Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2009

The Left’s War on Sarah Palin

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 10:29 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

A former liberal looks at the Left’s Wilding of Sarah Palin:

“What finally woke me up were the utterances of “bitch,” “witch,” and “monster” toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn’t coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don’t have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it’s far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left’s behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.”

— DRJ

174 Responses to “The Left’s War on Sarah Palin”

  1. “nor the females care a whit about women.” Females are women and that seems to be a very big judgment being cast. Hope your not a Christian as your bronze age deity would be quite upset at that.

    “And the eagerness for women to make good money?”
    Because they have earned it and no one should deprive them of it? Or would you have us still cling to the old model of women make half that of men in the same field so they can’t have the option of providing for their families and respective loved ones?

    And “ponytailed guys”? Like you can muster up enough people to march for anything here in America let alone enough long haired guys to which you can call them that.

    Sir Lobin of Roxley (a38d48)

  2. I watched the Vice-Presidential debate with a number of friends, most of whom are reporters, and thus also on the liberal side of the spectrum. At one point, in response to something Gov. Palin said, the (male) reporter is probably the biggest partisan Democrat of the bunch, blurted out the c- word.

    Fortunately, the rest of my friends are decent people, simply of differing politics than mine, and the room fell completely silent as the 2 women in the room glared at him. They wouldn’t have any part of that crap. But I think he still doesn’t see anything wrong with it.

    PatHMV (a00c3c)

  3. Considering that the male leaders for the last 20 years have been big failures, it might be time to give a woman a chance. Unlike liberals, I understand that men and women think differently and come at problems from different angles. I think we need a new angle of thinking in the USA. One based on the great history and accomplishments of this country.

    unseen (f8f32d)

  4. This is news? The fact that the Left regards women as just another minority group to exploit and make false promises to, in exchange for votes, is something that is just now being revealed?

    They promise gay marriage for votes.
    They promise health care reform for votes.
    They promise relaxed immigration rules for votes.

    They promise “equal pay” laws for votes. Remember Hillary jumping on this “77 cents on the dollar” bullshit meme, all the while serving as the the Left’s little fool tool?

    Icy Texan (4c9f7e)

  5. The lack of civility among the L is seen in Obama’s obscene gesture in regards to then opponent Hillary Clinton.

    The rationality (or lack thereof) for disliking Palin is evident in the finely-honed criticisms of her positions- not.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  6. I’m conflicted by this article. I agree that, overall, liberal policies do more harm than good for women. But I don’t think it’s fair or helpful to blame liberal or conservative men for women’s problems. I don’t see women as powerless victims and one reason I like Sarah Palin is that I believe she feels that way, too.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  7. I’m not certain I understand Sir Lobin of Roxley’s point in his spiel. As his mangling of the name is quite evident, so, too, I believe is his mangling of the person’s actions, since Mr Hood didn’t rob from the rich to give to the poor.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  8. Why is anyone surprised about this?

    Don’t you remember the leftist jihad against Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey?

    Steve Levy (922f7f)

  9. Mister Levy, I don’t think any commentators are surprised by this. You provided examples of why the commentators are, indeed, not surprised. But pointing out obvious facts is indeed a useful tactic, especially given the left’s inability to remember recent history, much less 200-year-old history.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  10. Speaking of finely-honed criticism — not, Sir Lobotomy of Rocks-in-the-Head spittled:
    Females are women and that seems to be a very big judgment being cast. Hope your[sic] not a Christian as your bronze age deity would be quite upset at that.
    — That judgment is about leftist females, not liberals or Democrats (or all women, if you’re actually misreading what was written that badly) . . . leftists. And the reason for the reference to Christianity is what? stereotyping conservatives as Christians? misreading (two misreads in one quote; you’re overachieving!) “judge not, lest you be judged”? Do you really need someone to explain to you what that means?

    Because they have earned it and no one should deprive them of it? Or would you have us still cling to the old model of women make half that of men in the same field so they can’t have the option of providing for their families and respective loved ones?
    — Women DO NOT make “half that of men in the same field”; not for an equal amount of work they don’t. It has been shown over & over that this is bullshit!

    And “ponytailed guys”? Like you can muster up enough people to march for anything here in America let alone enough long haired guys to which you can call them that
    — Uhhhhh, huh? Well, I’ll take a stab at it: Nobody in America engages in protest? Nobody on the Left has ever protested in support of keeping abortion legal? Something else??? Clarify your babble!

    Icy Texan (4c9f7e)

  11. I’m sorry. Anyone who cannot see the pattern in the
    democrat party promises of the last 60 years is a moron and does not deserve the title “American”.

    If you think that you are powerless and always have been, you are not an American.

    If you believe that all good things come from the government, you are not an American.

    If you believe that the government creates wealth,or that money comes from the government,rather than the exchange of labor and goods in an open marketplace, You are not an American.

    If you believe that your health, your job, your home, your utilities, your internet, your groceries are owed you by someone else, you are not an American.

    The Modern democrat party embraces all of the ideas that eliminate a person from the ideals of America.

    Isn’t it time to take back our country?

    MaaddMaaxx (b91eb0)

  12. “those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.”

    Duh? And the disrespect for traditional marriage ought to be a no-brainer, too, along with promoting the legalization of pot, prostitution, porn…it’s a young man’s wet dream.

    Oops, I may have stepped on some libertarian toes there.

    cassandra in MT (d015d3)

  13. The left hates Palin because she is pretty, accomplished, honest, and happily married, which many on the left are not.

    PCD (74f8a9)

  14. Lobin

    > Hope your not a Christian as your bronze age deity would be quite upset at that.

    Wow, that is good trolling. And contrary to your ignorant assumptions, we are allowed to have opinions about conduct. Indeed, Martin Luther King argued eloquently for moral absolutism. And I thought liberals like MLK. Ah, but that is right, liberals only support faith when black people are involved, which reveals one of the strains of racism running through the modern left.

    > [author] “And the eagerness for women to make good money?” [goes on to say its to let liberal men be lazy.]

    > [you] Because they have earned it and no one should deprive them of it? Or would you have us still cling to the old model of women make half that of men in the same field so they can’t have the option of providing for their families and respective loved ones?

    Do you understand that saying that a person supports something for the wrong reason is different than saying they support the wrong cause? Just because she says that liberal men support allowing women to work out of the home so that they can laze off instead, doesn’t mean the author is opposed to women working out of the home. She is attacking their motives and not their position. She is saying, “don’t be fooled. They are not supporting this because they are enlightened. They are supporting this because they are pigs in their own way.”

    Unseen

    > men and women think differently and come at problems from different angles.

    Ah, but is it nature or nurture that causes it?

    Icy

    > Remember Hillary jumping on this “77 cents on the dollar” bullshit meme

    On top of that, Hillary is such a faux feminist anyway. Sure, she went to yale, and then promptly went about advancing based on her husband’s accomplishments, all the way to secretary of state.

    Steve

    > Don’t you remember the leftist jihad against Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey?

    And more specifically, look at how they treat ann coulter and michelle malkin, or Ms. California. There is nothing that angers a liberal more than a sexy, conservative woman.

    And the reason why is that liberals have mixed up sex and politics in a way that is really unhealthy.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  15. “The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.”

    And that my friends is the crux of the leftist agenda vis-a-vis women for the last 40 years. Its about nothing more than fashioning a large and intimidated coalition in order for the Democrats to achieve political power. There is nothing else to it. Not concern about rights, or fair wages or any of that touchy-feely stuff that the Democrats supposedly care about.

    Robin of Berkely is dead-on accurate.

    Good find DRJ.

    KingShamus (fb8597)

  16. btw, in the full post, i love the quote from andrew sullivan. it supports my thesis that sullivan’s primary objection to Palin being “ick! a girl!”

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  17. This was written by Robin of Berkeley who seems to be a “the world is falling” type. I wouldn’t doubt it, if in a few months she claims to be a liberal posting on AT

    Still, everybody knows the left attacks who they feel is a threat, thus they must perceive Palin as a huge threat (and apparently growing bigger as Obama’s numbers decline).

    Audacity (2fd5ad)

  18. Oops, I may have stepped on some libertarian toes there.

    This libertarian’s toes are fine, and good to see you here, cassandra!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  19. This really all boils down to the reality of too many Lefty men being wimpy, pompous, narcissistic Casper Milquetoasts when it comes to women – any women. They’re afraid of the “V,” since they don’t know what to do about it in the first place. These guys were the ones routinely mocked during their entire formative years, and they’ve never gotten past it.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  20. Today, I think it was ABC who was going to go ahead and do the Chris Brown interview and probably some kind of performance. Nice to see that beating a woman within an inch of her life doesn’t trump money and ratings where Liberals are in control.

    Metallica (e4735c)

  21. Audacity–Post #17, I’ve read other stuff by Robin of Berkeley. She says she is a psychiatrist, practicing in Berkeley, and a “recovering liberal”. Since I’ve got a brother and a sister in law who’ve lived in that fair city on the side of a hill for the last 40 plus years, I know that Berkeley is a “target rich environment” for those who would like to skewer various liberal pathologies.

    If a liberal living in Berkeley decides to pull his or her head out of their posterior and look around, there are several years of things to write about. Robin apparently had her epiphany a couple of years ago.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  22. Hey Bradley, ‘sup?

    I’m not a 100% Palin-for-president supporter (yet), but the way the left carries on it practically forces me to be. Helluva position to be in.

    Right now I can’t seem to think of anyone else to support. My man Fred was a dud.

    cassandra in MT (5a5d33)

  23. Every day, the Democrat’s attacks on Sarah Palin yank the wool from the eyes of American voters, especially women like Robin who have only now, at long last, finally seen the light. Good for you, Robin, welcome into the sunshine.

    But, why the gutter language, and the unprincipled low-brow assaults on a women who actually lives a life of personal accomplishment, of joy, and of national consequence? A life feminists say they celebrate, one they say they want the opportunity for all women to enjoy. Why do Democrats attack Sarah Palin, why do the attack her children?

    Sarah Palin is an archetypal figure in American history. She’s a living symbol, Lady Liberty, standing proudly and carrying the Torch of Freedom.

    Sarah Palin represents the revival of the American Dream for our troubled nation, for our hopes for the freedom to live a better life, for liberty from government tyranny, for the right to work and raise our families.

    But, there’s more to it, another side, she also bears the burden of our national excesses, our sins against ourselves and our children’s future. The Democrats blame her for standing up against their Socialist Revolution, their tax slavery, their government takeover of our liberty and private property.

