Monday, March 21, 2011

Oh Mama

Here's a bizarre piece in Slate from Jessica Grose.  Her premise: Sarah Palin and all that Mama Grizzly talk was able to fool women into voting Republican in 2010, so something or someone is needed to take her on. Her conclusion: Roseanne Barr, with a new reality show, will be the perfect counter to Palin, giving a progressive response and appealing to working class women.

I suppose I could just say "huh?" and leave it at that.  But a quick review:

First, Sarah Palin is a well-known public figure, but she didn't make the Republicans do well in the last election.  It was a widespread movement picking up on general discontent. Palin tried to run out in front of it, but it would have existed whether she had anything to say or not.  Whether this movement will continue to do well has next to nothing to do with Sarah Palin.

Second, Sarah Palin is an obsession of the left, not the right. That Jessica Grose even feels something has to be done about her (and conservatism in general, though that's another question) shows how she's missing the point.  Sarah Palin is probably already the most attacked woman in America.  She doesn't need a counter.  In fact, she's fairly unpopular, even among Republicans.

Third, almost no one takes Roseanne Barr seriously, not as a thinker, anyway.  She had a huge hit show some years back, one that often had political undertones, but even then I don't think she had any political influence.  Now, she's more widely seen as a crackpot and a has-been.  I'd say as a "voice of the people" she's even less popular than Michael Moore.  Perhaps she's got enough residual fandom for a hit reality show, but her attacking Sarah Palin could only help Palin. Her successfully selling a progressive message against conservatism in general seems pretty far-fetched.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Lawrence King said...

Second time that my post has appeared, and then vanished a few seconds later. Fortunately this time I saved a copy. Trying again:

---------------------

Ross Douthat wrote the perfect column on Palin two months ago. I still believe this should be the last word on Palin, period.

Scenes From a Marriage

By the way, the NY Times will soon start charging for use of its website. I think that will have a huge impact on a lot of websurfers. I hate the NYT's editorial stance but I love the depth of their information (e.g., election statistics, etc.). What is the alternative? The Washington Post has a badly formatted website. The Los Angeles Times is lousy by comparison, and its website crashes Firefox a lot.

9:44 AM, March 21, 2011  
Blogger LAGuy said...

The Times has been talking about charging for a while. Not good for free readers like me, of course, but will it work for the Times?

I remember a few years back they put their editorials behind a firewall. Kind of funny, and shows what they thought was valuable--opinion is the one thing there's no trouble getting on the internet. It weaned me off the Times editorial page, and I haven't yet returned as a regular.

11:08 AM, March 21, 2011  
Blogger QueensGuy said...

I will wind up paying. I've been trying other sites in anticipation of the change, and exploring options for getting as much NYTimes content as I need through intermediaries, but the fact is, nothing compares 2 u, NYTimes.

12:09 PM, March 21, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter