Like most conservatives, I wanted to like Sarah Palin when she came on to the national scene.
Richard Hoste
Here was an attractive, conservative white woman with five kids. And the deranged hatred that liberals have of her has its roots in the same things that draw conservatives to her. She certainly wasn’t one of the degenerate elite. So I say the following with a heavy heart: Sarah Palin belongs nowhere near national politics.
I can understand a woman with five kids not having read up on foreign policy. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that when Palin was asked what newspapers she read, she replied “all of them.” Even if she had never picked one up in her life, a person with an average IQ would’ve known to reply “The Wall Street Journal” or “The New York Times” and been done with it.
I understand that all politicians say stupid things and the media decides which gaffes we hear about. Can you imagine if George Bush said that he’d been to 57 states? But Palin’s deficiencies go beyond the occasional gap in knowledge or slip of the tongue. She lacks the ability to sufficiently answer the most basic throw away questions. Take as an example her interview with Andrea Mitchell. Why did she resign? A smart person, even if the resignation really was a ploy to run for president, would’ve come up with something credible sounding. Palin keeps repeating that she isn’t going to run for reelection. Since when does that have anything to do with somebody completing her term? Could Bush have resigned in say, June 2008 because he wasn’t running again? And then would it have made sense for Dick Cheney to resign because he wasn’t going to try for another term? According to Palin, completing her term would’ve been “playing the political game.” Her wanting to step aside to avoid spending millions defending herself against frivolous ethics complaints makes a little more sense, but she relies much more heavily on the obviously absurd “lame duck” argument.
She then gets upset when Mitchell asks her a follow up question at around three minutes into the video and blurts out “You’re not listenin’ to me!” Could you imagine a Mitt Romney, or any politician not named “Sarah Palin,” responding to a question like that? It shows the irrational anger of those insecure about their intelligence. Practically all her media appearances have been similarly awkward.
Sarah Palin is not only unqualified to be on a national ticket, but she actually harms the conservative cause. Her existence as a national candidate seems to verify liberals’ claim that conservatives are dumb. What message does the educated public receive from seeing the politician most beloved by the right being the one least capable of coherently expressing herself?
Understanding this point about being weary of supporting faux conservatives just because liberals hate them and they speak with Middle America accents is especially important after the George Bush era. We truly had gotten the worst of all worlds. He motivated liberals and inspired loyalty among mainstream conservatives while being to the left of Ted Kennedy on immigration and of Woodrow Wilson on foreign policy. Perhaps it would be worth firing up our enemies in order to get a true conservative in office. Unfortunately, Palin, like Bush, has never given any indication that she would do anything but walk the neo-con line. If you need any more convincing of that, know that The http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=7500. And there’s a political price to pay for having idiots seen as the representatives of right wing white interests. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul can make an anti-establishment conservative proud; Sarah Palin, like say Sean Hannity, should make him cringe.
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/07/sarah-palin-isnt-our-savior/