"While most politicians today focused their criticism on Wikileaks for releasing a quarter of a million classified State Department documents, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin instead took aim at the Obama administration for the leak," reports CBS News. The incident "raises serious questions about the Obama administration's incompetent handling of this whole fiasco," she disintermediated the "lamestream media" this afternoon via her Facebook page. (AP photo)
"Like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin has somehow turned a lack of genuine accomplishment, an absence of curiosity about the world around her and an apparent inability to communicate in complete, declarative sentences into a strong image of a plain spoken, no-nonsense, 'I'm one of you' populist," writes bemused Johns Hopkins Professor of Political Communication Dave Helfert, signaling to his Huffington Post readers that he is a member of the tribe. "Somehow," indeed. Where's your own intellectual curiosity, Prof. Helfert? If you're looking for engagement with "the world around her," try tuning in to the Discovery Channel Sunday nights for "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Instead, the author parrots the Journolist/Cabalist playbook:
The Republican establishment isn't going to have a lot of luck trying to bring her into the fold. She is not going to be muzzled, controlled or eclipsed. They know she wasn't trying to promote the Republican agenda with her somewhat bizarre Facebook endorsements. She was promoting Sarah Palin. Their only hope is to find someone who can shine as bright as she does, but with substance.
We guess it depends upon what your definition of "the Republican agenda" is, not to mention "substance." The HuffPo writer correctly senses the GOP establishment's Palinophobia but hasn't a clue as to what motivates Palin herself. It's the constitutional conservatism, stupid! As for us Country-Class rubes clinging to our guns and religion out here:
When they do focus on politics, they tend to make judgments using the same criteria they do on everything else. Does it make sense? Does it waste money? Is it going to make my life better or worse? Does it agree or conflict with my values? Do those people in Washington understand what's important to me?
Do YOU understand "what's important to me" sir? It's about something larger than ourselves, the Founding Fathers' exceptionalist vision of Governor Winthrop's Shining City Upon a Hill. We recommend Jedediah Bilah's must-read report of her exclusive telephone interview with Governor Palin as a palate cleanser:
She said “To study what has happened since then – especially in the 60s and 70s when a lot of women decided to hijack the term feminism – they hijacked the idea of women’s rights, and I believe that they started making women feel like they were victims, and that is a disempowerment. That makes women, especially our young women, feel that they are not capable, smart enough, or strong enough to take on all that life has to offer, unless somebody helps them out and does it for them. In this case – with liberals – unless government does it for them … Yeah, women do, I believe, have to work harder to prove themselves … It makes us better people and it makes us stronger and it makes success even more worth it.”
Has Sarah whetted your intellectual curiosity yet, Dave Helfert & Company? Jedediah concludes:
What has left a lasting impression on me from the interview is that Sarah Palin’s words – whether you agree with them or not – carry a realness that’s not common in the political world. Everything seemed entirely unrehearsed, and there was a spontaneity in her responses that reflected a desire to tell me what she actually thinks, not what she thought I wanted to hear. There was something raw about her patriotism, something blunt about her honesty, and something fierce in the seemingly casual way she talked about having taken on “the good old boys.”
Update: Michelle Malin Buzzworthy link!