FarmerJohn
Has No Life - Lives on TB
These two columns appeared in my local paper today. Cal Thomas has the firmest conservative credentials, Kathleen Parker is also a widely-read conservative columnist.
FJ
(Parker's column now available; this post edited to add.... The Title of the print edition in my local newspaper is "On Sarah, or hating your cake and eating it too".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1/20/AR2009112002616.html?sid=ST2009112303221
Palin and the Future of Conservatism
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalT...h_palin_and_the_future_of_conservatism?page=1
FJ
(Parker's column now available; this post edited to add.... The Title of the print edition in my local newspaper is "On Sarah, or hating your cake and eating it too".
Palin's cover wasn't blown
By Kathleen Parker
Sunday, November 22, 2009
COLUMBIA, S.C. In town to give a talk on civility, I was surrounded by women who wondered what I thought of Sarah Palin's Newsweek cover.
"Why aren't women coming to her defense?" they asked.
"Why are the media being so rough on Sarah?"
Having been enjoying a self-imposed moratorium on all things Palin, declining numerous interviews to discuss her latest self-promotional tour, I was surprised by the questions. My thoughts lately have drifted toward the sense that, though Palin is very much a celebrity, she's no longer running for public office, at least officially. Ergo, radar gets a rest.
As for her book . . . right after I finish "Ulysses."
But the questions -- and the passion with which they were proffered -- intrigued me. Are the media treating her unfairly? Are they "bashing" Palin, as her supporters describe any criticism? Was the Newsweek cover sexist?
Call me a guy but give me a break. Sarah Palin is the luckiest woman on the planet.
Hats off to the girl from Wasilla who, slightly more than a year ago, was virtually unknown and is now on the cover of Newsweek, hawking a book for which she was paid a few million dollars, drawing huge crowds and getting the kind of free publicity most celebrities have to jump on Oprah's couch to get.
Oh, and yes, she got to sit on Oprah's set as well. And we're supposed to defend/feel sorry for/protect Sarah from . . . what? Wild success, popularity and riches? You must be joking.
I don't doubt the sincerity of those who feel compelled to defend Palin. Women, especially, feel personally diminished when a female candidate is treated unfairly. Some of the commentary aimed at Palin during the presidential campaign was clearly over the top -- vile and vicious in some cases -- though I would challenge the common assertion that noting her lack of familiarity with national policies and issues constitutes "bashing."
Vile and vicious is standard fare for anyone in the public eye these days. That's no justification for it, ever, but Palin's experience, if higher-profile than most, is not unique. Hence the acute interest in civility.
Palin, meanwhile, is no one's dummy when it comes to political strategy. She knows exactly how to animate her base, and demonizing the media is the most powerful quill in her quiver. That is, by picking fights with the media, she mobilizes her fans against a monolithic enemy -- "them" -- while getting "them" to give her more ink and airtime.
It's a plan, and it works. Americans, however much they may protest to the contrary, have a soft spot for damsels in distress, no matter how faux the foe.
So, Palin doesn't like her Newsweek cover. It's sexist. It's out of context. If you've somehow missed it, the photo shows Palin in black shorts, a red, long-sleeved top and running shoes. She has one elbow propped on the back of a chair draped in an American flag and is clutching two BlackBerrys in her hand. She is smiling.
Originally taken for Runner's World magazine to go with a profile of the former governor, an avid runner, the picture couldn't be any more flattering or wholesomely all-American if Norman Rockwell had painted it. In a word, the photo is fantastic.
It is perhaps sexy, depending on the beholder's eyes, but it couldn't be construed as sexual. Sexist? Would we show a man similarly posed? Only if he positioned himself that way -- and looked as good. We've seen dozens of far-less flattering photos of George W. Bush in various athletic pursuits. And who can forget the photo of Barack Obama striding shirtless through the Hawaiian surf?
Yet, Palin called Newsweek's selection of the photo "unfortunate." On her Facebook page, she wrote, "When it comes to Sarah Palin, this 'news' magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. . . .
"The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: It shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention -- even if out of context."
Point taken. Indeed, if anyone can learn anything from this, it shows that one shouldn't judge a book -- or a candidate -- by its cover.
Radar off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1/20/AR2009112002616.html?sid=ST2009112303221
Palin and the Future of Conservatism
I'm sure I would like Sarah Palin if I got the chance to meet her. We share many things in common. She is still married to her first spouse, as am I. She has a Down syndrome son. I have a brother with Down syndrome. We share the same faith and we both like the outdoors. She is conservative on economic and social issues, and so am I.
In her new book, "Going Rogue," Palin complains about her running mate's handlers, whom she says kept her from being herself. I have similar complaints. Those handlers also kept me from interviewing her. The handlers are long gone, of course, but still I cannot get close to her.
I could either play the victim, or move on. I choose to move on. But before I do, the Palin phenomenon -- for that is what it is because her celebrity flows singularly from John McCain's choice of her as a running mate -- offers an opportunity for conservatives to choose their path to the future. Will it be a path of the angry and disenfranchised outsider, or will it be something of substance that produces triumphs in both politics and policy?
The victim thing is getting old. Conservatives have a significant presence in virtually every venue they like to denounce. That includes government (though not this one) and especially the media. Talk radio rules and the rulers are conservatives. Fox News Channel dominates the ratings. The conservative presence in academia lags, but there are universities that do not revise American history and mock religious values. Movies? There are some with solid conservative principles, such as Sandra Bullock's latest film, "The Blind Side." Will conservatives go see it, or are they more comfortable denouncing "Hollywood"? How about reinforcements for those conservatives already "making it" in the mainstream media?
In her interview with Oprah Winfrey, the queen of talk asked the queen of politics about the famous Katie Couric interview. I thought Couric gave her ample opportunity to reveal herself and to let viewers see if there was substance behind Palin's attractive exterior. Couric legitimately tried to find out what shapes Palin's worldview and what she reads. Palin couldn't name a single publication. Oprah gave her another chance, but she never followed up to ask about books or a newspaper from which she gets information, ideas and inspiration.
It is true that conservatives are often asked questions that are never asked of liberals and in ways that seem condescending and superficial. But that is an opportunity to give an answer that can skewer the questioner while making the point you wish to make.
Do I wish Palin had more intellectual depth like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's United Nations U.S. ambassador? Of course. But that can be developed if she gets serious about it. Because of her notoriety she can surely command the best and the brightest tutors.
Still, if she is as bad as her detractors say, why are they wasting so much time dumping on her? One might think they would be cheering the prospect of her becoming the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, thus guaranteeing in their mind a second term for President Obama.
Victimization plays well with the conservative base and that's a problem. If conservatives don't rise from the muck of feeling excluded, disrespected, ignored and mocked, they will continue to suffer all of these things. There is nothing like proving the worth of your ideas to put the mockers in their place. Victimization can raise money, sell books and get one face time on TV, but it doesn't advance the ball.
Sarah Palin is a force the Republican establishment must reckon with. She has energized a sizable portion of the GOP base. If the party ignores that base and nominates another candidate in 2012 who is part of the inside-the-beltway crowd, it could lose. And that would be a double tragedy -- for the GOP and the country -- as President Obama keeps giving Republicans issues that make a conservative agenda far more attractive than the hard-left one he is attempting to impose on the country.
Palin's optimism is refreshing. If she can sharpen her intellect, in three years she won't be mocked; she will be feared.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalT...h_palin_and_the_future_of_conservatism?page=1
Last edited:
