Taking on Sarah Palin's critics to prove a point

July 7, 2:10 PMHartford Conservative ExaminerJohn Talleos

Previous Next

12 comments Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Hartford Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  No article in the space as ever struck such a cord as that of "To what do we attribute the animus toward Palin when it isn't politics".  And as the title suggest, the animosity isn't about  politics, or to be more specific policy.

 Here's a challenge to her detractors: name a policy that Sarah Palin holds that makes her "stupid" that isn't shared with conservatism as a whole, or explain why there is no contradiction with her leaving the governorship  any different from the president leaving the Senate before his term was up to run for president?

 Twenty-one readers, as of this writing, responded to the article.  Since policy difference are not part of the discussion proves in the least that she is disliked because of other reasons.  If it isn't because of her good-looks the comments in the least suggest latent sexism, why?  Because the common stereotype's are all present: incompetence and (to put it bluntly) stupidity.

   Geek, in his comment is typical of the responders, he writes: "Senator McCain lost my support with the selection of someone who had no qualifications to hold an office of importance."  The question to ask here is did Geek think Democratic candidate Howard Dean from the 2000 election was not qualified also since he was a governor of a state the size of Alaska?  It would seem that if there isn't hypocrisy here then Palin's lack of qualifications has nothing to do with her position.  He doesn't explain why she lacks qualification.  Then he goes on: "I want someone who is smart enough to understand the challenges and promote realistic policies to solve problems and improve our country."  which we all do, but where does it suggest she doesn't have this?  In this also there is no examples, the statement is just out there without qualification.

  Gina  writes "You have to be kidding. Her showcasing of her family is grating on her detractors?"  How can it be otherwise?  The "showcasing" is a reference to having her family onstage during the Republican convention something all candidates, president and vice-president, had done in the last election and all previous elections.  Absent policy differences the focus on her family is particularly troubling throwing away the rule that families are off-limits.  But not for "gina" she then goes full throttle:

  It ought to be grating on her supporters. She's got an unwed teenage mother for a daughter. They wouldn't let the baby's father have visitation. Her concern for her own unborn fetus was so great that she hopped on a plane to make a speech and on another after her water broke? This woman's family is a poster case for dysfunction. So much for family values!

  If you don't have a picture perfect family, like the rest of us presumably, you shouldn't run for office or believe in family values.  Would Gina otherwise be happy if Palin, in light of her perceived family faults, moved out and championed spinsterism?

 In this realm of criticism her critics know no bounds.  David Letterman by any standard threw away common decency when he joked that her teenage daughters, were, well, indecent.  Royster in a show of chutzpah believes that the vicious attacks on her daughters was fair game:  

 Sarah Palin and her husband got so irate about what Lettermen said, did it ever occur to her how horrible it may have been for President Obama's children to hear her talking about him "paling around with terrorists" numerous times?? I think Caribou Barbie owes someone an apology.

 So if the children of political candidates don't like what the opposition says about their parents, this is akin to calling the opposition candidates children, how should it be put, loose?  Is that a comparable tit-for-tat?   To note Royster lets the cat out of the sexist bag here with "Caribou Barbie", just so we don't forget Palin's gender.

  Another comment from boomerscoutofamerica "Perhaps the animus against Palin has to do with her lack of executive experience" again Howard Dean is worth mentioning, he goes on  "(she has not even been a one-term governor) although she aspires to the (Vice) Presidency of the US"  but if this were a standard to boomer, what about Obama who had no executive experience? and then "Also, she doesn't seem to have the brainpower needed for the most important job on earth."  why this is he doesn't say, just saying it boomer may think we all understand where he's coming from since Palin is, after all, is a woman. In his last line "Now we know what sexy is worth as POTUS." Thanks for proving the point boomer.

  From Sarah Rose Hurt: "John, this is a very thoughtful and legitimate argument for Sarah" thank you Sarah, she goes on "If she led a private life I would agree with you without hesitation." The distinction between public and private ought to not make a difference, the criticism of her is not of a policy nature, she explains "Sarah Palin's problems began when she put herself and her family on the national stage" well of course, should she have accepted her nomination via satellite and kept her family in the closet?   "Her crowds became increasingly hateful." how so?  "She was ill prepared and clearly out of her league." why?  "She was left to argue, essentially, against my life.  She scared the bejesus out of me" come on Sarah, really.  "One wins no arguments against religious bullies, and that is what I believe her to be." another statement without qualification "I agree that is not fair to attack her looks or her clothes or her children. I simply wish she had thought through the decision to put them on a national stage." because if she had she would have found something to be ashamed about?  

 What is there in sexism if we don't mention cloths?  Cody_K wants us to know that "Yes. She has repeatedly talked about 'Naughty Monkey'  being her favorite brand."  This is relevant supposedly because of the Vanity Fair article where the writer mentions an event Palin attended...not wearing them.  "I wouldn't expect a man to know this, but a reporter should be proficient at Google enough to do a little research about Palin's much discussed shoes (as in MUCH discussed by Palin herself).   It does nothing to help her shed her 'Caribou Barbie' image."  Dress down Palin, your making liberals very upset.