It is unwise to dwell on the past or be obsessed with an unknown future, but we should all appreciate the wonderful present — a present in which Sarah Palin is nothing more than a punchline. Because, had things gone very differently in November, this dangerous delusional numbskull would’ve been just an Ambien overdose away from the presidency.William Jacobson gave a pretty good account of Palin derangement earlier, "It Always Has Been About Trig." But check out the Reclusive Leftist's post, "Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin":
Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!Here's more:
But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.
But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)
I know for a fact that the feminists spreading the lies about Palin knew they were spreading lies. Not to tell tales out of school, but: they knew. They were supplied with the correct information, and they chose to lie anyway. Why?Yes, but why the hatred, really?
Was it just about electing Obama? Were feminists simply willing to commit any slander necessary to elect the Chosen One? That’s a likely explanation, but here again: we’re talking about feminists. Feminists doing this — slandering a woman, and doing so in unmistakably sexist terms. After all, caricaturing Palin as a purity queen (Bible Spice, Sexy Puritan) is just the flip side of caricaturing her as a porn queen. As I’ve said before, it’s like the NAACP sponsoring a lynching. The mind boggles.
Even more mind-boggling are the attacks that don’t even bother with false claims about policy or beliefs, but just go straight for free-floating misogynistic rage. Ridiculing her hair, clothes, makeup, voice, body, womb. “Sarah Palin is a cunt” — good one! Calling her a bimbo — good one! Calling her a fucking whore — good one! Fantasizing about her being gang-raped — good one! And all this from feminists. Forget the NAACP sponsoring a lynching; this is like the NAACP ripping off their masks to reveal that they’ve been replaced by white supremacist pod people.
Check the link to find out!
Also, YidWithLid, "Palin Derangement Syndrome On Sunday's Talk Shows."
Did you see that Instapundit post discussing an August political party launch?
ReplyDeleteThe Progressive party, with its Democrat and GOP wings, is very scared of a viable second party, I expect.
Ain't that some sack.
Palin can't handle half an hour of 'Meet the Press'... maybe it's her handlers won't let her.
ReplyDeletePalin on MTP will mean weeks of material for 'Saturday Night Live'.
Dear Mr. Douglas: I don't think you've thought it through completely about 2016. One of two cases will happen:
ReplyDeletea) The One will be defeated in 2012. This will be by a GOPer; the possibility of a third party candidate doing so as nil. Sarah running against a GOP incumbent in 2016? That, too, seems nil.
b) The One will not be defeated in 2012, and will be a lame duck in 2016. This means that after six months of The One, you're ready for seven and a half more years of his idiotic reign of terror. Good God! I salute your iron character while being dismayed by such a torture without any possibility of commutation.
I think SP's resignation knocks her out of elective office forever. The Nixon in 1962 doesn't persuade me because a) Nixon didn't resign as Ike's Veep and b) despite losing, he showed stamina in 1960 and 1962. He got a savage press, though it's true in those days his family was mostly off limits.
I'd be more impressed by those bawling that this is a master stroke by SP if they could cite one case of a state/national politician resigning without already being elected to another office. Ross Perot in 1992? He abandoned his zany campaign in July claiming the GOP was out to get him with forged photographs. How Bill Clinton laughed at that, followed by Boss Ross's reentry in October. BR spent millions from his billions, to what end?
There is one pol who resigned and came back: Nelson Rockefeller resigned as New York's governor in 1973 after just shy of 15 years, saying he was going to devote his time to another Rockefeller foundation. From there he made it to Vice President after a) Agnew quit, a step ahead of a criminal indictment, and b) Nixon quit for the same reason and c) Ford nominated him. Two years later, Rockefeller was unceremoniously canned from the ticket as a drag on Ford, replaced by Bob Dole. How encouraging is THAT precedent?
If SP quit because the press mudslinging got to be too much, I respect that, feeling sorrow. At the same time, this resignation has greatly encouraged the sinistrosphere. Andrew Sullivan needs a zeppelin hangar for a hat, and the press is not far behind him. Now there are no limits to attacks on the Right. If SP means to start a third party, using the "Tea Party" agitation as a starter she will give the Democrats a long time edge. Remember, a large part of the reason Margaret Thatcher was able to stay in power for 11 years was the split of the anti-Tory vote between Labor and the Social Democrats.
To be sure, the anonymous McC staffers, so like those who comment under pseudonyms at blogs, are a trial. Steve Schmidt & Co. deserve a rich reward, such as a blog and an office at THE ATLANTIC, next to Andrew Sullivan's. They can chat in the hallways, both thinking they are looking in a mirror...But the Palinistas have their own difficulties. Consider Quin Hilyer's notions of what SP's resignation means. They are measured without being excessively personal. Yet the comments to his post from the Palinistas are a boiling devil's cauldron of 200 proof venom. The Palinistas alternate between drinking deep, and throwing it at Hilyer. In their present state, many Palinistas could not pass a rabies nor an IQ test. It isn't hard to see a GOP split, between condescending hogs such as David Frum sniffing that they know best, and what do they care if The One and his successors stay in power for the next twenty years, we’ve got columns and speeches and programs and lectures and book deal$$$$$, we're all right... Meanwhile the Palinistas, smarting over far too much ignorant condescension propose to strengthen the GOP by setting it ablaze, something that can finally make Hillary laugh with genuine merriment. The rest of us will be glum as the nation takes blow after blow from The One and his sordid, imbecilic gang, but whaddaya gonna do about it, sucker?
Other than that, I think SP's resignation is a smart politics.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster