Over and over, I read and hear about how the Right loves Sarah Palin and the Left hates her. I consider myself on the Left, and I don't hate Sarah. I just can't understand why anyone thinks she is so great -- much less, good enough to love?
When she came onto the national scene as McCain's running mate she took a lot of flack. It wasn't her fault she was unprepared. It was McCain's fault for picking someone so unprepared to stand up to the public scrutiny. But her failure to take off running only led to more suspicion of her qualifications and thus began the "left hates her" or the VICTIM defense. Every time she failed to perform to what the public expected of a Vice Presidential candidate she and her people held her up as a victim of left wing hate. And so it goes on to this day.
The first time I vividly remember the Palin Victim Defense being utilized was when Rudy Giuliani was speaking before the Republican National Convention. He kept stating his disgust in how the Left had questioned Sarah's maternal abilities -- from the transcript[1] he said, "One final point. And how — how dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?"
After that speech I spent the next hour Googling, trying to find a single source for who the "they" were that Giuliani was referencing. I couldn't find a single article from a reputable news organization where anyone was quoted as questioning Sarah's motherly abilities. In fact, from everything I could find, it appeared that the Left was bending over backwards not to mention that Sarah was even female. The left was probably skirting the subject even harder than the right was trying not to mention that Obama was black.
So what was Giuliani doing? He was creating a victim. No woman should be treated this way, was the clear message, and it was the evil left ( the They) that had done it. He made poor Sarah a subject for sympathy. It's good to love her, so it's hateful not to love her.
From that day on Sarah was a consummate victim. If she couldn't answer a question like Katie Couric's, "What newspapers do you read?" well she didn't answer because she was being harassed, victimized. It certainly wasn't because she didn't have an answer, as one might believe form the following transcript of that interview conducted about two weeks after the Giuliani speech:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
Okay, so this was the proof that led Sarah to believe that the main stream media (MSM) were unfair in their treatment of her. After all it had only been a little over a month since she'd been selected as McCain's running mate and this being her first interview by the MSM (i.e.: not Fox News media). So how could she be expected to answer so difficult a question?
But Sarah hasn't just been victimized by the MSM. From reading her book, Going Rogue, it seems she was victimized by her own Alaskan citizens. For instance, she felt it was necessary for her to resign her governorship eighteen months early because of the all the nuisance, ethics violations filed against her by them Alaskan liberals.
Alaska doesn't have a rule like other states where the attorney general defends the governor against nuisance suits -- yep that would be too wussy for them independent and tough Alaskans. Even the State Personnel Board, was against her as evidenced by the appointment of Thomas Daniel to investigate one of the more recent complaints about her starting an Official Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.
Here's how she was victimized: The so-called "independent counsel" who started this investigation was an attorney from President Barack Obama's law firm.[2] That would be Daniel who is a partner in a national law firm with over 700 lawyers that has on occasion represented Obama, other democrats, and with a number of Fortune 100 company clients where you might find a republican or two.
Well in his alleged biased investigation Daniel found that using the term "Official" did in fact make the appearance that the Fund was state sanctioned which violates the Alaskan Ethics Act.[3] For this he was attacked on Fox News[4], numerous blogs, and on Sahara's own new defense fund and Facebook Wall as a "so-called 'independent counsel'."
Here's what Daniel had to say in his own defense: “They are trying to make the argument that because I’m a registered Democratic and have given money to Democratic candidates that I’m biased. But in fact, you know I’ve dismissed five complaints out of six,” Daniel said. “If I were out to get the governor because of politics, I doubt that would have occurred.”[5]
The six complaints Daniel referenced were all against Palin. And as more evidence of his independence, in 2004, Daniel was hired by the Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint against then-Attorney General Greg Renkes. That complaint was brought by Sarah Palin and state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat. Renkes resigned amid conflict-of-interest allegations, and the case was settled. Oh and by that time Sarah Palin had already resigned her position from the State Board where her complaint originated. Yes, Sarah had resigned, because she didn't like the way things were being run.
The obvious point though, is that Sarah was not being victimized by Daniel or the Personnel Board. She and her attorneys made a mistake, and she could have moved on without the bias claims, but then that wouldn't promote her victim persona. And she now has an unofficial legal fund that has reimbursed her for most if not all of her expenses. As a side note, she never attempted to use a $100,000 reimbursement fund established by Alaskan legislature to aide in her ethics defense, "because she and her attorneys decided not to use (it) because of the difficulty in separating the alleged ethics violations as against her official governorship duties or those associated with her fund raising or other activities."[6]
There were other plenty of other conflicts for Sarah in her political life. In her Going Rogue she points to conflicts she had with the Wasilla Mayor and later with the Police Chief as if these were badges of courage, because well... she was on the side of truthiness. And can anyone forget Sarah's widely reported conflicts with and within the McCain campaign staff. But Sarah also explained away those conflicts in Rogue, and it sure wasn't her fault.
I can't believe it's this "poor-is-me" causing all the loving for Sarah? Sympathy maybe, but not love. So then is it the common sense, ideas she has that will fix America? Maybe, but without facing the MSM, answering the tough questions, how will we ever know? And while just playing the "Regan" card gets her respect (maybe love?) from the conservatives, it's not going to do it for me -- Regan wasn't all the good for this country, but I'll save that for another blog entry.
In conclusion, I'm a left wing, liberal who has difficulty understanding the conservative love affair with Sarah, and who also definitely doesn't hate Sarah -- or Tag or Willow or Todd or Bristol (or even the little dick-head that was doing what boys try to do to Bristol). I don't hate any of them. They look like nice people. Misguided? Yes, but aren't we all. Maligned? Not as much as they would have us believe. No, I don't hate her or hers. But do I expect her to explain herself as something more than a victim of persecution, conflict and resignation before her or any of her clan occupy the White House? You betcha!
[1] http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/03/transcript-rudy-giuliani-speech-republican-national-convention-2008/
[2] http://www.sarahpalinlegaldefensefund.org/about.php
[3] http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/07/21/14/Legal%20Defense.22542.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/palin-investigator-ties-democratic-party/
[5] Anchorage Daily News, ADN.com, From Lisa Demer, July 24, 2009
[6] http://community.adn.com/node/142582#ixzz14c4r6ygk
