Comments on Palin, September 4-6; and, conservative men in love with Palin

Terry Morris writes:

Laura wrote:

“She has no idea really what it’s like over the long haul to have a child who requires unusual care due to congenital abnormality. Her conviction on this is a show.”

I agree with Laura, but further to her point, if I may, I don’t believe Sarah Palin knows what it is to be a devoted mother and homemaker, given her “career woman” status. What she represents is who she represents, and that is career women who want to have their cake and eat it too.

This is being foisted upon us as true conservatism. Look at all the career Republican women who spoke prior to Mrs. Palin. Even my wife asked “where are all the men?”

Ben W. writes:

After Sarah Palin gave her convention speech, I switched from one network to another, listening to the analysis given by the media pundits, broadcasters and commentators. One thing that struck me was how sad they all seemed.

Why? It appears that Palin stole Obama’s thunder and displaced him in the public eye. Since Obama’s ascendancy is based on words not accomplishments, he has to maintain a glittering public presence.

Secondly, most media people have bought into the “historic” significance of the Obama candidacy (the racial aspect—“first Afro-American to … “) and anticipate an epoch-making presidential win. When this becomes clouded by another “glittering” presence, it saddens their sense of “history.” [LA replies: Yes, the irony is amazing. For seven years, Hillary was considered the glittering presence, or at least the regal presence, the Inevitable One, on her effortless royal progress to the White House. Then the glittering Obama suddenly appeared and wrecked her plans. But now someone more glittering than Obama has suddenly appeared and thrown him off stride.]

One clear example of this is David Gergen, a Republican media advisor (to several presidents), who on CNN gushed all over the place during the Democratic National Convention about the “historicity” of Obama’s victory. “The time has come for a black man to become president.” Gergen was very much taken aback by Palin’s performance and stunned how she dislocated Obama from the spotlight. Suddenly the timeliness and historicity of Obama’s rise seemed to pale. And this subconsciously saddened almost every commentator I saw last night (including several Republicans)!

Ben W. writes:

After Giuliani, then Palin, demolished Obama’s carefully crafted image and laid it bare, I asked myself, why didn’t Hillary do the same? Did she pay too much deference—out of fear—to a black man? Hillary was never on the attack—Sarah Barracuda showed her how by going on the offense. Perhaps Palin as a former basketball player knows how to compete on the playing field and Hillary really doesn’t. My guess is that in a race between Hillary and Sarah, Hillary would be dismantled the first week of such a campaign.

Ben W. writes:

NAIROBI (Reuters)—A huge hailstorm turned parts of central Kenya white.

That be the Palin storm from Alaska and its effect on …

LA replies:

Well, there are folks, like Mark Jaws, who think that Sarah will bring about the Palin of America.

Dale F. writes:

Regarding Adela G.’s assertion of Sarah Palin’s complicity in the bullying of her own family—I don’t disagree. In fact, I said in an earlier comment that I believe this is the wrong time in her life for Palin to be running for Vice President, and for exactly this reason.

Her foolish decision doesn’t absolve Palin’s old political opponents, much of the media, and liberal bloggers from culpability for their cruel and cowardly attempts to bring Palin down by going after her daughter. I repeat: I have seen lots of viciousness in political campaigns, but never before anything quite this despicable. One doesn’t need to be a mindless admirer of everything Palin to see this, and to abhor it.

Palin has by all accounts taken on corruption in her state and won important victories: She resigned her position on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in protest over the corrupt practices of a fellow commission member (who just happened to be head of the Alaska GOP)—that man was later investigated and fined for his malfeasance. Campaigning on an anti-corruption platform, she beat an incumbent Republican governor in the primary, and went on to win the general election. Fighting the oil companies, she re-negotiated the oil severance tax on terms more favorable to the people of Alaska. Apparently, her approval rates in state are around 80 percent.

Whatever her personal failings may be, those are real accomplishments.

Those of us who believe Palin’s family situation disqualifies her from serving in national office have good arguments on our side (and, by the way, I think those arguments can be advanced without resort to condescending, ad hominem remarks). And yet, if she were to be elected, she might still do some good, and would need to be evaluated based on her overall job performance. Clarence Thomas was subjected to vicious personal attacks during his nomination hearing. He may well have had some of the personal weaknesses he was accused of, yet as a Supreme Court justice, his opinions have been everything a traditionalist could hope for. We might wish for better candidates, but fortunately it is possible for imperfect people to be instruments of good.

LA replies:

I don’t want to leave any implication in a passing comment at this website that there was any truth to the charges against Clarence Thomas—the most dastardly act to destroy a man’s reputation in American history. Anita Hill’s statements were a vast fiction, as became increasingly apparent to anyone who watched the hearings on that terrible day in 1991, and read subsequent writings about it.

Gintas writes:

Here are a couple of samples from Richard Spencer:

Jack Hunter, a.k.a. “The Southern Avenger,” has a video commentary making the point that Palin is going to be playing McCain’s tune. He has a funny line about going to see Hannah Montana because Jimi Hendrix was on guitar—no matter how great Hendrix is, he is still going to have to play Montana’s songs.

Kevin S. writes:

In the photo at she appears perhaps to be at a guard base in which case the formidable looking rifle is an M-16. If it is the civilian counterpart then it is an AR-15. In either case it is wearing an Aimpoint reflex site which she fails to correctly employ along with the single point sling. Also note there is no magazine present, her trigger finger is INSIDE the trigger guard, and the end of the barrel has blue tape and appears to be plugged; in other words this is strictly a practice rifle which is non-firing. Practice rifle or not she definitely shows a complete lack of familiarity with this rifle in this picture. I appreciate you and most VFR readers/posters could not care less about this, but if you are putting someone forth as a pistol-packin”-momma then at least use a photo that conveys other than incompetence in that regard.

LA replies:

But there is a youtube (which seems to be of the same situation as wehre this photo was taken) in which she fires and the man with her says it was nearly a bullseye.

Kevin S. replies:

Found it—and it does look like where the photo came from. It is indeed a practice rifle on a practice range. (Simulated shots/hits done with lasers. You can see the laser in the rifel barrel in the photo.) Overall not bad for one who appears quite unfamiliar with that weapon, but a couple of pretty unsafe habits that apply to any firearm would keep me off a range with her. Still and all, a bit of fresh air in this area from a politician. Plus, an unexpected response from you who tend to steer clear of us in the ‘gun nut’ crowd.

LA replies:

I don’t stay clear of anyone. I just don’t write about it that often because I simply don’t know about guns.

Gintas writes:

Lydia McGrew has a response over at What’s Wrong with the World and I comment.

Spencer Warren writes:

Sarah may be seen as a tough, independent ranch-owning lady—but still a woman—out of a Western, the type of character played on occasion by Barbara Stanwyck. She seems to represent the self-reliance, phlegm and moral conscience of the traditional Western hero.

I wish she were the presidential nominee.

Gintas writes:

Here is a blogger at Taki’s mag:

Now, a lot of people on the Paleo Right initially hoped that Palin had been a Buchanan Brigadier, and liked Ron Paul, and had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party, and all the usual things. Now the Paleos are finding out that she has an Israeli flag in her office, gotten the full rundown from AIPAC, etc. etc. etc. The disillusionment is setting in.

It goes to show that the Right, just like the left, is quick to project their hopes and dreams onto unknown politicians. After all, no one is doing anything like that towards the retreads Joe Biden and John McCain.

Alan A. writes:

Your comment Jack S. write: “While Barack Hussein Mugabe is at the gate of white America, howling for our blood, we cannot take time to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how closely McCain and his new lady friend hew to conservative ideals.”

Just curious, were you appalled by this comment? Jack is clearly a racist of the worst sort and you responded only to his use of the word “howling.” Do you agree with the rest of his sentence?

LA replies:

Well, the “howling” was part of a phrase, “howling for our blood.” I see no sign that Obama is anything like that, and I said so. .

However, I didn’t notice the “Mugabe” when I initially read the comment. I object to that too, and will say so, if I remember. I’m just overwhelmed by the number of comments and discussion at VFR right now.

Other than that, Obama certainly is at the gate of white America.

Further, Obama was for 20 years a member of a white-hating America-hating Farrakhan-type church. If America had any standards, when the truth of that came out, he would have been completely discredited and his campaign would have ended. Instead, he was “cleansed” and is now poised to become president Even though he himself is mild-mannered, he is a life long ally of those who openly hate and desire the destruction of white society.

So I object to “howling for blood,” and “Mugabe.” The rest of the thought stated by the commenter is legitimate.

Jack S. writes:

I wrote and you replied:

While Barack Hussein Mugabe is at the gate of white America, howling for our blood, we cannot take time to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or how closely McCain and his new lady friend hew to conservative ideals. [LA replies: I can’t imagine anyone who is less of a howler than Obama. He may very well represent our ruin, but to call Obama a “howler” does not strengthen your case.]

My reference to howling at the gate was symbolic. If White South Africans had made a united stand against their real enemies instead of fighting among themselves and worrying about international opinion they would still have a country. The election of Hussein would be a turning point in U.S. history, a symbolic first step on the path towards the United States becoming a Third World hellhole.

Ben W. writes:

In reading Gloria Steinem’s hatchet job of Sarah Palin, I came across this line:

“Palin opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools.”

Now why is the issue of creationism vs. evolution an issue of feminism for Steinem? This indicates that Darwinian evolution is a foundational issue for feminism/liberalism.

Gintas writes:

One of your commenters suggested reading Jay Nordlinger’s comments at the Corner. So I’ve gone over there and for once trudged through the sludge over there. Is she the Political Jesus?

What’s going to happen to all these electrified conservatives when they hear John McCain?

LA replies:

So send us some choice samples!

Gintas replies:

Arrrgghh … now I have to put on my boots …

Kathryn Jean Lopez is the worst offender. She wins by being amazingly consistent in her breathlessness and fulsome praise. For her own sake I’d hate to let her see Palin step on water and sink.

A Matthews Moment [Charlotte Hays]

I feel a thrill running up my leg.

The Palins [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Is this as emotional, beautiful, and inspiring a speech in tvland as it is from yards away?

Don’t You Have Some Confidence Tonight? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

That some good ole’ conservative American values have a passionate future?

“A Star Is Born” [John Hood]

Chris Wallace just said this of Sarah Palin on Fox. Then about five seconds later, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer uttered the same phrase.

Heard enough? Here’s a great slobber (the bolding is mine):

Quibble [Rich Lowry]

That was unbelievable. After that, you feel like asking not: How did she rise so fast? but Where has she been so long? My only quibble—I think there were a few too many sarcastic jibes about Obama. But I am smitten and impressed and just altogether over-the-moon. Congrats to Scully and congrats foremost to Palin, for a tremendous performance under pressure. Masterly, by any standard.

(Although this convention could still use more domestic substance—and a middle-class tax cut!)

I hope you didn’t just eat …

Scott H. writes:

A small sign that nothing has really changed with John (“The Amnesty King”) McCain or the Republicans: They had a National Council of La Raza connected speaker at the GOP convention on Tuesday night between 8-9pm.

John Hagan writes:

John Hagan writes:

Looks like we are never going to know her views on immigration since McCain will keep the lid on her for the next several months.

Michael R. writes:

I thoroughly enjoy your site and the depth you bring to issues. Thanks.

Are Americans putting too much on Palin’s dainty shoulders? She is running for VP, not the maintenance of Western conservatism. The hatred the radical feminists and the left in general has for her is quite stunning. It’s as though in her they meet a women who stands on conviction whereas they stand on ideology. Hers (right or wrong) comes from a human heart, and it totally overwhelms those who simply follow a party line. They are recoiling before individualism, and their communalism has no answer except to attack. If she lacks a complete grasp of the philosophical issues at stake (like me), she is not that unusual. Nevertheless what she believes has led her to make some difficult choices that have come with a cost. As well her daughter’s situation must have brought disappointment, but at times like that we find there is enough grace to see us through.

LA replies:

Thank you.

My understanding is this: since liberalism is the only approved articulated world view in existence, if a person lacks an articulated world view that is the opposite of liberalism, namely traditionalism, he is inevitably going to move in a liberal direction. That’s why I say that good instincts, a vivid personality, guts, etc. are not enough.

Alan Levine writes:

Chicago community organizer——-wasn’t that Al Capon’s profession?

Sue W. writes:

Here is a blog post I think you’d enjoy: Palin Family Values: Thoughts From A Confused Conservative.

Donald W. writes:

I just had an insight about Hillary Clinton and I want to share it with you.

As you know, Mrs. Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. What if, instead of running for the U.S. Senate from New York in 2000, she had waited until 2004 and run for the Senate from Illinois? I am confident that she would have swept to victory there, she would now be the Democratic nominee for president, and we would not have heard of Barack Obama.

