Sunday, July 5, 2009

THE MEDIA DESTROYED SARAH PALIN

What about Sarah Palin arouses a particularly strong reaction? Liberals attack her children, say grotesquely sexist things about her, embrace wacky conspiracy theories about her faking a pregnancy, and insult every woman in America when they suggest she can’t be a good mother and a politician, too.

Well, there are many reasons for it, starting with her gender: Sarah Palin, had she been elected to the White House, would have been the first female vice president. Moreover, she has to be the odds-on favorite at this point to become the first woman president.
That upsets liberal feminists to no end because she is a living, breathing refutation of their style of feminism — which is intellectually bankrupt and seems to stand for nothing more than increasing the number of abortions, encouraging teenage girls to act like skanks, and pointlessly complaining about the “patriarchy.” Sarah Palin represents a totally different style of woman: the conservative feminist. She’s had a successful career, raised a big family, and has done it all without aborting an “inconvenient” child or carping about men keeping her down. The idea that Sarah Palin could become the new role model for feminism terrifies liberals, and it inspires them to ramp up the artillery barrage of malignity that they typically launch at conservative women — which is extraordinarily venomous to begin with. Whether it’s Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Carrie Prejean, there are few things on Earth that liberals hate more than strong, conservative women.
Palin’s sex has caused problems for her on the Right as well, but not the problems the Left tells you to expect — like gaggles of men who think she should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin was the best thing to happen to John McCain’s presidential campaign, the honest truth is that she was an identity politics pick. Had she been a man, someone with her limited experience would have never been selected. On the Left, this wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow, but on the Right, it created waves of resentment that hurt Palin with some Republicans.
Additionally, Palin’s background has caused issues for her. She is what most politicians pretend to be: just a regular person who climbed up through the ranks. She doesn’t come from old money or a famous family. She didn’t go to an Ivy League school. She hasn’t spent decades kibitzing at New York and D.C. cocktail parties with people who view themselves to be the elite of American society. To the contrary, Sarah Palin is a PTA mom, hunter, and Wasilla beauty queen from small town America who attended five different colleges.
With a pedigree like that it wouldn’t matter if she cured cancer and turned lead into gold; to some elitists in both parties she will never be acceptable.
The woman didn’t even go to an Ivy League school, for God sake — and has she ever been on a yacht? And don’t get them started on those dreadful beauty pageants and the hunting. Maybe if she had hunted foxes in her youth, it would be understandable, but moose? Oh, and the worst thing is that accent. A New York accent or a Boston accent, well, of course, that would be fine — but Alaskan? Imagine bringing her to a dinner party in the Hamptons. People would just titter at her every utterance until they could barely finish their Chardonnay and caviar! For snobs who think like this, Sarah Palin will never be up to code.
when liberals smear her, they’re smearing the person whom they fear they have to go toe-to-toe with in 2012. When they make rape jokes about her children, as did David Letterman, they’re trying to send her a message: “Don’t run for president or we’ll go after your children to get to you.” When they file laughable ethics charge after ethics charge against her, they’re doing it not because they think she did anything wrong, but because they’re hoping the sheer number of false charges will take some luster off a woman known for fighting corruption.
There is also another angle to this — Sarah Palin’s views are much more representative of the average conservative in flyover country than even some Republicans would like. That’s true of Republican moderates who desperately want to see the party abandon its conservative roots. Other Republicans who’ve been in Washington a little too long may grudgingly give lip service to conservative ideas, but truthfully, they believe all wisdom comes from D.C. These are people who never really liked Reagan and who view their constituents as their servants, instead of vice-versa. A prominent Republican politician like Sarah Palin, is a threat to their agenda.

11 comments:

  1. I heard this morning on the news that the difference between the Republican party and the Democrat party is that the Republicans are looking for the next Ronald Reagan and the Democrats are led by their ideals. Sarah Palin is a conservative Republican who is led by her ideals and values. The rest of the party needs to get on that track and quit bickering amongst themselves. The republicans who dont agree with traditional Republican values and ideals need to jump ship. I believe this is a huge reason why so many 'usual' Republicans voted for Obama. They aren't exactly sure where the Republicans stand. There really isnt such thing as a conservative or even moderate Democrat, but unfortunately we hear too much about moderate and liberal Republicans. Sorry to stray from the topic, but heres what I'm getting at: Palin is someone who stands for what she believes in. She is far from perfect, as we all are, and she isnt the most polished in an interview. But if you look at her record and history of steering her state in the 'right' direction, you will see an example of what the rest of the party should be doing. Get back to the basic principles that the party was founded on. Its gotten to the point that many 'usual' republicans (like myself) wont associate with the GOP and call themselves just plain conservatives or independents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the "Reaganator." I no longer consider myself a Republican and will not call myself one. They are only a step behind the liberals and during the Bush years stood for big government and big spending too. Palin is a threat to these people and I am glad she quit as governor of Alaska, who needs to put up with this crap from these petty politicians and "Drive-by-Media types. She is not like them and now she will be free to go about the country to educate and inspire true conservatism. That is what Reagan did. Some day when the time is right she will be back. After Obama and his socialism brings our country enough pain, then real change will occur from someone like Pain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here are three, relatively fair assessments of Palin, I would highly encourage you to read. Starting with the most sympathetic:

    This one succeeds in showing what happened through Palin's eyes. Don't let the NYT name throw you, the further you go the more you'll empathize:
    nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/politics/13palin.html?hp

    This next article, in the fiscally conservative Economist, does a good job at analyzing why Palin is so loved/hated, it will help you empathize with the opposite view of whatever you subscribe:
    www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13993080&CFID=67193990&CFTOKEN=61926415

    Finally, a less sympathetic view in an opinion peice in the NYTimes, yes a little critical but I find the demographic opinion extremely interesting:
    www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12rich.html?em

    Anyway, all of these are really meant to just provide some empathy no matter your viewpoint. I guess I should reveal my stance: the demography opinions get it right on - as an educated, young, urban individual I am not too partial to the former VP candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yea, maybe Palin is more style or symbolism over substance. A cult figure to conservatives. But, tell me how this differs from Obama? Until the friendly MSM turned this inexperienced, unaccomplished and fairly wishy washy senator into a rock star, he is just as "empty" as you think Palin is. Some times educated urban types like you get suckered into media hype also.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School with high honors where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He authored two books that won literary acclaim before he was in the national spotlight for politics. The list goes on, including several prestigious private sector jobs, legislative seats, etc. but the most telling part is how he ran his campaign. It wasn't the media that helped him beat Hillary in the primaries then McCain in the general election, they all wrote him off early, it was his extremely effective campaign style and management which not only managed to raise record shattering amounts of money from everyone from poor minorities to most hedge fund managers but also avoided populist pledges like the economically retarded gas tax holiday that both McCain and Hillary supported. (please don't retort that all of this was the work of his genius counselors, delegating and choosing wise counselors is one of the top responsibilities of someone at the top)

    Palin's resume is different, although not necessarily worse. She definitely did accomplish noteworthy goals as Governor, which have unfortunately been derailed by the national spotlight. Nonetheless, I not only see her history as significantly less impressive, but it is really her current narrow world view, lack of international experience, and seeming hostility towards change which come as worrisome to someone potentially in charge of a dynamic country which literally carries the weight of the world's economic and political stability on its shoulders (which it has recently rocked a bit).

    Great Governor of Alaska, potentially devastating President of the most powerful country the world has ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are the only person who seems impressed by Obama's past credentials. I was surprised at the lack his record by the MSM during the campaign. Seemed to me that they were trying to hide his past and cover up his lack of legislative accomplishments or past notible achievements. Graduating from Harvard, running a successful campaign and writing 2 books about yourself does not indicate that this guy is the brilliant messianic figure he has been built up to be by the bias media. By the way, I am not that impressed with Palin, she has potential, but needs more phiolosphical depth & experience. I suspect she is finished, she will be continually destroyed by the media, while they give guys like Biden a pass.

    If you want to see what a devastating presidencey will do to America, you are witnessing it before your very eyes. Massive government, out of control spending, unprecedented printing & borrowing money and more costly govt programs as the remedy for the recession will result in large scale economic decline, stagflation, possible hyper-inflation, massive unemployment, higher interest rates, a much lower standard of living and possible urban unrest. You may see all this by 2012. Spending your way to prosperity will not work. Pouring massive debt on an already bankrupt nation is a proven disaster historically. It does not work.

    The Nanny State, socialism, fascism, central planned economy, New Deal (whatever label you put on it) will not work. Unfortuately change has come and I think that many Americans like the idea of the nanny state. It is a proven failure, but I guess we will have to learn by experience. It will not be pleasant, but we can be comforted by the fact that we will all share in the hardship and lack equally.

    This is my primary oposition to Obama, Bush or any politician who is an advocate of big government. These people are more influenced by Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. American was never envisioned to become a huge Nanny State by our founders. That is where we are heading and many call it progress. I call it a loss of freedom and a return to tyranny.of personal history and touting of

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow, quite the rambling tirade. Cmoore are you Palin in disguise? Well, actually you did manage to fit in socialism, fascism, the new deal, and Karl Marx maybe you're a best selling FOX anchor? I'll leave you to read up on how great of friends Marxist and Fascists were historically and philisophically but what I did just spend 4 years studying is economics.

    You mention (in less academic terms, sorry this won't let me copy and paste) expansionary fiscal and monetary policy as certainly leading to a deepening of the current economic crisis. I wonder what you base this on since the consensus among economists is definitively that the opposite, contractionary policy based on an irrational fear of inflation, caused the second mini recession of the 30's.

    However, I'd love to see any articles you have by anyone with reasonable credentials (ie not some populist politician trying to win reelection or a media personality who didn't even graduate from college) who has evidence of the opposite.

    Please don't just take that tried-and-failed Hillary approach - "I don't throw my lot in with economists". If you do maybe you should actually consider socialism, the most populist theory and biggest antithesis to economics out there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My, you are a smart boy and certainly impressed with yourself. I'm impressed too. Fresh out of college and you have learned that bankrupt people can spend their way to economic prosperity. Try it yourself and see how fast you need a bailout. Paul Krugman would approve I am sure.

    No, I am not as encouraged by the great economic minds that didn't see this coming as you are. Instead of citing academic articles that seem to impress smart guys like you, let's just patiently watch what happens outside the theoretical. You and I will not be able to deny reality as it unfolds and unravels your ideological economics.

    Why debate it? Let's just watch it in real time. You guys have the power and the day. Let's see what's left in a few years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fox is number one because it's not a news source it is an entertainment source. People would rather see news personalities getting emotional about something rather than just telling them the semi-boring news, they would rather watch Glen Beck cry or throw some Thomas Payne impersonator on there (the first and only episode I will ever watch) rather than just see the news clips of the day and decide for themselves, they would rather have their coverage of the president's speech interrupted by some hilarious bear escapade than wait to watch it on Youtube later (that was quite the move, Fox). Most news is boring to most Americans, Fox helps make every little issue seem life or death. It feeds your emotions not yout intellect. So I guess in a way it does get people's attention, but it also radicalizes them and distorts reality. Almost like the propoganda machines of the fascists (against the Jews and communists) or Socialists (against the bourgeoisie), Fox is against the "liberals" - you don't see any hosts on CNN complaining about conservatives or Fox despite the fact that it's the biggest and always complains about the "MSM", but I'll leave the name calling to you guys.

    Anyway, not sure where some of that disjunct monologue came from (my mom and Adam Smith are mentioned in the same breath), but I have noticed that many conservatives do that when arguing. My assumption is they've either watched too much Beck/Palin or they can't address the issues at hand directly so they try a two pronged strategy of circumlocution and just throwing stuff out there, hoping the other person won't want to take the time to rebut all the disparate points (although to tell you the truth I'm not really sure how I would respond to our mom's economic policy bit.

    Well, you win. I've done this before. Whether I address one or all of those points, you will come back with 3 for each, like a chimera, and this will continue until we are both so far from the original argument that we don't know where we started from (this was originally about why people like Palin!) but by the end we ill be all the more convinced of how right we are.

    Changing world views (liberal to conservative or vice versa) is extremely rare because of all the cognitive dissonance it causes on an intellectual and social level. I went through it once and it was painful. While I belive that it made me significantly more open minded I still find myself feeling the same revulsive disdain for narrow minded conservatives as I used to for free thinking liberals.

    Let's be honest here, no one is going to change anyone's mind but in the mean time we've spanned from Palin to Marxism to Fox to our mom's to Adam Smith... where would it take us next?

    Actually, on final point that I will make to connect a few of these topics (primarily Palin and Fox although the whole -ism name calling could also fit in there) is that if you did read those articles about Palin's popularity coming from a large group of people left behind economically and needing an emotional leader to channel their frustration, you could almost change Sarah Palin to Fox News Channel and you'd have a great article.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As you say Greg and I agree with you. Why debate, no one is going to change. I think the facts will be apparent as these theories are tested and tried in a real world economy and not in the minds of economic academics. Let us wait and see where the classroom academics and their theories lead us. As I said, the left is calling the shots so let's see how the people respond to it and what it does to our economy.

    I am not sure where the present economic policies as practiced by the Obama administration has historically ever worked and lead a nation to economic recovery or prosperity. We will see if it works this time under our inspiring new leader

    ReplyDelete
  11. agreed!!! just one more thing.....Glenn Beck's "Common Sense"...is the #1 seller!!!!!

    ReplyDelete