Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Palin, Perry & The Onslaught Of "Friendly Fire" From Rove, Coulter, Ingraham, Erickson

Something that Prof. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection said today echoes how I've felt about our prospects for 2012.

We are our own worst enemies.

I don't know about you, but lately there has been a lot of friendly fire coming from some so-called "conservatives." Too much of it, in fact. They're assisting the Obama Lapdog Media in kneecapping a potential conservative GOP nominee for President (Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, in particular), in hopes of putting a McCain "moderate" to run against Richard Milhous Obama in 2012.

I'll admit I've had my criticisms of Texas Governor Rick Perry, but they are legitimate policy questions based on his record, namely on immigration, which seem too moderate and a repeat of the George W. Bush / John McCain stealth amnesty plans. Other fellow bloggers are also raising similar questions, in order to properly vet Perry.

Karl Rove however, has taken another route. He decided to launch into a personal attack on Perry that just gives liberals ammunition to use, calling the governor's thoughts on Socialist Security "toxic" (ABC via Gateway Pundit).

On “GMA” this morning, Karl Rove noted that new GOP frontrunner has many strengths, but Rick Perry’s thoughts on Social Security are not among them.

Perry’s campaign has not backed away from what Perry wrote in his book “Fed Up” — that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” a “failure,” “something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now,” and one of many New Deal programs that have “never died, and like a bad disease, they have spread.”
Here's an area where I agree with Perry. Socialist Security is a program that is badly mismanaged and is way overdue for an overhaul to ensure solvency. Sure, just like with his "treason" comments on Fed Chairman Ben Bernake, he comes on strong, but hey, speaking as a Texan, we can be pretty blunt sometimes! But Rove should know better to criticize Perry on this. Rove and Bush had the opportunity in 2005 to try reform SS but (to be blunt) they f**ked it up because (just like the Iraq War) they were never willing to go on the offense. Instead, they let the liberals define the issue, and weren't willing to fight back or make the case.

Rove is also being joined by Erick Erickson of RedState, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, in making sure that Sarah Palin never considers running for President. It's not enough to attack her based on broad swipes with no substance ("she's unelectable," "too polarizing," "no real policy plans"). Now Palin's supporters are being attacked as "ferocious" cult like defenders of the former Alaska Governor.

I don't know what's up with these people. Since CPAC 2011, Ann Coulter has had some type of girl crush on Chris Christie, who is far from being a conservative. Ingraham (I'm sorry to see) became too willing to attack the Tea Party in the recent debt ceiling debate, and shows the signs of becoming another Inside the Beltway squishy "conservative" type. Erickson has been in full "Icarus" Johnson mode lately. Not just is he attacking Palin, he's not apologized or retracted his slander of Jamie Radtke as being an "incoherent drunk" in speaking at RedState's recent gathering (never mind that he wasn't there).

So what's Palin's role in 2012, according to Coulter & Ingraham? Forget being Sarah Barracuda and sinking the winning basket for the championship. Go to the sidelines, grab the pom poms, and be a cheerleader for the guys. Real chauvinistic huh? Imagine how Coulter or Ingraham would react if a prospective suitor was to tell either of them their role was to quit punditry and stay on the sidelines as a supportive spouse, cook the dinner, iron the shirts, and wash the dirty socks.

Perhaps the "ferocity" that Erickson, Coulter and Ingrham complain about is a reaction to the relentless way Palin has been trashed by the liberals, their lapdogs in the media, as well as the "good ole boy" Country Club Republican establishment. She's been attacked in a manner that borders on derangement, based mostly on personal dislike, simply because she's not one of "the elite," instead of any real substantive critiques.

What they, and a lot of other Palin-bashers also don't get, is her appeal. There's something there. Sarah Palin has built up a loyal following because she, like Ronald Reagan before her, knows what makes America great. It's the American people, not some government program, or some politician, political party or ideology. She does not talk down to Americans, as Richard Milhous Obama does, she talks to middle America, because she is one of us. Come to think of it, I think they do understand it, and it scares them, just like Reagan scared the GOP establishment back in the 1970s and even in the 1980 election. For all the love and adoration towards the 40th President of the United States today, go back to 1979 and 1980 and see how he was also seen as "too extreme."

In listening to her speech in Iowa (while I was disappointed she hasn't announced her candidacy yet), I heard someone lay out some solutions that made sense, and makes me want her to run even more.


Is there room for criticism of Gov. Palin? Of course there is! But it shouldn't be based on cultural contempt, the wishes of the party establishment, or the jealousies of a couple of middle-aged single women.

No comments: