Karl Rove in a recent interview in the UK’s The Telegraph said of Sarah Palin:
“There are high standards that the American people have for it [the presidency] and they require a certain level of gravitas, and they want to look at the candidate and say ‘that candidate is doing things that gives me confidence that they are up to the most demanding job in the world’.”
Let me interpret this for those who don’t get it. Sarah Palin is a lady. She is a person who takes politics seriously. She is knowledgeable about politics. She is quite capable as a politician. When she speaks, she makes the news. She is important enough as a politician that her daughter Bristol was included in the TV show Dancing with the Stars just because she is the daughter of a famous politician. When Sarah endorsed US congressional candidates in the the 2010 elections, their voter support jumped quite noticeably. Sarah Palin is a political powerhouse.
So what is the deal with Rove saying that Palin lacks “gravitas?” The word gravitas has the same root as gravity. It means weight or heaviness or seriousness. Palin is clearly a political heavyweight, and 100% serious when it comes to politics, so what’s Rove issue? I know.
Sarah Palin is a girl.
She talks like a lady. She’s nothing at all like some of the vicious power-hungry bitches that the Democrats have put up as political leaders. She doesn’t sound like a man, and that’s Rove’s issue. “Gravitas” in this case is a political word meaning “she sounds like a lady and I can’t handle having a lady President, and I don’t believe the American people want a lady president either.”
Karl Rove is a sexist with a rich vocabulary. The issue is no more complex than that.
Stumble it!
1 user commented in " Rove’s “No Gravitas” is Sexism "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI agree this looks bad and I'm doubtful Rove would raise the "gravitas" issue with a man in an identical situation. It would be interesting to get some clarifying remarks from him about this.
However, for raw undeniable proof of sexism, I think this bit of evidence is completely flattened by the whole "how much did her clothes cost" thing. Frankly, I'm reluctant to go after this "Could Be Construed As" standard, not because I have any fondness for Rove or his remarks, but because of where it leads. It indicts nothing because it indicts everything. It's a nuclear arsenal of political counterattack.
I have a different approach in mind. When Rove and people like him complain of "gravity"; or take the Noonan/Powell approach, and find appeal in people like Barack Obama for no reason other than lots of other people also find nebulous appeal there; they are being cowardly and immature. Their argument is, Palin is "unelectable" because, nevermind what qualities and capabilities she does/doesn't have, there is this perception out there. And the perception exists because the press has been putting a false front on things. Go-along-to-get-along, adapt or go extinct, is their argument.
Cowardly. Giving way to unscrupulous forces of destruction, just because it's easier than the alternative. Doing the wrong thing to live and fight another day — just like a craven scavenger.
Much easier to demonstrate Rove falls into *that* category, I think. Sexist? Maybe; I'd even go so far as to say probably. But Rove would be on solid ground citing reasonable doubt.
Leave A Reply