There is a nice piece by Don Surber (H/T, Instapundit) seeking to explain the hatred that is felt among some folk for Sarah Palin. He obviously focuses on the attitudes of Americans, but I’d wager that some of that applies also to non-Americans who hate or despise her in much the same way that such people also got riled by Ronald Reagan’s folksy speaking manner and ignored the wisdom and intelligence of that man. It is a good piece.
It got me thinking about why certain politicians, even if they espouse views which are not necessarily all that outrageous or objectionable, provoke feelings of such hatred in some quarters. In the UK, for example, the last person I think who was really hated in the Palinesque sort of way was our own Margaret Thatcher. There are certain things in common – although not ones I would stretch too far – such as that they came from unfashionable parts of their countries (Lincolnshire/Alaska); made a point about religion in their lives (they are obviously nutters then); happy marriages (which provokes a strange kind of resentment among some folk); a certain middle-brow, cultivated lack of pretension; the pitch and tone of their voices (Maggie sounded very arch early on), and so on.
Add in the fact that they are women in a male-dominated arena of politics, and the reason for hatred grows. And I also think that for a lot of so-called feminists, a woman who espouses “family values”, supports capitalism, etc, is seen as letting the side down. This rather ignores what we Samizdata writers would say, that free markets, when freed of state interference, are usually very good news for women, since bigotry against women, like any other group, is a cost.
There is also something quite useful about Sarah Palin in this regard. Although I do not agree with all her views, at least as far as I know what they are, I usually find that the sort of people who say they hate or despise her are nobs of the first rank. So it is a sort of useful marker: if I find myself talking to someone and her name comes up and the reaction is as described, I can usually pigeonhole that person as someone to be avoided.
And Palin has great legs. The sources of hate must run very deep indeed.
Well, manner matters. Humans are incredibly sensitive to the manner of others; it’s a primary strategy for enabling the necessary rapid decision making we need to do regarding how to interact with other human beings, about whom we generally have very little factual information. Impressions count.
I have to admit that personally I find Palin’s manner utterly off-putting and, as in general with that “there’s something wrong about that guy” feeling, I can’t really put my finger on what it is specifically. But there’s something in it to me that is, I dunno, patronising, and also very harsh. She is not somebody in everyday life I’d be inclined to trust as a decision maker. Purely on instinctual reaction.
In terms of rational assessment on the other hand, so far as I can tell she’s also a bit thick.
Ian B has put his finger on it: she is not an intellectual and doesn’t aspire to be one. The left need leaders to be intellectually superior or socialist central planning fails. (Just look at the desperate attempts to make Clinton’s, Gore’s, and Obama’s educational record appear greater than they were.)
The left also believe to be a capitalist you have to be selfish and uncaring thus those that propose it are evil and deserve hatred.
I hate to agree with you on this Ian, but I have to (not the thick part though, only the manner and the intuition part). That said, Jonathan has a point regarding why she is so disliked by lefties – it is exactly as he put it. For the record, I was not getting the same negative vibe neither from Reagan, nor from Thatcher, but I did from Bush. Come to think of it, I could probably count on one hand all the politicians I’ve ever observed, anywhere, who didn’t give me such a negative vibe.
Kit, I don’t see that this was Ian’s point – being thick and not being an intellectual are two entirely different things. Furthermore, intellectuality does not necessarily have anything to do with formal education.
Oh, and she does have nice legs:-)
Second what Ian B said. And additionally, I think there’s a certain amount of resentment that we were asked to treat her seriously as a VP candidate when her ignorance of world affairs is so obvious. She was plainly underqualified for the job.
It can be fairly objected that it isn’t her fault she got an opportunity she didn’t deserve, that my annoyance should rather be directed at McCain and the RNC. And so it was and would have stayed if Palin had made any effort to study up – like, say, Obama (an equally underqualified candidate) did. But instead she turns to reality TV and to making speeches chock-full of cheap shots without an ounce of policy for garnish, and yet still seems to want to be taken seriously as a political actor. No thanks.
Look, if John Edwards was worthy of ridicule for his “Two Americas” schtick, then Sarah Palin deserves it too – since she’s sounding the same theme, albeit from a cultural rather than economic angle. Populists are irritating and frightening, and especially so when they’re (a) stupid and (b) have a dedicated following. Sarah Palin meets this description, therefore I hate her.
Perhaps they revile her publicly (and thus fear her) so much, because, being ordinary and normal and not innately (they would say “institutionally”) evil, they know that she sees through them: they are transparent to her, because she believes what she is saying, and they do not.
Well, I think that the knowledge of world affairs as a qualification for a VP (or POTUS, for that matter) is grossly overrated. Obama studied up? Maybe he did, but it certainly doesn’t show. America’s most acute problems are internal, not external, and Palin’s talk on internal policy is the right one (whether it is just talk or not is another matter, as it is with any politician).
Ian B’s distaste actually says nothing meaningful about Palin but rather a lot about the culture and sensibilities *he* comes from.
I had the same unease about Reagan and could not listen to him speaking without literally grimacing… but that is because I come from the same side of the Atlantic as Ian B does.
Speaking of coming from different sides of the Atlantic, I was a bit surprised to read Johnathan Pearce’s description of Margaret Thatcher as having a “a certain middle-brow, cultivated lack of pretension.” Is this right? Her dialect always sounded put on to me – but then I am not English and wouldn’t really know.
The only thing that strikes me as interesting about Palin are the emphatic reactions she elicits, overwhelmingly from the left, and often from people who seem unsure why it is she makes them so angry. The blogger NeoNeoCon described Palin as a kind of “plaque discloser,” one whose mere public existence spurs a great many leftists to intense – and revealing – hatred. Not least from feminists – everything from overt class snobbery to comedy routines involving gang rape.
As Palin rose to prominence, the veneer of sisterly solidarity blew apart to reveal something much more interesting. I lost count of how many feminists bitched about Palin’s hair or called her “a whore,” or mocked her disabled child with jokes about abortion. Others denounced her as an “inauthentic” woman, or not a woman at all. The feminist academic Wendy Doniger wrote: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretence that she is a woman” and the phrase “she isn’t even female really” became a favoured feminist blog meme. Writing in Salon, Cintra Wilson said of Palin, “she ain’t no woman,” before describing her sneeringly as “fuckable” and “a hardcore pornographic centrefold.” It was bizarre. These women were suddenly happy to narrow the parameters of womanhood only to those who complied entirely with their own preferences and conceits, while using language that elsewhere they themselves had denounced as misogynistic.
I can’t say I’d be thrilled to see Palin as a presidential candidate, but as a lightning conductor for leftist bigotry she’s been invaluable.
IanB gets it wrong, I think; there is no clear evidence that Palin is “a bit thick”, as he puts it; sure, she may be ignorant of certain foreign lands and so on, but then other, supposedly more intelligent people, make gaffes all the time and are given a free pass. I mean, Joe Biden is VP, and he is hardly Aristotle.
She is not obviously “presidential”, and I am not sure she’d even be very good at the job. But the point I am making is that much of the sneering directed at this “hunting, shootin’ Western gal” is pretty much the same sort of crap that Reagan had to put up with on account of making all those B movies and for not going to Haaaaarvaaaaard Unversity or for his appalling support for tax cuts, hatred of Communism, etc.
What Perry said.
Joshua, the point about Maggie was that she was very “middle class” in trying to improve herself, but she also seemed to enjoy ordinary things and did not make a big deal about having hi-falutin literary tastes, etc.
She took elocution lessons at a time when it was considered proper for anyone in public life, in the Tory party anyway, to speak the “King’s English”, as they say. She toned it down a bit later.
Maggie was also hated by the old Etonian “grandees” of the Tory party, and patronised by the likes of the ghastly Peregrine Worsthorne. The ultimate accolade, in my book.
Re the visceral dislike of Thatcher…
“When asked why intellectuals loathed her so, the theatre producer Jonathan Miller replied that it was ‘self-evident’ – they were nauseated by her ‘odious suburban gentility.’ The philosopher Mary Warnock deplored Thatcher’s ‘neat, well-groomed clothes and hair, packaged together in a way that’s not exactly vulgar, just low,’ embodying ‘the worst of the lower-middle class.’ This filled Warnock with ‘a kind of rage’.”
From Claire Berlinski’s book, “There Is No Alternative”: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.
Sarah Palin makes me think of that quip about politics being showbusiness for ugly people, because she is such an exception. And there you surely have at least part of the explanation of her high profile. Simply, she looks nice.
And there also is much of the reason the left spend so much time hating her. Everyone knows who Palin is. If you attack her, your attack gets more attention than if you attack a regular ugly politician, of the sort only known about by other political obsessives.
I don’t say that’s all of it. Clearly Palin is more than just a pretty face. But it is, I think, a pretty obvious part of it.
I agree also with those who are putting Obama in the same pretty-face-or-better-than-that?? category.
By the way, Palin hatred definitely crossed the sea to the UK, pretty much as soon as she was nominated, and it persists. Last night, a new Channel 4 news/comedy/chat show (“Ten O’Clock Live”) spent several minutes trashing her, or trying to. The nobs of the first rank that were the entire studio audience loved it, of course.
There is a rational basis for opposing Sarah Palin. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere, for example, although she had enough sense to lie about that support afterwards. This is different from all the bilge that Andrew Sullivan writes about her, or the nonsense that Krugmann and many others pushed after Arizona.
unemployment, deficits, attacks on free speech,
Oh Look a Sarah Palin shaped squirrel !!
I think IanB is correct to the extent he talks about his visceral reaction to Palin: it’s a purely emotional response, not an intellectual one, and it is shared by a lot of people. One can’t say it’s either right or wrong; it’s simply a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that. She just rubs him the wrong way, and I can respect that. I feel that way myself about some people (although not Palin).
But she is not “thick”. She may be uninformed (or insufficiently knowledgable) about certain matters, but she is a reasonably intelligent woman, at least the equal of most politicians (superior to Al Gore or John Kerry) and certainly intelligent enough for high political office, even the Presidency. I think it’s Palin’s accent and speaking style which leads people to underestimate her intelligence. We see the same thing with a southern US accent, especially a very thick drawl, and indeed with any “foreign” accent. Many people reflexively (perhaps subconsciously) assume that the speaker is a bit slow-witted when that is often far from the truth. Most of us aren’t accustomed to Alaskan speech patterns, so we denigrate them. But if you examine the substance of her positions, especially on domestic matters, you’ll find they’re fairly mainstream conservative views, cogently expressed.
That said, I don’t think that she can win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 or, if she did, the general election. She carries too much “baggage” (c.f. Ian B’s opinion of her). I think her role is to serve as a lightning rod for the opposition while preparing the road for other, more electable, conservative candidates. Much the way Goldwater paved the way for Reagan (yes, I know Goldwater did win the nomination but that was a fluke). A useful role, to be sure, if not the one she would prefer.
Brian:
Thank you for watching that shit, so that I don’t have to. The very thought of David Mitchell, Jimmy Carr and Charlie Brooker engaging in a leftist circle jerk does not thrill me, even if Lauren Laverne is in the middle.
Ugh.
Don’t know if my comments were smitten or ‘eeted by the innernetz’, but Laird pretty much covers the ground I did.
One thing he didn’t mention but I will – yeah, great pair of gams. The whole package really isn’t at all bad.
I’ll be in my bunk.
Okay so I’m a female academic with a family which gets top priority and always has had while I pursued my career. I have super fashionable degrees, I come from the sophisticated centre of my country, I have publication and consultant to ministries of education and corporations on my CV and I adore Sarah Palin. What’s more I belong to a group of colleagues who share my professional profile and we all like her because we’ve lived her kind of life. My quintessential example of the kind of lives we’ve led concerns one of my colleagues who sliced her hand at breakfast and didn’t get around to making it to the emergency unit of a hospital until late afternoon where they were shocked to lean that she had ferried children around and taught a class or two in the intervening time. It’s that kind of sucvcessful juggling that drives the disorganized ditsy female critics crazy. Oh yes and the fact that she’s not a baggy-eyed frump like Hilary C or a botoxed to the yin-yang – like long pasty her sell by date Nancy Pelosi.
There is also the factor of associations; that is who and what kinds are drawn to associate with her; and, who and what kinds does she reach out to associate with.
A political comparison might be made with Uncle Cornpone (LBJ), who built around himself a certain configuration of associates, which he used to great politcal effect.
In Reagan’s case, a certain configuration attached themselves to his persona and appeal – not always with the desired political effects.
We should not digress into the Obama associations.
So far, it does not appear that Mrs. Palin is attempting to attract, much less build, any such configuration; but, it is apparent that a broad set of diverse associations have coalesced around her persona.
She does not yet appear to be claiming to speak for those associations; but she seems to be articulating, in their terminologies, reactions (including ridicule of “intellectualism”) and concerns on past and current matters.
It is perhaps as much the disdain (and resentment?) of the established chattering classes for and to this eruption of the hoi poloi, for which Mrs Palin may be the unintended torch-bearer that makes her an anethma.
I’m not quite clear on how Palin’s being ‘a bit thick’ (if she is) is a source of rage in people who shrug off, say, the collective mental incapacity of California’s Legislature. Thickness by itself isn’t a sin in American politics.
I suspect the simple answer is that she’s non-U, attractive, conservative and successful, and so a threat to the Establishment, which reacts in the time-tested primate manner by flinging whatever poo comes readily to hand.
I wonder what planet some of the commenters about Sarah Palin’s accent and speech live on. Are they not aware that the majority of supposed English speakers in the UK speak unintelligle mush? Listen to the majority of your own compatriots before slinging arrows at other anglosphere types.
What Millie said. I’d add that I actually like a lot of American accents, with the exception of some of the harsher NY accents.
To be fair, though, I suspect most of the Palinphobia in the UK comes from the usual chattering class, not folk in Yorkshire, Glasgow or other places outside of the capital.
A friend of mine speaks with a soft, southern accent that I could listen to all day. She is also v. easy on the eye. Beats any Brit accent by miles, apart possibly from a soft Geordie, which I rather like.
(But then I am funny like that).
RRS’ comments are also very astute. Agree 100%
Reactions to Palin like those mentioned above call to mind the Miss California / gay marriage saga of May 2009, during which many feminists saw fit to entirely abandon their own professed standards of probity. Whatever one’s view of gay marriage or the thinking skills of Carrie Prejean, the reactions to her from the left were similarly revealing. The heated exchange between Laura Ingraham and the feminist Gloria Feldt captured some of the flavour of what was happening. As Feldt put it – and then personally demonstrated – Prejean had become “fair game” for sexist epithets, even from people who would otherwise take umbrage at exactly that behaviour:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518850,00.html
Note how Feldt’s claim that “feminism is about equality and justice” is immediately preceded by a lie (regarding the host) and immediately followed by a sneery boob joke of exactly the kind that Feldt would otherwise find objectionable.
Again, a lightning rod.
Missing from this discussion of Palinoia is the fact that Sarah does two things that leftys and clean toga rebublicans can’t manage nearly as well. Namely bring in the money and get out the vote.
Whether she stands for office again or stays on the sidelines, these two talents will mean she will remain a potent force in Federal politics over many more election cycles. Unless, of course, she can be shut up.
Well, I think one way to look at the apparently “non PC” reactions of leftists to Palin and Ms. Prejean is to understand the role of women in moralist anglosphere society. As I’ve said endlessly, both the Left and the Right in the Anglosphere are derived from the Christian revival at the start of the Victorian Era. This revival was a strongly female phenomenon (there’s a good discussion of this in Callum Brown’s The Death of Christian Britain). Women played a central role as carriers and enforcement of the new evangelism.
Women thus gained a role as “the angel in the home” and the conscience of society; a role which broadly they still carry out (they have been primary carriers of the Green faith, the replacement for Christian moralism, for instance.) This means that members of the two moralist movements- Leftism and Conservatism- expect women to pursue their moral goals, and failure to do so is a failure of their femininity. Thus to a feminist, a woman who fails to advocate their moral system is literally “not being a woman”.
Hence, to leftist moralists, Thatcher was not a woman. Palin is not a woman. Etc. They are seen as instead carrying out the “male” role of being immoral. In that sense, they are treated as kind of moral transexuals.
Regarding the accent – I think it’s unlikely that that’s the source of it. It’s certainly odd to me, but that’s only because I don’t know anyone from Alaska.
To me, it sounds like Minnesota or Canada. There are definitely features of what linguists call “Canadian Raising.” No doubt a Canadian can easily tell she’s no canuck, I’ve only been to Canada twice, and that’s what she sounds like. I am unaware of any social stigmas attached to these (Minnesota and associated “Canadian Raising” groups in Canada) accents, so I don’t think – to answer one of Laird’s suggestions – that the accent’s a factor. That is, some people may find it grating, or strange, but I doubt they associate it with a lack of intelligence. That impression comes from elsewhere.
I agree Joshua – her accent isn’t anything like the Southern one, which is normally the kind that gives problems to its speakers. I think that the lack-of-intelligence impression comes from Palin truly being under-informed on world affairs (not a real problem, as I mentioned above). The visceral dislike though I think is pretty much nailed by Perry, and probably applies to myself as well, at least partly.
I just can’t see any connection between Thatcher and Palin, Thatcher was a visionary and intellectual, a true liberal
She was reading Hayek and Popper when even the right were rampant Keynesians and state socialists. The author tries to make an issue of Thatcher’s religiosity, but hers seems to definitely be of a post-enlightenment modern/moderate type, she voted for the legalization of abortion and homosexual relations.
Palin is an opportunist who clearly has no strong ideological visions beyond the bigotry of colonialist christianity. Her record in Alaska clearly reveals she’s not economically liberal in the slightest, she wasted money as wildly the most proliferate Democrat. Her recent concerns about government spending are clearly just disingenuous attempts to cash in on American’s very real concerns about America’s future.
The only American female politician that I can see that has Thatcher’s ability would be Conoleeza Rice. She turned around Stanford Universities finances from a deficit of $20 Million to a surplus of $14 million in two years. That’s exactly the kind of person America needs right now, not a very dim bigot.
I’ll agree with David T’s description of her as a very useful lightning rod. I have doubts about her ability to be a good president, but she does a great public service by drawing out the true–and exceedingly nasty, bigoted and emotionally stunted–colors of many on the left who are drawn to her like moths to a flame. And I am personally very grateful to her for simplifying my life–by flushing out the identities of many public figures and personal acquaintances who I no longer have to take seriously. Life is short and I appreciate the extra time I will gain by ignoring said people in the future.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” If nothing else, Palin’s enemies are often frothing at the mouth. Frankly, I’d feel more comfortable among her friends.
I not what you would call a Palin fan – especially after her “hunt down Assange” rant of late.
Politicians as a whole are a group I have no love for. The very principle of seeking to govern your fellow man does not sit right with me. That said, Palin likes gun ownership and is rather easy on the eye (at least as far as I’m concerned).
On balance, I probably like her more than any other politician. That doesn’t mean I like her, mind 😉
Lefties hate it when one of the little people they claim to champion gets up and does something for herself instead of relying on their wisdom, expertise, O levels and degrees.
I think I know the source of this peculiar hatred and it is not Palin’s ignorance – the Left’s ‘beloved’ Alan Johnson, currently in the headlines, became the Shadow Chancellor having never read an economics book in his life – a fact which he admitted publicly.
The real source of this anger is FEAR – the parasite’s greatest fear – the fear that they will be abandoned by those who constitute their sole reality.
It is impossible to convey the kind of dread that collectivists experience when confronted by this ‘threat’ – educated, politically enlightened individuals seldom experience it – but for the collectivist this metaphysical dread is their constant companion their constant reproach.
‘It is not any crime you have ever committed that infects your soul with permanent guilt, it is none of your failures, errors or flaws, but the blank-out by which you attempt to evade them—it is not any sort of Original Sin or unknown prenatal deficiency, but the knowledge and fact of your basic default, of suspending your mind, of refusing to think. Fear and guilt are your chronic emotions, they are real and you do deserve them, but they don’t come from the superficial reasons you invent to disguise their cause, not from your “selfishness,” weakness or ignorance, but from a real and basic threat to your existence: fear, because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, guilt, because you know you have done it volitionally.’ -Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged.
For those- ah, you know who you are, from, The Daily Beast:
John W brings up a very interesting comparison: Sarah Palin versus Alan Johnson.
