The right-wing meme of Palin as victim of the Left has become a viral virus of the mind that stands up to any serious examination of its merits about as much as Two Girls One Cup. I am not about to help you spread the infection.
I do not grant the premise Palin is remotely any sort of "target." She is a just a politician--albeit a spectacularly unaccomplished one---and what she is undergoing are the same slings and arrows every politician desiring the national spotlight has to endure.
If she can't stand the heat of the scrutiny she scurry on back to Wasilla with her unemployed husband and their brood and stop poisoning the American body politic with her venomous demagoguery.
I am weary of this whiny woman and her sycophantic sympathizers whose obsessive need to defend this amazingly failure of a politician from her own bile and stupidity have created this "Sarah Palin is a victim" myth and cry "UNFAIR!" if anyone doesn't want to buy into her narcissism and victimization.
The problem with the "Palin-as-victim" schtick is she already tried that last Wednesday morning and it went over about as well as a loud, smelly fart at a funeral. She expressed very little in the way of sympathy for the actual victims--those gunned down by Jared Loughner--but cried a river of crocodile tears over the perceived victim---namely herself.
As far as this "underdog" thing, that's a dog that ain't gonna hunt. Not when you've quit your day job paying you a measly $125,000 to make somewhere north of $12 million in speaking fees, appearances and ghostwritten books.
That puts you in the company of the top dogs, not the underdogs. Sarah Palin is among America's elite, a little fact she would probably prefer not sharing with the rubes who buy her lousy little books and labor under the delusion she's still just plain Sarah.
Feeding this troll of a topic that "Palin is a target" serves only to move the goalposts. Most of Palin's problems fall on her own stupid little head. She says and does terrible things and then wonders why terrible things happen to her.
A friend of mine could have explained it to her.
Anyone who has a problem with Sarah Palin being discussed in connection with this tragedy can take away an important lesson for future reference: if you depict or allude to violence against a specific individual and that individual is later shot in the head, it is very likely that, whether or not you think it's fair, you are going to come up in discussions about the incident. That's not "blood libel" - it's just a fact. So anyone who does NOT want to be connected to a tragedy should avoid using violent imagery against individuals in public debate - if for no other reason, they don't want people looking at them sideways if violence happens to occur.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Penned by my debate colleague at America's Debate and writer Jeff. Visit his blog The Domino Theory.