Carol Iannone writes:

Jonathan Martin writes at Politico:

Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the most outspoken and consistent critic of John McCain, is emphatically on board.

“This lady has turned it all around,” he said today on his show.

“From now on this program, John McCain will be known as John McBrilliant.”

LA writes:

In an August 29 post on Palin, Ilana Mercer has a September 1 update on the Bristol issue. She pinpoints the liberal nature of the Palins’ announcement of Bristol’s pregnancy and offers a conservative version of the same statement.

Gintas writes:

At What’s Wrong with the World, look for a comment from Norm, who says you are recommending re-segregation and wonders why conservatives would dialogue with you. I asked for a link, and he provided it, and Steve Burton argued that that wasn’t what you were saying. Perhaps anticipating a visit from you, Lydia tries to ride off the digression. Norm then makes another comment saying you are a ticking time bomb.

LA replies:

Thanks, I just around around to checking it out and posted a comment there saying that Norm’s attempt to discredit my views on Palin based on my views on a completely different subject was contemptible. I also appreciate the fact that commenters there rejected what Norm was up to.

Van Wijk writes:

I’ve been reading the recent commentary at VFR on Sarah Palin with much interest. Most of my thoughts on the matter have been conveyed very effectively already by Laura W. at VFR and by Ilana Mercer at her blog, so I haven’t felt the need to pitch in until now. Most of what follows is in no way quantifiable, but is only my gut feeling.

In watching and listening to Palin in these last few weeks, I believe that beneath the cheerful “hockey mom” persona lies a certain viciousness. The pit bull comment was apt, but not in the way she probably intended. For instance, I don’t think Levi Johnston was ever serious about Bristol Palin, but rather agreed to marry the girl because Sarah made it plain to him that, should he refuse, extremely unpleasant consequences would follow. This is a very aggressive woman, an Alpha Female. When I watched the convention speech my first reaction was “Well, here’s a ‘man-eater’.” When I observed her husband, my first reaction was “Milquetoast.” Really, she could eat this man for breakfast. I guarantee you that she makes all of the important decisions regarding their lives.

I’m not sure if Todd Palin self-identifies as Yup’ik Eskimo, but this articles does identify him as such. According to Wikipedia’s article, his mother is one-quarter Yup’ik. So that makes him one-eighth Yup’ik. In my experience, whites who strongly identify with some sort of Indian tribe have serious misgivings about their European heritage. I’ve had people who look like Todd Palin, and who, if you saw them on the street, would guess they were born in Bremen or Stockholm, tell me, “Yeah, I’m Comanche,” and I think, “Sure you are, tiger.” Look at the picture of Todd in the first article, and then look at the picture at Wiki’s Yup’ik article. If Palin does self-identify as a Yup’ik Eskimo, he is a very sad and misguided individual.

Lastly, a quick comment about Sarah Palin’s shooting prowess. This YouTube page linked at VFR shows Sarah Palin firing the M4 Carbine, a shortened and lightened version of the M-16. Like most U.S. military weapons, the M4 fires a 5.56mm NATO round, which is quite small. The M4 is a weapon that literally anyone can fire effectively and has virtually no recoil. Many years ago when I went through Basic Training at Fort Sill, OK one of my drill sergeants demonstrated firing the full-size M-16. He took off his campaign hat, put the butt of the rifle to his forehead, and fired several rounds downrange. He then (to our horror) put the butt against his groin and fired the rest of the magazine. The M-16 and its derivatives are not considered battle rifles and are sometimes derisively referred to as “pop guns” by special operators. From the way Mrs. Palin handled the weapon, I question her bona fides as a hunter. There is a big difference between staying at camp to tend the cooking fires and pulling the trigger (especially on a rifle firing a round big enough to efficiently kill a moose, which certainly would have a recoil!).

So, these are my random thoughts. I do not consider this email up to the snuff required to be posted at VFR, but I would like your thoughts on it, if you’ve time to spare. Let me just say this in closing. When I first saw Palin, looked at her eyes and heard her speak, I became immediately suspicious. This reaction has served me very well in the past and probably saved my life at least once. In her I see, in myriad ways, a destroyer.

LA replies:

On the contrary, I think that intuitions, if presented honestly as intuitions, and if not wildly unreasonable, are worth posting, though your conclusion that you see her in myriad ways as a destroyer seems over the top and not backed up by anything else you’ve said.

Your information about the M-16 and M-4 is most interesting, though, from my non-expert perspective, she seems to be handling that weapon with great confidence and readiness and I wonder if you’re being too hard on her.

The information on the Yup’ik Eskimo is welcome. So many people have slipped into saying about Todd Palin that “He’s an Inuit (Eskimo).” Obviously, from his looks, if he’s an Inuit, it’s only in very small part. Yet people, hearing that someone is part Inuit, immediately fall into the idea that he’s an Inuit, period.

But what about the one-drop rule, some will ask. I think the one-drop rule only applies to blacks. But even under the one-drop rule, I doubt that a person whose ancestry was one-eight black would be called black.

Carol Iannone writes:

I wonder if for some men who are strongly pro-Palin, it’s at least partly due to infatuation with such a good-looking woman. Women are more aware of their tendency to notice if a man is handsome, so we tend to control for that and make sure we don’t just fall for a politician because he’s a cute guy. But men don’t have much practice with this because so few women are in politics. So when I read some of the positive comments about her from men I wonder if it is at least partly that they are smitten with the thought of having such a pretty woman as a leader, kind of like Elizabeth I and all those worshipful male courtiers anxious to throw their capes in the mud for her.

Hannon writes:

I just sat down and watched Mrs. Palin’s acceptance speech. As one who virtually never listens to speeches by politicians save for incidental sound bites, I thought it was a good delivery. Listening to Bush’s affected, uncomfortable speech for eight years has been painful, even in small bites.

I don’t have any quarrel with your criticisms of her, they are legitimate and put the mindless cheering and uncritical praise into perspective. However, I do think that what she brings to the scene simply overpowers those considerations. She is invigorating and energizing a machine whose essential components, the voters, have desperately need positive stimulus for some time. In this speech Mrs. Palin does not inhabit that vague and diaphanous envelope that seems to separate high profile politicians from the commoners and her straightforwardness resonates with a great many people. This image could turn out to be an apparition but it is too soon to know.

A lot of folks seem to think that Obama is the great social transfusion they have been waiting for. If Mrs. Palin is the mainstream conservative equivalent, how much importance would you attach to her deft powers, even considering that the GOP has been modernized beyond recognition by the neocons? In other words, do you see any symbolic victory in all of this?

As far as I am aware, you and others who have cast her in an overall negative light have not said that she is a deplorable choice, a disaster for the country. It seems likely that the powerful impression she leaves on the electorate, both personal and political, will obviate all but the most egregious transgressions of conservative belief. Have her public family travails taken her over this line? I don’t think so.

LA replies:

As an exciting political personality, she may invigorate and energize people to vote Republican and help McCain win. But I don’t know what that would have to do with invigorating and energizing conservatism. We don’t even know that she has a conservative ideology, and, in any case, she is McCain’s lieutenant, and will only be articulating ideas that fit the McCain message. Also, I think that as she is incorporated into the GOP establishment, she will lose her originality and freshness and become an increasngly plastic version of herself.

Laura W. writes:

These emotion-drenched speeches by political wives are over the top! After Cindy McCain’s speech, I felt like drinking a pint of ale and shooting some pool. She has a caressing way with her eyes, appropriate to an intimate tete-a-tete but not to an address before the nation. I expected to find actual lipstick smudges on my face after it all was over.

Ed L. writes:

You can bet that they’ve got Levi’s neck in the child support noose; hook, line, and sinker.

The thought dawned on me that he might use his journey to Minnesota as his opportunity to make a run for it. When else would he have been able to escape the geographical confines of Wasilla (or Juneau—even more isolated)? But I doubt it will happen; he’s no doubt under watch will full Stasi zeal.

Terry Morris writes:

This is the age of the career woman. How many times during both conventions were we reminded of it? Worse, it is the age of the “professional working mom”—moms like Sarah Palin (poster-woman for the movement) who are touted as being wildly successful business women AND wildly successful moms at the same time.

We’re done. Our society is at the precipice.:-(

Alan Levine:

I share your lack of enthusiasm for Palin as an individual. [LA replies: I thought I have expressed a great deal of enthusisams for her as an individual.] I was, however surprised that in discussing why conservatives should not support McCain for Palin’s sake, you did not deal with the point that given McCain’s age, she is quite likely to become President if the Republican ticket is elected. IF one believes she is fit, she is a very strong argument for voting for McCain.

