David Limbaugh’s column on the latest example of left wing intolerance against a Palin – this time Bristol Palin – is a must-read:
Though tolerance is not the highest virtue and hypocrisy is not the lowest sin, liberals have a dearth of the former while demanding it and an abundance of the latter while forbidding it.
Washington University’s withdrawn speaking invitation to Bristol Palin is a textbook example both of liberal intolerance and hypocrisy.
The university invited Palin to share her views on abstinence during its “Student Sexual Responsibility Week” in February. But when it was disclosed that the school had offered Palin $20,000 to speak, open-minded liberal students objected and the university withdrew the invitation.
Let’s look at some of the reasons the university offered for reneging on its invitation to Palin — reasons that are much more diverse than the university’s acceptable range of speaker choices.
The first objection was over the size of the honorarium. While $20,000 is a good chunk of change, it’s not like it was a gift. Speakers are routinely paid more on campuses throughout the United States, many of whom couldn’t possibly draw the kind of crowds necessary to pay their fees. With Palin’s high profile, she doubtlessly could have generated an audience sufficient to cover her honorarium. If that’s the case, this objection is unreasonable, especially when schools subsidize other speaker payments. And what does it say about a public institution that it would renege on what we must assume was its legally binding commitment to pay Palin for her appearance?
Of course, the amount of money was probably not the main reason for the student outrage, but just an added irritant to their revulsion that anyone related to Sarah Palin would set foot on their campus, much less at the university’s paid invitation.
Soon, other reasons surfaced. One was that Palin is too controversial, a frequent complaint leftists selectively make against conservatives in a variety of venues. But no such student objections were leveled against the appearance at the university of Obama’s disgraced “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, who resigned from his post when it was learned that he had been an avowed Marxist and had publicly denounced Republicans with expletives. And if Palin is controversial for her objectively innocuous views supporting abstinence, how about the Planned Parenthood contingency that will remain on the panel, militantly pushing the pro-abortion position?
Even those who aren’t fans of the Palins should be able to admit that the hate and intolerance, the deliberate smearing of the former Governor – and via extension her family – from not just left wing activists, pundits, and politicos but so-called “mainstream media journalists” is something rarely seen in modern history (even when you take into account the standard rough and tumble that comes from putting yourself out there), and is troubling. Say this to anyone on the left and they’ll point to President Obama or former President Clinton as examples of “unprecedented in modern history smear attacks” but a distinct difference between those alleged “smear attacks” and the ones leveled at Palin is that both Obama and Clinton had the left wing media – including left wing culture warriors, self-important Hollywood types, etc – on their respective side, pushing back and pushing back hard in attempts at (dishonestly) covering for their Dear Leaders, whereas Palin has conservative bloggers and pundits honestly fighting the uphill battle to defend her. The MSM is a powerful force to overcome for conservatives, in spite of the rise of conservative media over the last couple of decades, and in spite of the drop in credibility of Big Media outlets like the NY Times, CNN, etc.
While it’s true that Palin is successul in her own right and hasn’t let the negativity and smears stop her from blazing a trail, I don’t think she has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Presidency in 2012 – assuming she wants to try and assuming she’d make it beyond the primaries. I’d believe this even if she hadn’t resigned as governor of Alaska. There’s just this tsunami of negative press she faces almost daily, and it’s difficult to overcome that – even if she does have a lot of us out there on her side willing to defend her from unfair attacks. This isn’t to say that Palin hasn’t brought some justified criticism on herself, but have you ever noticed that most of that type of criticism has come from those of us on the right who want to see her do well? There’s obviously a difference between justified and unjustified criticism. Suggesting that Sarah Palin should be more selective when it comes to picking and choosing which left wing critics to respond to is both justified and constructive; suggesting Sarah Palin is a “hypocrite” on the issue of abstinence before marriage because her unmarried daughter got pregnant is both unjustified and unconstructive – it’s not only a personal attack, but it also suggests something that isn’t true: that she engages in double standards because of something her daughter did of which Sarah Palin herself did not approve. Furthermore, if we’re going to judge Sarah Palin by the actions her children take, we can view her to be consistent on the issue abortion because Bristol Palin chose to have her baby and raise it as a single mother, with her family and all their love and support by her side.
Hmmm. Wait. That was the problem to the left. Sarah’s daughter Bristol chose to keep her baby. Oh, and she also happens to be a strong proponent of abstinence, which self-righteous left wing nitwits on college campuses across the country don’t want to talk about, because it means that people should: 1) exercise some self-control and 2) wait until they are either married or well into a relationship before starting to have sex. You can see where campus liberals might have a problem with both 1 AND 2.
Oh – and you have to love the real double standard of supposedly being afraid that Bristol Palin was “too controversial” to speak at the University when you consider, as Limbaugh pointed out, that Truther Van Jones was welcomed with open arms. Not only that, but consider this:
Of course, this is the same university that has no problem instructing students on how to give the best bl*w job. Priorities matter.
How much do you want to bet that had the the WU SHAC extended an invite to shameless opportunist and liar Levi Johnston to speak that students would have rolled out the red carpet for him?
But we don’t have to wait to find out who the replacement for Bristol Palin will be. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
The panel was to include representatives from the university’s Catholic Student Center, Missouri Right To Life and Planned Parenthood. Now, instead of Palin, the panel will feature Dr. Katie Plax, head of adolescent medicine and associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Washington University School of Medicine. Dr. Plax is medical director of The SPOT, a teen health center at Washington University Medical Center.
Here’s more on Dr. Plax:
Plax splits her time between patient care and advocacy. She has been legislative chair for the Missouri chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2004. She continues to work on expanding CHIP coverage in Missouri using funds from the federal stimulus package as well as working with the state to use stimulus funds to reverse cuts to health and social service agencies.
She also spends some of her free time in politics and says she loves to work on campaigns. Last fall, she canvassed for President Barack Obama and attended his inauguration.
Predictability, thy name is … well, you get the point.
**Posted by Phineas
President Obama gave his State of the Union address last week (which, in Internet years, was sometime during the Jurassic), and this week Bill Whittle has posted a conservative rebuttal. As always, Bill’s videos are well worth watching:
RELATED: A listing of Bill’s earlier series — What we believe.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
**Posted by Phineas
I believe I’ve posted this before, but, since tax season is fast approaching with all its wrangling over this rule and that deduction, I thought it worthwhile to offer again. In it, the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell explains how a flat tax would work and why it would be better for the country than the current Byzantine system we have:
And, speaking of those Mitchell mentions who benefit from the current tax code, I’m sure the tax-prep industry would just hate this.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)