A long time ago in this very country, liberals once protected the little guy. They sided against elites and fought the good fight against overwhelming odds against the powerful. But today, the self described liberals, have joined the ranks of the rich and powerful and view the rest of the country as one would an episode of “Green Acres.”
Democrats, the mainstream media and the liberal blogosphere, are all joined in sneering at Sarah Palin. You know what they’re hitting her on. It’s the beauty pagaent, The University of Idaho degree, the family with more than 2.3 children, the hunting, the moose burgers, the hockey-Mom thing, the blue-collar snow-mobile racing husband, and the fact that she didn’t do what 90 percent of women do when their child is diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome.
NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell yesterday unkindly compared Palin to Annie Oakley. I didn’t hear any jokes about Joe Biden from the media, though there is much to mock. Mitchell essentially said only dumb women will vote for Palin:
“She (Palin) is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.”
FYI, uneducated means doesn’t live in the Northeast, DC, or California. Note to Palin supporters: You must be uneducated or graduated from the University of Idaho or somewhere like that. And notice that “uneducated” and “conservative” go together in Mitchell’s assessment.
Newsweek Editor Eleanor Clift admitted without prompting on The McLaughlin Report that the media laughs at Palin. On the McLaughlin Report she said:
ELEANOR CLIFT: This is not a serious choice. It makes it look like a made for TV movie. If the media reaction is anything, it’s been literally laughter in many places across news-
JOHN McLAUGHLIN: Where is that? See that?
CLIFT: In very, very many newsrooms.
But there’s no media bias?
Right after the nomination, there was a press release issued from Barack Obama’s campaign describing Palin as the “former Mayor” of a small town. The emphasis was on the small town, just so you know. Here’s the comment:
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” said Obama spokesperson Bill Burton.
Saying Palin is a former Mayor is like calling Obama a “community organizer.” Hey, at least I know what a Mayor does.
The Los Angeles Times wrote an odd and misleading headline saying, “Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick.” As if there were no stops in between. It’s like Palin was never Governor at all. See, they don’t count Alaska as a real state because the only thing they know about it is we can’t drill for oil there and they really like that quirky show ‘Northern Exposure.’ The article includes this not-so-subtle jab:
Palin is breathtakingly unlike any other vice presidential pick in American history — a gun-toting, mooseburger-eating former Miss Wasilla, an Alaska governor whose parents nearly missed her national unveiling because they were out hunting caribou.
That was supposed to be a punch line, if you didn’t get it. You’re supposed to laugh at her and her backward parents.
So the laughter and the elitism can continue. They’re laughing the day away about the Palin announcement. But you know who’s not laughing? The Obama campaign. Because just a few days after the Democratic convention when Democrats typically enjoy a 10-15 point bounce, there is nothing. The big Greek Temple set, the Hillary speech, the Bill speech, Hillary’s dramatic strut onto the convention floor to give up her delegates, the Michelle “folksy” speech, and the Barack Obama speech which made Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman swoon has resulted in absolutely no bounce. Zero. And that’s all because of some Hockey Mom from the sticks.
H/T Newsbusters
September 2, 2008 at 10:51 pm
No, it was not obvious.
September 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm
OH. I think I see what happened.
I read jon’s comment and left mine, and then read them back to back, and hit submit, and thought all was well. Everyone else read jon’s comment, came back a full day later, and then read me and didn’t have any idea.
That was not foresightful of me. Sorry about that, and especially sorry about my case of the snips.
September 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm
VPs have a great deal of power, if they are imaginative enough to use it and if the President doesn’t deliberately take it away from them.
First of all, VPs are President of the Senate. They cast the deciding vote whenever things get tight, they choose whom to call on, and they rule on parliamentary rules decisions. If you’re not good at running meetings, this is all boring and pointless. If you are good at it, you can actually drive how speeches and opinions are shaped.
Second, VPs have varying amounts of influence on the President and his cabinet. This is vastly affected by presidential style and degree of control freak-ness. FDR did his best to cut out his VPs, for instance; but Bush wanted his VP to do a lot of work and advising.
BTW, Harry Truman pretty much ran a Congressional coup against FDR because FDR tried to cut him out while simultaneously treating Congress like crud. FDR only escaped the consequences by dying right before he got his butt censured.
So do VPs have power? Does it matter who they are, if the President doesn’t die?
Oh, yes. It matters a lot.
September 9, 2008 at 4:05 am
Two thoughts:
1) I find the support of Palin's unmarried & unwed daughter interesting ONLY because I wonder if the same folks would leap to the defense of a Democratic's child in the same situation. Usually, when a liberal's family member makes choices outside conservative morality, the support of her is seen as the unraveling of family values. Just food for thought.
2) Earlier David commented that:
"I don't think there is any issue of sufficient gravity that would permit a Catholic to vote Obama, and remain in good standing with the Church."
The funny part is that the Church doesn't agree with you. Or disagree. In fact, the Church's official stance is that Catholics have the obligation to FORM their own conscience by learning about the issues and candidates, and then followi that formed conscience to make a voting choice. The only way that voting for any pro-abortion candidate is seen as sin is if a Catholic is voting for him BECAUSE of their abortion support. We are called to weigh their 'evil' against their 'good', and vote for the one who has the greatest 'good' (according to our conscience). How can we say that abortion is the biggest issue if we don't know anything about the other issues?
Check out www (dot) faithfulcitizenship (dot) org from the US Bishops.
Mostly what I'm hearing in terms of Palin/Barack is only about abortion. Sometimes we hear about their stance on the war in Iraq, but in general terms. I'd love to hear more about their economic plans, especially with Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae being bailed out this week.
And why aren't we comparing Palin to Biden? Obama to John?
And, for disclosure purposes, I once was extremely late to my nephew's first birthday because my husband and I were out hunting deer!