Palin Derangement Sydrome: who else can they hate?
Even though Sarah Palin is out of office and has been for some time, she continues to call forth a deep and almost primal rage in her opponents. But why bother with her now, especially if she’s so finished, so washed up, so transparently and manifestly unfit for any position of power?
Some say it’s because the Left is scared of her appeal. I suppose that’s part of it for some of them. But I think that most on the Left sincerely believe they’ve destroyed her, made her a laughing stock, and are now dancing on her grave. So again: why bother?
So I have another theory to explain the rage, and that is this: they don’t have Bush to kick around any more.
Bashing him was good for a while—a long while. But as the distance grows between now and then, between the Obama administration and the end of the Bush administration, it gets harder and harder to stoke the fire of the Two Minutes’ Hate against him.
But Palin? That’s another story. Although BDS lasted most of eight full years and change, and only kept building and building to a crescendo, Palin Derangement Syndrome only began in late August of 2008. Then, after the November 2008 election (barely two months later), she pretty much dropped out of sight. There really hasn’t been nearly enough time to fully vent the accumulated bile and spleen.
There was a small revival of Palin focus at the time of her resignation from the Alaska governorship, an act that put her back in the spotlight. Now comes the book tour. Palin is voluntarily seeking out publicity in conjunction with it, so she is thrusting herself into the public eye all over again, just as the energy of BDS is beginning to fade.
Bush’s post-presidential public appearances have been few and far between, Likewise his statements on policy, or on Obama, or on much of anything else. Jousting with him right now is like fighting a phantom. But liberals and the Left have gotten into the habit of vicious hatred, and they need their fix. The rage is out there and requires a target, and Palin has conveniently emerged from relative obscurity at just the right time and place.
In a nutshell, BDS has morphed into PDS, just in the nick of time.
See my post Hatin’ on Palin for some thoughts on this.
But why do they need to hate when they hold all the power?
Oh, you are so right, Neo. My thoughts exactly. A hate pathology has developed on the left, with a built-in competition — who can hate the most colorfully, the most outrageously? It’s like a mob of schoolboys in a schoolyard. Having beaten some kid until he’s lying in a fetal position on the ground, they surround him, one after another venturing forth to kick him, and whoever kicks hardest gets cheered.
I wonder if the development of this pathology had something to do with the strictures of political correctness. All the perverse and ugly human feelings, the eternal We Vs. Them impulses, which in an earlier time were more openly and widely expressed (see William Hazlitt’s “On the Pleasure of Hating”) got bottled up and needed release. But it had to be a righteous release, and so scapegoats on the right were found, and all the negative energy that in an earlier, less political time was diffused by being directed at multiple targets was concentrated in a firehose torrent of rage and hatred.
It’s one thing to hate but such apoplexy is a magnitude of hate that has never been witnessed before. Social determinism has the feminist éœberFrau all done up and Palin not only doesn’t fit the mold, she threatens it. Happy women, wives and mothers, who won’t march lockstep to the signal progressive tenet — abortion, are beyond the pale and must be marginalized by all means. That and Palin’s popularity has made her the béªte noire of progressives and she will stay so as long as she stays on the public stage.
Hate without consequences. Hate once removed from personal responsibility for the results of it. Hate for someone who made it in the boys club, without being a boy, and while shaking it to its foundation at the same time. Without being a member of the feminist club of today, but while truly being a real feminist in the process. A feminist who loves her man, loves her kids, and loves her country. Hate with a new picture in the same frame on the same place on the same wall. Hate because she is who she without them, without their points of view, without NOW, without liberals, without democrats, and seemingly without republicans, and with basically, views of her own. It comforts them.
I pray my daughters grow up to be half the woman she is.
I don’t bother with wondering about the hatred, either on The Left, or in my own heart for those on The Left.
I spend my time in wonder at those who still believe that there’s any hope for a peaceful way through this.
The Long Marchers are so deeply entrenched in our culture and society, there’s no way possible to remove them without going to the bayonet, in a non metaphorical sense. It’s been that way for nearly a generation now.
Hatred of an enemy that demands your own destruction is a natural and necessary thing.
Why do so many leftists hate Palin? Because they find it easy and enjoyable to beat up a girl.
And let’s not forget the bonding function of this kind of hatred. In a blue city or town you can feel free to sidle up to anyone who has the right look and make some crack about Bush or Palin. Instant intimacy!
I think the left hates her because shes avoided all the nihilistic indoctrination they were powerless against.
Sarah is an all out icon of the old American virtues. Exactly the virtues against which the Baby Boom left rebelled. The left is in away ‘apostate’ to these virtues. Apostates hate nothing as much as the beliefs they betrayed. The right loves Sarah for the same reason as the left hates her, and the more strongly, the more she is seen trampled upon by the left.
More and more she gets ‘Joan of Arc’ like characteristics. The love on the right is as fierce as the hate on the left. She evokes great amounts of latent chivalry in men. I have read many statements expressing the deepest kind of loyalty. More than Reagan she is supported by this chivalrous sentiment that men feel towards a noble woman attacked by a pack of scum. It is also the current nihilistic culture. Here is at least something to fight and die for. I have read it regularly in these very words: ‘I am ready to fight and die for you”.
Hi Neo,
I realize that there is a lot of fun in thinking through these problems, but I submit that the simplest answer is the correct one.
Palin is held in contempt by the people you refer to. She has a set of beliefs they find both stupid and evil. That very set of beliefs is also the source of her power – the reason why other people like her.
Focus on her beliefs and you get both effects. Contempt and fear all rolled into one.
Jim
mizpants…I think you’re totally right about the bonding function served by this kind of thing. Particularly in certain industries–film, higher education, advertising, even some parts of the finance industry–slamming Palin, etc helps establish a person as “one of us.”
Thinking about BDS in the context of the “mmm mmm mmm” adoration of Pres. Obama, and I’ve come to the conclusion that some amount of the visceral hatred of Bush was due not to what he was but what he could never be that the lefties wanted so badly… a fuhrer.
mizpants:
Several months ago in the grocery line, prompted by a headline from a tabloid, a fellow customer began to talk to me about the stupes who believed in XXX and “death panels.” (I forget what the headline was, but somehow there was a connection to “death panels.”)
I made some sort of neutral comment. Perhaps I should have engaged him in argument, but I wasn’t in the mood, and also hadn’t read up on death panels at that time.
