Yes, an attack can be both vicious and lightweight.
The article begins:
I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique
We all know what assume does, right?
McCain vetted Palin. McCain looked at Palin. McCain chose Palin in a fit of brilliant political strategy.
the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted.
Has this author ever heard of McCain? He does what he wants when he wants. I don’t think the Republican money men (whoever they were) would have much influence over who he chose. And I’m not sure they (whoever they are) would have seen the brilliance of the pick McCain made.
She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America’s name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.
Whoa! See what I mean by vicious? That’s in the first paragraph.
Yes, my vote was sewn up by the Republicans. I would rather potentially waste my vote on a candidate I didn’t like than not vote and perhaps risk being the tipping point for a candidate whose platform I vehemently oppose.
But I wasn’t giving money to the Republicans. I never have. Until the weekend Palin was chosen as VP. At that point, I saw that there was a chance we could win.
Am I white trash? I’m white. I’m a registered Republican. I am voting for McCain/Palin. I was energized by the Palin pick.
I’m also a PhD in rhetoric. I’m a homeschooling mother. I’m a wife, mother, daughter, sister, Second Amendment sister, member of the NRA, concealed carry holder… Yes, I like Palin. A lot.
Am I white trash?
And if Heather Malick (working for Canadian Broadcasting Company) thinks that Americans who are small government, prolife, pro-family, pro-gun, anti-ESCR, anti-human-caused-global-warming are white trash, then she really needs to get away and meet some people besides her friends.
When you don’t have anything that makes a point, always resort to unverifiable name calling. So that’s what she calls Republican men.
Er, thank you, but I know plenty of Republican men who aren’t sexual inadequates.
And, even if they were, so what? What does that have to do with anything except this author’s stereotyping?
It’s possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman.
First of all, some women will. Not many, but some.
Just like some people will vote for a man just because of his race, or not vote for him for the same reason.
Second of all, she is disregarding the very real value that Palin brings to the ticket, conservatism. Women who are conservatives didn’t like McCain. He’s not, to our lights, a conservative, regardless of how the left viewed him before he turned out to have a chance to win the election.
Palin is a conservative. She’s a conservative on every issue that matters.
But do they not know that women have been trained to resent other women and that they only learn to suppress this by constantly berating themselves and reading columns like this one?
Er, no. Women have not been trained to resent other women. Why do you think that? Because some of us didn’t like Hillary Clinton? That wasn’t resentment; that was acknowledgement of the extreme differences in our beliefs.
Who trains women to resent other women? Their mothers? Not usually.
But maybe the answer is in her next sentence when she talks about “feminists.” She, she says, is a feminist who can understand that women can nurse hatred.
Anyone can do that. Men, women… It doesn’t matter. That’s different from being trained to something.
How can someone who SAYS she’s a feminist, then immediately say this!?
Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn’t even female really. She’s a type, and she comes in male form too.
No, Palin was not a sure choice. That made McCain’s pick of her gutsy and brilliant.
But there is no way I’m a member of Citizens for a Tackier America.
And what kind of feminist (maybe one trained to hate women?) would denigrate a woman simply for being popular?
Palin is a type? What type? Oh, you mean a white trash type?
There you are wrong. Palin is a person. Types are literary constructions. Believe me, if Palin were a construction, the press would have effectively shredded her by now. She’s not and they haven’t been able to.
You see, Palin is a person. She’s a Feminist for Life. (So am I.) She’s a mother. (So am I.) She’s a wife of twenty years. (So am I.) She’s hot. (So am I.) She’s smart. (So am I.) She’s a member of the NRA. (So am I.) She’s an avid hunter. (Not I.) She’s the mother of five. (Not I.) She’s been a union member. (Not of my own volition.) She’s a politician. (Not I.) She’s not a type. She’s a winsome, articulate, educated, self-directed, impressive woman.
That’s why Heather Malick doesn’t like her.
She’s too secure in herself. She didn’t get there on some guy’s coattails. She isn’t proabortion. She’s pro-small government. She sees she and her family have made something of themselves and want others to have the opportunity to make something too, on their own and only if they are willing to put out the effort.
She’s not a Democrat. That’s the only reason the vitrol spills from this article. Because Heather Malick doesn’t understand that “woman” doesn’t have to mean “Democrat.”
That’s not Palin’s problem. It’s Malick’s.
The author is wrong-headed on many more things, but this is all I can stand to deal with now.