monsoonmartin

... NOT!!!

After reading even more about her background, and hearing her convention speech, I find her to be more objectionable and vile than ever before.

I feel like I’m beating a dead pit-bull here with this Sarah Palin nonsense, but she makes it so damned easy to discredit her that I cannot stop.

First of all, if you didn’t see her sneering, Karl Rove-produced speech at the Republican National Convention, or at least read a transcript of it (also available at above link), let me hit the lowlights.

First of all, while watching (and more directly, listening to her grating, flatlining, upper-Midwest voice) I kept being reminded of someone, but I couldn’t place it. Then it hit me like the onset of projectile vomiting brought on by shellfish-related food poisoning at the Minnesota state Sarah Rose Cosmetics American Teen Princess Pageant (“ Don’t ever eat nothin’ that can carry its house around with it. Who knows the last time it’s been cleaned,” according to Annette Atkins).

Sarah Palin is Gladys Leeman, played by Kirstie Alley, in the criminally underrated pageant mockumentary Drop Dead Gorgeous. (If you’ve never seen the film, come on. Do it.) It’s all there: the rounded O’s suggesting a plainspoken innocence that mask the cold, cynical ambition lurking within; the minor beauty queen background (Palin was Miss Wasilla 1984, while Leeman was a former winner of the Mount Rose pageant); their obsessive plans for their daughters’ stardom thwarted by unforeseen and freakishly delicious ironies (Becky Leeman is incinerated when a Mexican-made swan float procured by her cheap, racist dad catches fire—“The swan ate my baby!”; Bristol Palin is either the mother of four-month-old Trig or is currently five months pregnant with an out-of-wedlock offspring, depending which swirling rumors one chooses to believe).

Hell, they even look alike. (Stay with me on this one: Slather a few more coats of makeup on the Kirstie Alley pic, put some glasses on her, and tame the mane a bit, and you’ve got Sarah Palin.)

But the accent and the Drop Dead Gorgeous connection aside, the classlessness, baselessness and irrelevance of what Palin said in her speech would have shocked me if the past eight years of Bush-Cheney and company had not already rendered me incapable of being surprised by the soulless filth of which the far right has become adept.

Palin spent much of her speech talking about her favorite senior citizen, John McCain, and what a swell President he’d make. She also touched on her own background, focusing primarily on her family (and trumpeting the fact that her son and nephew—they’re two different people; the Palins aren’t that backward—are being deployed to Iraq this fall) rather than on her tissue-thin and ethically challenged political experience. When the TelePrompTer lagged a bit, she ad-libbed a lame, sexist joke about the fact that she’s a self-described “hockey mom”: “You know they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit-bull? Lipstick.”

[Some of you may be thinking: Did he just call a woman “sexist”? Yes, he did. I define sexism as any statement, policy or action that implicitly or explicitly prevents women from receiving equitable consideration in all spheres. Palin’s statement—like many of her policies—qualifies as sexist. I am utterly comfortable calling Clarence Thomas a racist for his views about African Americans, even though he is African American himself. This is, substantively, no different.]

Speaking of pit-bulls in lipstick, on to the real reason Palin was summoned by the McCain campaign, the reason she’d been groomed by the Club for Growth and conservative think tanks as the right’s answer to Hillary Clinton: to mercilessly attack Barack Obama like he was an eight-point caribou.

The segment of her speech played most often is actually the most offensive, so let’s talk about it here. Beyond the fact that it was delivered with a derisive condescension Barack Obama has studiously avoided in his speeches, the substance of her remarks would be dismissed as ridiculous on their face if she were not the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Republican Party, and if so many at the convention and watching on television had not swooned so enthusiastically on cue when she spewed her vitriol. Here’s the passage:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

She maligned community organizers—those who marshal support for candidates; those who enlist workers in labor unions to ensure protection under the law; those who establish after-school programs, spearhead community policing efforts, develop innovative solutions to generations-old social problems; those who round up sorely needed volunteers to participate in cancer walks, work at soup kitchens, check on the elderly, tend to the infirm. Are these the community organizers on whom she looks with such disdain, such smirking dismissal? Surely the central figure in the religion that informs her policy decisions—initials, J.C.—would have looked far more kindly on the long-suffering, hardworking community organizers than he would on a former beauty queen who ran for mayor of a small Alaskan city to advance her political ambitions.

And the second part of her attack focuses on a comment made by Obama at a fundraiser five months ago and dissected from every possible angle since. I happen to believe that Barack Obama’s comments were misunderstood: folks who are hurting economically will “cling to” those bulwarks in their lives that provide them with stability. For many in rural or small-town America, they turn to the traditions that sustain them and their communities—like religion, like hunting, etc.—to get them through. But for the sake of argument let’s say he said the wrong thing; he clarified his remarks and it seems to be a non-issue at this point.

Bottom line: get some new material. The man just gave a historic speech filled with direct challenges to John McCain and the Republican Party on the issues, and Palin’s speech neither touched on the important issues raised in Obama’s acceptance speech nor provided any concrete plans to deal with America’s problems.

Sarah Palin’s speech does not deserve to be called a “huge success,” as so many have been quick to label it; the fact that she can play the political game simply makes her speech a cynical failure.

Just in case you’re still undecided about the quality of McCain’s Vice-Presidential pick, I have just a few other delightful nuggets of information that have emerged about Sarah Palin’s background to leave you with:

• When exhorting her fellow worshippers to pray for U.S. servicemembers currently deployed to the Middle East, she said, “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God” and commented on the war being part of “God’s plan.” First of all, I thought it was Rumsfeld’s crummy plan. Second—and I hate to be a stickler with this religious conviction of hers, but she was speaking in a church—I could not fathom a God in any religion that would orchestrate (remember, it’s His “plan”) and oversee (he’s sent them on a “task”) the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. troops and well over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, according to most estimates. It’s just unfathomable to me.

• She attempted to pander to the religious right with this statement during her acceptance speech at the convention: “But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.”

• Palin raised funds for Pat Buchanan’s Presidential campaign in 1996 and 2000, when she worked for the campaign of this racist, sexist, anti-UN kook.

• In a 2006 questionnaire, she was asked, “Are you offended by the phrase ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?” Her response: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Two things here: first, the Pledge of Allegiance was not written by George Washington, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, or even Benjamin Franklin. It was written in 1892 by a socialist (!) named Francis Bellamy. Second, the phrase “under God” was not in the original formulation of the pledge, but was added in 1954 during the Red Scare by Eisenhower administration at the urging of the right-wing Catholic organization Knights of Columbus. (Look it up.) So…wrong, wrong, and you missed an apostrophe.

• According to moveon.org, “As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, ‘news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving full support to the mayor.’”

• And finally, Palin has such close ties to the oil cartels, her inauguration was sponsored by BP, the conglomerate for which her husband works.

As always, I welcome points and counterpoints to my little screed!

Monsoon