Jamie

Weinstein

Read Jamie's bio and previous columns

August 18, 2009

Sarah Palin Lovers . . . and Haters

It has been three weeks since Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska, and over a month-and-a-half since she shocked the political establishment by announcing her intention to resign. Yet people can’t stop talking about Sarah. Though Palin now holds no political office, a mere posting on Facebook expressing her views on the health care debate created a political firestorm.

I repeat, these were comments posted on Facebook, not statements on Meet the Press.

And I thought those in the media couldn’t wait to forget about the Alaskan Barracuda?

I have, on multiple occasions, voiced my displeasure at the possibility of the now-former Alaska governor ever becoming a serious contender for the American presidency. During the 2008 election, I argued it was a terrible mistake for John McCain to pick someone who was so obviously not ready to lead this country to be a heartbeat away from doing just that if he were to be elected president. After her bizarre resignation announcement in early July, I expressed my hope that Palin’s presidential ambitions had been buried in the Alaskan tundra. 

It can’t be argued that I am Sarah Palin’s biggest fan. But I don’t hate Sarah. This makes me something very unusual: Someone who is neither a Palin hater nor a Palin lover.

For some reason, when it comes to Sarah Palin, many Americans either despise her with every fiber of their body or are rabid Palin partisans who will defend every move she makes.

By writing critical articles about Palin, I unfortunately sometimes get lumped in with the Palin haters. To this group, Palin can do no right.

Palin hater Candace Talmadge, a fellow North Star Writers Group columnist, typifies this mentality. Her column after Palin’s July 3 resignation speech was one of the more deranged pieces written on Palin. In it, Talmadge argued that Palin and her supporters are radical Christians who want to establish a theocracy in the United States.

Supporters of Palin, Talmadge wrote, “aim to take over the United States and turn it into a theocracy based on a version of Christianity every bit as extreme as the twisted Islam behind the Taliban.”

If this is the case, no one informed Palin. Only a Palin hater completely ignorant about the nature of the Taliban could make such a comparison. Nothing Sarah Palin has said or done – nothing – even remotely resembles the nature or the spirit of the Taliban. During Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska she did nothing to make the state a test case for theocracy in America. Her daughter had a child out of wedlock and as far as I understand Palin neither disowned her daughter nor called for her stoning.

Such a comparison is utterly irrational. To say Palin and her supporters are like the Taliban is roughly the equivalent of comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. That is to say inane, stupid and, yes, deranged.

That such a comparison was seriously suggested perfectly demonstrates the irrational hatred of Palin that exists out there. But despite the visceral hatred that many in the media harbor toward Palin, they can’t stop talking about her. Look no further than New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd, a prototypical Palin hater, who has devoted five of her last dozen columns to bashing Palin. That’s over 40 percent.

Reasonable criticism of Palin is certainly fair, but the deranged hate that Palin for some reason inspires in people defies understanding.

On the other side are the Palin lovers who refuse to admit Sarah Barracuda can do any wrong. If Palin decides tomorrow to emulate Mike Tyson by getting a tattoo scrawled on the side of her face, you will find Palin’s fan base in parts of the conservative media pontificating that it was the finest political move in recent memory.

Lesson one in defending Palin’s political decisions is to remind people that Ronald Reagan was also underestimated by the liberal establishment. True, but Reagan didn’t quit as governor of California mid-term. He probably wouldn’t have been a serious contender for the presidency if he did.

The often-astute conservative political commentator S.E. Cupp is a prime example of a rabid Palin defender in the media. No matter if you think Palin’s decision to step down as governor was wise or not, it is hard to see how anyone could consider her resignation speech a great piece of American oratory. Anyone, that is, except rabid Palin defenders.

“Palin's press conference was not incoherent,” Cupp wrote on the Fox News Forum. “In fact, there were moments that recalled William Jennings Bryan or Daniel Webster.” Really? If I were to choose an orator Palin reminded me of in her July 3 speech, I would probably pick a more recent American example – George W. Bush, and not one of his few really good speeches. 

To see Palin’s reasoning for resigning as governor as rock solid is one thing, but to see her speech as rhetorically brilliant takes a devotion to Sarah Palin that is akin to the devotion many liberals have toward Barack Obama.

So Palin lovers and haters, I think it is about time we get to a more rational discourse over the former governor. If you don’t like her, fine, but she ain’t Mullah Omar. If you have a political crush on her, that’s great, but she just isn’t the next Ronald Reagan. Got it?

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is column # JW083. Request permission to publish here.