    Today, Sarah Palin and her children suffer the scourge of Leftist hate so we can ultimately live in freedom tomorrow. Sarah Palin represents national redemption.

    ropelight (158407)

  24. I’m guessing Palin for VP in 2012 with Jindahl (or other?) as Pres. All of the enthusiasm of Palin supporters plus a new point man that can bypass what the Dems have succeeded in doing to Palin. After all, someone will need to be pres in 2020, and Palin will still be young and energetic enough, and 8 years as VP (a smart one at that) will do away with the “not qualified” nonsense.

    One can wish, anyway.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  25. “My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.”

    Can’t blame the guys for wanting the same thing the gals want.

    Dave Surls (9b369c)

  26. She’s the substanceless winger equivalent of Barack Obama I think.

    She was doing fine until she quit. That was so unbelievably arrogant. But she was on her way. Bam! Self-destruction. The “quitter” campaign ad is already devastatingly effective even if it hasn’t been made yet.

    Now she needs to be focusing on her recipe book and developing a franchise for the Outdoor Channel.

    People would be a lot less hostile to her if she made it clear that she understood that she was far far far from having the right stuff to be president.

    But I think people suspect she truly is that clueless.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  27. But, why the gutter language, and the unprincipled low-brow assaults on a women who actually lives a life of personal accomplishment,

    The left is in love with sexual titillation and obscene words give them an illusion of being tough. I see this on lefty blogs all the time. The constant references to Palin’s relationship with her husband, for example, was in a couple of female written reviews of the book. When I read the book, I looked for them and found the single reference she makes to how good looking he is. The lefty women had blown that up to the point you thought the book was going to be pornographic. The pornography is in their heads.

    They spend hours dreaming of sex, probably because there is little else that can be called accomplishment in their lives.

    Mike K (addb13)

  28. […] Patterico’s Pontifications – The Left’s War on Sarah Palin […]

    Palin’s Timing and Moves Textbook Perfection « ON MY WATCH – the writings of SamHenry (5381c6)

  29. Well, guess you chaps finally solved it – “the Left” (whatever that is) hates women because it thinks Sarah Palin is a mouth-breather, and you guys and gals love and support women because you think Sarah Palin is the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.

    Is anyone going to step back and admit how wrong it is to paint fifty percent of the population with the Misogynist Brush because they don’t happen to respect your political idol? Or am going to have to start perpetuating some stupid bullshit of my own?

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  30. It wouldn’t be the first time…

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  31. Reflections of a Brit ex-pat, on why he loves America & Thanksgiving..(H/T Instapundit)…
    and why American women (and his countless American girl-friends) are superior to those found in Jolly Olde’…
    “…Of course American women are – without exception – crazier than a box of Glenn Becks, but somehow that only adds to their charm…”

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  32. Last election, I told a lib pal of mine that the Democrats would show us how they really feel about women by the way that they would treat Sarah Palin. This was about the time that they were calling her a seccessionist, but before they declared her private parts to be the font of all evil in the universe (that one still makes my head spin). It would appear that more and more voters are picking up on the same thing that I saw back then.

    trentk269 (3969c4)

  33. “My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.”
    Can’t blame the guys for wanting the same thing the gals want.

    …yep, and the gals wanted the easy sex without having to face the damnable consequences of the unique and sacred – the ability to carry life. A real buzz kill.

    Is anyone going to step back and admit how wrong it is to paint fifty percent of the population with the Misogynist Brush because they don’t happen to respect your political idol? Or am going to have to start perpetuating some stupid bullshit of my own?

    Leviticus, you’ve reduced an egregiously malicious behavior (hence wilding)toward one woman in the public eye with the same stereotpyical reflexiveness of those who accuse fifty percent of the population being painted with the Racist Brush because they don’t happen to respect the current political idol in the WH.

    I am rapidly losing respect for our President because of several decisions he as made that have negatively impacted me and my family, as well as fellow Americans. It has been to our nation’s detriment, I believe.

    Palin, OTH, hasn’t been able to exert that sort of power over the masses, whether positive or negative, because she is a private citizen. So the vitriol comes stems from somewhere else.

    My point is, although I have little to no respect for the President, I would never castigate and denigrate him the way that the left does to a woman not even holding political office.

    Why, though, do the haters keep obsessively attacking and hating her?

    What motivates the endless, self-sustaing hater?

    Why do so many grant her so much power over their emotional reactions?

    This is not simply a “we don’t respect her” declaration – this is pure hatred.

    One needs to go much deeper than “don’t happen to respect your political idol” to remotely begin to justify such anger.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  34. Has Obama ever negotiated a major pipeline project with two major oil companies in two countries, has he been the CIC of Natl Guard
    troops in several theatres of operation,(Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. Been the linchpin for BMD ever managed a budget successfully.

    Now ask yourself, would she have contructed such a poorly crafted stimulus, shut off our nuclear and petroleum power, hesitated for nine months
    on Afghanistan, stood for one minute in the presence of Chavez or Morales, bowed to a Saudi
    King, betrayed Poland on the anniversary of the
    German/Soviet invasion.

    bishop (996c34)

  35. She was doing fine until she quit. That was so unbelievably arrogant. But she was on her way. Bam! Self-destruction. The “quitter” campaign ad is already devastatingly effective even if it hasn’t been made yet.

    happyfeet, not wishing to rehash the whole quitting thing, I am curious to know if, in light of the onslaught of unfounded ethics charges she faced and legal fees she had to pay, and, when further knowing the ethics charges and legal fees would only continue to plague her term, do you in any way believe that she was backed into a corner like no other modern governor has been?

    Dana (e9ba20)

  36. feet, got me a little off the point, but the sheer volume of derision, not just on the Newsweek cover, which I didn’t mind so much, but the inside cover with the infamous Reuters pic, taken from an odd angle, during one of her rallies in PA. The Hustler piece of ‘in kind contribution’ to the Obama campaign, it seems the goal is to dehumanize, to incite violence, as the
    hanging of an effigy of her, in West Hollywood, over her stance on Prop. 8, would indicate

    bishop (996c34)

  37. The way Sarah Palin is attacked so viciously reflects less on the Left and more on America I think. This is simply who we are.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  38. It may be who you are, but I reserve judgement about my neighbors, and myself.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  39. “This is simply who we are.”

    No, happyfeet, it isn’t. Name one regular commenter here who supports any dehumanizing, denigrating, and calculated campaign to destroy one person, whether left or right.

    This is, however, who the Left is, and they are proud and justified of it in their own eyes. And take full credit for it.

    So it’s certainly representative of a part of America, but it’s not simply who *we* are.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  40. Yes I think she was backed into a corner like no other governor has been and the singularity of that was a missed opportunity… she’s simply not a terribly clever woman. And she simply doesn’t command respect. And that’s a huge huge problem for her.

    She quit and she failed and she let herself be hounded from office and seems to be saying that she’s ready for her for real close-up now. For Sarah Palin, politics is about Sarah Palin I think. Yes she’s been treated horribly, but to the tune of a truly unrealistic amount of monies and fame relative to her meager accomplishments.

    But it’s not my problem that she’s been treated horribly and she’s not my martyr. What her cowardly abandonment of her office has done is validated the horrible tactics used against her, and she’s done great damage I think.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  41. I don’t think so. The people what are tearing Sarah Palin a new one are just exercising free speech. And the hatred they express is an honest hatred I think. They really really hate her, and the sum of it is that she’s a divisive and unhelpful figure, justly or no.

    This is a true statement: We are a society what in large measure hates Sarah Palin.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  42. Sarah Palin could win the nomination. Republican winner-take-all primaries play to her advantage. It depends on whether she still acts out tea-partiers’ resentment against the media and blue-state intellectuals. But I think she projects an overly-vindictive and petty persona. She monotonously blames everyone and everything for 2008, while EASILY getting suckered into juvenile tit-for-tats with meaningless morons (not limited to Levi Johnston).

    I gather Palin has a little time to hone her populist buzzwords. There’s a disconnect calling Wall Street and corporations bad and capitalism, good. And yet..smash-mouthing Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez is a hands-down winner. And it’s right in her wheelhouse.

    steve (e727d7)

  43. Is anyone going to step back and admit how wrong it is to paint fifty percent of the population with the Misogynist Brush because they don’t happen to respect your political idol?

    If you honestly feel that way, then you’re going to have to put up numerous examples of rampant misogyny that the Right perpetuated on a women Dem candidates. Sound fair? If you can’t come up with any, then admit that this posture is pure crapola.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  44. I agree with steve’s point as well – she’d be effective as a campaigner for other candidates in well – chosen races, but I do not want her to run for national office. Her skin’s too thin, even though the ferocity of personal attacks on both her and her family are almost unprecedented in recent history.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  45. I agree with dmac’s point about steve’s point.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  46. The people what are tearing Sarah Palin a new one are just exercising free speech.

    Absolutely. And though it be ugly, we would have it no other way.

    And the hatred they express is an honest hatred I think. They really really hate her, and the sum of it is that she’s a divisive and unhelpful figure, justly or no.

    This is where I have questions that none who hate her seem willing or able to answer: What is that motivates and spurns such a level of hatred?

    You say she is divisive and unhelpful, and while certainly a portion of the population feels that way, what of the other half that see her as the opposite and see her as a positive?

    I guess what I’m not seeing or hearing is, if she is this insignificant, divisive, unhelpful, hence not worthy of respect, why does she still have the power to inspire such an enormous level of hatred? IOW, why do the haters continue to *allow, grant, give* her the power over them and dictate their level of their response?

    If she is the things you say she is, it seems clear that the response to the cause is grossly out of proportion.

    So again, what is it precisely about her that causes this disproportionate response? This level of vitriol demands a specific cause, not generalizations.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  47. They feel about the Sarah Palin the same way I feel about the Barack Obama I think, so I can’t really go there on disproportionate.

    But I think they’ve told us many many times why they hate her and some of her fans just dismiss it as if it were contrived. It’s not. They really hate her, and for the reasons they say.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  48. I think Barack Obama would be giddy with joy to learn he was running against Sarah Palin in 2012.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  49. For Sarah Palin, politics is about Sarah Palin I think…. What her cowardly abandonment of her office has done is validated the horrible tactics used against her, and she’s done great damage I think. Comment by happyfeet

    Well, you have your view, which assumes she not only is not tough emough, but that she or her advisors as stupid as well.

    On the other hand, Occam’s razor would be better satisfied by taking her at her word. That she is in public service tyo serve the people first, not her own political agenda or ego. Hence, rather than playing “rope a dope” for a few more years using tax money of Alaskan’s to rise above the media bashing, she said “Alaska doesn’t need this”, I’ll choose what’s best for Alaska and continue my fight on other terms.

