I'm inspired to memorialize a fantastic post on my blog so that I'll have easy reference to it in the future, *and* because I'm inspired by the evident hatred tossed in the direction of one Sarah Palin. Therefore, I'm going to post the blog I'm referencing in full and insert a few comments along the way.
So, what post? Mark Levin decided to write a necessary (and truly outstanding) post on the outrageous slandering campaign against Sarah Palin. Here's Levin's first line:
The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here.
It's not just Politico, obviously. But they are quite representative of the odd and visceral negative response to her. I've seen a similar reaction to Congressman Allen West. Very interesting, don't you think?
But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico's editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.
The fear they have of her is palpable. The junior-high derision of her intellectual capabilities is quite telling. Levin, however, reaches back to describe the lay of the land, especially for those far too young to remember when this playbook was last *best* utilized.
A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan. Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election. For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will. It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan's presence on the national scene for many years.
My, my. Context required, context provided. It was used, and used quite well (I was on the other political side at the time) but it did not prevail. Keep the faith, Sarah.
2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans. Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties. But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing "news" site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan's candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard. The "non-intellectual" voters knew better.
Hmmm, I resemble the transition Krauthammer made, so to speak, but I didn't know that particular factoid about Charles Krauthammer. That makes Levin's point a very valuable one for me.
3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush's former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy. That said, Bush's record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.
I'm on record as loving Dubya. I still do, and will forever defend him as President. That loyalty is primarily due to his steadfast and clear understanding of his job as Commander-in-Chief. Plus, he always seemed to be an eminently decent guy to me. So did his father. His aides are individuals, and they surely will have their own political points-of-view.
In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush's profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs). And while Bush's spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama's, that is not the standard.
True. I still say you govern with the Congress you're given, and since it is Congress that appropriates -- and when you must govern first as a wartime Commander-in-Chief (9/11 mandated this to Dubya) and, as a result, you desperately need real appropriations to properly prosecute necessary military action -- the spending under Dubya's administration is not his true fault but is, instead, something of a historical necessity, required by circumstances. That's my honest opinion on the matter, but I do have a greater understanding and appreciation these days of the conservative critique against Dubya.
Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices. I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner. (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)
Understood. And I think I understand what Levin is getting at with respect to the curious "situational aspect" of the disdain coming from some of the Bush crowd. It's much the same as I felt toward Peggy Noonan (very much part of the Reagan crowd) and her curious bashing of Palin in the 2008 campaign.
This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit. They clearly are accomplished. But that's not the point. Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either.
Exactly.
What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate's substance and policy positions. Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run. This has been going on for some time now.
Absolutely true. They have been desperately trying to knee-cap her since she first arrived on the national stage. This was obvious from the very beginning but absolutely made clear after she made the brilliant decision to step down as Governor and therey deny these idiots a platform to slime her with phony baloney, made-up non-scandals in Alaska. It was an absolutely brilliant move, and they hate her for it.
If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession? Why the contempt?
Precisely.
Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies. In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than YouTube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative. (Christie's positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.)
Booyah!
It is transparently clear, and no one is genuinely being tricked by this foolishness (Jennifer Rubin demonstrates the problem, and her move to the Washington Post sounds something of an alarm; I still love most of her stuff, however).
My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by "the intellectuals" on one politician versus another. Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias. That's not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.
Seems influenced by their bias? Yeah, we should definitely underscore the subjectivity involved.
As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan's 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, remind me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact.
Of course not. The parallels, however, are striking.
I've not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by "the intellectuals" but opposed by a majority of the people.
Well done, Mark Levin, well done. You've provided some very good context that should help counterbalance the slandering campaign against a fine woman.
I find the wave of hatred and contempt toward Sarah Palin puzzling. She's an interesting person who seems to like taking risks. However, I neither love her nor hate her.
I wonder if much of her popularity comes precisely out of leftist vilification campaigns against her. She has a journalism degree from the University of Idaho. I may be biased against journalism degrees, but I regard a journalism degree from Idaho as just as more valid than a journalism degree from Columbia. It's more valid because Idaho isn't known for promoting a snotty attitude among its graduates.
The funny thing about Sarah Palin is that her cultural power is directly proportional to the extent she is treated with contempt. Anybody who remembers how Ann Richards became the Governor of Texas would know why. She didn't win the race back in 1990. Clayton Williams lost it by not treating her like a lady. Four years later, George W. Bush defeated Ann Richards when he showed better manners.
I don't think there are many leftists who are willing to learn lessons from the political career of George W. Bush.
Posted by: Alexis | March 28, 2011 at 04:06 PM