Rants and Raves

Opinion, commentary, reviews of books, movies, cultural trends, and raising kids in this day and age.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

MoDo and Sarah, Femina lupa femines

Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, they're at Sarah Palin again. But that red you see in the water is Maureen Dowd's hair.

Palin resigned the governorship of Alaska, and everyone is aghast, right and left.

Maureen has yet another column devoted to the woman she loves to hate, the second in as many weeks.

After this one, dated July 4: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05dowd.html?_r=1

"Sarah Palin showed on Friday that in one respect at least, she is qualified to be president.

"Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy."

She gives us this one, dated July 7: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

"Sarah Palin's secret diary."

Less hysterical, but in their own way equally as vicious, were Sally Quinn's two consequtive columns questioning Palin's qualifications as a mother.

The logic on the left side of the fence seems to be: we savage your children, joke about your 14-year-old daughter being raped (Oh, Letterman meant the 18-year-old? Well that's quite all right then), publish unspeakable comments about your Down's Syndrome baby - and then call you a bad mother for exposing your kids to all this.

Yeah, sounds about right to me.

Palin's family has a half-million dollars in legal fees to pay down from ethics complaints pretty obviously frivoulous - except that there's nothing frivolous about corrupting the justice system to destroy political opponents.

The state of Alaska is on the hook for a few million investigating same.

Palin's resignation puts into office the Lt. Governor who is philosophically compatible, and will have the advantage of incumbancy when the next election rolls around.

Is there a problem with this? I think it's fraking brilliant from the viewpoint of Alaska politics! The attack dog machine doesn't know this guy and will have to switch directions in mid-leap.

Ohhh I bet they're pissed.

The motive for attacks on Sarah from elite women, some of them on the right, are obvious enough and have been commented on by more than one pundit.

Sarah has it all: a business of her own, kids, a life outside politics, and a loving and supportive husband who's such a mensch Bill Clinton has a man crush on him.

In short, Sarah would be the posterchild for feminist utopia if it weren't for the facts that she's a believer, she didn't abort her Down's baby, and she doesn't have the required opinions.

And most unforgivably, that mensch she married quite obviously had nothing to do with her success in politics.

Sarah is despised by powerful leftie women like MoDo and Sally who, though intelligent and talented enough, didn't exactly not sleep their way to the top. Her success is a reproach to them which they will never forgive.

I urge you to go over Maureen and Sally's articles, and see if you can find anything substantive. Sally's approach is sweet-reason-and-I'm-really-doing-it-out-of-concern-for-your-kids.

Maureen is just her usual whinny unpleasant self, "I can't get married and all my boyfriends dump me because I'm successful and intelligent."

No Maureen, you boyfriends dumped you because you're an unpleasant, self-obsessed person. They wanted to prong you because you're a looker, but now that you're on the cusp of losing that advantage, all that's left is the unpleasant, albeit snarkily witty self-obsession.

And BTW, Catherine Zeta-Jones is a better looker, intelligent, funny, and by all evidence a great mother - an accomplishment invariably beyond that of the self-obsessed. You think Michael Douglas dumped you because he was turned off by highly accomplished women? I'm not buying it.

And by the way, though you've got a way of turning a phrase, you actually don't seem all that bright, nor can you fashion a coherent argument. (Vis-a-vis your description of Sarah's speech as "rambling and incoherent.")

"She refuses to succumb to the “politics of personal destruction.” It’s no fun unless she’s the one aiming those poison darts, as she did when she accused Barack Obama of associating 'with terrorists who targeted their own country.'"

Hint Mo: the reason she "she accused Barack Obama of associating 'with terrorists who targeted their own country.'" is that he did. That is not the “politics of personal destruction” it's an established fact.

Of course, on the Left bringing up established facts is considered a foul.

If I ever ran for public office (not possible, but let's speculate) I'd have to face questions about the fact that I too have associated with and had friends among, real criminals, sexual deviants, and people at least marginally associated with the Ayers-Dohrn wing of the Weathermen.

What can I say? I've had interesting friends, not all of them the kind you'd bring home to meet mother. The legitimate question is, "Have you ever worked at common purposes with them?"

And that was a close call...

What I haven't seen comment on is what a close call the Palin famiy has had.

They almost had that swine Levi Johnson for a son-in-law.

Folks, being a single mother sucks, and I have that from a lot of single mothers I know who are doing a truly heroic job.

But it's better to have a bastard in the family, than a bastard like that in the family.

Did anyone else notice that Levi posing in his shirtless hunkiness for magazines, his possible book deal, and whatever else he may reap from his closeness to the Palin family is only made possible from a devil's bargain to savage that family for the amusement of his new masters on the celebrity Left?

Enjoy your 15 minutes Levi. You're still a wuss who knocked up a nice girl and bailed on her and the kid.

Well! I don't know about y'all, but I feel better. I didn't call this blog Rants and Raves for nothing.

Note: Any Latin scholars out there? Did I get the inversion of the classic quote right?


Post a Comment

<< Home