She really annoys them

Readers of this blog would have noticed that from time to time I make uncomplimentary references to left-wing feminists, particularly to their reluctance to voice support for women who suffer from far more than the pressure to wear bikinis on the beach. (Depends on who wears them, say I. There are times when it is causes suffering to other people. But I digress.)

There is a long-standing problem here in that right-wing feminism as in fight for women's legal rights, property rights, education, the vote and suchlike matters has been written out of history to a great extent. Feminist historians do not find it interesting to talk about the important role of women in, say, the Conservative Party while Conservative historians dismiss the subject as being of no significance.

There are some exceptions. There is Mitzi Auchterlonie's excellent Conservative Suffragists

There are Martin Pugh's books that provide a "revisionist history" of the women's movement and an overview of women in the "modern" post-Disraeli party.

However, for the real struggle one has to look, as always, across the Pond where left-wing feminist groups are being driven mad by the presence of the Mama Grizzly, Sarah Palin, now described as a feminist, rightly in my opinion and infuriatingly in theirs. Dana Loesch writes about it in the Washington Examiner.

Does this sound familiar?

What is overwhelmingly obvious is that this is a woman who possesses a more common-sense intellect and bigger cojones than ... any other male power figure I can name.

I recall hearing very similar comments about Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet or, indeed, the entire political spectrum around her. But this comment is about Sarah Palin after her performance on the O'Reilly show. The full paragraph runs as follows:

I just watched her vis a vis Bill O'Reilly following the One's pronouncements on the oil spill, you know, where the Big O addresses the Big O, and let me tell you my immediate impression. Put aside Greta Van Susteren's recent impertinent question to the governor as to whether she's had breast implants. What is overwhelmingly obvious is that this is a woman who possesses a more common-sense intellect and bigger cojones than O'Reilly, Obama and any other male power figure I can name.

Word is that the lady is coming to the UK and will be meeting Lady T herself. Now there is a conversation one would like overhear.

Oh good grief!

It is, of course, good to know that AP employs lots of fact-checkers and produces reports to show up errors. As Mark Steyn tells us the ten journalists worked on the checking and another one wrote a 695-word report. The subject had to be something very serious, indeed. And it was. All these people were working on Sarah Palin's forthcoming book, Going Rogue.

No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to "fact-check" Sarah Palin's new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That's 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)...

That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn't "often" go for "high-end" hotels; they say she "usually opted for less-pricey hotels". That's gonna make one must-see edition of "Point/Counterpoint".

Oh my, these people are really scared of La Palin. Here is the list of the six errors those eleven fact-checkers managed to find. Warning: not all of them are earth-shattering and one or two are meaningless.

More on the subject by John Hinderaker at Powerline, who points out that AP does not always quote Palin when attributing views to her.

The only thing AP's and others' of that ilk behaviour is likely to achive will be many more readers of Palin's book. Let us not forget that she is writing about her own experience rather than dreams from her father, mother or third cousing twice removed.

Not sure what to make of it

Sarah Palin's resignation has sent everyone into a tailspin, which just shows that she is still the most interesting politician on the American scene. There are those who think that she is now finished but, as we know, many a politician outside the usual suspects, such as Ronald Reagan, has been written off prematurely.

Others think that she has done the right thing for that 2012 presidential campaign. This way she can become more of a national figure, get people accustomed to her rather than the vicious slurs that the MSM and the various feminist organizations have been casting around, maybe borrow President Obama's ghost writer and teleprompter. After all, her life has been considerably more interesting than his.

Obviously, I am hoping she will be back. There are not that many politicians even among the Republicans who can be described as being small government; there are not that many politicians anywhere who have her grit and determination, who have risen quite genuinely from the bottom, just as it is supposed to happen but so rarely does in the United States; there are not that many women politicians with a good chance of reaching the White House, especially as one surveys the misogynistic anti-Hillary and anti-Sarah campaigns of last year.

On the other hand, I can understand why she might not want to carry on. Who on earth would like to have aging, prurient stand-up comedians make jokes about their 14-year old daughter being raped? Who would like endless analyses as to whether her youngest, disabled child is actually hers? Who would want to be told that she ought to have aborted that child because disabled people have no right to exist? These are only the most egregious of the vicious personal attacks aimed at Ms Palin and her family.

This Bloomberg report sums up the various opinions and there is a lively discussion going on at the NRO Corner. Mark Steyn is pessimistic about the political scene as well as Palin's possible future role:

Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to - what's the word? - "empathize"? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you'd have to turn into under that scenario?

National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.

I have long ago worked out the best response to stupid and ignorant British attacks on Sarah Palin, based on information culled from low-grade reports by British correspondents in Washington. Cheerfully, I tell those people that I don't have their class hang-ups and can, therefore, look at the person and what he has achieved. Then I leave before they can work it out.

Still, Victor Davis Hanson gives a more cheerful prognostication. We can but hope.