Posted on 09/26/2008 5:11:02 PM PDT by MartinaMisc
Are certain conservatives setting Sarah Palin up to fail?
With the recent news that conservative commentator Kathleen Parker has joined the ranks of anti-Palin conservatives George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Ross Douthat (as well as moderate-conservative David Brooks), one has to wonder how these folks will respond if McCain and Palin lose to Barack Obama and Joseph Biden on November 4.
It’s likely that Parker, Will, Krauthammer, Frum, Douthat and Brooks will attempt to blame Palin for a GOP loss, arguing that she was not ready for prime time and that her supposed lack of knowledge drove away independents. While these commentators all deserve respect for their accomplishments, a potential effort by these commentators to blame Palin for the loss will only cause more divisions on the right.
To various degrees, these commentators have issues with what they perceive to be the glorification of conservative populism—and they all seem to view Palin as an embodiment of that populism. In their eyes, Palin seems to symbolize a “guns-babies-Jesus” vision of conservatism that alienates key voters, especially those influenced by America’s secular culture.
These commentators seemingly would have preferred a Republican like Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindal as the McCain’s second-in-command: both Romney and Jindal are conservatives whose public images lack “culture-war” overtones. No one really thinks of conservative populism when they look at Romney and Jindal: Palin, on the other hand, is now seen as the hero of what liberals derisively referred to four years ago as “Jesusland.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Here in California as soon as Swartzeneggar was sworn in he committed 5 billion of our tax money to unborn baby stem cell research.
Which will cost us 10 billion, not to mention the dead babies because of it.
The private sector wouldn't touch it, as there are better ways to get the help needed.
As your post illustrates.
LLS
The embryonic stem cell campaign was a fraud and a scam. Those slow of wit, e.g. Democrats, Schwarzenegger, et al, fell for it and now all their research dollars are tied up in new buildings for high priced researchers who have nothing to report.
By name.....slam each one very publicly.
Kathleen Parker isn’t a conservative. She’s a moderate who admitted she voted for Bill Clinton.
Screw the whole bunch of them.
Each of them has lost my respect and my ear.
Sarah Barracuda.
How true.
Thanks for expanding on my post.
Got a link for that statement ?
I find it hard to believe Krauthammer is anti 2nd amendment
In other words: these guys want a “good ol’ boy”, whom they they may influence with their self-important commentary. These icons of the conservative “elite” are just as afraid of anyone who does not kowtow... to THEM. Not just to the politico elite... but to media elite such as themselves. These windbags think THEY must be listened to, followed blindly and worshiped as gods. Well, George, et al... the party is over. Get used it.
Indeed! Sarah has brought the McCain candidacy to the threshold of victory. If McCain loses, it's on him and him alone.
It apparently didn't occur to these "enlightened" souls that the only reason McCain/Palin rallies draw 60,000 people in places like Florida (and without a rock show warm-up) is Sarah Palin. Otherwise, we're looking at a decent, but somewhat anemic, wrinkled old white guy. I'd vote for him without her, but the choice of Sarah has fired me up!
Do I wish that Sarah had been born 7-8 years earlier and had a term or two as govenor behind her? Yes, I do. The problem is, there was no one who was a perfect choice. Jindal is even greener than Palin; Mitt would be too much of the "old boy" type (and the Mormon stuff would drive away some voters); ditto Fred T; there just weren't any ideal choices this time. McCain picked the best "man" available (in the broad sense) and hit a home run. It amazes me how some conservatives are perennially gloomy no matter what.
Rush Limbaugh is correct when he observes that traditional 60's and 70's style feminists (as well as the sections of the Democratic party that still have two brain cells to rub together) are VERY worried about someone like Sarah Palin, because they recognize the threat she presents to their ideology.
There was an issue recently (I think a few days after her rollout at the RNC, that she was criticized for something she wore.
I thought that particular angle, just the clothes, portrayed and symbolized much more than the cloth they were cut from.
This has been discussed endlessly, but it just begs for the rich treasure trove of opinions because...it is rich in many ways, but most of all, it is rich with steely irony (Which admittedly, is lost on many liberals. Irony is not on their radar.)
Liberals have been tilting at windmills with dishonor via George W. Bush, and before him, Ronald Reagan. But if you have followed politics closely, you can easily see that neither Reagan nor Bush frightened Liberals in the same way Sarah Palin does, because neither of those two presented such a deadly threat to the heart of their ideology.
Sarah Palin goes right for their jugulars of victimhood, bitterness and divisiveness. Their culitvated misandry (hate or contempt of men or boys) which is the feminine yin to the yang of the better known term, misogyny. She is a direct threat to one of the main structural pillars of the democratic party, which is Radical Feminism. I have hope that she is preparing herself to destroy that pillar of liberalism. She is not Superwoman, but she is pretty sharp, and she knows what the stakes are.
As Ann Coulter describes in her book "Treason", liberals will fight with desperation, as they did during the Clinton years when he had to show himself to the nation as a liar. And those liberals fought as they did, because it directly threatened to expose one of the other structural pillars of liberalism, and that is Deception. He was in front of the American Public with his pants down, figuratively speaking. So they fought back, in Ann Coulters phrase, "like cornered animals".
A couple of other rich areas are sexism with respect to the coming battle between the liberals regarding their concealed (they think) sexism, and in the campaign as a whole, racism.
A Freeper recently said: "...If a conservative had said anything at all about the way Hillary was dressed, it would have been called sexist...."