Lee Merrick,
Suggested reading: Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, specifically Chapter 14 titled Unifying Agents.
An excerpt:
Section 77
Unity and self-sacrifice, of themselves, even when fostered by the most noble means, produce a facility for hating. Even when men league themselves mightily together to promote tolerance and peace on earth, they are likely to be violently intolerant toward those not of a like mind.
[…]The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit this earth and the kingdom of heaven, too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish.
.:end excerpt:.
Also, keep in mind the Left envisions itself as the underdog, the meek standing before selfish corporate masters and other nefarious sorts. In reality, the political Left obtains the majority of money from the wealthy (defined as $250,000+/annum), the majority of Wall Street money; they control the legal profession, K-12 education, universities and graduate schools, unions, all major US cities, the House and the Senate, the Executive Branch, all major media outlets save Fox News, Hollywood, 99% of the nation’s newspapers, …
And yet they must create a devil, the one who is, by his underhanded and petty tactics, stymieing their work at creating a perfected man.
Otherwise they’d have to answer for their continual failures and that would require introspection. Fanatics don’t second guess themselves.
p.s., In hindsight, The True Believer reads like a campaign guidebook for David Axelrod.
You may also find V.D. Hanson a good and relevant read: http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112009.html
Being a liberal is like being in the popular group in high school. Great amounts of psychic income is derived from feeling superior to the geeks or country kids. In the case of liberals, they are convinced they are smarter than other people. When others do not agree with them, that is evidence of their stupidity.
Liberals have played this game since Adlai Stevenson was defeated. Americans were not smart enough to elect him. Eisenhower was seen as inept in spite of his record as Supreme Allied Commander in WW II. Gerald Ford was a klutz in spite of his record as a Big Ten football player and a skilled skier. Ronald Reagan was a clown and a buffoon to the left. I guess the Russians didn’t get the memo. As a Berkeley political science professor said about Reagan, he didn’t know how he got elected because no one the prof knew voted for him. Bush 2 was always painted as thick in spite of better grades and test scores than Gore or Kerry.
Now Sarah is the target for the venom.
SOme thoughts on a Satudday evening.
What do liberals want?
Change.
After liberals get change what do they want?
Change.
Are liberals happy?
No. Never.
Does change make liberals happy?
No. Never.
Are liberals angry?
Yes. All the time.
Does change abate the anger?
Never.
Is there a time when liberals don’t want change.
Yes. After they acquire absolute power. But they will kill off their own in a search for purity; that is they will ultimately kill off all but the true believers. The ones that are killed off never recognized that the change they sought was the path to power and they now represent a danger to the liberal in chief who has obtaiined that power.
Power does not create happiness or abate the anger.
What we go-along-to-get-along conservatives don’t appreciate (or too often come to an appreciation too late) is that we are dealing with evil hiding behind what is proclaimed to be cries for change for the public good. Why we are disgusted with RINOs is that, when they seek bi-partisanship they don’t recognize that they are compromising with evil.
Conservatives are not reactionary.
Conservatives are not opposed to change. They just want to explore the potential downsides before jumping to accept change for the sake of cahnge.
My experience is that conservatives are somewhat happier and their humor is not dependent on belittling other people. They are not so prone to engage in ad homonym attacks. A conservative can accept having liberals to dinner but not vice versa. Conservatives will tolerate liberals speaking liberal-speak but liberals will not tolerate the simplest of questions from a conservative without the daggers (and hate and anger) coming immediately to the surface. So, to keep the peace and not jeopardize what is, at heart, nothing more that weak acquaintanceships, we sit quietly while the conversation flounders and just suffer the fools. I will do this with family but no longer with others. It’s time for conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee.
Among liberals I know it is the women, by far, who are the most apoplectic about Sarah Palin.
Interesting.
Another major factor in the beyond-over-the-top hatred of Palin is that, like Bush, she won’t surrender to the haters. She won’t turn tail and run like most Republicans do.
Worse yet(to them), unlike Bush, she not only has the audacity to defend herself, she has the super-audacity to take the fight TO the haters.
Talk about upitty!
How dare she!
mizpants Says:
Excellent description. Your whole comment was excellent mizpants.
I’ve sometimes seen this hatred appear on both side of the political spectrum, but its the Left that does it routinely and its the Left that has turned it into a viscious art form.
I’ve written before, in comments, that I have a mixed view of Sarah Palin. I think she has some strengths and some weaknesses. But she is entitled to be judged fairly on these strengths and weaknesses, without having her character assasinated and her life made into a joke. She should be able to be considered on her merits unobscured by lies and ridicule.
I think one of the most noxious aspects of the left is that they perpetrate this sort of ad hominem attack, and then, when the same sort of stuff is turned on them (often in a “fight fire with fire” response for an attack they initiated) they act as if theyre helpless, innocent victims. They seem to think that when they visciously attack people, theyre “just telling it like it is.” But when the response comes against them….its unfair. This is something I’ve experinced with leftists firsthand, not just something I’ve seen on the news.
huxley Says:
November 21st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I know exactly what you mean. I commented about it on another thread here a few days ago.
fellow customer began to talk to me about the stupes who believed in XXX and “death panels.” (I forget what the headline was, but somehow there was a connection to “death panels.”)
I’ve had that same thing happen! Of course, you should have seen the look on the rotten old bastard’s face when I responded with:
“Hey, f you. You f’ing old f.”
Hahahah! You should have seen how rapidly he started blinking and how hard he tried to ignore me while I glared at him.
I don’t know how he missed all the social signifiers in my dress and bearing to think I was in any way a “fellow traveler”. Stupid old bastard….
Good post, neo. But:
I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but in mid-September 2008 I commented at the old Gulf Coast Pundit blog, “PDS has already gotten worse in two weeks than BDS did in eight years.”
Here in New York God they hate Palin. I’ve never seen anything like it. The women especially hate her. She’s everything they’re not. Heck, she’s pretty much everything I’m not, but I find her admirable. I think, wow, this gal is reakin’ busy! Good for her. But a lot of the New York professional type, or rather underemployed but college educated, are seething with rage. It is a most curious phenom. I guess they must hate themselves, and want to tear down a woman who is successful. They can’t bear it. It’s really sad.
Wandriaan Says:
November 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
You’ve sure got me pegged. Again, last fall at the old GCP site I said something like, “Even though I’ve never met her, I feel very protective of her. I have the attitude of ‘You want a piece of her? You’re going to have to go through me first.’ ”
(The above is not an exact quote. I can’t provide links to the old Gulf Coast Pundit site, because it was abruptly taken down by the administrator in June. Long story. But within a week, we regulars regrouped and were up and running again as Grouchy Conservative Pundits.
Sadly, the old archives seem to have utterly vanished.)
Just before the election I also said something like, “The entire future of the American Republic may be riding on the shoulders of one woman.”
Damn, I hate being prophetic like that. But it sure looks like America took the wrong fork in the road last November.
why do liberals hate palin? oh gosh darnit, maybe, just maybe it might perhaps have a little something to do with her pathological penchant for LYING ABOUT JUST ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING!
assertion ≠fact
Bubba the liberal,
You are so persuasive!
Hating will not get you anywhere.
“But I think that most on the Left sincerely believe they’ve destroyed her, made her a laughing stock, and are now dancing on her grave.”
That’s what they *say*, but I don’t believe it.
I think they’re scared shitless of Gov. Palin.
And they should be. The more she gets out there, the more the caricature of her fabricated by the MSM-Hollywood complex falls away; the more people see who Sarah Palin really is… and like her.
If Gov. Palin runs against Obama in 2012 she’ll clean his clock, Reagan-style. Bank on it.
The left senses this. What you are seeing does in part arise from their need for an object for their “Two-minute Hate” — but the real source for their vitriol pure, unadulterated fear.
A frequent commenter here has predicted Obama will ultimately collapse — mentally — from the strain of being in over his head. It’s possible. What strikes me as more likely, though, is that, rather than face Sarah Palin (who will hit him hard, again and again, and with a smile) before the voters *and the world*, he’ll take his ball and go home. Pull an LBJ.
After that, the MSM (or what’s left of it, anyway) and the rest of the statists can comfort themselves that the only reason Palin got elected was because Obama decided to bow out for personal reasons.
The two Obaminable fans above contribute nothing of substance to the conversation (as is their wont).
Flinging poo and running away. Like the Bandar-log. ‘Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!’
Note, too, that they never specify what “beliefs” Palin supposedly holds that are “stupid” or “evil.” My patriot friends and I have scratched our heads over this one. What, in their fevered little minds, do they imagine about her?
But I really think Neo has nailed it: they’ve just turned her into their latest Emanuel Goldstein. And that since they’re officially the “rainbows and puppies and luuuurrve” party, their natural aggression needs an outlet, desperately, and finds the outlet in hatin’ on heretics.
Like, you know, Us.
(IOW, heretics like us.)
Palin is hated by the left for a variety of reasons–her rise from humble roots without their assistance, her values, her obvious pleasure in activities for which the left has nothing but contempt–but two in particular stand out to me.
1. She is successful in everything she tries, yet she remains completely without pretense. WYSIWYG in the best sense.
2. Related to this, she refuses utterly to acknowledge the supposed “superiority” of the chattering classes. Drives ’em nuts.
As much as I love this blog, and believe me I do, I see a lot of explanations in here as to how and why Obama got elected, how he is this, liberals are that, what they really mean, who they really are….. and why they continue to bitch, moan, groan, bellyache and complain even though they currently have ALL the power (for the same reason Proctor and Gamble still advertises daily on television after 60 years). We all know about their vicious, venomness attitudes and self righteousness.
Very few libtards roll in here on a regular basis. From my point of view it is for two reasons; they can’t win a logical argument, (not that I am the keeper of the keys of the conservative brain trust, mind you) and they don’t have to because they win everything else. The lame libtards above didn’t warrant the space necessary to flick them off someone’s sleeve. But they’re winning where it matters. We’re not. There is much in the way of academics spoken by commenters here, with little emotion, little of anything that actually gets someone off his ASS and out the door to effect a difference. The left has that pretty well down pat, and as we all know, have been successfully pulling it off for decades, getting better at it minute by minute, taking control of government, learning, and mass communications. Being elected to inside the beltway, and then hiring like minded aids and bureaucrats has become about controlling where this country and its people go, not serving it. Yeah, I know, it’s not news.
Michelle Malkin needs a daily TV show where she can bring on women and prove a few things; make it OK for women to lean right, to show that there actually ARE women who lean right. Unless you follow blogs and talk radio, you wouldn’t know any female leans right except for the few who are constantly being pummelled by the left.
I do admire the impressive vocabularies of many who come in here, though. I used to watch Bill Buckley on PBS, and read his columns – with a collegiate dictionary at the ready. Even with that he used words I couldn’t find. And no, I’m not from Rio Linda.
Although the ethos of this blog is right up my alley, I wonder how many of you will be, sharing a fox hole, so to speak. I’m talking skill, not bravery. We’rs going to end up there, if we live long enough. And I’d rather it be me than my kids or grand kids.
The PDS afflicted are a pathetic bunch who have never really questioned what life is about and who they are. They don’t know themselves but rather imagine a self built on clothing labels, the “right” schools and locations for their summer homes, the “in” appetizers for their dinner parties. Palin calls all of these into question and raises the terrifying prospect that for many people “there’s no there there.”
i think to refer to this whole process as a “derangement syndrome” only serves to rationalize and perhaps even legitimize what in essence is simple intolerance, bigotry, and hate.
Br549 raises an excellent point. Despite not having an original thought since the days of Lyndon Johnson, if not before, the left still excels at seizing the organs of power, leaving us on the right to bitch about it. Why is that? Again, br549 hits the mark. They tend to organize better than we do, focus on the ends (obtaining power), while doing whatever is necessary in the meantime to secure those ends. Ethics are always a secondary consideration to the goal, if they’re thought of at all. Individually, we may all be tigers (although I feel much more like a housecat today), but the tiger is by nature a solitary creature. The left acts more like a hyena pack, subordinating all to a common goal.
Those on the right have tended, generally, to enter the private sector rather than government or academia. It fits with our philosophy of not being dependent upon the state for our livelihoods. All well and good, but it leaves a vacuum that the left is only too happy to fill. Our choices appear clear to me. Get off our butts and put some people in elected office, in the bureaucracy, in the media, and in academe, regardless of the income loss we may sustain in the short run. Or we can continue to kvetch about things from the outside, bemoaning what is being done to us and our candidates by those mean old liberals.