Like Palin, Johnson rose from humble origins. Like Palin, he misspoke frequently and made a lot of gaffes. By any objective standard he made far more than she did.
But the Tories and the press gave him an easy ride. George Osbourne ate his lunch in the House of Commons but the festering class hatred that you’d expect when a former postman faces the heir to the Osborne baronetcy just didn’t seem to happen. No one hates him.
Perhaps that’s because he’s actually working class male, rather than lower middle female. Socialists hate lower middle, as the Warnock quote David Thompson cited illustrates, and the less said about the feelings of feminists towards a disobedient sister the better for my sanity it will be.
(Some amazingly nasty quotes you have unearthed there, Mr Thompson. On second thoughts, unamazingly nasty.)
For myself, I hope I’d want to defend anyone who was made the scapegoat for a horrendous crime he or she had nothing to do with. But I have to say I feel a need to defend Palin that goes beyond that. In so far as I can honestly examine myself, I feel both a slight trace in myself of the class and intellectual versus nonintellectual antipathy that others have mentioned and a huge amount of admiration. She’s clear water to their poison.
Regarding the accent […]To me, it sounds like Minnesota or Canada
It’s Minnesota – or Upper Midwest (eastern Dakotas, western Wisconsin, northern Iowa) to more precise. Wasilla or the area or something was settled by Upper Midwesterners in the 30s (I think).
I find it interesting that many people seem to be displaying a need to defend her; that is, you’re either on one side or the other. It seems to me that at least some people here see her as on “our side”.
I see her as just a politician. I don’t find her personality very appealing, as I said, and from what I’ve seen of her she doesn’t seem very bright either. Which is true of many politicians. Sticking with America, Al Gore (the anti-Palin(?)) is somebody I would class as dim-witted. In contrast, I hate everything Hillary Clinton believes in, but I think she is intelligent. Just my opinon anyway, doesn’t mean much of course.
But it does bother me (an ongoing thing) that many people who are libertarians, or consider themselves such, see the conservative right as on “our side” or “more on our side” or something, hence the defensiveness re Palin. I don’t personally take the view that because there are some libertarian sounding noises coming from the American right at the moment that that makes them allies or that we are part of a common movement. I’d like to see Christianity disappear in England, and so would Osama Bin Laden, but that doesn’t make us part of a common movement, because our motivations and objectives are entirely different.
I see in American Conservatives at the moment, nothing but a ferocious outrage at losing the election, the same kind of fury that led to the absurd hunting of President Clinton. They are yelling about low taxes and restrained government purely because their enemy is in power. I see little of virtue in this from a libertarian perspective. Libertarianism has a distinct and clear intellectual heritage, which has little in common with the other half of the Statist movement flinging the toys out of their collective prams.
So anyway, it seems to me that banging the drum for Sarah Palin just sends out a message that libertarians are just what the “liberals” claim we are; ultra-conservatives, the maoists of the Right. Maybe they are right; in which case, I’m not a libertarian. But I prefer to believe there is something called Libertarianism which is not merely hardline conservatism. And that Sarah Palin is a bit thick.
I think a lot of the visceral reaction comes from two things. First, she doesn’t carry the obvious signals that say, “I’m lettered, I defer to the judgement of experts” etc. That would be enough to engender the ridicule that they throw at her. The hatred comes from the fact that she doesn’t even attempt to mimick these signals. She absolutely rejects them, sometimes mocks them (the infamous wink). That’s an unforgivable insult to someone who has based their life around learning and abiding these signals.
That is what they mean when they call her anti-intellectual. Intellectual no longer has anything to do with the rationality or education of a person. It has everything to do with fitting in with the class that calls itself as Intellectual. It is about as descriptive as calling an authoritarian socialist “liberal”, but it is what we are stuck with.
Natalie @ 09:43 PM – could it be that you have learned the technique, for within yourself and observing others, that, when such a strongly and disproportionate visceral/emotional reaction occurs, you pause and then analyse to try to find the source of the emotional reaction, comparing it against fact-based things, rather than just feelings ?
For some people, such a technique threatens their very identity – without the group shared feelings, there is nothing left … for others of us, we like to know that we have made our *own* decisions to be part of a group, and that we can explain the decision objectively based upon facts and reality, rather than just based upon what we feel …
For me, Pierre Trudeau, Harold Wilson, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama – they all share that same something which shines out as ‘fake’, ‘do not trust this person’ – and their actions supported and corroborated those impressions … with Attila the Hen, Ronald Reagan, even Jesse Helms, my perception was that one knew where one stood with any of them whether or not one agreed with them …
Palin has that same in-the-moment, authentic integrity-within-herself as did the Iron Maiden … even if I don’t agree with everything she says, I find that her actions match her words – and that is a rare and desirable quality in a politician …
The next time you hear someone call Palin stupid or thick, you are most likely hearing that person call themselves part of that flock of uncritical sheeple who do not question what they read in the Daily Mail or watch/hear on MSNBC or Fox or the BBC … me, when I hear something on any of those media, I still will seek corroboration or contradiction from at least one other source …
Watching the full extent of someone’s speech on C-SPAN can contrast amazingly and instructively with the sound-bites one sees in the media …
When McCain announced her as running mate I immediately did date-filtered news article searches on her name to see what the press was writing about her before she was in consideration for that role. It was all coverage that put her in very good light, even when controversial culture-war subjects were involved.
I did this because of friends telling me that they liked McCain when he was running in the primary against Bush, and wished that he hadn’t changed his views and policies so much to run this time. My thesis was that it was media-driven perception that changed, not the views or policies of McCain. I thought it would be interesting to see if the press changed its tune on Palin once she was on the presidential ticket.
It did.
I try to avoid Palin, but when one of her opinions comes to my attention because the blogosphere or press deems it controversial, I think to myself, “That’s funny, I just read exactly the same thing as a quotation from a respected academic/politician/think-tanker in a news article in the Wall Street Journal”
One week it will be about food price inflation, the next about some other issue. So lately whenever I read “how could anyone intelligent think that” about something she says, I think “Well (X) said exactly the same think a week ago, wouldn’t you say that (s)he was an expert in the subject?”
I have to say that I find it quite weird that she reads all the same stuff that I do.
A point that hasn’t been addressed here perhaps because it’s not as apparent in the UK is the absolutely bloodcurdling misogyny directed towards Palin by the likes of Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow and Maher by the left leaning MSM. I find it scandalous and am surprised that it has not become a hate speech talking point.
John W articulates the nature of the TSUNAMI OF HATE towards Palin best; It is a PARASITE’s fear and generated by that fear hatred of the HUMAN OF SMART AND HONEST WORK.
This is the hate that the pickpoket explodes into when you manages to grab his hand.
That is a hate that the robber feels towards the owner of the house when he is defending himself.
This a hate and rage the rapist being overwhelmed with towards his victim for her attempt to resist.
