Palin Applies Dead-Fish Metaphor to Politicians Willing to Go-With-the-Flow of Big Government..·

By Jim Wrenn, Editor. 
August 2, 2010--

            On Fox News Sunday, Sarah Palin applied the "Dead-Fish" metaphor to politicians willing to "go with the flow" of big-government policies rather than to go against the decades-long current of Progressivism leading inexorably to Gulliverization of Government Power and Lilliputianization of Liberty.   

          Although she didn't use the "Gulliverization of Government Power" and "Lilliputianization of Liberty" (those metaphors are mine), it's clear that she's conveying the message to candidates that those who propose "Obama-Lite" solutions are "dead fish" headed over the waterfall.  Many of her critics disparage her lack of literary and academic pedigree in mocking the idea that she's qualified to be President.  (No small part of the motives of some "on the right" who express skepticism that she's qualified are founded as much on their views as her competitors, or supporters of her competitors, for the nomination in 2012 as upon sincere skepticism.)  But what such critics (Left, Center and Right) fail to understand are fundamental aspects of her qualifications, motivations and goals.

          Does she make gaffes?  Does she sometimes oversimply an issue?  Does she sometimes resort to sloganeering rather than articulating substantive analysis?  Can anyone review the political history of any of the politicians in our history revered by the intellectual elite without finding just as long a list of comparable gaffes, oversimplifications, and sloganeering-- of course not, unless one were to be among those in the media who pose as "reporters" or "historians" while in reality serving as ideological spokespersons.

          Would she be the best candidate in 2012?  It's obviously too early to know.  Too much can and will happen between now and then.  But one thing is clear to anyone not blinded by hatred for Palin:  She's actually asking herself that question rather than having already concluded the answer to be "yes."  She's keeping her options open while keeping her eye on the real task at hand:  Exerting her best efforts to maximize the opportunities for the 2010 elections to begin applying serious brakes on Obama's pedal-to-the-medal effort to take the "ship" of state over the waterfalls in his misguided, idealistic, leftist notion that Government Knows Best.

          What are her best qualifications to be President?  Common sense rather than overwrought intellectualization in analyzing problems and proposing solutions with a strong presumption against assertions that the best solutions lie in increased governmental power rather than market forces and with a strong presumption that there is now raging world-wide a struggle between liberty and tyranny such that the former cannot avoid being extinguished by the latter without the former being championed by the United States with courage and determination. Qualifications needed for anyone seeking the office of President? You bet.

          Finally, what about other, more "traditional" qualifications?  Does Mama Grizzly have attitudinal qualifications that are as good as, if not better than, attitudinal qualification traditionally considered important for a leader?

Permanent links to this installment: 

http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2010/20y10m08d02-01.asp.