Some conservative commentators are becoming increasingly put off by Sarah Palin. One such person, Matt Labash, writer for the Weekly Standard said that because of Palin’s continued cries of victimhood and grievance, “She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition.”
Palin has not done much to endear herself to the old GOP guard. According to Politico:
Sarah Palin has played the sexism card, accusing critics of chauvinism against a strong woman.
She has played the class card, dismissing the Bush family as “blue bloods” and complaining that she is the target of snobbery by people who dislike her simply because she is “not so hoity-toity.”Most famously, she has played the victim card — never more vividly than when she invoked the loaded phrase “blood libel” against liberals and media commentators in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.
For years, conservatives have laughed about liberals playing the victim card. Now the conservative commentators and intellilgensia have turned the tables. The backlash gets increasingly stronger each day.
This year, the conservative intelligentsia doesn’t just tend to dislike Palin — many fear that her rise would represent the triumph of an intellectually empty brand of populism and the death of ideas as an engine of the right.
“This is a problem for the movement,” said Will about what Palin represents. “For conservatism, because it is a creedal movement, this is a disease to which it is susceptible.”
The line of modern conservatism that can be traced back to National Review founder William F. Buckley would be broken by Palin, Will said.
“There’s no Reagan without Goldwater, no Goldwater without National Review and no National Review without Buckley — and the contrast between he and Ms. Palin is obvious.”
Asked if the GOP would remain the party of ideas if Palin captures the nomination, Will said: “The answer is emphatically no.” (Related: Liberals like Palin candidacy)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer, without talking about Palin specifically, noted that “there’s healthy and unhealthy populism,” and there is concern about the rise of the latter.
“When populism becomes purely anti-intellectual, it can become unhealthy and destructive,” said Krauthammer.
It seems that the academic conservatives feel that Palin is dumbing down the intellectual backbone of conservatism in favor of a populist, Weekly Reader set of sound bytes. Perhaps its time for Palin to back off and get back on the porch. She isn’t scaring the liberals. She is scaring the true conservatives.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218.html#ixzz1GdmIVTAv
Nah, she just scares the “conservative intelligentsia” because they don’t quite know how to handle her. They make up the “I’m smarter than the rest of you guys” wing of the conservative spectrum, and they always throw a hissy fit when they think the rest of us aren’t saluting fast enough and bowing low enough to their “superior wisdom.” These are the big talkers who couldn’t manage a fast food franchise. Their record for actually winning elections is about nil. Love to see them squirm and bitch and moan once in awhile. LOL. Brings ’em back to earth.
Surely you aren’t setting up Palin as the brain trust?
I guess I don’t see it as funny. I see it as a sad commentary on this country. I am still waiting for someone to tell me what Palin has that makes her presidential material. Is it the wink or the victim mentality?
Brain trust? No. I just like to see the inflated egos squirm once in awhile. All these years and I have never had a conservative voter come up to me and say “I got it from “The Weekly Standard.” Not now. Not when I was on the job. Palin has her uses. Most of those in the “conservative intelligentsia” are just Washington talking heads who have rather flimsy connections with the average voter out there. They are as quick to regard the Joe Six-Packs as just part of “Fly-Over Country”as are the “liberal intelligentsia.” Palin stirs up the dust and keeps the talking heads in Brooks Brothers suits hopping around. Every movement needs a dust raiser to keep things from getting stale.
How about someone like Barry Goldwater? The Weekly Standard folks arent the only ones out there. There are an awful lot of people out there with ruffled feathers.
So how about the comparison to Al Sharpton? She does make excuses for poor behavior and continually speaks of her and her family as victims.
I thought the comparison was rather brilliant, although he thinks things through a little more. I have never heard her do anything but sound byte.
My question is why the Weekly Standard felt compelled to say anything at all. Palin’s competence for high office is on full view and has been for some time. Why bother unless there is some concern that 1) she has some serious view that she will be a candidate, and 2) whatever her purpose, there are more than seven or eight people who would support her. Can either of these circumstances (let alone both) have any validity in the Party of Lincoln?
Everything’s relative. Now we have Michelle Bachman to make SP look relatively well-read, well informed and analytical in her reasoning processes. I’m scouting out ahead to find a candidate who will do the same for Bachman. Surely there’s someone. I used to think Gov. Huckabee had a good set of skills to bring to the contest until he went off on Obama’s Kenyan boyhood. Maybe his role will be to make the gentlewoman from Minnesota seem almost normal. The downward spiral continues.
I think the danger for Republicans is that Sarah’s speaking in the spotlight in a vacume. As she continually engages in her wacky, vapid, attention-seeking behavior, she’s seen as the spokesperson for the Republican party. The general public will say “no thanks” to the brand.
If I thought the left was serious about acknowledging what Sharpton actually is, I might actually go along with this.
Those vapid vacumes are a booger aren’t they?
@Slow except it isn’t the left saying it…..
I think they are too busy sitting back laughing or whatever it is the left does when it is amused.
Women of all dispositions are discriminated against. Someone should tell her to get off her high horse and join the hu-woman race.
@Pinko,
Hillary sure didn’t whine over the treatment she got and it was disgraceful. Nikki Halley had horrible things said about her. She didn’t whine.
I sometimes think that there are a whole lot of people out there who still do not get it about the Tea Party. Conservatives have gone for years being asked to support people who didn’t know how to — quite simply — fight back. That includes that so-called “conservative intelligentsia” with only a few exceptions. The string ran out for these guys in 2010. Palin and a few others draw applause because, when hit, they throw a counterpunch. After eight years of seeing Bush II hem and haw and then self-deprecate at the podium, a counterpuncher is a welcome relief to many. So she makes a gaffe once in awhile. At least she is not intimidated and returns fire for fire. I don’t think that this will carry her to the Oval Office, but it sure does feel better to a lot of people to see some battles instead of the usual white flag of surrender from the “conservative” wimp wing.
Actually, while I am in accord with a guy like Charlie Schumer on virtually nothing political, I have to admit that he gets a bit of grudging admiration from me for one thing: he knows how to fight back. You aim a volley at him or his party, and the next thing you know he is in front of a battery of cameras returning fire and not mincing words in the process. Disagree with his ideology and politics. Wish we had more who could match his counterattack skill. All conservatives have gotten over the past decades since Reagan are politicians who duck and run and an “intelligentsia” with egos and sneers for their “lessers.” It is refreshing to see somebody on the battle line who is not inclined to just duck the crap when it is tossed at her but who is willing to pick up that same stuff and throw it back. Proof of the pudding? Every time she shows up in public, the liberals and the “conservative intelligentsia” alike begin to grouse and grumble and aim the nasties at her. Personally, I am enjoying the almost Pavlovian reaction she gets. Scout is right. Those people at “The Weekly Standard” bit once again instead of being smart enough to focus the attention elsewhere. So much for the “intelligent” in “intelligentsia.”
The laugher in all this is the claim of “victimology.” Those non-fighters in the “conservative intelligentsia” cannot tell the difference between victimology and somebody who is not inclined to “take it” and just slink away. In this case they are trying to use the weapon of “victimology” to get rid of someone who doesn’t bow to their claims of superior wisdom. Tough. I expect a Palin to fight back hard just like I expect a blogmeister who is insulted by a trolling poster to come back fighting mad. That’s not victimology. It’s counterattack.
Gotcha. Read the article first, huh?
Well said Wolverine. Wish I could talk words that gooder….
Anyway, who is Matt Labash and why do we care? The Weekly Standard has a run of about 60,000 readers. They cater to the Beltway crowd. Why would they ever credit Palin with anything? She is their worst nightmare. She is not beholden to any of them.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/03/influential-conservative-matt-labash-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.html
Her conservative intellectual critics miss the hypocrisy when they say things like this: Voicing the conservative ideal, Mac Donald said: “The public should stop wanting to see itself reflected in a leader. There is something narcissistic about that. It’s really irrelevant if a political leader has any affinity with my life. The only thing that should matter are ideas, experience and executive ability.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218_Page2.html#ixzz1GiMGEWtU
The public, apparently, is supposed to settle for those intellectuals that talk a good game and want to see the politicians reflecting THEIR image. They want a conservative leader like….whom? Reagan was deeply intellectual as is demonstrated by his writings and speeches. But, until he won…he was disregarded. Goldwater? See how that worked out. I respect George Will and the other “intellectual” conservatives. I really do. But what have they actually done, not just lately, but in the last 10 years, to push forward a conservative agenda and get conservatives elected?
