The Palin Problem and a Palinoia Romp – UPDATED

Two exceedingly good posts today on Sarah Palin, the woman no one can stop talking about.

First from James Taranto, a very thoughtful and well-reasoned look at what is behind the Palin-hate that so many on the left seem incapable of even tamping down.

We’d say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today’s topic).

An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, “feminist” is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.

That is because what used to be called feminism–the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination–is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin–especially not Hillary Clinton, the left’s favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.

But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.

Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology–most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.

As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.

The piece is broader in scope than this excerpt suggests, but that’s why you need to go read the whole thing.

Taranto entitles her piece Palinoia, the Destroyer,
and that’s pretty clever; it actually would be a terrific title for Iowahawk’s brilliantly satirical look at the press, in the immediate aftermath of Tucson.

KRUGMAN
Have the results gotten back from the toxicology lab yet?

MATTHEWS
Got ‘em right here. Weed… acid… psilocybin… salvia… Red Bull… but so far a negative on tea. And transfats.

KRUGMAN
Looks like our perp got instructions to dry out his system [of tea] before pulled off the hit. Dammit, we need to get a solid ID on the scumbag controlling these trigger men before there’s another bloodbath! Let’s see if Sullivan has any leads.

Dimly-lit high tech laboratory under CSI HQ, filled with fetal grow charts, maternity shop mannequins

KRUGMAN
So Sullivan, who do you think Dreambrain was working with?

CHIEF FORENSIC GYNECOLOGIST ANDREW SULLIVAN
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I’d say it was a woman. Late 40′s. Likely an ex-governor of a US state. One capable of mind control and superhuman childbirth abilities.

KRUGMAN
Dammit man, I need something more solid than that! Did you say she controls people with her mind?

SULLIVAN
No, she controls other people’s minds… but not with her own. Captain, as you can see here, I’ve taken the liberty of constructing this oversized 3-dimensional model of the mastermind’s inside lady parts.

KRUGMAN
Very impressive. What did you use for the fallopian tubes?

SULLIVAN
They had a special on crazy straws at Craft Gallery. Now, if my theory is correct, the mind control waves emanate from deep here within her reproductive system, as some sort of ultra high frequency musical pitch, inaudible to human ears.

KRUGMAN
Like a dog whistle?

SULLIVAN
Exactly. But to her highly susceptible Tea Party dupes, the message comes through… loud and clear.

KRUGMAN (pointing at model)
So you’re saying the music goes round and round… whoah-o-ohhh… and it comes out here?

MATTHEWS
Like a nickelodeon… from hell.

KRUGMAN (whipping off sunglasses)
My God, Sullivan. If you’re right, then we just reopened an entire warehouse of cold cases.

SOUND F/X
Fwooommmsh

Flashback: outside Dakota Hotel in New York 1980. A man strolling along sidewalk suddenly freezes midstep. Split screen of beauty pageant in Alaska. Closeup of contestant receiving Miss Congeniality crown. Her eyes turn pulsating red. The New York man pulls gun from leisure suit.

Flashback: inside Texas Schoolbook Depository, 1963. Warehouse worker suddenly freezes. Split screen of baby girl in Eskimo papoose. Baby’s eyes turn pulsating red. Man grabs rifle and walks toward window.

I was particularly taken with the reference to the old Dorsey hit, but I do warn you not to have anything in your mouth when it gets to the part where Sullivan gives birth to himself. Again, read it all

UPDATED: Victor Davis Hanson – We’re being civil, now

Hot Air has More

Related:
When is “uncivil rhetoric” or demonizing not offensive? Depends, apparently out of whose mouth is talking.
Robin of Berkeley thinks she’s seen this before
This can’t make some happy

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Max Lindenman

    Elizabeth, you’ve proven you’re able to think critically about Palin, even if it means taking flak from the hardest core of her base. Mad props to you for that. But, fair-minded as you aspire to be, why do you insist that her detractors must be working from some hidden, nefarious motive? If you really want to know why people dislike Palin, listen to them — they’re not shy! They’ll tell you any of the following:

    1) She’s an extremist — pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-Ground Zero mosque. Take your pick.

    2) She seems to actually enjoy polarizing the country. (“Real America” versus the elites and the “lamestream medai,” etc.)

    3) She’s not above using scare tactics. (“Death panels,” “palling around with terrorists.”)

    I could go on, but why recite the whole laundry list? You’ve heard it already. I only wish, for Pete’s sake, you — “you,” in this case, meaning everyone who thinks that a robust aversion to Sarah Palin is a sign of moral degeneracy — would LISTEN to it. It speaks for itself; no further explanation is necessary.

    Look, I’ll meet everyone halfway. If you’re a conservative, and if you feel as though your views get no respect in the general culture, I can certainly see why you’d be deep in the tank for Palin. She acts as your champion, plugging your values tirelessl, attacking your enemies mercilessly.

    Now try putting yourself in the skin of a moderate liberal. You’re somewhat queasily pro-choice, not averse to a national health care system and would prefer, in the future, to invade the smallest possible number of countries. What does Sarah Palin have to offer you? Why wouldn’t you boil over her ascendancy the way conservatives once did over Obama’s? A two-party system is a two-way street.

  • Terrye

    That was a great link.

  • SCSoxFan

    Max, Max, Max. Nice try, but I don’t think your liberalism classifies as moderate. Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?

    1. Extremist. When has Palin used extreme language in any of the three issues you mentioned? She is pro-life, but has always, ALWAYS, spoken in terms of the sanctity of life and the need to protect the innocent. Give me one example where she has used “extreme” pro-life language. She has never calling pro-choicers baby-killers or murders, or advocated jailing women or criminalizing abortion. On the other two issues, gun ownership and the GZ Mosque, it would seem from your comments that anyone who opposes your stand on these two issues is an “extremist.”

    2. Enjoyment of “polarization.” You site three examples. The first, the “real America” comment is fairly mild. I seem to recall Obama making reference to “clinging to guns and religion.” How is Palin’s comment worse than that? As far as the “Lamestream Media” tag line is concered, what would you expect her to call them after everything they said and the names they call her? A failure to respond would just make her a doormat.

    3. Scare tactics. The “death panels” line was hyperbole, something I’m sure has NEVER been used in politics before. It was used to highlight what she (and many others) see as the end-game of Obamacare — rationing of health care that is determined by the bureaucracy. Look at the NHS in the UK, the dream of Obama’s head of CMS, and tell me that is not a death panel. As far as the “palling with terrorists” line, it’s been reported, both by Palin and the media, that she was asked to used this line, specifically, by the McCain campaign hierarchy, which proceeded to immediately throw her under the bus when it was criticized.

    You are right, though, about Sarah Palin offering nothing to liberals. She shouldn’t. The American people looked at the Democratic Party’s liberal dream for the past two years and voted against it strongly in November. Why should she offer anything to it?

  • Max Lindenman

    Fair enough, SCSoxfan. What looks extreme from one corner, looks sane and perfectly commonsensical from the other. And you’re welcome to hang any label on me you think fits. I’ll be a moonbat, an anarcho-syndicalist or a Trotskyite, an Elder of Zion — just as long as you’ll concede I’m violating no basic rules for human decency by not liking Palin.

  • Jeff

    Wha? An “extremist” because she is pro-life and shares a position on gun control with the U.S. Supreme Court? The left is utterly incapable of talking about Palin in a rational manner. Name calling is what they resort to.

    The more I think about it, Palin is the lib media’s new Nixon.

  • Dynan

    Max: Palin has somethings that are virtue, she is a wife, a mother and an honest politician. She is a living memorial to The Culture of Life.

    Your side wants gay marriage, wants unlimited abortion and bankrupt socialism. Clearly the Culture of Death.

    It appears to be the Punic wars all over again, Max, Sarah Palin represents Rome and you represent Carthage.

    Tonight I will pray for both of you.

    Dynan

  • archangel

    BTW- James Taranto is a guy. You referred to him as “her”.

    Other than that, he was spot on as to the Left’s hate of Palin. I read the guy daily. As well as you, of course.

  • Bender

    That’s right. It’s Palin’s fault that people hate her. She forces them to be malicious. People are not the cause of their own hate and malice, Palin is the cause and they are helpless to do anything about it.

    That’s why she is the one who is divisive.

  • SteveM

    Anchoress, why recycle this issue? It’s been totally played.

    Palin is an ex-politician who is now an entertainer like Rush Limbaugh. Both she and Limbaugh have a base they play to, (20%) and actually need the stupid frothing of the reactionary Left to sustain their following. (How many were exercised enough to send Palin a check based on the latest “attack”?)

    Again, Palin’s political positions are actually pedestrian standard Neo-Con mimicking Rick Santorum. I.e., Cut spending on everything but War and Empire building. Although few shovel Santorum gobs of donations because he does not play the Palin as victim shtick. Given the bifurcation in this post, Palin is wildly successful in pushing her supporters button to fat paychecks ad infinitum.

    Do I “hate” Sarah Palin? Well, no. Would I vote for her for anything? Well, no again. I’m one of the 60% between the 20% that have sanctified Palin and the 20% that abhor her. I.e., She’s a mediocrity making a buck apart from any emotional investment on my part.

  • SCSoxFan

    Max, the only thing I’ve said about you is that it appears that the “moderate liberal” label that you assigned to yourself is incorrect — I don’t think that anyone who calls someone an extremist for holding a view that you don’t share meets the definition of moderate. And, it doesn’t matter to me whether you like Palin or not. I am concerned only about basic fairness.