    The above version may not be correct, but I think it is logically more consistent with the given facts.

    Can you give me reasons why you think she is a coward and stupid, other than she has not made decisions the way you would?

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  50. The fetishization of Sarah Palin is genuinely antagonistic of the sensibilities of the left, and I suspect that a large measure of her support is derivative of how antagonistic she is to all the right people.

    I don’t think that’s a fun game, really. Not now.

    Can you give me reasons why you think she is a coward and stupid, other than she has not made decisions the way you would?

    She tried to put Meghan’s useless daddy in our White House. Cause of he was so mavericky.

    Gack.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  51. I think Barack Obama would be giddy with joy to learn he was running against Sarah Palin in 2012.

    It’s gonna take a shitload of lipstick to make Obama look like anything other than a “pig” come 2012.

    Neo (7830e6)

  52. Well he was the designated choice (I was for Guiliani, then Thompson) but no one seriously came out for McCain, and this was largely in spite of the campaign against her. Hell, if some one lied so vociferously against you, your own family might look at you a little funny. But fine, running Huckabee,or Romney or Pawlenty, whatever.

    bishop (83bf97)

  53. The Dems and the MSM have continually marginalized and patronized, if not outright ignored, the Tea Party and Town Hall protestors. Yet it is those folks who have been paying attention and are angry and motivated to see things change.

    So, she can address the crudeness, personal destruction, and disrespect, or “try to rise above it” and largely ignore it.

    The problem I see is that those who are not paying attention are going to hear all of the Dem/MSM stuff and think, “Well, if she never defends herself, it must be true”. The ones who are paying attention may understand what she’s doing, but they’ll be frustrated listening to all of the “It must be true, she never defends herself” in the barber/beauty parlor.

    On the other hand, if she tries to address the issues she will get framed as being soft and petty.

    She will need to “Go over their heads and talk directly to the people”, however she can do that. And I actually think it would be good for her and for the nation to speak out against the personal attacks and try to get people to rise to their “better natures”.

    That’s what Obama was able to do while lying through his teeth: “I want to be a uniter”; “we’ve got to come together”, blah blah blah. people do want to hear that and would like to see it to some degree, I think. The problem is how to communicate when the air is literaaly filled with lies, nice sounding lies. When you can say how you would have defeated Goebbel’s propaganda machine, we’ll know how to do it. (HEY, that’s NOT to say I’m comparing anyone to the Nazis, i’m just making the reference to an incredibly effective effort to turn the people of a nation collectively insane.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  54. She tried to put Meghan’s useless daddy in our White House. Cause of he was so mavericky.
    Gack.
    Comment by happyfeet

    I assume you’re simply making a non-serious quip. You’ll have to do better to make your point. It was not up to her, except to decide if she thought McCain would be better in the WH than Obama.

    I think the people who hate her do so because they can’t stand what she stands for, or the characature of what they think she stands for.

    She’s lived the life of a succesful and competant woman professional, but without the assistance of those she is supposed to be dependent on. Successful competant professional women are supposed to be “enlightened” (read liberal) in their outlook.

    The reasons some people hate Palin are equivalent to why some people hate Clarence Thomas or any other successful outspoken self-identified black conservative. It points out they are wrong, and they can’t stand that.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  55. So it took forty years for feminism to recognize that “sexual liberation” meant and means something very different for men and women? Shocking! Their reactionary mothers and all those woman-hating conservatives could have told them that. Oh wait they did, that’s why they were called woman haters!

    chaos (9c54c6)

  56. I just don’t understand what the big deal is if Sarah Palin is a soon to be forgotten footnote in history. She means so much to people. That’s icky. The American president’s main job is not to inspire or validate or challenge it’s to not do stupid shit.

    I don’t for a minute think Sarah Palin is up to the job anymore than Barack Obama.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  57. Obama is not a leader, he is a politician. Palin is a leader, not a politician. The left cannot stand that she actually connects with her supporters. Go to ANY left leaning website, and see how abandoned they say they are by Obama. Whereas, Sarah hops off her tour bus at 11:45PM to pay a surprise visit to thank the people camping out to sign her book. That is connecting.

    sybilll (dadda0)

  58. “If you honestly feel that way, then you’re going to have to put up numerous examples of rampant misogyny that the Right perpetuated on a women Dem candidates. Sound fair? If you can’t come up with any, then admit that this posture is pure crapola.”

    – Dmac

    Like Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton a dog because he didn’t like her parents? Or saying that the real reason Hillary Clinton couldn’t join the military like she said she wanted to was that the military “didn’t make uniforms that could fit that big an ass?” Or Ben Shapiro saying “no woman in the history of politics has used her womb like Nancy Pelosi”? Does that make all conservatives into misogynists? Of course not – and anyone who answered in the affirmative would be an idiot.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  59. Integrity, honesty, means a lot to people. Having the right policies means a great deal. Romney, Huckabee those are the best of a bad lot, I take it this is a qualified no.

    bishop (83bf97)

  60. Limbaugh is an entertainer, if memory serves – did he suddenly decide to run for office? And who in the hell is Ben Shapiro? Is he on CBS news?

    I’m talking about MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS openly going into the trash bins of Anchorage and talking to anyone dumb enough to speak into their ever – thrusting microphones, all in a furious effort to denigrate her and her family in the most private and disgusting way possible.

    You’re comparing apples to oranges, and you know it. I’m still waiting for anyone from the Left to finally acknowledge that the only thing Limbaugh cares about is the ratings, while the news networks are ostensibly representing the “public’s right to know.” Like hell they are.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  61. I think we can excoriate the little president man’s media, which is hateful and horrid and evil, without building Sarah Palin up into something she’s not and there are way too many Palin Mooseketeers what give way too many monies to the same media whores what savage their princess daily to take them all too seriously.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  62. I just don’t understand what the big deal is if Sarah Palin is a soon to be forgotten footnote in history.

    It’s not a big deal if she is a forgotten footnote in history if that’s what people want but judging from the turnouts just at her book signings alone, people aren’t remotely thinking of her as a footnote yet.

    She means so much to people. That’s icky.

    But happyfeet, it’s interesting to observe that she means perhaps even more to the Left haters rather than the right. They have put her on a pedestal and she’s becomes their perverse idol. Icky, indeed! If she becomes a footnote, who then becomes their hate receptacle?

    The American president’s main job is not to inspire or validate or challenge it’s to not do stupid shit.

    Because Palin has not yet been President, I can’t speak to whether she would inspire, validate, challenge or just do a good or bad job. We can however certainly make a few judgments on our current president.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  63. “Is anyone going to step back and admit how wrong it is to paint fifty percent of the population with the Misogynist Brush because they don’t happen to respect your political idol?”

    Leviticus, perfect question to pose to you and other lefties.

    PCD (74f8a9)

  64. I’ve noticed young men, even conservative young men, don’t like Sarah Palin. I’m not sure why that is except she’s so different from what they’ve been taught women should be.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  65. Why is it we always decide that people hate Sarah precisely cause of how wonderful she is?

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  66. I think I’m getting stuck in moderation…was it something I said?

    [Sorry, Dana, and I’ll check. It’s been a big day for the filter because of Patterico’s Rainey post. — DRJ]

    Dana (e9ba20)

  67. “I’m talking about MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS openly going into the trash bins of Anchorage and talking to anyone dumb enough to speak into their ever – thrusting microphones, all in a furious effort to denigrate her and her family in the most private and disgusting way possible.”

    – Dmac

    So give me some examples of these MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS and their disgusting denigrations – because Andrew Sullivan doesn’t count as a MAJOR NEWS OUTLET, and I’m not sure which unfair attacks on Palin you’re referring to.

    “I’m still waiting for anyone from the Left to finally acknowledge that the only thing Limbaugh cares about is the ratings, while the news networks are ostensibly representing the “public’s right to know.”

    – Dmac

    Are you kidding me? That’s all anyone in the media cares about: ratings. But Limbaugh frames himself as an authoritative source the same way the networks do, and they’re both (all) full of shit. So it’s not “apples to oranges”: it’s rotten apples to rotten apples, and I wish you would quit acting like Lefties are the only people who’ve ever said anything mean about women.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  68. Is anyone going to step back and admit how wrong it is to paint fifty percent of the population with the Misogynist Brush because they don’t happen to respect your political idol? Or am going to have to start perpetuating some stupid bullshit of my own?

    Comment by Leviticus

    Levi, the hatred of Palin is unusual in the political history of this country. In the 1930s, Republicans hated Roosevelt with some of the same fervor. Westbrook Pegler made something of a career of it. He was the 1930s and 40s equivalent of Keith Olbermann but in reverse. I remember a cartoon, probably in the New Yorker, about a group of Republicans who said they were going to a theater to “hiss Roosevelt” in the newsreel.

    The difference is that Roosevelt challenged them and hated them back. He supported a 90% tax rate as revenge on his Hudson Valley neighbors who hated him. Of course, his money was inherited.

    Why Does Andrew Sullivan hate Sarah Palin ? There is something weird about the whole thing and your attempt to excuse it is weak.

    My personal prediction is that she will be the VP nominee with Mitt Romney and will immunize him against the social right. She is young enough to step into the role after two terms of Mitt.

    Mike K (addb13)

  69. you quoted my s word…

    um… the way to beat them ones is for them to pick the wrong hate receptacle I think… great phrase … but so far their hate seems to be driving Sarah’s support to where they may end up selecting the R nominee for them… and I can’t think of another R nominee that could more better drive dirty socialist turnout than Sara P.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  70. sorry that should be Sarah P I’m all distracted here with couch shopping

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  71. Mr. Feet, you are entitled to your own opinions, of course. But I seriously doubt that the nutjob fury toward Palin on the Left would result in more voter turn out on the Left than a nice sedate R-type candidate. The Left is going to do their best to, well, personally demonize anyone from the Right, because they know they are in trouble at the polls.

    In fact, I think that the Left hates Palin specifically because she has the Right going out to the polls…rather than saying things like “McSame” and sitting out the election—although I would venture a guess that you did in fact sit out the election, or vote for a Third Party candidate. I could be wrong, of course, and apologies if so.

    How did that work out? Or perhaps you think McCain would have been just as bad, or worse, than this group of Chicago hack amateurs?

    And it’s ironic. You didn’t like McCain as a candidate (nor did I), and the whole idea of McCain was someone who wasn’t tremendously straightforward in his conservative bona fides. A nice “safe” candidate who didn’t say “crazy” things.

    How’d that work out, again? And see how the Left defined the conversation in ways that served their own partisan purposes? And my conservative friends just lined up and did exactly what Axelrod wanted. Sure, country club Republicans are part of the problem. But this guy in office?

    Clearly you have issues with Sarah Palin. Fine. But if you look at the language you yourself use, why, it doesn’t look to me like policy differences. It looks far more…. personal.

    Now, I know you will be irritable when you read that. I don’t mean to pick a fight. But I suggest you have yourself a nice cold alcoholic beverage, sit down, and look at what you have been writing.

    Sarah Palin may indeed be too radioactive to run for office. But no one can deny that she has energized the Republican base all over the place. Her going as far she did should (and hopefully will) get more “regular people” into politics. And her case has forced the Left to show themselves as the hypocritical sexist misogynists that they are. The language alone gives it away.

    Don’t like Palin? Fine. Support someone you do like, and ignore her. After all, if she can get as far as she did, who else can conservatives and Republicans support—while the MSM and the Left pushes so hard to get their own types elected and re-elected? Unless it is easier to tear down than to build.

    Again, it isn’t my intention to fight about this. But I get irritable when I watch my friends on the Right do things that make Axelrod smile.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  72. Sarah Palin is the only reason I bothered to vote for McCain last November. I’d much rather have Palin as the GOP standard-bearer in 2012 than Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.

    Mike LaRoche (002488)

  73. Why, Mike! That must mean you are insane! Haven’t you heard? That is what Newsweek tells us (and some conservatives, too).

    And we all know that the MSM knows best.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  74. I voted for McCain and it… it took something from me.

    I have probably about zero policy differences with Sarah Palin. The quitting thing is a huge big deal. Real Americans don’t quit.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  75. 65.I’ve noticed young men, even conservative young men, don’t like Sarah Palin. I’m not sure why that is except she’s so different from what they’ve been taught women should be.Comment by DRJ — 11/27/2009 @ 3:28 pm

    I’m not so sure I follow the “what they’ve been taught” thought. Conservatives lament that public education has too much liberal focus which I’d tend to agree with. If anything, schools teach that someone like Palin is preferred over a stay at home mother.

    A couple of comments in general:
    I am not so impressed by Palin that I think she is the de facto pick for 2012. What the media is doing is patently wrong. That said, I think that some conservatives (even older ones) don’t see that much depth in ideas with her. Comparisons to Reagan by her most ardent fans are a put off as well.
    Lower taxes and no national health care statements are easy to agree with. I’m more interested in hearing her lay out more comprehensive solutions to entitlement spending and deficits. When she can articulate the issues more like Gingrich and less like a campaigner I may change my opinion.
    I do think that the lines about her get blurred. Legitimate criticism/questions get lumped in with the media smear. IMO the two need to be separated.

    voiceofreason2 (de717e)

  76. Happy, I don’t think you understand the problem in Alaska with ethics complaints. It is unique. Maybe you feel they should have gone on until they were bankrupt. I don’t.

    Mike K (addb13)

  77. Yep, I’m insane! Newsweek is a joke of a magazine – does anyone still read that rag? I wonder if they still have those stupid “conventional wisdom” arrows…

    Mike LaRoche (002488)

  78. Just remember, Mike: you have to let your betters tell you what to think. That is true from the RNC to the DNC to the NYT. Don’t think for yourself!

    Why…why…you might get a say in government!

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  79. I don’t for a minute think Sarah Palin is up to the job… happyfeet @ 12:07 pm

    There we have it. happyfeet doesn’t think Palin is up for the job because:
    1. He doesn’t think she is up for the job.
    (and that she ran with McCain)

    Can we get a little more analytical here?

    For example, one could say being mayor of a small city and governor for 2 years is inadequate preparation for the presidency, no matter male or famale, no matter how smart. That is still an opinion, but at least it gets to specific details. That is why Mike K (and I) could see her being the VP candidate to energize the voters with someone else (Romney, Jindahl, ?) with more executive experience as the Pres.

    There are people who love Palin because they think they can identify with her and trust her.

    There are those who hate Palin because her existence goes against everything they hold to be true, just as they hate Clarence Thomas or any other successful outspoken African American who seeks to emulate King’s dream of being judged by one’s character.

    Palin made it to be governor, but she did it without the help of the “pro-women’s groups”. She is so pro-life that she did the “absurd” thing of carrying a child with Down’s Syndrome to term in her 40’s. Not to mention so pro-second amendment that she hunts real animals with real guns. And on top of all that, she has the gall to be happily married after eloping with her high school sweetheart and a $35 dollar wedding ring. “For crying out loud, you don’t have to get married to live together”; “and the way she acts you’d think they’d never “messed around” before they were married and that she didn’t “see” anyone else when she was away at college!”

    So that’s the issue. People who hold her life experience as what they aim to be and want their daughters to be love her. Those who believe their own moral values are “progressive” and superior, rather then “old fashioned”, can’t stand to have her in the same circles of stature and power as themselves, her example haunts them.

    What else could it be?
    – Do they hate she was a mayor?
    – that she was a governor?
    – do they hate her because she stood against her own party machinery as well as the opposing party (I’m sure some do)
    – do they hate that she is not Ivy league educated?
    – do they hate her because she wants to develop US energy resources (some do there, I guess)

    You can not like a candidate on issues, experience, etc., but the intensity of hostility toward her has to be 100% visceral, “I don’t like people like that!”

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  80. “I think the people who hate her do so because they can’t stand what she stands for, or the characature of what they think she stands for.”

    A commenter on AoS put it best. “They” don’t hate Sarah Palin. They hate people like Sarah Palin. Us.

    I think voiceofreason2 makes the best (most substantive) criticism of Palin. Three years is time enough to address those concerns, though.

    fat tony (26478a)

  81. I think Sarah’s legal defense fund would have been more than adequate. By letting herself be hounded out of office she left the office weaker than she found it. She had a duty. She bailed. It reflects poorly on her.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  82. Concern over her resigning the governorship is a specific and fact related concern. However, there is more than one way to look at the issue, as I posted at #50 and I think Mike K. discussed too.

    That is a valid concern to have, but it is your opinion that it was an act of cowardice or foolishness; and it has nothing to do with why they hate her, for they hated her before.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  83. Hmmm…. Again, Mr. Feet, you seem pretty darned sure how legal defense funds go. I’m not. Do you have a list of the charges filed on her? The amounts of money involved? The time being spent?

    I’m just asking, since you seem so very sure about this. Again, I’m not. In fact, her response—while not what many people might want—is very understandable.

    So why spend all this time in indignation? You might re-read MD in Philly’s comment, and think about why you were getting so agitated earlier in the thread. There is something more to this, methinks.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  84. Let me add, Sarah Palin is a “quitter” like Captain Kirk is a “cheater”.

    fat tony (26478a)

  85. right. They did hate her before. I don’t think people are being honest about how sexy the hate she incites makes her to a certain sort of conservative.

    Sarah Palin 2012 is largely a revenge fantasy I think.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  86. They were also filing ethics complaints about her legal defense fund….
    and none of this took into account the man-hours spent by Alaska Government employees dealing with the avalance of complaints, inquiries, etc…man-hours not spent dealing with actual problems that impacted Alaska residents.
    Plus, where was she going to come up with the half-million and counting that her lawyers were billing her if the status of a legal-defense fund was tied up in court?

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  87. here is the best article I ever found about Sarah and her ethics problems

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  88. Hmmm. Once again, Mr. Feet, you make Mr. Axelrod smile. Smile so deeply.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  89. And incidentally, how many “ethics problems” have been pursued since she left office? I’m just saying.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  90. She quit like a quitty quitting quitter, Mr. tony. That’s just the record. And Mr. AD… Sarah’s problems were her problems. Which she bailed on. If she wanted to be president she should have toughed it out or ran for Senate and got rid of that heinous Lisa cow.

    But she didn’t. The prospect then is that she would presume to offer herself as a candidate for the presidency with a resume as ludicrously meager as the dumbass what’s in there now. That’s just not serious.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  91. Eric Blair, Mr. Axelrod dreams his dirty Axelrod dreams of a Sarah Palin – Barack Obama grudge match. The LPM’s dirty socialist media is gonna a lot surprise you how helpful they are.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  92. “…quitty quitty quitter…”

    Um. You seem so very sure about so very much in national politics, Mr. Feet.

    I wish I was so certain about a person I have never met. Especially given the people coming down the pike in 2010 and 2012.

    I really think there is another agenda here.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  93. No, they weren’t entirely “her” problems, since as a private individual, there would be no vehicle for the “Palin Haters” to use to harrass her, but as Governor, they had the Alaskan Ethics Act to use as a bludgeon.
    Since her resignation, IIRC no ethics complaints have been filed against the Governor (current or past) of Alaska.
    So, climb down off of that high-horse before you start suffering from Oxygen deprivation.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  94. I don’t have agendas. I’m just that not-dirty socialist guy. If, ick, Sarah Palin is the nominee person than I’ll totally disavow anything bad I ever said about her. I’m very good at this. Then after she loses I’ll turn on her with a shocking viciousness.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  95. 91.She quit like a quitty quitting quitter, Mr. tony.

    I liked Mr. tony’s comment myself, referring to Kirk being the only person at Starfleet Academy to succeed in a simulated combat situation where there was supposedly no way to get out. He didn’t “cheat”, he just reprogrammed the scenario before he took the test. Some time in the future we may see more clearly if she did a “q3″ or did a tactical maneuver to fight in a way of her own choosing.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  96. oops… *then* I’ll disavow I mean…

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  97. oh. I didn’t fully appreciate Mr. tony’s comment. I apologize.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  98. My Dad is “Mr. Tony”.

    fat tony (26478a)

  99. happy, I understand that Palin’s quitting was a deal breaker for you, and perhaps for a lot of others. But as for the specifics of what she had done up until that point that cause such an unprecedented hate campaign is still couched in rhetoric or these unsubstantiated accusations: she’s stupid, ditzy, dumb, anti-intellectual, etc. The problem is there is very little evidence given to substantiate the claims (please, one bad interview I don’t believe makes a person stupid). And accusation after accusation have been debunked (rape kits, ethics violator, etc).

    So while you claim that the Left honestly hates her, I agree. I just have my doubts whether they are being honest about their reasons why they hate her. I think she is the convenient hate receptacle of people’s own disappointment and dissatisfaction in themselves and ther own lives.