In the meantime, the conservative public and conservative politicians, intellectuals or not, populist or not, are moving the ball forward to defeat the progressive influence in US politics.
clarification: want to see the politicians reflecting THEIR image.
The “intellectual’s” image, that is.
I don’t see why anyone would want someone they considered anti intellectual to be president. Wasn’t George Bush enough:?
I am not sure I understand what you think she would do for you.
A fighter is someone like Bill Clinton. Palin just comes across well…like Sharpton. Someone is always doing something to her. She is the most put upon woman with the most put upon family in the world, to hear her talk. It gets old.
You know what Harry Truman said about the heat in the kitchen.
Palin is attractive. She can stir up a crowd. So can a Hooters girl.
Harry Truman may have talked about the heat in the kitchen; but, when a local music critic took a public slam at daughter Margaret’s musical abilities, old Harry threatened to slug him in the mouth. Harry had the spirit too.
Actually, one of the few things I did like about Bill Clinton is how he cut the media off at the knees about any effort to draw daughter Chelsea into the political meat grinder. That earned him a few points with me, and his wishes were respected by the media. Nor did they make any undue noise about that Gore son with an alcohol problem. Too bad some of them (including certain “entertainers”) didn’t retain the memory long enough to lay off the Palin kids. I have absolutely no problem personally when a politician of any stripe brings the family out on the stage for a campaign introduction. It kind of gives you an additional picture of the candidate. But, when certain elements of the media use that as an excuse to drag the kids into that political meat grinder — unexpected out-of-wedlock pregnancy or not — that to me is dirty pool.
Sharpton was on Morning Joe. I think he was insulted. He did say the difference in him and her is that was on the inside and people from the inside were attacking her and trying to . Sharpton said he was an outside coming inside.
Not sure what he meant there. (another thing in common with Palin…running of the mouth and saying nothing.)
Wolverine, I have always thought that presidential kids should be hands off. Same for governor’s kids, etc. The Clintons never pushed their kid out in the limelight.
There is the difference. The Palin children have been pushed into the limelight. Once they are in the limelight, they are fair game. Keep your kids out of the public eye if you really want to protect them from comments. That is Washington 101.
It’s taken me most of this time since the 2008 election to put aside my resentment of the “progressive” movement for their abuse of Hillary Clinton in favor of an over-hyped Obama brand. I didn’t support their abuse of Sarah Palin in the 2008 campaign. I was outraged by it, as I’d been by the mistreatment of Hillary. (But I absolutely didn’t support the McCain/Palin ticket. I voted for the Green Party candidate in frustration.) The word “progressive” can still sound crass and phony to me. I prefer to be a liberal. I believe in a government that helps people. I don’t believe in deifying individual liberty at the expense of compassion and human rights. I believe in a society of nurturance and inclusion. I’m not an Obama devotee, although I do agree with much of what he “says.” I’m proud of him when he stands up for Muslim Americans, or for any other group in the “crosshairs.” I just don’t always see his actions matching his words, and his stance on immigration feels hostile to me.
BUT, the Tea Party personalities like Palin and Bachman have disturbed me to the point of inspiring whole-hearted allegiance to whatever ideology opposes them. I’ll hold hands with progressives all day long in protest of the demonization of migrants, Muslims, LGBT people, public workers, Planned Parenthood or anyone else excluded from the family of man. The allegiances being formed now between LGBT groups, migrant groups, women’s groups, worker’s rights groups and every other progressive social justice concern under the sun are awe-inspiring. My inbox is crammed with petitions and calls to action (fuller than EVER before), and all of this in direct response to the extreme positions being advanced by the Tea Party. People like Sarah Palin are galvanizing to the left. If conservative intellectuals want to add their voices to ours, all the better. If their opposition to Palin takes the form of compassion for and inclusion of diverse humanity, I’ll hold their hands, too.
