Posted on 09/20/2008 9:32:40 AM PDT by bobsunshine
Feminists like to claim that if women ruled the world, there would be no more wars.
Sarah Palin, the woman poised to become the most powerful female politician in the free world, disproves that once and for all.
The gun-toting, Iraq war-supporting Governor of Alaska may decide the next U.S. presidential election. Here is a politician who won't rule out war with Russia.
Here is a mother who waved her soldier son Track off to Iraq on September 11. And here is a campaigner who next week will man the barricades at a public protest against Iran's President Ahmadinejad.
If Palin becomes America's first woman Vice-President, one thing is for sure - there will not be an end to war.
Nor to the war between two cultures she has already unleashed in her own country.
The pro-life, devoutly Christian, happily married mother-of-five has emerged from the political margins to become the most intriguing and divisive woman in today's America.
She has enraged the Left in general and feminists in particular at every turn. What infuriates them most is her rapid rise to the national stage and her ability, like Ronald Reagan before her, to talk to the people in a language they understand with a fundamentalist message many of them want to hear.
It's all so damned reactionary. Heck, the man she admires most in the world is her husband.
There is something almost evangelical about her desire to give voice to the largely unheard folk of America; the ordinary, hard-working, God-fearing majority.
The liberal elite of the East and West coasts despise her, but middle Americans seem to have fallen for Palin as the figurehead of a new kind of politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
FIrst she's compared to Eva Peron, and now, Diana, Princess of Wales.
Kind of sick, don't ya'll think?
Boudicca...
>> A good article.
I agree.
Actually. . . “At a recent rally. . . he was greeted with crowds chanting ‘Obama, Obama, Obama’ as though he was a cross between Madonna and the Pope.”
I have noticed at Obama rally’s and such, the crowd chant's “Obama, Obama, Obama,” whereas at McPalin rally’s, the crowd chants with “USA, USA, USA. . .” or “Country First, Country First, Country first!”
Big difference between the cult of Obama and clear thinking patriotic Americans, and a great idea for a TV spot.
When she's finally compared to Mother Teresa, we'll know it's gone as far over the top as possible. ;-)
Actually, if she wasn't a Republican governor, her life would make for good reality tv.
Nailed it ... and this phony outrage, indignation from Gov. Palin's detractors, the condescension demonstrated with the claims that Sen. McCain has insulted America with his veep selection falls on deaf ears -- we simply are not that stupid.
Very true!!In Palin they see optimism; in Obama cynicism. In Palin they see pride in her country; in Obama an element of shame.
Three out of four isn't bad, but that last one is often said but is imprecise. It's not shame ("liberals" are immune to that), it is contempt and condescension.When "liberals" speak of a cause for "shame," they use what has been called "the non-inclusive we." They use the first person plural pronoun, as if they included themselves in the shame (of, for instance, slavery) but they actually project the blame on you, and accept none for themselves. Theodore Roosevelt nailed Big Journalism and nailed Barak Obama before Obama's father was even born:
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . . Theodore Roosevelt
The article is written for a British audience. The author is trying to explain to her readers the extent to which the common folks in the US are taking to Sarah. The analogy is not that far off.
There was a movie made of the true story of Erin Brockovich. It was and has always been popular with all women, particularly the feminists. Ms. Brockovich was an ordinary middle-class mom with no college degree (and, like Palin, also had a short stint in beauty pageant winning) who just wanted to have a good job and do what was right for her family. She ended up being propelled into the legal world with no background at all in jurisprudence. Through her street-smarts, sheer determination, a basic instinct to help the people no matter the odds, as well as a penchant for fair play and getting at and exposing the truth achieved more than all the highly-educated, ladder climbing, self-promoting corporate lawyers could. She took on the big guys and won! Brokovitch represented to women what they can do, no matter the obstacles and put-downs they have had to endure.
So why, when Sarah Palin is clearly such a similar achiever, do liberal women and left-wingers have such a prejudice against her? It is not that they really think she is not qualified, certainly we have had other VP candidates and even elected Vice Presidents with slim qualifications (Theodore Roosevelt being a prime example). The answer is simply - jealousy.
Feminists and their flocks of angry, aggressive, cut-throat followers are jealous that it wasn't one of their "gals" who follows their playbook of rules about abortion rights and hating men has made it so far (and that she is a Republican, to boot). They are all acting out like they have PMS over Sarah's VP nomination. And, they are demonstrating just exactly the kind of female behavior that men have always been concerned about women in power. They are catty, sneaky, caustic, and emotional. Not at all qualities for leadership. That's why most of them have not achieved as Sarah has. With all their education, degrees, connections, clout and the media behind them...they are still petty little princesses in the school playground picking on the one who is different and who they feel is not worthy to be in their "clique."
When Sarah was announced as a contender in this election it spurred the feminists to expose themselves as exactly like the "bitc**s" who the corporate world has not wanted to promote to managerial or administrative positions. Their petty, fraudulent attacks on Sarah Palin show to the world the worst and most irritating side of females and what men most dislike and fear about women in the workplace. Sarah, who is adventurous, down-to-earth, disciplined, strong and ladylike, has overcome their type of teenage, hormone-raging, tantrum throwing behavior. In doing so, she has trumped the hate-filled feminists at their game and their egos' just can't handle it.
I liked this quote: “For all the hype that has surrounded Barack Obama, the cruel fact may prove to be that more American voters can identify with the dreams of the white girl from the frontiers than the black man from the Washington beltway.”
Yep, she’s real; she’s us...
Woo hoo! You go Sarah!
while the huge difference between the two, it’s really refreshing for America (at least many of us) to have a female politician to admire. America didn’t really have any likeable female political personalities that are household names until now.
To someone blinded by Liberal Mind Fog, there is nothing unreasonable about comparing the claims made for an untested plan against the actual results of a tested one.
And then Dims will say, “Oh those poor little wolfies.”
This was a very nice article. It simply boils down to this: Obama™ is a created brand. Sarah is authentic.
I understand she’s likeable, and why, but Princess Palin royalty? That’s the last thing we need.
Anyway on a related note, I was wondering who else saw the Royal Family thing on 20/20 the other night. Prince Charles is now running around England strutting his common-man stuff, chatting up dance school instructors and talking to the media about wanting to warm the royal family up out of the stuffy 18th century. Steal Diana’s schtick much?
I suspect articles like these part of more to come, in an effort designed to humanize the Windsors... and have England accept Charles as the next king, instead of bypassing him for William.
“Moreover, while Obama appears to have been on a lifelong search for his identity, Palin has never wondered who she was or where she was from.”
This sentence alone makes this an excellent article.
Great post!
Me too. A very good, accurate, yet simple portrayal of Palin’s popularity.
Was a cinch this wasn’t from our press.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.