As I said, I read it standing around in Costco, saved $17 by not buying it. i don’t have it here to go through to quote and reference the way you would a proper review. I had an hour or so with it and am a very fast reader. I went to parts about things I know about and I found the writers both thorough and non-judgemental except they did seem to be a bit exercised about the way she treated them in the waning days of her last Legislative session when they were here in Juneau doing research. Lots of people had noticed that Gov. Palin had gotten waaay into paranoid by then. Parts I read about things I had direct knowlege of pretty well matched up with my observations.

I’d actually be curious to see a diary on your thoughts on the subject.
I’m not sure I’d agree with all of it. But I’d sure like to read it!

What I am looking for here is for us to step away from the botting and do some self-examination which may or may not be of benefit.

Well, what say you?

As another poster said elsewhere. the Hate Palin thing is due to what Palin represents. The misogyny will be part of that, as it was in the democrat 2008 presidential primary. Democrat versus democrat misogyny showed equality of the sexes to be a fabrication when political power was at stake. The left in that situation were forced to choose whiich graven image to shove to the top of the mountain. Hillary wasn’t as shiny and new, and had less sex appeal, so she had to be smashed in order to absolve our nation of its racism. Idolatry is like that.

Our society must return to one where the family is the classroom for inculcating our traditional values and the history of our founding. If we cannot recreate this stepping-off point for citizenship for our children, we will be enslaved and drown in the fear and loathing the left has bequeathed to us.

On misogyny and Ms. Palin. It is there because of what I say above, but the gasoline that is being poured onto the bonfire is the fact that she has such a worshipful following. We know where that phenomenon got us a year ago. So do the leftists.

Palin is much more like Truman. I know you’ve been around her for a long time, and if there’s one thing I’ve picked about her, is that, like Harry, she likes the fight.

Give her that much if nothing else-unlike Bush, she hits back. Her problem is that it may be easy to bait her that way. Conservatives were frustrated for years by the Bush family’s inattentiveness to their opponents. They don’t have to worry about that with Palin-she attacks all the time.

That can make it somewhat hard to govern, however. which is something I’ve gleaned from your writings.

I support the hell out of her because she knows how to fight Obama and take the fight to him and his machine. That resonates with rank and file Republicans, not just the Elmer Gantry crowd.

However, you can only go on making distinctions about the Press for so long before it comes across as whining. Using the Press as a pinata has a relative short life in this country because there are different kinds of press in this country. Not every paper in this country is the New York Times or the Anchorage Daily Worker.

Yeah, the media hates her because it’s made up, predominately, of people who are on the other side of the cultural divide. The staff of the Daily Worker or MSNBC tend not to attend Assemblies of God Churches.

She’s got the base. She needs to reach past that. Beating up on the press won’t help her past, say, Thanksgiving.

What did change was the birth control pill and increasing numbers of women in the workplace. Between the time that Rosie the Riveter left her job in ’46 and the explosion of women into the workplace in the ’70s, the workplace was still largely a man’s place. The only women most men had much ongoing contact with were family members, perhaps neighbors, and a few close friends. Men with office and professional jobs had ongoing contact with secretaries and stewardesses – and that contact was enough to form plenty of legends and lead to not a few scandals and divorces. Throw in waitresses and hairdressers and you have all the sexual legends of the Fifties and early Sixties covered – and they were enough to make Hefner rich and famous.

The pill changed everything, but the vast majority of women couldn’t get the pill until they were 18 without having an uncomfortable conversation with their mother and family doctor – they still had both back then. So, huge numbers of young women with that little round plastic box on the nightstand or in their handbag became a part of the landscape beginning in the mid-sixties and thus began the age of sex without consequences. And it wasn’t just the guys who were sexually agressive. All those Susie Sunshines weren’t being raped and they weren’t being exploited by dirty hippie guys. They were girls just looking for a good time. Susie could and would say “no,” but she didn’t do it very often if it looked like fun.

There was exploitation, but it was teachers, college professors – especially, bosses, and sometimes cops or other authority figures. There was what today’s delicate sensibilities would call exploitation by men with money and power, but it isn’t like the girls didn’t volunteer for that “exploitation” and get some benefit from it.

Sexual exploitation in the workplace has never been as prevalent as the feminists would have us believe but it was plenty prevalent by the ’70s when millions of young women began to enter the workplace, and men and women that weren’t related to each other came into constant contact for the first time in our culture. That said, lots of Boomer aged guys, those dirty hippies you were talking about, who had been accustomed to Susie Sunshine’s favors found that they had been priced out and not a few of us have known resentment as we saw who got the promotions and why. Sometimes it was manipulation and seduction by the older and more powerful and well-off man, sometimes it was seduction by the woman, and sometimes it just happened. Stopping for drinks with the work gang or grabbing a late dinner after a long day with a workmate or with the boss planted the seeds of a lot of divorces in those days and the seventies were when the catchphrase “fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, fifty percent in death; you pick it” gained currency.

So, I seriously doubt that the influential Boomer-aged lefties got any more or less sex than anyone else similarly situated or that the women they came into contact with were much different from those everyone else came into contact with. Even in DC, for every short-haired, pursed lipped Ivy League educated feminist, there’s a dozen Dixie Darlin’s from Maryland and Virginia, and for a guy working in DC as a staffer or ‘crat, the odds are much better with the Secretary from over in VA than with the Assistant Deputy to the Deputy Assistant from MA. Even lefty men are practical creatures.

No the reason Lefties generally, and not just the men, hate Sarah Palin is the same reason they hate Clarence Thomas; neither are what their world view says they should be. To a Lefty Sonya Sotomeyor is what a woman is supposed to be, Sarah Palin is not and Barack Obama is what a Black man is supposed to be, Clarence Thomas is not. That whack-job female professor that said Palin wasn’t a woman was speaking from her inner core. There is a great intellectual and cultural divide in this Country but it isn’t based on who was and wasn’t getting laid in the Sixties.