Palin “ruffles a lot of feathers because she plays by her own rules”

Sarah_shooting_skeet

It’s the language, stupid. Compare Sarah Palin’s full-blooded, All-American word choices with Barack Obama’s bloodless euphemisms. The Ruling Class powers that be — of both parties — recoil at the “gun-and-Bible-clinging” imagery of Palin’s prose. It energizes us Country Class, Tea Party types. Photo of Sarah skeet shooting from “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”

By Sissy Willis of sisu

“I LOVE what JedediahBila & HeyTammyBruce are saying about THE SARAH NOBODY KNOWS” (on the Laura Ingraham Show, where Tammy is subbing), we just twittered: “Once people get beyond the MSM meme, watch out, fuddy duddies.” Jedediah nails it:

She ruffles a lot of feathers because she plays by her own rules.

As “Saturday Night Live” Executive Producer Lorne Michaels acknowledged in an unguarded moment way back in October of 2008 before the Palin-is-Stupid narrative had fully set in:

“I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she’s powerful.”

It’s taken longer than we expected, but even as her resentful Ruling-Class “betters” flail and try to push her off the stage, the real Sarah Palin has been hiding in plain sight, disintermediating the lamestream media‘s flaccid memes by “shooting to where it’s going, not to where it’s been” — as she coached reluctant daughter Bristol trying to get the hang of shooting clay pigeons in a “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” episode last fall. Jedediah pulled it all altogether in her heroic Human Events column yesterday, “Setting the Palin Record Straight“:

It’s truly astonishing the lengths that some will go to in order to try to discredit Sarah Palin. Sure, the left-wing media loons are a given, but what about the folks on the Right who relentlessly brand her as unelectable, unintelligent, unpresidential, and/or unqualified? What is their basis for those assessments?  And if she is so darn unelectable — why the need to consistently, near-obsessively attempt to tear her down?

I sort of like to shock people. It’s one of my hobbies,” Jedediah told Tammy. Her compilation of Sarah’s considerable accomplishments and intellectually rigorous strategic shots to “where it’s going, not to where it’s been” since that day in August of 2008 when John McCain pushed her center stage — while establishment sages like Charles Krauthhammer were counseling a “safe” pick — will be a shocker for members of the opinionator community who have been listening to their own voices for too long. We agree with Tammy’s assessment:

The Republicans are going to fail. The CONSERVATIVES will prevail.

Crossposted at sisuRiehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Advertisements
Published in: on March 18, 2011 at 12:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

Rick Santorum wants Sarah Palin back in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant?

Boarded_up

If people want to write more than 140 characters, they need to start a blog,” and “Let us cut off the ramblers,” wrote fellow twitterers yesterday in a TweetDeck Support thread responding to a gratuitous “upgrading” of the app with something called Deck.ly that made longer tweets the default. We commend the Twitter staff for responding in record time with an option to disable the bug feature for us purists who share Thomas Jefferson’s view that “the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.” Above, house next door boarded up. There goes the neighborhood.

By Sissy Willis of sisu

Knuckle-Dragging Neanderthal Community outraged at Sarah Palin’s truth telling. Rick Santorum busy changing diapers,” we twittered this morning in a 140-character-or-fewer analysis of internecine battles flaring up amongst cabin-fevered members of our tribe. It’s SO sandbox, as TIME explains:

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who is exploring a bid for the Republican nomination, told S.E. Cupp, who hosts an online radio show on Glenn Beck’s website, that Sarah Palin is skipping CPAC because of her “business opportunities” and “other responsibilities” such as raising her five children.

“I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has,” said Santorum.

Sarah reloaded and came roaring back with vintage Palin on Hannity last night:

Sarah Palin made clear Wednesday night that she took offense at Rick Santorum’s suggestion she’s not attending CPAC because she’s out making money and taking care of her kids, calling his claims “uniformed” and saying she will leave it to his wife to label him a “knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.”

We loved twitter buddy Ruth Anne Adams’s 140-or-fewer-character retort:

WTF is Santorum talking about? Last I knew, he had 4 [correction: 7] kids to raise, too. That sexism ain’t so subtle, Rick.

And in response to our own diaper-changing tweet above:

I thought so, too, when I heard it. Santorum? Prig.

Crossposted at sisuRiehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Published in: on February 10, 2011 at 11:45 am  Leave a Comment  

Palin Envy, a freudian diagnosis for our cojones-challenged GOP establishment?

Althouse_rush2

I’m interested in the gratuitous disparagement of men whose looks and personal style fail to track the masculine stereotype,” Ann Althouse (above) took Rush Limbaugh to task this morning over his sissy-laced rant about Wikileaker Julian Assange: “I like Rush Limbaugh and have defended him many times, in front of people who tend to hate you if you say anything good about him, so I think my opinion on the subject has special weight … And let me invite Rush to … diavlog with me about the so-called chickification problems that plague our world today.” Video here.

“Loved this that you told the Big Guy,” we wrote in the comments of Althouse’s incandescent, must-experience video-post “Here I am listening — for the first time — to Rush Limbaugh talking about me“:

“To say men are like women when they’re being cowardly and weak. I don’t like it … Also, some chickification is a good thing. Women have a lot to offer. Think about it.”

Exactly. As we wrote a few months back about the so-called feminization of our culture:

It isn’t “feminization” at all, but, rather, postmodern, identity-politics “feminism” — one of a cascade of unfortunate byproducts of the Gramscian march through the institutions — that has given us an increasingly impotent chattering class of credulous Chris Matthewses of both sexes.

Twittering this morning about the latest effluence from that impotent chattering class — MSNBC’s “house conservative” Joe Scarborough’s Journolist/Cabalist temper tantrum about Sarah Palin’s “anti-intellectual”‘ and “dopey dream” of being president, and how come nobody’s paying attention to me!? (h/t Dan Riehl) — we stumbled upon this seductive metaphor from Lisa B:

Now we have a new psychological disorder in addition to Palin Derangement Syndrome. Palin Envy is rampant! Paging Dr. Sigmund Freud! 🙂

As we said in response:

Your Freudian “PALIN ENVY” is brilliant, by the way, given the cojones-challenged state of our GOP establishment. 🙂

Crossposted at sisuRiehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Countersuggestible.

I just realized that that’s the precise word for my current political mood.  It ceased to be “ambivalent” quite some time ago.

It feels so good to put your finger on something.

Twittering was going on about this article on Politico, saying that a lot of Republicans are trying to figure out how to defeat Sarah Palin for the 2012 nomination.

Damned if it didn’t make her look good to me.  And I was not a fan.  (So why didn’t Democrats’ scorn for her have the same effect?  Because I discounted it so completely.  In the twisted logic of countersuggestibility, that somehow makes sense.)

I twittered that and got an e-mail from Ron:

I’m still unsure if Palin should be president…(first thought: no) but it’s more interesting to see all this stuff play out, while Obama is going in the opposite direction.  If Palin can defeat her own party…she may be getting the training needed to defeat the dems!  2 years is a long way off….

I answered:

I’m not sure she’d be such a disaster.  Gut instinct is worth a lot more than book learnin’.  She could store the necessary knowledge in her advisers.

And Ron wrote back:

let’s say that happens….and she has a successful presidency.  Boy…that will mess with a lot of heads.  Though it shouldn’t.  Isn’t Palin the kind of figure Dems used to be proud came from America? (a la the screwball comedy?)

Bingo.  It feels so good to put your finger on something.  Even when it’s somebody else’s finger.

That’s exactly what Palin is.  She is the first female president out of a screwball comedy:  warmhearted, ditzy and clueless like a fox, a character out of the American folk tradition by way of classic Hollywood.

cross-posted at Ambiance

Published in: on November 1, 2010 at 1:07 am  Leave a Comment  

Message to Peggy Noonan: Girls just wanna have fun

Marsha_blackburn

Today we completed one pledge and we began another,” says Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee: “Many months ago House Republicans committed and pledged to listen to Americans all across this country… We kept that pledge, and it allows us to make another. The Pledge to America starts with the preamble that reminds us that every American citizen is endowed with certain rights from their creator. When our government charts a course that endangers those rights, the people have the right to demand a new agenda from their government.”

By Sissy Willis of sisu

“This election is more and more shaping up into a contest between the Exhausted and the Enraged,” writes Northeast Corridor Conservative Peggy Noonan, once again almost grasping the spirit that animates this Army of Davids. As we wrote last summer, “Tea Party to Peggy Noonan: It’s not rage, but disgust!” This time, the former Reagan speechwriter and author of the transcendent “thousand points of light” decided to listen instead of pontificate. Her telephone conversation with Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is a revelation:

But Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee suggests I have the wrong word for the Republican base. The word, she says, is not enraged but “livid” …

There are two major developments, she says, that are new this year and insufficiently noted, but they’re going to shape election outcomes in 2010 and beyond.

The question is which is to be master,” as we blogged the other day, and Blackburn is taking no prisoners:

First, Washington is being revealed in a new way.

The American people now know, “with real sophistication,” everything that happens in the capital. “I find a much more knowledgeable electorate, and it is a real-time response,” Ms. Blackburn says. “We hear about it even as the vote is taking place” …

The Internet isn’t just a tool for organiztion and fund-raising. It has given citizens access to information they never had before. “The more they know,” Ms. Blackburn observes, “the less they like Washington.”

It’s that effervescent disintermediation of the powers that be via the internet that we are forever flogging here. Blackburn closes in for the kill:

Second is the rise of women as a force. They “are the drivers in this election cycle,” Ms. Blackburn says. “Something is going on.” At tea party events the past 18 months, she started to notice “60% of the crowd is women.”

She tells of a political rally that drew thousands in Nashville, at the State Capitol plaza. She had brought her year-old grandson. When the mic was handed to her, she was holding him. “I said, ‘How many of you are grandmothers?’ The hands! That was the moment I realized that the majority of the people at the political events now are women. I saw this in town halls in ’09 — it was women showing up at my listening events, it was women talking about health care.”

Blackburn casts the “rise of women as a force” in terms of “the Rage of the Bill-Paying Moms,” and she’s right as far as what Noonan calls “a change in national thinking regarding the role of the individual and the government.” But don’t discount what may be an even more fundamental dynamic at play: “Girls just wanna have fun.”

Update: Instalanche! Thanks for the spelling correction, Professor. 😀

Message To Peggy Noonan: Girls Just Want To Have Fun.

Want to, want to

Update II: Michelle Malkin “Buzzworthy” link! They just want to, that’s all!

Crossposted at sisu, Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Published in: on September 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm  Leave a Comment  

TIME magazine ends debate on the war in Afghanistan?

Johal_sagar_afghani

Leaving Afghanistan: “Zohal Sagar lost her father and two brothers in the war. Her mother hopes they can leave Afghanistan and find a new life in Canada,” TIME captions this bitterweet image of one of the innocent victims of war. But it gets oh so much worse. Their cover image will haunt you forever unless you’re a moral relativist like Editor Peter Stengel, who makes a fine point of assuring us he isn’t taking sides (see below).

By Sissy Willis of sisu

We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it,” protests TIME Managing Editor Peter Stengel, sending the moral relativist’s “secret signal” even as he has decided to go ahead and publish what’s got to be the best argument ever — the image itself — for staying the course in Afghanistan:

Our cover image this week is powerful, shocking and disturbing. It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws. Aisha posed for the picture and says she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan, many of whom have flourished in the past few years. Her picture is accompanied by a powerful story by our own Aryn Baker on how Afghan women have embraced the freedoms that have come from the defeat of the Taliban — and how they fear a Taliban revival.

Asked for comment on the plight of women in Afghanistan — presumably not yet having seen TIME’s cover portrait of Aisha — former National Organization for Women President Ellie Smeal had this to say, according to a Washington Times report:

The future of Afghan women “has just dropped out of all public discourse. What happens with females over and over again is we’re forgotten.”

