Canadian Cincinnatus

Jennifer Rubin on Sarah Palin

According to Jennifer Rubin, Sarah Palin is in the process of redefining feminism and the left is both apoplectic about it and completely impotent when it comes to doing anything about it.

“She certainly has them on the run. At the National Mall rally on Saturday, Sarah Palin delivered an eloquent and moving tribute to servicemen and a nonpartisan call to restore — not transform — America. The complete text should be read in full. (If you are not moved to tears by the stories of three heroic military men, you have a heart of stone.)”

“Meanwhile, Palin clearly has the left in a tizzy. They have finally gotten it: she is redefining feminism.”

“You see, Palin has proved by example that a woman politician need not spout the pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-welfare-state line. ‘Ms. Palin has spent much of 2010 burnishing her political bona fides and extending her influence by way of the Mama Grizzlies, a gang of Sarah- approved, maverick-y female politicians looking to “take back” America with “common-sense” solutions.’ She sure did, and she proved herself to be the most effective female politician in the country. Sorry, Hillary — while you have been playing errand girl for the Obama foreign-policy train wreck, Palin has ascended to the throne. (Nancy Pelosi’s days are numbered.) The left is waving the white flag of surrender.”

“Palin not only trumped the left on style but she also managed to connect on nearly every issue — ObamaCare, bailouts, Israel, taxes, American exceptionalism, and the stimulus plan — in a way the president and his liberal supporters could not. For all of her supposed lack of ‘policy muscle,’ it was she who defined the debate on ObamaCare and she who synced up with the Tea Party’s small-government, personal-responsibility, anti-tax-hike message.”

It constantly amazes me how the ‘smart people’ berate her, calling her a ditz and a bimbo and a hick and a dumb, beauty contest winner. And yet, incident after incident, issue after issue, the dumb rube outfoxes the sophisticates and comes out on top. It almost makes me wonder who really is the ignorant rube here.

I think at any given time, there are a small number of naturally gifted politicians in the US. In the 1990’s, conservatives were cursing Bill Clinton for being one of them. I believe Sarah Palin is another. It is the left’s folly to misunderestimate her.

 

John O’Sullivan: “I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.”

John O’Sullivan, the former editor of UPI, the National Review and Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher has this to say about Sarah Palin:

“Lloyd Bentsen's famous put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate is resurrected, such as by Paul Waugh (in the London Evening Standard) and Marie Cocco (in the Washington Post): ‘Newsflash! Governor, You're No Maggie Thatcher,’ sneered Mr. Waugh. Added Ms. Coco, ‘now we know Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher -- and no Dan Quayle either!’

But, as it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.”

As Glen Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

For what its worth, I think the reason why Sarah Palin makes liberals, and a few conservatives, apoplectic is pure snobbery. The liberals love to talk about how they are looking out for the working man but really they are white wine sipping elitist snobs who find real working people disgusting and frightening. What makes matters worse is that exemplary examples of the working class often exhibit the kind of common sense that allows them to outperform their ‘betters’ in the real world.

For what its worth, I think the conservatives snobs who hate Sarah Palin do so for the same reason. They are basically the same people as the liberals. The only reason their politics trend conservative is they want more tax breaks for their yachts. I think it is high time we take grab these ascot-wearing red tories and RINO squishes by the scruff of the neck and toss them off the conservative ship of state.

Another reasonable response to the phenomenon of Sarah Palin’s Vice-Presidential candidacy

here.

F.Y.I.: M.I.L.P. stands for Mothers I’d Like to Punch. I dunno… but for some reason that I can’t put my finger on, I think that the person who drew this cartoon is a pencil-neck dweeb.

(hat-tip to Michelle Malkin)

Sandra Bernhardt: John McCain’s Sister Souljah moment

In American politics, the original Sister Souljah moment occurred in the 1992 presidential campaign when candidate Bill Clinton attacked hip-hop artist Sister Souljah for her commentary on the Rodney King beating. She had stated, “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Bill Clinton responded with, “If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black,’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech.” This was very popular and helped cement Bill Clinton’s reputation as a centrist politician. It not only helped Bill Clinton to the White House but effectively torpedoed Sister Souljah’s career as a troublemaker. Today she has a day job and a sensible name (Lisa Williamson).

