Andrea Tantaros has a
nice op/ed related to how Sarah Palin threatens the Left:
This could only mean there must be something about Sarah Palin that is deeply threatening to the left, a constituency that has long believed they have cornered the working mother market. Five kids? She should be at home begging Democrats for a handout. A husband in a union? He should be on the picket lines.
Liberals like to pretend they are tolerant and accepting of those who are different but when it comes to anyone not ensconced in their progressive, elitist dogma they mock and attack their lifestyle to inspire hate.
And Rich Lowry
writes,
As such, she’s the object of the cultural disdain of a Left that loves the working class in theory, but is mystified or offended by its lifestyle and conservative values in reality. If there’s ever been an exemplar of the rural America that, in Barack Obama’s telling, “bitterly” clings to its guns and religion, it’s Sarah Palin.
6 comments:
Sarah Palin threatens the left because she has kids? Umm, ok.
Yeah, its great that she's poppin' 'em out left and right, and that her husband belongs to a union.
But does she support protections for working mothers? Does she support union rights?
We already knows she slashed funding to help pregnant teens with job training, not sure yet what her positions on unions are other than her husband belongs to one.
You need to read more than just these excerpts, but the point is that she threatens the Left because she is, for example, a working mom who probably doesn't subscribe to the Left's policy prescriptions on working momism. Dems don't have a corner on what are legitimate "working class policies."
You mean, she doesn't subscribe to the stereotypes of "working momism".
OK, I read the garbage you linked to, and basically he says because someone on DailyKos theorized that li'l Trigger was really Bristol's baby, than all Democrats are scared of Palin because she is a working mom.
Still don't get it, but whatever, if you guys want to think we are "scared," then go right ahead.
As Peggy Noonan so artfully said, this whole thing is "bulls***".
Yeah, Noonan is right, but pardon me for not giving Lefties a pass simply because the crap they started throwing was, in fact, crap.
But regarding the "fear" angle, I think "threat" is probably a better term . . . like McCain is a threat (I don't think you and yours are hiding behind chairs in "fear" that he is going to do something to you) to Obama's (and Democrats') campaign to win the presidency. That perceived threat, I would assert, is the reason for the over-the-top evisceration of her and her family. Sean, despite your pooh-poohing language (e.g., "theorized"), you've got to admit that what whomever it was at DailyKos did was over the top, don't you? So what would motivate that action? Feeling threatened.
And, sure, there are stereotypes, but Liberals--especially in this case and especially the so-called Netroots, are the ones trafficking in them.
So what would motivate that action?
An active imagination and an article about her waiting to tell people she was pregnant when she was 7 months in and nobody knew.
"active imagination"? I like that one. Great euphemism, though I think, "groping for something to smear her with before the electorate is able to form a positive opinion of her" is more accurate. Lucky for the kid with the "active imagination" that the smear flushed the "failed mother" story from the underbrush.
But thanks for weighing in--I always am glad for the interchange of ideas with you.
Post a Comment