayed.

The US mainstream press–for all its deplorable excess–is still comprised of US citizens. A president who intends to be president of all the nation, and not just his base, will need to remember that; he cannot treat some like enemies. Reagan never did. Whatever his private feelings, he treated the press like fellow-citizens who simply held another view. Right now, Palin is getting a great deal of mileage out of hating-on the mainstream media (and let’s face it, hating-on the media is fun and kind of righteous at the moment) but eventually–if she means to be president–she is going to have to see them as her citizens, too.

Finally, for those taking offense at my “echo-chamber” remark, I have repeatedly warned of the disorienting danger of excessive insularity; if one is only listening to voices that are in unstinting agreement with one’s own views, one begins to believe that the whole world thinks as one does. That leads to nasty surprises in elections. The echo-chambers are fun, but they do occasionally need to be exited for a bit of fresh air or they become dull, stagnant places.

I have written about Sarah Palin and about the Tea Party in general, without much passion or prejudice, never dismissing either of them thoughtlessly or out of hand; I have simply applied what I know of politics, people, bullies and survival to my observations. We have become such an infuriated left-right nation that for some (on both sides) anything less than full-throated approval is received as hate, and that is not helpful to any of us, if we want to restore common sense to the public square.

No one has to agree with me; reasoned disagreement is always welcome. But Palin supporters do not make her more attractive to the centrists and indies by striking out in fury at the mildest of critiques of her. I more than understand why her supporters are overprotective of her, but reservation does not equal hate. It actually indicates a place where true common ground may be pursued, if emotions can be tamped down.

UPDATED: Now this is more like animus.

I think Richard Fernandez is on to something.

Related:
Jonah Goldberg predicts infighting in the GOP. Good thing I’m not a Republican!

Evangelicals and what they can learn from the election

Melissa Clouthier: Palin and Rubio?

Breaking: Nancy Pelosi running for leadership. It’s just too delicious. She’s going to leave her fingernail marks on the wallpaper of congress, before they get rid of her.

Looking back: There is an art to good politics

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Terrye

    kt says: “Anchoress, to ask the question is to answer it. The insanestream media built a gigantic microscope designated “for Palin only”, and we see you breathlessly waiting in line for a turn to peer through and report back your findings. It’s really not because we are dim palin-drones that we find this less than useful. We just think it’s a waste of time, and a malicious one at that.”

    What is this supposed to mean? That people can not even comment on Palin unless they get your approval and if they don’t have it then they are malicious?

    Last time I looked this was America and people have a right to state their honest opinions and ask questions. Is it different in the America you live in?

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

    Bender, what does this even mean?

    Terrye, you are the one who put forth their names in support without nary a moment of examination of them. And, again, you merely use this, not as an opportunity to fully examine them, but to lash back in an attack on Palin.

    Who is the one who is overly sensitive now?

  • kt

    what does it meeeean ,Bender? what does it meeeean, kt? are you double-rainbow guy, Terry with an e?

  • Terrye

    A tag team kt? And a little snotty attack too. You see that is the thing, I happen to mention a couple of guys I like and Bender is talking about proctology exams or some such nonsense. Maybe if you said something that I understood I would not ask you want you meant.

    But this is the larger point really. I like Palin, I voted for her and I would vote for her again..and in spite of that a couple of her followers felt the need to be nasty. And you wonder why some people think you guys are going overboard.

  • Terrye

    and kt I am not a guy. I am an old lady and my father gave me the name Terrye with an e…he has been dead for years now but I guess you could go ahead and insult him too. Why not?

  • JJ

    It’s difficult not to despise demagogues and the people who support them. In Palin’s case, I don’t think the demagoguery is deceptive/malicious (she is who she appears to be), but comes from her own sense of being treated unfairly or looked down on. I certainly sense that she exaggerates the hokey-act sometimes because she knows she’s got a sensitive, insecure body of supporters who cheer her every time she seems to rub it into the establishment’s face. On the whole, though, I find Palin less objectionable than her supporters. They misunderstand and will continue to misunderstand why they and Sarah turn off most voters.

  • Forthwith

    Why is it that when a couple of commenters have similar ideas, they are accused of tag-teaming? Someone I know was really hurt by a similar accusation, and no longer haunts this blog.
    Can we leave those kinds of attacks out of the discussion?

  • kt

    Hey guess what Terrye? not only are you too easily offended, but “what does that mean” is not a valid critique. It’s just snottiness.

  • kt

    Gosh, there are so many people who out there who “like” Palin and “voted for her” and yet spend their time insulting her on the internet. gee willikers. who’d'a thunk it?

  • Terrye

    kt

    Speaking of easily offended…who exactly insulted Palin?

  • Greta

    When many polls are taken, they make the mistake of looking too much at the coasts. Lets face it, the election for a republican will be won or lost in the heartland between the coasts. The problem for democrats is that the heartland carries the vast majority of the electoral college votes which means that the dems have to win places like Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and others and frankly that just got a lot harder with the loss of the governor and state houses in this election. Florida also got a lot more republican in this election. In 2012, a huge number of red state senators are up with many now in the hands of the democrats. They will face a tough uphill battle.
    Palin is loved in these states to a very large degree. This is not seen in the polls which reflect the opinion of those big states of NY and California but who cares. I would love to see a red state poll on the various candidates and I think you would find Sarah goes up big time. So everyone in NY and those other states that have voted democrat in election for years, who cares what they think on Sarah, it does not matter. If there was a clear Ronald Reagan, it might be different as he carried a lot of these in his massive reelection. Those are different times as we witnessed with the reelection of Boxer, the biggest loser of all time. I wonder if Reagan could carry California now. So give me a poll on the Red states with the electoral votes to carry the day and then I will listen.

  • Mike Mc.

    Pam Hoyt,

    You are the best. You said it all about GWB and Sarah Palin.

    In so doing you said it all about good people everywhere. real people everywhere. About virtue and true life and real leaders of real people.

    Anyone who has a quarrel with what you said about tow good people slandered for sport – is deficient in personal virtue.

    Period.

  • reg

    what’s the chances that everybody could grow up and let palin succeed or fail on her own abilities without all this friggin’ bloviating?if she’s a moronic dud then she’ll dig a trench with her nose, if she’s God’s gift to humanity-there’s no stopping her.And if she’s a well meaning person trying to do her best for her people and country, let her be put to the test to see if she can measure up. But keep the criticism to ideas and policies and away from personal.

  • Mike Mc.

    reg,

    She has already succeeded. She is being politely and impolitely criticized for it. That’s the point.

    There simply is NO ONE who is unduly praising her. Even that claim is total BS and part of the criticism of her. All of her detractors want it to be said on the other side that there are equal and opposite supporters.

    Therefore, their unfair and truly disgusting criticism is fine. It’s A-Ok! Just another angle is all!

    Hogwash.

    She is good. The good is always attacked. Some do it on purpose; some do it to go along with the crowd and appear intelligent and sophisticated.

    Makes me sick actually.

    [Just so we can get clear on this question, because it keeps coming up in the comments of the self-declared "pro-Palin's" against any-and-all critique: the self-declared "pro-Palins" are the "good" people, like her, right? Pure of motive, put-upon, insulted, oppressed victims who are carrying on like cheerful warriors in the face of attackers who just want to be mean, or who are snobs, or who just want to appear intelligent and sophisticated? Is that what you're saying?