Sarah_shoesoff

Caption from our June 2 post “An increasingly impotent chattering class of credulous Chris Matthewses“: “Palin isn’t a feminist — not in the slightest,” huffs card-carrying postmodern feminist Jessica Valenti of the blog Feministing, stumbling inadvertently onto the truth that will soon send her and her sob sisters tumbling into the dustbin of history: “What she calls ‘the emerging conservative feminist identity’ isn’t a structural analysis of patriarchal norms. It’s an empty rallying call to women who are disdainful of or apathetic to women’s rights.”

Try telling that to Sarah Palin and her Army of Mama Grizzlies, Ms. Smeal. Woman as victim? That’s SO yesterday. “She’s playing the “woman card,” notes Tuck. Yet more proof if needed that postmodern feminists are on the wrong side of history.

Our friend Peter Ingemi of Da Tech Guy’s Blog has action steps:

That TIME magazine cover … should be put up every time the debate on the war takes place.

Note. Despite its bad press under the recent ramming down the nation’s throat of ObamaCare, the best medicine in the world is still being practiced in the land of the free and the home of the brave, as TIME Managing Editor Stengel acknowledges, in spite of himself:

To learn more about Aisha, and how an NGO is helping her get reconstructive surgery in the United States, go to Women for Afghan Women.

Update: This just in on Twitter as we were about to publish, from twitterfriend Paul Levitt:

A friend spent several months in Afghanistan last year teaching traditional songs to women and kids … Told me of people crying at being able to sing again — the Taliban killed anyone who sang, played music.

It isn’t just for the women. It’s for our very humanity that we must win the war in Afghanistan.

Update II: Trending on Memeorandum.

Crossposted at sisu, Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

May murdered baby girls haunt your dreams, Mr. President

Cassat_bath

The preening perversion of men who would murder children fresh out of their mother’s womb for the crime of being born female sickens our heart and soul. Hatred and fear — side by side with love and adoration  — of the female of the species is universal throughout all cultures, of course, but common sense would have told Communist Chinese functionaries that killing the girls would lead to a generation of desperate men. Common sense? Unintended consequences? That’s never been part of the utopianist statist’s palette. They know better than we what’s best for us, and our individual hopes and dreams and human nature be damned. Above, Mary Cassatt’s “La Toilette,” oil on canvas c. 1891, The Art Institute of Chicago.

May murdered baby girls haunt your dreams, Mr. President,” we twittered in horror at the latest brain-dead outrage perpetrated by the current holder of the Leader of the Free World Seat. A horrified, outraged Jay Nordlinger at The Corner explains:

We, the United States, have been having human-rights talks with China. Our side is apparently led by Michael Posner, an assistant secretary of state. I will quote from an Associated Press report:

Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its [their?] own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

I hope I have read that incorrectly, or am interpreting it incorrectly. Did we, the United States, talking to a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new immigration law in Arizona? Really, really?

But even as President Obama’s mandarins mock the custodians of the Shining City Upon a Hill and insult all humankind and womankind by their unconscionable sit-down with the perpetrators of genocide and gynocide, a new generation of American women “walk softly but carry a big lipstick,” as Lori Ziganto writes at Hot Air:

The left hates that phrase and they have ridiculed me for it on more than one occasion. You see, they don’t get it. It’s not surprising, really, as we’ve all known for some time that while the left trots out the For The Women™ meme constantly, they are anything but. The same way that self-avowed modern-day feminists are anything but feminist. In fact, they are diametrically opposed to feminism, by it’s very definition, because their entire agenda is actually harmful to women. This is why I now call them Femogynists and I’m taking the term feminist back.True feminists are women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley. They are the new faces of feminism. That has a great built-in bonus, too — they are far easier on the eyes and exhibit none of that irksome hysterical screeching like the irrelevant and soon to be extinct femogynists. They, and women like them, are coming to the forefront now.

You go, girls!

Crossposted at sisu and Liberty Pundits.

Palin’s Quit: Do Women Take the Rules Less Seriously? [UPDATED]

I’m not taking the time to document this right now (would welcome it if someone wants to), but I have the impression the great majority of commentators, including (even especially) conservative commentators, who called Sarah Palin a “quitter,” and predicted that her premature resignation would kill her political career (which it clearly hasn’t), were men.

