By John Bertosa
Someone who shows a woman can be successful and independent without being pro-choice and demanding government support?
Moose hunter?
Knowingly chose to have a baby with Down's syndrome instead of an abortion?And had another child shipped out to Iraq on 9/11?
Was a state basketball star nicknamed "The Baracuda"?
Eloped to save money on a wedding? And who married a snowmobile champion/union worker nicknamed The First Dude?
Has more government executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined?
Runner-up in a state beauty contest?
I love Sarah Palin!
But the best part about her is Palin not only represents conservative ideals but she also articulates them in a way that smashes the arch-stereotypes the Left has crafted for conservatives. Angry? Stuffy? Out of touch? A woman subserviant to a man? Not Palin.
Now, the day after her acceptance speech, a co-worker knowing my leanings gave me a very interesting task. "Palin's speech - describe it in one word." My immediate answer completely caught her off-guard.
Clintonesque.
I always grudgingly admired how he could rip apart the opposition and it was never described as angry (at least until he referred to "that woman"). Who else not only could say "It's the economy, stupid" but make it a tag line and not seem condescending or insulting? Who else? Palin, that's who.
I became giddy as she plunged the knife into the opposition with a mischievious smile and a homespun vocal pattern. She was talking like a regular person! She wasn't acting like she was addressing a jury, an Ivy League classroom or a political crowd.
And it was ingenious to use so much sarcasm and mockery! When criticizing,those are the best tools to use, especially when you have the smile and delivery of Palin. Direct criticism comes off as strident, confrontational and mean. It makes an unbiased listener uncomfortable and turns them off. Mockery and sarcasm make an unbiased listener feel like they are in on the joke and not part of one. That was a key to President Clinton's delivery and Palin's.
Didn't address the issues enough? Palin tackled the only one that had been talked about for the previous five days and she tackled it in depth. That issue? Sarah Palin. You want other issues, go to McCain.com or Obama.com. They're all spelled out there. Or tune into the Sunday morning talk shows. You still got problems, take it up with Obama. He declined the 10 town hall meetings with McCain to discuss 10 different issues leading up to the official debates.
Now, some bemoan the "us versus them" aspects to her speech, well I say it's about time!
McCain had reached out on numerous occasions, from immigration reform to senate battles over judicial nominees. He also spoke out against conservatives' attacks against Sen. John Kerry in 2004. And what did he get for this effort to take the discussion to a higher level? Last month Kerry called him "pathetic." and President Jimmy Carter accused McCain of "milking" his time as a POW.
His treatment shows if the Left is offering praise then that means either the conservative is behind in the polls, is criticizing another conservative or is retired/dead. So I cheered when this pit bull with lipstick didn't seek a pat on the head from liberals going to the polls to vote for Obama.
In a perfect world where everyone respects each other's opinions and unicorns frolic with mermaids, I would boo Sarah Palin. But the unicorns and mermaids were eaten long ago by dinosaurs and I've already outlined the "respect" liberals have shown for McCain.
So, it's not a perfect world, and I'm glad Palin is on my side on it.
Check back next week where America's solution to the budding energy crisis will be A Subject to Debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It looks like we're off and running and I have to give John kudos for a well crafted rebuttal. I do, of course, disagree with many of his points but, that's kind of what we're all here for, isn't it?
I emphatically disagree with John's assertion that Sarah Palin didn't come off as angry or especially mean in her acceptance speech. Her jeering sarcastic tone wouldn't be at all out of place coming from the bully on the local playground and, in my opinion, has no place in American politics. The fact that many do not see the mean spirited nature of her speaking style is a sad commentary on the effects of a culture that has become obsessed with spiteful, gotcha style entertainment (Big Brother would be the first example that leaps to mind).
I've re-read Sarah Palin's speech a few times and John is right that she tackled the issue of herself in depth. It was very much to be expected that part of her speech would be used to introduce herself to her party. That is always the case in a vice presidential nominee's acceptance speech. I would point out that she over reached a bit in her efforts to portray herself as a "maverick" - the infamous "thanks but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere, which she in fact supported - but she did address many of the concerns that had been expressed about her in the media.
Regarding the "us versus them" nature of her speech and the recent comments about McCain by John Kerry and President Jimmy Carter, it's important to understand that John's examples of McCain's "reaching out" occurred in the past. The comments by Kerry and Carter were in reaction to McCain's behavior as candidate for president and had nothing to do with his efforts to cross the aisle on immigration reform and judicial nominees.
I think the fundamental disagreement that John and I have about Sarah Palin's speech is best described in the paragraph that begins with "In a perfect world..." He is absolutely correct in his assessment that Palin's speech is a product of our time and political climate. But how long are we going to accept childish behavior, which does nothing to either inform the public or further the debate, as the political norm? I also don't believe this is a perfect world but I don't think that means that dignity and respect have no place in a political campaign. No matter how CNN, MSNBC, FOX News and the rest choose to cover it, this is NOT a sporting event. It is a campaign for the Presidency of the United States and the country would be far better served if all of the candidates treated it that way.
Post a Comment