Don’t Patronize Me

Let me say up front that I am an independent voter who has tended to vote Democrat over the last several years, but this presidential election is going to be history-making no matter who wins.

I listened to Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech because I wanted to hear what she had to say–and how she would say it. And my reaction? Don’t patronize me!

I have no problem with understanding that vice presidential candidates tend to be the “attack dogs” of the party in an election campaign. And I also understand that both parties tend to stretch their interpretations of facts and decisions. I check out what both parties say at sites like

But I do not appreciate derision directed toward those who have tried to help individuals who have lost jobs through no fault of their own.

I do not like statements that focus on those things that divide us–that break open cultural divisions–rather than looking for those things that we have in common and ways in which we can work together.

I think it is false “advertising” to imply (for example) that she sold the executive jet on eBay (rather than acknowledging that it had to be sold through an airplane broker)…to imply that her decision was the reason the “bridge to nowhere” was cancelled and that Alaska received no monetary gain (when Congress had already pretty well finished cancelling it–and Alaska kept the millions of dollars)…to claim that the other party has done nothing of substance legislatively (when Obama has reached across the aisle to create some significant legislation–including some major ethics reform).

I am one of those “older white women” who tends to be independent in my voting that McCain would need to reach to win. But if he thinks he can get my vote by nominating Sarah Palin as vice-president…nope.

Would I like to have a woman in one of the highest offices in the land? You bet.

But do I think Sarah Palin is the best choice? Nope. And to claim that she has more experience than Obama…or that the whole experience issue now is a non-issue…that feels like the Republicans are saying that I’ll go ahead and vote for them just because they’ve got a woman on the ticket.

Well…sorry, folks. If you had someone on there who was principled, who could give me specifics, whom I felt I could trust…I might consider it. But as it is, I feel like you’re patronizing me–and all that accomplishes is to get my dander up.

McCain-Palin? Nope.

4 thoughts on “Don’t Patronize Me

  1. Great analysis. Thanks!

    I like Sarah Palin. She is sincere and full of energy. But she is woefully misinformed.

    No sex education! Whoops! Teenager has a baby!
    Shouldn’t that be a clue?
    Brother-in-law is harassing her sister. Palin pulls strings to get him fired. Is that going too far?
    Doesn’t like some of the books in the local library. She asks the librarian if she would mind removing certain books. The librarian indicates she will not tolerate censorship. Palin gets her fired.

    The common thread here is the self-appointed assumption that what I (Palin) decide is better for you than what you decide. Ohh, that smacks of totalitarianism! Too bad it hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, and won’t work in the future. Most amazing of all (and tragic) is that some people don’t like to think for themselves. They are mentally lazy, and oh-so willing to let others make these crucial decisions for them. You could see hoards of these mindless drones waving flags and cheering her at the Republican Convention.

    Reminds of the Stockholm syndrome. The captives after a while begin to idolize their kidnappers. “I’m going to restrict what you can say and do, but trust me, this will be good for you!” Yeah! Pit-bull with lipstick!
    (And the crowd goes wild!)

  2. As for Obama’s legislative achievements; his name appears as a sponsor or author of roughly three hundred bills. A careful search of Congressional records indicates that, other than the typical nonsense resolutions applauding the mayor of East Nowhere for coaching the town’s champion little league team, few ,if any, of his bills have passed or for that matter reported out of committee.

  3. from

    But Obama has co-sponsored bills with members of the other party, some of which have been noteworthy. Obama and Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, for instance, teamed up on an initiative to lock down and secure both nuclear and conventional weapons worldwide, such as the shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft missiles that have been proliferating in recent years. According to a report on the bill by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the legislation “enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world; and (2) the United States’ ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.” Lugar hasn’t objected to Obama’s characterization of their partnership or the bill, which became law in 2007, in his ads.

    Another example: Obama worked with Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, to write the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which created a searchable database the public can use to look up details on federal grants and contracts. (McCain was also among the original co-sponsors of that bill, so Lieberman may have been tarring his own candidate when he disparaged Obama’s legislative accomplishments). Obama and Coburn also got together on a bill to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from issuing open-ended, no-bid contracts for emergency response activities after abuses were found in post-Katrina contracting.

  4. Three bills do not a career make. As I said, few bills have a distinctive Obama touch. While the two pieces of legislation you cite are praiseworthy, they do not touch on any of the critical issues we face.

    Governor Palin’s legitimate poistion on the issues of sex education and abortion is no more totalitarean than the current imposition of Roe V Wade championed by liberals. Villification is a tool of oppression regardless of the imputed good intention behind the villification. There are legitimate ethical and moral questions regarding abortion and embroyonic stem cell research. To someone who believes that human life begins at conception abortion is nothing less than murder. Those who hold that position have the right to freely express their opinons. Freedom of speech is not reserved for politically correct or culturally popular opinon. To repress those opinons is no less fascist than Crystal Knicht.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s