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.
Of course that is not the choice. It is much more complicated than that. Do you think Palin will support McCain in the AZ senatorial primary in 2010?
read it. pretty much the same thing I said. She will campaign for people who believe in limited gov’t, energy independence, etc., regardless of party.
She didn’t say, “I am going to campaign for Heath Shuler.”
Any dem supporting Pelosi and Reid would contradict her criteria. A dem running promising to support these issues and vote for a republican speaker, I could see her supporting.
Now, is it somehow “blasphemous”, as I was accused of Friday,
when I use examples and parallels from the Bible to describe what is going on with the situation in America today, wrt Palin?
Remember, there is “nothing new under the sun”, all things we’re seeing are not new, just re-hashes of things that have happened before.
She said she would campaign for conservatives, regardless of their political affiliation. That's not the same thing as campaigning for the average Dem. She also won't campaign for the average REPUBLICAN. I love it. Liberals need not ask for help! Regardless of their political affiliation. It's been a long time since I've seen a conservative Dem, but I'll bet there are still some out there.
If Palin is advocating for a third party, then she is heading for a fall.
He also has many good things to say about Reagan. But the REAL story is told when we watch what he does, not what he says.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2290929/posts?page=1453#1453
It's quite interesting.
Kudos to maggief.
Just saying it hurts her within the GOP. I am a big Sarah supporter, but I am very disappointed with her statement.
Sarah is going above party.
Did Reagan ever say he would campaign on behalf of Dem candidates who supported his views? Palin made a major mistake by distancing herself from the GOP. She should be working within the party supporting candidates in the primaries and general elections who are conservatives. Working against the GOP on behalf of Dem candidates will not win her support within the GOP for higher political office. We already had one maverick who proved to be a disaster.
If she is going above the party, so be it. Then any ambition or hopes to be President will be dashed. She is not going to win as a third party candidate.
Thanks for the link, it’s a great read.
No, we have to watch what Sarah does in the AZ primary. The odds are she will be campaigning on behalf of McCain. Then what?
The hidden genius of her statement has escaped most of the "party first" folks around here. What she is saying to the conservative Dems out in the land, especially in blue areas, is "Take on the left-wingers, run for office. I'll support you". She is after liberals anywhere she finds them. Down the line it reminds conservative/moderate Dems that it's ok to vote for her if she runs.
She's out to rebuild a conservative movement.
If you get 100% of Republicans and 0% of anyone else in the country, you still lose. You have to go above party to win the big prize.
Also, Ted Tally please accept my apology. My last post was a "slap" you didn't deserve. I apologize. I read your article after I posted in this thread. I was wrong.
I appreciate your consideration.
I think it was a bold stroke that will advance her creds down the line to a lot of voters, no downside at all.
It is her track record to do just that, by the way:
"...To Sarah Palin, the corruption of both Republicans and Democrats in Alaska, which suffered from an institutionalized class of thieves on the public payroll, was immoral, violating the God-given rights of the citizens of her state...and so she took them on.
She promises to do the same at the national level. Although leaving public office, she holds out the possibility of taking -- in the words of an American Thinker commentator -- on a "larger fight." Both Mark Levin and Thomas Lifson see evidence that she is simply gathering her strength for the next round. ..."
Re: Sarah supporting Dems. Reagen was able to forge a strong coalition with Conservatives of both parties. Sarah’s willingness to campaign for any and all who share the same conservative values, regardless of party affiliation, sends a very positive message to the country.
Now, it may involve very few Dems who are politicians, but I’m sure there are many rank and file Dems and Independents who are uncomfortable with what Obama has been doing - unless the nation is far more left-wing than we realize - but, I don’t think that is the case.
We’ve all seen the drop in Obama’s poll numbers. Nothing he is doing is going to help the country out of this recession, so those polls are going to continue to drop. If Sarah can unite conservatives, we have a chance. The question to me is whether or not the Republican party will support her.
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.