I understand that not all of us can or even should do this. Somebody has to keep production running. But those whose circumstances allow should consider becoming part of a “conservative 5th column” in otherwise liberal institutions. Sleeper cells, so to speak.
I think the liberals find comfort in demonizing their “enemies”. Palin is the current enemy de jour but, looking back to the end of the Democrat presidential campaign, Hillary became the target of the extreme left until she conceded. So, we had HDS for a month and it was sort of delicious. Watching a very liberal “liberal” being attacked for not being the right (left) kind of liberal. (I wonder if this would have happened if she were also black.) I also think those personal attacks were orchestrated by Axelrod or someone deep in the Obama campaign.
I watched the Barbara Walters interview of Palin and read some of the comments about the portion dealing with Trig, who Walters called “the Down Syndrome baby” for which she received some criticism (for not saying that Trig was a baby with Down’s Syndrome). My take was that Walters warmed to Palin as the interview progressed. Although Oprah was always cordial to Palin in their interview, her usual warmth never crept to the surface. It was as if she had a duty to perform and, like a good soldier, she did it but did not have to like it.
There was a poignant moment in the Walters interview when Walters confessed that she had a sister with Down’s Syndrome and that is was always a stigma for her and her family. All the while Palin is sitting on the couch across from her holding Trig and playing with him like he was an ordinary baby (which he is). What a life of regrets and lost opportunities must have been going through Walter’s mind at that moment.
The comments to the Walters interview (on the web page I visited) were mostly from women. Some had observed that it was the women who were hanging on to every word and who leaned forward to be sure not to miss what Palin was saying. I think that Palin is doing and living the life that most women dream of for themselves and they will soon (if not already) become very protective of her and in her corner. The more Palin speaks the more women she will attract to her. The left perceives this (they are always ahead of us on that score) and will raise the temperature of their attacks. But my view is that the shriller they become the more Palin will pick up support among women.
In this regard Martha Stewart gave an interview in which she claimed that Palin was boring and could say nothing that was of interest to her. She then admitted that she never listened to Palin so had no idea what she was saying and had no factual basis for her opinion. Typical, but it was interesting to me that the MSM fleshed out Stewart’s bias.
I wonder if Palin will be invited to appear on the View and, if so, how she will be treated by Walters. I think she is in the process of changing a lot of minds.
Apropos the prior entry, including Neo’s.
mizpants:
And let’s not forget the bonding function of this kind of hatred. In a blue city or town you can feel free to sidle up to anyone who has the right look and make some crack about Bush or Palin. Instant intimacy!
Exactly!! For many of the past 8 years every faculty get together (committee meetings, lunch) etc. always began with a snide comment about Bush followed by everyone snickering and feeling quite superior about themselves. I haven’t hear much of that lately, but I assume Palin jokes will now be th replacement.
Since I am not a woman I do not quite know what to make of this but, not long after Katie Couric interviewed Palin, she began wearing her hair just like Palin. Is there something here for Neo to analyze? Does it mean that even Couric was taken be Palin and admires her? Is there a liberal disconnect between what they say and what they really want?
Women!
“But why do they need to hate when they hold all the power?”
Because their power isn’t absolute yet. There is still a minority of Republicans in Congress, a few Supreme Court justices who won’t stop making anti-progressive judgments, and of course they can’t directly control what gets said on Fox News like they can any other media channel.
They are so close to absolute power they can taste it, and it’s driving them mad that it keeps getting harder and harder to reach it.
I came late to this thread and have not read it as carefully as I should before making this comment, but it seems to me one thing left out of the various answers to the question “why do they hate Palin?” is that she brings in money. I know all the pleas I get for contributions invoke Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Who have the liberals got to hang their fundraising request on? Bush is finally gone, there are no congressmen worth invoking — only Palin, the great unknown, iis there to open Democrat wallets. F
The Left needs to hate, must hate. Hate is at the core of Leftist existence. Just like Islam. Perhaps that is why the Left does not challenge Islam in any way.
The Leftist mantra is “to fight”. They are always “fighting” for, or against, something. Poverty, cancer, dirty water, whatever.
waltj has it right: grouped, Leftists are a pack of hyenas; individually, they are slinking cowards.
He he
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091120/D9C3GV502.html
Good for this university – they have courage.
I mean… isn’t it true that when one has more we should take it from them? What does one “need” with over 30% body fat?
The Martha Stewart video
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/11/22/martha-stewart-sarah-palin-is-boring-and-dangerous.php
Liberal women hate Palin the most, because they despise the type of women that like her most; stay-at-home/soccer moms – the ones who were marginalized by the feminist movement. The fact that Palin is a woman of significant achievement, having shattered the glass ceiling herself, is immaterial.
This is priceless: Martha Stewart, who has induced paralyzing social anxiety in millions of women, locks up at the mention of Sarah Palin, describing her as “boring” and “frightening” (because of Sarah’s confusion about policy!) and saying that “you couldn’t pay me to watch her,” all in less than a minute. Does Sarah have Martha rattled? That’s a blow for WalMart shoppers everywhere: the biter bit.
http://www.nationalreview.com/rogue/post/?q=ZWYzMGVlYzM4NGYxNTAyM2JjZTQyNGMyZWNlMjZlNTI=
waltj
Alas, the problem, as pointed out by a friend of mine, is that there is no such a thing as an organized group of radical normal people.
My wife is reading Sarah’s book. She descibes it as warm and friendly, just like Sarah. Yes, that IS like Sarah! The libs cannot believe that a genuinely warm and friendly woman can also be an accomplished woman. They recognize how likable she is and that she has accomplishments. That frightens them because Sarah stands for everything they hate and they recognize that Sarah could be elected to national office unless they can somehow destroy her.
It frightens them even more that she has taken a lot of their best shots and is still standing – warm and friendly as ever.
“… Palin is doing and living the life that most women dream of for themselves and they will soon (if not already) become very protective of her and in her corner. The more Palin speaks the more women she will attract to her. The left perceives this … and will raise the temperature of their attacks. But my view is that the shriller they become the more Palin will pick up support among women. … I think she is in the process of changing a lot of minds.”
Steve G,
You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.
This woman is for real. Nobody helped her climb the ladder; she did it herself. She is smarter than people think, and she is tough as can be — and she is politically savvy, while at the same time refreshingly normal. The more people get to know her, the more they will identify with her and like her — and they will hear the common sense of her ideas.
If she runs in 2012, she is going to demolish Obama.
