One of the most disgusting political spectacles of my lifetime has been the single-minded effort of the Left to destroy Sarah Palin. Without burdening the readers with a litany of links, we all remember the “not a real woman” comments, the stalking author/neighbor, the hacking scandal, the recent (enthusiastic) fishing expedition through thousands of e-mails, and the vile insults from academics, politicians, and celebrities alike. The goal: to banish her to the fringe of American life, to turn her into a figure of mockery and contempt.
Now, apparently, the Left has decided it’s Michele Bachmann’s turn. Already a hate figure on fringe media outlets like MSNBC, the MSM is piling on. Slate asked if she can be president and still believe in biblical gender roles, ABC News is recycling stories from The Nation about her husband’s counseling centers (where, try as they might, they cannot show a single unethical practice), The Daily Beast gave space to Michelle Goldberg to talk about Bachmann’s alleged “unrivaled extremism,” and the Washington Post’s lifestyle section dedicated several thousand words to a scornful profile of Bachmann’s husband, Marcus.
Why the hate? The secular feminist world view was built around multiple destructive cultural lies: motherhood is a barrier to self-actualization, orthodox religion traps women unhappily in the home, and the only real path to power and happiness is exploding, not upholding, traditional religious values. Yet a mother of five (with 23 foster children), happily married in a Christian family, and who proudly espouses the very traditional values most repugnant to the academic feminist Left is a leading candidate for the most powerful office in the world. She is a living refutation of their foundational beliefs, and — like Sarah Palin — she must be destroyed.
As we enter a primary season where Republican infighting threatens to reach a crescendo, I hope we can learn a lesson from Sarah Palin’s ordeal. You may or may not support Michele Bachmann for president, but we can (and should) defend her against the coming ideological onslaught, an onslaught that is aimed at her but whose real targets are the core values that govern many of our lives.
"As we enter a primary season where Republican infighting threatens to reach a crescendo, I hope we can learn a lesson from Sarah Palin’s ordeal. You may or may not support Michele Bachmann for president, but we can (and should) defend her against the coming ideological onslaught, an onslaught that is aimed at her but whose real targets are the core values that govern many of our lives."
Indeed. I hope folks can find a credible tactic to fight the blowback after defending Bachmann.
The media will simultaneously charge that she is weak and that "men are coming to a weak woman's rescue." They will practically shame her defenders into silence, lest they prove their point. In turn, this will allow the destruction to continue.
So, the tone and message have to be on target and the folks stepping in have to prepare for the counterattack by the media.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely right. What is perceived as condescending on the part of Republican (male) politicians defending one of their own who happens to be female is, on the contrary, not sexist but eminently reasonable when it comes to, say, Rangel or Reid defending Nancy Pelosi.
Only one party will ever reek of SEXISM, RACISM, and BIGOTRY in the MSM and it's not the one with the donkey logo.
No wonder Sarah Palin's strategy is to do an end-run around the MSM: the only way to win is to not play in their game.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's pretty obvious what the media game plan is. They don't even need a "journolist" to coordinate it.
I just hope Bachmann handles it differently than Palin. There is no percentage for her in punching down at a collection of media losers. Don't act like a victim -- and go after Obama.
My two cents. Tim W.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCongresswoman Bachman gets the benefit of Govenor Palin's trial by fire. The left will find itself on the outside if it continues to berate conservative women. At some point the electorate will have had enough of the slander of good people. I do agree that we need to stand up for these women but one of the things that I admire about both of them is that they are very capable of standing up for themselves. How about both on the same ticket! If that were to happen I'm sending in my absentee ballot ASAP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>Why the hate?
Are you serious? It is very obvious.
She's a Republican, and she's a she.
The first woman President will be a much bigger deal than the first black one, or Catholic one, or anything else that has come before. To deny this trophy to the Democrat party would be an unimaginably crushing blow, after all they have pretended to stand for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question was rhetorical, Other Jim. I ask and answer in the same paragraph.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe feminist Left invented the concept of "having it all" to champion women who wanted to pursue careers and/or other interests that sometimes took precedence over marriages and motherhood. And since the feminist Left invented the concept of "having it all," it reserves the right to define it.
Sarah Palin talking on the telephone while sitting at the Governor's desk holding her new baby or being interviewed about being the GOP's Vice Presidential candidate while preparing dinner and putting her little girl's hair in pigtails is not the "having it all" the feminist Left had in mind.
And the same goes for Michele Bachmann, an intelligent, well educated woman with a law degree who gave birth to five children, fostered 23 more, helped her husband operate a counseling center, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and is now running for President of the United States.
Whatever "having it all" means, it definitely doesn't mean living their faith, answering to their husbands' last names and being smart, determined, successful, attractive and fearless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou don't think the feminist left wants to be successful? Fearless?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you missed the first conjunction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, I see how this works. So you'd have no argument against the statement: Conservatives have no interest in raising taxes and being handsome, charming and loving their children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI really don’t know how to respond to that. Jenna wrote that liberals don’t like it when women having the first two attributes also have the others. I’d advise a little pause before letting loose with so feeble an attempt at sarcasm.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey most certainly don't want conservative women to be successful.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't say the feminist Left doesn't want to be those things. What I said - and what I meant - is the feminist Left doesn't want people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann to be those things, which is the reason they do all they can to make sure people don't view them that way. Don't you get it? Only those women who support the political agenda of the feminist Left are allowed to have it all, which is why NOW and other women's rights organizations seldom defend women like Palin and Bachmann and why pro-choice advocates remained silent when Sarah Palin was viciously attacked for choosing life over abortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGiven the degree to which the MSM smearing of Palin has been internalised by people on the right, I suspect that most will do the same thing with Bachmann--they will meekly aquiesce to the demands of the Left and of the MSM and start tossing Bachmann under the bus--they will do this while pointing out how they agree with her, and how she's right--and they will couple this with a big MSM meme about everything that's wrong with her.
Here's what's wrong with Michelle--it's the same thing that's wrong with Sarah--she can not only beat Obama, but it's likely that she actually means it when she says she wants to move this country towards the right. And the Establishment--left and the quasi-left that infests the GOP--is absolutely terrified of that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes Bachmann believe in evolution?
Does she think intelligent design should be taught at public high-schools and universities?
Does she think being gay is a curable lifestyle choice?
Why did she sign the Iowa pledge which claimed that African-Americans were better off during slavery than during the Obama administration?
Since we know she won't answer any of these questions, perhaps the commentariat here can offer plausible answers.
Or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly, Truck. If I ask any of these questions, then I'm accused of RINOism, squishery, or outright cretinism.
Gay biology teachers are not going to destroy this country, but the loss of responsible republican government surely will. I am no fan of Mitt Romney but right now he is the only guy I can see 50.1% of the country voting for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no idea what Bachmann would say about the other matters, but this one is a lie of the kind Mr. French is referring to:
"Why did she sign the Iowa pledge which claimed that African-Americans were better off during slavery than during the Obama administration?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't have an answer for you on the first three questions but the way you phrased the last tells me all I need to know about your politics. The pledge she signed did not say blacks were better off under slavery, but I'm sure you already know that. What it said was that black children were more likely to be raised by both parents during slavery than they are now, after the election of a black President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're correct in that the language of the pledge claimed that.
Unfortunately, recorded history says otherwise. Slave parents and children were routinely separated, not by a breakdown in social values but by their owners.
To sign something like that with such contentious claims strikes me as an unforced error; she should have either requested the documented to be amended or issued a supplement addressing the obvious flash points. That she did neither indicates that she either agreed with all of it, didn't understand it but signed anyway, or didn't care. None of those are good things for a presidential candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the statement about slavery -- which was in any case an entirely inoffensive statement of fact -- is supported by a footnote that refers to a study of "recorded history" undertaken by African-American academics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse