Real Clear Commentary July 9th, 2009 _Palin's Super Powers Explained_ (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/07/09/palins-super-power/) Posted by Tom Bevan The normally level-headed Steve Chapman goes _off the rails_ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/09/the_secret_of_palins_staying_power_97 359.html) in his column today by contrasting Harriet Miers with Sarah Palin: But it's really not hard to see why Palin inspires such devotion. And I do mean "see." She has one obvious thing going for her that Miers didn't: She's a babe, and she doesn't try to hide it. [snip] Harriet Miers' problem was that she couldn't overcome her deficiencies with sex appeal. When people remain ardent fans of Palin no matter how badly she performs, it's reasonable to wonder what they are thinking. But thinking has nothing to do with it. According to Chapman, then, if Harriet Miers had just been better looking and had more "sex appeal," conservatives would have backed her for the Supreme Court. That's absurd. [ Extremely absurd --BR comment ] Chapman also misfires with this: Palin is not alone in using her looks to enchant the Republican faithful. Carrie Prejean went from being a runner-up for Miss USA to a conservative heroine because she came out against gay marriage in her pageant interview -- but also because she wears a bikini well. Carrie Prejean became a popular figure with social conservatives because she was attacked in a high profile, nationally televised event as a homophobe and a bigot for expressing the exact same view held by the President of the United States - who is obviously never characterized in those terms. The bikini had nothing to do with it. Lastly, Chapman writes: Good looks are a big advantage to male politicians as well. No one would have given the time of day to John Edwards or Mitt Romney if they were short, paunchy and bald. The same could be said of Barack Obama. I find it odd that Chapman devotes an entire column to arguing that Republicans are somehow uniquely susceptible to letting good looks blind them to a politician's "deficiencies" without mentioning that no one since John F. Kennedy has benefited more from charming good looks and a 100 megawatt smile than our current president. Chapman's problem is that he tries to take a basic truism - that people who are good looking are often treated better or held to a different standard than those who aren't as good looking - and turn it into a partisan political argument. He fails.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
