Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin Upsets Left’s Narrative on Gender, the Current Presidential Campaign & Republicans

In the Hill yesterday, Byron York asked, “What is it about Sarah Palin that seems to have driven so many smart, thoughtful Obama supporters around the bend?

He lists a number of the most outrageous things liberals have said about the Alaska Governor, including Wendy Doniger’s contention that Palin’s “greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”  Reminds you of Gloria Steinem’s description of Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.  Feminists seems to love prominent women, except when they’re Republican.

What explains this animosity toward successful conservative women?  It seems there are three answers to York’s question, three reasons why Sarah Palin has driven so many Obama supporters around the bend.

The first reason:  she upsets their narrative about gender.  They would have us believe that all successful women have left-wing views and liberal values.  Indeed, some do.  But, this one doesn’t.  She’s strong and self-confident, not aggrieved and whiny.  She doesn’t tell people she can do the job better than a man.  She just shows she can do it as a woman.

The second reason is that she upsets the narrative the Democrats had of this election.  They wanted to run against John McCain’s election as a third term for George W. Bush. Instead, McCain picks a reform-minded Governor from about as far as you can get from our nation’s capital (without leaving the country) who has no ties to the incumbent (save party affiliation).  

The third reason is that the enthusiasm she has generated among the Republican faithful, particularly social conservatives, undermines their narrative about Republicans.  They want to believe that we don’t like certain liberal women because we fear/hate/can’t deal with strong women.  And here we are admiring Sarah Palin as many of them revere Barack Obama.

In short, Sarah Palin drives so many on the left around the bend because she upsets so many of their narratives.  Almost like a kid learning there’s no Santa Claus.

John McCain’s A-minus Campaign

There are some really good films which get everything right, but have one major flaw (or maybe a few such flaws).  These flicks, I call, “A-minus movies.”

In my book, the classic such movie is Woman of the Year with Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn.  It gets everything right, down to the casting of the secondary (and even tertiary) characters.  But, at the end, Hepburn, trying to make breakfast to pacify her then-estranged beloved, shows she’s all thumbs in the kitchen.  It’s actually a funny scene, but just doesn’t fit the tone of the movie, especially not at its climax.

In a similar vein, while some might find the McCain’s recent web commercial on the lipstick hullabaloo humorous, it was entirely inappropriate.  The campaign shouldn’t touch such issues, letting the media and friendly bloggers make an issue of them.  The attention paid to that ad seems to have prevented a much better McCain ad on the intensity of Democratic efforts to smear Governor Palin from getting the notice it deserved. 

The media focused more on the lipstick ad because it fit the daily news narrative. Even Charles Krauthammer thought it was a “cheap shot.”

That’s been one major flaw in an otherwise excellent campaign–well, at least since Steve Schmidt took over this summer.

Another mistake the campaign made was not to make Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin available to the press until this week.  It lead to increased speculation that while she could give a great speech, she wasn’t up to the rigors of a presidential campaign.  And it brought more focus onto her first such interview.  Just like that speech, that interview, broadcast this week, got a lot more attention than other such interviews normally get.

And while she seems to have acquitted herself quite well, the increased focus has made it easier for the media to exaggerate her mistakes, minor though they were.

Let’s hope the McCain team learns from its mistakes.  While it’s had a good two weeks, the media are clearly not on John McCain’s side.  And as we’ve seen today, they will magnify minor mistakes–or even he appearance of such errors.  In a close race, that could make all the difference.

Easier to be gay among conservatives . . .

. . . than to be conservative among gays.

The Washington Blade asked me to blog about my experience in St. Paul and published the column today. To whet your appetite, I give you the first three paragraphs:

JUST OVER TWO years ago in the Huffington Post, left-wing journalist and screenwriter Gene Stone asked why “any gay man or woman” would join the GOP, “a party that has stated, over and over, as clearly as can be, without equivocation, that he or she is not welcome.” Stone’s piece was little more than an angry and inaccurate diatribe, attempting to show that it was “worse than self-loathing,” it was “just plain moronic” for gay people to embrace the Republican Party.

His article, like so much of the criticism leveled against gay Republicans, did not reference any specific action by the GOP excluding gays. He didn’t even identify any actual gay or lesbian individuals who had had adverse experiences with the Party of Lincoln.

Familiar with such ill-informed attacks on gay Republicans like myself, I decided last week that when I went to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, I would make a point of referencing my blog, GayPatriot, whenever I introduced myself to a participant. As the blog is part of Pajamas Media, a consortium of mostly right-of-center web sites, I would interact with a great variety of conservative (and libertarian) bloggers covering the convention.

Click here to read the rest.

UPDATE:  Well, to show how much easier it is to be a gay person among conservatives than to be a Republican among gay activists, check out Scott Tucker’s post on “fisking” Dan Savage’s impression of the convention.  That sex columnist is so filled with animosity against Republicans, he can’t see the world in front of him.  And like so many anti-Republican gay activists, he can’t provide facts to justify his (very distorted) view of the GOP.

Instapundit Link: Like Cocaine?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:09 pm - September 12, 2008.
Filed under: Blogging,Family

Last week, my blogging nephew scored his first Instapundit link. Today, he blogs that such links are “like cocaine.” He has decided to “enter rehab” by taking some time off from blogging until he clears his “head of this addiction.”

Blogging? An addiction? Hmmmmmm. . . . .

The blogosphere will be poorer while he’s away.  Meanwhile, some of us “addicts” will still be tapping away.

UPDATE:  Oh, and, I believe my nephew only knows about cocaine from things he’s read, not from experiences he’s had.

Heh, Heh, Heh

As I sit here at the airport, waiting to go home, I suddenly remembered something hysterically funny.

Barack Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate. JOE BIDEN!


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Age and Presidential Greatness

Something struck me as I was reading the chapter on Teddy Roosevelt in John McCain’s political biography Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him. This on the same day the Obama campaign releases an ad suggesting John McCain is out of touch as times have changed since he was first elected to Congress in 1982.

That year, John McCain was 46 years old, just one year younger than Barack Obama is now — and two years older than his running mate, Sarah Palin.

The two greatest Republican presidents of the last century, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, were respectively, the youngest and the oldest men to serve in that office.

Washington Post: Print Version of MSNBC?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:50 am - September 12, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

Remember that thrill MSNBC’s Chris Matthews felt coming up his leg as he watched a speech by Barack Obama? Or how he and Keith Olbermann cooed over the Democratic nominee’s acceptance speech in Denver?

It seems their “news” network has become little more than a broadcast outlet of the Obama campaign.

Now it seems we’ve found a print version of MSNBC. On the front page of today’s Washington Post, there are two front-page stories which seem little more than press releases from the Democratic National Committee.

Jennifer Rubin wonders why its “editors to put on Page One a story about Cindy McCain’s past drug addiction.” First, this is the candidate’s wife, second, Mrs. McCain “stopped taking the painkillers in 1992,” sixteen years ago.

You’d think the Post would have better things to write about, say the Democratic candidate for president’s association with an unrepentant terrorist which began (as far as I can tell) at least three years after Mrs. McCain put her problem with painkillers behind her.

On the very front page where the Post delves into the problems of the Republican candidate’s wife from sixteen years ago, it misrepresents the comments made by the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee this week. What is it with this paper and Republican women?


On Bookstores & Political Books . . .

. . .  or how to deal with a conservative blogger upset by a display table where left-wing books are overepresented.

On Wednesday, after taping a segment for Pajamas TV and blogging from a Culver City Starbucks, I agreed to meet a friend in the Barnes & Noble bookstore at the Grove where we’d go looking for a place to dine.  Getting there before he, I thought I’d browse around and pick up a copy of David Freddoso’s The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.  I’d been meaning to review it.

So, I perused the display table inside the store, laden with political books. All but one (maybe two) books facing the doors were left-wing. This seemed out of character for that store, even though it is right in the heart of Hollywood, a stone’s throw (literally–if you have good arm) from CBS studios. Normally, they seem to have a balance of political books, just as many on the left as on the right.

Last time when I was there, I saw a table devoted to the presidential campaign. I actually counted the titles. They had one more Obama book (by or about) than those about his Republican rival. That seemed fair and may have reflected the size of the table more than anything else.


Catching Biden’s Gaffes

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:07 am - September 12, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

If the MSM devoted half as much attention to Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden’s gaffes as they do to Internet rumors about his Republican rival, they wouldn’t have time to speculate where Obama wanted to put lipstick.

First, we learn that he doesn’t know what Sarah Palin’s policies are, next we learn that he thinks Hillary Clinton is more qualified to be president than he.

My blogging nephew has now collected Top 5 Joe Biden Gaffes Of This Campaign. Some will be familiar to our readers, but his post did remind me of one that I hadn’t registered previously–that Joe Biden had once “forgotten” his own age. (That’s number 5.)

UPDATE:  Seems MItchell scooped the New York Times. About Biden, John Broder writes, “boy, does he say some curious things. A day on the campaign trail without a cringe-inducing gaffe is a rare blessing. He has not been too blessed lately.”  Read the whole thing!

UP-UPDATE:  Linking the Times article, Glenn Reynolds writes, “And yet people seem to be hanging on Sarah Palin’s every word. Not sure if that’s good news or bad for the Obama campaign — Biden’s gaffes get discounted, but only because the entire ticket has been upstaged by McCain’s number two.

Obama: Awkward in Ceremonial Circumstances?

While checking the blogs last night, I alerted Kevin (AKA Queer Conservative) to a video I was watching on Michelle Malkin’s site showing the two major party candidates at Ground Zero.

Obama seemed awkward, uncertain what he was doing, while McCain seemed respectful, understanding the solemnity of the ceremony.

Kevin observed something else as well, saying that Obama’s aloofness reminded him of other presidential candidates and not in a good way:

Remember how George H. W. Bush came across as out of touch during the 1992 election? Remember Al Gore’s sighing and eye rolling during the first debate of the 2000 election?

He may be onto something. So, read his post, watch the video for yourself, come to your own conclusions.

Is it just us or did the Democratic nominee seem uncomfortable with the ceremony?