Posted on 07/13/2009 6:21:18 AM PDT by bmweezer
I typically love The Economist, which tends to cover the entire world in an almost unbiased fashion, unlike most of our weeklies (Newsweek, TIME and the like). And yet, in this week's edition, the article entitled "The passing of Palin" was just plain wrong, condescending and completely off the mark.
Just reading three of the article's paragraphs makes for interesting and infuriating reading:
To half the country, this sounds like pathetic whining. Politics is a tough business. If you can’t cope with harsh criticism, perhaps you should find a less demanding line of work, such as making lucrative speeches to friendly audiences. To the other half of the country, however, Mrs Palin’s complaints ring true. And the divide is largely a cultural one. Many liberal or well-educated Americans feel it their patriotic duty to point out that the Caribou Barbie is far too ignorant to be allowed anywhere near the White House. But many rural and working-class whites adore her, and resent the way she has been ridiculed.Once again, this article shows a media that is completely ignorant when it comes to not just Sarah Palin, but to most Republicans in general. The author concludes (wrongly, of course) that well-educated Americans are anti-Sarah, meaning that her supporters are naturally fat, white illiterates looking for an axe to grind. It is always the same story: when Democrats win on the national stage (Clinton, Obama), the nation is smart, forward-looking and yes more-educated (or as the mainstreamers like to say, "well-informed"). When the GOP wins (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), the GOP somehow dummied-down the masses or as Peter Jennings famously said in 1994 following GOP wins, that "America threw a temper tantrum."This divide matters. Many Americans want as president someone who is exceptionally well-informed about public policy, who surrounds himself with experts, who weighs the evidence and then does what is best for the country. But few people are policy experts, so they often follow their hearts rather than their heads when deciding whom to vote for. Often, they assume that someone culturally similar to themselves will be more likely to look out for their interests. And that is why Mrs Palin is still so popular. There are an awful lot of Americans who see her as one of their own. She talks like them. She guts her own fish. She wears her faith on her sleeve. She obviously didn’t go to Harvard. And when people who did call her stupid or mock her faith or her family, her fans take it personally.
The kind of people who support Mrs Palin have several grievances. They are less well-educated than the American average, so the labour market has been unkind to them for years. They are often white and male, but they do not feel privileged and they often chafe at the way affirmative-action policies discriminate against them. In short, they are the Republican Party’s base. There are not enough of them to decide a general election, but more than enough to decide a primary. And that leaves the Republicans in a bind. Party bigwigs do not want Mrs Palin to be their nominee, not least because they think she would be sure to lose to Barack Obama. They hope that her resignation has opened a space for a less polarising and more competent candidate.
Now back to Palin. I, like most Americans have no clue what ultimately motivated Palin in her decision to resign her seat, effective next week. If you believe the New York Times piece from today (which is actually pretty good, given its publisher), then it is seems to boil down to Palin's tiredness with the national attention and how it has affected her job performance and family. Does this short-circuit any future presidential run? Perhaps, but politics is strange. After all, the same nation that elected a B-list actor (twice!) who gave us the longest period of economic growth since World War II also elected a junior Senator from Illinois that is described as essentially smarter than smart (just ask him!) but whose policies have done nothing to jump-start a dormant economy. The point being is this: political figures ebb and flow, just as parties do. No one should count Sarah Palin out and those that do so, are doing so at their peril.
Ted Tally is a writer living in Las Vegas. He should not be confused with the Academy-Award winning screen-writer by the same name.
We dropped our subscription to The Economist BECAUSE they were so patently biased. Very anti-Bush, very excited over Obama. Typically Euro-trash.
Agreed...I could no longer read it either. Though, it’s probably the least biased of the biased weeklys, but that’s not saying much.
what do you mean the Economist is unbiased? They been leftist during Bush term
Does that familiarly smug, shallow, ignorant, self-congratulary sense of superiority come through or what?
If Palin keeps on saying she will campaign even for Dems, then she is finished.
I posted this in another thread, but I’m reposting it here, because a lot of folks just don’t get it.
Look. Here is what all the Sarah bashers are missing, and here is why she has SO much pie-eyed support.
She articulates, represents, and lives the middle class value system and worldview better than ANYBODY. Name one, JUST ONE conservative, that represents *REAL* Conservative values better than she does? The Cheney’s are soft on homosexuality. Really soft.
She’s an NRA member, a hunter, a fisher. She’s not afraid of firearms, knives, blood and guts.
She’s taken her downs syndrome baby to term and calls him a blessing. It just brings you to tears when you see her and her husband embracing that little fellow.
She struggles with the challenges many middle-class families face, including youthful rebellion and out-of-wedlock birth.
She isn’t afraid to pray or mention the name of Jesus in public. She’s not ashamed of her faith or her Savior.
She has been the most attacked, most reviled, most slandered, most badly treated person ever to run for any pubic office that I’ve seen in my lifetime. I have never, ever seen anything like it.
I’d rather have Sarah Palin or even JED CLAMPETT as president over any of the coiffed, perfumed, elitist, baby-faced, sissy-boy, metrosexual pansies heading up the RINO party.
At least Sarah Palin and Jed Clampett won’t apologize for America or for being Americans!!!!!
I’m just SICK AND TIRED of these hoity-toity, pinky-fingered, nose-picking, bed-wetting, hand-wringing, RINOs and MARXISTS!
LET THEM ROT!
Until the RINO party can give us something better, WHICH THEY AIN’T SO FAR, we’ll take Sarah!!!
“If Palin keeps on saying she will campaign even for Dems, then she is finished.” ~ kabar
Not so AT ALL.
July 12, 2009
One Democrat realist gets it about Sarah Palin
Thomas Lifson
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/one_democrat_realist_gets_it_a.html
A shocking dissent from the party line on Sarah from one of the wiliest, most experienced wielders of power that the Democratic Party has ever fielded, a man who also knows a thing or two about charisma. A senior statesman warns his compatriots to stop dreaming about the woman from Wasilla, and wise up.
Willie Brown, who essentially ran the state government of California as (sequentially) head of both houses of the legislature, and then went on to run the city of San Francisco as mayor, writes about Sarah Palin’s “brilliant move” in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The pundits are wrong. Conventional wisdom is wrong. Sarah Palin’s decision to step down as Alaska governor was a brilliant move.
Palin has some of the best political instincts I have ever seen. She became a pop-culture superstar overnight when John McCain made her his veep pick, and she’s still second only to President Obama among politicians the public is interested in. Even in liberal San Francisco, she’d be front-page news if she ever came to town.
But that kind of celebrity comes at a high price. What a lot of people don’t know is that Palin entered Alaska politics as a reformer attacking the corruption of the state’s Republican establishment. As such, she was the darling of the Democrats - until she hooked up with McCain.
After the election, with Palin back home but positioning herself for a 2012 presidential run, it was clear she would catch nothing but ridicule from Alaska’s Democrats. It was not going to be pretty.
In my decades watching politics in California, I came to have a grudging respect for Willlie Brown. The man absolutely takes over a room when he enters it. The magnitude of his charisma is stunning, and he knows how to use it. He is also crafty and ruthless, and was properly feared when he held political power, by friend and enemy alike. I have seen implacable foes fold their cards after a private meeting with the man.
If I were a Democrat, I would pay close attention to the lesson he is trying to teach. At this point in his life, Willie Brown can tell the truth as he sees it, and the man knows as much about the fundamentals of politics as anyone alive.
God, guns, motherhood & moose stew - Palin in 2012!
Agreed...but she’s going to have to be VERY strong to take more of the personal beating she’s been getting...if her political career continues what was done to Qualye will be schoolyard stuff in comparison.
I have NEVER seen the liberal establishment SO afraid of a national candidate.
> If Palin keeps on saying she will campaign even for Dems,
> then she is finished.
Name one Dem for whom she is campaigning.
Just one.
She said that she would stump for ANYBODY who shares her vision of:
* Limited government
* Lower taxes
* Individual LIBERTY
* Anti-abortion
* Energy INDEPENDENCE
* Strong National Defense
* Defense of our Borders
* Pro-gun
* Anti-establishment
If there were a Democrat promoting that vision running against a RINO, I’d support the Democrat, too!
But no such Democrat exists, so the Pubbie Purists can relax.
Your reply does far more to explain conservative support for Sarah than does the original post. I’m no fan of The Economist either - but petulant whining won’t advance our case. Good on you for laying it out for all to see!
Just more evidence that the true political battle is between the elitists and the individualists.
And Palin is somehow perfectly situated to cause everyone to show their true allegiances.
“winnowing fork”
I think you’ll like this commentary if you haven’t read it yet:
July 12, 2009
God and Sarah Palin
By Stuart Schwartz
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/god_and_sarah_palin.html
The battle is not between the Pachyderms and the Asses.
No, Palin has redefined, or, more accurately, shown light on the true conflict.
I repeat, if Palin keeps on saying she will campaign even for Dems, then she is finished. I subscribe to the Washington Times and read the report of Palin’s meeting with the editors. She must learn not to put her foot in her mouth and instead, think before she answers. Her statement that she will support conservative Dems will not help her Presidential ambitions, if she has any.
Winning ticket as soon as 2012: Palin / Cheney (Liz, that is)!!
She made a major mistake if she wants to be the Rep nominee for President. If she wants to form a third party, her chances of winning will be seriously diminished.
You may be right.
But, where do you think Rush Limbaugh would do the most good? Where he is or as a presidential candidate?
Palin / Bachman
would drive the left/elitists nuts.
Of course, all “feminist” restraint on attacking someone over their gender would be all but forgotten.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.