    She inadvertently, by the very life she leads, points the finger at a large swath of the population: she is a self-made woman, happily married, happily fertile, mom, wife, professional and done it all without having jumped through the mandatory hoops and that is what angers people.

    And mostly, she is a living breathing indictment against feminists who throughout the Palin saga have evidenced that while they support women, they only support the right kind of women which is a unique matter of discrimination in itself.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  100. sorry, fat tony…

    Dana… more than the quitting it’s the too-easy parallel with Barack Obama. Charismatic, inexperienced is the better part of it, but now we have a best-selling book of fluffernutter. Also she can be dazzling. I’m not in the market to be dazzled.

    Please to not be dazzling me. Dazzling put our little country in a world of hurt.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  101. happyfeet, ultimately I don’t completely disagree with you. It would just be nice to hear the haters be *honest* about their hate.

    Palin’s dazzle makes me a tad uncomfortable, too. It’s generally very easy and for beautiful women to skillfully use that charm that Palin oozes to get what they want (which can be very advantageous of course, and in of itself, neither here nor there) but, if that’s all there is, then there’s a serious problem if she’s looking to 2012, or later. Again, I don’t think there’s been enough time to know what and who she is politically, especially with regard to policy. However, I’m enjoying immensely reading her WSJ and Facebook posts. Thus far, I find them compelling.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  102. As compared to Romney signing on to that abomination in Massachussett’s. Huckabee releasing a multiple rapist. Pawlenty letting Guthrie steal the Coleman election for ACORN.

    Now we say we want people with conviction, not the usual tanned RINO, someone who wouldn’t flinch from a Putin, or a Saudi prince, who supports our military not only in word but in deed. Who wouldn’t let the government replace the GM board or acquiesce to the Iranian Guard.

    bishop (4e0dda)

  103. Sarah Palin has plenty of admirable qualities – Dana lists a number of them above (#100). Unfortunately, being self-made and happily married and happily fertile has nothing to do with one’s competence in the affairs of government. Which is what the issue is.

    MD in Philly listed a number of possible reasons why people might dislike (“hate”) Sarah Palin, but he left one off the list:

    1. She seems stupid.

    That’s where I come down. And I don’t “hate” Sarah Palin; I don’t even particularly dislike Sarah Palin (any more than I dislike anyone who would run for national office); when I was in DC, there were some liberal girls in our house who expressed visceral dislike for Palin, and it puzzled me then, and it puzzles me now, but… she seems stupid. And I’m sick of stupid people controlling my government. Is it really so hard to find a candidate who’s not a moron? Why do we keep settling for candidates like Obama and Palin and Biden and Clinton and McCain who just… don’t seem to be particularly bright?

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  104. Artsy Dana listed reasons why many on the left actually do hate Palin. Those things are reasons supposed feminists hate her. And I don’t see Palin as unintelligent. Her intelligence has a homey (not homely and not gangsta) style instead of an off-putting intellectual elite style.

    And she left the governor’s office so Alaskans could get back to the business of running Alaska instead of spending gobs of tax-dollars and man-hours to fight off frivolous and dishonest lawsuits filed by leftists who hate everything Palin stands for. It took class for her to leave office to let Alaska get back to being Alaska. And I don’t consider it “quitting” at all.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  105. Unfortunately, being self-made and happily married and happily fertile has nothing to do with one’s competence in the affairs of government. Which is what the issue is.

    Leviticus, I hope you didn’t assume that was an exhaustive list – quite obviously, she’s had governing experience, executive decision making, and is an educated woman.

    What you didn’t include was my observation that she is a self made woman, which speaks to her initiative, ambition, tenacity, self-discipline, strong will, commitment, and courage – also essential qualities for anyone holding higher public office.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  106. If you check in on some feminist websites or blogs, you’ll frequently find that the proprietor says the place is supposed to be safe for feminists and women.
    That means two things: Don’t contradict the feminists, and…women need to come to a place to be safe from the bad menz.
    A woman who could kick ass and take names is a threat to the jobs of the professional feminists who put themselves in the position of protecting the frail, vulnerable, always-in-jeopardy women.
    If they can’t convince the women that they are in danger every single minute and they have no power to do anything themselves to protect themselves, the professional feminists have no jobs.
    Palin can take care of herself. By extension, so could any woman.
    That’s a threat.

    Richard Aubrey (1a4ab0)

  107. Dana – I did include your observation that she is a self-made woman. You actually quoted me including it. And if Sarah Palin’s a self-made woman, Barack Obama’s a self-made man*, and look what that says about his ability to govern – absolutely nothing.

    *(Cue complaints about Daley/Chicago politics – yeah, whatever. The guy’s self-made. Deal with it.)

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  108. Saying someone “seems stupid” would seem to be a perception problem of the observer, particularly when the observed has a long resume of accomplishments.
    Perhaps it is more a peer problem…
    to defend Sarah Palin would so go against the conventional wisdom in the academic melieu such as to make the defender persona non grata.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  109. You’re right, Leviticus. I’m sorry, I missed it.

    Point taken regarding about Obama’s inability to govern successfully. Perhaps another fundamental quality necessary but not yet mentioned, is honesty.

    Based on the continuing lies/distortions we’ve been fed, that perhaps our president is a fundamentally dishonest person, or perhaps it does indeed go back to his Chicago politics training ground. I dunno.

    No matter, we haven’t seen enough of Palin’s decision making to know about her. However, that she is unfailingly consistent and unchanging in her stands, whether bashed for them or not, shows me that she’s certainly not inconsistent (which again, seems somewhat different than our president).

    Dana (e9ba20)

  110. “A long resume of accomplishments”… and you accuse me of “a perception problem”?

    It’s funny that people have spent an entire thread listing Palin’s qualities and accomplishments, and I’ve yet to see anyone directly praise her intelligence. Did I miss it, or does everyone just know she’s dumb and not want to admit it?

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  111. Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin….
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/07/08/reader_letters/index.html

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  112. As long as we’re looking at resumes, please refresh our memory on the executive experience/accomplishments of BHO at the time he entered the Presidential Sweepstakes, vis-a-vis Sarah Palin.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  113. Levi, you have made a judgement on Palin’s intelligence based on what exactly ?

    Mike K (addb13)

  114. You’re right, Leviticus, you missed it.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  115. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you that I think Barack Obama is a pushover before you all believe that I believe it. I’m not vested in the man. I knew he was nothing special, and I was never particularly happy about having to vote for him. I’m not interested in defending him, and I’m not going to.

    So, back to Sarah Palin: intelligence? Any takers?

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  116. She must be a stupid, shallow, snowbilly; otherwise, she would have gone to law school and would be a top aide to a KongressKritter,
    and/or have burrowed into one of the bureaucracies in DC, which is what smart, bright people do.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  117. Hello, is this thing on?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  118. Leviticus, what would be your definition of intelligence – what evidence would you need? What would you base it upon?

    If you’re comparing Obama and Palin, one would say that because of his impressive oratorical skills and persuasive speech, he sounds intelligent – because she can sound disjointed, arrhythmic and reflects regional syntax, she sounds less intelligent. Neither may be a true assessment, so that’s why I’m asking, what’s the criteria?

    Dana (e9ba20)

  119. We had these exact conversations, sans the internet, about Reagan in 1978. He was laughed off as a buffoon. And, Leviticus, if you think BHO is self-made any moreso than Sarah Palin, perhaps you should read this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_competing_narratives_of_ba.html
    Sarah IS self-made, Obama was produced. Like a Broadway production, foisted upon this country, with an agenda that it was a given that he would be the Tony winner at the conclusion of his much needed, albeit, manufactured reawakening of America’s duty to right the wrongs of centuries past.
    Obama excoriates the American Dream, whilst Sarah Palin has LIVED it.

    sybilll (dadda0)

  120. Mike K – based on hearing her speak and attempt (and fail) to articulate moderately complex concepts. I mean, how do you assess a politician’s intelligence?

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  121. Unless we know them personally, we have no way of knowing how smart or dumb politicians are, nor of knowing whether their intelligence and skills will be useful when they are faced with important decisions. That’s why I vote based on political philosophy and how likely I think it is that the politician will adhere to that philosophy.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  122. It is arguable that she is even more self made than Reagan, as he had first the studio system
    and later GE as his fall back network. Now as for evidence of intelligence, negotiating a flexible tax code, on franchise fees, being party to the negotiations with major oil companies in at least two countries, one could argue some naivete with regards to the ethics reform, but then again who would have thought it could be turned against an honest person.

    bishop (4e0dda)

  123. “Leviticus, what would be your definition of intelligence – what evidence would you need? What would you base it upon?

    If you’re comparing Obama and Palin, one would say that because of his impressive oratorical skills and persuasive speech, he sounds intelligent – because she can sound disjointed, arrhythmic and reflects regional syntax, she sounds less intelligent. Neither may be a true assessment, so that’s why I’m asking, what’s the criteria?”

    – Dana

    It’s a totally subjective impression, and any of you may dismiss it accordingly. I’m not saying that Sarah Palin isn’t intelligent – maybe she is; I’m saying that she doesn’t seem intelligent to me, based on my totally subjective impression of her (see my response to Mike K). And that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to not support her.

    For what it’s worth, Obama doesn’t seem exceedingly intelligent, either – his speeches were piles of hackneyed bullshit and he sounds like a dim bulb every time he steps away from a teleprompter.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  124. John Hitchcock,

    Whatchoo want, a cookie? “Did I miss it, or…” is meant specifically to account for the possibility that I might have missed it.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  125. Sarah Palin has plenty of admirable qualities – Dana lists a number of them above (#100). Unfortunately, being self-made and happily married and happily fertile has nothing to do with one’s competence in the affairs of government. Which is what the issue is.

    MD in Philly listed a number of possible reasons why people might dislike (”hate”) Sarah Palin, but he left one off the list:

    1. She seems stupid.

    That doesn’t explain hating someone.

    That’s where I come down. And I don’t “hate” Sarah Palin; I don’t even particularly dislike Sarah Palin (any more than I dislike anyone who would run for national office); when I was in DC, there were some liberal girls in our house who expressed visceral dislike for Palin, and it puzzled me then, and it puzzles me now, but… she seems stupid.

    It’s nice you don’t hate her but you haven’t explained then why people do hate her. You come up with something that by your own statement doesn’t explain the vitriol. You even admit you don’t understand it yourself.

    You seem to be talking out of both side of your mouth. “Why do people hate her? You all are missing something: She’s stupid!!! Not that that means I hate her or anything.”

    As far as I can see she’s been a successful executive. The stupid thing is arguably an outgrowth of the hatred because when someone makes the claim about her no one in lib circles would ever challenge it. The fact she’s a Christian and up front about her faith probably has a lot to do with both the hatred AND the fact she’s seen as stupid.

