Mama Grizzly’s got a brand new bag—and some new fans

Guess who has an article praising Sarah Palin, or at least treating her ideas with intrigued respect? The New York Times. In her speech in Indianola, Iowa, last weekend, says the Times, “she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment—left, right and center—and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.”

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

” … to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth.”

She—she—dares criticize Washington politicians for that? She, who converted a vice presidential nomination into multimillions?

And the Times lets her get away with it.

- end of initial entry -

A reader writes:

It’s disappointing that you fail to see a distinction between Palin, who chose to profit as a reality TV star and author, and sitting representatives who sell their offices to become rich.

LA replies:

She instantly converted a vice presidential nomination into a media career that made her a multimillionaire. She even abandoned the only high political office she had ever held to pursue the financial opportunities given to her by the vice presidential nomination.

Does that not bother you?

And please tell me what is the distinction between a congressman or senator using his Washington contacts to become rich as a lobbyist, and what she did? In fact, if there is any distinction, what she did is worse. She couldn’t even wait to finish her current term in office before she cashed in.

Yet she chastizes others for self-seeking behavior that is not as bad as her own. I don’t call it hypocrisy. I call it another instance of Palin’s total lack of self-reflection.

Scott in PA writes

By praising her “devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment—left, right and center,” they are obviously enticing her to run as an independent, thereby assuring the re-election of their Messiah. They’re also signaling that they would provide her favorable coverage. Might work. Can’t fault them for not trying, no matter how transparent the scheme.

James P. writes:

I expect that the NYT and other liberal propaganda organs will increasingly seek to exacerbate the split between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment. Giving Palin respectful attention does exactly that.

Palin is not being hypocritical when she criticizes those who “arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth”—because she never arrived in Washington! (Just kidding.)

LA replies:

You were kidding. But I’m sure that’s the sort of argument Palin’s supporters will use.

Bill Carpenter writes:

Looks like the same thing the press used Bachmann for. Build up Palin to take attention from Perry and Romney, and Bachmann, and as you say, to wedge the Tea Party and the Republican party. Since the NYT is part and parcel of the unaccountable (not to say inimical) elite, it is rich that it would present such accusations with feigned benevolence.

Laura Wood writes:

I agree with Scott.

After the debate the other night, which displayed the strengths of the Republican field without Sarah, I think the powers-that-be suddenly saw her charms. They missed her.

John Dempsey writes:

You wrote:

” … to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth.”

“She—she—dares criticize Washington politicians for that? She, who converted a vice presidential nomination into multimillions?”

She didn’t ride that gravy train on the backs of the taxpayers. Whether or not you view her financial success to be something admirable, she achieved it with political savvy while acting in capacity as citizen, not that of elected representative. I think there’s a substantial difference.

LA replies:

I would say that the difference is less important than the similarity. The similarity is that she rode public office to wealth. She instantly converted a vice presidential nomination into an extremely high-paid media career, and even abandoned her political office in the middle of her term to take the maximum advantage of the financial opportunities opened up to her by her vice presidential nomination. I’m at a loss to understand how anyone could defend that.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 09, 2011 09:08 AM | Send