That was my most frequently received e-mail the September night that Sarah Palin spoke to a riveted Republican National Convention in 2008, as the vice-presidential nominee spoke of hockey moms, pit bulls, lipstick, the dignity of human life, and the future of our nation.
Advertisement
I suspect every man who e-mailed wasn’t revealing his secret fantasy — his wife wearing stilettos as she tries to save the world from a Barack Obama presidency. He finally saw, in primetime politics, impossible for the media to ignore, a woman in politics who more closely resembled his family’s values. After decades of women in politics reading from a Ms. magazine script, here was a woman on a presidential ticket who didn’t seem to feel the need to suppress her femininity or perversely use it to advance a most un-motherly agenda.
It was liberating.
In this way, she rallied that night both the Right and the Left. And she’s still driving emotion and headlines. She’s a media and fundraising gift — again, both for the Right and the Left.
And in case you missed it: Apparently, Democratic voters would vote for Charlie Sheen for president over her by 44 to 22 percent. Independents, too, by 41 to 36 percent. That Public Policy Polling even thought to poll such a thing tells you something about the bizarre political and cultural climate around her.
Some of the more colorful attacks on her — most recently she was compared to Al Sharpton — have been known to bring high-profile commentators to her defense, even while others express their concern.
The political sideshow makes for a chattering-class TV producer’s dream.
But putting her name alongside Charlie Sheen and Al Sharpton? It’s all a little bizarre — even for a media in constant need of being fed. There are justified criticisms, but the widespread reactions to the mere name and image of Sarah Palin continue to know no bounds.
“The people who say such things don’t know her, have never spent time with her, and are responding to a caricature of what they think she is,” Rebecca Mansour, who works at Palin’s political-action committee, says. “Do you remember Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s famous quote about anti-Catholicism?” she asks me. “He said there are only a few people who hate what Catholicism really is, but there are millions who hate what they think it is. If these critics would spend a few hours reading her words, listening to her speeches, and studying her actual record of accomplishments, there is no way they could say such things about her and still claim to be intellectually honest.”
There is something to that Sheen quote. Nothing from Charlie this time, but the late bishop, a revered preacher who hosted one of the first primetime television shows; someone who understood human communications. It’s why all those men e-mailed me on Governor Palin’s first big night on the national stage. It’s why she drives the Left wild and is a source of fundraising and programming for nothing less than the Democratic National Committee. She’s at the convergence of politics and culture. Her mere presence — that of her and her family — brings some of our most contentious issues to the fore. They are our most contentious because they’re the most personal. They are at the heart of who we are as individuals and a culture.
I often question the polling results that come from Public Policy Polling and this poll confirms that my lack of confidence is well deserved. Where do you find a sample of reasonably intelligent Americans who think an insane, drug-addicted celebrity who believes 9/11 was an inside job would make a better President than a former Governor and VP candidate?
This article is spot on---an interesting aside about the 2 Sheens (Fulton and Charlie) have a connection. Charlie Sheen's father, Martin Estevez was so impressed by Fulton Sheen that he wrote to him and asked permission to take Sheen as his last name.
The lesson conservatives must take from Palin is that she takes time to explain conservatism relentlessly and without fear.
If the rest of them weren't afraid to explain the philosophy, or didn't appear to be ashamed of it, she wouldn't stand out so much. This is the key to them winning 2012.
Maybe they should take a page from the book, Gut Feeling.
I don't mind article defending Palin, but I wish that there could be some acknowledgement that not everyone against Palin does so because of "what she stands for." Rather, we are against her because her nomination to the VP slot was an astonishingly crude and cynical ploy on the part of McCain. And despite ample time to establish some credibility as a knowledgeable political figure, Ms. Palin continues to pander to the basest instincts of society. A sad nadir for our political culture.
Why does the "conservative" press repeat these kinds of stories on Palin?
Gov Palin, who garnered a lot of friends in India over the w/end and is being mobbed by the Israeli press as we speak, is just a cultural phenomenon to Katherine. Nothing more.
"Ms. Palin continues to pander to the basest instincts of society."
Oh, really? Like the right-to-life of Down's Syndrome kids? Like loyalty to family and fellow conservatives? Like the right of women to full participation in our political system without some weird double standard?
NRO's trolls used to be more interesting and funny.
I agree completely, by the way, with what I think is Ms. Lopez's basic premise. Sarah Palin (if she runs) would be the first Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan whom I genuinely like on a personal level; someone who would (for example) brighten my day if I heard our families were getting together for Thanksgiving dinner. So many of the others, although their views may be very sound, seem like some sort poseur on a personal level: Their hypothetical website 'would be the coolest ever,' or they abandoned their dying wife 'for the good of the country,' or (as in the case of Trump) even their hair seems insincere.
Katherine may be right (barring a long primary season) that Ms. Palin has been unfairly destroyed as a viable candidate; but if so, politics has become so corrupt and ugly that I despair for our country, no matter who runs and no matter who wins.
No other Republican presidential contender receives 1/100th of the vile Palin endures from the media/democrats. That informs me that they all really fear her! Recall that the media loved the unelectable John McCain (except when he committed the unpardonable sin of putting Sarah Palin on his ticket and suddenly became the front runner). The media/democrats hate her and wish to destroy her because she is, by far, the principle threat to their hold on power. The last Republican to receive this level of abuse was Ronald Reagan.
And so Kathryn explains Palin away as a mere passing phenomenon (note that she is already history) and dismisses her candidacy as well (the candidate who finds HIS name on the top of the Republican ticket). All with the trademark NRO condescension and with extra-super-plus trolling for hits by combining Palin's name with Sheen's in the article's title.
Gee, Kathryn, I thought you were better than this. My bad. The mainstream Republican Palin-bashing bus rolls on & on.
"Ms. Palin continues to pander to the basest instincts of society."
"NRO's trolls used to be more interesting and funny."
Right, because we all know she is so deep.
She's a reality tv star, whose only way of communicating with the outside world is by using one sided entities such as facebook, twitter and oh yeah Hannity interviews.
To compare her to Charlie Sheen is a joke but I really don't think she is that far off from being Al Sharpton Jr. She consistently uses identity politics, always claims that she's being treated unfairly, and feels that she needs to speak up about every controversy; especially when it allows her to play the victim.
Anything she can do to further the conservative movement is fine by me but if she continues the same gimmicks then I'm afraid she's doing more harm than good.
I think Ms. Lopez is right on target about Sarah Palin and what conservatives see in her. Personally, I admire the woman tremendously. That said, I hope she stays out of the race because nobody that is a more polarizing figure than even The Newt would have a prayer of winning, and would prove a major distraction.
Stay where you are Sarah, driving the lefties crazy and leading the movement to return sanity to our government by getting the right people elected across the country. You've proven that you can hit left-handed pitching out of the park every time - keep on belting 'em!
But Charlie Sheen?? What say we don't waste any more ink?
From Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
I am engaging in thoughtful discussion. Just because you disagree does not make me a troll.
No matter how hard the anti-Palin brigade tries, whether with this type of damning with faint praise, or outright attacks, it will be Palin's decision whether to run. And unfortunately for Ms. Lopez, if she runs, Mitt "Obamacare light" Romney is toast.
On the other hand, if Palin doesn't run, conservatives will have no candidate around whom they can coalesce. Romney will then have a cake walk to the nomination.
Forget the carefully worded polls, forget the focus groups. If Palin runs, she will win the conservative primary vote hands down, and thus probably the primary. That is why she will be targeted by articles like this, and much worse, until she either chooses not to run, or wins the nomination/election.
MSM's most important mission: destroy Palin. Kathryn, you're a useful dupe.
Palin is not super qualified to be president -- it's just that she is MORE qualified than Obama. The bar for presidential competence has been lowered so much by Obama that she easily qualifies.
Then, when you consider her values -- it should be an easy decision for conservatives. She is not my first choice (Newt is) but she would be a great president.
Regarding polling, never forget that it was Dick Morris who suggested to Bill Clinton that they publish polling numbers pitting Clinton against Ken Starr (who should be on the supreme court right now). The MSM then picked up on that and ran with it. Every day new polls of a type that were unprecedented and never been duplicated since. They destroyed Ken Starr's reputation. This is what is going on here, too.
Follow
