Monday, November 16, 2009

How Many Trees Had to Die... Sarah Palin could regale us with her prose and folksy you-betcha wit and wisdom?

Honestly, will this woman not go away already? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!

I'm half tempted to buy her book and read it just so I can counterpoint it with intelligence. On the other hand, as my ex often says, "There are so many other good books to read and so little time. Why waste it on trash?"


Okay, left-leaning rant over, let's get down to business...

Attention friends who are conservative and/or who vote Republican: I'm being serious here when I ask this, so please don't think I'm trying to be a smartass or anything. Can you tell me, please, what is it about Sarah Palin that makes her so attractive? How will she save the GOP? What will she do for America that will be immediately and historically positive?

I'm not being funny here. I'm being serious. I truly want to know, because I'm at a loss to understand how this woman is worth the-more-than-15 minutes of fame she's been graciously afforded.

The comment box is open and I would ask for diplomacy and restraint, please. I don't want a fight in the comments section. I'm just seeking further light and knowledge.


Laura said...

I fall into the category of conservative and/or vote Republican, but I'll be danged if I can figure out the fascination with Sarah Palin. It seems more like a freak show than serious political interest. But maybe I'm missing something . . .

Rob said...

To be honest, I like her simply because she upsets the liberal left. I like a person who upsets partisanship whichever side they reside.

Not that I agree with much of her ideals, at least she is not our typical career stuffed suit politician bought and paid for by lobbyists. To me, she does not seem phony or insincere, unlike the vast majority in office.

For some strange reason, the Dems hate her and what she stands for with utter disdain. Perhaps out of fear? Is she a threat? Oddly enough, it is the liberal media that keeps her as a news story. If not for this media, we'd hear very little of her. So, perhaps this attention is all by political design.

So much for diversity, tolerance, and respect for our fellow person. But as I have learned to believe, diversity is honored and respected only when it conforms to partisan politics and rhetoric.

J.M. Tewkesbury said...

Laura: Thanks for responding and taking me seriously. I really appreciate it.

Ironically, you're in the demographic (conservative women) that's suppose to be all enamored of her. Are there other women out there who feel similarly? Or, let me ask this another way, when McCain announced Palin as his running mate last summer, what kind of conversation did it generate among you and your sisters/women at church/in your social circle?

I ask, because when she was announced, I felt, as did many of my friends, insulted. McCain's choice of Palin showed me that he didn't understand how women voters think and why they vote. He also had a number of respectable choices in the Republican Party, if he wanted a woman: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Olympia Snowe all come to mind.

The larger issue now, though, is how/why does the GOP see Palin as the savior of their party? I see nothing there that could be potentially redeeming or useful in the near- or long-term.

P.S. Word verification: ABIGHA. Unintentional, but hilarious!

J.M. Tewkesbury said...

Rob: Thank you for responding. I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Sarah Palin certainly is good for creating upset, that's for sure! (And others, on both sides of the aisle have been, too, as you fairly point out.)

I can't speak for all Dems, but speaking for this Dem, part of what I don't like about her is how divisive she is (I also didn't like Hillary Clinton as a candidate for a similar reason and that's why I didn't vote for her. This is what I mean in the comment I left for Laura about McCain not understanding women voters and why we vote. We don't vote for a candidate based on their gender. We vote for them based on issues that are important to us. But I stray.)

I would have no problem with Palin as a candidate if she didn't continue to engage in the kind of rhetoric Dick Cheney used that was so polarizing. If I don't buy into her rhetoric hook-line-and-sinker, I'm not a patriot. If I don't believe in drilling in Texas/going to war in Iran/pick your hot button, nationalist topic, I'm unAmerican. It's that kind of rhetoric that is unhelpful.

Perhaps it is in that respect that people--Dems especially--find her so boring and inflammatory. What's that line from the American President?

"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, [choose your politician] is not the least bit interested in solving it. S/he is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."

All of that said, I think we have to jettison our two party system and adopt three or four parties, otherwise, we'll continue to have polarizing figures like Clinton/Bush, Obama/Palin, Carter/Reagan, et al. and we'll go on yo-yo'ing back and forth between two parties and their rhetoric and perception of what needs reform, etc., until we implode.

Who knows? Maybe Palin will accelerate that implosion. That might not be such a bad thing...