Apologies To Sarah Palin (Redstate)

RIGHT SPEAK

A Place for All Conservatives to Speak Their Mind.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Apologies To Sarah Palin

In light of the revelation that Romney-Ryan received fewer votes than McCain-Palin, despite running against an incumbent president with the worst record in our nation’s history, I think it’s time to lay the theory that Sarah Palin cost McCain the election to rest.

In fact, I would argue that McCain would have lost by a much bigger margin without her on the ticket. He is no more loved by the base than Romney is.

Apologies can be sent here:

The Office of Sarah Palin

P.O. Box 871235

Wasilla, AK 99687

Cross posted at Redstate The comment section is also at Redstate at the link

A Clear Sighted View From New Zealand “Why The Left Hates Sarah Palin”

Here is an in-depth article reviewing Palin hate from a Kiwi point of  view. The very cleverly named “coNZervative” blog from down under examines roots of Palin hate and the media distortion that drives it.

*********************************************************************************

Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin

Posted on November 17, 2012 

This article is by American writer and comic Evan Sayet, first published on his blog 2 Nov. Sayet insightfully critiques the tribalistic hatred of a prominent Centre-Rightist, Governor Sarah Palin.  I include it here, because the same thing happens in NZ all the time, on Blogs and in the media and passes itself off as “objective reporting.”  His article starts with a conversation with a Democrat who parrots “Sarah Palin is Stupid” which is almost an exact replica of a Facebook conversation that took place this week between myself, DPF atKiwiblog and others, about the denigration and alleged stupidity of an ex NZ MP (which I’ll post on, separately).

This annoys me, as Sarah Palin – like Ronald Reagan before her – has become a mockery meme, and is unfairly mocked along with her husband and children, by smug liberals and partisan journalists. They constantly miss-report, make things up, and market false memes.  This is something Joseph Goebbels was masterful at. The continual denigration of Mitt Romney and the Republicans by the Democrats parroted by a very partisan media, is now widely acknowledged as a factor in Barack Obama’s re-election. One of my earliest blogs was about the ‘Sarah Plain can see Russia from her home’ distortion, which you can review here:

• Media Attacks Palin Kids (again). Sarah Palin Speaks Out
• For the Record: Russia from Alaska (photos).

I’ve actually heard this misquoted about five times on RadioNZ (never corrected) over the last few months.  But, here is Sayet who says et much better than I can.

.
It just happened again.

I spend a fair amount of time at my local coffee shop.  I like to do my writing outside and, besides, it gives me an opportunity to try and initiate political conversations with the people who pass by — my hope always being to begin to enlighten them as to what conservatives really believe (and not just what the leftist media tells them.)

Today, the conversation turned to Sarah Palin and my latest acquaintance blurted out: “Oh Ihate her.”  Since she did not yet know my politics, and since we were in Los Angeles, it is clear that she expected to hear back what you usually hear back in this city: “Yeah, I hate her, too.”  Instead, I asked her why.

At this point I could have predicted her response because it’s the same response you get from liberals no matter who on the Right you’re talking about: “Because she’s stupid.”  I replied: “Being stupid is no reason to hate someone, but tell me, which one of her policies do you disagree with?”  It wasn’t hard to predict her response: “All of them!”

I continued to push.  “Well, then, if it’s all of them, it should be easy for you to name one.”  Her reply?  “They’re too many to list.”

“So don’t list them, just give me one,” I said.

This went on for awhile until my new acquaintance finally admitted that she didn’t know any of Ms. Palin’s policies.  Before she ran off – Democrats always run off when asked to provide facts to justify their hatred for Republicans – I looked her in the eyes and said, “If you don’t know any of her policies, perhaps you should look into them.”  She promised she would.  She won’t.  If there are two things you can count on with Democrats, they are filled with hate and empty of facts.

But it got me to thinking.  Given that these people don’t know any of Ms. Palin’s political positions, what is it about her that they hate?  It has to be her life story.  Now, to all decent people, Ms. Palin’s life story could not be more laudable.  She married her high school sweetheart to whom she remains married and with whom she is apparently still in love.  In the harshest of climes, she and Todd started a small business which, apparently, they ran well enough to purchase a home and raise a family.  Despite the long hours required to run a family business and raise children, when Ms. Palin saw that the public schools were not doing a good job in educating her children, she joined the local PTA and was so effective there that the people who knew her best – and in small towns like Wasilla there are very few secrets – elected her to be their mayor.

Apparently, Ms. Palin was so effective in that job that the mayors of the other small towns and big cities elected her president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.  After a highly successful stint as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she ran an uphill battle against an entrenched Republican governor and was elected to the top position, Governor, of the largest state in the nation.  She did that job so well that her approval ratings – despite having ruffled the feathers of the leading political family in Alaska – bordered on 80 percent.

As Ms. Palin’s political horizons continued to grow, she found out she was pregnant with her fourth child, a baby with Downs Syndrome.  Despite knowing in advance that this child would require even more attention and care than other kids, Ms. Palin opted to give her child – Trig – life.

