Thursday, January 14, 2010

Sarah Palin Speaks a Plain Truth

... and one that should be obvious to everyone by now.

My personal jury is still out on Sarah Palin as a political influencer. I'm in evidence gathering mode still (although my instinct is to like her personally). That aside, the following quote from her recent interview on Fox is very welcome indeed. It's somewhat boilerplate, but I haven't heard any prominent Republican saying this recently (and it can never be said enough).
O’Reilly posed to Gov. Palin the idea that no human being could lower the unemployment rate at this point and she replied brilliantly as follows:

If the question is, “Can any individual politician change the job forecast outlook?” No. But what government can do is get out of the way of the private sector being able to seize opportunities to grow and to thrive and prosper and hire more people.

You do that — a politician, a policy does that by reducing taxes on the job creators, by getting government out of the way of the private sector.

Let’s talk about health care for a minute. When we consider that the White House wants to take another one-sixth of our economy, take it from the private sector hands, take it over and put it in government’s hands, that’s another step towards greater unemployment numbers, that’s another step towards greater growth of government, which is the wrong track — completely opposite of where we should be going.

[Hat Tip News Real Blog.]


madmax said...

She is making sense here. I wonder what is your opinion of why the Left hates Palin so much. I have read many conservative opinions on this. Some say it is her religion but I wonder if it is more than that. Is it the fact that she stands for maternity and family, something that many feminists hate? It does seem that the hatred she receives goes above and beyond what other conservatives get. I have never been able to figure out why.

Jeff Perren said...

Excellent question, Max, and one I've pondered over myself from time to time, without coming to any hard and fast conclusion. I tentatively think it's a combination of factors.

Part of it may be – at least in a cockeyed way – valid. They think she's unqualified or unable to render sophisticated opinions, as a result of not having studied the subjects in depth. Of course, they don't seem to mind Joe Biden, Barney Frank, or any of a number of dunderheads on those grounds, and they're probably mostly amused by such figures as Pat Buchanan.

More likely, the larger part is probably her blend of physical attractiveness, homespun confidence, and traditional 'right-wing' views combined with the fact that people seem to really take to her 'instinctively'. They know she's hugely popular and therefore an enormous potential threat to Progressivism, not just in politics but the culture in general.

In short, she unapologetically symbolizes and represents 'flyover country' and its values — i.e., everything the Progressive hates about America. And, she's well-positioned to actually have a big effect in the near future because she doesn't have a lot of major, real flaws to provide cover for their hatred nor cracks the slime can crawl through to undermine her efforts.

That's speculative on my part, but I think I'm in the ballpark.

madmax said...


Thankyou for sharing your thoughts. I agree, I definitely think they are in the ballpark.