Heather Mallick: Socialist Moonbat of the Week

With all the anti-Palin hysteria spewing from the left recently, there have been many strong candidates for Jungle Jim's coveted award of Socialist of the Week. But Heather Mallick, writing in the CBC's website, went to such effort that she deserves to not only win, but win an enhanced title of Socialist Moonbat of the Week.

There is such a wealth of riches in Heather's essay, that I don't know where to begin:

I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.
So why do it?
It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.

Where to begin? For one thing, Republicans have more babies than Democrats. Leading me to conclude that if anyone is sexually inadequate, it is the Democrat men.

All my life I have heard the mantra of how the Republicans favor the rich and Democrats favor the poor and middle class. But now we hear derisively that Republicans have the 'white trash vote' sewn up.

I won't quote the entire essay. You can read it for yourself if you have a strong enough stomach. But she does return to the issue of people with lower incomes:

The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence.

I want to know something, Heather. You have spoken quite derisively of poor people. You refer to them as 'hicks', 'economically abused', and 'white trash'. Yet you try to tell them that they would be better of by voting for people with political beliefs similar to yours. Do you really expect them to believe that you have their best interests at heart when you speak about them like that?

And are you really so surprised when these 'hicks' vote for Bush or McCain rather than Kerry or Obama?