So, given that those who hate – hate!!! – Ms. Palin know nothing more than these facts about her, what is it about Ms. Palin’s life story that generates this blind loathing?  The answer is that, at every turn, Ms. Palin’s story debunks the myths of victimization and self-centeredness that is at the heart of the modern liberal ideology.

First, Ms. Palin is married with children.  The Democrat Party’s treasured storyline is that women with children – especially those who take care of them themselves – are oppressed, victimized and doomed to a life without personal fulfillment.  Ms. Palin’s life proves them wrong and the Democrats hate her for this.  If Ms. Palin were a Democrat she would have offed the last child before he was born so that she could have more “me” time to pursue her own wants and pleasures.  There is clearly something very “wrong” with this woman who allowed her “special needs” child to live.  They hate her for that.

One of the most obvious demographic differences between the Left and the Right is that people without children – those too self-centered and jealous of others stealing “their” attention, angry and hate-filled “feminists,” radical homosexuals and school children too young to have started a family — are just about guaranteed to pull the lever for anyone with a “D” next to their names.  Those married with children are just as assured to pull the lever for someone from the Right.

And Sarah Palin ran a small business.  Democrats don’t run businesses.  In fact, Democrats don’t do anything.  If you eliminated from the voting roll everyone who did nothing other than talk – the academic, the newscaster, the actor, the politician – and those who game the system, collecting welfare and years of unemployment benefits and “workman’s compensation” and food stamps, how many people would be left voting Democrat?

Let’s put it this way, if having had a job – having done something that required either physical labor or risking one’s own money – were a prerequisite to work in the White House, Barack Obama would have to fire 94 percent of his top advisers.  That’s a real number.  Ninety four percent of Obama’s top advisers have never done anything like run a small store, paint a bridge, wire a house for electricity or anything else other than flap their lips.

This is the genesis of the notion that Palin is “stupid.”  Liberals are convinced that there’s something “the matter” with people who have jobs.  This is what they mean by “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” Kansas being a place where people work – Hollywood, Cambridge Massachusetts, the TV studios in Manhattan are places were people talk.  To the liberal,anyone who has a job must be stupid, after all, not everyone is as good a talker as they are, but surely everyone can find one excuse or another to sit at home and collect welfare.

In fact, to the modern liberal, anyone who has a job is not just stupid, he (or she) is dangerous. These people “cling” to their guns and their religion because they toil for their reward.  These people are constantly on the verge of violence, whether it’s an attack like the one they caused in Tucson (according to the leftist script) or just by going home and beating their children.  Consider the lyrics of “the working man’s troubadour” by Bruce Springsteen:

You can read the rest of this excellent post  AT THIS LINK

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Outstanding Article Discussing What Sarah Palin And Hillary Clinton Brought To The Political And Social Arena

Here is an outstanding article discussing what Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton brought to the political and social arena through their various strengths and forbearance in the face of intense and unfair pressure.

By Linda Baeil writing at the San Diego North Country Times

*******************************************************************************

What’s behind GOP’s problem with women voters

 •  Linda Beail

(1) Comments

What do women want? This is one question Republican candidates and strategists must be asking in the wake of the 2012 election. A 10-point gender gap, the largest since 1996, gave President Obama a thin margin of victory. While women gained a record number of seats in the House and Senate, the number of those congresswomen who are Republicans dropped from nearly one-third to less than a quarter on election night.

The perception of a Republican “War on Women” may be overblown. But the disconnect with women voters in policy and rhetoric, and the absence of women candidates in the presidential race from either party, might cause us to reflect on the debates and issues that engaged women in 2008.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin not only served as role models who cracked the glass ceiling of presidential election politics, they also embodied different perspectives and choices regarding women in leadership. Clinton’s experiences of media coverage in the Democratic primary demonstrated the continuing double-bind women candidates find themselves in with regard to gendered assumptions about power. In order to be perceived as competent, she downplayed traditional femininity and was seen as having a “likability problem.” When she teared up in a New Hampshire coffee shop, women voters responded positively to her feminine display of emotion, but it reinforced all of the pundits’ fears and questions about female leadership as tough enough for the Oval Office.

For her part, Palin brought the “mommy wars” and conversations about what it means to be a good mother into the national spotlight, and women across the electorate responded. Palin did not just give voice to a pro-life position on abortion; she embodied it – while also claiming to be a feminist. Cradling her Down syndrome infant at campaign rallies, Palin scrambled the notion that women candidates and voters are pro-choice; she was applauded by Republicans’ social conservative base because she herself had made the choice to carry her pregnancy to term at great personal cost. Palin also presented a new face of the Republican Party: one of a young working mother.