By the way, for those of you who think she should wait till 2016, remember what Obama said about what his father used to say: “Strike while the iron is hot.”
By the time 2012 rolls around, Gov. Palin is going to be as ready as ever. She is getting sharper and more knowledgeable about policy every day — because she knows she must do so to win, and she is a winner to the core.
Any time a leftist starts laughing at Palin, saying they can’t wait for her to run against The One, that she’s an idiot, whatever — don’t even argue.
Laugh, and tell them, “Okay.”
All-in in 2012.
“Alas, the problem, as pointed out by a friend of mine, is that there is no such a thing as an organized group of radical normal people.”
Fantastic.
David Horowitz quote of the day, from Unholy Alliance:
“Chambers was right, however, in the sense that Communists and Fascists betrayed the actual institutions they lived under in the name of an abstraction, whereas the others had not. Benedict Arnold and other loyalists to the Crown acted to preserve the system they lived under. So did the American founders who fought to defend what they considered “the rights of Englishmen,” which they believed the Crown had denied them. They fought for a reality they knew, while invoking abstract ideals to justify their rebellion and to articulate the principles they for the most part lived by. But Communists and Fascists were not defending any reality. Like contemporary radicals, they were motivated by an abstraction — the vision of a future that did not exist and had never existed, but which they were convinced they could create.
It is this abstraction, this monde ideal that accounts for the otherwise incomprehensible fact that for Communists “the future is more real than the present.” The belief in this “reality” is why radicals discount the apparent privileges, freedoms and benefits of the actual world they live in. Their eyes are fixed on the revolutionary future that is perfect and just. Measured by this impossible standard, any actually existing society — including America’s – is easily found deficient, even to the point where it is worthy of destruction.”
I agree that Palin to some degree has replaced George W. Bush as the focus of liberal hatred.
From experience though I know that this is a minor aspect of the vilification and hatred.
My wife, a politician from the Caribbean, faced off against socialist/liberal politicians on fundamental issues and received the same type of treatment that Sarah Palin is receiving at the moment from the liberal (so called elite) press, academics and politicians(from both the Democratic and Republican Parties). In fact when the Palin Derangement started all I could think of is “here we go again”.
Liberals do not know the meaning of the word tolerance. They only expect tolerance on the part of conservatives and moderates to tolerate liberal destructive, non self sustaining social and fiscal policies and lifestyles.
The totally selfish lifestyle and philosophy of liberalism is focused on self gratification and me -ism and is there to benefit all its adherents. Anyone who gets in the way of this and suggests that these amoral creatures have to think of anyone other than themselves, filling their pockets and satisfying their egos is considered blasphemous.
The vehemence with anyone who defies this religion is assaulted can only be categorized correctly as Palin Derangement Syndrome. Palin also goes the extra mile and does not adhere to their speech patterns, and faux status dress and manners (underpinned by crude and immoral behavior). It reminds me that these so called classy people would have been turned away at the door by my grand-mother – a 5’ 4” black woman who knew the meaning of CLASS.
Their intolerance, vindictiveness and viciousness (see Perez Hilton ,Al Sharpton or Maureen Dowd)when faced with alternative realities that burst their liberal bubbles is a sight to behold. Rather than the back stroking and masturbatory support they have grown used to getting for the past 40 years they are now faced with a stronger conservative reality that is putting them all into a head spin and they cannot abide by this blasphemy .
Hence the attacks on Palin who dares to put her head above the parapet.
Michael, I fear your friend is probably right. Normal people–those whose political views tend towards the middle, as do their incomes–often have many other commitments besides going to yet another meeting, no matter how important it might be to their future. But the alternative is to cede the playing field to the dyed-in-the-wool leftists who have made up much of the politically-active populace in the U.S. for the last few decades. Reagan roused the center-right to action, and won over quite a few moderate Democrats as well. But he’s gone. If we want to “throw the bums out” and put in people who reflect our views better, we’re going to have to do it ourselves, possibly without a standard bearer. Sarah Palin might become that, but if not, we’re still going to have to press on.
Further to my previous post the following is instructive.
There is some very recent hacking and publishing of e-mail from some of the High Priests of Global Warming Voodoo religion headed by America’s Al Gore. Content of the e-mail show succinctly the viciousness , intolerance and vindictiveness I talk about as represented by the Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Below I quote from some of the article in the Washington Post that outlined the liberal voodoo tactics used to maintain the credibility of the lies sustained by the liberal religion whether espoused by the NYT, Harvard academics like Louis Gates or politicians like the ghastly Democratic Party demi-god, Ted Kennedy.
From this brief insight into what appears to be unbelievable duplicity we get a snippet of the magnitude and range of how the average individual has been lied to for the past 50 years. Obama’s Chicago Way tactics of discrediting his opponent , changing the rules of the game, not allowing your opponent even to get onto the field of play are all on display here in its nakedness.
This is what Sarah Palin was up against because she represents the greatest threat to the fools in their ivory towers on the East and West coast plus the European scamps who are busily destroying those great cultures over there.
Quotes below:
“In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ “
nasty spiteful little people have to hate someone.
Steve G: I saw Katie Couric on TV at a function shortly after the election. She had her hair like Palin’s and was wearing the same glasses. She was in the center of a crowd of leftist “journalists” and they were yukking it up. I think it was ridicule and mockery, not emulation.
Joseph10: Bravo, well spoken! LisaM: in the behaviour of Katie Couric you can see how rotten today’s so called left is. They are the ruling, privileged class and yet they pretend it is the other way around. More and more they resemble the 18th century corrupt and decadent French aristocrats who feared revolution of the working class ‘mob’. They too pretended to be the sophisticated noble ones, while they were no more than leeches.
And I feel more and more that the American people will have to revolt against these corrupt elites just like the French did in 1789.
Otherwise these parasitical villains will suck the very life out of you and enslave you all.
In a 25-second nutshell, why they hate her, and why most Amercans are going to love her and send her to the White House in 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU2R2rfnPW4&feature=player_embedded
Wow. I’m surprised to see support for the French Revolution on this blog’s comment section. It was from the French Revolution that the idea of “the Left” came to be ( See this interview with David Horowitz ), and it is from the French Revolution that the ideas of the left first derived. ( See this. )
Not to get too beyond the subject, . . . but regarding the French Revolution:
A quote from David horowitz’s site:
This quote is found at http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=144&type=issue
On behave of all the liberals in this country, I can honestly attest to the fact that I am indeed “scared shitless of Gov. Palin.” Yes, I’m petrified that you intellectual heavyweights on the right will wise up and not hand Miss Wasilla the nomination in 2012.
