Criticism Of Palin Is Reflexive, Not Substantive

Townhall ^ | June 13, 2010 | Jillian Bandes

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sarah Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore in California, and Terry Branstad over Bob Vander Plaat in the Iowa governor's race. In doing so, she rebuffed standard "tea party" picks for candidates who were more mainstream.

As usual, the mainstream media has found a way to criticize these choices.

With a few surprising endorsements in recent Republican primaries, the self-styled rogue of GOP politics has reaped an angry response from some of her own supporters and a fresh round of speculation about her own presidential ambitions in 2012.

...Shelby Blakely, executive director of the Tea Party Patriots' online publication, New Patriot Journal, said Palin's endorsement has become "so undependable, it's marginalized itself." While she once thought highly of Palin, Blakely said that over the past two years the "Going Rogue" author has gone more establishment, and Palin's failure to criticize her own party is bothersome. "There's room for criticism (all around)," Blakely said. "If you're not willing to call it where you see it, that's useless."

I find analysis such as this especially humorous given the recent round of articles praising Palin for her astute electoral picks. With Palin, though, nothing can ever go without criticism — if she's picking correctly, she's making somebody mad, and so she's clearly doing something wrong. It's a convenient narrative for those who are simply seeking to marginalize the tea party movement, the Republican Party, and conservatism in general.

[EveningStar]

Munster brand :)