Pfft. Like the stuff I say all the time. I have such a dislike for the politics and attitude of the Clintons that I even see her nearly bitter animosity towards some of the concepts of Conservatism expressed concisely in the things she wears.
I will readily admit that one of the things I think is absolutely CAPITAL about Sarah Palin is her femininity that by all observations goes hand in hand with an agile brain (And that brain seems very well rooted in conservatism.) I wrote something a while back about Hillary, which I recount here:
She will never, ever get MEN to vote for her. I am not talking about Rush Limbaugh's "New Castrati". I am talking about Normal Men.
To many men, her voice is like chalk on a board. It is the sound etched deep into the primordial areas of Man's Brain, and it is the sound of a woman who is very, VERY angry at him.
Her voice is shrill...and resonates a perfect, exquisitely awful dissonance at certain frequencies.
Primordial Man first heard that sound when he dragged his filthy, muddy ass into that clean, dry cave and was lit into by Primordial Woman because he didn't clean the swamp ooze off of his feet, or the Wooly Mammoth guts off of his malodorous fur skin.
That is the voice of Hillary Clinton. She tries to hide it. She tries very hard. But no matter how hard she tries, there are times she opens that mouth and every man with that Primordial Man inside him, hears Her voice.
It is clear she dislikes men. But what REALLY gives her away (and the radical feminists by extension) is the spectacle of the fake affection she has shown towards her husband, simply accepting it as a personal cost to her as she grasps for power. The the contempt she holds him in (and richly deserved in my opinion) is real which makes her willingness to prostitute herself (along with any shreds of principle she may have retained) in order to gain and keep power, a particularly egregious insult.
Quite a difference from Sarah Palin.
The sound of Hillary saying "... "I'm not sitting here as some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him and I respect him, and I honor what he's been through and what we've been through together..." has all the feminine charm of a chainsaw cutting through a large plastic log.
Now.
I just want to paint a contrast here. And folks...this is the part that really made me smile, because it will be such a boon for our country if she can deal a deadly blow to Radical Feminism. If she does, she may cripple the feminist movement in the same way Joseph McCarthy crippled the Communist movement in this country. He made it disreputable.
This is what Sarah Palin may do to free millions of young girls and women from the societal influence of the bitter brand of feminism that has tried to destroy the family and drive a wedge between men and women. I believe that Radical Feminism has been one of the most powerful negatively eroding forces in our country since the middle of the Sixties. A very destructive, divisive and wasteful ideology.
One would read this and wonder how on earth Sarah Palin could destroy the Feminist movement. What would her "weapon" be?
Ironically enough, her Femininity.
She likes men, and it is evident she has real respect and affection for her husband. When one is forced to watch leftist junk on television showing fathers as being contemptible, incompetent, idiotic boobs, you would think American Husbands are the lowest form of life on earth, surpassed only by men in general. (Brent Bozell has written brilliantly and insightfully on this viewpoint.)
THIS is what struck me during her acceptance speech.
Did anyone else hear this during Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, when she talked about her husband:
Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy.
In the same breath she ended speaking, even though the camera was on her husband and not her, I thought I heard something in that moment when she stopped talking. I heard, just barely above the threshold low enough to miss it... a giggle. A real, giggle. Just four little heh-heh-heh-hehs under the breath, almost as if she tried to keep them bottled up inside of her chest, so everyone there wouldn't hear it. She involuntarily giggled to herself almost completely inaudibly, but the sensitive microphone picked it up. I went back and listened to it on Youtube, and sure enough...it was an affectionate, genuine giggle of a girl for a guy.
As a man, it was a wonderful thing to hear. It was very feminine, from a woman who sees nothing wrong with femininity, who didn't view her "guy" as a contemptible enemy.
And that, folks, if Mrs. Palin pulls this off, is going to be the thing that girls and young (or not so young) women can look to with genuine admiration and excitement. This is a pathway that they can follow in their lives without being compelled to compromise their principles.
And if this generation of women see that path and take it, it will be a great thing for our country and our society.
After that, conservatives can help blacks (and our nation) in the same way by producing a black man who is more a disciple of Thomas Sowell than Saul Alinsky.
And when that happens, blacks will truly be free in their own minds.
Hey, I thought I told you....ixnay on the oskay idskay.
Go Sarah!!!!!
Having said that...I love Sarah Palin!
How dare we have a candidate that pleases the non-elites, right? Too bad.
bump
and yes, i did hear the giggle! it was very cute.
Romney as economic policy spokesman would come in real handy about now. He'd be able to advance the story of McCain being right in 2005 with the Fannie Mae regulation bill, and he'd be able to savage Obama on being beholden to Fannie Mae.
Romney wouldn't have united all the conservatives like Palin, but we'd definitely be seeing a lot more of him than we've seen Palin.
Slick Willard's a wha ? He's the slightly less honest and less accomplished version of Plugs Biden.
This is pure crap. Palin may have been the most important factor in saving the GOP.
Slick Willard is more like Obama. Question Romney’s liberal stands in MA, the Mittens will swarm you and call you a Mormon hater. This tactic didn’t help Romney get the nomination in 2008, but it may help him in 2012 should Mac / Palin lose.
Should Mac / Palin lose, Romney will have 4 years to white wash his past liberalism and “walk around with money” to conservative groups. Of course, if Romney does face Obama in 2012, Romney will lose and make the RNC into the MA GOP.
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.