    If you won’t vote for Palin because you disagree with her policy positions, or you don’t think her experience is suitable for the presidency, fine. Say so. That’s politics and what elections are for. Each person/side puts out its ideas and vision and the voters choose. What I object to viscerally is the unreasoning hatred and lack of basic decency so many of those on the left voice about her. I’ve seen hundreds of posts far worse than yours — vile, vicious things where its clear that the poster has completely lost it. And hundreds just like yours — not vile or vicious, but simply ascribing something to her (extremism, willful polarization, etc) without backing it up or else ignoring examples from other politicians, left and right, that are no worse than what you cite. I haven’t seen this kind of treatment of a politician since Reagan, and I suspect the reasons for it are similar.

    Ms. Scalia will attest to my vigorous defenses of Palin when I think the objections to her are personal rather than political disagreements. My view of Palin is very much like that voiced by James Taranto in the linked article. I admire her political skills, her policy instincts, her rise on her own merits, and her tenacity. I’m not yet ready to sign on to a presidential campaign but, unlike Mr. Taranto, I have not yet reached a conclusion about her suitability for the presidency — I am open to being convinced.

  • Max Lindenman

    Dynan: I beg you, don’t tell me you’ll pray for me when you mean something much harsher. I call that “praying for the person and the horse he rode in on.” It’s pretty tacky.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    It’s not about liking, or disliking, Palin as a potential presidential candidate, politician, pundit, etc.

    It’s about this insane, obsessive hatred the Left has for her. They can’t just disagree with her; they have to accuse her of helping the demented Tuscon gunman, of being a she-monster with a gun, who wants to end abortion, and enslave other women. . . blah, blah, blah. That satirical article, where her critics claim she has powers of mind control, wasn’t really that much of an exaggeration.

    Many of them, like Sullivan, display a sick need to attack her children (who didn’t have any office, and weren’t running for anything, last time I checked.)

    It’s not about Palin at all. It’s about us. It’s about the Left. It’s about the media, and society.

  • SCSoxFan

    SteveM, don’t criticize Ms. Scalia for returning to this. Understanding hate is key to fighting it. She, like many, are trying to understand the cause of the unreasoning hatred for this woman voiced by so many, hatred that would permit the headline on a column on the front page of the second largest newspaper in New York City to scream that Palin has the blood of Gabrielle Giffords on her hands. And why? Because she dared to put out a map ten months before Giffords was shot that was like multiple other maps put out by multiple other politicians and without ANY evidence that the shooter saw it, was aware of it, or even knew Palin existed.

    And if you’re so disinterested, why comment? Just move past the post.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Max, quite honestly, if you’re sincere about your liberalism, I wish you would really LISTEN—and google—some of the insane things that have been said about Palin, and the things she’s been accused of—staring with the erudite Mr. Sullivan himself, and his strange obsession with her son, Trig.

    It isn’t just Palin who’se been smeared in this latest media hysteria; every conservative “right-winger” has been implicated in these vague accusations of creating a climate of hate, and not being properly civil. Now you can hang any label on us you like: Reaganites, right-wingers, Facists, even Trotskyites! Just as long as you’ll concede that we’re not violating any basic human rights by pointing out that the Palin-hate is starting to get a bit out of hand, and exaggerated fears of her, and her alleged mind-control powers, and those of other “right-wingers”, could be used as an excuse to censor freedom of speech.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    SCFoxFan, I do believe part of the Palin-hate—a very big part—is the whole question of abortion/right to life/ and “Omigawd, she gave birth to a defective kid!”

    That’s not all of it, but I think it’s a large part; also, she’s seen, rightly or wrongly, as Republican front runner at the moment, and the biggest threat to the great O; the Left always hates whoever seems to hate the Republican front-runner, whoever they are: Rush, Nixon, Reagan, etc. (These days, they’re pretending they see Reagan as a “Grand old statesman”, but, when he was actually president, they loathed him almost as much as they now loathe Palin, and launched some pretty foul attacks against him. And, there was BDS—”Bush Derangement Syndrome.” It seems they just need a target to hate.)

  • SCSoxFan

    Rhinestone, I think you’re right that her refusal to abort Trig is a major part of it. I’ve seen the most vile (sorry to use the term again, but its the only word that fits) posts and comments about him, personally. A little kid who can’t defend himself and who hasn’t done a damn thing to them, except be born. I also think Taranto is right about Bristol Palin’s decision to carry her son to term reinforcing their initial reaction to Trig.

    It’s similar to Bush/Reagan hatred, but its deeper and more primal.

  • Robbins Mitchell

    Well,if it were some liberal Democrat woman who was being smeared and trashed like this by conservatives,the lefties would call them ‘misogynistic reactionaries’..so I’ll call these lower class hate pimps who pose as ‘progressives’ what they really are…….misogynistic reactionaries

  • SteveM

    Re: All you guys who denounce the vicious “hate” on Palin. Well yeah, I agree with those denunciations. They are indeed over the top.

    But in parallel with the excesses dumped on Palin is the venomous bile that bloggers like the Gateway Pundit (formerly and unfortunately a blogger at First Things) and his merry cabal of nitwit “conservative” commenters spew at their Leftist targets. E.g. Michelle Obama as ape-woman.

    And the Gateway Pundit has legions of blogger wanna-be’s. There is barely a hint of nobility on either side. As Hyman Roth stated in Godfather II, “This is the business we have chosen.” That’s Sarah Palin…

  • Max Lindenman

    SCSoxFan:

    You know what? You’ve won me over — not to Palin’s camp, unfortunately, but to the cause of repsonsible labelling. Let me change “extremist” to “straight-down-the-line conservative.” Does that work better?

    You’re right that partisan loyalty is basic to politics. Extreme emotional reactions are, too, unfortunately. In my opinion, they’re the worst part. Whenever I can, I try to tamp down my urge to deify my people and villify the other guy. But extreme reactions aren’t peculiar to Palin by any means.

    In fact, as I suggested on another thread, Palin goes out of her way to provoke them. There’s a logic to that. Conservatives in America feel marginalized, especially when it comes to mass-media coverage of their causes. The more Palin is able to provoke their anger, the more her base identifies with her. And the more it identifies with her, the more it loves her.

    Now, many see a down side to this. The more pugnacious Palin appears, the harder a time she’ll have endearing herself to people who don’t agree with her completely. Rather than debate that point, I’ll simply reach for the common ground — that Palin’s aggressive stance has worked wonders for her in the short run. She may never win the presidential nomination, I predict she’ll enjoy a long and fulfilling career as a gadfly and freelance kingmaker (or queenmaker).

    My point is this. Rather than claim, as so many Palin supporters have claimed, that Palin somehow drives liberals mad with her transcendent goodness, isn’t it more reasonable to conclude that liberals dislike her because she WANTS them to?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Max, I think you’re assuming a lot when you state that Palin wants Liberals to dislike her. If she is, indeed, trying to run for president—or become resident gadfly—or queenmaker, that would defeat her purpose, since she’d need at least some liberals on her side, in order to become widely popular.

    I also think it smacks a lot of the “mind reading meme”—i.e., when somebody states that they know exactly what some public person is thinking, and what they’re up to. You can’t. Not unless you have mind reading powers, you can’t.

    It’s also a neat way of blaming the victim—liberals dislike Palin because she forces them to dislike her! It’s all her fault!

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    SteveM, a lack of nobility on one side doesn’t excuse the other side’s acting ignobly.

    And you’re moving the goalposts.

    And the Left had the help of the mainstream media in their attack on Palin, up to, and including, the New York Times itself, and talking television heads, such as Keith Olberman. The media, as a whole, acted very badly here.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    SCFoxFan, I’ve seen some pretty awful posts about Trig, too.

    Depressing. And shocking.

    I think that really is a lot of it

  • Max Lindenman

    Rhinestone: Trying to read politicians’ intentions and anticipate their next moves is a big part of being a political junkie. In my opinion, it’s one of the most fun parts. Are you trying to tell me you never do it yourself? If not, you’re missing out.

  • Max Lindenman

    Rhinestone: Time to address your earlier point. If, by Palin-hate, you mean Kos’ premature implication of her in Giffords’ shooting, or some of the profane rants I’ve read on Wonkette — okay. I’ll add Maureen Dowd to that list, but then, she’s nasty to everyone — even Obama. (If you say there are others in that vein, I’ll take your word, though I’ve not read them myself.)

    Here’s the “but,” though: I refuse to dismiss all strong criticism of Palin’s actions, or even her abilities, as hateful. For example, I don’t think Peggy Noonan’s a hater. She may see Palin as shallow and careless about sowing discord, but that’s her considered opinion — take it or leave it. Not all the pundits who questioned the timing or content of Palin’s self-defensive video are haters, either. They simply thought Palin spoke too soon after the shootings, or too much about herself, to the exclusion of any issue of more universal importance. You don’t have to buy that argument, or even respect it. I see no justification, however, in assigning base motives to it.

  • SCSoxFan

    Max, I didn’t expect to change your mind about Palin’s politics, but I will be pleased if you have truly realized that we can be tough with opponents but never unfair. Also, I don’t think Palin’s responses to the left are a calculated strategy as much as a function of her personality which is, in turn, a function of her upbringing. The Alaskans I’ve met (and I’ve met several through relatives that were stationed there) were raised to be self-sufficient and not to be dependent on others, if possible. They were also taught to stand up for themselves and not let themselves be pushed around. I see much of that same attitude from Palin. If she gets shoved, she’s going to shove back harder. It’s not always the most politic attitude to have, but it seems to be her nature.

    SteveM, I agree that there is equal bile on the right. I’m not much of a Gateway Pundit fan and was surprised when his blog first appeared on First Things (don’t know if that was Joe Carter’s doing or Jody Bottum’s :) ). And, while taking hits is part of politics, what Palin gets is far, far, beyond that.

    Good night, all.

  • SCSoxFan

    Max, I just saw your last post. I’m not a Noonan fan, either. I don’t mind strong criticism provided it’s expressed respectfully. Noonan is snarky and condescending towards Palin and I’ve lost all respect for her and her opinion. The sad part is she always ripped those who were in the GOP establishment who treated her old boss, Ronald Reagan, shabbily and condescendingly but refuses to acknowledge the fact that she is now the GOP establishment and is treating Palin in the same way that those people treated Reagan. I’d call it ironic, but it’s too sad for that.

    Again, good night.

  • Max Lindenman

    SCSoxfan

    Goodnight to you, too. Look forward to seeing more of your posts.

    One last thing: Judging by our respective snark thresholds, I have a feeling you and I come from slightly different generations. By my Gen-X standards, Coulter and Joan Walsh are the norm. Compared to them, Peggy Noonan sounds downright grandmotherly.

    I admire her for being the among the very first to break ranks. If you count her outburst during Palin’s RNC speech, she was the very first, although she backtracked after that and stayed in the closet until Kathleen Parker, and I believe, David Brooks, had already come out. Guess I just have a thing for mavericks, even skttish ones.

  • jeff

    The picture above is also horrible. Please remove it. How would any of us feel to have our faces made to look like a bloodthirsty murderer? I

    [The picture is there to illustrate how she is depicted by those who hate her. -admin]

  • Joseph Marshall

    “Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin–especially not Hillary Clinton, the left’s favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.”

    Just what on earth HAS Palin accomplished? Losing a vice-presidential race that she merely lucked into in the first place? Resigning as governor of Alaska? Getting advances for a Life Story that has already hit the remaindered book racks? Being in the audience to watch her daughter compete on Dancing With The Stars?

    The real question is, why is anyone bothering to cover her at all? There is no more real reason for her constant coverage than there was for the tribulations of O.J. Simpson, or the sex crime trial of Michael Jackson, or the pecadillos of Linsey Lohan and Paris Hilton.

    By definition Hillary Clinton HAS been doing real things as had Condi Rice before her. Clinton has a real job and can’t take much time these days to be a cream puff celebrity. Does anybody cover what she’s doing? Of course not. Could they? Of course they could. The Secy of State’s schedule is openly available. And no news media had any trouble covering Colin Powell quite extensively.

    Nancy Pelosi has a real job and does real things, also, but, frankly, the only reason she gets covered is because of the frothing-at-the-mouth vituperative personal abuse she takes from the Right for having the umitigated gall to do what any Democratic Speaker or Majority Leader is supposed to do, and doing it rather well on the whole.

    Don’t give me any crap about that, either. She beat you on healthcare. Period. Even Hillary Clinton didn’t do that.

    Now, personally, Sarah Palin gets on my nerves. But so did O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson and so does Linsey Lohan and Paris Hilton. Why?

    Well, as the saying has it: There is no “there” there. They are all substanceless, cream puff celebrities–and, in Palin’s case, it is primarily her daughter who has done anything resembling hard work!

    Condi Rice didn’t get on my nerves, though I can’t recall ever agreeing with a single thing she said. And when she got coverage, it was because she actually said or did something worth disagreeing with because it was worth thinking about.

  • Terrye

    Powerline has a post up about Palin. That took courage. Hinderacker says she can’t win. He does not say he hates her or anything of the kind, but he thinks she can not be President. Of course Palin’s strongest fans will hate him for speaking his mind on this issue.

    That is the thing about Palin, so many of her critics are truly vicious with her, they are…but then again so many of her fans can not tolerate any criticism or even an objective observation about the woman if it is not positive. That makes it impossible to treat her like a real politician or even a regular human being.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Max, Palin was, essentially, accused of being complicit in the shooter’s murders; “climate of hate” and all that.

    She either had to speak up in her own defense, or let the accusation stand.

    And what the Anchoress’ post is about isn’t saying Palin shouldn’t be criticized; (she’s done some of that herself). It’s addressing the really mindless, downright crazed hate many on the Left fall into, when it comes to Palin. (As I said, you can begin by looking up Andrew Sullivan’s ruminations about the birth of her son Trig, as well as David Letterman’s comments about her daughter, various cartoons, like the one the Anchoress has at the top of this post, showing her as a vampire, etc.)

    And it’s not just Palin. Many on the Left also have a great deal of contempt for “rightwingers”, in general. It wasn’t just Palin who was accused of creating a “climate of hate” (which supposedly was what caused the Arizona shootings), but the Tea party, and conservatives in general. Again, you can call us rednecks, or rightwingers (or even Trotskyites) if you like, but you shouldn’t be surprised if we don’t agree with it.

    (As for Noonan’s opinions. . . yes, I can take them or leave them. Mostly, I can leave them.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And I won’t dismiss strong criticism of Palin.

    But I will dismiss the insane stuff (the Palin PDS), and, no, I don’t think Sarah Palin, or the right in general, or some vague “Climate of hate” miasma (just floating around the atmosphere, I guess) is responsible for the crimes of one demented killer.

  • http://fatherallen.net Fr. Ken

    Palinoia, will destroya… And that is a very creepy pic up there!

    Px, +K

  • Barbara

    About Palin hate: I’d say my considerably less than warm and fuzzy feelings about her might be attributable to the fact that every time she opens her mouth, she is trying to convince anyone who has ears that I and mine are enemies of the state! A state which her ideology would work to starve and drag into the bath tub to drown, I might add.

  • Lisa

    Our country is being destroyed by our president and with the help of the MSM we’re all bickering about Palin.

    Palin isn’t a problem – she is the Left’s solution as to how to distract the people.

    The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner just praised the Chinese president for human rights . The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner is sitting in a Chinese prison!

    Unemployment is STILL rising. The housing market is STILL in shambles. The country is STILL at war. Gitmo is STILL holding prisoners. Ug, I could go on and on…. we need to stop letting the Left set the narrative, stop being on the defensive and start punching back twice as hard.

  • archangel

    Let’s just cut to the chase regarding all this. The bottomline is that segments of the amorphous “Left” simply HATE on a personal level. That is what they are about and it stems from their own elitist view of themselves. And frankly I’m sick to death of it. Humility is such a lost characteristic in our society. They hate her and her choices. They hated Reagan. They hate Bush. They hate the Pope. They essentially hate us as Catholics because in their eyes we’re a bunch of superstitious knotheads. THEY SIMPLY HATE. The hatred is not exclusive to them. There are many on the “Right” who can be just as bad but generally we are more the types to hate the “position” or “the sin”… NOT the person.

    Do I “hate” Obama’s arrogance… yes. Do I hate his socialistic/fascistic tendencies… yes. Do I hate the MAN… no.

    THAT is the difference.

    Many on the “Left” can’t say that about their political/ideological/theological foes. They employ the politics of personal destruction based on their hatred of the person. PERIOD.

    If one needs to find the source and the reasons for the existence of this kind of hate, read Genesis.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Well, look at it this way, Lisa! With the country falling apart, the Left probably would much rather fling blame around—be it at Palin, or conservatives in general—than have to address stuff such as the failing job market, falling housing prices, our new, bestest buddy in the world, Red China, with its swell record on human rights (organ trafficking? Their Nobel Prize winner in jail?).

    Much better to go on and on about Palin, “The Right” (whatever that means), “Conservatives” (whoever they are) and climates of hate, which can be cured, so they tell us, we won’t be anti-government(being anti-government is bad, when the president is a “D”, not an “R”) and make sure that whatever we say can’t be construed as possibly inciting some mentally unstable person, anywhere, any time, to violence.

    (So much for dissent being the highest form of patriotism. And, remember, if all else fails, blame Bush! /Sarc.)

  • Lisa

    Rhinestone I agree with you. That is exactly what they’re doing; they would rather fling blame around all the while moving their agenda forward as conservatives bicker with each other!

    Bloggers like the Anchoress are a force to be reckoned with. They helped grow the Tea Movement (I know the Anchoress is not a Tea Party member), they made history in the last election by getting information out, etc… I’d like to see bloggers take charge of the narrative instead of being reactionary to what the MSM is doing. With the last election, bloggers were shaping the debate but the Left punched back twice as hard with the narrative that Palin is a murderous monster. They’re milking it for all it’s worth.

    We commenters can help play a role, we can stop bickering and move the focus back to where it belongs and for once put the Left on defense.

  • Barbara

    “The left” is not an organized body that you can score points against. Game play is going to be the ruination of us all.

  • dry valleys

    I don’t hate Palin, but she quite plainly has nothing to say to me & doesn’t care. She has an explicit policy of only communicating via her own Facebook page, Twitter, & Fox “News”, which you can set in contrast with Obama, who ventures well beyond people who like/support him.

    Any future Republican president will have to win over people who supported Obama. Rather than “bipartisanship” as is commonly understood, a government will have to be a left-wing/centrist coalition or a right-wing/centrist coalition.

