View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by Zach Krajacic | October 31st, 2008
Palin stirs up vitriolic hatred among liberals because she is a conservative Christian who practices her beliefs, especially regarding abortion.
If the mainstream media and other liberals are going to continue vilifying Sarah Palin, then they should at least be honest about the reason for their attacks.
Their issue with Palin is not her foreign policy experience. After all, Palin’s critics love Obama, who has about the same amount of foreign policy experience as Palin. Nor do any of them really care about her folksy manner, little winks and moose hunting.
Palin stirs up vitriolic hatred among liberals because she is a conservative Christian who practices her beliefs, especially regarding abortion. She defends the one thing liberals hate the most: life. Carol Fowler, South Carolina’s Democratic chairwoman, expressed the true source of liberal discontentment when she said Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she did not have an abortion.” It is Obama’s primary qualification as well, Ms. Fowler.
Yes, there have been other pro-life candidates, most notably Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But Palin is especially troubling to liberals: she is difficult to combat because, as a woman, she has had the opportunity to truly live the pro-life message.
And she has lived it heroically. By refusing to abort her baby when she found out he had Downs Syndrome, Palin has articulated the value of all human life without saying a word. By supporting – and perhaps influencing – her teenage daughter’s decision to keep her baby, she has taught families how to face life’s challenges with courage, not fear. By demonstrating the value of sacrifice, she has shattered our society’s emphasis on convenience.
She has inspired many Americans to do the right thing in the face of difficult circumstances, and I wonder how many babies will survive simply because of her story. Pregnant mothers who are gripped by fear need courageous and principled role models like Palin. Some of these mothers, upon hearing Palin’s story, will think to themselves: If she can have five children, including one baby with special needs, maybe I can have my baby. If her special-needs baby is a blessing, not a curse, then my special-needs baby is a blessing as well. If her teen-age daughter can have an unexpected baby, then maybe my daughter can, too.
Palin has shown women that strength lies not in license and independence, but in fulfilling one’s duties with grace and courage. The media knows how powerful and transformative her life example is for the conservative movement and how threatening it is to liberalism.
Thus, the media and others have unleashed their fury on Palin, trying to tear her down like no other vice-presidential candidate in recent history. Frustrated by their inability to destroy a woman of character and integrity, they have tried to attack her from other angles. But the attacks will not convince independents to vote for Obama.
The questioning of her foreign policy experience, for example, is futile because Obama has virtually no domestic or foreign policy experience – and no accomplishments. All Palin needs is a trip to Baghdad and a speech in Berlin to match Barack Obama’s foreign policy experience.
The media has even distorted her performance as governor. After suggesting that Palin had a poor record as governor of Alaska, CNN asserted that Republicans will emphasize her populism, not her record. They did not explain, however, how a poor record could translate into an 80% approval rating. When will CNN learn that the American people determine job performance, not their network? After all, the network’s candidates have lost the last two presidential elections.
The media, who have been helping Obama ever since he announced his candidacy, have shielded Obama from a potential backlash on the social issues. Knowing that Obama is particularly vulnerable in this area, the media chose almost no questions about social issues in the debates. They did not want to see Obama bumbling about why he voted to deny medical care to a baby who survived an abortion.
Whether or not the media’s darling, Barack Obama, wins this year’s election, Palin could become president some day. If she does, she has the potential to transform America and become one of the most influential public figures in our nation’s history. A modern day heroine, she could destroy liberalism and turn out to be McCain’s greatest achievement yet.
The reason why so many of us (not liberals) find Palin absolutely unacceptable has nothing to do with her conversativism or principled stand on issues. Palin doesn't know very much and unfortunately she doesn't seem to think this matters. We are coming to the end of presidency whose ill-educated and erroneous assessment of world and often national affairs, divided the country to an extend heretofore unheralded. Palin is continuation of the cult of ignorance. There are far greater and worthier people who should be in her place and I pray will be in her place soon.
Comment by Wyn | October 31, 2008
"Palin doesn't know very much …" "We are coming to the end of presidency whose ill-educated …"
Palin didn't go to an Ivy League School, like the ill-educated Bush. And she certainly knows more about governing (as an actual elected head of state) than a community organizer does.
Random, internally inconsistent, politically-motivated criticisms (whether they are from the Looney Left or Uber Right) are boring. Talk about a "cult of ignorance"!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 31, 2008
Great piece. However, I really – really – like the following line: "The questioning of her foreign policy experience, for example, is futile because Obama has virtually no domestic or foreign policy experience – and no accomplishments. All Palin needs is a trip to Baghdad and a speech in Berlin to match Barack Obama’s foreign policy experience." Hits the nail on the head.
Comment by B.P.T | October 31, 2008
Wyn…What?
Explain in detail what it is that Sarah Palin(a V.P. candidate) doesn't know.
And then explain in detail what it is Obama (a Pres. candidate) does know.
I think of all the many titles the media and the left have given her and quite frankly, they are no more insightful and clever than the name calling third graders partake in at recess. And if your caught up in this craze-drunk vituperation of Palin and are holding on to that as the basis for what you think you "know" Sarah Palin does or does not know, than I find that your the one caught up in the cult of ignorance!
As far as experience, every candidate in this race is technically qualified. There have been presidents (and again Palin is a V.P. candidate) with very little executive experience, and some with none..like..hum..what was his name..oh yeah..Abraham Lincoln. Anything past what qualifications are listed in the Constitution is subjective. It's certainly important to maintain a debate about what standards you want a candidate to have met, and have in mind a level of experience, but "feelings" based conclusions used to argue that any of the candidates are absolutely not qualified is ridiculous. But would the left stop at simplly arguing..oh hell no..they've had to attempt to tear her down, rip her apart, and openly mock her in a disgusting fashion. But here is something everyone should KNOW about Sarah Palin, she's still here!!! Every day she has exuded that she doesn't just talk the talk, she walks the walk and she values her principles, so as for me, THAT QUALIFIES HER!!…that and her previous executive experience :)
Comment by N.Jacobs | October 31, 2008
George W. Bush attended Yale as an undergraduate (scoring 77 out of 100 his first three years, and similarly in a non-numerical score in his fourth, his GPA just barely edging out John Kerry's at the same school). He went on to receive an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Gerald Ford majored in political science and economics at Yale before continuing on to, and graduating from, Yale Law School.
Jimmy Carter finished 59th out of his class of 820 with a bachelor of science in physics at the US Naval Academy.
Richard Nixon was offered scholarships to Harvard and Yale, but attended a lesser undergraduate school due to a lack of money. He went on to graduate 3rd in his class from Duke University Law School on a full scholarship.
Woodrow Wilson received an undergraduate degree from Princeton, and later received a Ph.D in political science from Johns Hopkins University.
Hard to make the argument that any of those guys were "ill-educated". However, none were impressive presidents, some were absolute disasters, and all have been criticized for their performance. Clearly, academic performance does not necessarily reflect a high degree of competence, knowledge, or achievement in the office of president. Which doesn't matter a whole lot since Sarah Palin isn't running for the presidency anyway.
Out of interest, Joe Biden graduated 508th of 688 in his class for his undergraduate work, and was accused of plagiarizing 5 pages of a law review article during his first year in law school (he was allowed to retake the class after receiving an "F", due to his supposed ignorance of proper citation). Quite a scholar.
Sarah Palin graduated from the University of Idaho with a bachelor of science in communications/journalism. I couldn't find her transcripts. Wyn may be right though – she may not be qualified for the presidency. Instead of becoming a legal clerk for a law firm defending Black Panthers, or knocking on doors in poor, black neighborhoods asking people to vote for Democrats after college, she went to work at a TV station – a private one at that. She went from there to sports reporting for a newspaper – a newspaper that wasn't the New York Times. And then she became a mom (perish the thought!) and started working on her husband's family commercial fishing operation. I mean, how can you trust somebody with practical experience like that?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 1, 2008
I have been witness to 15 election cycles, 4 of which resulted in the election of foreign policy novices to the presidency (Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Clinton); one of whom showed signs of both strength and weakness, two turned out weak, and one exceptionally strong. In fact, Reagan is now the 'gold-standard' to whom all others are compared in the area of foreign policy. In 5 other elections, loosing candidates were foreign policy novices (Stevenson, Stevenson, Wallace*, McGovern, Dukakis). Of the remaining 6 elections, one is still pending (McCain v Obama) and the rest were won by incumbents with foreign policy experience against contenders with some foreign policy experience. The record of foreign policy experience for first time VP candidates has been even weaker, and it has been the time spent second to the presidency which gave them the 'experience' for which they were thereafter deemed 'qualified' and pushed them to the forefront in Presidential competitions (Nixon, Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, Bush I, Gore).
Clearly, few who aspire to the office of President and Vice President the first time have the necessary experience and can only get said experience through having been President or Vice President. That makes the whole experience argument a red-herring. What matters then is some comparable experience in which the candidate demonstrates he/she has the necessary accumen, resilience, and adaptability.
McCain has considerable legislative experience of foreign policy, but no executive experience. However, he does have executive experience (squadron commander) outside of government and considerable leadership experience in Congress and the Senate in which he has demonstrated a capacity to get things done, though I disagree with some of it. Palin has executive and leadership experience as Oil & Gas Commissioner, Mayor and Governor. Joe Biden, as member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has experience of foreign policy matters, but has demonstrated an appalling tendency to be on the wrong side on a number foreign policy arguments ( http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/35261) and flip-flopped on his own criticism of Obama's foreign policy remarks. He sided with those opposed to the Surge, preferring to partition Iraq and then get out. He voted against the first Iraq war, which would have been a monumental mistake. This suggests Biden, despite considerable FP experience, lacks judgment and has been padding his resume with the FRC more than providing leadership. Finally, we have Obama who has absolutely no foreign policy experience, no executive experience, and very little leadership experience. What he does have is a successful record of endless campaigning.
Overall, then, the Republican ticket has more foreign policy, executive and leadership points than the Democrat ticket; which makes me wonder why they'd hammer Palin's 'lack' so hard as it can only draw attention to Obama/Biden weaknesses. But, then, let's remember who it is they are making these points to and the greater resources and media partisanship they have with which to hammer them. In elections, perception counts far more than reality, and if we fail to convince enough voters by Tuesday of the reality, then deception wins.
* 1968 was a 3-way race between Nixon, Humphrey and Wallace, as was 1992 between Bush I, Clinton and Perot. The Wallace campaign split the Democrat vote and the Perot campaign split Republicans more than Democrats; affecting outcomes.
Comment by Bob Stapler | November 1, 2008
Wyn is also ignoring the fact that Palin is CIC of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard. As America's first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States, it is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty. As such she is the only U.S. Governor to be routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism. Consequently she has a higher classified security rating then either candidate of the Democrat Party.
Comment by jonkon | November 1, 2008
Ugh. Horrible article. "The value of sacrifice"???? Please – go back to Soviet Russia or Communist China. If you had couched your view of Palin in terms of her following what is important to her, rather than in making sacrifices, I'd have thought differently about her choices. But sorry – no. You have not convinced me that it is better for women NOT to be independent. The value of a women doing her duty???? The whole "woman as broodmare" vision is sickening. Hey, it's her choice, but there are other women who would choose differently. Whither the "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" portions of the Constitutional program? Not everyone views a special needs baby as a blessing, nor should they be forced to.
Comment by AMAI | November 10, 2008