Thursday, January 20, 2011

David Karki: What the left does tells us who Sarah Palin is

Their actions reveal what their words deny
In a North Star National opinion piece, David Karki makes an excellent point: From a purely strategic standpoint, the left's hate rage against Gov. Palin makes no sense at all. If the Democrat/Media Complex really believes that she she would be such a disaster for the GOP as a presidential candidate, then why constantly attack her instead of trying to ensure that she gets her party's nomination so Obama could go on to defeat her in the landslide they insist would ensue?
The best answer I can come up with – assuming that there in fact is any logical reason for this and that the far left isn’t simply stark raving mad – is that they do in fact see Sarah Palin as a legitimate threat to their power and existence. A big enough threat, in fact, that they must do whatever is necessary to keep her from getting in the race in the first place, regardless of how much self-inflicted public relations damage they incur in the process by using such over-the-top, scorched earth tactics. So big a threat, in fact, that the risk of having their media allies’ smear campaign backfire by inadvertently turning Palin into a martyr via blood libeling her is worth taking.

You’ll never get anyone on the left to admit this, of course. But if Palin is who they say she is, then they should not be doing to her what they’re doing – quite the opposite, in fact. The left’s actions toward and horrible treatment of Sarah Palin tell us all who and what they believe her to be: an existential threat to them so great that anything goes if it helps to destroy her. Nothing is beyond the pale.

She cannot be allowed to even get as far as primary debates – which will inevitably be dubbed “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” given how thoroughly weak and uninspiring the rest of the GOP field is – lest even those small opportunities to show her real self explode the phony image that the media has manufactured with its non-stop propagandizing against Palin.

Moreover, she would have the energy, huge crowds, and celebrity buzz that Obama had in 2008 while Obama would just look older (aided by the grey hair and accelerated aging the presidency inevitably inflicts on all who hold the office) and out of fashion, yesterday’s news. One certainty in politics today is that youth wins and age loses – witness Clinton/Dole, Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, Obama/McCain. The one who appeared to be younger, more energetic, and more vibrant won every time. Against any other candidate, Obama would still be on the good side of that equation. But against Palin, it would be the reverse. Admittedly, he wouldn’t be on the bad side by much, but he would be there. And it’s not a desirable place to be.

Not to mention that there would inherently be big momentum, perhaps unstoppable momentum, behind the first female major-party presidential nominee. The campaign would be historic, by definition. (A fact many have seem to forgotten, though I can forgive the left as they honestly believe Bill Clinton was black and Clarence Thomas was not.) It would cancel out at least a good chunk of the advantage that Obama would have against “just another white guy.”


So, when the Democrats and their media allies unleash their next slanderous verbal assault against Palin, just remember that what they are doing tells you who they really think Sarah Palin is. Their actions reveal it even as their words deny it.

- JP

No comments:

Post a Comment