Why is this?  Some possibilities:

  • Payback, or the freedom of the despised.  I speculated on Twitter at the time that maybe “women take the rules less seriously” because until a historical blink of an eye ago, “the rules never took US seriously.”
  • Women have fallback role options men don’t have. Women often don’t stake all on their career or profession. Motherhood (or even just the potential for it) gives them an alternative purpose and identity that can be as defining and satisfying, or at times more so, than the competitive, driven, abstract career world.  Some men are beginning to avail themselves of this role flexibility, but it is still a fraught new frontier and arguably a higher risk, professionally, for a man.
  • Women think different. This would be the contention of the “difference feminists,” notably Carol Gilligan, who wrote in 1982’s  In a Different Voice, “Piaget in his study of the rules of the game . . . finds boys becoming through childhood increasingly fascinated with the legal elaboration of rules . . . Piaget’s observation [was] that boys in their games are more concerned with rules while girls are more concerned with relationships, often at the expense of the game itself.” [pp. 10 and 16]

That last would certainly explain Palin’s decision to elevate family over career, as well as her successful bid to sustain her emotional relationship with her supporters by making a direct appeal to them rather than by “playing by the rules” of the old-boy network.

There’s another possibility, though, and that’s that “the rules” are dissolving and changing — and not primarily because women are now in the game, but because of the death of print civilization with its structured and deferred ways of thinking.  As I’ve written in noting similarities in the roles that Sarah Palin and Barack Obama play for their respective constituencies of “people like them” (and in which the femaleness of one and the blackness of the other is not at all the heart of the matter, only a superficial bonus), symbolism is now more important than substance.  Camille Paglia started out celebrating this return to paganism and the primacy of the instantaneous image as an explosive liberation of the print-shackled mind, but she’s becoming increasingly concerned:

Interest in and patience with long, complex books and poems have alarmingly diminished not only among college students but college faculty in the U.S. It is difficult to imagine American students today, even at elite universities, gathering impromptu at midnight for a passionate discussion of big, challenging literary works like Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov—a scene I witnessed in a recreation room strewn with rock albums at my college dormitory in upstate New York in 1965. As a classroom teacher for over thirty years, I have become increasingly concerned about evidence of, if not cultural decline, then cultural dissipation since the 1960s, a decade that seemed to hold such heady promise of artistic and intellectual innovation. Young people today are flooded with disconnected images but lack a sympathetic instrument to analyze them as well as a historical frame of reference in which to situate them. . . . Today’s students require not subversion of rationalist assumptions—the childhood legacy of intellectuals born in Europe between the two World Wars—but the most basic introduction to structure and chronology. Without that, they are riding the tail of a comet in a media starscape of explosive but evanescent images.

Chris Hedges wrote a lament about the same development in its political aspect last November:

Political leaders in our post-literate society no longer need to be competent, sincere or honest. They only need to appear to have these qualities. Most of all they need a story, a narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. The consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount.

The gender of these critics probably has far less impact on what they’re saying than their generation (Paglia was born in 1947, Hedges in 1956) — although in her first hit book, Sexual Personae, Paglia asserted women’s affinity with paganism versus the essential masculinity of Western culture (pretty well summed up here).

So do women take the rules less seriously, giving Sarah Palin a freedom to quit that a male politician wouldn’t have had?  Or are the rules just melting like Dali watches in the blaze of the camera’s gaze?  Or both?  And if the latter, does the former give women an advantage in navigating this fluid new world?  Women and male opportunists . . . because playing by the rules is too slow and clunky to be the fittest survival strategy any more.

UPDATE: And that’s precisely the sense in which Sarah being female and Barack being black IS of the essence.  Coming from outside the old-boy power structure — even if the inclusive new rules have allowed them to get inside — they are far less bound by and loyal to the old-boy rules, and therefore much more mobile, maneuverable, and free to play the new game of symbolism and short-circuit straight to the emotions.