    And I’m sick of stupid people controlling my government. Is it really so hard to find a candidate who’s not a moron? Why do we keep settling for candidates like Obama and Palin and Biden and Clinton and McCain who just… don’t seem to be particularly bright?

    I thought Clinton’s supposed to have this high IQ.

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  126. Now that I have your attention, what say you on my statement regarding her intelligence?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  127. I never mentioned intelligence, because I think she is intelligent, but not unusually brilliant. I think she has the intelligence to be president, but I don’t see her as being so brilliant that it would be the reason to vote for her.

    I went to college and medical school in Wisconsin, a very egalitarian and non-assuming place. When I went to Philly for residency I encountered a huge difference. There was an atmosphere that was much more pretentious, where “one’s place” was important. People in authority did things that would have earned a, “You’ve got to be kidding me” responsein Wis. And that was NOT because the professional stature was any higher in Philly. These are generalities of course, there were some snobs in Wis. (but few), and there were some folk in Philly that being pompous was not part of their nature at all.

    I always felt more comfortable speaking in the vernacular of my patients rather than in medico-speech, and I’m sure in some circles people thought, “Where’d that hick come from?” and thought I was probably a lousy doc because I didn’t meet their expectations, not because they saw any mistakes or poor judgement.

    I think Palin is that way. She grew up as “the girl next door” and maintained that basic familiarity with people even as governor of her state. Now, it worked for her in Alaska and would in many other states, but it is not the norm in DC-NYC corridor.

    As far as the “dazzle” goes, i don’t trust dazzle. That said, if I think the dazzle is a natural by-product of (appropriate) confidence and vision and conviction I won’t hold it against somebody. I typically find that when the “pizzaz” is a calculated front, people will stumble and give themselves away, as Obama frequently has.

    I don’t think brilliance is important in a president. You need smarts, conviction, and strength of character. Many people see that in her and see the great contrast to others (including to McCain).

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  128. I was never particularly happy about having to vote for him.

    Why did you have to vote for him?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  129. I think our friend from NM should find old tapes of Ike in a presser, and study them.
    Ike never impressed anyone with his orotorical skills, or his KS twang, but he did free Western Europe while balancing the two greatest prima dona’s in the world: Monty and Patton!
    Judging someone’s intelligence by their speaking mannerisms is a very subjective, and superficial, standard. As we have seen, The One is completely lost without TOTUS, and comes across as a stumblebum – I mean, talk about not being able to complete a thought, or to reach “B” from “A”.
    Is that a fair assessment?
    What matters more is what they have accomplished.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  130. Comment by MD in Philly — 11/27/2009 @ 8:44 pm

    We’ve had “smart” in the White House…and neither Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter are Presidencies to write home about.
    “Amiable Dunces” though, seem to do quite well.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  131. Hey, folks, I am LOVING this business of determining if someone is intelligent based on what they say in snippets in front of a camera. Or even on a website, for that matter—where there is no filtering from a potentially hostile (or adoring) media.

    Making judgement in that fashion seems…um….pretty youthful and juvenile, even naive, especially from folk who are taking on the mantle of world-weary and “outsider”-based cynicism.

    It’s just lazy thinking. Bumper sticker thinking.

    So who is stupid, again?

    And more to the point, who is the enthusiastic tool of the oh-so-awful political system?

    Axelrod is laughing.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  132. John Hitchcock,

    I suppose you’d have to explain what exactly gives you the impression that she’s intelligent, and what a “homey” intelligence looks like.

    Gerald A,

    I don’t think an inordinate amount of people do hate her. That’s why I put “hate” in quotation marks in #104. I think people dislike her because they think she’s stupid (which may not be a reason to hate someone, but it may certainly be a reason to dislike someone, particularly someone who’s intent on telling you that your political views are evil and destructive). As far as her Christianity goes, that certainly doesn’t factor into my… lack of respect for her, insofar as I am myself a Christian and up front about my faith.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  133. Leviticus:

    Mike K – based on hearing her speak and attempt (and fail) to articulate moderately complex concepts. I mean, how do you assess a politician’s intelligence?

    So, we’re not to use the Biden example?

    Are you not arguing against yourself?

    I’m not a big fan of Palin, but come on.

    Ag80 (3d1543)

  134. Mike K – based on hearing her speak and attempt (and fail) to articulate moderately complex concepts. I mean, how do you assess a politician’s intelligence?

    Comment by Leviticus

    So, I assume you have seen her debates in the Alaska governor’s race and you judged her inadequate in the VP debate when Biden lied every time he opened his mouth and was not called on any of it.

    I don’t know whether she is ready to be president but I was sure Obama wasn’t and I think my judgement has been vindicated.

    I agree that she did poorly in the two legacy media interviews. Some may have been biased cutting but she did not answer questions well. OBama, on the other hand, does well when he has a teleprompter to tell him what to say and not so well when he is impromptu. His best interview was with Bill O’Reilly.

    Mike K (addb13)

  135. Also, I am old enough to remember Reagan as President, and how all the media thought he was a senile fool from Day One. Then, when you read his published letters, you find out that was not the case.

    But it is SO much easier to label someone. And the ironic thing is, I have yet to meet a “labeler” who appreciates it when someone “labels” him or her. No, that’s entirely different.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  136. “snowbilly” Comment by AD – RtR/OS

    That’s a clever one. With family roots in Kentucky I’m used to the hillbilly version.

    I’m unclear about what you mean in #132, hopefully we are not at odds.

    Leviticus, I do think a lot of people hate/dispise/can’t stand her. I have heard few people, if any, calmly say why they don’t like Palin. It’s either like her or “You can’t be serious!”

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  137. “Hey, folks, I am LOVING this business of determining if someone is intelligent based on what they say in snippets in front of a camera. Or even on a website, for that matter—where there is no filtering from a potentially hostile (or adoring) media.

    Making judgement in that fashion seems…um….pretty youthful and juvenile, even naive, especially from folk who are taking on the mantle of world-weary and “outsider”-based cynicism.”

    – Eric Blair

    Well, how can you say, one way or the other? After all, you have only my words on an oh-so-unreliable website on which to form an impression of my character… and according to you, that’s a woefully insufficient source of information by which to make such a judgement. Or, put another way: I am LOVING this business of determining if someone is youthful and juvenile, even naive, based on what they say on a website.

    Mmmmmm… delicious hypocrisy. Makes me want to fill the fill the margins of my students’ term papers with self-satisfied declarations of superiority. But it’s late… it can wait til tomorrow.

    “Who is the enthusiastic tool of the oh-so-awful political system?”

    – Eric Blair

    Who’s enthusiastic, hypocrite? It was being made a tool once that made me intent on never being made a tool again. Is that such a bad thing? How did you react?

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  138. Wow! And who knew I was talking about you, Leviticus?

    But I knew you would respond as you did.

    Terrible to be a tool, isn’t it?

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  139. Why, responding immediately would be…not smart!

    Right?

    It seems you do think that there is a great deal of nuance to people.

    Maybe you should think about that for the next few days….

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  140. _____________________________________________

    there were some liberal girls in our house who expressed visceral dislike for Palin, and it puzzled me then, and it puzzles me now

    Huh? Why would that puzzle you? Those girls are liberals, Palin is a conservative.

    Now that’s fine and all, but I find it laughable when many on the left love to tout their respect of diversity (of both gender and race, etc) and women’s rights and civil rights. But I’m quite sure many of those same “progressives” would quickly lose their joy for such characteristics in the populace around them if most females, or blacks, or Latinos, or gays, or bisexuals, or single mothers, or felons, etc, were conservative or rightwing.

    I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

    Actually, it’s even worse than that. It’s not just misogyny that illustrates members of the modern-day left are a bunch of big phonies. It’s what is revealed in another one of my occasional postings and tributes to the “progressive”:

    Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times:
    This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

    “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

    Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

    When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

    It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

    According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    Mark (411533)

  141. Leviticus – I’ve been in enemy territory, Taxachusetts, for the past week with my liberal family. My sister intensely dislikes Palin. I calmly ask why. She first says she doesn’t think she is intelligent but then admits she hasn’t really heard her speak at all. Then she mentions some of her positions on choice and gay marriage. She doesn’t know Palin did not force her views on the State of Alaska and shares Obama’s view of gay marriage.

    Essentially my sister has an uninformed, knee jerk hatred for Palin fueled by the community-based reality of the left.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  142. Leviticus said:

    “A long resume of accomplishments”… and you accuse me of “a perception problem”?

    It’s funny that people have spent an entire thread listing Palin’s qualities and accomplishments, and I’ve yet to see anyone directly praise her intelligence. Did I miss it, or does everyone just know she’s dumb and not want to admit it?”

    She may be dumb, but a lot of people in Alaska didn’t think so.

    Maybe the whole lot of Alaska is dumb. They do have a small population.

    Is that you’re point? Alaskans are dumb and you know better?

    What state do you live in? Who did you elect to the House? To the Senate?

    Specifically, what great mastermind of the universe did you elect to represent you locally or on a state-wide basis?

    Based on that, should I vote for that person because he or she is more intelligent than Palin?

    The point of a representative democracy is to elect people who represent your values.

    It’s not, neener-neener-neener, I’m smarter than you.

    Ag80 (3d1543)

  143. your, not you’re. Sorry.

    Ag80 (3d1543)

  144. “And who knew I was talking about you, Leviticus?”

    – Eric Blair

    I did. Because I have the absolutely uncanny ability to form conclusions based on presented data – SHOCKA!

    “It seems you do think that there is a great deal of nuance to people.”

    – Eric Blair

    It seems that I think you can form an impression of someone based on what they say – which is the point I was making, and the point with which you disagreed before (somewhat paradoxically) rendering a judgment of your own by the same standard. But pretend that you meant to eat your words – I give you permission. Just don’t take it out on your students – they’ve done nothing to deserve another lecture about their uniform pig-headed recalcitrance.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  145. You really are amusing, Leviticus. I was showing you how silly you were being.

    Don’t you get it: you were oh so cavalier and world-weary about making sweeping generalizations about someone…but it is so different when it applies to you.

    And yet you call me a hypocrite.

    Hilarious.

    I actually think you are pretty smart. But you tend to pop off without thought. As you just did.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  146. She first says she doesn’t think she is intelligent but then admits she hasn’t really heard her speak at all.

