Sarah Palin is stupid. She is a self-gratifying narcissist, a terrible mother, a terrible governor, and a frankly demented human being.
And the very same people who are saying all that are simultaneously absolutely outraged that she is stepping down as governor. Apparently, the left wants stupid, self-gratifying, narcissistic, and demented people to stay in office. One can only conclude that if all politicians meeting the description that the left and the mainstream media assigned to Sarah Palin were to resign, there would be no more Democrats in office.
The left calls Sarah Palin “erratic,” “unhinged,” etc. etc. But they can’t stop talking about her – with “talking” being a polite euphemism for some of the most psychotic anger and fear that I have ever heard directed towards anyone in my life.
Not long after Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, the left launched absolutely vile attacks. The Daily Kos ran a story that maintained that Sarah Palin had faked the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of Trig Palin. The reason? To cover up for the fact that the baby was actually Bristol Palin’s, by way of an incestuous relationship with Sarah’s husband (and Bristol’s father) Todd Palin. Being the loathsome cowards and weasels of the left which they so ably exemplify, the Kos purged the article as the facts came out and they were revealed for the liars they truly are. And so the left introduced Sarah Palin to the world.
Stories ran in the mainstream media calling her a terrible mother who put her political career over the needs of her own children. One vicious personal attack after another, with no play considered out-of-bounds, and no media referee blowing the whistle to call a foul.
It’s been deleted, of course (again, the leftists being the genuine cowards that they are); but Heather Mallick wrote the following that was published on Canada’s CBC News under the title, “A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention” from September 5, 2008. An excerpt:
John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I’d had the wit to come up with it first. It’s safer than “white trash” but I’ll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something.
Doyle’s job includes watching a lot of reality television and he’s well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that’s something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity. The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave.
Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?
So much for demonizing Sarah Palin – both as a woman and as a parent – merely for being attractive and growing up relatively poor. And of course, why not savagely launch into Sarah’s daughter Bristol why you’re at it?
Recently, of course, David Letterman felt free to tee off on Sarah’s 14 year old daughter Willow, suggesting that she was “knocked up” by a baseball player during the 7th inning stretch when Sarah attended a New York Yankee game with her youngest daughter. Letterman later issued a smarmy, self-serving “apology” for attacking a completely innocent young girl, but he felt no need to apologize for describing Sarah Palin as a “slutty flight attendant.” That’s just par for the course, after all. At least given the frankly demonic hostility of the mainstream media toward Sarah Palin.
As for Sarah’s infant son Trig, the left is unhinged with hatred toward him merely for the fact that his mother chose to allow him to live. Legal Insurrection has some “creative” liberal Photoshop examples of the utterly vile attacks on this innocent little baby boy.
After nearly a year – and eight full months after the November election – the left couldn’t stop their slimy, satanic, beyond-evil hatred for Sarah Palin and her young children. She was an attractive, well-spoken, self-made, independent woman who stood for family and for traditional values — and she therefore had to be destroyed at all costs.
And she was “erratic” and “unhinged” to want to get away from that daily hate festival? That is, of course, the opinion of the very sort of people who actively despised and tore down Sarah Palin from the outset.
Sarah Palin makes Mark Foley, the congressman who sent filthy emails to pages look almost normal. She makes David Vitter, the senator who was hanging out with hookers, look almost boring. She makes Larry Craig, caught hitting on a cop in a men’s room, look almost stable. She makes John Ensign, the senator who was having an affair with a staffer, look almost humdrum (and compared to the rest of the GOP whack-jobs, he is). And she makes Mark Sanford, the governor with the Latin lover, look positively predictable.
One of the most obvious things that Begala does is repeatedly compare Sarah Palin with warped sexual behavior. Notice that every single comparison he provides is precisely that. Why does he think Sarah deserves such rabidly sexualized comparisons? Has she had an affair that he can direct our attention to? Did she have sexual relations with prostitutes? Did she try to lure women in a public restroom for lesbian sex? Did she leave her state without leaving anyone in charge so she could fly to another country to be with her lover-not-her-husband?
Why is it deemed okay to attack this woman in this way? Even as the people engaging in such attacks claim that she, rather than they, are twisted and sick? Why are David Letterman, Heather Mallick, and Paul Begala able to continue to operate without being publicly destroyed for their despicable conduct?
The Huffington Post later took this down (again, the whole coward and weasel thing), but it was one of their own writers – Erik Sean Nelson – who wrote the piece:
In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.
Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.
She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40’s just to mix up some chromosomes.
She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.
Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.
This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.