The mainstream press defines the Sister Souljah moment as the instance when a politician repudiates an extremist on their side, thereby gaining credentials with the voters-at-large as a centrist. I think this definition is partly wrong because it implies a symmetry between left and right that doesn’t exist. The asymmetry is that while the extremists on the left are given a wide berth by the media, the extremists on the right have been effectively marginalized by the MSM. They are doing the right a huge favour by doing this. Even though they think they are harming the right by attacking the far right, they are, in effect, doing the right’s housecleaning for them. The lack of mainstream extremists on the right means that it is difficult for a right-wing politician to have a ‘conventional’ Sister Souljah moment.

I think the real lesson is that because the left wing trolls are fundamentally obnoxious to most mainstream Americans, any politician - left or right – who goes after them scores points with the voters.

This is what is happening with the derangement that Sarah Palin has inspired in left-wing extremists. The best example to date is Sandra Bernhardt’s recent comments that Sarah Palin “would be gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan”. Her comments are obnoxious, on so many different levels, that they are simply indefensible.

I have an idea, why doesn’t the McCain-Palin campaign hit them with the following attack ad: Start off with the following montage:

here.

When it ends, simply fade to a simple, “vote McCain-Palin” page.

Don’t bother trying to pin these comments on the Obama campaign. That just leaves Obama with the opening to say he has no formal ties with Sandra Bernhardt. Just let the point hang. People know who supports Obama. Obama will either have to bring up the matter himself in order to distance himself from Bernhardt (the act of which only reinforces the point the commercial makes), or else do nothing, which allows voters to infer themselves that the kind of people Obama represents are left-wing extremist hate-mongers.

P.S. Incidentally, the mainstream press is raving about Sandra Bernhardt’s rant. For instance, Barbra Mackay of the Washington Examiner claimed that the above rant, the “Comedienne delivers enraged optimism. … In the end, oddly and subtly, Bernhard’s message is positive."

Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin

This article, by post-feminist icon Camille Paglia, on Sarah Palin reminds me why Camille paglia is one of the very best women non-fiction writers today.

Note especially the obituary she cites from a 1905 issue of the Globe and Mail:

“Abigail Becker

Farmer and homemaker born in Frontenac County, Upper Canada, on March 14, 1830

A tall, handsome woman "who feared God greatly and the living or dead not at all," she married a widower with six children and settled in a trapper's cabin on Long Point, Lake Erie. On Nov. 23, 1854, with her husband away, she single-handedly rescued the crew of the schooner Conductor of Buffalo, which had run aground in a storm. The crew had clung to the frozen rigging all night, not daring to enter the raging surf. In the early morning, she waded chin-high into the water (she could not swim) and helped seven men reach shore. She was awarded medals for heroism and received $350 collected by the people of Buffalo, plus a handwritten letter from Queen Victoria that was accompanied by £50, all of which went toward buying a farm. She lost her husband to a storm, raised 17 children alone and died at Walsingham Centre, Ont.”

Now that was a woman!

But I suspect poor Abigail would be another one of those self-made women that the left-wing feminists would despise. According to them real women, like Hillary Clinton, rise to the top on their husbands’ coat tails. If the Feminist Movement were really about helping women achieve, they would celebrate all women of achievement – regardless of their ideology. The behaviour of Feminists only reinforces the notion that Feminists (as opposed to small-f feminists) are merely the ladies auxiliary of the left.

Palin Derangement Syndrome

As Real Clear Politics argues, the left must find Sarah Palin really threatening considering the amount of vitriol and mudslinging (over personal matters like her daughter’s pregnancy). And I agree that this sort of thing will end up backfiring on them because it only serves to alienate them from the American mainstream further and expose themselves as extremist partisan lunatics.

In politics like everywhere else, anger can be a good motivator, causing one to redouble one’s efforts, working late into the night. However to be productive, anger has to be controlled. Uncontrolled anger only makes on look like a fool.

An example of this occurred in the 1999 Ontario provincial election. Mike Harris was running for his second term of office. In his first term, Harris demonstrated himself to be an uncompromising champion of small government which completely unhinged the left. I think it is a fair statement that Ontario’s left felt the same way towards Harris in 1999 as America’s left feel towards George W Bush today.

When the writ was dropped, the Conservatives were well behind the Liberals in second place. The image of the campaign was Harris arriving at a campaign stop surrounded by a phalanx of Provincial Police officers while being completely surrounded by a noisy group of demonstrators who had decided to follow him around the province while he campaigned. Every day, as these images made their way on the TV sets of the voters, Harris’ popularity inched upwards until he ended up winning a solid majority.

In an election, it really helps if the other side demonstrates every day that they are stark raving nuts.

I think Obama understands this and this is why he has publicly distanced himself from the campaign to smear Palin because of her pregnant 17 year old daughter. I think the smart strategy for the Republicans is to lay low and let the anti-Palin vitriol heat up to a fever pitch, until somebody high up on Obama’s campaign says something really stupid, and then pounce on the comment. Obama will then have to disown his loyal lieutenant and apologize, looking foolish in the process through no fault of his own. The Democrats in general will then end up looking evil and weak. Time will tell if this is what McCain is thinking.

McCain takes risks with Palin

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics has a good take on McCain’s Vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin. The first of the three reasons that he thinks Palin is a good pick is:

“Putting aside the particulars of Sarah Palin, there are three things I like about this pick.
First, she's a risk. I think she's a calculated risk, but she's still a risk. I like that because I think those polls showing an even-steven race a week ago were a mirage. This race is not a flip of the coin. Obama is the favorite. McCain has to be bold and daring and take the election away from the Democrats. Picking Pawlenty would not have done that. Pawlenty is safe in a year when McCain needs to be bold.”

I think this advice is perfectly correct, not only for McCain, but for politicians in general as well. When in doubt, too many pols have the tendency to sit on their butts, doing nothing, pretending that they are conserving their political capital. In doing so, not only are they cowards, but they actually fritter away their political capital, for political capital is the most fleeting type of capital. If you are not prepared to spend it as fast as you get it, you will lose.

Look at it this way. Political capital is not like the capital that General Motors owns. GM’s capital consists of 40,000-ton crankcase forges and assembly lines a block long. They can lose to smart Japanese competitors for decades and still be on top because it takes that long for Honda and Toyota to accumulate enough physical capital to challenge them existentially. Political capital does not work like this. In 2004, the Democrat Party was written off. I recall many articles written at the time about how the US was evolving into a one-party system (the Republicans!) and why this was unhealthy and what to do about it. What a difference two years makes. These same Republican overlords took a shellacking in the 2006 mid-term elections, losing both the House and Senate. Now they are the losers du jour.

When you hold political capital you hold nothing. You always have to take risks.

This lesson is just as applicable north of the border. So far Stephen Harper has played a cautious game. His purpose - a valid one, is to demonstrate that the Conservatives are sober managers who can be entrusted with the government – not the extremist radicals that Liberal propaganda have portrayed them to be. Considering the amount of Liberal propaganda pushing this theme, I think Harper is doing the right thing – so far.

However, he can’t continue to keep doing this in the next election. The Conservatives are ahead of Dion in the polls, but only just. While Dion has been exposed as an incompetent bumbler, this has been counterbalanced by a whole host of pesky scandals – none of which amount to anything in themselves, but, taken together, act like a form of Chinese water torture on Conservative popularity.

What Harper needs to do is to win. To do that, he needs to present a compelling case to the voters. To do that, he needs a strong message – one that does not shy away from controversy. Since the problem of the day is the economy, he shouldn’t make the mistate of soft-peddling Canada’s economic woes. While I do think the economic problems in Canada (and the US) have been overstated, and have said so repeatedly on these pages, this is a no-win argument with the voters. They will simply assume he is hiding the truth from them. Instead, if anything, he should overstate the problems – and then present a comprehensive, bold free-market program as a solution. When the Liberals and NDP balk, they should be tarred as reactionary obstructionists standing in the way of Canada’s economic future. This will create a sense of urgency and a positive reason to get out and vote Conservative.

As an aside for those not in the know, Jay Cost is the number cruncher extraordinaire at Real Clear Politics. I have been reading him ever since the US primaries began and have come to feel that, at least with regard to realpolitik, he is the best thing on the web – next, of course, to the incomparable Dick Morris.

McCain picks Palin

A roundup of commentary on Sarah Palin, and why she is such a good choice for McCain. (Don’t let the smears fool you, as Dick Morris notes, the reason she is under attack is because she is such a good choice.):

City Journal

Real Clear Politics

William Kristol

Steve Sailer (here and here).

The New Republic

Real Clear Politics again

Pat Buchanan

Dick Morris again.

Robert Novak.