    That lack of honesty or self-awareness on the part of so many liberals drives me up the wall. If they were more candid about themselves and others — and, for example, wouldn’t couch their own biases with a euphemism like “progressive” — they’d say that Sarah Palin, quite simply, was too conservative, or too rightwing, or not liberal enough.

    For people to spout off about the intelligence of an ideological foe, and, at the same time, to be kind of a dummy or dishonest about what makes themselves tick, is a sign of, well, their stupidity.

    Mark (411533)

  147. And your snark about my teaching—and let’s face it, I have more experience with students than you do with teachers is unbecoming, and detracts from your pose of reasoned cynicism.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  148. “The point of a representative democracy is to elect people who represent your values.”

    – Ag80

    One of my values is intelligence. There are certainly others; intelligence is not chief among them, but it is something to be considered.

    It’s a funny thing – I’ve been drawn so far into this thread, when I originally meant only to point out that perceived intelligence might factor into people’s like/dislike of Sarah Palin (in response to MD in Philly’s query as to why people disliked Sarah Palin). I’ve not said that intelligence is the only criteria, or the most important criteria, or anything of the sort. I’ve said that perceived intelligence may factor into an individual’s assessment of a political candidate (or any other individual), that it does indeed factor into my own subjective assessments, and that those subjective assessments aren’t particularly flattering in the case of Sarah Palin (based on what I’ve seen of her, which is nonetheless sufficient to form a legitimate impression, albeit a disputable one).

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  149. “Don’t you get it: you were oh so cavalier and world-weary about making sweeping generalizations about someone…but it is so different when it applies to you.

    And yet you call me a hypocrite.”

    – Eric Blair

    It’s not different at all when it applies to me, and I’ve said nothing to indicate that it was. You can make sweeping generalizations about me all the live-long day, just like I can make sweeping generalizations about Sarah Palin all the live-long day. And we can both be wrong, or right, or whatever, but the point is that we can both assess based on the information in front of us. I made that point in my immediate response to you (#139), just as I’ve made it throughout the thread.

    I call you a hypocrite because you sarcastically dispute my ability to make a subjective assessment of Sarah Palin’s capabilities while simultaneously making a subjective assessment of mine. And unless you can offer some other interpretation of #133 (other than “I actually meant the opposite of what my words are constructed to convey”), I think the label is accurate.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  150. Sigh.

    No Leviticus, as everyone reading this thread knows, based on all my prior comments toward you, I think you are a smart fellow. I was engaging in your own behavior to show you how narrow minded and antithetical to your own professed code you have been acting.

    It’s not important whether or not you believe me. You reacted quite strongly to the theater, which only proved my point: you apply rules differentially.

    You should care less what anyone thinks. Right? But you do. And that’s human. It was not my intention to insult you, as you have tried to do to me tonight. It was my intention to get you to see that you don’t care for it when other people treat you in the fashion you treat others.

    It’s wrong to make sweeping generalizations of others. Worse, it is intellectually lazy, and makes you an unwitting tool of the system that you claim to find find distasteful in a nonpartisan fashion.

    But please don’t take my word for it. I understand that you are emotionally invested in your prior position in this discussion. But it is making you do a philosophical limbo. I was only treating you as you were treating another person. And it angered you, because you know very well you are smart and thoughtful. And you didn’t appreciate your thoughtfulness trivialized or snarked about.

    Right?

    It’s fine to say that you have investigated a politician’s background and do not care for their policy choices. But stupid? And then defending that kind of judgement making? Puh-leeze. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

    Speaking of which, I had better not be lazy myself further. I have many papers to grade. Either you will think about this, or you will not. You probably will post some more snark at my expense. But I mean it utterly when I write that you are better than this “stupid” business.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  151. Leviticus,

    Well, guess you chaps finally solved it – “the Left” (whatever that is) hates women because it thinks Sarah Palin is a mouth-breather, and you guys and gals love and support women because you think Sarah Palin is the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.
    — The Left: ultra-liberals with an agenda to restructure our system of government into a form of socialism; their goal in this is not to ‘help people’, so much as it is to maintain power for themselves. Mistake: They don’t think that Sarah Palin is a mouth-breather; they are characterizing her that way in order to maintain power, because they are AFRAID of her. Mistake: Some, not all, of us love & support her because we think that she will be good for the country; certainly much better than the idiot in the WH right now. Whether or not she is the “second coming of Ronald Reagan” is a matter of semantics; better IS better.

    Is anyone going to step back and admit how wrong it is to paint fifty percent of the population with the Misogynist Brush because they don’t happen to respect your political idol?
    — The Left isn’t anywhere near 50% of the population; nobody said that they were. Unfortunately, there are enough of them, and they have enough influence, especially with the MSM, that it is important to point out their tactics to the general public.

    Or am going to have to start perpetuating some stupid bullshit of my own?
    — Every left-wing talking point you spew perpetuates stupid bullshit! One wonders if you meant ‘perpetrating'; either way, you’re already guilty, buddy.

    Like Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton a dog because he didn’t like her parents? Or saying that the real reason Hillary Clinton couldn’t join the military like she said she wanted to was that the military “didn’t make uniforms that could fit that big an ass?” Or Ben Shapiro saying “no woman in the history of politics has used her womb like Nancy Pelosi”? Does that make all conservatives into misogynists? Of course not – and anyone who answered in the affirmative would be an idiot.
    — What? Conservatives have lobbed insults at liberal women? It’s an outrage, I tells ya! Because you know that ANY insult directed towards a female clearly indicates HATRED of women, which is the definition of misogyny, BTW. If I call Pelosi (which I am prone to do) the Botox Bitch by the Bay, am I expressing a hatred of women? Am I saying that no woman should be Speaker of the House? or, am I just insulting her because I don’t like her politics? When the Left, as they did all through the campaign after she was announced as the VP candidate, says that Palin should not be considered for the job because she has a special needs child & should be at home taking care of him . . . that reveals at the very least a willingness to appear misogynistic for the sake of winning a campaign, if not an outright display of real misogyny. Nobody ever said that Hillary shouldn’t be POTUS because she has a fat ass.

    Limbaugh frames himself as an authoritative source the same way the networks do, and they’re both (all) full of shit. So it’s not “apples to oranges”: it’s rotten apples to rotten apples, and I wish you would quit acting like Lefties are the only people who’ve ever said anything mean about women.
    — The “commentator purports to be a reporter” argument again? Really? Limbaugh claims that his OPINIONS are correct. He also states that some of the information he provides, before rendering his opinion on it, cannot be found on mainstream media . . . and he’s correct. Also, ‘saying something mean’ & expressing hatred (as noted above) are two different things.

    Unfortunately, being self-made and happily married and happily fertile has nothing to do with one’s competence in the affairs of government.
    — What an incredible coincidence that you mentioned some of the very things that the misogynists on the Left criticized her about!

    I don’t “hate” Sarah Palin; I don’t even particularly dislike Sarah Palin (any more than I dislike anyone who would run for national office); when I was in DC, there were some liberal girls in our house who expressed visceral dislike for Palin, and it puzzled me then, and it puzzles me now, but… she seems stupid. And I’m sick of stupid people controlling my government. Is it really so hard to find a candidate who’s not a moron? Why do we keep settling for candidates like Obama and Palin and Biden and Clinton and McCain who just… don’t seem to be particularly bright?
    — First of all, Thank You for acknowledging the fact that you witnessed FIRSTHAND the misogyny displayed by women on the Left. Secondly, Sarah Palin is not stupid; that is your opinion, based on the fact that she isn’t ‘polished’ enough for your tastes. As for ‘stupid people’ controlling your government; who, in your opinion, have been the smart people that have controlle the gov’t over the years?

    if Sarah Palin’s a self-made woman, Barack Obama’s a self-made man*, and look what that says about his ability to govern – absolutely nothing.
    *(Cue complaints about Daley/Chicago politics – yeah, whatever. The guy’s self-made. Deal with it.)

    — The only way that Obama is “self-made” is by virtue of the fact that he sought out the Chicago political machine, rather than vice-versa. Her accomplishments reveal her ability to govern, as opposed to Hopey-changey and his Nobel-winning good intentions.

    It’s funny that people have spent an entire thread listing Palin’s qualities and accomplishments, and I’ve yet to see anyone directly praise her intelligence. Did I miss it, or does everyone just know she’s dumb and not want to admit it?
    — You’ve missed a lot of things. Sarah Palin IS smart. Her list of accomplishments reflect her intelligence.

    I knew he [Obama] was nothing special, and I was never particularly happy about having to vote for him. I’m not interested in defending him, and I’m not going to.
    — Why did you ‘have’ to vote for him? Is it because his ideology most closely resembles yours? If so, then by attacking Sarah Palin don’t you think that you really are defending him?

    based on hearing her speak and attempt (and fail) to articulate moderately complex concepts. I mean, how do you assess a politician’s intelligence?
    — By what their positions are, by what decisions they make & by what they accomplish. How they ‘perform’ in public isn’t necessarily a sign of intelligence. There are a lot of good actors in Hollywood that are dumb people.

    If you’re comparing Obama and Palin, one would say that because of his impressive oratorical skills and persuasive speech, he sounds intelligent – because she can sound disjointed, arrhythmic and reflects regional syntax, she sounds less intelligent. Neither may be a true assessment, so that’s why I’m asking, what’s the criteria?”
    AND,
    It’s a totally subjective impression, and any of you may dismiss it accordingly. I’m not saying that Sarah Palin isn’t intelligent – maybe she is; I’m saying that she doesn’t seem intelligent to me, based on my totally subjective impression of her (see my response to Mike K). And that’s a perfectly legitimate reason to not support her.
    — Same answer to both: What she says is more important than how she says it. Her intelligence is displayed in her positions on the issues. YOU might think that poor articulation of a good idea is reason enough not to support someone; thankfully, not everyone sees it that way.

    I think people dislike her because they think she’s stupid (which may not be a reason to hate someone, but it may certainly be a reason to dislike someone, particularly someone who’s intent on telling you that your political views are evil and destructive).
    — Translation: People, including you, think she is stupid because she tells you that your political views are evil & destructive. That’s probably true, as you can’t abide anyone disagreeing with your evil, destructive views. NO DISSENT!

    It was being made a tool once that made me intent on never being made a tool again. Is that such a bad thing?
    — And yet, here you are, again, defending the indefensible.

    Icy Texan (9dba5e)

  152. One of my values is intelligence. There are certainly others; intelligence is not chief among them, but it is something to be considered.

    And how did you determine this ? Did you watch any of the governor’s debates she was a participant in ? Have you made any study of her actions as governor ? Do you know anything about her negotiations on the gas pipeline ?

