Palin's 'One of You' Pretense Insults Voters' Intelligence
What is it about Sarah Palin that gets me so riled up?
Belinda Luscombe's recent article in Time, "Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin," gives several possible answers, including "She's too pretty" and "She's too confident."
But my Palin problem has nothing to do with the fact both of us are women, and I don't have a problem with her being pretty or confident.
I do have a problem with her being wildly unqualified.
Two years ago, Palin was mayor of a town with 1/25th the population of Lexington. She is now governor of a state whose population is less than Jefferson County's.
Palin's unpreparedness for national office is painful to watch. Her acceptance of the vice presidential spot on the GOP ticket and her belief that she has a chance of winning reveals her assumption that American voters are content to settle for a sub-par candidate.
But I'm not content to settle, and I'm not alone.
Palin tells us continually: "I am one of you." This façade is one of the few weapons in her political arsenal, and she just keeps shooting it off. Perhaps most frustrating is that she actually isn't one of us.
Her net worth is well over $1 million. When she isn't purporting to be poor or diverting questions with charm, she's engaging in "misery battles," contests in which candidates fight over who has endured the most hardship. Instead of discussing who is better prepared and who has the best policies, recent debates have featured "who really has it bad," as if suffering were in some way quantifiable.
Certainly candidates of both parties use this tactic. Trouble is, Palin doesn't have much else.
Palin supporters say she is getting flak for using a folksy approach that differs from that of the typical candidate. They say she is being discriminated against for using colloquialisms and "normal" language. They tell me Palin isn't stupid.
By no means do I think she is stupid. It is precisely because I believe she is a smart woman that her debating method and campaign rhetoric come across as patronizing.
Palin hopes that by using Joe Sixpack, hockey mom, pit-bull, you betcha' and darn, she will convince us that she doesn't have a personal hairstylist or own an airplane. She hopes to convince us that she doesn't support a party and policies that would work against her very own economic interests were she truly one of us.
She hopes that by winking she can hoodwink the American public into believing that a candidate's personal charm is somehow more important than experience and expertise.
What we forget is that our president isn't supposed to be one of us. There is a reason that the vast majority of Americans don't run for president: The vast majority of Americans are not prepared for the job.
Imagine meeting with a doctor to discuss your impending open-heart surgery. She tells you that she has never actually done surgery before, but she winks and says she got a B-plus on frog dissection in biology class.
I'd have dinner with that surgeon, but I wouldn't let her cut me open.
While I am happy to hear that our candidates are shining examples of the American dream, I don't want them to be Average Joes.
Palin has proclaimed that she is average in class and interests, but has not proven that she is above average in her understanding of critical domestic and foreign policy issues.
This isn't just unacceptable; it's dangerous.
Should Palin be elected, she, like President Bush, would be used as a blank page to serve the purposes of those in power behind the scenes, those upon whom she is totally dependent for counsel.
The most offensive part of Palin's condescending, self-conscious use of vernacular is that she thinks she must stoop to an unprofessional level to appeal to the middle class. The unspoken assumption is that the middle class isn't interested in a candidate who takes debate seriously.
But the truth is, we want a candidate who understands that different situations call for different behaviors -- that winks and colloquialisms are appropriate in a casual interview or in conversation with voters, but are inappropriate and disrespectful during a formal debate.
Americans want a candidate who understands struggle, and we want a candidate with a wide appeal. But we need to know that our country's representative will conduct herself with grace and professionalism when meeting with other world leaders and that she will be able to deal with any situation that arises with the appropriate respect, gravity and expertise.
The average American is capable of understanding serious debate. Palin doesn't need to pander to us. We're not choosing a pal, we're choosing a leader who will exert a huge amount of control over our sons and brothers, our daughters and sisters, our money, our bodies and our lives.
Every American wants and deserves a leader who is prepared to lead. And Palin is not.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree with Molly Green!!!
I don't hate Sarah Palin because she's pretty, or because she's confident. I'm offended that Luscombe and Time Magazine would attribute such shallow and stereotypical justifications for my deeply negative feelings about her.
HERE's why I hate her:
1. She is dangerously out of her depth and either doesn't know it, or has decided to choose personal opportunism over the good of the country. Either way, it's a problem.
2. She wasn't chosen because she was the most qualified for the job, but because she is a woman. She certainly wasn't chosen because she was the most qualified woman. The decision for selecting her—to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters—is infuriating.
3. She seems to believe that liberal views are anti-American, as if having compassion for the poor were a sin rather than a virtue.
4. She knows less about foreign and domestic affairs than I do – but I'm not running for VP.
5. She's a flat out liar: Bridge to nowhere, “I'm a reformer” “Barack Obama doesn't see America the way we see America.” “I was cleared of all wrongdoing in the Trooperate investigat
6. She doesn't believe that under any circumstances women should have a choice about whether or not to have a baby.
8. She appears to possess no intellectual curiosity whatsoever.
9. She lacks integrity.
10. Her executive skills are vastly overrated. After a few months in office as Wasilla's mayor, she had to hire a City Administrator to manage the town's affairs.
Further more, this folksy Palin presented to the USA at large is not the same person as the Palin who is the governor of Alaska. Equally incompetent and single issue focused, but a different personality. That's what makes the Tina Fey thing so surreal, like watching a caricature of a caricature.
Molly Green isn't the only one who thinks Palin is unprepared to be vice-president. A group of presidential historians have called Palin the least experienced person on a major party ticket in modern history. You can read it for yourself by going to http://www
You can also get better acquainted with Sarah Palin by going to the Dailysource's video section on the vp hopeful. The section has over 100 video clips of Palin's interviews and debates. Just go to http://www
Mention to your friends and neighbors that Joe the Plumber has now spent 7 times more time talking to the press than Sarah Palin.
George W. Bush proved that knowing nothing about the world and caring even less makes for a lousy president. A Palin presidency would be the worst possible nightmare. VOTE OBAMA.
Wealth of experience trumps executive experience everytime.
Wealth trumps everything.
SIster Sarah and I have a lot in common - neither of us is qualified to be vice president.
I am tired of the old liberal addage that a vote for conservative candidates is against the economic interests of the poor and downtrodden. You know, security systems are against the economic interests of bank robbers. Maybe you'd like to start advocating for this constituency? The truth is, regardless of who gets what, the idea of ownership matters. There was a time when people viewed covetousness as sin. Yet the liberal agenda espoused by Obama and his ilk would have the underpriveledged in this country behaving like a bunch of sore losers. It doen't have to be this way. The system does work. If you work hard, there is the opportnity to succeed. No guarantees, but I'd take that over government giveaways any day.
If the trickle down system works, then why didn't it work in the Reagan or the Bush administrations? And what irks me more than the conservative's rant about trickle down is their contention that they can stomp on my first and fourth amendment rights. So, not only do they want all the money to be in as few hands as possible, they want no one but the rich to have any other rights. The rich will always have the "right" to the best education they can afford, the "right" to financially influence members of Congress, and the "right" to hide significant amounts of income to avoid taxation. So while you work to maintain the "rights" of the right, the rest of America gets screwed.
SInce Reagan, the idea driving Republican efforts to help the poor help themselves has been "Trickledown Economics" Make the rich fabulously, absurdly rich, and the crumbs will fall from their tables and make the nation a better place.
After all these years of the Trickledown experiment, it just hasn't trickled down. The rich are vastly richer, the poor are poorer, and many, many of the middle class have become poor.
We tried Reaganomics. Vodoo Economics, as the elder President Bush called it. The experiment failed. No ifs, ands or buts. Failed.
When something isn't working after years and years of dedicated effort it is time to consider the plan flawed and get a new one.
As Obama and Biden have pointed out, when the middle class thrives, the rich trive too. Necessarily. But history shows that when the rich gorge themselves on the wealth created by the sweat of the lower classes, nations fall.
If I am working in the oil fields, hard, dirty, nasty , dangerous work, bringing up the energy for us all to use, i.e creating wealth for our nation, why should my wages dwindle while my bosses' salaries go through the roof? Why should someone who was born owning a ton of stock in my company get richer and richer while I and my middle-class co-workers slip lower and lower, year by year?
