CBS News interviewed Dick Armey, who heads up Freedom Works, regarding the future of the Republican Party. Regarding Sarah Palin, Armey had this to say:
"The first thing that drives them nuts about Sarah Palin is that she's authentic. She is who she is, on her own terms. In many respects she's everything that Hillary Clinton pretends to be. She became the governor of the state of Alaska not because she was someone's daughter or sister or wife, but because on her own terms on her own initiative, she became the governor."Admittedly, I do spend some time wondering why the liberal mind deems Sarah Palin to be lacking intelligence. I had always chalked it up to their elitism that makes them confuse her accent with a lack of intelligence. As someone who speaks with a Southern accent who also happens to have a high IQ, I know something about that. It happens to me frequently. Armey may have something here, though. Could it be that the liberal mind expects intelligent people to speak in extraneous meanderings?
"She's not wishy-washy. She says exactly what she means and makes it quite clear so there can be no misunderstanding. Clarity is considered by the left to be intellectually diminished as opposed to obfuscation."
I'm also intrigued by the comment "she's everything Hillary Clinton pretends to be". Would Hillary Clinton have the position that she has if not for her husband? I doubt it so, on this point, I agree with him without compunction. She would likely be a very high profile attorney if not for her husband's political rise. In fact, I might venture to say she'd be sitting on a federal court somewhere......but presidential hopeful? Nope.
Mind you, Hillary is a very accomplished and intelligent person. At the same time, she is a master at obfuscation. When asked by Congressman Chris Smith how she could have brought herself to accept the Margaret Sanger award for her work in expanding abortion even though Margaret Sanger's agenda was to eliminate the minority population, Clinton reminded him that the Founding Fathers were slave holders. My, how she can catch us off guard with what seems at first glance to be a brilliant retort. None would argue that the Founding Fathers had an agenda to keep the slaves in permanent bondage. Slavery was not their main agenda. On the other hand, Sanger's entire agenda was to bring about a somewhat systematic elimination of those she deemed to be unworthy of life, including the poor and minorities. This is just one example of Clinton's ability to practice piercingly effective deceit.....but it is deceit, nevertheless. What may sound good at first hearing is revealed by some investigation to be quite sinister. On the other hand, in considering Palin's public statements, what may sound quite sinister at first hearing is revealed by some investigation to be, in many cases, utterly brilliant and decent.
Also today, Michael Petrilli, writing at the Wall Street Journal, claims that Palin supporters are "anti-intellectual" and that Palin is "unable" to name newspapers she reads. I wasn't expecting to see a suggestion in the Wall Street Journal this morning that I am "anti-intellectual". As a devout Catholic, my heroes include Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa and when I want to pleasure myself, I study the Summa Theologica. Petrilli is engaging in a generalization that simply doesn't fit reality. I find myself perplexed, as well, that he believes Sarah Palin can't name a newspaper she reads. Did he watch Media Malpractice or, for that matter, the Oprah interview for the story on that? Has he read her op-eds in the New York Times and the Washington Post?
I don't know that we will ever get to the bottom of the reasoning behind this hatred, but I do sometimes wonder, do those who said such things about Ronald Reagan have any regrets now? It's my fallen nature that urges me to ask this in pride because, when Sarah Palin is our next president, I'd like to hear some apologies from the likes of Petrilli.
Lisa Graas is editor of several websites, including the Palin Twibe Blog.