THIS is what the left hates most about Sarah. An unabashed person of faith is just so annoying to them.
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.
She said she would campaign for people who wanted limited govt, pro life, and pro gun regardless of party. I can’t think of any dems that come to mind, so there is no risk in her saying “regardless of party” She didn’t say she was going to stump for Dems
Indeed.
Except for anti-abortion, I would say that Va. Sen. Jim Webb comes close (in guns, national defense, etc.) but we’ll have to see how he votes on Cap and Trade and the Health Care bill first to determine if he’s really for limited government and lower taxation.
Rush put it best when she was announced as VP,
“Guns, Babies, Jesus”
The former Republican vice-presidential nominee and heroine to much of the GOP's base said in an interview she views the electorate as embattled and fatigued by nonstop partisanship, and she is eager to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and "energy independence."
There is nothing wrong with partisanship. We need more of it, especially from the Reps.
Wow, thank you!
Excellent article.
I highly recommend it!
Here’s the link again for those who might have missed it.
July 12, 2009
God and Sarah Palin
By Stuart Schwartz
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/god_and_sarah_palin.html
THIS is what the left hates most about Sarah. An unabashed person of faith is just so annoying to them.
I had someone the other day pretty upset that I was using biblical references with regard to Palin...
That article is great. God has a plan for Sarah. That’s plain to see, both by His children and His enemies.
Or maybe she wants to tap into the “Tea-Party” movement, which has been scrupulously trying to avoid the appearance of partisanship.
Just sayin’.
its it whining or defending and arguing for our cause?
whine = please dont attack me
defence/attack = media is bias and explain how
Sorry, but most people accurately believe that we only have one political party today; there’s no difference between the ‘RATS and the RINOS - they just take turns in office handing out favors to the various special interest lobbyists who finance their respective campaigns so as to get “their turn at the tax-payer trough”.
Palin is smart enough to exploit that accurate belief all the way to victory.
Winning ticket as soon as 2012: Palin / Cheney (Liz, that is)!!
Ted Tally is part of the marketing campaign to help the insecure scared GOP man-children.
Another good ticket, I agree!
Acts 4, Peter and John before the Sanhedrin, who were astonished and angry that Peter & John were "unschooled men" yet teaching about God and Jesus, and doing miracles in His name, ordered them to stop teaching in His name or else.
> There is nothing wrong with partisanship. We need more of
> it, especially from the Reps.
There can be no partisanship between parties that functionally agree.
The partisanship we must promote is between Marxism and Capitalism, between Atheism and Faith in God, between Multiculturalism and American Exceptionalism, between Political Correctness and Freedom of Speech, between Statist Oppression and Individual Liberty, between Death and Life!
Virtually *ALL* Democrats and RINOs that I know about fall on the wrong side of the abovelisted divides. The only difference between them that I can discern is methodology, not ideology.
So don’t worry about Palin campaigning for any Democrats any time soon.
But if a Democrat falls on the correct side of the abovelisted divides, even *I* will support them against a typical RINO.
Consider a Zel Miller running against a Lindsay Graham.
Which would you support?
too often, Republicans never fight back because they think its a lost cause arguing with the media. I disagree. GOP needs a team dedicated with mocking and attacking media hypocrisy and corruption
Your comment only makes sense if all registered dems are Onada disciples. IMHO that’s not true. A lot of dems simply voted the way their parents voted. And, as long as their ox was not being gored, really didn’t think about it too much. Furthermore, sycophant liberal (communist, socialist, progressive or whatever) reporting unfailingly made them feel good about themselves. They were caring people who just wanted to get along. So they knee jerked pulling the dem voting booth levers.
Well, low and behold their ox is now being gored.
Many dems also do not identify with communists/socialists. They think of themselves as “liberal” or “progressive”. As long as the dems could maintain the charade of being good and loyal liberal/progressive Americans, ordinary dems were quite content to keep pulling the dem levers.
Clinton did a great job at masking his Marxist ideology. Onada, however, has taken the mask off and can be seen for who he really is—a Marxist. IMHO many dems will not want to identify with that.
They need a place to go politically. Ditto for conservatives. I believe that is what Palin wants to do—unite traditional dems and conservatives in a party that has the potential to challenge the Marxist Demrat Party. She, or any truly conservative candidate, cannot succeed through the GOP. RINOs have made it a tool of the Demrat Party. In other words the Demrat Party has coopted the Republican Party. Neither RINOs or outright demrats will allow conservatives any meaningful power in the GOP.
It really is as simple as that.
Notice that McCain on MTP this past Sunday had many good things to say about Palin.
Hee hee hee! bttt
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.