Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » dumb, george w. bush, idiot, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, stupid, Tea Party » Palin is Stupid and So Are You

Palin is Stupid and So Are You

by RightHandMan

I was recently inspired to write a piece on the attitude toward the likes of Sarah Palin by a friend who displayed his distaste toward the woman.  He is not alone in his sentiment when he calls her stupid and gawks at the crowds or attention she attracts.  Democrats don’t understand her appeal because they don’t know how to be appealing.  Is Palin’s voice annoying?  Yes.  Is she a graduate from an Ivy League school?  No.  Does she always give the correct political answer?  In her words, “hell no!” – and there’s the rub.

Palin gives answers that are congruent with her principles and the principles of those around her.  She doesn’t just reverberate talking points like most politicians, she speaks her mind without always calculating the political outcome.  Does that make her stupid or does it make her a voice of the people?  Sarah is popular because she’s saying on a giant stage what most Americans are saying at the dinner table.  She’s in touch – which is why the “stupid” accusations are so insulting.  If she is stupid, then so are those who agree with her.

Of course this isn’t the first time a movement has left the democrats dumbfounded and left reaching for their “idiot” card. George W. Bush was an idiot, as was Ronald Reagan, and the ever popular Rush Limbaugh.  In the end, calling these individuals stupid was a mistake and continues to be a mistake by the left.  Great leaders aren’t necessarily intellectuals, and people driven by simplistic principles aren’t necessarily stupid.  However, intellectuals who distance themselves from traditional principles appeal to nobody and instead offer us the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore.  Infinitely frustrating to me is that the left is willing to call the right stupid because they follow those who represent their beliefs, but the left requires an intellectual to think for them – and yet the right is stupid.
I’m not trying to get in a name game, nor am I so thin skinned to take the insults personally.  The purpose of the post is to show the pathetic state of the democratic platform.  The “stupid teabag movement” is the left’s brainy summarization of a genuine and principled movement founded on real grass roots intellectualism – a description, no doubt, prime for an elitist’s mockery.

Filed under: dumb, george w. bush, idiot, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, stupid, Tea Party

opinions powered by
  • Gorges Smythe May 2, 2010 at 3:06 PM

    I've said it before: I'll say it again. The Democratic Party is the party of the ignorant and the angry. It doesn't have to be that way, yet it is consistantly so. Call it name-calling if you will, but my opinion is the result of watching politics for nearly 50 years. (Yes, I'm OLDER than 50!)

  • faithfulinprayer May 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    What they all don't understand is that an ivy league education may say your smart, but it doesn't mean you have common sense.

    I'd rather have a person educated at a normal college or no college at all with tons of common sense running our country than someone educated at Harvard with absolutely no common sense.

  • Anonymous May 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM

    I have to disagree with your blog, first of all Sarah Palin isn't a stupid woman and I don’t feel like the majority of democrats feel that way as you posted in your blogs. What the democrats don’t like is her over obsessive crave for attention and her lack of "common sense". I don’t care what state you are from, you have to be intelligent to be the governor of a state especially one that is as profitable and has an economic surplus such as Alaska has had. But Sarah Palin like George W. Bush has set herself up to be criticized by the left, with quotes like "Russia is right across the border of Alaska" she said this to justify her foreign policy experience (before you say Obama doesn't have any experience I KNOW, I am not conservative, as I am not Democrat, I vote based on what is best for this country and PALIN is not good for this country just as OBAMA isn't good for this country). Now back to my rant, Palin is telling Americans to arm up, to form militias (she says it sarcastically, but it is said), we are a country founded on the right to bear arms and were protected by militias in the early years of our country. But it is time have our government govern us, that is what they are there for. We are not communist, but we are falling away from capitalism, it is time for our country to find a good median, and take care of all of our people, not just the wealthy but also the poor. There are things that could have been so much better, and I did have high hopes for Obama, but he has failed me as he has failed our country. Palin however couldn't do any better and sure as hell didn't know how to run a country. So anyways, the majority of the left doesn't feel like Palin is "stupid" we just don’t like her. She has morals but morals are subjective between people that is why we have laws that strictly define what is right from wrong, it is your parents job to instill morals, it is the governments job to create and enforce laws. So keep your morals out of the government and let the judicial branch do its job.

  • Matt May 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM

    I'm thinking that this abuse of Palin, as well a any other Conservative voice is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the messenger, so the message can be ignored. They can win based on facts, so they smear. They aren't even waiting to lose the argument before they do it.

    BTW, here there be trolls.

  • Right Hand Man May 2, 2010 at 7:24 PM


    There's a lot here, and I don't want to turn the comment section into a debate forum, but I have to respond to a couple of points.

    First, you may disagree with the left, but many of the left do call her dumb/stupid. The friend that I spoke of that inspired me to write this did so, he had others agree with him promptly, and a quick google search on the subject will prove my point further.

    As far as I am concerned Sarah Palin opened herself up for criticism the day she started running for office, but criticism is far different from insults. Calling someone stupid isn't criticism, and therefore not what I am criticizing in this post.

    While Palan isn't my ideal candidate, saying that she doesn't know how to run a country and couldn't do a better job is quite a statement with little to back it up. I suppose the question could be asked, how does someone do worse? Of course, we would likely never agree on this assumption because my "better" is likely opposite of yours.

    I'm not sure where the morals statements came from, but I cannot agree with them. You basically have proposed that law makers should be immoral when legislating.

    Is that what John Adams meant when he said, "[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue"?

    Or when Fisher Ames stated, "Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers"?

    Perhaps it is what Benjamin Rush implied when he said, "The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments".

    Certainly it was assumed in Noah Webster's quote, "The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws".

    There are certain principles and morals that are natural to humans. That is why we have certain inalienable rights – human rights.

    I beg you, do tell me how a legislature distinguishes right and wrong without morals? Lastly, you imply that the judicial branch is to find what is moral and immoral whereas the legislature and/or executive is not. I would say the opposite is true. The legislative and executive branches have no guide to write and dictate except for by their morals whereas the judicial must refer to the law, not their morals.

    Thank you for your comment.