Now, why doesn’t that support for illegal immigrants, progressives, unions, abortion, and every other group opposed to conservatism surprise me? Do you include the wonderful groups like Code Pink, MoveOn.org, HAMAS, Muslim Brotherhood, the communists, ANSWER, etc?
Because that’s who you are joining with when you ally with that collection of “social justice” groups. Do you support those criminal actions by the unions in Wisconsin?
Of course, you’re getting more stuff in your inbox. There is finally resistance to their agenda of socialism, social justice, communism, sharia, and blaming America first.
Welcome to the party. You just happen to be on the other side from the me. I believe in the Constitution and limits on government and the primacy of the individual – THE SMALLEST MINORITY. You apparently favor those that advance group identity, hatred for America, support for the enemy, and death to those that disagree with them.
Be careful who you support. Your fellow travellers won’t mind oppressing you next, if they win.
@BTO who said BUT, the Tea Party personalities like Palin and Bachman have disturbed me to the point of inspiring whole-hearted allegiance to whatever ideology opposes them
Totally agree and that is how all this has hit me. I was not an Obama fan either. Pretty much the same reasons.
@Cargo, now how did you just manage to squeeze abortion in that litany of things you hate. No one is asking anyone to pay for anyone else’s abortion. That just falls into the category of mind your own business.
You sure have a bunch of people to hate. How do you keep them all straight?
I have begun to think it is conservatives who hate America. There is so much screaming about whats wrong with it.
Make that ‘some’ conservatives.
@Moon-howler
I was adding abortion because that really tends to be a progressive supported thing. Conservatives tend to disapprove of it.
I don’t hate them. I just describe them that way because of THEIR actions. Conservatives are not screaming about what’s wrong with America. They are screaming about what’s wrong with progressivism and what its doing to America.
@Cargo, America is its people.
The anti abortion people have some sort of cognitive dissonance. Cut off fundng for contraception and do away with abortion. The cut off medicaid.
Does anyone else see the nonsense in this way of thinking?
To me, the conservative value is to get anyone who is sexually active on some sort of contraception. But what do I know….
Maybe its just time to do away with the stupid values.
funny thing about who pays for abortions – the RNC offered abortions in their staff health plan until a few years ago. So, it is not just a progressive supported thing.
I think Sarah Palin is to politics in this decade what Roseanne Barr was to comedy in the 1980’s. Watched five minutes of her back then and never went back for more.
Thanks for including that, Pat. I think it should be in everyone’s plan but that’s just me. It is a private matter.
Moon, in my opinion Washington 101 ought to be an obligatory course aimed at the media: Keep your paws off the kids whether they are out there or not.
@Wolverine
And I think that Washington 101 should include protect your kids from the media at all costs.
Palin dangled her kids out there like she was different from every other politician out there. She needed to understand how things ARE, not how she would like them to be. She thought she was special. Her kids aren’t a bit more important than the Bush girls, Chelsea, Amy Carter, etc.
Palin was playing very much to an audience in which people put a great deal of stock in family values, especially those based in religious precepts. They cannot always meet expectations, but a lot of them try to do their best in a culture where that is increasingly harder to do. Simple as that. She knew her natural audience. So did McCain. I think that is one of the reasons he picked her. He himself was having trouble connecting with that part of the Republican and/or conservative electorate. His campaign was starting to drag because he could not get those people excited about his candidacy. He needed a boost.
Palin’s family was part of that package. That type of audience would want to see them. It gives them a feeling of being closer to the candidate. Unfortunately, the unexpected pregnancy of the oldest daughter put a complication into it. What really riles me is that the media and some politicians tried to nail Palin herself with a charge of hypocrisy on the family values thing. Well, excuse me, please. Do you actually think that Palin is the only mother who believes in family values who has ever suddenly found herself in a situation like that despite all you try to do to keep your kids on a straight path? I think the striking out at her over her family, especially the Bristol Palin issue, was a shameless and despicable thing by those biased media outlets and political camps involved in it. For one thing, they are too stupid to see that this kind of gutter attack is what causes them to lose audience to the phalanx of conservative commentators who are just waiting to grab onto that part of the audience which other media outlets have managed to alienate. And alienated they are. You can see it in the comparative audience ratings.
Actually I don’t know that many people who attacked her. Dave Letterman really doesn’t represent the entire non-family values crowd.
Palin played her cards wrong. It’s one thing to have a pregnant daughter. It’s another thing to then trot that daughter out as an abstainence model. That was just trashy and hypocritical. Perhaps the smart thing to do might have been to have left the daughter and trashy boyfriend at home and only brought her family out on the last night.
I expect that Obama’s family values are every bit as strong as Palins. Maybe that is really where the discussion should begin. What makes Palin more pro family values than the Obamas? I guess it is all how you bill yourself.
And again, the Palins and Bristol are victiims. The victim mentality as it relates to the Palins is beginning to sicken me.
When you are running for office, the kids aren’t props every single night.
Wolverine, I know that in your eyes, Palin can do no wrong. IN my eyes she has done very little right. On the other hand, I have never attacked her children. I have criticized her for using her children as props.
Moon, you misjudge badly. I have never said whether I support Palin as a candidate for the Oval Office or anything else. What she makes or does not make of her current path is up to her and the Republican Party. And I have never said that she can do no wrong. I have just tried to give you the viewpoint of one conservative as to how I see her role on the contemporary scene as that pertains to at least a part of the conservative spectrum. I do this because I strongly suspect that her opposition does not quite understand that.
But I do have a real beef with the way the opposition (generically) goes about this whole thing. She is attacked virtually instantly whenever she makes an appearance. And the attacks are very personalized. She is “stupid.” She is “uninformed.” She does this wrong and that wrong. She irritates me. I cannot stand the way she talks. She is practicing “victimology.” In my opinion, this type of constant personalized attack has reached a stage where it has become rather petty. If you have a disagreement with something she says or advocates about an issue, be my guest and have at it. Explain why you disagree. But please (again, I speak generically) stop the sneering and the personal put downs. They are cheapshots. They really aren’t worthy of any of us.
@Wolverine, I don’t think I have MISjudged at all. the many times I have been critical of the lady on this blog, each and every time you supported her. I don’t think I accused you of supporting her for the oval office.
You have not SAID she can do no wrong but your words support that concept. Ok, what do you feel she has done wrong? Each and every time you seem to defend her, regardless of what I call her out over. What would you gather?
I have never said she is stupid. I might have said she is uninformed. There is a huge difference.
I believe that each time I have criticized Palin I have said why. I will continue to do so as long as she or anyone like her continues to make ‘running for office’ noises. I do not believe she is suited for higher office.
Moon — Notice the word “generically” in my post. It was there for a purpose so you wouldn’t think that I was specifically aiming at you. But you ARE misjudging. My posts are aimed only at the growing tendency to personalize political attacks. That, unfortunately, is a growing trend on all sides of the political spectrum. It baffles me that so many do not understand that, when you participate in this kind of thing, you are causing others to turn a deaf ear to whatever valid point you may be trying to make. You start off a post with “stupid” or “imbecile” or “AH” any other personalized deprecation; and my inclination is to not take seriously the opinions of someone who cannot engage in a dialogue without refraining from denigration. I preach this same sermon on conservative blogs. I even avoid some conservative blogs because too many never seem to get it. In this case I am not supporting Palin. I am opposing the attack modus operandi of some as being destructive to informative dialogue. That’s the sum total of it. One of the reasons I am on this blog is because both you and Elena try to eliminate that sort of thing between posters. Good. I support it. But I also carry that to others, including even the politicians in a rough and tumble political world. We keep up the current trend, and both sides will wind up talking to brick walls. Where does that get us?
I saw it. I also can’t be responsible for anything beyond this blog. So whatever happens out there in the world as it pertains to SP really has nothing to do with me.
I feel she is such a poor candidate that I cannot avoid addressing it. I have no idea if you would actually vote for her or not. I guess that isn’t the point. You do defend her.
For example, notice that although I have said I would not ever vote for Huckabee, I do say positive things about him. I think he is a decent man, especially for a politician. I probably wouldn’t do that for SP. It is because of the cheap shots she takes, the whining, the failure to rein in her kids and the perpetual victim mentality.