“Wow. I’m surprised to see support for the French Revolution on this blog’s comment section.”
I don’t think it reflects actual support for the French Revolution per se. Rather, it merely expresses the poster’s (and my own, and many others here I am sure) frustration with our elected officials’ indifference to will of the electorate, and their fear that, with the help of groups like ACORN, and by giving amnesty to illegal aliens, the Democrats intend to dilute the vote to the point where the people’s will won’t matter anymore.
If indeed such turns out to truly Pelosi-Reid-Obama’s thinking, they are in for a fight, and they are going to lose.
“On behave of all the liberals in this country, I can honestly attest to the fact that I am indeed “scared shitless of Gov. Palin.” Yes, I’m petrified that you intellectual heavyweights on the right will wise up and not hand Miss Wasilla the nomination in 2012.”
Okay.
Let’s not overthink this. We Americans don’t care about the French Revolution. We do care about throwing the rascals out. If the rascals’ heads are on pikes, or in baskets at the foot of the guillotines, or in the wastelands of defeated politicians, we don’t care.
I’m a peaceful person who has never resorted to violence. But the truth is, I don’t care what happens to the elitist pigs. I just want them gone, disappeared, out of sight, out of mind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002616.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Kathleen,
You asked, “And we’re supposed to defend/feel sorry for/protect Sarah from . . . what?”
From incurious people like you Kathleen who felt compelled to attack Sarah as being unqualified yet Sarah is immensely more qualified than the sitting president.
Kathleen, you’ve had a career with mostly intelligent thought.
But when it comes to Sarah – you’ve had it all backwards.
Sarah did not deserve to be treated the way she was treated by you.
Which policy position do you think Obama had a better position on than Sarah? Please tell us !!! I hope you can !
Andrea Mitchell at the end of this video is cracking me up !!!
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/22/video-when-andrea-met-sarah/
Security guards holding her back – omg – Can she be more irrelevant???
I gotcha. And I understand and agree with that feeling. Revolution wise, I think I prefer the concept behind Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged . But then again, I’m not really that ideological.
bubba Says:
I think the word you were looking for, bubba, is behalf.
“But then again, I’m not really that ideological.”
I am. I’m a raving rightwing maniac. 😉
Don Surber’s blog has a picture of Andrea Mitchell confronting Palin with a copy of Newsweek in her hand. The one with Palin on the cover.
The superior, accusatory, expression on Mitchell’s face is priceless.
Palin, of course, is smiling.
Year, hear, Promethea!
Damn! make that:
Hear, hear, Promethea!
A great post from Conservatives4Palin:
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/11/rex-murphy-governor-palin-on-ascendant.html
When I said ‘revolt against the ruling elites just like the French in 1789’ I surely did not mean advocating a turn to violence. Violence is only justified in the case of self defense against violence. Only when the government starts to be unlawfully violent against the population I would support violent self defense, as the Founding Fathers did.
What I mean was that at 1789 the French saw through the lies of the ruling privileged elites and stopped being intimidated by their highflown rhetoric, pseudo sophistication, and smirky putdowns of ‘the peasants’.
The American revolution was of course superior to the French one, as I have stated clearly myself on a former post and I agree with Horowitz general analysis, in so far as the American one indeed avoided leftist radicalization.
However, the American revolution was directed against the (foreign) British crown, not against settled and privileged elites of their own.
What I mean is that America is more and more in danger to lose its unique, non-elitist character. Elitist societies were the rule, America was the exception. Elites like to be elites, an many people like to be unthinking servants, just doing what they are told. The flight from freedom is a perpetual danger.
What was good about the French revolution was not its leftist radicalization, let alone its turn to unrestricted random violence, but the courageous and noble refusal of ‘the peasants’ to bow down any longer to long time settled, established and haughty elites. By that they got in touch with their humanity and learned to speak in a frank and open manner.
The same kind of psychology is in place today. Look how students are bullied by leftist professors today into submission. Look how ordinary people are mocked at every turn by media kings and queens. Don’t take it, don’t bow down, don’t become subjects, stay Americans, revolt against the ‘fancy people’, that is all I wanted to say.
And it is not trivial. The virtue of freedom is not hereditary, every generation has to fight to get and keep it.
“Violence is only justified in the case of self defense against violence.”
Agreed. That said, we will need to be better prepared come 2012, for the ACORN/SEIU and Black Panther thugs at polling places, campaign offices. A sort of ad-hoc Guardian Angels-style movement would do it, I think: some tough types interspersed at every campaign office and polling point, ready to face down any bullies that crop up and to nip any “irregularities” (i.e., of the ACORN/SEIU variety) in the bud, plus a lot of people on-hand with cameras rolling.
Calling Curtis Sliwa…
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/19/its-official-atlantic-magazine-blogger-suffers-palin-induced-psychosis/
Andrew Sullivan should be institutionalized…
My sense is that Bubba IS Andrew Sullivan…
“French Revolution”
It is interesting to see it mentioned here. I thought I was the only one!
Chairman Mao was asked about the implications of the French Revolution and he is reported to have said “too soon to tell”. And the lefties feel something running up their leg because the are so darn lever.
Actually Chairman Mao was either a fool or being disingenous.
Oh my are they going to hate her now. The LA Times reports that Palins’ popularity is approaching Obama’s, but from different directions. Her popularity is rising as fast as his is falling!
Well, I do not know what happened but I will continue….
The French Revolution was evil and we are just now playing it to its logical conclusion.
Many of the really bad things that happened in the 20th century are the result of that revolution.
In Europe our “betters” are trying to overthrow the revolution so that they may once again resume their rightful places.
On the other hand we have the Lefties who believe in the perfectability of man….as long as they remain on top.
In any case the result of the French Revolution is the common man as slave and the state as supreme.
Hatred is really only fear. Palin has the power to bring down their whole shooting match. They fear her power and, thus, hate her.
Not the same as BDS; they hated Bush’s Christianity.
I say lets have a Revolution like 1989, when the wall came down, and Soviet empore started its dissolution into “the ashheap of history.”
But the point being made about elites is well taken. They are like the Nomenklatura in the Soviet system, the entrenched party cadres who ensured that only “correct” thinking was allowed to occur.
“Hatred is really only fear. Palin has the power to bring down their whole shooting match. They fear her power and, thus, hate her.”
That is it exactly, no matter what the left tries to tell you.
If Gov. Palin runs in 2012, she is going to *destroy* Obama.
Bank on it.
And to answer Neo’s question of who else they can hate – they hate everyone who doesn’t think exactly as they do.
I was on a site that sells books reading a discussion about a famous author. Someone commented that they don’t read him anymore because of his derogatory comments about the military, and because his books are filled with caricatures of conservatives and insults to conservatives. The minute this poster outed himself as conservative, the hounds of hell were unleashed upon him. The invective and ridicule and name calling were truly frightening.
I’ve seen this just about everyywhere liberals post online. Do they do this so that we shut up and leave them alone, out of sheer disgust and alarm? Or do they really hate us this much, just for having another opinion? It’s very close to out of control.
‘In any case the result of the French revolution is the common man as slave and the state as supreme’.
In a former post I analysed the difference between the American and European form of Enlightenment, and why the American one turned out more benign and the European one more malign. This is all true.
However, the statue of Liberty was donated by the French to the Americans: they had some things in common. One of them is a shared revulsion against hereditary aristocracy and inequality before the law. Interestingly, the statue was donated by French liberals who saw America as an example of ordered liberty which they wanted France to follow. And how right they were!
The French revolution was good in so far as it supported liberty and equality for the law for all people, but went wrong because it stressed ‘equality’ in a more general sense than equality for the law. ‘Equality of outcome’ breeds perpetual resentment, which opens the floodgates of all vices and eventually leads to totalitarian tyranny.
All following socialist revolutions suffered from this affliction.
I like Palin a lot. However, I hope she does not run in 2012, but instead throws her weight behind a new face. A Mitch Daniels or somebody like that and NOT any of the guys who lost to McCain. Be a kingmaker this time around. Get a little more seasoned.
I see her as being sort of where Reagan was in the 60’s. On the way up. And he did not grab the brass ring until 1980.
But let’s say she does decide to run. One of the ongoing and non-stop Lefty themes or talking points their thought-control masters must give them back at Huffpo Central or on Kos, because we ALWAYS see it on conservative forums from the trolls, is:
“Oh YES YES YES, wingnuts, PLEEASE nominate Palin in 2012! Then we can watch her lose in a landslide to Obama!!” Snort, giggle, guffaw…. self congratulatory pats on the back for their cleverness, originality and wit.
So the one thing I will REALLY enjoy seeing will be when the very first pre-primary poll comes out and when the pollsters ask “likely voters” as to who they would vote for if the two choices are Palin and Obama…..and if it is neck and neck, or if it is something like “46% Palin, 42% Obama, and 12% undecided.” Because based on their current respective trajectories, this is not outside the realm of possiblity.
I will get great pleasure seeing those Lefty twits who are currently “begging” the wingnuts (chortle, giggle) to nominate Palin, literally sh–tting in their pants. Literally.
Oh my, if you think the vitriol and profane hatred directed towards her NOW is intense……just wait until that day arrives.
“Or do they really hate us this much, just for having another opinion?”
This.
David Horowitz talks about this a great deal. It’s related to the proposition that, if you believed you could create a heaven on earth, what wouldn’t you do to achieve that goal?
If you honestly believe that world peace could be achieved via global governance and treaties outlawing war, nuclear weapons, and even private ownership of firearms; if you believed that these same means could be used (provided the right people held the levers of power) to end hunger everywhere on earth; if you truly with all your heart were certain that the government could give great health care to all, and clean energy for all, but for the evil greed of multinational corporations and certain super-rich private citizens, would you not hate those who stood in the way of the solutions you imagined being implemented?
Yes, you would hate them, and that is how leftists, statists, liberals, whatever you wish to call them, see conservatives: as racists, heartless exploiters, violent reactionary homophobes, etc. Thus, when a conservative asks, “But will it work?” or reminds everyone that the proposals being discussed have *never* worked anywhere, any time they have been tried, and in fact have caused tremendous suffering, the statist is enraged, because forget about the past, forget about all these stupid questions and quibbles, *this time* they are going to get it right.
JR Dogman: absolutely correct.
Neo,
David Horowitz was the spark that lit the fire of my post-9/11 Awakening. I was so angry after 9/11, and the more I learned — i.e., about the Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa; that bin Laden had *declared war* against our country openly, brazenly, and not been taken at his word — the angrier I became. I couldn’t understand what the hell had happened. Then one day I got a call from my father, and he told me to turn on CSPAN: “There’s a guy speaking now you should see — he sounds just like you, only he seems to know what he’s talking about.”
“Violence is only justified in the case of self defense against violence.”
Depends on what one’s definition of violence is, now doesn’t it? Throwing people in jail for not having health insurance? That’s pretty violent, just in a legal way. As we saw with Prohibition, making criminals out of the law-abiding has never worked. But The Triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid seem hell bent to take this course of action.
At what point does one say enough is enough? In the words of Jefferson (the one from Charlottesville): “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Jefferson also wrote: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” That sentiment is similar to his: “Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!”
His take on taxation to fund the redistribution of wealth: “Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Obama and Company do not seem to understand the dangerous path they trod, their taking away our Freedom for their Statism: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
It seems we as a Nation have lost sight of who we are, as well as losing sight of the minds of the old, dead white guys who created and handed to us this Great Experiment. We overthrew a King to win our Freedom; now we have herediary aristocrats taking over in Congress and ruling us. Is that not enough violence already?
Wandriaan: “The flight from freedom is a perpetual danger.”
YES. We should have this sentence on the masthead of every single conservative blog. IN A NUTSHELL, baby!
JR Dogman: Yes, exactly. As an ex-Dem, I have to say you’ve expressed the belief system of the woo-woo liberals perfectly (the apparently well-meaning ones who are rather nice in their personal lives, and who invest in the Utopian religion almost entirely on an emotional basis).
The Uber-Leftists who control the levers of power, however, are of a very different, much darker mindset. As I’m sure you know. They are Sinister indeed.
One more thought: We need to win the battle for hearts as well as minds.
Beverly,
I agree that most “liberals” (I much prefer Mark Levin’s term, “statists”, for its accuracy) are well-meaning. Most of my friends, and many of my family members, voted for Obama and have the typical cartoonish view of Bush and Cheney, and most of all of Sarah Palin. But of course they do: they get their news and political commentary from the NY Times, CNN, 60 Minutes, The New Yorker, etc.
