It's comforting to know that it's not just us mean old, elitist, latte' sipping, birkentstock wearing liberals (actually I drink black coffee and wear steel-toe leather workboots) who view the prospect of a Sarah Palin presidency with a combination of stomach churning horror and mind paralyzing disbelief.
Conservative columnist Steve Chapman explains why he's on our side in the debate about letting the "Thrilla from Wasilla" anywhere near the levers of presidential power.
An excerpt from Chapman's op-ed:
The tea party movement started as a welcome protest against the alarming growth of federal spending and federal control. It had a strong anti-statist flavor, or seemed to. But judging from the applause for Sarah Palin at its convention, the movement's suspicion of government power is exceeded only by its worship of government power.
Her keynote address at last week's gathering in Nashville, Tenn., may have been the curtain raiser on a 2012 presidential campaign. "I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country," she told Fox News when asked about that option.
I'm glad it was she and not I who first used the word "absurd" in relation to a possible Palin bid for the White House. Because if her speech made anything clear, it's that the shallow, ill-informed, truth-twisting demagogue seen in the 2008 presidential campaign is all she is and all she wants to be.
Palin openly embraces the lunatic fringe (Birthers, Tenthers, Birchers, communist conspiracy nuts) etc. of the Tea-party movement. Imagine the opposite -- imagine if a leading Democratic candidate for U.S. President was going around giving speeches to and accepting the endorsements of groups like PETA, Greenpeace, the 9/11 truthers and the like? Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue? Such a candidate would be ridiculed into obscurity by not only the right, but also the mainstream media (MSM).
And it goes without saying that Palin is a wholly owned and manufactured political celebrity of the MSM - which also explains their knee trembling fear at calling her to account for her right-wing radicalism and lies. I mean can anyone truly tell me they knew who the fuck Sarah Palin was and what she stood for prior to John McCain's disastrous selection of her to be his VP running mate in 2008? Because if you can, you are a much bigger politics junkie than I am.
Chapman in his article here is simply being deadpan and deadly serious honest. I can respect an honest conservative even if I wholesale disagree with them on most policies and issues. It's the dishonest conservatives I have a real healthy disdain for and I believe most of your conservative leadership and conservative media is being dangerously dishonest when it comes to the issue of Sarah Palin, her presidential aspirations and the potential impact to this country (and the world) should she ever be elected to run the most powerful nation on the planet.