Why is the left so angry with Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin?

Rep. Michele Bachmann

Here is a perceptive column from Stuart Schneiderman.


Hot Republican women are a political issue, but they are also a cultural force. If that bastion of patriarchal oppression, the Republican party, is nominating more and more women, and being represented by more and more attractive women, what are the cultural consequences?

It is worth mentioning, even if only in passing, that the hot Republican women in question are not in the same category as Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga. They do not represent the kind of hotness that plays well in music videos. They are adult women; they have husbands and families; they have worked hard on their careers and have garnered a measure of success.

But they have done it without compromising their womanhood. None has ever pretended to be anything other than a woman.

If you believe that the world of men can only accept women who leave their femininity at the door, then these Republican women are saying that you are wrong.

Moreover, these women are not feminists. They are not leftist ideological zealots. They did not try to overthrow the patriarchy. They took the opportunities that were available, and they did not spend their time agitating about the opportunities that were not available. They competed and succeeded on the playing field that existed, and did not ask for special favors and dispensations because they were women. They did not spend their time airing grievances because they were too busy with their lives to involve themselves in such self-indulgent exercises.

That’s why I keep posting videos of Republican women who are also mothers on this blog, like Michele Bachmann, Nikki Haley and Marsha Blackburn. It’s important for women to understand that you can be a success in this world without neglecting your family, and without demanding that your alleged victim status be remedied by the coercive power of the state.

UPDATE: Governor Jan Brewer (Arizona) and Governor Linda Lingle (Hawaii) are also making news this week.

Please see below for links and videos about Michele Bachmann.

Campaign speeches, interviews and debates


Reactions from her first debate performance:

Profiles of Michele Bachmann:

Michele Bachmann on television news

Let Americans spend their own money

Time to prioritize spending

Obama’s plan is to raise your taxes

Michele Bachmann in the legislature

Against socialism:

For economic growth:

Against ACORN funding:

21 thoughts on “Why is the left so angry with Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin?”

  1. Anger has no party affiliation, Wintery. Your Palin and Bachmann provoke outrage, same as Pelosi and Clinton, over their positions on the issues and their qualifications for the job.

    Only in Palin’s case, her qualifications and positions on the issues are low in substance and contradictory IMHO.

    Who isn’t angry now over “Drill Baby Drill?” That’s not a blue or red issue anymore. Yet she defends BP, same as the other politicians whose economic interests come at the expense of the environment. If you’re passionate about the oil spill, attitudes like that rankle. But that’s obvious stuff.

    How about “death panels?” If you believe in them, fine. But those of us who care about the truth found she was willfully twisting it to get attention. Many people were misinformed by her, IMO. And she made hay out of the moment.

    Her other, smaller moments, also rankle:

    Shooting wolves out of helicopters? I’m an animal lover. So shoot me.

    Claiming she was against the “bridge to nowhere” when she was actually for it? Hypocrisy.

    Blaming everything on the media, without which she’d not be the queen of political reality TV today? Again, hypocrisy.

    Her lack of depth on larger issues that the media brings forth everyday in the form of newspapers, which she can’t name. Hiding her lack of knowledge.

    I love that women are gaining traction in political office. But Palin is no Clinton and she is no Pelosi. She couldn’t do either of those jobs. But she’s gonna make a heckuva a talk-show host.

    As for her looks, yes, she’s good looking. I remember the first time I saw Palin and thought, geez, what a babe. I can’t wait to hear what she has to say. I sure hope it’s good!

    But it wasn’t. Instead of getting attention on the basis of her ideas, her experience, the good she’s done, Palin’s like so many other women who get ahead for looking good in front of a camera. The pretty girls like Palin get attention, the not so pretty ones get educated. And the not so pretty ones who are not educated never get a platform, unless they’re Snookie. And she’s pretty annoying, too. But she’s not running for office.


    1. I can’t say as I’ve ever heard what qualifications either Pelosi or Clinton have had for their jobs. Clinton had no track record beyond her marriage to Slick Willie. Pelosi had less, unless there is some outstanding accomplishment for which either should be known. Pelosi never demonstrates any intelligence in even understandig the issue one which she might be talking.

      Palin, on the other hand, HAS had experience as both mayor and governor which counts for more than anything I’ve ever heard from Pelosi and Clinton. What she lacks most is properly articulating details of her positions. Even in this I think she is improving. She’s aware she choked in early interviews. Big deal. That has little to do with her inherent abilities and intelligence, as well as her inherent understanding of what made this country great. Generally speaking, it ain’t rocket science. THAT comes in the details and all executives in public office surround themselves with experts for that. (Except for Obama.)

      I, for one, and many others who actually look at the facts still favor “Drill, Baby, Drill”. Only the spineless are running from it after the BP explosion. You think support for BP is due to putting money first. This is lunacy. We need oil and will for several generations. No one, and I’m sure Palin as well, will have any problem holding BPs feet to the fire if there is any criminality to the situation. But the fact that the rig blew is no reason to stop drilling, but reason enough to drill on land or closer to shore. There have been similar incidents before and life goes on.

      The “death panels” was rhetoric to be sure, but it was necessarily harsh to bring to light the end result of the type of “reforms” the various health proposals must bring about in order to have any hope of success economically. That there might not be a specifically labelled panel to oversee who gets care is besides the point and rhetoric of a worse kind to divert attention from what the proposals will bring.

      Shooting the wolves was due to overpopulation which was causing more harm than culling the pack would ever bring about. The same happens for game animals when they become too plentiful. It has to be done to help the environment and goofy animal rights people don’t take the time to understand how such things work.

      Don’t know much about the “bridge to nowhere” but media attention that Palin gets is mostly negative (aside from Fox and other conservative media, mostly on the internet). Some say bad publicity is good publicity, too, but not for politicians, unless they get the chance to answer the goofy crap said about them. I think you are a victim of that negative publicity by believing Palin’s as worthless as your words seem to indicate you do.

      I don’t know if Palin is the best choice for national office. I know she’s far better than what the left wants to give us, and I feel quite confident that while she might not be the most savvy in dealing with every question put her way, she’s right where a good American needs to be on most, if not all the major issues of the day. That makes her better qualified than Obama ever was (and still isn’t) all by itself. I’d give her my vote if she was the last conservative standing for the general election and not feel bad about it at all.


  2. Spineless is quitting the governor’s office, MA.

    And I didn’t say Palin was worthless. She’s got talent for TV. But solving world problems, including environmental disasters and financial crises? I don’t think so.


    1. Accusing her for quitting the governor gig is a cheap attack. She was spending time and money defendig herself against lame attacks. Is a governor’s job to spend time in court? I don’t think so. As to her abilities to solve the problems Obama has exacerbated, do you really think she’d have waited to let foreign help join in to clean up the Gulf? Do you really think she’d quadruple our debt like Obama and worry business so much that unemployment would rise as high as it has? Based on what, exactly, do you think she’d have done a worse job than this moron now in office? She already had a better idea of how an economy is stimulated and she already had experience dealing with oil companies.


      1. We at least had her record of cutting spending and balancing the budget in Alaska so that we knew what she would do. What record did we have on economic issues for Obama? He was always a tax and spend liberal – that’s what his voting record showed. And now we have millions of job losses and trillions wasted trying to reverse it. But government spending doesn’t create permanent jobs!


        1. No, government spending does not create permanent jobs, but what do you want to bet it will buy a permanent President?…czars, anyone?


        2. “And now we have millions of job losses and trillions wasted trying to reverse it.”

          Obama took on the residue from the previous administration. In doing so he has become the new fall guy. Like him or not, there was no way he was going to succeed in correcting the mess Bush left behind. And likely that is the only way anyone was going to allow a black man to run for President. This way they can still claim that the white folk are the best choice for leaders. America is still very racial.

