Liberals have never liked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. They don’t like that she didn’t go to an Ivy League school, that she doesn’t follow the usual protocol of not speaking until a liberal says it’s okay to do so, and that she chose to carry her Down Syndrome baby to term instead of aborting it. (That last one really drives them crazy.)
They dislike her political support for smaller government, tax cuts, and a strong military. They are outraged by her ongoing push for drilling in ANWR, her participation in hunting sports, and the fact that she’s a card-carrying, Life Member of the NRA.
But all these reasons are trumped by the fact that they despise her beauty. It pushes them over the edge to know that she doesn’t just shoot an assault rifle, but makes an assault rifle look good when shooting it.
This was obvious when she was running for Vice President on the McCain ticket and it became known that she’d taken part in beauty pageants to get money to pay college tuition. How dare her that she is not only beautiful, but she used that beauty for profit.
It was even more obvious when she was criticized for allegedly spending $150,000 on her wardrobe during the presidential campaign. While I’m not saying that’s not a lot of money, I’ll never forget how the press fawned over Michelle Obama and relished the opportunity to proudly report the outrageous price of every piece of clothing she wore.
The double standard resides here: When Palin dresses in nice clothes reporters act like she’s being ostentatious, but when Mrs. Obama does it reporters are taken aback by her glamour. Yet the dirty little secret is that Palin could don a $90.00 dress from Wal-Mart and steal the show from a diamond covered Mrs. Obama any day, and the media knows it.
The coverage of Palin’s trip to this year’s Belmont Stakes proved the hatred for her beauty all over again as media outlets like the Boston Herald seized on the fact that she wore jeans, a “form-fitting T-shirt,” and a baseball cap to the track. The T-shirt alone caused bitter bloggers to ponder whether the former governor had had some type of cosmetic surgery performed. (To them, it’s just not fair that she looks so good all the time.)
So when a Keith Olbermann-type moron refers to Palin as an “idiot” again, or a Chris Matthews-type repeats his belief that she’s “frightening,” we just need to remember that the left criticizes that which they fear. We also have to keep in mind the fact that all the names they throw at Palin are really code words for “Dang, that woman looks good.”
And who can blame them for noticing? After all, since the 1930s they’ve spent their time supporting women who looked like Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Tipper Gore, and Elena Kagan.
Suffice it to say there isn’t a lot of pinup potential in that list.
Things would go a lot easier if liberals would just admit Palin is not only conservative but also beautiful. And while they’re admitting that, they should also take the advice one of my friends frequently gives me when he says, “Hawkins, don’t be a hater."