The other day, as I was watching one of the news channels I had to quickly check my calendar because I had the feeling that I may have only dreamt that the election was over.
The reason for my confusion was that several commentators were still taking shots at Sarah Palin. Here it was, weeks after the woman had left the campaign trail, and the abuse was as strident as it had been throughout her months-long quest for the second spot on the ticket. The man who ran for the first spot on the ticket had shed his bulletproof armor; yet, the woman still needed Secret Service protection.
The continuous assault on Sarah Palin is not so difficult to understand. In fact, it can be summed up thusly: she's a woman opposed to abortion. You see, when a man says he's opposed to abortion, women who disagree can accuse him of trying to control a woman's body and/or simply not understanding how a woman feels about dealing with pregnancy, career achievement and defeating the "good ole boy" network. But, how are they going to justify that to a Sarah Palin, who has raised a family, been elected to the highest office in her state and has gained a reputation as a corruption fighter? And a woman decided to keep, raise, and love a Down syndrome child, her son Trig.
Governor Palin represents a stake in the heart of the abortion movement and for that reason alone, she must be sniped at, ridiculed and trashed until her name becomes a scarlet letter on the bosom of every woman who dares to challenge the inner sanctum of liberal orthodoxy.
Clarence Thomas, during his Supreme Court nomination process, went through a similar pattern of degrading denunciation from those who feared that a black conservative would make it more difficult for liberals to polarize the country. According to some nebulous formula that only exists in the maladjusted minds of mental misfits, every black person should be reading from the same script. In other words, they dare not stray off the reservation. A black who can think and act independently is likely to be the victim of a "high-tech lynching," as Justice Thomas referred to it during the outrageous Anita Hill imbroglio.
Inasmuch as we live in a country that has become obsessively egocentric, we have entire groups who dedicate themselves to single issues. If you believe that women should have the right to kill their fetuses, you may be willing to elect someone with questionable credentials who is pro-abortion, over someone with a sterling reputation who is pro-life.
For these ideological narcissists, nothing is more important than the continued growth and consolidation of their power base. They wouldn't spend a New York minute on the examination of a candidate's qualification, education or history of accomplishment. All they want to know is; will she or he support them in their battle to keep abortion legal.
Not that they'll openly admit it. On the contrary, you'll often hear them say they don't believe in a litmus test for public office. However, the moment they see a name on a list that's connected with pro-life, their eraser will be ground down. Even Obama, when asked about Justice Thomas during the campaign, said, with obsequious submission, that he would not have nominated him.
That was merely another knee-jerk genuflection to the pro-abortion jackals, whose sharpened fangs, dripping with the blood of infidels, were poised to pounce on another lost sheep with the temerity to stray from the flock.
Sarah Palin lost, but her wholesome family values image continues to be a threat; hence she must be crushed.
Bob Weir is a former detective sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He is the executive editor of The News Connection in Highland Village, Texas. Email Bob.