Sarah Palin and the Prejudices of the Left

Sarah Palin's book is out, in case you have not noticed. With all due respect to the former Governor of Alaska, I do not intend to read it in the near future. Not because I do not want to, but I really do not have the time. And I would feel guilty about the wonderful stack of unread books that is sitting on my night stand (apologies to Mark Levin, Alexander Hamilton, and William F. Buckley). So Mrs. Palin will have to wait awhile.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on Sarah Palin, and so do I. I think she has a lot going for her but I am still not convinced she will ever have the stuff to become president. But I like her straight talking style and I admire what she has accomplished. I do cringe when she hits a sour note (The Couric interview was a disaster, no matter whose fault it was). That and the fact that she is everywhere usually is a deal-breaker for me. The fact that it isn't says a lot about her.

The story of Sarah Palin's rise over the last year or so says a lot about her. But I really think it say a lot more about the left and the media and none of it good. And, regardless of any negative feelings that I have for her in the future, I will be grateful to her for that.

Let's go back to August of 2008. What killed Sarah Palin with the left and the press? It was her speech at the Republican National Convention. Was it that bad? No, it was that good. When she finished and the cameras turned to the press corps, you would have thought somebody had peed in their cornflakes. She blew them away. Who knew she could do that?

Quite frankly, they should have all known. Why? A couple of weeks earlier, Mrs. Palin had given a similar stem-winder when she was introduced by John McCain. She gave that speech on less than a days notice. Didn't Andrea Mitchell have time to listen to it? Was Chris Matthews too busy spending time with his Obama inflatable doll? Was Keith Olberman too busy trying (unsuccessfully) to make dates with porn stars? Was Katie Couric firing a hair stylist in hopes of getting out of the ratings gutter? Don't these people have YouTube? Do they do any research??!!!!

They should have been prepared, but they were blown away. And then they realized that Sarah Palin might be the difference between the Barack Obama being elected and four more years of a Republican administration. Nobody was taking away this historic moment. Especially a female Governor of the largest state who had beaten back the old boy network and had five children including a special needs child and who looked like she came out of central casting. It was becoming apparent: this was a woman who walked the walk. She could be a game changer.

That was bad news for those who thought Obama's election was a fait accompli. The media knew it had a job to do. What do we really know about Wasilla, Alaska? And what's with the long list of colleges and "golly gee" voice? This election already had a compelling story (Obama's), it didn't need another. Maybe we need to throw in some tasteless gossip for good measure: how about a totally speculative story that the Trig is actually her daughter's child, even after we find out that Bristol is pregnant and the timing really wouldn't work (I guess those bloggers were too busy reading Chaucer in high school to attend health classes). Then the left got it into their mind that they could raise their IQ's by ridiculing Sarah Palin.

For the left and the media, the story of the 2008 election had to be Barack Obama. The fact checkers that attacked Sarah Palin apparently were AWOL when it came time to check on candidate Obama. Everyone wanted to go to Alaska and see what was wrong, but few seemed interested in going to Chicago, where corruption is so pervasive, it has its own phrase. When it comes to strong arm politics, I have long heard of "The Chicago Way" but never heard of "The Wasilla Way."

These same intellectuals also did not think about what the real role of the president is. This is not a job for just a great speaker. It was Harry Truman, a Democrat, who said "The Buck Stops Here!" Nothing in Barack Obama's resume indicated that he wanted the buck stopping anywhere in his zip code. When asked his accomplishments, they pointed to heading the Harvard Law Review and getting elected Senator. Do these people realize that they were electing the head of the most powerful nation on earth, and not homecoming king?

"But", the left said, "A great speech maker can be a great president, look at Ronald Reagan."

By all means, let's look at Ronald Reagan. From his days as the Screen Actors Guild President, Mr. Reagan was shown to be a great negotiator. From his days as Governor of California, he was shown to be principled but pragmatic. And he always said, and I truly believe, it was the ideas that he communicated that were more important than the way he conveyed them. President Reagan could only go so far with movie star charm. America tires of an image awfully fast. He had to back it up with accomplishments and he did. These are historical facts. Any liberal or media type could have looked them up.

President Obama has none of those credentials, and his speeches are becoming tedious.

He has failed to deliver on much of his agenda, which might be a good thing since he is trying to turn this country into a European style social democracy. But we have 10% unemployment, huge deficits, a war that we have to win, growing instability in places like Iran, etc. These are not issues that you can just talk your way through. Are these the kind of problems you want to give to a guy with such a thin resume, no matter how smart he is? The media's scrutiny on his background was about as deep as stone skipping across a lake. And since the scrutiny was so light, the liberals were able to project onto Barack Obama any quality they wanted.

The left and the media always brag about their supposed brains. But time and again I will hear them buying some argument or following some dope who suits their needs. Let's look at the Veep candidate from 2004: John Edwards. Long before I found out that he was a philanderer, I was convinced John Edwards was the biggest phony who I ever saw in politics, and that includes former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy. This should have been plainly obvious. Maybe Mr. Edwards never got as far as he would have liked, but he got a lot further than he should have. He was a trial lawyer who claimed he was dedicated to the poor while he worked for a hedge fund and lived in a mansion. He should have been road-kill the minute he decided to run for national office. But the media and a good deal of the liberals loved him. Good to know that they have such a high standards.

The liberals and the media love to play the idiot card. It makes no sense. Their vitriol is so high that you wonder how their targets figure out how to put their shoes on in the morning. The fact that most of these targets had to win a bunch of elections, run states, or run other organizations seems not to factor in. Facts are useless when the insults start flying.

If you asked the left why they really hated Sarah Palin, they could not nail it down. All the excuses they would give (inexperience, lack of pedigree, not mainstream enough, etc.) are clearly criticisms that could be tossed at candidates on both sides of the spectrum. But the left decided that anything was fair game. Enough!! It is time for the left to raise their standards. It is time for them to get off their butts, read a little history, read a little Economics, and maybe even verify some facts on Google before they buy every urban legend spewed by some blogger living off his trust fund. Then they would avoid arguments like the one I had with some granola head elitist. Ms. Granola Head was telling her friends that Sarah Palin never graduated from college. The answer: She has a degree from University of Idaho, and, having used this education to become a successful governor, I would say she got a pretty good bang for her buck.