    Of course if conservatives & centrists formed a winning majority I would be left out of it altogether. (Whereas I gt something, but not everything, out of the Obama government, or Clinton B, both of whom have moved towards centrism of a kind I can’t be expected to like however much it may be necessary). But it will never happen under the likes of anyone who is incapable of winning over those who are not natural supporters.

    I continue to regard Palin as unserious, basically a celebrity or a culture war icon, who may annoy the sort of person who rises to the bait but is essentially not worthy of attention. US liberals would be better off concentrating their opposition against people like Boehner, whose strategy consists of shouting abuse at the president whatever he may or may not be doing at the time.

    Did you hear Gingrich’s comments on Palin? He is right if she aspires to seriousness, but given that she seemingly doesn’t then her approach is workin’ out for her.

    ““I think that she has got to slow down and be more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it”

    [DV, how do you like the new site? You don't seem to get thrown into spam anymore! -admin]

  • Lisa

    Barbara, I beg to differ. The Left (Democrats, MSM, Hollywood, pro-abortionists, NOW, NARAL, Acorn, SEIU, Soros, CPUSA, etc, etc, etc, etc) are very well organized and very well funded. Yes, I agree, game playing will be the ruination of us all. However, as we saw last week as conservatives, the Tea Party, Palin, Beck, Rush, etc.. were maliciously accused of murder, the ambiguous Left is still playing.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    {Thanks for the kind words, Lisa!)

    And now, I’m going to say it for the humpteenth time: It doesn’t matter whether you like, or dislike Palin; it doesn’t matter whether or not you find her “serious” or lovable, or if you disagree with her.

    The agenda isn’t on the agenda, and the issue isn’t really the issue.

    I don’t support Palin, either. But Palin isn’t really the issue here.

    The issue is what the media, and some spokespersons, such as Keith Olberman, tried to do. They attempted to blame Palin for murder (a pretty serious accusation), and they accused the Tea Party movement, and Conservatives in general, of causing the murders (again—a very serious accusation).

    At its best, this sort of reasoning is foolish; at its worst, it could become a threat to freedom of speech.

    (It’s also pushing a double-standard; the Left been notoriously hostile in many of its remarks, and the images it pushes, as witness the picture the Anchoress has at the beginning of this thread, as witness its treatment of George Bush; and does anybody remember, for instance, Ward Churchill’s remarks about “Little Eichmans” after 9/11? Or the college instructor, who called for “A Million Mogadishus?”)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    (As for Gingrich, again, as with Noonan—that’s his opinion, take it or leave it, and mostly I prefer to leave it.)

  • Joseph Marshall

    “There are many on the “Right” who can be just as bad but generally we are more the types to hate the “position” or “the sin”… NOT the person.”

    The heck you are. I can run down an exhausting list of names starting with Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, and ending with Nanci Pelosi and Barack Obama, with characters like Howard Dean, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and John Murtha in between, who have been targets of a systematic campaign of personal abuse, insult, and denigration that has been going on for twenty years and more on Right-Wing talk radio and at least seven years on dozens of Right Wing Blogs.

    Maybe you haven’t all done it. But you don’t stop listening and you don’t stop linking or blogrolling. Now do you?

    Now, most of it is barely civil innuendo coded under things like “this election is about character and not issues”, but a significant segment of it is simply studied and deliberate personal insult which even something as ultimately important as death does not abate: Michelle Malkin deliberately went out of her way to write an obit to describe John Murtha as a “smear merchant”, based on no facts whatever other than he changed his mind about a war. Rush Limbaugh had the ugly effontry on his website, to describe Howard Dean’s campaign as “Queer Eye for the Short Guy”. And on this very blog [though only in the commentary, thank heavens] I have read Ted Kennedy’s perfectly orthodox Catholic Funeral described as a Pagan Rite.

    Kennedy is the perfect example of someone who DID commit serious criminal wrongdoing [and got away with it] by any normal human standards. And, from a Conservative Catholic vantage point, his expressed opinions while alive were certainly heterodox. He may not have deserved a Catholic funeral, though I would think that Catholic humility would dictate leaving that matter to the judgment of God alone. But he GOT a Catholic funeral and not a pagan rite, and to say anything else is merely gratuitous insult to the common clay we all share. It was not about his “sin”, it was not about his “position” it was not about the money and privlidge which allowed him to escape prosecution for a serious crime.

    It was about the man personally.

    Elizabeth is one of the nicest and most personally humble people before God that I know. But I have seen her come within inches of stating on two different occasions that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were not just wrong in opinion, or wrong in actions, but were personally bad men.

    She did not cross the line, but anybody who knew the code shared among Christians [both Liberal and Conservative] would have had no trouble understanding what she meant.

    And some do not scruple to do this sort of thing even to an individual’s face. Barack Obama had the objective moral courage to face hostile interviewing, and face it solo, with both Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace on Fox News. And he actually had to remind Wallace, in the interview, of the respect due to the President of the United States.

    If Sarah Palin, or indeed almost any prominent conservative office holder or spokesperson, has had the face to go one on one with, say, Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow, I have yet to hear it.

    But given the sort of remarks that conservative spokespersons habitually kite out in front of video cameras when speaking to friendly audiences, they have fairly good reason to be coy. The prospect of Rachel asking quite mildly and with a straight face [which she would] if Palin thought that Maddow herself was a “real American” should raise at least a chuckle at Palin’s expense without it being Palinoia.

  • newton

    “Just what on earth HAS Palin accomplished?”

    Hmm… Let me see…
    One-time sports newscaster…
    Businesswoman with her husband…
    President of her hometown’s PTA…
    City Councilwoman…
    Mayor (small town, but that’s no b.s. job)…
    Energy Commissioner…
    Governor…
    Defeated the crooks in her state…
    Negotiated for a gas pipeline with petrol companies…
    Faced Big Oil and made them give her state a better treatment on that land’s biggest natural resource, for the benefit of its inhabitants…
    And after her TLC miniseries (for which she earned $1-1.5 million an episode), there will probably be more people and businesses going over there…

    I don’t know about you, Joseph Marshall, but in Middle America, those are usually called “accomplishments”. I don’t know what they’re called in your world, but I’d advise not to diminish them.

  • Joseph Marshall

    Well actually, Newton, I happen to BE in Middle America, Ohio to be precise, and, even better, at the moment I happen to be in the middle of Ohio, holed up in Middle America under a Level One snow emergency. Unfortunately, Mom is dead. She passed on a decade ago. And when I was stocking up for the storm at the grocery store it slipped my mind to buy an apple pie, so I’m temporarily cut off from Motherhood and Apple Pie. But this doesn’t depreciate my valuing of them in the least, particularly when the pie is made with Macintosh apples.

    You can’t get much more Real American than that, now can you? So I don’t have to consult anybody about my credentials on that score.

    Out here in Ohio we have 88 counties. There’s usually at least one mayor [of the county seat] and often as many as five or six mayors in a county, since Ohio has more small towns per square mile than any other state I know. And they’re real small towns, too, not merely “exurban bedroom communities”. Each of these towns and counties has scores of county commisioners, county engineers, police chiefs and county sherrifs, county or city prosecutors, township and city council members, and school board members.

    As you might expect, these wonderful folks are the AAA Team for the dozens of State Representatives and State Senators who gather here in Columbus. And these fine folks are the AA team for the “revolving door” State Executive Offices. We have term limits here, and the pros always move to Attorney General after reaching the term limit for State Treasurer, or Secretary of State, after which they become Lieutenant Governor, and, maybe, even Governor, and a prospect for the Majors.

    So we have a large surplus of elected officials, none of whom are significantly qualified for at least three out of the four State Offices that they rotate through on the AA team: Attorney Generals who were County Treasurers, State Treasurers who were District Attorneys, and so on.

    Most of them are moderately successful business people in private life, or members of the Guild of Lawyers. And the smartest of them are somehow more successful at the businesses they’re not running, than they were before they took up politics. At least their tax returns would tell you so.

    Put Sarah Palin and her “accomplishments” among them and she would blend seamlessly into the background among hundreds here in Ohio–better than some but not better than most, smarter than some, but not smarter than most. She’d have to really work hard here in Ohio to make it to AA ball.

    Once upon a time, she was a hot prospect for the Big Leagues, but she was brought up too fast and the team lost the pennant, so she was sent back to farm team–to work on the velocity of her fastball, get better control of her curve ball, and to learn how and when to throw a change-up.

    But the opposition started routinely laying down hard line drives along the Left field line, bunting in RBI’s, and the clean-up hitters smacking them into the cheap seats.

    So what did she do? She quit.

    After she quit she went on to the list of accomplishments I mentioned in my post above, and, as you pointed out, coming up to the Big Finale: a reality tv show.

    Now that’s a Real American story, told to you by a Real American story teller, about a Real American.

    Warts and all.

  • http://jscafenette.com Jeanette

    I think the plain and simple truth that got all the left wing nuts crazy is that Palin willingly gave birth to a child most of them would have aborted.

    How could she be smart and do that?, they wonder. So they attacked her intelligence, her family and anything else they could find to attack her.

    Unfortunately, she obliges them by responding to their attacks instead of waiting for the right time to say something.

    I have nothing against Sarah Palin and in fact like her very much, but I will not vote in a primary for her if she decides to run for president. I live in S.C. and we are the third state to hold a caucus or primary (primary in our case) so we are important to the candidates.

    I feel her best position is as the cheerleader she was during the 2010 elections, encouraging people to go to the polls and vote.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X