Upper Left Coast

Thoughts on politics, faith, sports and other random topics from a red state sympathizer in indigo-blue Portland, Oregon.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

How will the media portray Sarah Palin?

For the answer, just take a look at the front page of today's Oregonian (at left) -- specifically, the caption under her photo. Not corruption reformer Sarah Palin. Not mother of five Sarah Palin. Not former small-city politician Sarah Palin. Not even one-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin. But socially conservative Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Because, you know, it's all about abortion.

Didja hear she not only wants to force rape victims to carry their babies to term, but she also thinks the women deserved to be raped and shouldn't have dressed so provocatively? (Disclaimer: No, she never said anything of the kind, but I'm certain that someone in the left-wing fever swamp has already leveled this charge at her.)

And, by the looks of things in the online world, they plan to make issue of her experience. While her experience is a bit thin, I think it's too early to make the call on that (not that the Obama campaign will wait for more clarification), and that Jonah Goldberg hit it on the head:
If she does a good job at the convention and survives about three weeks of serious media scrutiny — no horrible gaffes, no unforgivable I-don't-knows to gotchya questions (fair and unfair), no botched hostile interviews — she will emerge as the single most inspired VP pick in modern memory and she will give the Democrats migraines for a long time to come, assuming there are no terrible skeletons we don't know about. But, if she screws up in the next three weeks, gives the press and the late night comedians sufficient fodder to Quayelize her, she'll be seen as anything from a liability to an outright horrible pick. That's it.
And along those lines, they're constantly harping on the "no foreign policy experience" theme. I think (or at least, I hope) that over the next few weeks, we'll learn that this woman has given foreign policy a fair amount of thoughtful examination. And that should put her in the same league with Barack Obama's foreign policy experience.

One final thought: the venom coming from liberals over this pick tells me they're scared. In Sarah Palin, they see a strong woman who is likeable and comes across as appealing to voters. This combines one of the best qualities of Hilary Clinton (strength) with one of the best qualities of Barack Obama (likability). They're praying that Palin has some serious skeleton in her closet or that she makes some horrible gaffe, because otherwise their messiah may be un-deified.



  • At 8/31/2008 11:27 PM, Anonymous Jack Bog said…

    Scared? Bwahahaha! Please please please, keep her on the ticket! The vultures in the media are about to have a tasty meal indeed.

    A baby that she had just four and a half months ago, and whom she sticks in front of the cameras at every opportunity, is not a skeleton, my friend. Especially given the incredible story that she's giving about the whole thing.

  • At 9/01/2008 8:08 AM, Blogger Ken said…

    Jack, if you and Kos are right, then it is indeed a terminal blow for Palin and McCain. If you're wrong, then the glee with which you've been writing about this reveals much about you.

  • At 9/02/2008 8:29 AM, Blogger I am Coyote said…

    Ken don't worry. Folks like Jack and the frothing-at-the-mouth moonbats are going to take their hate too far.

    Just wait. They will attempt to pull a Bork or Clarance Thomas and it will become horrible. You will recoil in disgust and part of you will believe that it MUST be working with the American people.

    Then you will start wishing that McCain had not made this pick.

    Then slowly but surely you will start running across more and more average folk who are recoiling just like you.

    And then we will remember that Americans in general are NOT frothing-at-the-mouth moonbats. And that the left took their hate filled attacks a step too far.

    I remember a pastor friend of mine making a comment in one of our conversations. It was not the central point of what we were talking about but something made it stick in my memory more than whatever the conversation was originally about.

    He said that if you look back through history you can see that almost always "the devil overplays his hand."

    Of course the biggest over play was when he thought he was "killing" God on the cross. And look how that turned out.

  • At 9/03/2008 12:54 PM, Blogger OregonGuy said…

    I've two sons. They are, at some level, "sexually active". At what level precisely? Perhaps I'm old-fashioned in that since they are both adults, that is none of my business.

    What had been my business was to let them know, in no uncertain terms, that the decision to commit an act of procreation was a commitment to have a child. That no form of contraception was to be relied upon as being 100 percent effective. And, once created, that life would be his responsibility for the rest of both their lives.

    Are young men and women under a great deal of internal pressure to procreate? Uh, yeah! Whether you take a secular or non-secular approach to life, the life urge is strong. The temptation is strong. And, so far as I know, I am not yet a grampa.

    I want the "normal" things for my sons. To find a woman to be his wife, to work together and raise a family. Is "now" the right time? That's not my decision. It's theirs.

    I just hope they make their decision based upon more than the heat of the moment. And then, perhaps, regret. Will I have been a failure as a father if this advice--it turns out--was ignored? Perhaps. But, perhaps not. The decision to procreate is really between the two making the decision. I hope that I have given my sons the ability to understand the outcomes of their choices.

    Reality has a way of teaching that even a father can't claim. At that point? How do they handle their responsibilities will, I think, be a better test of what kind of father I have been.

  • At 9/03/2008 5:25 PM, Blogger MAX Redline said…

    Isn't it interesting that if Ken visited Jack's blog and left a comment even remotely similar to the one Jack left here, he'd be banned from commenting?

    Ah, but Jack's a "progressive" guy, so it's all good.

  • At 9/03/2008 9:32 PM, Blogger Ken said…

    What's interesting is that on his first Sarah Palin post, I did leave a comment, because his assertion that "currently the federal Constitution allows states to ban abortion during the third trimester (unless the mother's health is at stake), and to regulate the practice at earlier stages as well" was flat-out wrong. I said that a woman can still have an abortion at any stage of development, they just can't do it by delivering the child to the shoulders, pushing scissors through the skull and vacuuming out the brains (aka partial-birth abortion).

    I wasn't banned, but instead Jack deleted my comment because he was "concerned about the accuracy" of what I had written. I'm sure he maintains that standard for all his commenters.

    But hey, it's Jack's blog, he can do what he wants with it.


Post a Comment

<< Home