Angry white males and females
Far left, moderate conservative beltway pundit right share antipathy for Conservatives, Palin
Originally published by Mike DeVine as Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Following the 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, network anchors explained the historic event as one of “angry white males” having a childish temper tantrum. This election season, an overtly in the tank for liberal Democrats media is raising the spectre of anger incitement pre-emptively to thwart a Gov. Sarah Palin(R-AK) and Joe the Plumber inspired Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) energized base that threatens to overwhelm another leftist Democrat presidential nominee at the ballot box, or inspire an assassination.
The occasions for the present incarnation of evil right wingers have been isolated shoutings of “terrorist”, “muslim” and/or “Arab” by hecklers at Palin rallies. (The Secret Service, after a review of campaign rallu audio tapes, debunked Obama’s debate lie that someone shouted “kill him”, which Palin heard but refused to denounce.) The media and Democrats have variously alleged that McCain campaign recitations of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) past alliances with Weather Underground Marxist terrorist William Ayers, Black Muslim Louis Farrakhan and Kenyan Arab Odinga cousin Marxists are incitements, but has chosen not to feature the vile hecklers of Palin wearing obscenity words on T-Shirts and shouts of “warmonger” at McCain to suggest their lives are in danger.
But lets consider the drive-by media’s “coverage” of angry words from angry white people directly associated with the Democratic Party leadership and the Obama campaign, shall we? (Obama and other authentically black definers frequently refer to the old Jim Crow “one drop rule” that classified any person as “Black” for legal purposes if they had at least 1/17th “negro blood” coursing through their veins. I apply that standard here for purposes of identifying angry whites.)
Consider how many of the following non-Secret Service refuted quotes could be considered incitements to violence; how many would not be known but for talk radio and the alternative media and how many have been credibly denounced, if denounced at all, by the Obama campaign:
1) Don’t get snippy – Albert Gore
2) Selected not elected – all Democrats but Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Zell Miller, 24/7 for seven years and counting
3) [On 911] America’s chickens coming home to roost – Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4) [On 911] I wish we (Weather Underground terrorist bombers) had done more – Ayers
5) Bushlied! (or cricket chirping silence) – all Democrats but Lieberman and Zell, 24/7 for five years and counting
6) He [President Bush] betrayed this country! He played on our fears! – Gore
7) Death of a President [movie depicting the assassination of President Bush]
8) America must stop air raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan – Obama
9) Dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and never batted an eye – Wright
10) Compares American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot – Sen. Dick Durbin
11) Marines guilty of murder in Iraq – Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA)
12) American soldiers terrorize families in the dark of night – Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
13) Abu Ghraib opened under new management – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
14) Hitler was a great man. Jews have a gutter religion. Obama is The Messiah – Louis Farrakhan (honored by Obama’s church and always referred to with the honorific of “Minister” by Obama)
15) Israel will be wiped off the map – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
16) I would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions – Obama
17) America is a down right mean country – Michelle Obama (may be an exception to the one drop rule, but we believe in affirmative action when identifying dangerous angry words that could incite violence)
18) Whites vote for Hillary in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia because they are bitter clingers to antipathy towards people that aren’t not like them – Obama
19) God damned America. America invented AIDS to kill blacks in a world ruled by greedy white people. – Wright (to standing ovations at Obama’s church)
20) Never been proud of America until 2008 – Michelle Obama
21) We need fundamental change in America. – Obama
Think any of the above could incite violence? The drive-bys aren’t interested.
Think Obama “clearly” doesn’t share the extremist views of his allies, as beltway conservative pundits George Will and Charles Krauthammer conclude? Clearly Obama does share the obvious conclusion of their anger, i.e. “fundamental change”, even if his rhetoric is delivered in a temperamentally calm manner.
And speaking of beltway conservatives:
22) Obama is a Mountain of strength that can’t be moved – Brooks
23) Palin is a cancer on the GOP – Brooks
24) Problem that Republicans will have is that they will have a very angry base in 2009 and 2010, which isn’t the best way to attract [moderates]. – DaveG at race42008.com
25) I still don’t know what [Palin] stands for. – Peggy Noonan
26) Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down [as Republican Vice-Presidential nominee]. – Kathleen Parker
And finally, this gem from Ross Douthat, who, along with Brooks, Kristol and other beltway conservatives, advocated a McCain nomination for eight years, yet now are a part of the defeatist chorus:
27) And if I were Hanson or Levin or Steyn I’d be devoting a little less time to ritual denunciations of heretics and RINOs, and at least a little more time to figuring out how to build the sort of ship that will make the rats of the DC/NY corridor want to scramble back on board, however much it makes you sick to have them back. Who knows? It might just be the sort of ship that swing-state voters will want to climb on board as well.
It seems that while the leftist whites plus Michelle are angry at all things American, conservative and Palin, many beltway moderate-conservative pundits see a Reaganite conservative Palin as cancerous, but not a “heretic”? Go figure.
Yet, they calmly insult the social conservatives and neo-cons with which Reagan, Newt and Dubya fashioned a winning three-legged stool, and so avoid the “angry” label?
Not here they don’t. They presume unto themselves immunity from being labeled divisive within their echo chamber and yell foul when anyone defends the cancer.
What do these admittedly diverse pundit critics have in common, Douthat asks elsewhere seeking to establish credibility in diverse numbers?
All of the right leaning critics are harsh critics of at least one aspect of Reaganism, whether its Brooks’ social liberalism; Bruce Bartlett’s foreign policy “realism” or Douthat’s fiscal liberalism.
They find in Palin, Reagan re-born, and truth be known, the blue-blood country-clubber Rockefellers never liked Reagan, resented the infusion of the yahoo Christians, and were content as a minority eating scraps from former Speaker Tip O’Neil’s table.
Thomas Sowell describes another angle of their contempt:
Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media?
One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate.
Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.
More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn’t go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn’t talk the way they talk or think the way they think.
Worse yet, from the media’s perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
So, we see double-barreled, unprompted, real anger by those on the right and the left that announce the Reagan Era over, against conservatives, and especially its most authentic vessel, the Governor of Alaska.
We see dour faces on the conservative beltway pundits except when they allow themselves to climb the Obama-Mountain and get carried away with the America needs fundamental change chanter/worshippers of Farrakhan’s Messiah.
What do we see in Palin, and increasingly in McCain?
Optimism and Joy at what America has been, is and can be. We see a love for a God blessed America that, when given the opportunity to elect an unabashed, unapologetic conservative, does so every time with conservative Democrat votes, to boot, producing large majorities as the lukewarm independent rats the beltway pundits want to capture remain wallowing in the spew from God’s and America’s mouth.
Fred Barnes, who has invested himself, and hence, his coverage of debates, etc., with his New Year’s forecast of “President Barack Obama”, does echo gamecock on Palin:
It should have been obvious she could handle the media. When I spent nearly two hours with Palin last year at the governor’s house in Juneau, I was struck by three things. She’s very smart, brimming with self-confidence, and not intimidated by the media.
Now, despite her political talent, Palin’s future is unclear. If McCain wins the election, that will simplify her political life. She’ll be America’s first female vice president and the most prominent national leader aside from McCain. And she’ll be heir apparent to President McCain.
If McCain loses, she’ll still be governor of Alaska. In fact, she’ll be the state’s most famous governor ever and its first political celebrity. That won’t be enough to make her an influential player in national affairs. Palin, by the way, is unsure about her ultimate role in national politics even if McCain wins, but it’s bound to be more complicated if he loses.
“I don’t know what kind of role the Republican party would want me to play,” she told me. “In the past, I have not been one to be considered for anything by the hierarchy of the party. Certainly not in my state. In some sense, I ran against my party.”
Palin remains skeptical of Republicans. “I would love to promote the party ideals if we’re going to live out the ideals and maybe allow other American voters to understand what the principles of the party are,” she says. “We’ve got to be assured we have enough people in the party who will live out those ideals and it’s not just rhetoric. Otherwise, I’d be wasting my time. There are a lot of things I would and should be doing.”
There’s a model, however, for a small state governor who wants to be a national politician. It’s the Bill Clinton model. While he was merely governor of Arkansas, he spoke all over the country, headed a moderate Democratic organization, courted national political reporters, and connected with a group of smart, young political operatives.
Palin could do the same, but not easily. She has young children, no team of political strategists to advise her, and is from a state even more remote than Arkansas. Whether they know it or not, Republicans have a huge stake in Palin. If, after the election, they let her slip into political obscurity, they’ll be making a tragic mistake.
Peggy Nonnan has no excuse for professed ignorance, not to mention her nose in the air arrogance.
The Left fears that Palin could thwart their Marxist dreams from Obama’s father, while some inside the beltway moderate elites fear she could usurp their clout.
To them, she must be stopped. To We the People, she is the answer.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson