Mark Levin has had it with the institutional Republicans in the punditry class, Charles Krauthammer in particular, in regard to their endless nitpicking and attacks on Sarah Palin. Levin is asking some important questions, questions I would ask the Union Leader to which I remarked earlier on facebook today, seems to hate the woman. Every opportunity to manufacture negative press is an opportunity to fill column inches whose sole purpose is to convince people as Krauthammer seems intent on doing, that she is a dolt and unelectable, neither of which is true, but both of which put the UL in the same neighborhood as the liberal left just at a different address.Which brings us to Mark Levin’s remarks about Krauthammer (which I’d hijack and apply to the UL and all those (r)epublican folks who have it out for her as well.)
“So what is it? What’s the problem?” he said. “She’s solid on social issues. She’s solid on fiscal issues. She’s solid against these subsidies against big companies – in other words, she is not a corporatist. She’s not a crony or a believer in that. She’s solid on taxes and spending. I’m just confused. She’s solid on Israel. She’s solid on the military. She’s solid with respect to our allies. Is there some big issue that’s disqualifying? What – because the liberals don’t like her? …
She’s solid on energy, all of it–suggesting we end all subsidies to all forms of energy and let the market do its magic, saving taxpayers billions and removing a rhetorical hammer from the hands of democrats. No one else has the balls to say stuff like that.
So is that the problem?
No. Liberals hate her because they can’t control her. No matter how much they smear her she wont do their bidding. Their media can’t control her. The mainstream progressive power brokers in both parties can’t control her. And by “can’t control” I mean, make her do what they want. They can’t seem to make her conform. And no one gave away the “attitude” any better than former NH GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen.
“Former New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen, who noted that the normal laws of political gravity don’t seem to apply to Sarah Palin,” said the catch-me-if-you-can act has to end sooner or later.“At some point, the establishment has to be paid its due,” he said. “She gets sort of an initial pass, but at some point the goodwill gets used up.
“The establishment has to be paid it’s due,” shows us just how disconnected Cullen and the establishment are. They’ve shown us their hand. They call her names, insinuate things about her intellect, her tactics, and go on about her nonconformity, all the while promising that their establishment candidates can bring change to Washington. Small change, perhaps but not institutional change. They don’t seem to have the testicular fortitude. Nor have they a clue that we do not like the establishment on either side.
Palin, on the other hand acts and talks like someone prepared to make changes and could care less about paying any party its due. This suggests a willingness to be immune to the people pleasing that goes on in DC, the thing that turns otherwise decent candidates at every level into every other candidate you have since tried or wanted to replace. It intimates a desire to represent people not power brokers. And while some may suggest it’s just talk, if that is all it is why are the progressives in both parties attacking her?
Just in case she means it?
Or maybe they are just upset at no longer being the Belle at the Ball. Palin effortlessly attracts all the attention, something none of the other candidates do, even ones who share parallel disdain for DC as usual incorporated. Or maybe they don’t think she deserves it. Maybe they are right. But in a field of candidates, some of whom are iffy on key issues, most of whom would be lucky to get 5-9% of the vote on a good day, and few of whom can create even a fraction of the energy or momentum needed to unseat a sitting president, Palin has what they do not. That just naturally pisses people off. It will piss of plenty of my readers too.
By my thinking that makes her the best candidate of all.
So back to Levin.
“So what is it? What’s the problem?” he said. “She’s solid on social issues. She’s solid on fiscal issues. She’s solid against these subsidies against big companies – in other words, she is not a corporatist. She’s not a crony or a believer in that. She’s solid on taxes and spending. I’m just confused. She’s solid on Israel. She’s solid on the military. She’s solid with respect to our allies. Is there some big issue that’s disqualifying? What – because the liberals don’t like her?
Well? What is it?
cross posted: http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/06/pundits_v_palin.html
The New Media Militia 