    Of course not.

    I know better than to ask if you read her book. You prefer the brilliance of Joe Biden.

    Mike K (addb13)

  153. I know better than to ask if you read her book. You prefer the brilliance of Joe Biden.

    He wouldn’t get past the first couple pages, methinks. The book starts out like LHOP with extra store-bought sugar. But there’s definitely a homey, unpretentious intelligence in them there pages.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  154. Eric Blair,

    You’re so very wrong. I’ve said as much in prior comments, but you haven’t addressed it: you were engaging in my own behavior (making a subjective assessment of a person based on the information available to you), but not to prove some grand point – rather, because that’s a perfectly rational thing to do. And at the same time you decried my subjective assessment of Sarah Palin.

    I’ve not been “narrow-minded” or “antithetical to my own professed code” at all. I’ve maintained an intentional philosophical consistency on this subject.

    Because you didn’t like the fact that I was making a subjective assessment of Sarah Palin’s capabilities, you made a subjective assessment of mine (an assessment you’ve made before, in different circumstances, which leads me to believe you mean it – which is fine). Either way, I pointed out that the two things were exactly the same (whether you meant it that way or not), but I didn’t take issue with your ability to assess – which is the whole point.

    “It was my intention to get you to see that you don’t care for it when other people treat you in the fashion you treat others.”

    – Eric Blair

    Correction: I didn’t care when you treated me in the fashion I treated Sarah Palin, because it’s fair. You made a rational assessment based on the information available to you, as did I – and that’s well and good. If that’s the only point you were trying to make – that people can indeed make subjective assessments based on available data (assuming, of course, that they allow those assessments to shift as further data surfaces) – then we’ve been in agreement all along. And you’re free to think that I seem juvenile and naive, just as I’m free to think that Sarah Palin seems stupid. (And another thing: it’s not a “sweeping generalization” to form an impression of one person based on what the say and fail to say – it’s just that: an individual impression. And it’s a totally fair and normal thing to do).

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  155. Mike K,

    What I meant when I said

    “One of my values is intelligence. There are certainly others; intelligence is not chief among them, but it is something to be considered.”

    was not that intelligence is not chief among Palin’s values; it’s that it’s not chief among my values – that is, there are certainly other things I value more highly than intelligence.

    Leviticus (966f0d)

  156. You keep telling yourself that. It’s fine with me. You have fooled no one, no matter how you wriggle. And I don’t really think you are fooling yourself.

    You have yourself a good day.

    And as I say: you are better than that.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  157. Comment by MD in Philly — 11/27/2009 @ 9:02 pm

    Doc: Sorry about the tardiness of this response, but I was in great need of a good nights’ sleep, and availed myself of the opportunity.

    I’m not too sure of what you’re not sure of, but I think it is safe to say that both WW & JC were pretty intelligent guys looking at their educational, and political, attainments – what they actually accomplished, not so much.

    The “Amiable Dunce” label was hung on Ronald Reagan IIRC early in his Presidency, but I cannot remember by whom (time to crank up the Google).
    My point was that RR accomplished much more of substance for the Country, and the World, in the 20th-Century and perhaps beyond, than did either of those “smart” guys; who, history seems to indicate, made current problems worse, resulting in hardships for both Country and World down-the-road.

    One thing we lose sight of is that in the 20th-Century, we have had more than our share of great speakers, who have used the brilliance of their dialogue to mask the evil of their current and projected deeds. We must be constantly aware, and alert, to the reality that the fog of words are used to mask the evil of intent, until we are drawn in beyond a point that we can peacefully withdraw, and then the real hardships commence.

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  158. I don’t think an inordinate amount of people do hate her.

    That’s a dodge since it depends on what you mean by inordinate. Anyway we’re talking about liberals, not all people. What’s an inordinate amount of libs – 50% – 60%?

    That’s why I put “hate” in quotation marks in #104. I think people dislike her because they think she’s stupid

    Did you read the linked article? How do you explain things like that, if you did read it. Is that hate? If you didn’t read it, then read it and try to explain how that’s not hate, or if it is hate, explain that in terms of her intelligence.

    there were some liberal girls in our house who expressed visceral dislike for Palin, and it puzzled me then, and it puzzles me now, but… she seems stupid.

    So how do you explain that? Apparently because she’s “stupid”. That’s your explanation. Or it’s not your explanation, yet it seems to keep popping up somehow in ways that sound like an explanation.

    You haven’t answered my question: Why did you have to vote for Obama?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  159. AD, you are very right in a number of ways. The system really wants us to narrow things down to a “Politician X is stupid” and “Politician Y is brilliant” style of thinking.

    It’s intellectually lazy, and precisely what the DNC and RNC want.

    I was particularly impressed by Reagan’s letters, over a thirty year period. The “Amiable Dunce” thing was inaccurate. It’s like I always said about GW Bush: people think he is a nice guy, but stupid…and neither one of those things were entirely true. But they sure fit a narrative. And that narrative served a political agenda.

    And the ironic thing is how much we dislike that “bumper sticker” approach when it is applied to ourselves, or people we viscerally like.

    It’s important to look, as you write, at deeds. But that usually takes some time and effort. And most people today, sadly, think that “The Daily Show” is a good source of news.

    Heck, they may even be right—and I am not complimenting Jon Stewart.

    Fact is, we all need to actually do some intellectual heavy lifting. Unless we want to be reflexive and, um, not thoughtful.

    Eric Blair (d5235f)

  160. Because that is what all of the “smart” people were doing!

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  161. My #161 was in response to Gerald A’s close in #159.

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  162. Correction:
    My comment at 9:11 was in response to Gerald A’s close at 9:09!

    Something must have gotten fished out of the spam filter.

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  163. I’m not too sure of what you’re not sure of, but I think it is safe to say that both WW & JC were pretty intelligent guys looking at their educational, and political, attainments – what they actually accomplished, not so much– AD

    yes, I think we’re in agreement.

    A thought I’ll add, and see what ya’ll think about it. The core issue of the leftist philosophy is they don’t like the way the world works, in a big-picture, metaphysical kind of way. They don’t like that injustice exists, that poverty exists, that “unfairness” exists, that wars happen and innocent people are killed. In that regard we’re in agreement. The leftist-humanist refuses to accept/believe that the world is that way, and rather deal with the realities, act as if the realities can be changed. If the realities can be changed, but they are not being changed, then someone has to be in the way, and getting “those people” out of the way becomes the goal. So they inherently, by logical necessity, feel superior to the ones who they feel are “in the way” and need to be gotten rid of.

    Of course, this is a logical inconsistency. They believe people are basically good and just have the forces making them bad removed. But if people are basically good, why aren’t they doing “good”? Perhaps they are not doing good because they don’t know better- that is the reason they give for most of the crime and violence in the world, people are victims of ignorance and circumstances, hence they need to be accepted and educated, not held accountable. But when you have someone like Palin who says, “People should be held accountable, personal responsibility is foundational”, an “inconvenient pregnancy” is not a “problem to be destroyed”, but a sorrow of life to be faced and embraced.

    In other terms, we have the “Grand Inquisitor” telling God that He made a mistake, that the terms of existence on earth for men and women to be responsible moral creatures was too high a cost. That God’s way of summing up and taking account of all of the suffering and wrongdoing in the world is faulty, “it shouldn’t have been done that way, and damn it, we’re going to change it!”

    Of course, that looks at it from a theological/metaphysical perspective that would not be an assumed starting point; and even if a true description, does not infer a direct and conscious link from the attitudes and actions of person “A” back to the claim of the Grand Inquisitor, but it would explain the visceral response for many.

    It’s not that the L hates women, or minorities, or the poor, or the rich, it’s that they can’t stand anything or anyone that bears witness that they are wrong, because they can’t stand the idea that the world can’t be “fixed”. Obama thinks humanity can determine the earth’s physical properties if only people will listen to those with superior understanding and obey; that nuclear weapons can be made to go away, it’s just a matter of how long it will take a sufficient number to be “enlightened”. In the meantime, get rid of all of those poor excuses for humans that get in the way, and however you accomplish it is justified, after all, because it is God’s mistake that we need to fix.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  164. Sorry, should have profread my post more thoroughly, words have been missed here and there, and hence the flow of thought is jumpy.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  165. Leviticus,

    Even I can see that eric was using a pointedly unfair example to illustrate your obtuseness in using a pointedly unfair attribute to Sarah’s supposed lack of intelligence. Sheesh, liberals can’t see the forest for the trees.

    And as for your criteria in judging Sarah’s intelligence, you would also determine that Albert Einstein was stupid. A man that couldn’t even tie his own shoes, and whose oratorical skills in composing complete sentences while speaking was sadly lacking. Sometimes, the more intelligent a person is, the less intelligent they may sound to people who don’t listen closely enough.

    This being that an intelligent person’s mind processes thought faster than they can vocalize, resulting in a disjointed sounding coversation/answer,,,etc! Totally unlike someone’s uh,hu,uh, when not using a teleprompter. This indicates that said person is grasping for a response of any kind.

    peedoffamerican (f3343e)

  166. Sometimes, the more intelligent a person is, the less intelligent they may sound to people who don’t listen closely enough.
    This being that an intelligent person’s mind processes thought faster than they can vocalize, resulting in a disjointed sounding coversation/answer,,,etc!
    peedoffamerican

    You sooo understand my predicament….
    (Nice point, just borrowing it)

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  167. Use freely, rinse, repeat as necessary.

    peedoffamerican (f3343e)

  168. Comment by MD in Philly — 11/28/2009 @ 1:38 pm

    My personal philosophy on this is that Leftists just don’t believe in the concepts of Heaven and Hell, that all there is is now, and that if there was a God, he wouldn’t allow such imperfections to exist, we’re going to make this Heaven-on-Earth, etc, etc.
    They just don’t think that there are concepts bigger than they are, things that they can’t control, or that lessor-beings (and By Jove, they do believe in lessors) could ever survive without their en loco parentus ministrations.
    Most of us would be satisfied, and some would be down-right joyous, if they would just leave us alone; and, in most cases, we would survive and most likely prosper, too.

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  169. I’d vote for that. We could call it the “Leave Us Alone” Party.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  170. I call it Jacksonianism!

    Too much Scots-Irish, I guess.

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  171. We fly the Gadsden Flag!

    AD - RtR/OS! (764e2c)

  172. […] Patterico’s Pontifications – The Left’s War on Sarah Palin […]

    Sarah’s Followers – The Other Half of Sarah « ON MY WATCH – the writings of SamHenry (5381c6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6482 secs.