Look, she says she’s resigning as governor because people are making attacks on her and Trig. If she ever did become president, all Osama bin Laden would have to do to defeat the United States is Photoshop a picture of Trig and she’d surrender the country that night. As she said, “That’s not politics as usual.” It isn’t. Politicians don’t usually quit for so stupid of reasons.
Just one more example of demonic attacks from demonic people. Huffington Post. Daily Kos. Well established liberal media outlets. The Democratic Party presidential candidates attended a major debate via the Daily Kos, while passing up an invitation from Fox News decrying the latter as unacceptable. We’re talking about the very core of the leftwing machine.
Why is it okay to attack Sarah Palin this way — not merely as a woman but as a mother? Why is it okay to attack her daughters and her infant child so hatefully and so horribly? What kind of ugly people are Democrats to have tolerated this, over and over and over again, for so long?
The left didn’t just attack Sarah Palin with shockingly distorted words and even more shockingly distorted images of her children. They attacked her in court, with one ginned-up lawsuit and ethics complaint after another. They declared total war upon her; and there was nothing that could potentially hurt her that they did not pursue.
She successful fended off every single one of these bogus charges, but at great cost to her state and to her family. It cost the state well over $2 million and it cost Sarah Palin more than $500,000 in legal debts that she and her family will have to pay.
And she’s “unhinged” for wanting to leave office so she can spare her state and her own family these extravagant costs – which came from bogus and frivolous charges that just kept coming one after the other?
Allow me to address some of the mainstream media’s disinformation regarding Sarah Palin’s resignation remarks.
First of all, they have created the narrative that her remarks were “rambling.”
Have you ever heard Barack Obama try to speak without his constant friend and companion, the Teleprompter of the United States of America? It would be a compliment to say that he rambles; the man is literally speaking in tongues. Sarah Palin had a few scripted lines, and frequently spoke “off the script” from her heart. Decent people would welcome such candid and non-telepromptered honesty. But the left appears to be devoid of decent people.
In their shockingly biased distortion of her resignation comments, the media describe her as having “portrayed herself as a victim.” Excuse me? “Portrayed herself as a victim“? Yeah, the way the women that Jack the Ripper butchered portrayed themselves as victims, I suppose. Anyone but the most pathologically demented fools have to realize that she didn’t “portray herself” as anything; she was repeatedly attacked in the most hateful, vicious, unhinged ways again and again and again. And it was obvious that they had absolutely no intention of stopping.
The left is saying she “quit” on her state. And she did. But lest you forget, Barack Obama – who promised on national television that he would not run for president, but would serve his full Senate term – also quit on his state, and lied to his voters and to the American people before doing so:
SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.
MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.
And lets throw in Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sabelius – the last two being governors of states – who abandoned their commitment to their states to fulfill their terms. Did they not have every bit as much of a duty to fulfill their terms as Sarah Palin had? Why is it that their departure – even when they outright lied as Barack Obama did – not matter, but Sarah Palin’s is some kind of personal betrayal?
The media are howling that Sarah Palin abandoned her state. But she is leaving it in the hands of an excellent governor who shares her views and her values. She is saving the state millions of dollars in continuing defense of frankly psychotic leftist legal harassment that has no other purpose than to intimidate and paralyze a sitting governor. She is freeing her state of the gridlock that has been erected for no other reason than to stifle and thwart any national ambitions she might have to the clear detriment of the state.
And it certainly proves the lie that Sarah Palin is some kind of power-hungry Lady MacBeth. Or, at least, I’d love to hear the argument that walking away from a governorship to an uncertain future is an evidence of “an insatiable hunger for power.”
It all boils down to this: Sarah Palin made a personal and professional decision that was most likely motivated primarily out of concern for her family and her family’s finances. Freed from her position as governor, Palin is freed from the constant legal attacks; she is able to write, give speeches, and even host a lucrative television program that will recoup the financial losses incurred by the psychotic leftist troll army.
Will it hurt her future political career? Who knows for certain that she even plans to have one? Would you, if you knew that you – and your family – would be subjected to the demonic left? Rather than run for the White House, she may choose instead to play the role of spokeswoman and king-maker, attempting to bolster support for conservative values and conservative candidates.
Bill Kristol has maintained that Sarah Palin’s move – assuming she does intend to run for President in 2012 – is a bold albeit risky move that may yet pay off for her. And she is young enough that she literally has 25 years to consider such a candidacy.
I hope he’s right, and the critics – who have ALWAYS been critics of Sarah Palin before there was anything to criticize – are wrong.
In the meantime, I will be wondering what would happen if the kind of attacks that were so routinely launched at Sarah Palin and her children were deemed appropriate by the mainstream media to be launched at Michelle Obama and her children.