Less than a month ago, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of National Review was excited about the prospect of Sarah Palin as Vice President. How quickly feelings can change. She is now calling for Sarah Palin to step down from the ticket because Ms. Parker thinks that Sarah is out of her league. She bases this on three interviews that she believes Sarah Palin did pooly in giving. Ms. Parker seems to forget that the media dislikes Sarah and is pulling out all the stops to destroy her.
The first one was the Charlie Gibson interview. I already broke down this interview in an earlier blog entry and the one place in the interview that could be claimed as a weakness is revealed to be nothing more than an attempt by Charlie Gibson to entrap Sarah Palin and make her look inept. My liberal mother called me after the interview to say how angry she was with the way Gibson conducted the interview. So even a liberal can see through the fog that is called “mainstreet media”.
As for the interview with Sean Hannity, I thought she did great and ended very strongly when revealing that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were people that she looked up to and modeled herself after. Parker had this to say about the interview: “Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: ‘Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.'” I’m sorry, but I don’t see a problem here. Is Parker criticizing that Sarah used “surpass” twice? It’s completely appropriate in this sentence.
Now I didn’t watch the Katie – I have no ratings or credibility – Couric interview, but I did hear about the one sentence that the press is making hay of and that is when Sarah talks about Canada and Russia being her neighbors and so she had foreign policy experience from that. It is an obvious weak argument. I think Sarah should just look as these “journalists” and say, “Obviously you know full well that I am new to this foreign policy thing, but I’m building my resume everyday and I’m a quick study.” Parker continued with her critique by writing, “When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: ‘I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?'” Again, what is the problem with this answer? I want a politician who doesn’t watch the polls. When have the polls ever been right? Just ask Gore and Kerry.
Parker ends with, “Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.” You forget, Ms. Parker, that great leaders never quit and Sarah Palin is no quitter. A bunch of sniveling reporters are not going to change my opinion one bit. She’s not perfect, but I’m not looking for perfection. I’m looking for someone who has principles and will lead by those principles. She embraces what makes conservativism great. Sarah, don’t you dare go anywhere. McCain cannot win without you because you give millions like me a reason to hope in a better America again.