The LEFTIST PARASITES believe that once they achieved a majority in Parliament, they become the eternal owners of the country and by extension of the result of our own work.
Sarah Palin is leading the charge to regain the rightful ownership of our own pocket and she is doing that with a breathtaking efficency.
The DEGENERATES know very well that once she acends the office of the President, their claim to our pocked shall be dismissed forever.
Appart from that, all those more or less derogatory and condescending jabs at Palin made on this particular post are the result of a wilful IGNORANCE than any real knowledge about Palin achievements and abilities to govern America.
All those comentators forget that she is an enormously hard working woman and her succes as an Alascan Governor has nothing to do with her good looks or her legs but with her hard work and dedication coupled with her unique political instincs.
The notion that all those cowards making the “elite” of the Republican Party who keep silent while Obama’s communo-fascist propaganda machine is attemting to destroy Palin are even remotely quallified both morally and professionally as Palin is, are living in ignorance induced intellectual stupor.
Millie @ 10:55 PM … you seem to have missed the memo …
If she’s a conservative female, it is not possible to wrong her … it’s like the theological Islamic attitude to the kufr, the dhimmi, and the True Believer …
If you kill a True Believer, you must pay full price … if you kill a dhimmi, you must pay half-price … if you kill a kufr, no harm, no foul, add an additional virgin to your balance in heaven …
Like the current US DOJ, where the lawyers have been instructed that white intimidation of black voters is to be pursued, whereas they are not to waste their time on black intimidation of white voters … the folk who went to work for the DOJ to fight against *any* intimidation of voters are horrified, but stuck with it as long as Teh One is the First Occupant of the White House …
More than anything, I suspect that what folk in the UK don’t realise is just how much the Democrat Party is a Projective party much more than a Progressive party …
It used to surprise me just how much of the things the Dems accuse the GOP of wanting to do are things that the Dems themselves regularly do … form the whole Imperial Presidency aimed at Nixon, while currently Obama the 1st holds court – all the way through the regular accusations that the GOP are fascists, while the Dems physically prevent the opinions of opposing speakers from being heard …
Sadly, I am now having to get used to it …
How many times have we been informed as to the vast intelligence of Carter, BillyJeff, Gore, Kerry, the O-man, et al? I’ll even grant them their point. Bush the Elder nailed it when he said that it was about character and those listed above are examples of *fail* in that regard. Technocrats do not good Presidents make. Dame Thatcher, Ronnie, George W, had/have it. Most of what I’ve seen of the jackwagon party aspiring to national leadership, not so much.
And just for the record, you don’t survive a tour of duty flying century-series interceptors if you’re an idiot. Those things killed pilots.
This is a woman who negotiated pipeline contracts with on two continents and at least as many oil companies. You probably didn’t hear of the TC/Exxon deal, because of that loudmouthed overpaid weatherman from Muncie, who was in the news not so long ago, for his low class act. Who has fought the equivalent of the Wet Tories in her state, the Heseltines, and the like. Calling out the party chief who was also her boss at the oil commission, who’s never forgotten. Challenging the sitting Governor, Frank Murkowski (who had been a Senator for nearly a quarter century) and who would appoint his daughter to fill the post. The lady’s not for turning, the Russians dubbed the Okhanitsa, or Huntress, and that wasn’t merely a descriptive but a term of respect. Now seeing as her husband worked for a company with significant interests in Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, her church was very active in the Divestment campaign in the Sudan, are you really going to accept the notion. that she didn’t ‘know Africa was a continent’, a lie that has long been debunked. Now I know if you read Spilius or Harnden or even Kossoff in the Telegraph, you don’t get nearly a balanced view of her background, then again you probably know the reputation of that broadsheet after Black was ‘railroaded’
“Lefties hate it when one of the little people they claim to champion gets up and does something for herself instead of relying on their wisdom, expertise, O levels and degrees.”
The class aspect is interesting, as is the left’s awkward relationship with those it claims to serve. I remember when Sunny Hundal sang the praises of the unhinged environmentalist group Plane Stupid and their “direct action,” i.e., breaking into Stansted Airport and disrupting the travel plans of thousands of passengers. “Honestly, I love these guys,” said Hundal, eager to declare his progressive credentials. Those who didn’t share his enthusiasm were waved away contemptuously as “Middle England.”
Which is odd, really, as the most vociferous objections came from the pages of the Sun newspaper, whose readers described the protestors as “attention-seeking morons,” who deserved “six months in jail” and “a bloody good thrashing.” So the question is, at what point does the proletarian Sun readership become “Middle England”? Is it the point at which they start to disagree with Mr Hundal and his fellow Guardianistas? Is that when the working class becomes contemptible and the enemy of the left?
Narsico: that’s okhotnitsa. And yes, it is used merely as a descriptive, not as a term of respect – at least no more so than it does in English. I do take your other points though.
It is interesting why the hatred of Palin seems to extend far beyond what could conceivably be explained by her actions.
She’s like the anti-Hillary – maybe that’s is. Palin is of relatively humble beginnings, likes children, is attractive and likes the same kind of pursuits as he key constituency.
Hillary has this whole silver-spoon-in-mouth, frigid, harpy vampire who-drinks-the-blood-of-children thing going.
Perhaps it is as simple as the left hates Palin because he makes their “ideal” women look bad?
She puts the “hot” in okhotnitsa!
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)
🙂
The Left hates Palin because she’s dangerous (to them and to their agenda).
She’s a super-achiever on her own merits (unlike, say, Hillary Clinton, who if not for her husband, would be a plodding labour lawyer in Chicago or New York).
All Middle American women not only identify with Sarah Palin (basketball star, small-town mayor, loving mother, devoted wife), but most would, I suspect, trade places with her in a heartbeat. She married a super-stud; Todd is handsome, athletic, adventurous — all the things that make romance writers (and -readers) tingle. She is the perfect female companion for a Real Man — hunting, fishing, business, whatever — and the Left cannot abide either Real Men or the women who love them.
And yes, Palin’s quite gorgeous. as opposed to the stony-faced socialist apparatchiks, ugly feminists and plain-Jane academics who people the Left’s female power bloc.
The biggest problem that the Left has with Palin is not that she’s stupid — that’s a media creation — but that she’s NOT stupid. In a debate with, oh, Michelle Obama (who is a Leftist paradigm of success, even though her own achievements came through backdoor machine politics and affirmative action), Palin would eat her for breakfast on just about any topic.
The only problem with Sarah Palin is her voice (that hard, flat Upper-Midwest twang is tough to listen to — the woman needs a speech coach, badly), and the fact that she has a knack for making difficult solutions sound simple — i.e. something that technocrats abhor, because if solutions are simple, there’s no need for technocrat. And the very simplicity of her speech — unadorned with academic-speak jargon — makes her sound simplistic, when in fact her speech is backed up by a complete mastery of the facts underpinning the issue.