          Now I’d love to have some insight on why Palin was chosen to run with McCain. They were definitely looking for some somewhat new blood all around.


          1. Deficits

            Hello. The budget deficit was decreasing steadily until the Democrats took over the House and Senate in January 2007. That’s when the deficits began to explode. The housing bubble was caused by the democrats insistence that people who could not afford homes should never the less be granted the power to buy homes regardless of their immigration status, down payment amount or employment situation. It’s called the Community Reinvestment Act – it forces banks to make loans to people who can’t afford them. It was passed by Jimmy Carter and strengthened by Bill Clinton. Bush tried to rein it in and was blocked by Democrats. McCain tried to rein it in and was blocked by Democrats.

            All of that is documented here.

            Obama has been in charge of the country for almost two years. What has he done to improve the employment situation? He promised that if we passed the stimulus bill that unemployment would stay below 8%. It’s near 10%. Those are the facts. He’s bankrupting the country with his spending and it’s costing real people their jobs and their independence. He’s the worst President ever, and it’s not even close. Fiscally, socially and on foreign policy he has been a complete failure across the board. And I am saying this as a colored man. It’s not personal.


          2. “Like him or not, there was no way he was going to succeed in correcting the mess Bush left behind.”

            His skin color is not relevant to his failure. It’s because he’s not the brilliant intellectual he marketed himself as being. If he had a brain, he’d implement conservative free market policies that would stimulate the economy the way artificial gov’t stimulus can never do.


          3. MA, could you at please comment on what role our previous president had in creating our present woes with regard to the two wars, specifically, and also approving the financial bailout and also the oil spill.

            Thank you.


          4. The cost of the 2 wars is on the order of 600 billion, less than half of Obama’s expansion of the budget deficit in ONE YEAR. And war is a legitimate responsibility of the federal government, and in our national security interests. When you don’t have wars against your enemies, you get Arleigh Burke class DDGs equipped with the AEGIS missile defense system with a big hole in the side of their hull – like under Clinton – along with a half-dozen other UNANSWERED terrorist attacks. Note that there were no terrorist attacks under Bush following the start of ground operations in those two wars, whereas when Obama took office, it’s been one terrorist attack after the next, not to mention Iran laughing at us and menacing our closest ally in the Middle East.

            Here’s a funny take on what our enemies think of the Wuss-in-Chief.

            TARP was a Democrat bill passed by Democrats, and Obama followed up TARP with more bailouts. Democrats are the party of bailouts. They are the party of spend, spend, spend.


            Remember, the Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007 and they are the ones who passed the TARP bill.

            Bush tried to drill in Alaska, which is much safer than drilling in the Gulf, but he was blocked by Democrats who prefer offshore drilling and buying oil from our enemies. Democrats also block other energy initiatives like clean coal and nuclear power. Democrats are to blame for everything – it’s not just the housing crisis, it’s social issues, fiscal issues and foreign policy. From the breakdown of the family, to high unemployment, to Iran’s mad rush for the bomb. Wrong across the board.


  3. Listen, Wintery asked a question about why the left is angry about Palin and Bachmann and I answered. I’m not getting into why the right is angry about Obama. That’s an entirely separate issue. And not liking Obama doesn’t excuse Palin for being the quitter that she is. That’s not an attack, MA, or an opinion. It’s a statement of fact based on her quitting the governorship after 1/2 term.

    As for “cheap attacks,” perhaps you might wish to reconsider calling people “spineless” for opposing off shore drilling of the type that killed 11 people on the Deepwater Horizon and is befouling the Gulf of Mexico. I realize you have more empathy for Ms.Palin than the millions of people who are aghast at the ruin caused by BP, but if you don’t like your gal called “spineless” for quitting her office, then perhaps you shouldn’t use it so loosely yourself.

