Hot Air's Allahpundit:
Jim Geraghty [theorizes] why it is that the left despises [Palin] so. He’s certainly got part of the answer — happy, successful pro-life conservative women are a grievous offense to leftist feminism — but I think he misses the element of sheer contempt they have for her intellect. To the left, I think, she embodies a sort of comfort with ignorance that they think characterizes most/all conservatives. Why they’ve come to see her that way is complicated (part of it’s probably educational pedigree, part of it’s her affinity for rural pastimes like hunting, part of it’s the Katie Couric interview and the canned answers she gave at the debate with Biden), but I think it’s a mistake to assume that their antipathy is rooted in nothing but fear and defensiveness. That’s not true of the right vis-a-vis The One, after all. Is it?Emphasis mine. And I 100 percent agree with the bolded statement. It's much simpler than other versions of this theory, relying less on creepy psychosexual dynamics, and ultimately I think more prescient. And the nice thing about it is that it sort of cuts both ways. If liberals are right that Palin really is ignorant, and moreover, completely comfortable with that ignorance, and moreover still, thought she ought to be Vice President of the United States, they have perhaps ample reason to dislike her. On the other hand, if they dismiss Palin because she looks pretty or talks funny or doesn't read the same newspapers they do, that goes to their being snobs.
But I think there is an even simpler version of this argument: George W. Bush.
Palin is the most Bushlike of all the Republicans who have emerged as contenders for the national ticket: the smirkiness, the smugness, the regional accent (although Palin's, I assume, is not feigned), the malapropisms, the contempt for media (both the people who cover it and their mediums), the express deference to religious faith, the occasionally undeniably likable moments of joviality and regular guy/gal-ness, the tendency toward self-dealing, the bulldog/barracuda mentality, the comfort in one's own skin (Palin was crippled when she lost hers late in the campaign), the (apparent) preference for isolation in [Wasilla, Crawford], and last but not least, the no-holds-barred, no-apologies conservatism.
And sure, some of this is complicated by the fact that Palin is a woman, and a very attractive woman. Would Palin be resented to the same degree by (some) liberals if she looked like Susan Boyle? Well ... maybe not. But would she have been picked for the national ticket? Well ... maybe not. But this has less to do with Palin herself and more to do with the manner in which she was elevated to the national stage. Liberals believe very deeply in the idea that life ought to be meritocratic. Palin didn't seem to have earned it, especially in comparison to John McCain and Barack Obama and even Joe Biden who had such compelling life stories. To a lot of people (not exclusively liberals; Kay Bailey Hutchison's contempt for Palin was obvious), it felt like another case of the pretty girl getting the promotion. If Palin wins the nomination on her own in 2012, this case will fade, and in turn so should some of the resentment.
208 comments
I'm sorry, it's wrong to say that we liberals "hate" Sarah Palin.
I hate poverty and injustice. I LAUGH at and PITY Sarah Palin.
Q. What major papers do you read?
A. (Blink blink) All of them.
Q. Name one.
A. (Silence).
I have disagree with some of this. I think what rankles so many on the left is her celebration of being "dumb". She wears ignorance like a badge of honor.
Her convention speech was to reinforce that concept. Her answers to interviews and her statements in stump speeches all reflected this simple minded right vs. wrong view of everything. Saying Obama "palled around with Terrorists" is a simple example of that concept.
For many women of the left, they want successful women to show they have risen to their position on their brains and abilities and ethics, just as we usually claim men do (George W Bush being a notable exception of course). The reason those women want that is that they are trying to undo stereotypes of woman in powerful positions. They are trying to show that any smart woman has the same options as any smart man, but that they get there fairly and squarely. With Sarah Palin's problems with facts and truth, it creates another image like Kathleen Harris of women as strivers who will do anything to get to the top.
Some of the other aspects that offend many on the left has to do with her hypocrisy around "family values" and morals (this is a general problem that the Republican party has). For example, the fact that her daughter was pregnant did not cause her to rethink her "abstinence only" is the only possible thing to tell kids.
She was picked for the wrong reasons, seems to have a hard time explaining her positions when it's not scripted, uses her family as a tool to promote 'family values' in a very hypocritical way, and her college record shows that she isn't as smart as most people like to think she is.
This is all silly. People hate her for the same reason that they hate Survivor. She's stupid as hell and yet people love her.
If she were the stupid mayor of Wasilla, no one would care. Instead, she's the stupid figurehead of a freaking national party that people seem to actually listen to.
Beyond all that, it's also not so much that's she's stupid so much as her ideas. She's extremely right wing. No one talks about why liberals hate rush because they disdain fat people. We hate them because we hate their ideas and the fact that so many people give those ideas credence.
Personality doesn't matter after that.
Bush feigned his West Texas accent? I know he has a blue blood pedigree, but I think his accent was genuine.
I suspect that the "hate" was driven partially by fear (which admittedly was largely driven by the fact that Bush had just spent eight years in office).
Claiming that Palin was ready indicated that large portions of the Republican party still weren't worried about competence.
Many of her supporters were claiming not merely that her qualifications didn't matter, but that she was *well*qualified* by dint of having been a governor.
If you dug a little deeper, looked at the size of Alaska's population, budget, etc, and how *well* she had performed the job ... well, she seemed about as qualified as Kwame Kilpatric, then mayor of Detroit. There was disagreement over whether (and how) Kilpatrick should be forced from office, but I never saw anyone suggest that he was ready for a promotion.
Maybe I'm unusual but I was actually most concerned about her unapologetic corruption and nepotism in office, and the fact that nobody seemed to care about that.
But I spose that would be ignoring her gender and looks which I know is pretty boing of me.
Read the actual Geraghty post.
He spends paragraphs describing Palin's looks, family and ambitions. Zero, nada on her relevance as a national (or for that matter local) governance figure (i.e. why she should lead anything but her family).
Finally he compares her to Angelina Jolie, well exactly. The Dems are not crazy enough to nominate Jolie are they. We actually take the position of VPOTUS and POTUS seriously.
As it concerns public people or events, the closest I've ever come to "hatred" is on 9/11, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Sarah Palin doesn't even begin to register with me when it comes to "hatred."
But the Republicans did scare me when they nominated her. She is manifestly unqualified for the presidency. It couldn't be more obvious. Even when you make the usual allowances for politics, the woman is a stupid liar.
@Jeff: Bush acquired that accent fairly late in life.
@Nate: I think you've nailed it here. "We" liberals may have a variety of reasons for disliking Palin but her anti-intellectualism is certain a core reason for many of us. Couple that with a lack of introspection, a tendendy to see everything in black-or-white terms, and her girlish "winking" as if that were an effective means of communication on anything important -- and you have a perfect Palin doll for any us to stick pins in.
She is also emblematic of many of the know-nothing "science" and "fact" deniers on the Right. I happen to know lots of really smart people on the right, but it's the deny-deny aspect of a significant part of the politicized right that people are sick of.
Jeff, Bush's accent varied wildly. Sometimes he would pronounce words correctly and sometimes he'd pronounce those same words completely wrong. We had a War on Terror half the time and a War on Terra the other half. I'm not sure it was a deliberate conceit, but he hammed things up sometimes.
As for Nate's suggestion that Palin won't be so hated if she gets the nomination in 2012, I'll buy that. To get the nomination, a politician has to do hundreds of interviews and dozens of debates. That's the stuff she skimped on last time. If she actually does that and does it well enough to get people to vote for her in primaries, that will be a decent accomplishment.
However, I don't think she has a good chance of doing that. I think she will get torn apart in the primaries if she decides to run.
I couldn't stand the way she clearly didn't know what she was doing, but rather that it seemed everyone told her how to act and what to say. Whenever she didn't have a ready response, she showed what she really thought (or didn't think, maybe I should say) about issues and it was downright scary. I just don't think she's capable.
What bothered me the most was that placing her center stage was a reminder that when a republican is elected to high office, that individual is just a front-suit for the corporate oligarchy that continues to run the country. Palin, especially giiven McCain's medical history, was the ultimate insult to the American People in this regard. It said, "we don't really care who wears the suit, as long as we get to pull the strings from the shadows.
“Hate” is totally the wrong word to use here. Ridiculed, yes; feared possible consequences of her election, yes—but even Palin’s most strident detractors never hated her.
In fact, this seems to be something Republicans frequently get wrong. Remember Nixon’s boozy farewell speech to his staff, before boarding the helicopter that would take him out of our lives? “Just remember: others may hate you, but they don’t win unless you hate them back.” The American public was aghast, appalled, astonished and furious at Nixon, but I doubt that many actually hated him. Most people suspected that deep down Nixon hated himself, so why bother piling on? Indignation at and contempt of him were quite sufficient. Hating him would have been gilding the lily.
However I think George Bush did inspire genuine hatred. It was that he was such a witless tool of the ultra-conservatives, and had so little idea of (or concern over) the damage he did every day he was in office, and that there was nothing that could be done about it, that frustration among his opponents really did boil over. Now that is a person who can inspire hate.
Speaking as a liberal who strongly, strongly, strongly dislikes Sarah Palin, though I wouldn't say I hate her, I think that her anti-intellectualism/anti-feminism is one of the reasons behind this dislike. More to the point, however, is that the phenomenon of Sarah Palin, e.g. all the rallies at which people shouted that they wanted to kill Obama and other such things, genuinely scared me. I got the feeling that Sarah Palin either possessed herself or had come to represent in national politics various sorts of hatred of various sorts of "otherness," like non-whiteness or non-Christianness.
Also, this notion that Sarah Palin is simply unambiguously "a very attractive woman" bugs me. She is rather thin and is amply endowed in certain areas, but that does not connote attractivity. Her face, in particular, strikes me as quite repellent.
Nate, I think you jump too quickly onto the "they hate her because she's pretty" bandwagon, when you're overlooking what is perhaps the biggest way in which Palin resembles George W. Bush: Arrogance.
Beyond their contempt for the media, and really for anyone whose political views differ from their own, they both haven't demonstrated a shred of humility in their political personas. It shouldn't be surprising that many people have a strong, negative reaction towards those whoso hubris makes them unwilling to or incapable of admitting error. That kind of personality is repellent in personal relationships, and it's extremely dangerous in leaders.
Palin is going to be swatted down hard in the republican debates.
Giving canned responses, completely avoiding questions, and trying to act all cutsy and folksy might have worked in the one VP debate she had with Biden....but she cant wink her way through a dozen or more republican debates.
Every single time there was unscripted interaction with palin it went horribly wrong. To be blunt she's just plain stupid in every sense of the word.
Romney is going to tear her apart in the debates. Should be fun to watch. Now im no fan of Mitt (or any other republican) but he's a damn good debater.
I dislike her because she reminds me of those facade storefronts in the Old West. There's an outside, but there's nothing inside.
Nothing about her character has been demonstrated beyond a desire for power. She has proven that she will say and do anything to attain it.
She was foisted upon us as an insult: "Look. Here's a woman on MY ticket!" And I remember the first few days after her nomination, when I, along with most women, was intrigued by her and hungry to learn more about her positions and personality, though I was wary due to her spiteful convention speech. I went to a party in that time, and the other women gushed about how she was young and active and a hunter — "one of us," basically.
If she'd had any personality or intellect beyond willful vacuousness, she would have won our hearts. Instead, time after time she's shown herself to be nothing more than a grasping pissant, all hat and no cattle.
It's hard to say I disagree with anyone commenting on this article. Everyone pretty much has it right. She represents so many facets of what a lot of us do not want to see in government positions.
There's an even simpler version of your simple version, Nate.
Sociopath.
In Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair article he said Several [people] told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder”. She is a textbook case of what Bob Altemeyer calls a "Double-High Authoritarian".
It's not so much hate that liberals feel as *fear* -- the fear any prudent person has toward danger. You *should* be afraid of sociopaths in positions of power, just as you *should* be afraid of climbing into the tiger cage.
I haven't seen conservatives really facing how much of a bell Altemeyer's work rings with liberals, how much fear and loathing Double Highs provoke.
Nate is dead on here. Sarah Palin consciously aims at emulating W. The rest of the world may despise the man, but she seemed to have spent the past eight years taking copious notes on how to be like George. This will appeal to the cromagnon 20 percent of Americans, and no one else.
I pretty much agree with your comparison to Bush, and I've been saying that about Palin since she appeared on the national scene. She is a younger, prettier Bush. And that terrifies me.
Her championing of ignorance is an issue, but she's always just really fucking annoying. "Those, those are not my clothes. I bought these at my favorite consignment shop at Anchorage Alaska, hm!" This will always be stuck in my mind as one the most annoying things I've seen in a national figure.
And she's an elitist! Saying "I'm better than those other people because they're all elitists" is elitism!