We Americans love our politicians to be plain-spoken, whether Democrats like Harry Truman or Republicans like GW Bush. It’s only the media and academia who swoon over someone who sounds good — even if he or she is talking utter crap (Obama’s ears must be ringing about now).
If Sarah Palin were a man, she’d be sitting in the White House right now. And the most ironic thing about that is that it’s the feminists who have helped hold her back, because Palin is the feminist ideal — except that she’s shown up their agenda to be total bullshit: a woman doesn’t NEED preferential treatment or coddling to succeed.
Oh, the horror.
By the way, IanB and others: your impressions of Sarah Palin are coloured by the fact that you only ever get to hear the quotes that your media select for you. Over Here, we hear her speak almost every other day on Fox News, because she’s a perennial guest commentator. Trust me: she’s a hell of a lot more intelligent than she appears on the BBC soundbites.
Thanks Kim, by the end of your third paragraph of lurid romance fiction prose, I actually projectile vomited. I’ll be sending you the cleaning bill.
So, what do we have here? Two political camps, diametrically opposed and furious in their hatred of each other. Each seeks messianic leaders and glorifies them, and hurls endless invective against the opponent’s leaders. Each claims the enemy invective is the most unjustifiable calumny, and that their own Chosen One is quite the most glorious of human specimens. Each group is talking bollocks.
Oh, and there we go in that last paragraph Kim; the old favourite. “You don’t love our glorious leader because you are misled by the media”. Oh sigh. Really, that one is getting old. I’ll find somewhere “liberal” later and get accused of being misled by “Faux News”, shall I, so I get the complete set?
Grow up, the lot of you. She’s a reasonably well preserved middle aged woman who happened to be in a beauty contest once. I mean seriously. Get a grip.
Grow up, the lot of you. She’s a reasonably well preserved middle aged woman who happened to be in a beauty contest once. I mean seriously. Get a grip.
Sorry Ian, I just can’t help myself – I sure do like the ladies.
I really am not in favour of politicians, but if I must have them forced on me I expect them to be at least nice to look at while they go about assuming my consent to govern 😉
“Grow up, the lot of you. She’s a reasonably well preserved middle aged woman who happened to be in a beauty contest once. I mean seriously. Get a grip.”
Fair enough; in the appearance department she’s not the equal of your average Hollywood starlet (although she’s well ahead of your average female politician, and the less said about your average female leftist the better). But that’s just a distraction; no one is going to vote for her on that basis alone. What matters is that she’s far from the dolt you claim, Ian, and I suspect that Kim is correct in ascribing your low opinion of her intelligence to the filter through which you receive most of your news (and, possibly, to your visceral reaction to her, as we’ve previously discussed). She’s every bit the intellectual equal of most prominent American politicians today, and far ahead of many. (Seriously, would anyone hire Harry Reid to manage a convenience store? And Sheila Jackson’s IQ can’t be much larger than her shoe size.) I’ll give you Hillary Clinton, who is seriously smart (and therefore more dangerous than most leftists), but even Barack Obama’s much-vaunted intelligence is, I think, overrated.
The point is, mere intelligence isn’t sufficient or, I would posit, necessary to succeed in American politics, or even to be a competent president. Jimmy Carter was a super-intelligent disaster as president, as (for entirely different reasons) was Richard Nixon. Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan were men of less lofty intelligence who were highly successful presidents. What’s most important in a president is the ability to absorb and process information quickly and make decisions, the humility to surround yourself with competent advisors, and a large helping of common sense. Palin certainly possesses the first and third of those qualities (we don’t yet have enough information about the second). By contrast, Obama is clearly deficient in the last two. She would be more than competent for the role.
Aarrgh! Smited again! To the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee, o Smitebot!
I am not a great Palin supporter. I like some of the things he lady says – for example pointing out that accepting one year of Obama “Stimulus” money would mean that Alaska had to (amongst other things) accept a Statewide building code – thus tossing away the freedom the people have always had there (to build their own homes in their own way).
However, two years as Governor is not really enough time for me to make a judgement – hence I am not a great supporter.
But I do not understand that all the attacks on Palin have been LIES.
Right from day one there has been a tidel wave of lies about Palin (aided by the MSM).
From Palin burned certain books in her hometown library (LIE) to the Arizonia murderer was a Palin fan (LIE) and on and on.
And whenever Palin tries to defend herself by telling the truth (for example that accusing her of murder is a blood libel – a libel because it is lie, blood because it was about murder, including the murder of a child) the MSM just attack her MORE (attack her for defending herself).
But now comes the hard part……..
Propaganda WORKS – it really does.
Why do you think that Barack Obama (a man who has a had a life long hatred for everything America is supposed to stand for) has a popularity (in some polls) close to 50%?
Do the American people wish to have what is left of their freedom taken away? No (the really do not – most people think government is too large and too powerful already) – but that is NOT how Barack Obama is presented. He is presented (by the MSM and by the education system – the schools and the universites) as a nice man who loves his country. Not as the evil man (a lifetime of corruption – see “The Case Against Barack Obama” and “Culture of Corruption”) who HATES the basic principles of his country (see “Radical in Chief” and many other well reseached works) – that Barack Obama actually is.
And Sarah Palin – a nice lady who really does believe in the United States, in its principles and in its people (in them ruling themselves – not being controlled in every aspect of their lives by an elite).
Her populartity is down in the 30’s – because Palin has buckets of shit flung at her (every single day) by the MSM (all three “free” networks, plus CNN and PBS – and the entertainment media) and by the education system (as school and university children and young people are taught to hate and despise people like Palin – and, of course, to hate and despise their own parents).
Propaganda works – not with all people all of the time.
But with most people – most of the time.
Otherwise the Progressive movement would not have been able to tear up the basic principles of the United States over the last century.
And the Fabians would not have been able to do so in Britain.
It is grim – but it is the truth.
Whilst the left have a de facto monopoly of education and the media (including the entertainment media) it is always going to be an uphill fight for pro freedom people.
Alternative media (real “alternative” radio and television – not “alterntaive” that turns out to be even more leftist than the established statiion) must be worked for.
As must alternatives to the government schools – and to the government exams and teacher training that undermines the private schools (and so on).
Still back to Sarah Palin.
Another real (as opposed to media lie) problem is cultural.
Sarah Palin is a representative of the culture of the rural West.
Not just Alaska (that would be unfair) – but everwhere from the Dakotas (North and South) to Alaska (not counting the urban bits of Oregan and Washington State).
That is all well and good – but THIS AREA IS GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN ANYWAY (it has all my life – ever election time).
It is a bit like the problem with Mike Huckabee – he represents the culture of the deep South (the good parts of it – he is a nice guy).
But the Deep South last voted Democrat for President when Carter was running (the first time – not the second time).
In 2012 the deep South (like the rural West) will VOTE REPUBLICAN ANYWAY.
To put things in light hearted terms – please forgive me (we Brits are silly at times).
