[Peace-discuss] Sarah laughed to herself

[C. G. Estabrook]

[My political opinions are anarchist - or if you prefer libertarian socialist - 
in the tradition of Rudolf Rocker and Noam Chomsky. They're related to the sort 
of thing Lenin attacked in "'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder" 
(1920). (For an account of the position in relation to 20th-century 
authoritarian socialism, google "The Soviet Union versus Socialism.") So I'm not 
much impressed by Roger Kimball's politics.  But he's on to something here, viz. 
why it is that liberals are driven so nuts by Sarah Palin, a point I continue to 
find interesting and even significant. It can't be Palin's political ideas in 
themselves, such as they are; so he's right to look for something else. --CGE]


	Roger's Rules - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball -
	Small earthquake in la-la land, or, Why is Sarah Palin Smiling?
	Posted By Roger Kimball On February 7, 2010

There is a great story about the journalist (and Communist) Claud Cockburn 
[FATHER OF ALEX & BROS. --CGE] that while working at The Times in the 1920s, he 
won a competition for devising the most boring headline that actually made it 
into the paper. His winning entry: “Small Earthquake in Chile, Not Many Dead.” 
According to Wikipedia [1], the story is apocryphal, but I long ago placed it in 
the sacred category of “too good to check.” Besides, when I first heard it, 
Cockburn won the competition while at The Observer, even though (as far as I 
know) he never worked there.

Anyway, notwithstanding the veracity of the story, I find myself often reminded 
of it. Just today, for example, when a friend sent me a piece on Sarah Palin 
from the Huffing and Puffing Post, sometimes known as the Huffington Post. It’s 
by Stefan Sirucek, “independent journalist and foreign correspondent,” and bears 
the arresting title “EXCLUSIVE (Update): Palin’s Tea Party Crib Notes [2].”

So what startling revelation does Stefan Sirucek, International Man of Mystery, 
impart?  Why, that Sarah Palin, when she delivered her speech [3] to the 
National Tea Party Conference last night had actually scribbled a few words on 
her left palm.

Stop the presses!  What a scandal. According to HufPo’s  intrepid reporter, 
Palin’s notes to herself are ominous, ominous:

     Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she 
mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes 
written on her left hand. The words “Energy”, “Tax” and “Lift American Spirits” 
are clearly visible. There’s also what appears to read as “Budget cuts” with the 
word Budget crossed out.

“Budget cuts”?  Crossed out? Tell me it isn’t so. If HufPo’s answer to Carl 
Bernstein is to believed,

     This would mean:

     A) That she knew the questions beforehand and the whole thing was a farce. 
(Likely.)

     and

     B) That she still couldn’t answer the previously agreed-upon questions 
without a little extra help.

Where do we start?  First of all, President Obama’s addiction to the 
teleprompter is eminently worth mocking. The teleprompter breaks down, so does 
the President [4]. He apparently can’t even address sixth-grade school children 
[5]without the device. (Even Jon Stewart [6] made fun of that.)  Second, pace 
our ace reporter, the fact that Palin jotted some notes on her hand does not 
mean that  “she knew the questions beforehand” or that “the whole thing was a 
farce.” Nor, since we don’t know whether the questions were agreed upon 
beforehand or not (and what if  they were? So what?),  does it mean that she 
“still couldn’t answer them . . .  without a little extra help.”  What the notes 
do mean is that she prepared for the session and thought to remind herself of 
something. In other words, good for you, Sarah.

The hatred and contempt lavished upon Sarah Plain, from certain conservatives as 
well as from the Left, presents a dispiriting and, to me, hard-to-fathom 
spectacle. That is, I understand that the Left would regard her as a political 
threat and would therefore dislike her. But why the contempt? And why the 
contempt (and hatred) from the Right? I have several times explained why I 
admire Sarah Palin [7]. Please note that I did not say I want her to run for the 
Presidency. But what (a locution that comes up often among her admirers) a 
breath of fresh air she is! Here you have a woman from a working-class 
background who, by dint of her own energy and  ambition, becomes Governor of her 
state—a good Governor, too, by all account not tainted by The New York Times. 
She espouses good conservative principles: self-reliance, fiscal responsibility, 
a strong national defense. And, on top of all that, she is a courageous and 
loving mother to a passel of children.

What’s not to like?  That she chose to keep and love a Down Syndrome child? That 
sets the teeth of many on edge, I know, though they are loathe to come right out 
and admit it. Granted: She’s not a lawyer. She’s not from the Ivy League. She’s 
not part of the Washington Establishment. Heavy liabilities, what? I acknowledge 
that her performance in front of Katie Couric and other barracuda-like 
interviewers was poor, embarrassing even. But put that and all the other charges 
in the scale on one side, then put her virtues on the other: which side wins 
out? Stefan Sirucek thinks he can simply indite the name “Sarah Palin” and all 
right-thinking (that is, left-leaning) people will scoff and hold their noses. 
Maybe they will. But the aroma of rancidness and decay you sense is not 
emanating from Sarah Palin’s side of the aisle. The question is, when will the 
left-wing commentariat notice that the winds of opinion, to say nothing of the 
winds of political energy, have changed decisively against them? Scott Brown 
should have told them something. But Scott Brown was an impossibility. Or so 
they told themselves.

	###

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.