I was never a big Sarah Palin fan. I wasn't an opponent, to be sure, but neither did I see her as the GOP's answer to The Obama Messiah. On the other hand, I also never figured out (from simple observation) what made her so hated by the media and the pundits. George Bush (the latest) "earned" their hatred with 8 years in office. She showed up as a candidate for, what, 3 months, and she apparently is the bane of the universe, promoting horrible things like allowing Down Syndrome children to be born and loved and that it's okay to have conservative religious beliefs. The cad! So outlandish is she that some 8 months after the question of who would be president was answered, she's still the target of rude, crude, unkind comments from the public.
So, now the governor of Alaska has stepped down before her term ends. Why? Well, the pundits are quite clear on that. She's planning to run for President in 2012! There's no denying it! Her own announced reasons are nothing more than lies. What reasons did she give? According to the Wall Street Journal, "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration." The article goes on to say that in the last 8 months "some 150 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature." She has been continually vindicated -- the most they have turned up was that she took her kids with her on some trips paid for by government funds -- but she has "accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months." So the governor of Alaska has concluded that the media and her political opponents and "everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature" (so to speak) has made it impossible to do her job as governor. Therefore, as a responsible governor, she stepped down to allow the job of governing Alaska to proceed for the people of Alaska.
"No, no!" the media cries. "It's a ploy!" Why? No reasons offered. Karl Rove -- theoretically not an opponent -- told Fox News that she "sent a signal that if you do this kind of thing to a sitting governor like her, you can drive her out of office." It's hard to find anyone saying, "The governor did the right thing for the people of Alaska." She's lying or she's hiding or she's stupid or she's just plain evil, but it is not remotely possible that she did the right thing here.
So, what have we learned? We've learned a lot. We've learned that it is not possible to have conservative Christian beliefs and run for public office like that. We've learned that Down's Syndrome children should be aborted, not born and loved. We've learned that only the "insiders" can be allowed into Washington D.C. and the rest will be scrutinized carefully. If they don't align with the power structure, they will be targeted by everyone from Letterman to their own political party. We've learned that women who wish to run for office need to conform to a feminist view rather than their own individual view. In other words, while feminists think they've obtained some freedom, they've done so by removing the freedom of women to disagree with them ... at least in public. We've learned that anyone who runs for Vice President necessarily has their eye on the presidency and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. We learned that "political correctness" is a very real thing and violating it is politically fatal. We've learned that women can't be themselves in Washington politics, that Christians can't be themselves in Washington politics, that conservatives are not allowed in Washington politics, and that anyone who falls in those categories without toeing the line should expect a firestorm. In other words, those whom we vote in to protect our way of life and those whom we expect to report without bias and those who consider themselves "defenders of freedom" are going to make it a nightmare for anyone who tries to be free of "political correctness" as they define it.
Thanks. Lessons learned.
11 comments:
Stan said...
So the governor of Alaska has concluded that the media and her political opponents and "everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature" (so to speak) has made it impossible to do her job as governor.
Does the fact that she apparently thinks there is a conspiracy against her by the media, the FBI, the Alaskan legislature and others not raise a red flag?
We don't "hate" Sarah Palin. That is a red herring.
We don't want to abort Down Syndrome kids. That is a scurrilous falsehood and another red herring.
We don't care if she is a conservative or a Christian, that's a misdirection.
We don't particularly want only Washington "insiders" representing us, that is WAY off.
Rather, we simply disagree with her political positions. We find her to be embarrassingly backwards in her reasoning and cloyingly manipulative in her demonization of others. We don't like the way she politicks and find her manipulations offensive and degrading to the democratic process (or at least speaking for me and those I'm familiar with).
So, if you wish to talk about Palin's detractors, I'd suggest you either provide support for these sorts of allegations or not make them at all, rather than suggest all these red herrings and straw men.
Now, if you want to talk about some specifics (Letterman picking on her underage daughter, for instance), then we might could agree on some specific ugly behavior. But it's not Christian to stereotype all her detractors in this sweeping and incorrect language. Again, "thou shalt not bear false witness."
Dan Trabue: "it's not Christian to stereotype all her detractors in this sweeping and incorrect language."
Oh, Dan, please ...
Okay, what would you like me to do? Shall I name names? "Dan Trabue thinks this of the governor but Ted Bundy thinks that." Is that really how you expect such a piece to be written? I tell you that some of her detractors are mean and vicious and you assume I'm saying this about all of her detractors? Or do you think that you accurately represent all of her detractors? Please, Dan, stop throwing "It's not Christian" and "It's not civil" at me when you act like you don't know what either one means. A civil, Christian response would have been, "Well, I see your source and I understand that this may be the case to some, but I want to point out that some of us don't agree with Sarah Palin without hating her ..."
I didn't make anything up in that post. I culled it from a variety of news pieces. Are there detractors who think she should have aborted her baby? According to the Wall Street Journal article I cited there were "mean-spirited suggestions on liberal blogs that all of her children should have been aborted and that she would run on a presidential platform promoting retardation." According to the Wall Street Journal article I cited she has been under investigation "by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature". According to all the news items I could find, the only accusation that has been verified was that she took her kids with her on government trips, and she has agreed to pay that back.
There is an ancient saying, my friend. "If the shoe fits, wear it." The suggestion is if it doesn't, don't. If you aren't among these detractors and naysayers, then it's not about you. When people paint sweeping negative pictures about Christians and I don't fall in those categories, I don't level a complaint. "You shouldn't stereotype all Christians in this sweeping and incorrect language." According to the news (not me), there is a sufficiently large number of people who continue to hate Sarah Palin enough to continue to harass her long after the questions are over that I think it warrants the conclusions I (and others) draw. You don't like it? Write a complaint to the Wall Street Journal. They had the same conclusion.
