Dowd on Palin

On a subject seemingly made for her in heaven, the choice of Sarah Palin as GOP vice presidential nominee, Maureen Dowd in today’s New York Times speaks of “my delight, my absolute astonishment,” that a real-life

hokey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin.

Unfortunately, Dowd’s malicious pleasure does not translate into a clever column, but into an aimless series of painfully lame cheap shots. It’s a disappointment, given that Dowd, though she is a thoroughly negative, lost soul, has some genuine talent. Meanwhile, her thoroughly untalented colleague Gail Collins, a former Times editorial page editor, had a column on Palin in the Saturday Times that was equally lame, malicious, and clueless.

Though the libs won’t admit it, they give every indication that they are thrown and upset by the choice of Palin. Unlike many conservatives I am not saying that that was a legitimate reason for McCain to choose Palin. I’m just pointing out that this seems to the case.

- end of initial entry -

Laura W. writes:

I think the best word to describe how liberal women pundits like Dowd must feel about Palin is queasy. As much as I think Palin is a bad choice, I think her principled stance on her children, specifically giving birth to a Down’s syndrome baby, is very admirable and makes her somewhat untouchable to these women. Her obvious moral superiority creates a force field that must upset the very ground beneath the feet of these self-righteous, decadent know-it-alls.

Alan M. writes:

If you remember back to the Exorcist movie, what was the reaction when a priest entered the presence of the demon (and then threw holy water on it)? Immediate, invective-filled, bile. The demon had no control and could only respond out of fear by lashing out in anger.

See all of the lefty blogs—Kos, Sullivan, et al—and see the same reaction there.

I’m not saying the metaphor is perfect, perhaps merely instructive.

The dark always fears the right… oops, light.

Paul K. writes:

Presenting Palin as the spunky, quirky star of a vacuous chick flick, Dowd gleefully seizes the role of the mean girl those films always feature, the one who makes fun of the star’s clothes and hair and shoes, and is revealed at the movie’s end to lead a bitter and empty life. Though Dowd makes herself look bad in the process, making fun of a mother of five must be an irresistible impulse for a 56-year-old woman who knows she’s going to die alone.

I don’t have an opinion about Palin yet, outside of the fact that her selection seems like what Hollywood calls stunt casting. However, if Dowd’s bitchy response is indicative of what we’ll see from the feminist types, it’s going to cost the Democrats.

N. writes:

Following up on Maureen Dowd’s remarks regarding Gov. Palin, it appears to me that both Alan M. and Paul K. have a piece of the truth. The normal, healthy, wholesome Gov. Palin clearly is in possession of basic human decency. I stated on a mail list as soon as I saw Gov. Palin’s selection that NARAL would hate her specifically for not aborting her “undifferentiated blob of cells[1]” with Down’s Syndrome.

The woman who married her high school sweetheart, then had children, then worked in a family job, then took up politics primarily to stop blatant corruption, who accepts the fact that her youngest and quite possibly last child has a permanent and very serious birth defect, is a huge rebuke to the live-for-the-movement-of-the-moment, abort any inconvenient pregnancy, dismiss all family, feminists of Dowd’s clique. Thus Dowd must attack Gov. Palin, because as Alan M. notes, she has no choice.

Normality will always be offensive to the bizarre, the trendy, the fashionable. Dowd’s attack will bear bitter fruit for her.

[1]A description of pre-born humans that was popular with feminists in the 1970s, which has fallen into disuse as sonograms have made it very easy to see into the womb.

Hannon writes:

The selection of Sarah Palin for veep seems to me a victory for those who favor direct combat on a battlefield where the particulars are in full view. Frankly I don’t care what level of vituperativeness the liberal critics sink to. More important is that they will be forced to deal with Pailn’s undiluted conservative stance on a number of key issues, some of which they probably thought had been subsumed by the modern rhetoric of the Democrats as well as the Republicans. This is of course the helm that should have been manned by McCain.

Mrs. Palin’s stance on certain critical issues will likely overshadow the focus on her lack of worldly political experience and will, I hope, help many voters sharpen their views and renew their faith in politicians who actually stand for something. This fact, if it stands up in the coming weeks, might motivate some to vote GOP on principle alone. Sometimes seeing someone exhibit courage, even if you do not support their views, can be inspirational.

I don’t know what to call the “inspiration” that drives the idealistic Obamaphiles, but surely it can be made to look pale (no pun intended) beside a rejuvenated conservative constituency.

LA replies:

The malice that liberals feel toward Palin is phenomenal. It’s so intense it can be unsettling to experience it, as I know not just from the media but from talking to liberals.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 31, 2008 02:17 PM | Send