    And the undeclared "anti-Palins" who won't just come out and admit they hate her but hide behind "constructive" critiques and supportive qualifiers, they're the smarmy people who don't love their country, and put on airs and like to pretend they're smart and stuff, right? But their inability to fully, wholly and devotedly fall in line and "love" Palin proves that they're really stupid, possibly malevolent and completely untrustworthy sorts. They're "bad" people, right who couldn't actually have genuine points--because Palin is "good" and perfect--and they make you sick, because they're such phoneys and haters, who just won't admit it. Is that what you're trying to say, or am I just misreading you? :-)

    Happy Sunday. -admin]

  • soupcon

    Margaret Thatcher faced similar long odds as Palin, not least of which was her background as the green grocer’s daughter from a North London suburb.She worked at turning herself into her iron lady personna,in some ways, like an Archie Leach became Cary Grant.MT wasn’t always so smooth and assured in front of the camera, nor did she have that plummy Oxbridge accent.She took elocution lessons, and was ridiculed for her transformation.

    She also was afforded the luxury of developing on a more natural learning curve.Today, candidates have no such luck.Palin is better than others on the issues, but she has style deficiencies that can grate and be used against her.I hope she does follow MT’s lead and take voice lessons and learn how to project assurance,calm and strength in public speaking formats so that the listeners will focus on her message, rather than her personal,stylistic shortcomings.

    Palin already has charisma and the ability to connect that no one else has in public life.But the attacks on her help to wear down the resolve of supporters and undecideds, and allow doubt to creep in.Reagan and MT spoke so well and truthfully that the attacks had to come from a different direction.It was difficult to square the image of RR being a dolt with the home truths he espoused about communism or the free market,try as hard as the left did.Style does matter.

  • Kerry

    The Anchoress wrote: “…capable of deft bladework, but too often chooses to attack when a parry-and-feint…” This is silly. These words sound describe action, but contain no metrics. How many times too often? When? Against what idea, or against whom? Defense has no momentum. Stay on the offence, especially against those most offensive opponents, the democrat party. Was it Halsey who said “Attack, attack, attack”?

  • passerby

    Nora #94:
    … those of us who instinctively distrust Palin …

    INSTINCTIVELY … that’s how estrogen-charged women tend to judge or weight – through feeling, emotion, intuition, impression. Men, those more rational, not Chris Matthew, judge through linear logical mind. This is just the nature of Venus and Mars. You people want to get women’s votes? Palin is competitor for estrogenized women competing to get the shower of testosteron, so Palin will less likely be popular with women – unconsciously (instinctively) to some women, she’s their competitor. If Palin got defended by Palin defenders, then to some women, she’s weak, testosteron deficient person, therefore not qualified to be their leader. That might be unfair, illogical or subjective, but that’s women nature. Remember women tend not to judge logically.

    So how to get women’s votes? Give them Marco Rubio or Scott Brown type, that’ll work. You must give them testosteron, or impression of testosteron charged, not estrogen. Testosteron is what some women need to get that elated feeling of Chris Matthew’s thrilling legs, and women secretly crave for that kind of feeling. That’s just human nature, Venus nature, instinctively seeking manly saviour, cinderella prince.

    Any validity to all that?

  • Nora

    Yes, Mike Mc., good people are slandered for sport everywhere you look.

    Good people who have genuine concerns about Palin’s ability to win a presidential election, much less lead this country, are slandered here on this thread.

    Good people who voice any opposition to the slavish, drooling, rabid Palin-worshippers are slandered every day — so I guess that makes their slanderers bad, evil people?

    Okay. I’m cool with that.

    Anyone who calls a person who dislikes Palin jealous, or stupid, or “elitist”, or pro-abort, or anti-Christian, or anti-family, or any of the hundreds of other slurs that get thrown their way is evil.

    I absolutely agree.

    This thread, the vicious, personal attacks against anyone who isn’t going to mindlessly, blindly follow the shrieking, screaming Palin mob, are EXACTLY why Palin is as bad for this country as Obama has been.

    Ain’t votin’ for her, and for all those people who think there are bajillions of people in the middle of this country who will, you’re wrong. Get out of your bubble, get off your Tea Party blogs and move away from their rallies and go talk to people who quietly sit on the sideline and witness this ridiculous hysteria over this equally ridiculous woman and get a clue.

    Palin can’t win an election. Isn’t gonna happen. And as soon as the mindless, hysterical thralls get that through their heads, the faster the Republican party can begin to finetune their search for a candidate who can beat the Dems in 2012 — which should be easy unless, of course, Palin is the candidate. If she’s the candidate, it’s going to come down to the devil-you-know v. the devil-you-don’t come 2012. And after EIGHT years of Obama, Hilary is going to look like the best thing that ever happened to this country in 2016.

    Your choice. Makes no nevermind to me. I can afford another four years of Obama. Can you?

  • Terrye

    Kerry:

    No, it is not silly. On one hand you say that those words describe action but contain no metrics and then you immediately say that defense has no momentum…attack attack attack…well that is action too. And who do you attack? Everyone? I mean everyone who even suggests that if Palin could do a better job of reaching Independents then she would have a better chance of winning the White House?

    Is that an attack?

    It is an observation, and that is the point here. There are some people among Palin’s most ardent fans who see anything other than mindless devotion as some sort of attack. And a lot of people out there will never attach themselves to any politician that way.

    The idea that no one ever praises Palin, that she is always picked on and abused and everyone is mean to her just sounds like whining to a lot of people. Especially when Sarah Palin has this wonderful family, a great livelihood, a devoted following, her own TV show and her health as well as the health of her family. This country is full of people who will never be so blessed.

    So the idea that simply saying, maybe Sarah Palin could find a way to handle the press better…is seen as an assault of some kind strikes a lot of people as bizarre and overboard.

  • Nora

    Kerry, the problem with always being on the offensive, always in “attack, attack, attack” mode when it comes to Palin or Obama or any other national candidate is that the people you’re attacking are your own countrymen.

    Palin is divisive. After a while, most folks — genuinely decent folks — get turned off by the constant negativity, by the implication that they have to hate all the people the Chosen One hates, that they have to march in lockstep, regurgitate the rhetoric or, worse, ramp it up a notch every go-round.

    This country is exhausted. Drained. This country wants a steady, serious-minded, reliable leader who will focus on reasonable, doable, proactive steps to repair the economy, restore stability, quell the hysterical, divisive, ugly shrieking back and forth.

    That candidate isn’t Palin, and her supposed supporters have seen to it that she will never be that candidate, can never be that candidate.

    She is defined now by negativity. She is permanently associated with the negative, with 24/7 attack-mode, with a predatory, vicious animal. She and her supporters have worked endlessly to create that persona and now she’s stuck with it.

    She can’t complain when, after two more years of this shallow, selfish, shrill nonsense, the majority of Americans decide she’s just too divisive and too draining and they send her right back where she came from.

  • Mike Mc.

    Anchoress,

    Take away your sarcasm and the basic answer to your question is “Yes”. Is that clear? You did say. Just so we can get clear on the question”. Sarcasm can go both ways, and I don’t care for it in serious times anyway.

    In “general”, people who like and support Palin are good. People who criticize her in the “typical” manner that we see (vicious slander and demeaning from the left; polite tut-tutting from the right) are not good. Clear? Yes, not good. I said it.

    If you want a longer explanation I will gladly give it when I have the time.

    But for now I will remind you and others that good and bad are designations that apply to all people all of the time. I did not invent that moral judgment. It’s been around since Plato, Aristotle, and whoever put the J and the C in Judeo-Christian. You think that impolite? Your beef is with those traditions and with reality then.

    Palin is like a test case. She has done nothing – relative to every single other person voter or politician – to deserve that criticism she has received in the way she receives it. Name the other person who has been fighting like her for two years. There is only one: Obama. She should be praised to the rafters first. Whatever flaws she has we can discuss later. It’s like picking at David for his accent when he was pout there against Goliath and you’re hiding behind the lines.

    ["Take away your sarcasm and the basic answer to your question is "Yes". Is that clear?" - oh, it's clear. It's sad, too. Pathetically sad. I'm a "bad" person because I treat Palin like a serious person instead of a goddess, and make a serious suggestion. That's pathetic. Get all your licks in today, because (as always happens when threads get too long) the formatting is starting to get messed up. And because I think everyone's said pretty much all they can say at this point, and people are repeating themselves. "She should be praised to the rafters first..." that's precisely what was done for Obama. It's not honest, and it doesn't work. It might be effective politics, but it doesn't serve either the candidate or the people in the end. I'll be damned if I'll be told I must praise what I find lacking, or just shut up. I left the left for that sort of mindset, and I won't take it off the right, either -admin]

  • Terrye

    Mick, you said:

    Palin is like a test case. She has done nothing – relative to every single other person voter or politician – to deserve that criticism she has received in the way she receives it. Name the other person who has been fighting like her for two years. There is only one: Obama. She should be praised to the rafters first. Whatever flaws she has we can discuss later. It’s like picking at David for his accent when he was pout there against Goliath and you’re hiding behind the lines.

    ****
    For heavens sakes simply saying that Palin needs to do a better job with the press is not some vicious attack. You do not seem to be able to discern the difference. Your attitude seems to be that if anyone even hints that she could improve her odds for winning the White House by changing certain tactics that is some evil and awful thing. Surely you can say out of proportion that reaction is. Good Lord, if David had not learned to use that sling shot he would not have been able to slay Goliath now would he? It took some skills did it not?

  • Terrye

    I am sorry that should have been Mike, no slight intended, just bad typing.

  • Mike Mc.

    Terrye,

    This thread is not about Palin “doing a better job with the press”.

    Get real. Be honest.

    To suggest that I am getting upset at such a simple thing is also dishonest. You dismiss the defense of Palin by slyly inserting a straw man.

    On the other hand, if by “doing a better job with the press” you mean she should change so that they would somehow like her? Really?

    In case you haven’t noticed, she practically owns the press at this point. The same way she owns Obama. They react to absolutely everything she says or does. She is the only one who gets under Obama’s skin. The better job she should be doing is what exactly?

    It is not Palin who needs to do a better job. The people who need to be better are her detractors. Something is wrong with them. Here is a woman of obvious talent and virtue. She’s been on the national playing field for two years now. She’s been everywhere. She has a television show for goodness sakes! As if in her spare time for a lark! But what does she get? Insinuations that she is ignorant, untalented, naive, or who knows what from people who agree with her on issues – and viciousness and disdain from people who don’t.

    Let them all do better jobs; then they can give advice.

  • Terrye

    Mike:

    Yes, this thread is about Palin doing a better job with the press. That is all it is about. The fact that some of her followers are so deep into their own little world that they can not take a simple statement like the one posted here by the Anchoress without turning it into some kind of weird indictment that requires attack and insult tells us just how tone deaf a cult can make people.

    Because that is what you sound like. Cult followers.

    Palin does not own the press. She has a twitter account and a facebook account and most people in the country don’t have any contact with either of them. Most Americans have a negative opinion of Sarah Palin largely because she has failed to woo Independents. Reaching out through other venues might help her.

    But instead when someone says that might be a good idea, we have to see people go totally off the deep end and start talking about how unfair and mean everyone else for failing to fall in line with your way of thinking.

    The truth is this kind of behavior can do Palin more harm than her detractors ever could.

  • Terrye

    I mean come on, exactly what did the Anchoress say that justifies hate mail? Go read the actual post and tell me that. Forget what you read into it that was not actually there…or how some people managed to take this little tiny mole hill and turn it into some big mountain..look at the post above and tell me what in that post insinuates that she is ignorant, or untalented or whatever. Talk about straw men…you have done a pretty good job of constructing one yourself.

    There is not one major political figure out there who does not get questioned or critiqued by someone. It is part of the process…to assume that every single remark, or observation or statement made is a sign of something nefarious is just plain paranoid.

  • Mike Mc.

    This thread is not about Palin doing a better job with the press. I suggest you read it again.

    It is about how people who defend Palin are wrong when they do so.

    The whole premise is a straw man, and a bit unreflective.

    There is no one who actually does what Anchoress and you and others say they do.

    At the same time, the ones who defend Palin are told not to be so sensitive and take a little criticism…at the same time as the entire subject of the thread is sparked by a little criticism of the author of the thread.

    Hello?

    To even think that the “press” should be….what? it’s never said….is to already lose the battle with them. It’s shown time after time….whenever Republicans act as moderates vis-a-vis the press or run as moderates, they lose.

    And what is the point here anyway? Is it not just an pre-emptive explanation of why people who don’t like her are not going to support her? Wouldn’t it be better if people just said that? Or are we to imagine that people really do like her, but they are being hyper-critical because they want her to improve?

    And always we are told, ssshhh! You’ll scare away the moderates/independents/important people!

    Right. Not buying it.

    I have no stake in a Palin candidacy or Presidency. My interest is more in praising the good and defending it where it needs defending. If she does run, she’ll be great. She would be 1000 times better than the current President, and if there is a Republican who is better, then don’t they need to be praised for their virtues before Palin is critiqued (once again for the millionth time) by friend and foe alike?

  • Nora

    @passerby:

    Go ahead and run her in 2012. My money’s safe, and I don’t care anymore.

    To me, after reading the hidious slurs flung at anyone who isn’t in her camp, she is now permanently synonymous with really freaking stupid, annoying people.

    So, yeah, maybe it’s my girlie brain, but it’s still my girlie vote.

    And this girlie, whose girlie logic made her all girlie rich with three girlie oceanfront properties, several girlie condos and a big ol’ eight figure girlie bank account, is taking her girlie money elsewhere — ain’t ever going to Palin or a Palin supporter. Ever.

    Hell, I’ll vote for Obama next time just for the sheer enjoyment of watching you cry, little boy.

    And, for the record, Palin isn’t my competitor. I’ve been wealthier and more independent than she’s ever been all my life, and I did it on my own, and none of my success is dependent on the vagaries of public opinion or an extremely fickle fanbase. In short, I don’t want anything she has — I even have faster marathon times than she does . I have the best husband in the world, the best kids in the world, and a WAY cooler car. What exactly is it I’m theoretically competing with her for again??

  • Terrye

    Mike:

    I think you have some sort of reading comprehension problem.

    The post said:

    thrust-and-parry between a candidate and the media can both sharpen a candidate’s edge and enliven his footwork to his benefit; one smooth slice, well-timed, can topple both press and opponent, and linger in a voter’s memory as a satisfying match they want to see replayed . . . This is something Sarah Palin (and for that matter, the Tea Partiers) may wish to keep in mind for 2012. Palin is perfectly capable of deft bladework, but too often chooses to attack when a parry-and-feint will do. Her methods may please her press-hating base but — as we see with Angle and O’Donnell — one needs more than principles and an echo-chamber-emboldened base in order to win an election. One needs to be able to demonstrate skill with a keen-edged sword, so that when one lifts it above the noise and the babble, a majority will want to follow it to victory.

    That was all. There was nothing about Palin being stupid or anything else. It was a simple suggestion that maybe just maybe a different approach might be more useful…and somehow or other you have turned that into some sort of frontal assault on Sarah Palin. You have read things into that are not there, except perhaps in the minds of people who are invested in seeing Palin as a victim that constructive criticism just flies right by them.

    But whatever your problem might be, it really is not fair to accuse other people of saying things they never said.

  • Kevin

    Calm down Nora, calm down. I’ve got a nice saucer of milk for you.

    And by the way, everything you stated in that last paragraph? Not buying it for a second. Your rants reek of the typical infantile and venomous drivel that insecure teenage girls hurl at the more popular kids, and for someone who claims she doesn’t care about her your level of hate and obsession over her would embarrass Captain Ahab.

    You have repeatedly proven that your objections to Palin are absolutely personal in nature, devoid of any substantive criticism of her policy or and your ad nauseum slurs–comparing her to a predatory animal for instance–are a textbook example of psychological projection. She’s negative you say. Have you read your own posts? She’s divisive? Take a look in the mirror “girlie”. No one is more hateful than those who love to accuse other people of it.