The Republicans in 2012 need someone who also appeals to folk who do NOT speak like the good characters in “Firefly/Serenity”.
Otherwise the forces of “The Alliance” will crush the “Independents”.
Republicans must seek to take States (or at least give the Dems a scare – so they have to concentrate on holding them) States like the following:
Minnesota (it is takable – there is a Republican State legislature now), Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvavia (of course Indiana will be retaken – as will Iowa).
Personally I think even Illinois is takable – because it is going to go bankrupt and the Dems will JUSTLY. take the blame.
“Hey Barack, your campaign H.Q. is in Chicago Illinios – let us have a GOOD LOOK AT THIS PLACE”.
A Republican can win in 2012 – but it has to be someone who can reach out and win outside of the deep (although I believe that both Virginia and North Carolina will be retaken – and Florida should be) South and the rural West (fine places though both of these regions are).
Something John McCain never understood…..
American politics is chess – not poker.
The art is to build a position which makes it harder and harder for your opponent to checkmate you – and less and less hard to checkmate him.
This is the game of the Electoral College.
Laird, don’t exaggerate. I never called her a “dolt”. I said, “a bit thick”. Maybe that phrase comes across as more extreme that intended. Whatever.
I said above, the “right” need to stop giving the left open goals. If you’re going to be going up against supercilious intellectual snobs, you need the smarts to repel their barbs. You need candidates who the insult “stupid” just bounces off because they clearly aren’t. Palin just doesn’t fit that bill, from all I’ve seen of her.
By comparison- and again this is purely my subjective impression- Tea Partier Nikki Haley does fit that bill very well. I watched an interview or two she did and she came across as smart, knowledgable, in command of the issues and for those of you who need some, er, “glamour”, she’s not bad looking either.
Nikki Haley is an interesting comparison. (I know a fair bit about her, as she’s now my governor; I live in South Carolina and I followed her campaign closely.) There are quite a lot of parallels. She is most definitely not a favorite of the RINO “old boy” network here in SC, some of whom actively tried to derail her candidacy and who would have been happier if the Democratic “establishment” candidate (a card-carrying member of their club) had won. In the primary she defeated the sitting Lieutanant Governor, the current Attorney General, and a former Congressman; that makes you some enemies.
Clearly the Tea Party in this state (partially, but not wholly, aligned with of the Republican Party) has some clout. (Incidentally, Haley’s campaign didn’t take off until she received Sarah Palin’s endorsement! Prior to that she was a distant 4th in the polls.) But I don’t think the national media has really paid her much attention; they haven’t (yet) drawn out the long knives for her. If and when she aspires to higher office I think she’ll receive the same treatment as Palin. The two are really more similar than you might think.
Laird, I take Ian’s point to be about outward appearances – which are very important in politics. i know nothing about Haley, but it is possible for two people to be very similar in substance, but very different outwardly.
And her legs are not too shabby either…:-)
I found this ‘Top 10‘ list of the stupidest things Palin has ever said.
So I’ll address some of these ‘stupidities’. You may want to open the “Dumb Sarah” page in a different tab so you can switch back and forth.
#1, well at the narrowest point, Russian land and Alaskan land is only 2.4 miles apart and the boundary is very long, still disputed and contains valuable fisheries. In light of this information, her answer is not just true, it is ‘duh!’ obvious. Alaska is where most Russian incursions of American air space are likely to occur. The stupid thing this quote shows is that Palin was dumb enough to go to a SeeBS interview and not bring along a camera crew of her own. McCain and his anti Palin staff should be held accountable for that. BTW, anybody that doesn’t think fisheries borders are hot borders doesn’t know much about commercial fishing.
#2 I am a medical POA for my parents, observed care being withheld from my father prior to his death, and face a continuous subtle resistance to providing care for the elderly. I have a cousin who was brain damaged when he was a year old and I imagine his POA faces similar resistance to spending any of ‘society’s money’ on somebody who does not contribute ‘to society’. Here is what University of Wisconsin/Madison law prof Ann Althouse had to say about that particular quote. We at SI may not approve of how health care is funded but her statement about death panels is turning out to be accurate as more of the secret text of Obamacare is exposed.
#3 Well, that would be correct for my answer. Couric was probably trying to ‘identify, isolate and attack’ Palin’s reading choices if they are anything other than the NYT and the WaPo. But eclectic readers don’t get all of our news from one or two filters. We don’t read from approved reading lists. We read anything that looks interesting.
#4 How many people have memorized the correct names of specific SCOTUS rulings they think are wrong and are able to recall them on zero notice? The only other one that occurs to me is Dred Scott. Here is Palin’s answer. It is a very good answer, technically correct. And very small government sound on 10th amendment grounds. And it is dangerous even for a presidential candidate to discuss judicial intentions, for a VP any opinion on anything remotely current, ie Kelo, would open up a legal worm hole.
#5 Well, let’s see. “Refudiate” was her creation. “Misunderestimate” was created by a two term president and “wee wee’d up” was created by none other than Obama. I must be missing something because I don’t see how this why this one is even on the list.
#6 And she corrected her misspeak in the next sentence. Somehow they left that part out. Again, why is this one even on the list?
#7 Ed Koch addressed this one, as did Clarice Feldman, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
#8 Um, do people who think Obama is smarter than Palin really want to go there? Seriously, if saying “um” is a sign of stupidity? If it isn’t the “um”, then what is stupid about this? Maybe it is stupid because supporting the Constitution (and its supporters) is so yesterday. We are much smarter than that now.
#9 Certainly it is ironic. In the beginning Canadian health care looked good giving away something for nothing. And her family used it the same way Mexicans (and probably Canadians) will use ours until we ration it. You might think she was dumb to admit using Canadian health care but better to find out from her than have it turn up later. I think the revelation was the right thing to do. And actually supports some of her concerns about how Obamacare will be utilized.
#10 Well, her response to the heckler is class and humor rolled into one. How else could she have handled it? Never mind. I just thought about how a Democrat feminist politician would have handled it. Not that its something any of them will ever need to worry about. Please dear Flying Spaghetti Monster, let us hope.
So, all you who think Palin is stupid, or worse, all of you who are damning her with faint and condescendingly qualified praise, show what else she has said that shows her stupidity. Has she missed some of the fifty seven states? Is she learning to speak Austrian? Did she watch FDR’s 1929 television speech? Seriously, what has she said that is dumber than anything that the other three major party candidates in that election have said?
She is easily the most intelligent of the four. Obama’s executive experience was his campaign? Talk about ‘stupid’ –
Apparently Obama doesn’t know the difference between a governor and a mayor. Which of the other candidates had experience in negotiating contentious international issues. I mean, seriously, what kind of executive leadership is this compared to a senator who managed his own campaign? And Newsweek and HuffPo are not exactly intending to build Palin up.
So put up, Palin bashers. You have been spoon fed bullshit and you are still swallowing it. Show your evidence. And remember who you are comparing her to. American politicians.