You know what blows my mind more than anything? The things these people don’t know; the extent to which the MSM’s obfuscation of major stories on so many subjects directly affects their lives. The effect is profound: even when scraps of stories somehow slip by the MSM filter, they remain just that, scraps of information, disconnected from the larger picture of which they are part.
It is for this reason that so many people like my friends and family members could hear about Jeremiah Wright, yet convince themselves that he did not signify what he clearly did about candidate Obama. Because Bill Ayers didn’t run a church Obama attended, and the connection between him and Obama wasn’t so dramatic, the MSM was able to keep its extent and significance from the larger public view. Thus Wright + Ayers (and Phleger and Khalidi, and many others) was a calculation that never took place in most people’s minds.
In so many instances, people like my friends and family would have to have actively sought information out about Obama (a) that they really didn’t want to hear to begin with, because if they did they would feel compelled, morally and as patriotic Americans, to vote against Obama (or at least to not vote for him), and (b) that would have required them to go poking around the Internet on sites so unfamiliar as to bolster their inclinations described in (a). Who is this Neo-neocon, who are these people at this site Hot Air, that I should believe their characterization of the venerable NY Times and 60 Minutes as unreliable and dishonest?
It’s a vicious cycle, when you get right down to it.
Robin has again a very ´soul-full’ piece on the website ‘American Thinker’. ‘ The wilding of Sarah Palin’ it is chillingly and appropriately called. It evoked already 96 comments. Many, if not most espouse, often literally, the spirit I recommended in the post above: ‘ we will no longer be bullied into submission by the Orwellian left, we will no longer be quiet and take the vitriol meekly, we will open our mouths and let the chips fall were they may.’ Bravo!
I come to this topic late so I don’t know how many will read this comment but oh well.
I came across Matt Taibbi’s blog entry about the press coverage of Sarah Palin, and thought I’d post a link to it. Matt, a true Lefty, agrees with all of you about the viciousness of the press coverage of Palin and has a take on why it has become a feeding frenzy. He thinks it’s because the GOP elites have signal to the mainstream media that they wouldn’t mind her being taking down.
He likens it to the media’s coverage of Howard Dean’s primary campaign against John Kerry on 2004 and how the media destroyed his candidancy after the Iowa caucus. when the power brokers of the party decide to cut someone loose, they signal the hounds to give chase.
Now I don’t think Palin can win the presidency but I think she is not shooting for that right now. I think she wants to become a standard bearer for the disenfranchised Tea baggers of the Right, and she is doing a brilliant job of that so far. She has touched the heart of this group that feel left out and left behind and so she has become the leader of a crusade of believers.
What will happen to her, what will happen to her followers, who knows?
I have a sense of how much we have in common, we ordinary citizens of the Left and Right. We are both without power even though we organize, donate and vote. It’s like we have the power to mark the ballot and send our candidate to office but then once in power, they never seem to do what we send them to do.
We all know somethings wrong but we are divided by our solutions. I think both camp’s solutions are stale, manufactured nostrums that do little but gin up the base for another phony election.
We were once a nation that faced any challenge with energy and focus. Now we gridlock over the most irrelevant minutea, spin ourselves into another frustrating and enervating vicious cycle of failure and recrimination.
Vicious cycle indeed.
Oops, forgot the link
Matt Taibbi
As one who no longer doubts that just about anything can happen in politics, and does, I wonder abour McCain’s choice of Palin for a new and different reason. McCain as the chosen front man for the republican ticket never made a particle of sense to me. I would be surprised if I found myself alone in that sentiment. I also don’t think he really wanted to win, don’t think the republicans wanted to win. I believe those in the know, if you will, have long known that what has transpired concerning the bailout and companion crises, was coming to a head this soon. Of course they knew. And maybe Palin was chosen in an effort to nip her in the bud. She was coming, they knew that, too. I don’t think for one five seconds the game on the hill is not all inclusive. I don’t think anyone who comments here does either. We’re all being played like cheap pianos, regardless of where we stand as individuals. I’m all for the broad broom.
I am a liberal and I know quite a few others. I don’t “hate” Palin and I have yet to hear anyone that shares my views say that. Most people talk about the things she has said and done that indicate a lack of depth and knowledge Most people view her the way Kathleen Parker described her in the National Review:
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do.”
“Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood.”
She simply is not very well-informed and replaces information with confidence in her judgment. That is not hateful.
I looked over your blog and have seen no mention of those on the right the really do “hate” President Obama. Listen to the vitriol of some of the teabaggers, of Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter. That is hatred. And there is much more of it than any eye-rolling, disbelief or dislike that goes in Palin’s directioin.
So, your blog does not seem quite evenhanded on the subject. I think it ought to be fine to criticize our leaders for their actions and abilities. But if you are going to worry so about whether people hate Palin, shouldn’t you also worry about that towards the President? Especially when it can fan the flames of violence?
Bruce: let’s see, where should I begin? Oh, maybe with the fact that, if you want to present yourself as a calm and fair person who’s angry at the hatred on both sides, it’s probably best not to start off with terms such as “teabaggers.” I’m afraid they give you away.
And one more thing: Sarah Palin is a private citizen right now, and still the vitriol against her continues unabated. Barack Obama is president, and almost every single policy he has promoted so far has great potential to damage this country and the people in it. Funny, I don’t see much unprovoked hatred for him on this blog and elsewhere, although I’m sure some exists, as it does for every president. What I see is deep concern about his agenda, and a desire to stop it from being enacted. I share this deep concern. It has nothing to do with hatred or violence and everything to do with policy disagreements, and the belief that he has a hidden agenda.
It’s interesting that, from the beginning of the Obama campaign right up to the present, many people (you, for example) have been harping on the idea that criticism of Obama will spark violence against him. It’s almost as though you are obsessed with the idea of his martyrdom, and/or wish to stifle criticism.
One more thing: about 99% of my friends are liberals. Most of them absolutely hate and despise Sarah Palin.
I just produced computer software that’ll systematically scrape
suitable contents of an issue (or even topic your
blog is devoted to) with the yahoo and search engines for making considerable 100% copyscrape-passed subject
matter. Could you be wanting to review it?
Hi, all the time i used to check website posts here early
in the dawn, since i love to learn more and more.
Look at my weblog search