    As to government spending, no, it doesn’t create permanent jobs. But government spending is one of the tools for activating the economy in the absence of lending by banks to small businesses, and large businesses cutting back in investing in their own businesses, giving large bonuses to senior executives instead. There’s a terrific article today in the NYT, a paper I worked for for 2 years: Are Profits Hurting Capitalism?

    Check it out. And then tell me about Government deficit spending, a subject that not even economists can agree on, much less the lightweight half-term governor from Alaska.



  4. As to the “quitter” charge, what would you call someone who quit smoking? A “quitter”? How about someone who quit drinking? How about someone who quite a high paying job for ethical reasons? This article from an admitted Palin supporter puts her “quitting” in proper perspective. Doesn’t sound like there’s anything spineless about it to me.

    As to the “spineless” charge, I was not referring to people who oppose offshore drilling. No. Those people are stupid because they’re usually the same people who opposed safer locations because of environmental reasons and now have a big environmental disaster for them to accept blame for. No indeed. Those I called spineless were those who at one time supported “Drill, Baby, Drill”, an expression meant to encourage drilling in the many areas of our nation where deposits await safer action, and are now running from that position for fear of being connected with the current disaster. Those people ARE spineless because drilling so far out and so far down was NOT a first choice for anyone who supports drilling for our own resources. Why are they distancing themselves? Because they’re political animals, not people of principle and are therefor, spineless in this voter’s opinion? Does that clarify things for you?


  5. You know, I never would have thought to compare Palin’s quitting the Governor’s office after half a term to a smoker giving up cigarettes. Not in a million years. But let me give it a shot.

    Smoking is hazardous to your health and can kill you. And being spineless is also a serious health issue, particularly for politician. So yeah, I guess she actually quit being Governor for health reasons. I mean, if she’d served out her term, she might have died! And she certainly wouldn’t have made so much money on the talk show circuit!

    And that is so helpful of you to clarify that you don’t really find politicians who oppose offshore drilling to be spineless, merely stupid. How is it that you figure that they are actually responsible for the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon instead of the folks at MMR and also at BP and Transocean and also, perhaps, the previous administration, which was headed up by two former oil executives and let the oil industry help formulate the country’s energy policy. Of course, they were from two different oil companies. That’s diversity for you!

    Anyway, fascinating conclusions, Mr. Art. Is this another Sarah Palin conspiracy theory you’ve decided to get behind, or did you come up with that on your own?


    1. I’m talking about two different points, which is why there is a separate paragraph for each. First, I wasn’t comparing quitting smoking with quitting a job. I was demonstratig that “quitting” and being a “quitter” are distinct terms and that the latter isn’t a bad thing depending on the circumstances. How were YOU using the term in relation to Palin? As one of endearment? Forgive me if I misunderstood, but it seemed like a shot against her character. Did you click on the link I provided? I notice that it isn’t highlighted as I expected it to be, so perhaps you didn’t realize a link was there. Click on “This article” in the first paragraph of my last comment.

      Getting back to another concern of yours for Palin, in what way is her defense of BP a problem for you? Has she suggested they not responsible for the mess they made? Has she suggested that they not be held accountable for it, or for it on a criminal level if negligence is proven to be the cause? I woud guess that like other conservatives, she’s defending them against Obama and his demands for restitution that they have already offered, set up offices to handle and against the shakedown that Rep. Joe Barton correctly criticized. She may, like other conservatives, be defending them against having to drill so far out and so far down because of environmental activism, when they could be drilling nearer to shore or on land. That’s my guess, anyway.

      Those who oppose offshore drilling are stupid because they also oppose our dependence on foreign oil. Folks like myself only oppose it because we should be drilling on land or in more shallow waters. But we don’t oppose drilling. Most who oppose off shore also oppose drilling period. These are the stupid ones. We need oil. We’ll need it long after anyone figures out a better fuel for energy and fueling our vehicles. To oppose drilling for our own resources, offshore or otherwise, and spending money for the same resource coming from countries that do not like us is stupid. In fact, it’s stupid to pay ANYONE for that which we have ourselves, whether they like us or not.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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