The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218.html
But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico’s editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.
A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan. Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election. For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will. It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan’s presence on the national scene for many years. 2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans. Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties. But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing “news” site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan’s candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard. The “non-intellectual” voters knew better. 3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush’s former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy. That said, Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse. In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush’s profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs). And while Bush’s spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama’s, that is not the standard. Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices. I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner. (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)
This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit. They clearly are. But that’s not the point. Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either. What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate’s substance and policy positions. Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run. This has been going on for some time now. If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession? Why the contempt? Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies. In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative. (Christie’s positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.) My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by “the intellectuals” on one politician versus another. Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias. That’s not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.
As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan’s 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, remind me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I’ve not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by “the intellectuals” but opposed by a majority of the people.
When the Great One speaks (or writes), there’s not much left to say. But I do want to point out a few things he didn’t mention in his piece. First, one of the Palin-haters Martin cherry picks is Matt LaBash from the David Frum wing of conservatism. LaBash hilariously criticizes Governor Palin for fighting back against, among other things, the obvious sexism she has faced, then refers to her as a “naughty librarian”. Priceless. Martin also quotes George Will, he of the impeccably elite credentials (and impeccably coiffed toupee), who has all but endorsed a candidate and, shockingly, it’s not Sarah Palin. But the most revealing — and idiotic — quote in the piece, I think, belongs to fellow long-time Palin hater and self-anointed intellectual, Heather Mac Donald:
“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.”
So, it’s narcissistic for us serfs to want to know what’s going on in the castle? We should sit idly by and allow our betters who are destroying things to continue, I guess. We needn’t concern ourselves with these issues, and shouldn’t even think about self-governance. Those Founding Fathers were really full of sh*t when they came up with that government of, by, and for the people nonsense, eh Heather?
That old saying really is true: give ’em enough rope and they hang themselves…
UPDATE: Dan Riehl thinks Matt Labash makes good coffee:
Honestly, in almost eight years out here, if there’s a name I see here and about rather infrequently because it’s associated with someone whose efforts never seem to be broadly acknowledged, or widely linked with any regularity, it’s Matt Labash. He must make good coffee as I see he’s been with theWeakly Standard for a while.
The name floats by on Twitter occasionally, if anything, causing me to wonder, who the hell is that guy, when it does. Frankly, I’ve never bothered to find out … before now. So his beyond sophomoric to pitifully stupid and inaccurate shot at Sarah Palin is priceless, if insignificant. I wonder if Kristol will give him an extra fifteen minutes for lunch for a week, given that he provided the headline for Palin-obsessed Jonathan Martin’s latest hit piece on her.
‘She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition’
Oh, my, what a clever boi, this Matt! But let’s actually look at this a bit more deeply on a few levels. He obviously strained to be clever, but is it even remotely accurate – even assuming you think the worst of Palin? No, of course it isn’t, not in the least if you actually know anything, or pause to think, about who Sharpton and Palin are as personalities.You see, the substance didn’t matter at all to Labash. He knows the Beltway establishment and his bosses don’t approve of her and she’s been treated as fair game. Rather than say anything genuinely insightful, even if critical, he simply went for what might get him the most chuckles and pats on the back at some watercooler in Washington.
Ah, but they’re important … they’re influential. Yeah, right. We know that because Jonathan Martin at the Politico told us so. Now that, … that’s a joke. When was the last time any serious conservative took that Palin-obsessed lightweight at his word?