As questions arose about her seriousness and policy knowledge, Palin faced a familiar dilemma both for female candidates and women in society: being dismissed as merely attractive, valued for sexuality but not intelligence. While Sarah Palin was the Voldemort of the 2012 election, “She Who Must Not Be Named,” and dismissed by most pundits as an embarrassing mistake by John McCain, the phenomenon of Palin in the 2008 and 2010 elections might clue her party in to some of what was lacking this year.

In 2012, Republicans have been criticized repeatedly for comments made about women – from Rush Limbaugh’s calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” for seeking insurance coverage of contraception to Senate candidate Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape.” Many of the sound bites in this election season spoke about women as if they were reducible down to their reproductive organs.

In the 21st century, women – conservative or liberal – view themselves as much more than this. In an economy when most families need both working parents just to make ends meet, and 40 percent of women contribute as much or more to their family’s income than men, these essentializing assumptions appear antiquated and tone-deaf. Silence on issues of pay equity only reinforces this perception among women – particularly young women and single moms – that the Republican Party may not see them as the strong and multidimensional citizens that they are.

In 2008, the presence of Palin on the ticket, and her juxtaposition with the narratives of other women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, offered women an opportunity to discuss issues that are complex and relevant to their lives: motherhood, sexuality, work, family, power and femininity. Sarah Palin should not be ignored as simply a failed candidate. Her “hockey mom” persona offered one possible image of power with a womanly face: pit bull aggressiveness with feminine lipstick. Palin may have been our first “third wave” feminist candidate, posing the contradictions of women’s progress and its limits in our political sphere. Palin’s embodiment of those paradoxes did more to energize women voters – both those who loved her and loathed her – than all of Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women.” If only we had had such compelling narratives of women and power in this election.

Gov. Palin: We stand with Israel and Netanyahu

Posted on Governor Palin’s Facebook page yesterday:

 

Sarah Palin · 3,486,036 like this

Yesterday at 11:49am · 

.

• We stand with Israel and Netanyahu’s strength that he wisely uses to protect his country. May he have the wisdom of Solomon as Israel’s leadership moves forward. You can keep track of the developments by following @IDFSpokesperson on Twitter.

Follow Prime Minister Netanyahu on Twitter here and on Facebook here.

Official IDF Twitter accounts in English:

@IDFSpokesperson

@CaptainBarakRaz

@AvitalLeibovich

@EytanBuchman

Charlotte Allen: Sarah Palin Is the New Ronald Reagan

From an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times by Charlotte Allen:

The Republican Party has been doing a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing since the presidential election. Half the conservative columnists and bloggers say the GOP lost because it overemphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The other half says the party didn’t emphasize them enough. And everyone denounces Project ORCA, the campaign’s attempt to turn out voters via technology.

But I’ve got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst:Sarah Palin for president in 2016.

You think I’m joking? Think again.

In 2008, Palin, running as my party’s vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCainthe election. But that wasn’t so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Mitt Romney, the GOP’s anointed contender this year, got almost a million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. (Meanwhile, President Obama, although winning reelection, lost far more voters than the Republicans, with nearly 7 million fewer voters checking his name on their ballots than did in 2008).

[…]

Palin can more than keep up with the Democrats in appealing to voters’ emotions. Hardly anyone could be more blue collar than Palin, out on the fishing boat with her hunky blue-collar husband, Todd. Palin is “View”-ready, she’s “Ellen”-ready, she’s Kelly-and-Michael-ready.

A Palin “war against women”? Hah! Not only is she a woman, she’s got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic. On social issues, Palin, unlike Romney, has been absolutely consistent. And let’s remember that most Americans, whatever their view of choice, disapprove of most abortions.

[…]

Palin’s son Track is an Iraq war veteran, so she can be proudly patriotic without being labeled another George W. Bush, looking to do aggressive nation-building. She seems aware there is only one nation in need of building right now: America.

Furthermore, looks count in politics, and Palin at age 48, has it all over her possible competition, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be 69 by election day 2016 and who let someone talk her into adopting the flowing blond locks of a college student, making her look like Brunnhilde in a small-town Wagner production. Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.

She’s tough as nails too. After Election 2008, she was supposed to have been through. This year eight of the 14 GOP candidates Palin endorsed for Congress won election or reelection, including tea party favorite Ted Cruz for a Senate seat in Texas.

Sure, there is going to be never-ending nastiness from the left, but she’s already lived through that once. Katie Couric? A has-been. Tina Fey? Her shtick was already wearing thin in 2008.

There are also the snooty East Coast Republican intellectual types, such as Peggy Noonan, who look down their noses at a woman who doesn’t shop at Neiman Marcus and didn’t attend an Ivy League university. But Peggy made a fool of herself calling the election for Romney on Nov. 5. Who’s going to care what she and her ilk have to say next time?

Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008, and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin. But I don’t see what’s wrong with the one we’ve got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited “Bedtime for Bonzo” and sneered at his no-name college degree.

Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan: charming and affable and unwilling to back down if she’s right. I can’t see what’s wrong with that.

Read more.