I don't get it.
My wife, on a lark, had recorded quite a few episodes of Sarah Palin's tv show, Sarah Palin's Alaska but had never sat down to really watch them.
One night, a month or so ago, she sat down while I was gone and watched one. She was hooked. I'm not generally into "reality TV" as I'm one of those who think shows like Survivor and American Idol just flat suck. Don't even get me started on the idiotic reality cooking shows and shopping shows.
But I watched an episode of Palin's show where she went hunting with her dad and one of his friends, and I was hooked.
That's when I really began wondering, "What is Sarah Palin's problem?"
I'm conservative. Time spent growing up in west Texas and the military certainly helped that along, and so did time spent in federal law enforcement. But it was getting finished with graduate school and diving into the private sector world that solidified my basic conservative beliefs.
In that world, you achieve in order to progress. Fail to achieve, and you can forget promotions and raises. If your boss didn't appreciate how well or how much you achieved, send your resume out to his or her competitors--someone out there would not only appreciate it, but hire you and pay you more to achieve for them.
Yes, there were exceptions and still are, but compared to most systems run or ruled by the government or by labor unions, being your own person and striving to achieve success would get you where you wanted to go.
Enter Sarah Palin. In my opinion, a living, breathing entity of success.
Which is her problem.
You see, liberals do not like success that they had nothing to do with formulating or controlling. They especially hate it when a woman succeeds on her own. And if that woman happens to be pro-gun, pro-life, pro-business, pro-family, pro-Christian, pro-you-get-the-example, then they detest that woman with a passion.
And they set out to destroy the woman.
Sarah Palin was thrust into the national limelight by a senile, calculating chameleon presidential candidate whose numbers and popularity were about on par with his personality and likability. One can only play on the war hero bit for so long, and even less when we're bringing back multitudes of war heroes almost on a weekly basis from over in Sandland.
As a veteran, I appreciate John McCain's service while in uniform. As a citizen, I've been less than thrilled with his service as an elected official. I firmly believe he'd compromise with the devil himself in order to appear almighty and wise to his once-doting fans in the famously whimsical mainstream media.
So he, or someone in the campaign, gambles and brings in Sarah Palin as his VP candidate.
Instant star power. Instant wow factor. Instant sex appeal. Instant excitement.
Instant "Oh, shit!" from the other side.
Now, as we all know, presidential candidates win and lose elections--not VP candidates. George H.W. Bush did not trounce Carter in 1980, nor did he kick Dukakis' ass in '84. Ronald Reagan did. Dan Quayle most assuredly did not beat Mondale or Benson in '88. Likewise it wasn't Al Gore's charisma and intellect and charm that defeated the senior Bush in '92 and Bob Dole in '96. And so on and so on.
Yet, Senator McVain and his nutless nimrods sought to place blame on the shoulders of Sarah Palin for their defeat in the last presidential election. The old school establishment Republicans immediately went on a feeding frenzy, one in which the lamestream media was only too happy to pick up on and expand upon. Karl Rove. Newt Gingrich, et al.
What a bunch of sorry-assed, hypocritical, lying sons of bitches. Their boy, McVain, aka "Mr. Excitement-Not" lost the election--not Palin.
I like Sarah Palin. A lot. Is she presidential material?
Compared to what and to whom. If you compare her to the imposter we have now, she is by far more qualified in every single facet. Compared to George W Bush? I'd call it a coin-toss. Both were successful governors of large land-mass states with strong economies and a large influx of people moving in every month and year.
So what is Sarah Palin's problem, so far as the media, the liberals and the doddering old school establishment Republicans are concerned?
When I ask this question, I hear the usual responses:
• She's not qualified.
• She's too young.
• She's too good looking and that could be a distraction.
• The Middle East isn't ready for a woman president.
• She doesn't have enough experience.
Blah blah blah blah. There are others like how she ditched the governor's office after the campaign, her oldest daughter being an unwed mother, etc etc. Give me a break. . .
I occasionally read some of the supposedly respected and learned conservative commentators and talking heads, but again, I take what I read and hear from them with the proverbial grain of salt. So many of these numbnuts are so far removed from the real world, they've lost the ability to relate to it.
Sarah Palin grew up in the real world, made her way in the real world, and continues to live in the real world. Let's look at some of the criticisms offered by both Liberals and the fossil-fuel Establishment Republicans:
She's not qualified. Says who? Establishment Republicans who are five generations rich and get manicures rather than leather work gloves? The media? What would the media know about being qualified to do ANYTHING?
Compared to the imposter we have in office right now, Sarah Palin is more than qualified. But then again, so is Joe the Plumber and dare I say, everyone who reads this blog (and is conservative).
Palin made her own way. Daughter of a school teacher, product of Alaska's public schools and universities. Her and the husband made their own way in business, then she ran for city council in Wasilla, then mayor, then governor--and with a track record of success in each position. That's qualified.
She's too young. What am I missing here? Slick Willie was not exactly a doddering old elder when he got elected, nor was George W Bush, and neither was the imposter we have at present. So the age thing. . . that dog don't hunt.
She's too good-looking and that could be a distraction. I still remember Rush Limbaugh cracking jokes about soccer moms and the "arousal factor" when swooning over Slick Willie. Sarah Palin is easy on the eyes, but that too says something about her personality and character--pride.
Besides, Hillary and Napolitano and our Surgeon General are uglier than an empty glass of buttermilk. Rosie O'Donnell? We'd no longer be able to sing America, The Beautiful if someone like her ever got elected.
A big part of Sarah Palin's looks are because the woman carries herself with class and dignity. That's always attractive.
She doesn't have enough experience. Well, again, she has far more experience than the imposter who is misleading and misdirecting us at present. Big difference between a community rabble rouser, er, uh, 'xcuse me, "community organizer" and someone who actually ran the business of a small town, then the big business of a large state. And did so profitably.
Besides, look what the idiotic "experienced" elected officials have done to us. They've screwed us but good--and along the way, greased the rails for themselves with our blood, sweat and tears.
Maybe such experience isn't a good thing, after all.
Sarah Palin is a stand-up woman. She strives to do what's right, she takes care of her husband and her family, her faith is strong and she loves her country.
I don't know if she's presidential material or not--and that's not the point of all this. The point is, a lot of folks seem to have a problem with her, but can't define exactly why in such a way that amounts to a hill of beans.
Bottom line? Sarah Palin is on our side. The conservative side. The side of gun-owners and veterans and hard-working Americans all over. She stands up for us.
The least we can do is stand up for her.
If we don't, we're no better than the Liberals who seek to destroy her.