    So you won’t vote for her. Fair enough. So you’ve got everything she has and more. Then why can’t you let it go? You ask why you would ever be jealous of her? Okay, so what’s the point? Well “girlie”, me thinks that thou protesteth too much. The need to post such a diatribe and the way in which you phrased it suggests that you are are trying too hard to convince not only everybody else her but yourself as well. “Well I have more than SHE does, nyah nyah nyah”, maybe you don’t realize how much saying something like that puts a stake through the heart of your credibility.

    If I had your eight figure bank account and all those beachfront condos I’d be a little happier. Deny it all you want, but you don’t attack her the way you do because you have a better candidate in mind. You do so because you hate her, plain and simple, and it stems from something inside you, not her.

    By the way, Palin helped to finalize a deal for a natural gas pipeline that previous governors couldn’t get off the ground for forty years, in large part because the oil companies blocked it. She not only broke their stranglehold on Alaska politics and rooted out the corruptocrats but put together the deal with Canada and actually brought Exxon on board with it. This will be the largest infrastructure project in North American history, doing more to advance American energy independence than any PRESIDENT in my lifetime has accomplished, and it will create more jobs than ANYTHING Obama could do in a hundred years.

    Compete with that “girlie”, and tell me what other prospective candidates have something like that on her resume. So when people start chiming in with how Mitt Romney is more qualified, just keep in mind that his crowning achievement was the disastrous government health care that was the blueprint for Obamacare.

  • Nora

    Hey, Kevin, as I already stated, yeah, now it’s personal — it’s personal because I’ve endured two years of the most hateful sort of venom thrown my way because I do criticize her abilities as a serious candidate. At this point, as this thread proves, the Palinbots are closed to any criticism, large or small, personal or objective, at all.

    As I’ve also said, it’s not Palin nearly as much as her supporters that bother me — that her supporters engage in the kind of rhetoric they do, that they immediately turn any and all criticism of her into something personal, that they force anyone who dares not to worship her to defend themselves against revolting accusations all tells me something’s very, very wrong here. You got a problem with that, clean up your own act. Not my deal. Yours. Stop whining and fix it if you don’t like it.

    Palin herself can’t stop comparing herself to a predatory animal for five minutes. That’s not me — that’s her, and her worshippers have picked up on it and repeated it every chance they get — my point was that you can’t constantly be in attack mode against your fellow countrymen and expect a majority to be on your side come November 2012.

    The “girlie” comments were addressed specifically to this latest charge that those who won’t kiss Sarah’s butt 24/7, no questions asked, do so because of the estrogen factor — we’re all women, so we’re all competing for…something. A ridiculous claim since I’d be willing to bet Palin has more female supporters than male supporters.

    Here’s the thing you really don’t get: I don’t hate Palin. I hate her supporters. I hate them for what they’ve called me — I was flat-out told I only hated Palin because I’d obviously aborted a baby once — seriously — someone actually said that to me, which, given the reality of my life, is a filthy, filthy thing to say. The fact I DIDN’T abort a baby pretty much everyone around me insisted I should cost me more than you will ever know. How the hell am I supposed to react to that? I can’t prove a negative, and they know it — just like your accusations here — can’t prove a negative and you know it, so you think you’ve “won” something.

    Well, you and every last Palin supporter on the planet has “won” something — utter contempt from me.

    You people say crap like that to me, and _I’m_ the one making it personal? Right.

    You think she’s the cat’s pyjamas, fine, run her in 2012. Go for it. What I think shouldn’t matter to you one whit, especially since you think it’s all teenage girl hysteria.

    As for the rest — you have no idea how icy, icy, dead, cold, emotionless I go at a certain point, and I’ve reached in on this issue.

    Have a lovely life. I’ll be popping corn, sitting back and enjoying the show when Palin loses to Obama in 2012. At this point it’s all just spectator sport for me.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X