And in the future, if you can't disagree with me in a respectable, friendly way, don't bother commenting.
I apologize if my comment did not sound respectful or friendly. It was not my intent. I thought I was being respectful. I am sorry for the appearance.
But to the point, it DID sound sweeping to me. If you are not talking about all of Palin's detractors (or even most of them), then that's not what I got out of the commentary. Perhaps it would help if you noted explicitly, "Now, I'm not suggesting that this is everyone who disagrees with Palin, just those on the extreme end who have such hateful things to say."
I'm just a regular reader and it sounded to me like it was a rather sweeping generalization of all of us who disagree with Palin. My apologies for my misunderstanding.
It is impossible to write a piece that explains what all of Palin's detractors believe. The range of views against her are too wide. However, there are sufficient numbers of extreme detractors to have made her life miserable without cause. (All their important-sounding complaints have been proven false.) In other words, if you fall in line with the majority of people who simply disagree with her views and such, you are a silent majority. The vocal detractors are the "extreme end" who still, 8 months after the fact, continue to hound the woman. The only thing I can find that would make her continue to be that kind of a target long after being out of the running is ... what I concluded in the post.
I can certainly agree, a few people have been unnecessarily harsh towards Palin, especially in making comments about her family. Shame on those few people.
I don't see that "the media" is out to get her at all, though. They're reporting news and she has been keeping herself in the news. That's their job.
A few pundits and comedians crossing lines in making commentary and jokes? Certainly. Way too many goofy bloggers making goofy/awful comments? It would not surprise me.
But that's it. The media is reporting news. The legislature, I don't know enough of the details on, but not being one to trust politicians, I have few problems with FOIA requests and investigations within reason.
Again, your commentary seemed to be a blanket commentary towards the media and just her detractors in general. I apologize for the my misunderstanding, again. Although, I do believe you ARE including the "media" as a group amongst your overly harsh critics.
For what it's worth, I suspect she is planning a run for President in 2012 and I might well give money to her campaign. I find such a prospect to be quite entertaining. (That's humor, fyi).
1. Palin has a big problem with integrity — the voluminous list of lies you may find even on conservative sites (see Andrew Sullivan) or fellow conservatives in Alaska (google Andrew Halcro for one example).
2. Criticism, innuendo and downright nasty rubbish being flung at politicians in the national public arena is par for the course. Not saying that it is right, and I do /agree that a lot of the garbage tossed at her is uncalled for and nasty, but no different that what the Clintons endured — a right wing jihad originating in Arkansas white supremacist circles that the so-called liberal media granted credibility to. Or the lies and slanderous garbage of the Swift Boaters to John Kerry (I read their book, and it was all here say, no eyewitness testimony, and just a hatchet job)…
3. Presently, conservative leaders are beset with hypocrisy and other ethical failings. So any fresh face, it natural that conservatives would flock to… …Obama on the 'D' side, the same, but Obama the much more polished politico, and bereft of all the ethical failings that Palin possesses…
Naum: "Criticism, innuendo and downright nasty rubbish being flung at politicians in the national public arena is par for the course."
You're right about that, certainly, and that's its own problem. What is amazing to me is they haven't stopped! She's gone! McCain and Palin lost in November. They are non-issues now. No one is hounding McCain. He's back to business as usual. But, having set aside Palin by vote, there is still a concerted effort to hound her to death. Why is that? She had ... what ... 3 months in the public eye, and she is apparently the bane of human existence or some such? In other words, "Methinks they doth protest too much."
Naum: "Palin has a big problem with integrity."
I find this amusing, actually. Republicans, Palin, conservatives, they're all ... well ... liars. Fortunately the Democrats can be trusted to have integrity. Me? I was always told that you can tell when a politician is lying by seeing if his mouth is moving. Palin has a problem with integrity? I'd say "Politicians have a problem with integrity."
Of course, it will always appear to the liberals that liberals can do no wrong and to the conservatives that conservatives can do no wrong and if I ask, "Why are they attacking Palin so much?" I will be perceived as defending Palin rather than asking the question, so it will remain, I suppose politics as usual. (You know, like your certainty that Obama is bereft of ethical failings. Cute.)
@Stan, sorry, Palin indeed has severe ethical issues, especially in comparison to Obama. You may not like Obama policy, but you must acknowledge he's (at least what's visible thus far) not been the center of repeated ethics violations nor been exposed as a pathological liar (like Palin has been by fellow conservatives).
You can dismiss it as "liberal" leanings if you wish — I belong to no political party, am registered independent, and generally have great distaste for both parties, though I am a former (recovering) card carrying member of the Republican party.
Peggy Noonan nails it a WSJ piece:
In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.
It was (and is) despicable what they did to Palin.
The media could make Mother teresa look like a whore if they wanted to.
If you are in a group (women, blacks, hispanics, Jews) that ought to belong to the lockstep mindset of the left...they will rip you to shreds.
How tolerant.
Only Christians need to be tolerant, Steve. What were you thinking?
@Naum: pathological liar? Didn't know you had the training to diagnose that. Impressive.
pathological — informal compulsive; obsessive
I believe Palin's track record in this regard is quite clear — as she's been caught red handed in a number of doozies, yet continues to persist in such behavior — continuing the same lies despite the clear and present empirical evidence, and worse, engaging in new lies.
A list of lies chronicled by a conservative publication
Yeah, I know, the response will be "all politicians lie"… …sorry, but there's a disturbing hubris with Palin…
Post a Comment