Today’s “Day by Day” cartoon is somewhat relevant.
Ian,
My sincere apologies for inflicting my “lurid romance fiction prose” on your tender ears. I’ll stick to boring, incomprehensible academic jargon (like the twaddle you speak) next time. Or not.
The plain fact of the matter, Ian, is that when it comes to Sarah Palin, you don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about — either in style or in substance. By calling her a “bit dim” you reveal your own pseudo-intellectual bias — and, as I pointed out, we Americans actually prefer plain-speaking politicians like, oh, Ronald Reagan (who also, by your measures, spoke with “lurid romance fiction prose”). We certainly prefer our politicians to utter their lies using everyday speech, rather than lies cloaked in technocratic neo-socialist dogma (like, um, Obama) or in first-year Political Science terminology (like yours).
Grow up. I wasn’t bashing you, nor belittling you. All I did was point out that you may be making overly-judgemental and/or dismissive statements about Palin based on biased input. (Unless of course you prefer to think that your British media’s perspective of Sarah Palin is a beacon of impartiality — if so, I have a bridge or two to sell you.)
So as I said, my response to you was not personal. But if you want to take the discussion beyond the abstract to the personal, feel free. I’m not above trading insults, you pontificating, sanctimonious cunt.
Now go and eat a plateful of your projective vomit.
ManikMonkee:
Up to a point you are right – I did say the parallels should not be stretched too far, remember – but I would not be too fast to dismiss the parallels as you do. For a start, while Mrs T. was indeed a far-sighted politician, she was also part of a period in UK/Western history when criticism of the prevailing, Keynesian/socialist PoV was building. She had important intellectual influences, starting with the great Sir Keith Joseph.
Again, I think you make a decent point but let’s not forget that for Maggie, her Methodism was all of a piece with her unashamedly Victorian morality of hard work, honesty and plain speaking. And there seems to be a certain amount of that going on with Palin.
Well I don’t know whether she is a bigot; is that true? She does not seem to be a racist, or favour outlawing opinions, or wants to make her denomination into an established church. And as for the charge of opportunism, well, all politicians are, to varying degrees, people who seize the hour to make things happen. Maggie was very good at doing this when it suited, as when she timed her bid for leadership of the Tory party in 1975.
Palin’s short time as Alaska governor does not necessarily give me the impression that she’s a big spending hypocrite, as you suggest. The harshness of your assessment is unwarranted.
If folk want an example of bigotry masquerading as sophistication, here’s an example:
(Link)
Agreed J.P. (and MidWesterner) – but there is still that bit about “short time”, two years before being picked by McCain.
Governor Haley – very similar to Governor Palin.
The only difference I can see is that Governor Haley is brown (family are from India) yes South Carolina conservatives vote for brown people (and for black people also – have a look at the people they sent to Congress), but, of course, to the MSM they are still “racists” (as black and brown CONSERVATIVES do not count as REAL).
Of course Governor Palin is married to a part “native American” (they are not white either) but that also “does not count” according to the MSM (after all even part Asian Sharon Angle was a “racist” – especially against hispanics, even though her grandchildren are hispanics. as is the Republican Governor of Nevada, and the Republican Governor of New Mexico and …… I suppose they just discriminate against themselves all day long).
By the way my description was off (senile person that I am).
The West starts (as I KNOW) at the Illinois border.
Palin would take States like Nebraska and Kansas – no problem at all.
But it is not enough – it just is not enough.
Mathematics is pityless.
Just in case anybody still cares. Most people don’t know but one of the reasons, if not the primary or even the only reason Ms Palin left office early was political harassment taking advantage of a poorly written and now changed anti-corruption law.
I wondered when the name of Sir Keith Joseph would be mentioned – no one who witnessed it will ever forget his physical courage in the face of a spitting and violent collectivist mob.
And that’s another thing they hate about Palin – her courage.
Stands to reason really – I too would be a coward if I were as benighted as they are – the world is a genuinely terrifying place if you never bother trying to understand it.
Happiness is to know the causes of things – and they haven’t got a clue.
Firstly, I should mention that I am not a huge Palin fan, although I have some natural sympathy and admiration for her going on the quality of enemy she attracts.
The most obvious riposte to the “Palin is stupid” meme is the old proverb about focusing on the deeds and not the words. The fact is that time and time again, Palin’s adroitly used the new media and the current zeitgeist in the USA to deflect the mountain of slurs directed at her, often increasing her popularity in the process. She is clearly an extremely savvy political operator, outmaneuvering her opponents – her purported-intellectual superiors – at every post. If anyone thinks this woman is stupid, or even a bit dim, well, they need to be referred to another proverb about people in glass houses. They are focusing on the words, and they should know better.
As for the passionate Palin-haters in the USA, well, they’re making the same mistake they did with W. It’s always foolish to misunderestimate your enemy. If Bush’s foes had have taken him a bit more seriously right from the get-go, it’s conceivable that he might have been a one-termer. And now with Palin, every arrow they shoot at her is making her stronger. If she ever becomes President, a great deal of credit must be given to her opponents. If this happens, I hope she thanks them for their assistance in her victory speech. And, to reiterate, these are the same people who laugh at Bush and Palin for being stupid. Oh the irony.
Kay Hymowitz makes some interesting points on the tensions between institutional / academic feminism, where the state is pivotal and must always expand, and the “Mama Grizzly” feminism of Sarah Palin and much of the Tea Party:
“The Palinites, then, have introduced an unfamiliar thought into American politics: maybe a trillion-dollar deficit is a woman’s issue. But where does that leave expensive, bureaucracy-heavy initiatives like universal pre-K, child care, and parental leave?”
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_palin.html
It’s perhaps best summed up by this quote from the bewildered novelist Amy Bloom: “There is no such thing as free market/anti-legislation… feminism.”
Midwesterner –
Number 9 is even easier to refudiate.
All one needs to know is the date that socialized medicine began in that province, and the dates Palin’s family lived in the Alaskan town where Yellowknife had the nearest large hospital.
They didn’t “scoot across the border” for free care, they did it because that was the only big hospital one could get to by road from where they lived.
Sarah Palin was driven from office by more than the poorly written text of a statute.
There is also the fact that the people who were put up (they tended to be stooges) to make complaints DID NOT HAVE TO PAY HER LEGAL COSTS.
Unlike in Britain (or Canada) someone can drag a person into court with a total B.S. complaint – and yet not have to pay that person’s legal costs. And people can be set up to do this AGAIN AND AGAIN.
“But why did the judges not just toss it all out….”
There is the second problem – in Alaska the judges are neither elected nor freely appointed.
People become judges by the way the Economist magazine (and the rest of the elite) favour – i.e. the establishment itself (dominated by people from the Bar Association) selects people who the Governor has to appoint.
Translation – the judges tend to be leftists.
A great article on the “blood libel” issue. Worth reading.