7 Reasons the Left Should Ignore Sarah Palin
posted on September 3rd, 2008
It seems like all the talking heads can talk about at the moment is “whether we are being unfair to Sarah Palin.” Now, I’m not buying that the “we” in this case is “the Left”; it seems to me that the big-ticket media outlets care a lot about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy and intended nuptials, while lefty blogs like Daily Kos care more about the Bridge to Nowhere and, um, policy. But it doesn’t matter, The Entire Left is getting the blame. Here are 7 reasons we should just ignore Palin altogether and focus on why McCain would be a lousy president:
- Talking about even just the legitimate reasons why we don’t like Palin won’t help defeat McCain. If Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew have taught us anything, it’s that your VP choice can’t hurt you. Remember “You’re no Jack Kennedy”?
- Palin’s policies are McCain’s policies. Attacking Palin for her staunch opposition to reproductive freedom makes it seem like McCain is “moderate” about abortion. He is not. He’s just as anti-abortion, he’s just not opposed to stem-cell research. Let’s focus on the control McCain wants to exert over women’s bodies, not the reproductive situation of any one particular woman, even if she is running for Vice President or has a mother who is.
- Many women don’t like seeing women attacked. Attacking Palin will only alienate women, especially white middle-aged women.
- Many men don’t like seeing women attacked. Yes, it’s a double-standard. Many men are still very paternalistic, and feel protective over women, especially those who remind them of their daughters/mothers/wives/idealized dream wives who help skin the 18-point buck while wearing stiletto heels.
- Somewhere around 750,000 teenagers get pregnant every year; that means there is a substantial bloc of potential voters who either were pregnant while teens or parented pregnant teens. Alienating these potential voters makes no sense.
- Human Frailty Is The New Black. Remember the bump Clinton got when she wept on the campaign trail? Human beings who face human problems that voters can identify with are attractive candidates right now.
- Finally, with the wealth of McCain material, why spend time on anyone else? The attention paid to Palin makes it seem like we can’t think of good enough reasons to attack McCain. We can.
Yes, it’s unfair. The Right attacked Hillary Clinton in 1992 when her husband was running for President. McCain himself has previously not considered the teenage children of political opponents to be off-limits. But this is just the reality of politics in the post-(Bill)Clinton era; the Republican party has managed to gain the reputation of being morally centered without losing their reputation of fiscal responsibility. They have redefined the issues of importance to Christians away from poverty and caring for children towards sexuality and personal safety. We need to remind people that the government still has to deal with issues such as health care and the economy, and that McCain is not the man to do it.
This rant filed under: Political
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I do like the official responses so far from Obama campaign. They’ve pretty much taken the high road, with even Biden the Attack Dog saying the nice and necessary things about the family being off-limits. I like watching Obama’s brand of jiu-jitsu in action, and I’m looking forward to the counter-attack.
Well, the main counter-attack. I assume there’s a certain degree of coordination with Sebelius and Schultz, and that it’s a ramp up to Clinton saying something cutting, maybe trying to yoink the news cycle aware from McCain after his speech. And I do want to see if “the media” will react poorly to being slagged in this particular way and get bored with the whole “Straight Talk Express” narrative that lacks the arc of a decent narrative.