.
And when the stockholders have just made the largest profit in *the history of the world*, why should my government want to give them a tax break worth hundreds of billions and at the same time start taxing MY health benefits for the first time in history? Honestly. I would like to know how that makes sense to anyone who believes inthe American Dream.
For you to call it covetous when the lower classes want some small measure of security, decent healthcare, and opportunity for their kids confuses me. Why isn't it covetousness when those who can't even remember how many houses and cars they own want to enrich themselves further and further, taking an ever-larger share of fruits of the labor of those who actually create the wealth in this country?
Please explain, willsdad. What are you seeing that I'm missing? Thanks.
Many of these reviled stockholders are our parents and grandparents and their 401ks. Oil companies posted record profits but as a percentage of total revenues and worth, it was not out of line. If you place $1,000 in the bank at 5% anual interest, you'd "profit" $50. If you put 1,000,000 in the bank at the sam rate, you'd net $50,000. The person netting 50k didn't receive a greater windfall unfairly, they invested more!
OK, a couple of things. First of all, the analogy between a vote for a conservative candidate being against the economic interests of the poor and security systems being against the economic interests of bank robbers makes NO SENSE. I mean literally, it doesn't work as an analogy...
...and secondly, it's spelt 'underprivileged'. A small point, but really, it's a bit much to be lectured by somone who doesn't understand analogy OR spelling.
Sorry about the typo. As for the analogy, it only works if you see socialism for what it is... theft. I wasn't trying to lecture you. I was merely ranting. I can't stand it when people want to tell me that taking someone else's money is in my best interest! Don't be snooty! Grow up!
When the Republican vice presidential candidate refers to herself as being one of us, she is pointedly referring to the bastion of Republican support ; the (S)elf-indulgent, (T)ax-obsessed, (U)ninformed, (P)rejudice-ridden, (I)nexorable, and (D)elusional sector of the American electorate. Therein I can say that she has truly found her niche.
I don't agree with the "blank slate" therory. If McCain and Palin are elected, she would spend her time in an office way down the hall far out of the way. McCain and his buddies would run the whole show. But, Palin has a stronger personality than McCain. I think she really believes she can run the country. If something happened to McCain, Palin would be sworn in and become president. All of the old guard would be out on their A 's. Todd would be moved in. She would surround herself with her own people. Loyalty to her above all else. There is not a thing McCain's people could do about it. Palin would be the president.
I suspect that Palin does not like the way she is being treated by the McCain staff, maybe even McCain himself. Palin wants to be president. This isn't just some fluke to her. If enduring a little humiliation along the way gets her closer to her goal, well, pay backs are a bitch.
If elected McCain could not survive 4 years in office. He is already very old and in very bad health. The stress of that job is second to none in this world. If McCain is elected we must expect a Palin Presidency, and that is just too horrible to contemplate. The woman has no critical thinking skills. She is just baffled why we don't believe that she has foreign policy credential
For Time to have suggested that women don't like Palin because she is "too confident" or "too pretty" is an insult to the intelligence of women. Thank you, Molly Green, for getting to the real stuff.
While Barack and Michelle Obama engage the American people by talking WITH us, Palin and McCain talk AT us through condescending and manipulative language.
Palin's Achilles heel (one of the Gwen Ifill questions the pit bull blew off) is that she thinks she knows a whole lot more than she actually does know. Those are the scariest people of all (female or male).
Don't misunderestimate Sarah Palin.
Why won't the media talk about her association's with the A.I.P!!!
Molly Green's blog is one of the better ones that I have seen regarding the qualifications of Sarah Palin. As a matter of fact, Ms. Green has, by inference and implication, made a compelling argument to have her removed from the ticket as the Vice Presidential nominee. Senator McCain, PLEASE READ MOLLY GREEN'S BLOG! Ms. Green has just given you your perfect "Get Out of Jail for Free Card." With just over two weeks to go before the election, this is now your once-in-a-lifetime chance to dump that imperfect candidate, Sarah Palin, and replace her with another of equal standing: Joe the Plumber.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