Scott H. writes:

What is with the male self-described conservatives and “gun nuts” that they go all gaga over women with guns? They get all a-twitter with girls in BDU’s taking apart guns, shooting guns and “being hard,” kickin’ ass. It seems to be quite common. Is it a “Lara Croft Syndrome”? “Hot babe (cartoon or not) kickin’ ass and takin’ names just like me, or how I imagine myself, or how I wish I was.” The more manly she is, the more they like her (as long as she has all the, um, “attributes,” of course). I’ve had a short email exchange with my son in the military and he agrees, he sees it quite a lot. I don’t recall worshipping women who act like men back in the day.

Women, the new Men?

George L. writes:

I’m not really interested in Sarah Palin’s personal family issues. In and of itself, I don’t believe there is any family issue she has, compared to other politicians, that would disqualify her from the presidency.

My overriding concern is defeating liberalism as a ruling ideology; and it is through this perspective—and not her personal drama, which seems to have riled up and infuriated many of your female readers—where I have profound worries as a conservative.

As a person (from what little we know of her) Palin strikes me as a nice person. My dilemma with voting for her is that she is totally naive about how ferocious and evil leftism is. From what I’ve seen of her, it is crystal clear that she is far too much of a pleasant middle American hausfrau to actually fight the hordes of political sharks and DC knife fighters like Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi et al.

I am amazed so many on the right, even many hardhearted paleocons, are so taken in with her admittedly original personality that it does not occur to many rightwingers Palin is not remotely emotionally and mentally sturdy enough to take on that wicked viper nest in Washington.

[LA replies: Obviously, George’s view of Palin is at odds with the way almost everyone else sees her. Both her admirers and critics see her as one very tough and formidable woman. I have no idea where he gets the notion of her as a naive housewife.]

What do conservatives and reactionaries of any strip think would happen to conservatism if, say, McCain died the day after his inauguration of natural causes? Do they think this innocent and delicate woman is truly going to be able to withstand the evil of leftism? Do they really believe this motherly lady is going to not only fight the left, but roll it back?

Anyone who thinks so is a damned fool.

In every YouTube interview I have seen of Palin, her persona screams naivety and innocence. If we send this woman in to fight the left (assuming McCain dies of natural causes early and doesn’t destroy the country and conservatism while we wait for Palin to ascend the throne) there is a good chance she will have a nervous breakdown in office due to the political pressure. This woman is a good, ordinary person. But she is not Thatcher, she is not Queen Elizabeth, she is not Joan of Arc. She is way too emotionally fragile to fight the forces of leftism. For her own sanity and the sake of her family, we should hope McCain is defeated rather than risk potentially throwing her to the establishment lions.

[LA replies: What is your basis for saying she is emotionally fragile??? She is one of the emotionally strongest people I’ve ever seen.]

Our most likely rout to victory is to hope Obama wins and performs badly enough that liberalism falls into popular discredit and leftism starts to disintegrate and implode the same way the Soviet Union disintegrated and imploded in the late 1980s.

Unfortunately, Palin is not the answer to our prayers.

George L. replies:
She seems too bubbly and happy-go-lucky to go into hand to hand combat against leftism. In this video she is giggling and talking like a schoolgirl.

As I said, she is a nice person, but not ready to fight the forces of darkness.

Terry Morris writes:

LA wrote: “What is your basis for saying she is emotionally fragile??? She is one of the emotionally strongest people I’ve ever seen.”

Apparently George L. has never met up with a pitbull in lipstick at a little league baseball game or soccer or hockey game … or a gymnastics meet. They’ll rip your throat out. ;-)

The likes of Washington elites like Chuck Schumer—someone who to me has always epitomized the ruthless evil of liberalism—can’t stand up to the Sarah Palins of the world, I’ll guarantee you that.

LA writes:

I’ve watched half the video George linked. Yes, she comes across as girlish and a bit silly sounding during this talk (which took place earlier this summer), she doesn’t speak like a governor. I’m not talking about what she says, but her voice and manner. But this may have been a more casual situation for her, in her own church. We’ve also seen a much tougher Palin. So obviously her “repertoire” is not limited to the way she comes across here. At the same time, it is remarkable that the girlish woman speaking in this video was nominated a few weeks later to be vice president of the United States under a 72 year old presidential nominee with health problems.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 05, 2008 06:36 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):