It isn't just the left (or liberals) who dislike Palin. We're forgetting that many, many people on the right also do. Indeed, I'd say that most of the prominent conservative pundits were unimpressed by her, and unhappy with the selection.
I think she has deliberately attempted to fill a niche previously occupied by Bush, and also Reagan, but what she and her supporters fail to understand is that she's not as successful at it. When she said "There you go again" at the debate, it inspired ridicule, because it was obvious she was simply riding on Reagan's coattails.
We like to forget that Bush earned support across the political aisle in 2000, whereas Palin has played exclusively to the base and has been an abject failure at attracting anyone else. Even in '04, Bush got plenty of support from independents, even though it was slightly less than Kerry and even though his support from evangelicals may have been enough to push him over the edge in a close race.
Many liberals will not admit that Bush had any talents, but the fact is that he was effective as a campaigner, in his brutish, simplistic way. And it's clear that Reagan was a truly gifted politician. Palin's supporters want us to think that she is the latest example of the folksy Republican who drives the left crazy and then manages to win the presidency against all her adversaries' expectations.
She knows the words but not the music, and she's arrived too late for this kind of thing to resonate anymore.
Wow. Palin STEPS DOWN...pretty shocking. A little too early to speculate...but this will kill her chances in 2012 and beyond.
Good comments here, everyone. Thanks for the very interesting read and various takes on both Palin and Nate's piece.
My first reaction, after doing a little research on her positions, was that she was basically Mike Huckabee in a skirt. I know that's an oversimplification, but many of her views coincide with his, especially on social issues.
I "hated" Palin because she manipulated feminism to her own ends.
I "hated" Palin because she embodies anti-intellectualism that is rife in society.
I "hated" Palin because she got to where she was on her "looks".
I "liked" Condi because she was a successful person who just happened to be a woman - she didn't use her gender as a weapon.
I "liked" Condi because she is a strong powerful intellectual woman.
I "liked" Condi because she got where she was based on skill and intellect.
I disagree with both Palin and Condi politically, but I "like" and have deep respect for Condi.
The "hate" for Palin has nothing to do with her being a successful conservative woman - it is to be with her embodying everything that is detestable about society.
"If Palin wins the nomination on her own in 2012, this case will fade, and in turn so should some of the resentment."
So instead of the pretty girl getting the promotion, we'll have the pretty girl winning the beauty pageant. Not quite literally of course but a contest in which trivial things (regular guy/gal-ness, attractiveness, comfort with ignorance) trump more substantial ones. I definitely do not agree that this would turn down any of the resentment. All it would do is increase already bountiful cynicism about our values and our democracy.
I'm ambivalent about Palin. On the one hand I think she's a hypocritical, cynical, ignorant, pandering halfwit who should never be allowed to hold any position of power above, say, night manager at Denny's. On the other hand, she's the funniest thing that's happened to politics in the past decade. I really hope the Palin/Bachmann ticket that people keep bringing up actually happens in 2012, because it will be great political theater.
Palin hate is a many-splendored thing:
1) All of what you said.
2) She seemed to be a cheap stunt, adding her to the ticket for buzz, and until the Couric interview it looked like her lack of substance was going to be ignored becuase of the sizzle.
3)McCain's reputation as a decent guy was completely destroyed by the stunting. While she was his choice, it reflected the Hail Mary desperation which characterized the McCain campaign.
4)Her connection with the religious right - and the hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.
5) Most significantly her appeal to the unspoken -- the people who hate book-smarts and feel excluded by it, the reddest redness of the red-states, those whose hate for Obama was as irrational (but explicable) as they claimed was the hate for Palin.
6) Palin symbolizes the cultural wars.
Nate, some of us left-of-center people don't hate Palin for being Palin;
I hate Palin because there is was a massive load of people who ate up her shit at the convention and in other arenas.
Palin is ignorant, and was clearly not anywhere near competent enough for the national stage. Yet Republican audiences just devoured it. I hate that there are that many Americans who love ignorance, stupidity, and generally seem anti-intellectual.
I disagreed with McCain, but at least until the campaign, I respected him. He then started unwinding and yeah.
If McCain had picked someone like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, I think things would've been at least marginally closer; Those men are smart, articulate, and probably would've drawn more moderates.
Instead, they picked a virtual nobody, from nowhere, who came off dumber than a box of rocks, and said "Here's your VP nominee".
...and Conservatives ate. it. UP.
That's why I hate Palin, not for herself, but because she actually inspires people to fawning over her, and I can't believe it.
Palin is a fascinating character. I think part of the reason she is despised is the erm sheer gleefulness that she took to the national stage. It worried me at the time that a mother of a very young special needs child should rush onto the national stage quite so enthusiastically. I think it points to a level of naked ambition that sits uncomfortably with many people as far as politicans are concerned.
Obviously all politicians, especially those who appear on the national stage, are ambitious up to a point. But Palin seems to take it to an extreme. (I think that is what rankles with the email leaks this week, they reveal her naked ambition, and a pol looking beyond 2008, whilst fighting a national campaign.) But worse than that is the seeming canyon between her ambition and her ability. She really isn't all that talented a politician, not once you have scratched the surface. She is like the talented player from a small college who steps into the big leagues, with a big smile and a big personality only to turn out to be a dud.
Now obviously she has something about her. (I still don't think she should be underestimated for 2012, with enough training she can still be the speedy wide receiver who can catch the long ball!) But her well received covention speech really was nothing compared to say Cuomo's in 84 or Obama's 20 years later. Or from a conservative point of view Reagan's in 76. Now general statement of her guiding principles, no sense of vision. She didn't really do anything other than give disaffected conservatives a blank canvas to paint onto in the campaign. She has no particular legacy yet as Governor of Alaska. Nothing else in her background to make you think she might be capable of stepping onto a higher level. None of this is to say that she won't be capable, just she isn't the finished article, and she is being painted by some as such. She really is no Barack Obama in terms of talent, Obama is far more capable of ennunciating a vision, and of organising a national campaign.
bingo! it really is all about the ugly feelings most intelligent folks have about dubya. you can dress it up anyway you want but lack of intelligence & dependence on emotional social issues(bushism)is where it all begins.
She was an "attractive" W. That's what pissed the left off. We hated W, and now so do most conservatives, that when we saw his "little sister" up there we freaked the hell out and found it to be an insult to us and all of America.
Sadly, against a weaker candidate (flip the Dem ticket) it may have worked for the Republicans. It was a desperate gamble, but times were desperate. I would have done things differently, but you can't really second guess them.
A timely thread, given that she's resigning her governorship!
Her accent is fake or of recent manufacture. Youtube has some oldish videos of her speaking as mayor of Wasilla. The accent is nearly absent.
I know people from Alaska, and none of them talk like that.
Perhaps none of them have nasal blockages.
Sorry to go a little off-topic, but I really think we need an update to the Senate rankings, especially with Governor Palin resigning. What are the chances that this means she'll try for the Senate, and how would it affect that race?
After resigning as AK Gov for no good reason, can she make a credible White House run in 2012?
Palin's resignation makes perfect sense to me. It's her way to avoid being tarred with all of Alaska's financial problems -- and solutions.
Anyway, she just doesn't need that job. She already has national visibility, and she can make a TON of money as a speaker if she doesn't have to spend that much time in Alaska or risk being charged with ignoring her official responsibilities. Speakers/appearance fees well above $50,000 a pop can add up very fast!
Besides, she's got a huge payday coming in the form of her book advance -- and she has a ghost-writer for that so it's not like she's going to have to toil at a task she has no talent for (either writing OR governing OR speech-writing). She just has to show up.
I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate and I don't like Sarah Palin. When I first entered the work force in 1980, I was a college graduate in a then-male dominated profession. In those days, women in that profession were patronized, looked at as management's concessions to women's right groups. I, and my female peers, worked hard to be respected for our knowledge and hard work. I busted my butt to be good enough to be seen as an equal by my male coworkers.
Then, Sarah Palin or someone like her, comes along and expects to be elevated to a position of reponsibility because she's cute, wears tight skirts and winks at the guys. She is a nightmare to every woman that's been overlooked by her boss for the sweet young thing in a miniskirt.
I can't believe McCain chose her as a running mate over scores of other qualified candidates. What about all the Republican women who've worked long and hard, spending hours in minor committees until they've earned seniority, who've been through brutal campaigns, who've shown time and again they're women of their words? Immediately displaced by a Barbie doll.
Sarah Palin and her ilk have set hard working, serious minded women back 30 years.
Good post, but I am a little confused by this sentence:
"Liberals believe very deeply in the idea that life ought to be meritocratic."
Maybe "classical liberals" do, but that seems to me like a more deeply small-government/strong-capitalist/conservative idea to me, at least in theory.
I agree with what PaulK said and with some of what hurricanexyz has to say.
It would not matter to me so much if the characterization which Nate highlights in his article, namely that "she embodies a sort of comfort with ignorance", adequately captured the situation. That "comfort" would simply portend a kind of stasis in our politics. It would continue an ideology that we have become all too familiar with after Reagan and the two Bush presidencies.
But Palin takes much more than comfort from ignorance; she exudes pride in it! She could demote the pride of ignorance we experienced for the last eight years to the dustbin of history and promote another of even greater intensity.
Is it possible that Sarah's intense pride can be both dangerous and infectious? Have the last eight years provided us with a vaccine against such a disease? Is it still possible for our electorate to relapse into a full-blown pandemic of this kind of pride?
These are the uncertainties I fear most. Could she possibly nudge the politics of our future so as to make even that of our last presidency simply PalinComparison?
As a scientist, I am particularly bothered by the Bush administration's anti-science attitude. They had a strong tendency to try to bend the scientific agenda to support their values.
Palin represents this to a level not even achieved by Bush. In particular, she is an advocate for creationish, particularly Young Earth creationism, more strongly in that extreme anti-science camp than Bush. This is one of the main reasons I don't want her as our chief executive.
There are liberals who do the same thing, but nothing to the degree that I have seen conservatives do it. For example, global warming is mainstream science, though I have seen liberals exaggerate the likely severity and ignore uncertainties in the data.
WV - fantio - the land where Sarah Palin's version of science is reality.
I think you nailed it with the similarities to Bush and the feeling that she was only in the VP nominee position because she's an attractive conservative female politician.
Coincidentally, Palin just stepped down as governor of Alaska. Perhaps a sign that she's going to try to gain more national attention in the run up to 2012.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/palin-to-resign-as-governor-of-alaska/?hp
I don't really know what to make of Palin's resignation. It seems odd, if she has national aspirations, to step down before the end of her term. I mean if things do go badly in Alaska now then she is going to get tarred by that. And as I suggested already she doesn't really have enough of a record to run for President on yet. I think she would need to answer the question as to why she stepped down early properly before she could seriously get into a national campaign.
Its almost as if there is some scandal out there about to break, but I wouldn't even pick Palin as a quitter in those circumstances. Find it very difficult to figure this one out.
I asked a conservative friend who is in neurological research what he thinks about the anti-intellectualism in his party. His responds was that people like Palin are intentionally targeting the anti-intellectual evangilicals and it is no suprise liberals hate her. His view is that politics is about targeting groups of voters and it is fundamentally dishonest.
I guess if Karl Rove is the standard, you don't care about the means to acheiving lower taxes and less business regulation.
I don't hate Sarah Palin.
Too much energy wasted hating a cypher.
I hold her in the deepest possible contempt. She an anosognosiast, utterly full of that stupid certainty that arises only with and from "faith." A parvenu, she seems unable to recognize that she's never going to be anything but a self-parody and a parody of her entire class.
I don't hate her, but I heartily detest everything that she portrays herself as "standing for."
Wow!!!!
Resigning was a horrible move politically. I can't imagine what she thinks she has to gain from quitting before her term was done.
I can see the argument for not running for reelection. In fact, if she is serious about running for president, she shouldn't run for reelection. But Americans really hate quitters. Plus, what does she really gain by doing this. The bulk of the primary season would come after her successor's inauguration. Is going to NH a full three years early that valuable????
Like most liberals, I dislike Palin (mostly for the reasons outlined), but as a pure strategy move, I really don't get this.
Her resignation speech sounded more like a sales pitch for hiring her to speaking functions.
clarkjeffrey:The bulk of the primary season would come after her successor's inauguration. Is going to NH a full three years early that valuable????
Whatever value it has would seem to me to be overwhelmed by the appearance of abandoning your state with a year and a half to go in your term.
Palin is, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, of interest to non-Republicans because she represents the schism that is widening among the GOP.
Republicans selected both McCain and Palin for strategic reasons, and then they proceeded to eagerly undermine those strategic reasons.
McCain was selected as a “maverick” – someone not in thrall to the Bush Agenda and more “moderate”, who would appeal to Independents.
Palin was selected to appeal to women, and the disaffected PUMAs more specifically.
Instead, the Party pushed McCain further and further to the Right until he became little more than a Bush clone who had actually served. He no longer appealed to Independents. Palin failed miserably with women – she decreased female support for the ticket – and those PUMAs turned out to be mythical or merely Republicans in drag. She was good at getting sexually-repressed male conservatives to fantasise over a married grandmother, but that does not necessarily translate into votes among the public at large.
Palin did, however, resonate with the crazy faction of the Party: the birthers, racists, secret-Muslim-spouting, Obama-as-Antichrist-proclaiming types who are attracted to a cult of personality. These are the people that the Party Managers wanted to keep out of sight as they tried to present a unified image of rationality and security. Since they were dismissing Obama’s support as a cult of personality, they really didn’t want such a thing to appear on their side.
What we are seeing now is the schism between the traditional Party bosses and the “energised base” that they have manipulated for decades. There is no longer a unified message from, or a top-down power structure within, the Republican Party. That has been their great strength, and it is gone. Non-Republicans can scarcely believe this, but a faithful segment of the GOP keeps on defending her strenuously, no matter what. It's a cult of personality.
Like most cults, those "outside" don't get the appeal. Her winking, "gee-whiz" style comes off as superficial and a thin mask for the emptiness underneath. She is dangerously close to being little more than a cheerleader for her side. You don't let cheerleaders call the plays in any sport.
Palin has the potential to strip away a third of the Republican’s strength, with another 30% of its ranks already disaffected over any given issue. She brings no new demographics to the Party, and creates deep divisions among the existing Party constituencies.
And yet Republicans can always be counted on to rally around this ticking time bomb in their midst.
So yes, Palin does intrigue a lot of people outside of the echo chamber. That doesn’t mean they will vote for her. It means they are waiting for that ticking time bomb to explode in the Party bunker.
I agree with Rob. The only thing I find objectionable in this post is the statement that liberals deeply believe in meritocracy. I don't really understand that claim.
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said sources tell her Sarah Palin is out of politics for good.
Regardless of it that's true or not...by stepping down as Governor she has killed any and all chances of having a career in National politics.
She was manifestly unqualified, and uninformed in a way an adult who reads a couple newspapers a couple times a week doesn't have to be. She displayed no ability to speak beyond the cliches stuffed into her head by her handlers. Her candidacy was identity politics run amok. She's probably great at navigating the colossal egos of Alaska politics, but publicly she's completely cringeworthy. She was also savaged by the left wing portion of the elite press that loathes what what they can't easily find in DC, NYC or LA.
BTW, I'm not a fan of PBO and also think the Repub party, as I perceive its currently constitution, needs to die and come back as something else, perhaps as a party that believes X is none of my business if I don't have to pay for it.
@ Rob & Steven:
Of course liberals believe life should be meritocratic. Everyone believes life should be meritocratic. Conservatives just believe life already is meritocratic.
I'd imagine you're thinking of policies like affirmative action, which you might say go against meritocracy. But you have to understand that the liberal philosophy behind affirmative action is that it would level the playing field, that it would compensate for existing discrimination, and allow well qualified minorities to have an equal opportunity against their non-minority peers. Whether it actually does that is debatable, but the theory behind it is to make life more meritocratic, not less.
Liberals (tend to) believe that racism, sexism, classism, and other prejudices limit achievement by women and minority groups. They believe that poor people aren't just lazy, but encountered obstacles they couldn't overcome. Conservatives (tend to) believe that anyone who is rich deserves to be rich, and anyone who is poor deserves to be poor. They believe in the free market and they believe that the world ought to be meritocratic, but they believe that it is already meritocratic, and we don't need government intervention or regulation getting in the way. Liberals believe that the real world is unfair, but government can work to allievate those injustices, to try to approach a more truly meritocratic society.
It sure feels like there's another shoe about to drop. Very curious that this announcement comes on the heels of the embarrassing Vanity Fair article.
The woman is a hot mess. All drama, all the time. Maybe going away for a while sets her up for a comeback in 2016.
Julia of Sisyphus Shrugged posted a video of Palin's "Intermittent Gunderson Syndrome" a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhdUCHuxvAc
I don't hate Palin so much as I fear the consolidation of political power among those who love her.
As some here have remarked, she is not a human being, but a constellation of images, allusions and gestures.
The mediated phenomenon "Sara Palin" evokes nostalgia among a frighteningly large number of people for a past that does not exist/that never existed.
I am reminded of accounts I have read of what it was like to witness the ascendancy of National Socialism in the tempestuous final days of the Weimar Republic: the celebration of ignorance, of seething, unfocused resentments.
The final revenge of style over content.
Sarah Palin makes George W. Bush look like a civil libertarian. She makes Ronald Reagan look pro-education. Sarah Palin is worse than these men because, while their moral precepts were delusional, hers are non-existent.
She's amoral: she represents indifference toward morality, indifference toward the Constitution, indifference toward the quality of life -- and livelihoods -- of present and future generations, indifference toward science, indifference toward representative democracy, indifference toward the separation of the branches of government, indifference to education, indifference to art, to culture, to freedom, to poverty, to the pursuit of happiness, indifference to the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers, indifference to religion in its meaningful sense, indifference to history, indifference to ideas, and indifference to suffering.
The only thing toward which she is not indifferent is Sarah Palin. She doesn't care about the people who celebrate her. The people who celebrate her do so in the sense that they live vicariously through her. She lives out a collective, incoherent and self-contradictory dream. A dream that pines for the destruction of all things unfamiliar in the interest of preserving the self as the self construes itself.
We really should be explaining the Left objection to her in moral terms: she is amoral.
Quitters who abandon their constituents rarely get a 2nd chance.
I'm a liberal that plans on voting for Sarah Palin in the 2012 primaries if she's around (Virginia has open primaries) ... why? Because I think she'd be a horrible general election candidate for the Republicans. I just can't imagine her winning the general election. Not in 2012. Maybe in 2000... but not now. Not after Bush. Not with the demographics.
Obviously this is assuming that Obama's approval rating is in the 50% or lower area... if it's anything close to where it's at now, it'll be a landslide regardless.
Personally I don't think she has any grand aspirations for public office, I think she has aspirations to be on the national stage. I think she'd much rather be another Rush Limbaugh than the next George W. Bush.
My best guess is that she's done this to free her to do any number of speaking engagements, and to purse the book deals, without the handicap of having to actually do the job she's being paid for, or to deal with the almost weekly ethics complaints against her.
@Jef
I agree with what you said. I just didn't like the statement because it seems to imply that a strong belief in meritocracy is a core, unifying tenet of liberalism, and that this is not a tenet of conservatism. I think there are plenty of liberals for whom meritocracy is not such a big deal, while there are plenty of conservatives for whom it.
Also, I was thinking more about meritocracy in politics. I'm not convinced that liberals are much better in this regard than conservatives, generally speaking.
Good riddance. Any politician who uses her disabled infant as a prop is despicable.
Sadly, I expect this blight on the public debate will be back.
She was a stupid, narcissistic, science-hating hillbilly. Yes, she resonated with the Republican base. What does that tell you about the Republilcan base? And neocons like Bill Kristol?
@Steven.
Thumbs up; gotcha. Insofar as the statement implies that belief in meritocracy is not a guiding principle for conservatives, I agree with your assessment, although I didn't get that implication the first time I read it. And I wasn't thinking so specifically about meritocracy in politics, where you're right, the two camps are probably very simliar.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head of the issue for me, Nate. It's the exhultation of ignorance that flabbergasts me. It's not just Palin. It's the pundits who criticized Obama for his correct pronunciation of Pakistan. It's the use of the phrase "intellectual elite" as an insult. I can appreciate that Sarah Palin wasn't born into a family like the Bushes or the Kennedys, that she worked her way up to governor without depending on a famous last name. That's one thing she has in common with Obama -- pretty much the only thing. Where he includes, she alienates. During the primaries, I was pulling for Hillary (but knew I would be more than okay with Obama should he win) because there was something in me that needed to see a woman win. I had no such feelings when it came to Palin. Gender did not factor into it. Her absolute gleeful ignorance cemented her as She-Bush in my eyes. I hope she stays out of the public eye from now on. I don't hate her. I don't wish her ill. But I don't think she's good for the country. She brought out the worst at the rallies last year and she's come to represent a sort of narrow-mindedness that I don't think we can afford to promote.
Wow just watched Palin's announcement, my goodness that was one of the most scattershot, confused, ill directed political announcements since, well last week I guess. But it was odd. To me it didn't sound like a clearly thought out idea being announced. It didn't sound like a woman in control of her own destiny.
Rob said...
Maybe "classical liberals" [believe that life ought to be meritocratic], but that seems to me like a more deeply small-government/strong-capitalist/conservative idea to me, at least in theory.
Meritocratic is derived from the word meritocrasy, defined as:
1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth;
2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced: The dean believes the educational system should be a meritocracy;
3. leadership by able and talented persons.
If it's your opinion that "modern liberals" don't believe in meritocracy but GOOPers do, how exactly did Palin demonstrate any meritocratic ideas or principles? Or for that matter, ANY GOOPer on the national stage at this point?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Quote: "I don't hate Palin so much as I fear the consolidation of political power among those who love her."
I think this is it. She seems to elicit a high level of panic amongst left-wingers that she can actually win elections against them. And the times she shoots herself in the foot politically actually heightens the panic instead of eases it. I think that's why so many left-wingers were upset that the Obama campaign treated her with "kid gloves". In retrospect, it was best to ignore her and let her dig herself into a deeper hole.
Over at Human Events, an early right-wing spin is that she is resigning to help Lt. Gov. Parnell in his run for the governorship in 2010, by allowing him to run as the incumbent.
I don't buy it, but an interesting attempt to rationalize the irrational.
One of the first things Palin did when it was announced she would be nominated was publicly mock community organizers at the RNC convention. Granted, I have no doubt that she didn't write the line, but having been in AmeriCorps, I was immediately turned off, and she hasn't done anything to regain my good faith.
And I think the line was indicative of a glorified ignorance. It's easy to mock community organizers as small-time when you don't think about the complexity of problems they deal with every day and the difficulty of making even the smallest amounts of progress.
@pechmerle
I don't buy that either.
Palin said she planned to make a "positive change outside government", which I take means she wants more speaking engagements.
pechmerle,
I agree. Palin specifically stated that she would not be a lame duck in office.
Lame duck means that you will not be re-elected, usually because you are term-limited. Since she's served 2-1/2 years of her first term, she would not be a lame duck on that score. And as to helping Parnell in a bid for governor, she could run in 2010, and if she won, resign soon after to allow Parnell to be governor for quite a time before he ran a campaign for governor.
The other aspect of lame-duckness is when a medical problem, or scandal, makes it impossible for an incumbent to run again.
Either she is delusional about what a lame duck means, or she has an undisclosed medical problem, or she knows a scandal is about to break that would make her unelectable to a second term as AK governor in 16 months.
I'm betting on a scandal that will soon break is the real reason she's quitting.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Sarah Palin is not qualified for the positions she had held. She's good looking, and men like Bill Kristol get all hot and bothered by her. Apparently, John McCain did as well. These guys can't see through the steam and Mrs. Palin ends up in positions where she is grossly unqualified.
The Couric interview, the statement today, her track record in Alaska-- do I need to say more? Over and over again, her looks and belligerence placed her in positions where she could only fail.
She is the worst case scenario for professional and qualified women everywhere.
markymark wrote:
"my goodness that was one of the most scattershot, confused, ill directed political announcements since, well last week I guess."
Yes, it was awful.
To paraphrase:
- Wasn't that Seward guy neat-o? People said he was crazy, and they say the same thing about me...so there you are.
- Investigating corruption and ethics charges is a waste of money...when a Republican is power.
- She denounces taking "a quitter's way out"...in the speech wherein she quits.
- She invokes Trig once again...as she denounces the media attention to Trig.
- Her resignation is somehow exactly like combat military service, because our troops don't give up...as she herself gives up.
- She wants to be a "protector of individual rights"...unless you are a media figure or a television comedian, of course.
Wasn't there supposed to be a crucifixion or something to make the transition into a real martyr more believable?
Forget that she wears ignorance like a badge of honor. That's the laughable part. The part that is scary about her is that she is in fact ignorant and should not be president or a heart beat away from the presidency. Indeed her looks help her and she's not stupid, she's just been isolated. So, the next time around, this attractive, intelligent unworldly woman is going to be a lot less stupid and a lot tougher as an opponent than she was the last time around.
Todd, my point of interest is why was it so scattershot? My guess is this wasn't some long thought out plan. Either some scandal is on the way, or she just snapped and honestly wants to protect her family from the media glare. I don't count either out as possibilities but I didn't get the fact that this was a strategy to launch a presidential election or any kind of strategy at all to be honest.
I don't know, maybe the spat with Letterman was honestly the last straw. Maybe the email story this week was a last straw. But somehow it just seems totally out of character. Thats the bit I don't get. I mean she hasn't shown an overwhelming sense of thoughtfulness with regards to her family before, what with being prepared to run for veep months after giving birth to a downs baby and whilst her eldest daughter is expecting a baby out of wedlock. I guess over the days and weeks ahead we will learn more though. I don't think Palin is about to go quietly into the night.
My thought was that she was going to be groomed as the Anti-Obama by the GOP so that her canned responses sounded natural, that she'd have lifecoaching until she stepped up to campaign, but given her personality, I can agree with Alaskaguy:
She's realized that the media she hates so, with all their questions about facts and other unimportant things... could make her a lot of money. Position herself as a conservative pundit, write books, have a show, consolidate the crazies, hide behind the first amendment... I can only imagine we'll see her as a regular guest on FOX, where she'll lock down the viewers.
Call screeners so that no actual issues get to her, loads of money, and national attention! Seems just what Palin wants, and she doesn't need to know anything more than she already does!
I think you have to assume a scandal is about to explode. Governors do not generally quit just because they are tired of the job - it kills any future in politics.
I suspect that like the SC Gov announcing details when he found out that the local paper had emails showing what had been going on, she knows that something will be released soon and wants to be out ahead of it. There is far less shame in quitting before the scandal than after it.
The haste and awkwardness of her resignation suggests there is another shoe that is going to drop.
Her resignation is not a bold move but reckless. John McCain selected her in haste. the clock was ticking and he tried a hail marry pass. This is July there is no drop dead date on the immediate horizon.
Her comments are confusing, the rationale suspect and the timing odd. She quit the office of Governor after 1/2 term, a office she ran for and took an oath uphold. The lame duck excuse is utter and complete nonsense, there are many term limited elected officials and using being a lame duck as an excuse, irrational.
I don't hate Sarah Palin, but it is terrifying that she attracts national -- or even statewide -- attention. She clearly has no interest in policy or governing, just in raw power and her own ideas, with no accountability. Think of it -- a presidential candidate who believes that men and dinosaurs co-existed. Intellectually, she gives bimbos a bad name.
She and Sanford are very much alike -- neither really has any interest in governing, neither really wants to work in government, but both want to bask in the glow. Maybe we are looking at a new segment of the Republican Party -- the Narcissistics. The folks who truly support Palin are folks who have no appreciation for the complexities of governing and foreign relations -- anybody can do it! Really!
But, you know, about half the US population agrees with her, so maybe we are the ones out of step.
markymark wrote:
"My guess is this wasn't some long thought out plan. Either some scandal is on the way, or she just snapped and honestly wants to protect her family from the media glare."
I'm leaning toward "scandal" at this point.
Letterman is already using her over-reaction as grist for his mill. She's milked all of the sympathy out of that issue already. There must be a new scandal, probably brought to light by those in her own Party, and this is a pre-emptive pout. Just speculation on my part, though.
"I don't think Palin is about to go quietly into the night."
I'm fairly confident that FNC has a place for her in mind already. She is much more suited to a media forum like that, where she won't be called out for factual errors or outrageous statements. Sarah can be Sarah, and someone else will plaster on the make-up and buy the clothes for her.
Again, sheer speculation.
Hell, maybe it's something as simple as "Fox Noise offered me $750,000 a year to ramble on in front of a TV camera once a week for an hour! What the hell is a governor's job against that?"
We don't hate her. Her ignorance and selfishness were certainly good for entertainment value, and very instructive for showing how primitive a large swath of the American electorate really is, but hate? That's like hating National Lampoon's "Clark Griswold." You don't hate someone like that, but you don't want them in national office either, and that fact that anyone else with an IQ in two digits DOES is rather disconcerting.
She looked like she was going to jump out of her skin at the press conference. I hope it is a scandal because it looks to me like a medical problem. I think she may have just received a cancer diagnosis or something similar.
Jen wrote:
"She looked like she was going to jump out of her skin at the press conference."
The Obama Evil Eye has her spooked good.
It's that, or a fistful of meth.
You heard it here first.
It's that, or a fistful of meth.
Wassalia is the meth capital of Alaska after all.
She looked either coked up or really, really upset.
She resigned because....
She's a maverick! And that's what mavericks do--mavericky things like resigning!
Oh Sarah, you maverick, you!
Now, I tend to have a more general dislike of right-wing politicians on general principle, so anything against Caribou Eva is not necessarily that personal.
But what gets me, though, is the fact that while she plays herself as the human equivalent of Mother Teresa, juggling being a hockey mom/grandma with being the official female spokesperson for "'Dem Good Old Conservative Family Values", she's still conceited and vain enough to use her alleged "physical attractiveness" to seduce the usual young right-wing yahoos who see her as the ultimate conservative MILF masturbation fantasy. There is still a part of me that still thinks that McCain was thinking with the wrong head when he selected Palin as his running mate...but I'm guessing that he was more motivated by attempting in desperation to win back the Far Right/Christian Right base of the GOP, and maybe even grab a few disgruntled PUMA's/Hillary supporters on the side.
I'm with the consensus that there might be more of a scandal hiding behind this sudden resignation...or it may be that she's decided to cash in her chips as either Boss Limbaugh's heir apparant on the radio or Bill O'Reilly's replacement on Fixed Noise..and there's that huge advance on her memoirs, too.
But as an effective candidate for the GOP in 2012, she's basically toast....even if she does manage to rally enough of the "base" to grab the nomination, even a weakened Obama will make her look like Mike Dukakis in 1988. And if the economy does improve enough before 2012, and Palin happens to get the nomination, then it's fast becoming Reagan-Mondale landslide territory.
On the other hand, don't underestimate the notion that Sarah Palin just might rediscover her "independent" roots and decide to take her ball and most of her "populist" base out of the GOP and run as an independent if she's denied the nomination. Given her vanity, and the mass anger of the Far Right, it's not beyond the reach of possibility.
Either way, good riddance to bad garbage. I have more honest respect for Lisa Ann (the porn starlet who spoofed Palin last year) than I ever will for Palin herself; at least the former has a soul and probably more brains.
Anthony
Maybe she's taking time off to do some hiking.
Palin's decision to resign today only serves to reinforce the belief that many leaders of the Republican party today would rather run for office than actually govern.
I really don't see how she can run for president after this. She's the one who played up national security and Russia lurking on the border. But how is she supposed to be able to handle all these threats if she can't handle being in the national political spotlight? Can she be expected to deal with Putin if she can't deal with MSNBC? The ads write themselves.
We'll have to wait and see if there are other shoes to drop to explain this. Maybe there are, maybe it's just Palin being Palin. I've given up trying to understand her; life is too short.
As Leon Wieseltier put it,
"And when he picked Sarah Palin, he told the United States of America to go fuck itself."
I agree with much of this post except with the word "hate." I agree that my opinion of Sarah Palin is largely formed because I view her as typifying the Bush/anti-intellectual conservative. However, I don't care enough about her to hate her. I don't want her to be my VP or President but otherwise I just don't care what she does.
.
Since most "liberals" and progressives I know are ordinary hardworking humble working class & middle class people, and Sarah Palin was the corporate elite's hand-picked arrogant self-righteous megalomaniacal POTUS (after McSame croaked) and current CEO of one of only 50 States in the US, I don't see how WE could ever be accused of being snobbish toward HER. If anything, she seemed to think she was God's gift to us reg'ler folks, and we should be thrilled and grateful to have her as our self-anointed savior.
Maybe it's some kind of Elvis vs. Dubya. thing.
.
firedoglake.com has a report of coming criminal indictment of palin.
Update: This just in my inbox, from a source connected sometimes to CNN:
"Here's a quote I got from law enforcement here in Alaska yesterday afternoon regarding Palin "a criminal indictment is pending authorization."
Personally, I *love* Sarah Palin. She's totally unelectable for national office -- I figure that if the stars and planets aligned to produce the absolute maximum favorable conditions for her, she could maybe, maybe eke out 48-49% of the vote; in more likely and realistic conditions, she'll have to work pretty hard to get 45%. And yet, in spite of her patent unelectability, the conservatives who make up the Republican base seem to be nuts about her, and very well may put her forward as their 2012 nomination. She's their Hillary, only moreso. What's not to like? You keep reaching for that rainbow, Sarah!
I disagree with the contention that liberals hate Sarah Palin. We might have hated her if she got herself into a position of national power but she didn't. I find her vacuousness amusing and I find her potential position as a leader in the Republican Party hilarious.
PaulK said:
I have disagree with some of this. I think what rankles so many on the left is her celebration of being "dumb". She wears ignorance like a badge of honor.
Thank you Paul for expressing my thoughts perfectly. Liberals hate Palin because she disgraced herself on the national stage as a ignorant moron who was proud of her ignorance. Moreover, it's clear from many of her political tactics that she thinks WE'RE stupid too and that she pull a fast one over on us. Did she really think that winking and using tired old lines like "Say it ain't so Joe" would demonstrate her qualifications for the Presidency?
Palin not being media savvy or ready for a presidential campaign she jumped in in the last minute is nothing compared to the colossal stupidity of Joe Biden.
The most interesting (and most avoided) question is why do liberals ignore the STUPIDITY of JOE BIDEN, not to mention his background of blatant dishonesty (plagiarism, cheating in law school, and constant lies).
Obviously, the liberal mindset is ripe for small-minded partisanship and fascist behavior. Why else would they go to such lengths to demonize their opposition and try to shut down their speech? If she was what this original post purported, the left would not have had to bash her at all. Liberals targeted Palin for one reason only: she scared the shit out of them.
I buy Matt Taibbi's explanation.
Sarah Palin is a "symbolism" candidate- she's not important because of what she's done or who she is (indeed, after today she may not be important at all), but because of who sees themselves in her- small town folks cloistered and isolated in their own communities, a little ignorant about the outside world or even important policy, scared and resentful of change, and looking for someone to blame for it. Everyone recognized that in her, though some probably used nicer (and more artful) words. The problem is, the kind of people who thought the same way weren't as big as the people who didn't- and the people who didn't often found themselves the ones TAKING the blame for that change, so their reaction became quite visceral.
As Taibbi points out, McCain and Obama were symbol candidates, too- McCain of honor and patriotism, Obama of a sort of almost-possible multicultural meritocracy- but Obama's symbol was something a lot more people aspired to.
...Annnnnd we have our first wingnut reaction of the day.
No, Bug, the reason Joe Biden doesn't get the thrashing that Sarah Palin gets from "the Left" (and BTW, I assume that you count John McCain's own spokesman as part of "the Left", too??) is because Biden, with all his faults and his inability to connect his mouth with his brain sometimes, nowhere reaches the depths of moranicity (worse than even moronicity) that that the soon to be former Governor of Alaska achieves every single day. Plus...you probably won't have to deal with Joe Biden much anyway, after he retires in 2012 to make room for Hillary and his son to take over.
Oh, and Palin didn't just jump in the campaign...she dived in head first, like a swimmer into a pool full of mud. The only thing scary about her was the racist and fascist epithets thrown by her flunkies at Obama...otherwise, she was more to be pitied and smacked than feared.
But, nice effort at balance, I'm only wondering when PeteKent and MuleRider....errrrrrr, Doc who will be around with more lovely attacks on us dirty liberals and "radical eroticists" who only lust after St. Sarah of Wasallia.
Anthony
Nate, "liberals" don't like Mooseburger she good looking or ignorant. ALL GOPosaurs are ignorant and overly folksy. They hate her because she's a snarky trash talking bitch who has ZERO class. She's also a serial liar and quite possibly delusional. But it's true about her voice, it's nails on chalkboard. I caught snippets of her bizarre press conference today, and I was like, "OMFG... it's Marge Gunderson!!" I actually squinted as the blithering idiot was talking.
David Plouffe told an interviewer a couple of months ago she was the Democrats biggest fundraiser. Whenever she opened her mouth, it was like printing money for the Obama campaign.
Mike Huckabee appeals the same conservative lunatic fringe, is media savvy and a natural on television, but liberals still kinda respect him. Bill Maher likes Huckabee because he has a genuine satirical sense of humor, which is true. His appearances on the Colbert Report are pretty funny. I remember some liberals getting annoyed at Obama after he said he liked Huckabee the most out of all the 2008 Republican candidates. As it turned out, he was right. Huckabee was likable during the primaries, the rest were just arseholes.
Basically, if a politican is genuinely likable, even admirable, it doesn't matter all that much about their political views. McCain had those attributes before he completely sold out whatever moderate views he had left and turned nasty.
Bug: Palin not being media savvy or ready for a presidential campaign she jumped in in the last minute...
If she wasn't ready for a presidential campaign, what does that say about her judgment on taking a job where she becomes president if McCain has a heart attack? If she can't handle the media, how was she supposed to handle Al-Qaeda? Or Putin?
Liberals targeted Palin for one reason only: she scared the shit out of them.
Yeah, scared that such a person who seemed to have an active hostility towards facts and analysis and dismissive of those who might actually know stuff might actually be that heartbeat away from running the country.
Scary indeed.
Intelligent (and timely too, since Moosolini quit her day job today) discussion of why Palin inspires so much contempt (note I didn't say hatred) among non-rightwing nuts.
As many noted, one major factor is her sheer ignorance and incompetence, which she wears like a badge of honor. And she attracts followers who want to deny facts & knowledge which contract their "safe" world view (see evolution). And at least some of them also hold prejudiced views on non-white and non-Christian people (see her rallies).
Secondly--she tries to have it both ways, claiming the mantle of feminism (which want women leaders to get there on merit), while simultaneously tries to use her ex-beauty queen looks (i.e. the winking). Seriously, if Palin looked like that NRO editor Katherine Lopez (an overweight plain-looking woman with glasses), would Palin have gotten the media coverage?
As for where she goes from here--who knows?
Part of gaining the nomination of a party is working the machinery within that party, and by her announced resignation I don’t see how Palin can possibly expect to remain on track for higher office. Obviously some thinking along those lines has occurred, otherwise what’s this all about? (Even weirder is the link at the bottom of the page which leads here. I wasn’t aware than Palin was under the sort of legal onslaught that would require donation money to keep her name clear.)
It will be interesting to see what develops over the next couple weeks.
The person I’m convinced is a crook is this creep. If the Democrats were smart they’d be digging around in his past. Wouldn’t take long to find a skeleton or two, I’ll bet…
I like to think that I don't hate Palin - Rather that I'm extremely scared that a large portion of my fellow citizens would take her seriously as a candidate for national office.
The fact that the GOP almost sold her shows how phenomenally talented the party is at selling the big lie. (Given Obama's horrific backslide on civil liberties of late, it would appear the GOP is not completely alone in this. See any article by Greenwald.)
I wouldn't want her for a friend. I suppose that is true.
I continue to be astounded at the ignorance of liberals who seriously think most conservatives are dumb, backwoods rednecks. Yes some are. But they are not representative of the vast bulk of conservatives who are articulate and well educated, have responsible jobs, and care deeply about this country.
The stereotype of a liberal as a elitist,out-of-touch nerd is also largely inaccurate. So is the stereotype of Democrats being the party of welfare moms who vote for a man just because of the color of his skin.
This site's comentaries would better advance the cause of doing good for this country and its people if all of us would refrain from the bigotry.
I am a liberal and not ashamed to say so in the face of any so-called conservative even though I don't see many real ones engaged in the act of politics these days. I may not agree with them but real conservatives are not willfully ignorant so I do agree with the assessment at the top of the page. I have more to say about it and did so before I read this article. Check it out here: http://themightyliberal.blogspot.com. Please comment freely.
Well, leave_me_alone, if those stereotypes of Democrats as mostly "welfare moms" (read that to mean, Black people) are so inaccurate, then why are you using them to defend Palin?
None of us here ever said or implied that most conservatives are dumb or rednecks...only but those who fawn themselves over Sarah Palin merely because she happens to be an somewhat attractive woman who happens to pander to their basic biases may be somewhat suspect.
As if none of those "welfare moms" aren't as concerned about the state or this country, or have responsible jobs??
But...I guess that only "conservatives" are the educated ones, and anyone who doesn't bow to the feet of St. Sarah of Wasilla must be an evil Communist/Socialist/Islamacist anti-White/feminazi Democrat Socialist bigot, right??
Most conservatives are NOT dumb...most right-wing trolls here, on the other hand, tend to favor that stereotype....you think??
Anthony
Palin wants to make a contribution to positive change - so she gives up public office.
She's a self-styled "pitbull in lipstick" - so she spends much of her resignation speech whining about how mean the media is.
She will lead the fight against... er... something or other - but she can't really say what that is.
Awesome.
I think in the 08 elections that there were a lot of independent moderate voters who looked at Sarah Palin and said to themselves after the debate and the Katie Couric interview that this person is not ready for prime time. Today's....stunt, for lack of better words, just confirms in everyone of those independent voters that they made the right choice by either voting for Obama or not voting. I'm sure Palin thinks this is a 'mavericky' move but she has lost those independent voters forever.
As a liberal I hated Sarah Palin because she was a gross charactiture. It was if to me the GOP had taken every crazy bigoted and theocratic instinct and distilled it into this walking joke. Her nomination was meant to maniupulate the voters' opinion in the most cynical and crass way possible. To me she represents everything that is backwards and in fact anthical to the idea of democracy.
I remember when McCain nominated her and I said to my co-workers McCain just lost the election and that was before I got to know Palin and all her fuedin' craziness. There was that week when it seemed as if the GOP's crass manipulation was going to work when she was everyone's darling, the fresh new bold face of the GOP. But then how quickly that face crumbled.
The Palin freak show watch has been pushed into high gear once again. And, again, it is Palin herself that put us here. This is the Palin story: to those who love her her ramblings are home-spun wisdom, to those who don't she is simply a moron that only a Goper could love.
The whole Palin mystique revolves around her gumption to put herself out there as someone to be reckoned with. Her personal ambition really knows no bounds and her looks have helped in this quest for recognition and self-aggrandisement. I find it funny that people (like Nate here) work so hard to seem neutral about her fitness for office. He is right that she is like George Bush in not being up to the job, and even if she were to be elected this assessment would not change. Look at the mess he left and whatever the temporary collective insanity that put him in office does not change the fact that he could not hack it. Many liberals worry (rightly as it turns out) that our economy and international standing are terrible things to waste.
While the right wing scrambles to paint her quitting as a shrewd move, her resignation has killed her political future. The amazing and pathetic thing (the train-wreck aspect that keeps us all watching) about Palin's political arc has been how poorly she has managed her own influence and political fortunes. She had initial success at being brash and cutting and seems incapable of modifying this approach. She loved being governor when she had 80% approval ratings, but now that her approval is simply average or worse she just walks away. Like the brat who upends the game when they are losing.
Palin has become a major whiner. She loved the spotlight when it seemed to adore her, but now the scrutiny is too much. She put her family on display as some sort of success story but then complains bitterly when many do not agree. Not because we hate her family (far from it), we just do not like having it foisted upon us as something more than it is. And that is the story of Palin's national trajectory: being to sold to us as more than she could ever hope to attain. Now she hopes to win national office on the premise that our national problems are so bad that she cannot be bothered to tough it out for Alaskans? This can only be the height of her already epic self-indulgence.
The main mistake of the original article and Nate's response is the notion that disliking/being fearful of Palin is a liberal issue. Liberals and left clearly are more vocal, but polls seem to indicate that Palin discomfort level is quite widespread and crosses the political spectrum.
With Reagan, whether you liked or disliked his policies and agenda, he clearly put his country first, even when it sometimes went against his rhetoric. With Bush and this crop of GOPers, they love themselves and their pet ideas far more than they love their country. Palin's hokum sometimes makes her slippery like Reagan was, but her self-love makes her hypocrisy that much harder to stomach.
I don't think that either W or Sarah Palin is stupid, but both revel in their radical ethnocentrism.
Given her resignation today, I guess the exorcism with which she began her governorship didn't work. The videos of that were scary, yet it got a tiny percentage of the coverage of the slight Obama-Ayers tie.
Hey Kennerson, things like refusing to name what papers she reads is NOTHING compared to the embarrassment Biden has been to Obama on substantive policy issues, not to mention the panic he caused over the swine flu.
Palin had no interest in being in that race until it was offered to her (another reason why she was so popular among the right).
DSimon...invalid analogies, comparing things like campaigning and handling the media to handling security and policy.
And you speak of her being "dismissive of facts" being scary. But what about Obama dismissing the disaster his recovery plan has been? He has been completely dismissive of facts concerning his policy failures that will harm this country for generations to come. Sarah Palin being dismissive of facts? Come on, what significant facts are you referring to?
Oh, really, Bug?? So, she had to be recruited into the VP job against her will?? As a reluctant candidate??
Yeah, right. There were plenty of other far more capable candidates (even conservative candidates) far more qualified than Palin...the only reason she was selected was because (1) she was a woman who could possibly pick off some pro-Hillary PUMA's and play off the "anti-sexism" card; and (2) she was wingnutty enough to please Jim Dobson, Rich Lowery, and the WingNut Daily crowd.
And remember that I did acknowledge Biden's occasional foot-in-mouth disease issues...but for the most part, he's been on his best behavior. It's not as if he'll be needed to break any tie votes in the Senate soon, you know.
Oh, and as for the supposed failure of Obama....sorry to burst your bubble, Bug, but most folk here think that if Obama suffers from anything, it is not going too far to the Left, but not far enough. And they are far more likely to blame the Repubs and ConservaDems for slowing down the progress. Be careful of what you ask for in pushing this "It's all Obama's fault if the stim doesn't work"...because you just might get it, in the form of an even stronger Left party. Me thinks that you'd probably be better off worrying about your own movement spitting apart at the seams then start clucking about the Dems.
Or not. A man's entitled to stick with his delusions, especially when they are all he has.
Anthony
The answer is really simple:
She, like Bush, has a swaggering self-confidence that is completely undeserved. Have either of them (Sarah or Bush) done a single thing worthy of such reckless self-confidence? Have either of them excelled at anything other than shameless self-promotion?
Plus she's wrong about every substantive issue. It's a losing combination. As for fear? Well, I for one would be positively thrilled to have her run in '12. Shooting fish in a barrel anyone?
You have to take someone seriously to hate them. It's impossible to take Sarah Palin seriously; only if she actually showed some threat of being a viable political candidate on a national level would she be worthy of hatred.
It's a matter of record that John McCain wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate, and that Palin was forced on him by party powers in thrall to the Rovian doctrine of energizing the base. He made the best he could of her as a running mate, but you can be sure he knows he would have had a better chance in the election with Lieberman or Ridge, or Kay Hutchinson for that matter. I expect that to be one of the "bombshells" he reveals when he publishes his memoirs of the election.
If liberals are right that Palin really is ignorant
We are right. Palin didn't even know the percentage of American energy Alaska accounts for. She claimed it was 20% but it really is only 2.4%
Biden will certainly say some stupid things, but his actions speak louder than words. His track record in the Senate and the respect he garners from not just liberals but even arch-conservatives who speak very highly of him (Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn) cleary shows the difference between his "gaffes" and Sarah Palin. We've been given NO reason whatsoever to regard her stupidity as just shooting her mouth off, rather than genuine cluelessness. Her actions certainly do not speak louder than her words.
Made me chuckle too to see the latest installment of Phase 3 of the conservative attack on Obama represented today, that the stimulus hasn't worked. If you missed it, phase 1 was the narrative he's a secret Muslim socialist sympathetic to terrorists. That one never quite stuck and of all the people wanting a photo op, bin Laden has been strikingly absent. Part 2 was to tie the stock market droppings to Obama on a daily basis at all costs to prove "failure" of the stimulus. Had a bit of traction in February and early March, but since the market has had a lot more positive days than negative in recent months...haven't heard it as much recently. That one died pretty quickly too.
So when all else fails, predict that a policy not even close to phased in WILL fail in the future. It makes for a nice and easy attack line since nothing can prove a speculative narrative wrong. So hey, they can't be proven wrong for awhile! Buys Faux News some time!
@Jef, Rob, & Steven:
I understand that conservatives perceive themselves as on the side of meritocracy, but some of their policy positions are at odds with that self-image.
Consider:
--The Estate Tax (which Luntzites love to demonize as the "death tax"): by insisting that the whole of an inheritance benefit the heirs, conservatives work tirelessly to ensure that the advantage (social, economic, and political) be conferred upon those who haven't done anything to earn it.
--Lilly Ledbetter: by denying her the right to sue her employer for discrimination (on very shaky technical grounds), conservatives support the power of an entrenched corporation and its existing power base in favor of someone who'd worked hard to achieve success.
--Equal rights for gays: whether it's equal marriage or "Don't Ask Don't Tell," conservatives want to deny human rights to those who've earned an equal opportunity to contribute to the common good, based on a factor of their makeup which is completely irrelevant to their competence.
There are plenty of other examples. If conservatives truly believe in a meritocracy, they'll stop denying people rights and opportunities based on accidents of birth. But, hey: once they do that, they'll wake up and find that they've become liberals.
wv: stedi: not an adjective used to describe Palin.
Being comfortable with ignorance isn't enough?
Nance
@Anthony Kennerson:
"Caribou Eva?" Where the WTF does that come from?
I'd heard "Caribou Barbie," and I understand and like the appellation. But Eva? What's the reference?
EMWTK!
Hey Kennerson, I never said she didn't want to be in the race at all, only after it was offered. And if you think McCain offered to her to please the list of names you provided, then you are ignoring his track record (which is appropriate since you obviously voted for someone who had NO qualifying track record).
As for Obama's policies already leaning heavily toward failure, as proved by economic stats and editorialized everywhere BUT HERE, no, he won't get his way and push things even further to the left. Though I wish he would as that would kill his chances for re-election.
Obama has already failed as a president, doing enough financial damage that will take several generations to repair. He will whine and whine he inherited the mess, while he and his myrmidons hope the country doesn't notice how much worse he made the situatin.
"She, like Bush, has a swaggering self-confidence that is completely undeserved"
And what exactly did Obama do to earn his swagger? Community Organizer! He achieved far less than Palin, and was handed the presidency by the media and morons who were swayed by his rhetoric.
"It's a matter of record that John McCain wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate, and that Palin was forced on him by party power"
The please provide a citation to the "record".
"We are right. Palin didn't even know the percentage of American energy Alaska accounts for. She claimed it was 20% but it really is only 2.4%"
WRONG. Alaska wells 14%, hardly a Biden-level gaffe, so don't even try and compare his stupidity to her.
Bug: invalid analogies, comparing things like campaigning and handling the media to handling security and policy.
Well, she's shown little ability to handle either. But she's complaining about ethics complaints, about being attacked by the media, about her family under the microscope...what exactly does she think will happen if she's in national office?
And you speak of her being "dismissive of facts" being scary. But what about Obama dismissing the disaster his recovery plan has been? He has been completely dismissive of facts concerning his policy failures that will harm this country for generations to come.
The classic response of "well, X did it do!" as if that would make X right or wrong. It doesn't address the point.
And it's wrong to say Obama has been dismissive. First, many conservative economists have agreed that the only possible response to the current economic crisis was a large spending package. Yes, there is some difference of opinion, but Obama is with the consensus. The consensus may be wrong, but agreeing with it is hardly dismissive; it's the opposite of dismissive. Plus Obama has talked about the need to deal with the deficit (starting with getting health care costs under control) and comprehensive tax reform. But the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression is probably not the best the time to start.
Sarah Palin being dismissive of facts? Come on, what significant facts are you referring to?
Well, perhaps I overstated that. The interviews during the 2008 campaign showed that she didn't actually absorb very many facts to dismiss. It's not that she disregards facts, it's that she, like W, isn't curious enough about the world to find them out in the first place. She didn't know enough about the financial system to talk about how the bailout worked (confusing it with health care, etc.); it seemed like I knew the issue better than she did. She instisted that proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience (the better answer would have been that no governor has foriegn policy experience, but many, like Reagan, did just fine). She still talks about how the federal governmnet is going to "control" you with the stimulus spending without explaining how that would happen, exactly (I doubt very many people feel "controlled" these days).
Going into the 2000 election, Bush supporters said that while he might not be an expert on all subjects, he had the managerial skills to put in places people who were extremely knowledgeable and qualified. What we got were a bunch of ideologues who screened information to concur with their ideologies (in defense, foreign policy, fiscal policy), and Bush wasn't curious enough to hear conflicting information and adjust his policies accordingly. I see little difference with Palin, who has shown no deep understanding of any issue that I know of.
Her speech was just another example. It was frequently unclear just what she was referring to. It doesn't give sound reasons for her actions or for the timing. It had no real organization. Most people, even many Republicans, can't figure it out. Maybe I'll be accused of another false analogy here, but if you can't make your reasons for resigning clear, how are you supposed to be expected to make your nation's relations to Putin clear?
Bug: And what exactly did Obama do to earn his swagger? Community Organizer! He achieved far less than Palin
Ah, here's some blatant disregard for facts. I suppose being editor in chief at the Harvard Law Review and teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago are not achievements. Nor his service in the Illinois Senate, or the US Senate. Nope, the only thing Obama did was a community organizer (a skill, by the way, that seems to be exactly what one needs to run an effective political campaign.)
"It's a matter of record that John McCain wanted Joe Lieberman as his running mate, and that Palin was forced on him by party power"
The please provide a citation to the "record".
From The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/27/081027fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
By the spring, the McCain campaign had reportedly sent scouts to Alaska to start vetting Palin as a possible running mate. A week or so before McCain named her, however, sources close to the campaign say, McCain was intent on naming his fellow-senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, who left the Democratic Party in 2006. David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who is close to a number of McCain’s top aides, told me that “McCain and Lindsey Graham”—the South Carolina senator, who has been McCain’s closest campaign companion—“really wanted Joe.” But Keene believed that “McCain was scared off” in the final days, after warnings from his advisers that choosing Lieberman would ignite a contentious floor fight at the Convention, as social conservatives revolted against Lieberman for being, among other things, pro-choice.
“They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.”
"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong."
Joe Biden
-Vice President of the USA
-Doofus of the Universe
"what exactly does she think will happen if she's in national office?"
If the media were fair, she would have the same "hands off" treatment given to Biden and Obama. How easily your mind skips over this lack of integrity by leftwingnuts.
"The classic response of "well, X did it do!" as if that would make X right or wrong. It doesn't address the point. And it's wrong to say Obama has been dismissive."
Wrong. It is the point, as demonstrated by your inability to grasp (or acknowledge) the facts and truth about Obama. This issue has become you (and the left and media) not Palin.
The rest of your post deserves no further comment as it was just pissing about Palin on matters that could easily be applied to Obama or Biden by anyone but a mindless partisan.
"'They took it away from him', a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. 'He was furious'"
Uncited sources in an obvious slam piece? You are so partisan you can't even distinguish facts from propaganda.
As I said in my first post, the left is scared of her. Otherwise, they would not only feel no need to bash her, they would actively encourage her entry into the 2012 race. But oddly, the screams against her running are mainly coming from the left.
@Bug:
I prefer Joe Biden's admission of possible fallibility to George W(hat me worry) Bush's uninformed certainty.
The New Yorker cited a named source, David Keene (American Conservative Union chairman) as saying that John McCain and Lindsay Graham favored Lieberman for VP. That is the bedrock of the assertion that McCain was denied his choice of running mate by the right-wing social conservatives in the Republican Party. THey cited unnamed sources to buttress Keene's remarks. I'm sure that you will be equally upset when reporting unfavorable to Obama and other liberals makes use of unnamed sources. (/sarcasm)
@Bug:
Actually, I'm not afraid of Sarah Palin winning the Presidency. I was afraid that she could become vice-President of a 72 year-old President and accede to the Presidency in that manner. I don't see her as likely to survive the Republican primaries or a general election, should she manage to win the Republican nomination.
If you check the postings to these threads by us liberals, you'll find that most of them welcome the idea of Palin as the Republican candidate in 2012. We're not afraid of her. The backdoor route to the Presidency is what unnerved us.
First off, may all of you have a safe and happy Fourth of July weekend.
Now, then, to sew up a loose troll, responding to Bug's latest:
"'They took it away from him', a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. 'He was furious'"
Uncited sources in an obvious slam piece? You are so partisan you can't even distinguish facts from propaganda.
Oh, yeah, right...so Newsweek, Us News, and the Washington Post are now part of the Evil Leftist Conspiracy against St. Sarah of Wasilla now???
It was an open secret that McCain wanted Holy Joe as his running mate, if only to highlight his experience and to exploit what he saw was Obama's main weakness: foreign policy. Problem for Johnny Mac was: the GOP/Karl Rove base would have bolted..and they were the ones running the GOP show.
Even at that, there were still far, far more competent candidates, even on the Right (like Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Mark Sanford) whom McCain could have picked that would have made the "base" happy. The only reasons why Quitter Spice was ultimately named was for the reasons I asserted above.
As I said in my first post, the left is scared of her. Otherwise, they would not only feel no need to bash her, they would actively encourage her entry into the 2012 race. But oddly, the screams against her running are mainly coming from the left.
Yeah..you go ahead and believe that "the left" is scared of a candidate whose polling negatives outdo even Obamas at this point; whom is hated and derided by even movement conservatives and establishment Republicans alike; who basically hit the Panic button and ejected from her post at the first hint of strong criticism from her own people (did the Republican-dominated Alaska legislature turn towards "the left" recently, too??); and who more than likely will be hit with federal embezzelment charges that could potentially put her or Todd in prison for a good while. On top of the many quips that will be used against her not only in the primaries, but gleefully in the general election should she beat the odds and win the nomination.
Oh, but a six-figure royalty for her book and a stint on Fixed Noise or EIB as Boss Limbaugh's fluffer will solve that real quick.
Go ahead and believe that nonsense, Bug...just like the WMD's in Iraq and Hillary's coronation in 2008. I guess that it's the only thing you righties have left to believe in.
Anthony
@Matt:
"Caribou Eva?" Where the WTF does that come from?
I'd heard "Caribou Barbie," and I understand and like the appellation. But Eva? What's the reference?
EMWTK!
The "Caribou Eva" reference is to Eva Braun...because Palin's actual policies pretty much approach the fascism of the latter.
Anthony
Responding to more Bug insanity:
Hey Kennerson, I never said she didn't want to be in the race at all, only after it was offered. And if you think McCain offered to her to please the list of names you provided, then you are ignoring his track record (which is appropriate since you obviously voted for someone who had NO qualifying track record).
Oh, I've already seen Johnny Mac's "track record", Bug...and even if he had nominated Ted Kennedy to the VP slot, his "track record" would have been enough by itself to justify a vote against him. Obviously, 53% of the voting public agreed with me on that one...but what are they?? Must be dupes of that evil Liberal Media, I guess.
And for the record, Bug, I didn't vote for Obama; I am an independent who voted for Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party because they are the closest to my own political views...not because of any "track record". But, anyone not a right-wing sycophant would have been fine with me, whatever my personal objections with Obama and the Democrats.
Feel free to pass that along to your BFF MuleRider...errrrrrr, Doctor Who...and share some stories about my "radical eroticism".
As for Obama's policies already leaning heavily toward failure, as proved by economic stats and editorialized everywhere BUT HERE, no, he won't get his way and push things even further to the left. Though I wish he would as that would kill his chances for re-election.
Sez you??? Funny, but everything I've seen not reeking of Fixed Noise/Limbaugh/Hannity bias says that Obama is sailing a steady, center-right political course, right in tune to his corporate/military partners, in direct opposition to those DFH bloggers of the "Angry Left". His reelection chances, while not as much a given as might have seemed a few months ago, are certainly not reduced to zero....especially considering the thermonuclear meltdown the GOP is currently enduring. Besides, since there is no chance permitting a revolt from the Dem progressives that Obama will move leftward (and even then, the CW is that Prez O will simply use it to restate his "centrist" creds as any good triangulating DLC Dem would do), I assume that that slender hope of yours is unraveling pretty quick.
Obama has already failed as a president, doing enough financial damage that will take several generations to repair. He will whine and whine he inherited the mess, while he and his myrmidons hope the country doesn't notice how much worse he made the situatin.
First off: "situation". Mix in a spell checker.
Secondly...considering what great shape economically the country was during the Bush years of unchallenged Republican rule reinforced by 9/11 fear, I'd think that the public will be more than able to determine for themselves whether Obama will succeed without the need for the FAIL analysis of Boss Limbaugh or his cronies.
But, as I said, Bug...keep those delusions of yours alive; they're all that you have left, I guess.
And so ends my "Smack the Troll" hour. Off to work.
Anthony
@Anthony Kennerson:
Thanks for the explanation.
I understand it, but I don't like it. Eva Braun was, as far as I can tell, no more than a concubine/mistress/girlfriend--not someone responsible for policy.
Besides, it seems to run afoul of Godwin's Law. And with all due disrespect to Palin, the use of the term, "fascism," seems a bit of a stretch.
I'll stick with Caribou Barbie. Works for me.
@Matt
Yeah, I get your point..."Caribou Eva" does seem a bit too strong, even for Palin.
Maybe "Caribou Evita" (after Evita Peron, the meglamaniac wife of Argentinian strongman Juan Peron) would be better??
Anthony
Liberals believe very deeply in the idea that life ought to be meritocratic.
Just when did the party of quotas become so fond of the concept of meritocracy?
@Brian: when it was clear that there were quotas and barriers based on race or sex, the courts fashioned remedies to counteract the effects of discrimination.
Would Palin be resented to the same degree by (some) liberals if she looked like Susan Boyle? Well ... maybe not. But would she have been picked for the national ticket? Well ... maybe not. But this has less to do with Palin herself and more to do with the manner in which she was elevated to the national stage.
I think this slightly misses the point--as do many of the commentaries by pundits who think Palin's good looks make her more hated by liberals.
Palin's good looks have little to do with what liberals think of her--we hate George W. Bush just as much, and we hated Nixon, who was downright fugly. (In fact, back in those days, liberals were attacked for supposedly hating Nixon 'cause he wasn't as pretteh as Kennedy.)
Palin's good looks matter to *conservatives,* not liberals. Take a look at most of the really big-name influential conservative women these days: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Amity Schlaes, Palin: they're *all* hot babes.
What does this tell us about conservatives? The vast majority of the GOP (especially the leadership) are men--men who, when it comes to women, cannot for the life of them tell the difference between skill (talent, experience, competence) and hotness.
They sneered at the looks of Janet Reno, for example, as a means of denigrating her competence (and attacked her sexual orientation as well). The corollary of that is: The hotter the babe, the higher her rating--whether she is being rated for her skill as a sportscaster, a basketball player, or a governor.
The "psychosexual dynamics" may be creepy, but Nate, you shouldn't dismiss them. Rather, you might examine why it is that conservatives so unerringly fall for the hot babes, regardless of whether they have real credentials or not. (E.g., take a look at Amity Schlaes's credentials for being an "authority" on Roosevelt and the New Deal. PhD in history of the 1930s? In economics? Nope. BA in English, and a lot of blond hair.)
I'm one of the few here that will admit, I "Hate" Sarah Palin. I hate anyone who hates me for who I am. She's a homophobic bigot; a dangerous hypocrite, who would, if she could, legislate her Dominionist religious dogma and turn the U.S. into a Christo-fascist nation. I hate her like I hate all the murderous despots of history. Let's not give her the opportunity to be like those despots.
Hey Kennerson, McCain picked Palin out of nowhere. She was on nobody's top 10 list last year, so get over it. Man she drives you lefties nuts. You guys keep inventing lies about her.
Bug:"what exactly does she think will happen if she's in national office?"
If the media were fair, she would have the same "hands off" treatment given to Biden and Obama.
First of all, fair or not, I ask again: what does she think will happen if she's in national office? She's going to have to deal with it regardless of any concept of "fairness." And if she can't handle it now, she had no business running for VP.
Second, she's the one who put her family in the campaign. Obama never made his family a campaign issue. So there is arguably a difference there, even if you disagree with it.
Uncited sources in an obvious slam piece? You are so partisan you can't even distinguish facts from propaganda.
Bug, how about doing your own research sometime instead of dismissing anything as a "slam piece" anything that disturbs your view of reality? The author of that piece is very well respected, and while I don't like anonymous sourcing, there are sometimes good reasons for it.
Facts should come first, ideology second (if that). And I've read many times that McCain wanted Lieberman but was warned there would be a convention floor revolt if he picked a pro-choice VP candidate due to the markedly conservative delegation (engaged activists tend to be delegates for each parties). Your refusal to believe it won't make it any less true.
"The classic response of "well, X did it do!" as if that would make X right or wrong. It doesn't address the point. And it's wrong to say Obama has been dismissive."
Wrong. It is the point, as demonstrated by your inability to grasp (or acknowledge) the facts and truth about Obama.
No, I'm absolutely right. If someone says "Bush lied," it's not responsive to say "Clinton lied too!" That response says nothing as to whether Bush lied or not. Maybe they both lied. Maybe they both didn't. But to remark about Clinton doesn't refute the point about Bush; it's a different point entirely.
The rest of your post deserves no further comment as it was just pissing about Palin on matters that could easily be applied to Obama or Biden by anyone but a mindless partisan.
I think the refusal to respond shows who is being mindlessly partisan. I tried to answer your questions with specifics. You refuse to answer mine. And again, this isn't about Obama or Biden. It's about Palin. And you don't refute what I wrote.
Some people will hold on to their beliefs regardless of evidence or arguments. If that's so, then it's not worth spending any more time trying to change their minds.
It seems to me that Mrs. Palin is finally showing some smarts. She has figured out that she has no chance to win the White House and probably not much of a chance even for the republican nomination.
On the other hand she does have an obvious calling - hosting a Fox News show. But it would be hard to go for that job while still in office. It really is a perfect fit. She would make lots of money, get to dribble on about political issues she knows nothing about and look good while doing it. I bet Rupert Murdoch has already prepared a contract.
My guess is that she has a job offer. Best guesses: 1) an organization that promotes family values, such as the Family Research Council, 2) a Republican PAC, 3) an organization for handicapped children.
One more comment.
One thing that intrigued me about Sarah Palin was how she was hypocritical on many issues.
For example, she was so vocal about the "bloodsport" of politics, but it seemed to me that she started the attacks herself with her very first speeches. Remember the "a mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except you have real responsibilities". It then progressed to the "palling around with terrorists".
A new one this week was how she was upset that someone hacked into her personal email account, but then later approved the hacking of the campaign emails (to find out who was leaking information). Same thing?
Outstanding article. One of your best. You've ingeniously summarized and put your finger on the "it". The "it" being the disdain I feel for this lady.
Great comments, too - Early comments by - NutellaonToast, Juris and Drew were dead on and should be highlighted.
PS - Since I have archived this article and comments. I reserve the right to plagiarize them as my own points in the future if the be-otch runs in 2012.
"Obama never made his family a campaign issue."
He most certainly did. They were a part of numerous PR pieces and part of his speeches and answers to media questions.
"The author of that piece is very well respected, and while I don't like anonymous sourcing, there are sometimes good reasons for it."
There are plenty of good articles about Palin that contradict the one you cited, must be a good reason for those as well.
"Bug, how about doing your own research sometime instead of dismissing anything as a "slam piece"
Read it. That's obviously what it was intended to accomplish.
"If someone says "Bush lied," it's not responsive to say "Clinton lied too!""
The issue is your own intellectual dishonesty.
"I think the refusal to respond shows who is being mindlessly partisan."
You quoted trash journalism and refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict what you want to be true. You are a mindless partisan. Look at all of the hysterical conclusions you draw about McCain/Palin without substantiation.
@Bug:
"There are plenty of good articles about Palin that contradict the one you cited, must be a good reason for those as well."
Citations, Bug? I assume these articles will assert that Palin was McCain's leading choice for a running mate for longer than three days before he selected her.
Bug said...
You quoted trash journalism and refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict what you want to be true.
You claim that dsimon quotes "trash journalism", yet you don't cite ANY journalism, not even Faux News.
You are a mindless partisan.
Which makes you ... ?
It's too bad we can't do to you with the sole of a shoe what we do with actual bugs and assorted other insects in the world.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Hate is a rather strong word; otherwise, you hit the nail on the head: My sentiments exactly
I agree that it did feel like "the pretty girl getting the promotion." And when a pretty girl does not seem qualified, my first instinct is to assume that she got the promotion SOLELY because she is pretty.
Bug: "If someone says "Bush lied," it's not responsive to say "Clinton lied too!""
The issue is your own intellectual dishonesty.
No, the issue is responding to the question. If I say 2+2 doesn't equal 5, saying "Well, 3+3 doesn't equal 7!" doesn't disprove the statement that 2+2 still doesn't equal 5. They are two different questions.
"I think the refusal to respond shows who is being mindlessly partisan."
You quoted trash journalism and refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict what you want to be true. You are a mindless partisan. Look at all of the hysterical conclusions you draw about McCain/Palin without substantiation.
I think I did provide substantiation. I cited the well-known statement she made about the bailout, confusing it with health care and "it's all about jobs." I cited her claims to foreign policy experience. I cited her "the federal government is going to control you" claims she made just a few weeks ago. I cited a well-regarded New Yorker piece, which others have backed up. You responded to the New Yorker piece (without disproving it) and did not respond to any of the others.
Nor have you provided any sources to back up your other claims. But true believers don't need facts, I suppose. As I implied before but will ask directly: are there any set of facts that would cause you to change your mind? If not, then it's not worth discussing anymore.
By the way, Palin apparently couldn't even get the "We're not retreating, we are advancing in another direction" attribution right in her resignation speech. It wasn't from MacArthur; it was from Maj. Gen. Oliver Prince Smith. From a conservative web site, http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTdkY2NjMjZjYjFiMDhjZTI5OGYyMWMwNWZjZDZlYTA=
I think the reason Democrats were so angry at her is that she revitalized the Republican party. We were so waiting for McCain to pick Lieberman or Romney. We would have whooped 'em in the election so bad, that the Republican party would have to go back to being the Whigs.
Suddenly, this nobody from Alaska comes out, does a few "Hecks" and a couple of winks, and the GOP party looked unstoppable. As far as we could tell, she was merely George Bush in a dress, but suddenly our plans for the early coronation of Obama looked a bit premature.
For a few weeks, we were sweating as big giant crowds turned out to see Palin. It looked as if the pod people have somehow taken over the U.S. We wanted to shout out "She's just another Bush! You've got to believe me!".
Fortunately, her complete lack of political experience and hollow rhetoric finally began to show through. Most people who were first fascinated in her "Hockey Mom" persona were turned off by her rabid anti-intellectualism and her ignorance.
By the time the election rolled around, she started becoming a national joke. Tina Fey's personification of her was too spot on to ignore.
I think Sarah Palin typifies everything that is wrong Republicans.
A perfect example is "Drill Baby Drill", a slogan for a policy that wouldn't have decreased the price of gas, and would have exacerbated several environmental problems.
It isn't really ignorance versus wisdom, so much as it is policy driven by emotion versus policy driven by logic.
I feel like there is a large emotional component to Palin...and...Bush's style of policy-making.
The problem with Palin, and equally with Giuliani and many others, is not that Liberals hate her/them.
The problem is, as Obama pointed out over and over, that they were insulting the people they claimed to be courting, and so many Republicans and Independents came to hate them and what they stand for. The Republican Party has depended for decades on its Get-Out-The-Vote machine, but by dissing community organizers, they destroyed the loyalty of many of those election workers, as Nate reported during the campaign. It did not help that the McCain campaign was incompetent in organizing local offices.
In the same way, they drove out previously loyal Republican women and even Evangelical Christians who believe in Stewardship of the Environment and loving your neighbor. They have never previously had a Democratic candidate explain to them what Republican rhetoric really means about themselves.
Obama didn't even have to do much of this explaining. Once he started to point it out, many Republicans and Independents figured it out for themselves when they heard it again.
Putting all the merits of Palin's policy positions aside (whatever they are), let's look at the politics.
A NY Times poll from the end of October found that 59% of respondents said that Palin was not prepared for the job of Vice President. 35% said she was prepared.
Now, that's for Vice President. And that wasn't about she was the best person for the job, only whether she was "prepared." And bear in mind that many of that 35% probably consisted of her die-hard supporters.
Given that almost 60% though she wasn't prepared for the VP slot, how does this move convince people that she's going to be prepared for the top position? It may play with some inside the party bubble, but to everyone else it's hard to see how this doesn't hurt more than it helps.
To me, it echos McCain's "suspension" of is campaign to deal with the economic crisis. He tried to make it look like he was sacrificing his own ambitions for the greater good, but it came off looking as erratic, and I don't think it helped.
Sarah Palin not naming the newspapers she reads is selectively intrepreted as things other than her *refusing* to name papers when she knew she was being set up.
Joe Biden admitting they misread how bad the economy was = a colossal blunder that has done great harm to this nation for generations to come.
All complaints against Palin are petty when compared to the utter stupidity of Biden & Obama, whose policies have ruined our economy for years to come.
Your collective emotional investment in said clowns Biden and Obama will prevent nearly all of you from admitting or realizing this.
"A perfect example is "Drill Baby Drill", a slogan for a policy that wouldn't have decreased the price of gas, and would have exacerbated several environmental problems."
Wrong. The issue is keeping the wealth in the US and not passing it overseas.
The environmental problems you cite are largely imagined.
"By the way, Palin apparently couldn't even get the "We're not retreating, we are advancing in another direction" attribution right in her resignation speech."
This demonstrates how ridiculous your position is. Grammar copping Palin proves the point that she really pushes leftwing buttons so much that rational thought and analysis is an impossibility.
"are there any set of facts that would cause you to change your mind? If not, then it's not worth discussing anymore."
Hey, try this one: credible sources. As a rule of thumb, for example, it's obvious McCain insiders are out to blame her to protect their own self interests after a poorly-run campaign.
Bug, I'll raise these points one more time, but I feel it's useless because I don't think you respond to the issues.
"are there any set of facts that would cause you to change your mind? If not, then it's not worth discussing anymore."
Hey, try this one: credible sources.
That's not what I asked. I asked if there were any facts that would cause you to change your mind. If you're going to support her no matter what, and if you dismiss any facts you don't like as coming from a non-credible source, what's the use of further discussion?
"By the way, Palin apparently couldn't even get the "We're not retreating, we are advancing in another direction" attribution right in her resignation speech."
This demonstrates how ridiculous your position is. Grammar copping Palin proves the point that she really pushes leftwing buttons so much that rational thought and analysis is an impossibility.
Since when is pointing out a factual error an indication of irrational thought? I thought facts were supposed to be the basis of rational thought, not its opposite. An attribution should not be so hard to get right. (And by the way, attribution has nothing to do with grammar.)
"A perfect example is "Drill Baby Drill", a slogan for a policy that wouldn't have decreased the price of gas, and would have exacerbated several environmental problems."
Wrong. The issue is keeping the wealth in the US and not passing it overseas.
The environmental problems you cite are largely imagined.
It's absolutely true that the offshore drilling proposed in the campaign wouldn't have come online for at least 8 years and so would not have any effect on gas prices for some time. If we just drove better cars, we could cut our oil imports in half in that time.
Sarah Palin not naming the newspapers she reads is selectively intrepreted as things other than her *refusing* to name papers when she knew she was being set up.
And you know this...how? She could have just described how she stays informed, but she didn't. Why not look at the obvious explanation--she botched the question--instead of engaging in speculation with no support?
Joe Biden admitting they misread how bad the economy was = a colossal blunder that has done great harm to this nation for generations to come.
Sounds to me like an honest appraisal of the truth, as was his statement that there was a 30% chance that the plan to save the economy might not work. Only the foolish deal in certainties. The Republicans, on the other hand, offered nothing except "let everything fail." I'm pretty sure that wasn't going to work. Even many mainstream conservative economists said there was no real choice except some kind of government spending package (which, remember, a large portion of which is tax cuts).
But since there doesn't seem to be any point in trying to agree on some pretty basic facts, there's no point in wasting any more time here.
"I thought facts were supposed to be the basis of rational thought"
WRONG. Logic is the basis for rational thought. Facts may be added on, but in political discourse, the addition of grammar copping is a silly misdirection, usually the byproduct of a biased mind desperately clinging to a losing position.
"the offshore drilling proposed in the campaign wouldn't have come online for at least 8 years"
Many estimates were 1-2 years. Again, you selectively believe only what supports your position.
"If we just drove better cars, we could cut our oil imports in half in that time."
That would still result in a massive transfer of wealth out of the US.
"And you know this...how?"
It's obvious! Anyone could at least NAME a paper. I always thought she should have turned it back on the journalist, but no one seems to do these things.
"Sounds to me like an honest appraisal of the truth,"
Exactly, he was being very honest about their incompetence.
"Only the foolish deal in certainties"
What a ridiculous creed. Is this part of "Team Obama's" strategy? So no wonder things have gotten worse since the stimulus was passed. But I guess those pesky unemployment figures are "certain facts" you don't like being reminded of.
It is so obvious you are defending partisan creed instead of the issues at hand.
Folks...trying to coax someone like Bug out of his Michael Reagan/Boss Limbaugh microcode and actually look at facts that don't exactly dovetail with his ideology is a bit like attempting to plug a bursting dike with your middle finger.
I'd rather just relax and enjoy the rants...and shake my head in disbelief.
But, a further response to some his latest lunacy is in order:
"the offshore drilling proposed in the campaign wouldn't have come online for at least 8 years"
Many estimates were 1-2 years. Again, you selectively believe only what supports your position.
Exactly which estimates were those from, Bug....the oil companies that would have directly profited from the increased drilling?? The same ones that would have more than likely sold the oil they tapped from ANWAR and off the Gulf Coast to foreign markets?? The same ones who stated that the net drop in gas prices at max from increased domestic drilling would have been...8 cents per gallon?!?!
And considering how much oil prices have crashed after the election, isn't this whole question rather moot righ now?? At least, until speculators decide that they need to game the market to artificially boost prices again?? But wait a minute...aren't most of those speculators more likely to be....REPUBLICANS?!?!?!
Yup...facts are stoopid things, especially to the "La la la, can't hear you" type of right-wing troll.
And to the alleged lack of environmental problems with offshore drilling: Two words: EXXON. VALDEZ.
"By the way, Palin apparently couldn't even get the "We're not retreating, we are advancing in another direction" attribution right in her resignation speech."
This demonstrates how ridiculous your position is. Grammar copping Palin proves the point that she really pushes leftwing buttons so much that rational thought and analysis is an impossibility.
Ahhhh, OK....so seriously butchering a attribute of a quote is now a sign of obsession on the part of those who point out the butchering of the quote?!?! Yeah...so let's go out and blast the professor who flunks a student for deliberately flubbing a popular quote that anyone with a Google or a WWII history book could find.
Besides...couldn't she have picked a better quote than one that justifies her retreat?? I mean: "We're not retreating, we're just advancing in another direction"??? Yeah, right..walking away from your job in the middle of your first term after you get your head handed to you in a popular election....that's certainly advancing to me.
[to be continued....Anthony]
[continued from my last comment]
Joe Biden admitting they misread how bad the economy was = a colossal blunder that has done great harm to this nation for generations to come.
Now...nobody here has denied that Biden doesn't shoot off his mouth sometimes (and his most recent smack about not opposing an Israeli assault on Iran is kinda troubling...but funny how you and the Right aren't quoting that, isn't it??). But, wasn't much of the criticism that Biden was responding to was that the stimulus package wasn't big enough, that it was too watered down with tax cuts that didn't address the key element of public infrastructure and job creation, and that a far, far more aggressive intervention was needed??
In other words, exactly the fundamental opposite of the stated GOP/Right position that only more targeted tax cuts for the super-wealthy, paid for by rampant deregulation and looting public infrastructure and social spending and Medicare and Social Security as privatization "cash cows", would save the economy. As in...what we had for the previous eight years, which has proven to be sooooooo successful for econonic growth and job creation. Really, it has...so much so that the people most advocating such wonderful economic theory got their butts kicked in two consecutive elections. Nice try there, Bug.
Any supposed "obsession" that we may have with Sarah Palin is entirely the fault of Sarah Palin herself and her sycophantic boosters for being such myopic,egotistical wingnuts who let their ideology replace actual thinking.
Anthony
Oh, and one last thing, Bug....threatening to sue everyone within a 150,000 mile range who does not bow down to you and simply reports rumors of future indictments does not help the cause of supporting your Queen Saint, either. It only makes her look to the rest of us just that much more like the egotisical, meglomaniacal attention whore she is. (And that's an insult to actual sex workers, too.)
But, if she wants to sue me and the folks here at 538..well, that's her myopia.
Anthony
Sorry..that should have been "...bow down to her" not "..bow down to you"....my apologies for the error.
Although, knowing how dependent Bug is on Palin talking points for his rants here, it's very easy to be confused.
I am quitting now...as fun as this has been, there are other pressing things on my calendar.
Anthony
Maybe I'm not qualified to comment since I never really hated Palin; I never felt that strongly about her. I will cop to being disgusted to the way both she and Bush turned ignorance from the vice it used to be into a bizarre virtue. The notion that the strength of your belief was more important than the connection of that belief to reality has done considerable damage to this nation over the last decade or so. Bush and Palin were its poster children.
@Todd:
You left out my favorite piece of craziness in your summary of Palin's speech--the fact that she said she got "4 yeses and a Hell Yeah" from her 5 children when she asked them whether she should step down as governor and concentrate on fund-raising and affecting change through speech-making tours. So her 14-month-old infant gave her a meaningful, thoughtful affirmative "vote" on this issue? Did she jiggle her keys?
I wrestled with the reason I dislike Sarah Palin the most, and I have come up with the answer. It is not her blind ambition, her vapidness, her ideological extremism, her hypocrisy/lies about her record, or even her exploitation of her family. It is the fact that she is a MEAN-SPIRITED politician whose main political m.o. is to fight with and trash people, and when she herself is criticized, she sprints right for the "victim" card.
"Community Organizers are worthless. Obama pals around with terrorists. Only the Conservative voters in Virginia are the 'real Americans.' David Letterman loves to make statutory rape jokes. Levi Johnston and McCain's aides are opportunistic liars." Contentious argument after argument, usually going much further in her rhetoric than is proportional or required. When anything negative is said about this plucky, call-em-as-she-sees-em pitbull? "The media is attacking Alaskans as stupid because they think we don't read any of their newspapers. They're calling me a pig because I wear lipstick. They are picking on my children. They are picking on me because I'm a woman. They are picking on me because I am not part of the powerful elite Manhattan dinner party crowd. Gibson and Couric asked a bunch of 'gotcha' questions.
Forget about all of the other things detestable about Sarah Palin or what she represents. This combination of abject snarkiness and ubiquitous counter-whining speaks to the worst instincts in any schoolyard bully.
Honest, last time.
Bug: Logic is the basis for rational thought.
Have you taken a formal logic course? Then you'd know that logic without facts is empty formalism; it has no content. If you have statement A, and statement IF A THEN B, then you can conclude B. But that doesn't tell you anything about what A and B are. You need facts--the content of A and B--to conclude anything useful.
"the offshore drilling proposed in the campaign wouldn't have come online for at least 8 years"
Many estimates were 1-2 years.
Bug, there were articles galore revealing that there aren't even available drill rigs right now (or at least right then). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html To get a rig, then get it in place, then drill, then get the oil out, plus it wouldn't be enough to make much of a difference...please just check this Boston Globe article for starters. Do some research. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
So no wonder things have gotten worse since the stimulus was passed. But I guess those pesky unemployment figures are "certain facts" you don't like being reminded of.
Who said that the stimulus would prevent all job losses? Obama has said quite clearly that things would continue to get worse. The depth of this crisis is more than a stimulus can reverse; the best it can do is keep it from getting as bad as it would otherwise have been. Again, even many conservative economists agree with that assessment. Moreover, As Biden correctly said, it takes time for spending to get through the pipeline, and we're just a few months into that process. Furthermore, if you think there has been no effect, I suggest you ask the governors how many more teachers, police, etc. they would have had to lay off without federal help.
But it seems you're more interested in not doing research and making things up. You still have provided no cites for your claims, so I have to assume you're just not interested. Which is your right, but doesn't mean you're going to convince very many people.
"Exactly which estimates were those from, Bug....the oil companies"
Yeah, who would expect OIL COMPANIES to know anything about drilling OIL? Brilliant.
"EXXON. VALDEZ."
One oil spill 20 years ago? This is your reason? You are so blinded by partisanship you are just plain silly.
".so let's go out and blast the professor who flunks a student for deliberately flubbing a popular quote that anyone with a Google or a WWII history book could find."
Comparing your grammar copping of Palin to try and score points in a political debate to a professor is about as irrational as it gets. Let's just say: INVALID ANALOGY.
"but, wasn't much of the criticism that Biden was responding to was that the stimulus package wasn't big enough"
He was admitting the failure of the Obama Administration to do things right. Which was what many in the GOP were saying all along, much to YOUR chagrin.
"Have you taken a formal logic course?"
Yes. Logic is the basis for rational thought. Not facts. You are WRRRRRRRRRRRRRONG.
"Who said that the stimulus would prevent all job losses"
Straw man.
"Obama has said quite clearly that things would continue to get worse"
What was said was that unemployment would decrease as a result of the stimulus. Obama said unemployment would not top 8%. It is now nearly 10% because his plan is a failure.
"Furthermore, if you think there has been no effect, I suggest you ask the governors how many more teachers, police, etc. they would have had to lay off without federal help."
What a silly argument. You are citing a handful of jobs when the difference between what was promised and what was delivered has been MILLIONS of jobs.
Right on cue, I see.
"Exactly which estimates were those from, Bug....the oil companies"
Yeah, who would expect OIL COMPANIES to know anything about drilling OIL? Brilliant.
It's not about the drilling of oil, Bug...it's the profittering of drilling offshore that counts. And still no answering of my point that "Drill, Baby, Drill!!" would more than incrementally decrease the price of oil any more than merely driving less or eliminating price gouging or speculation would. So typical.
"EXXON. VALDEZ."
One oil spill 20 years ago? This is your reason? You are so blinded by partisanship you are just plain silly.
I'd say that that is reason enough....especially given that the ecological damage done by that one spill alone will affect the ecosystem of Alaska for the next 100 years. But hey. we all know how the caribou just love those pipelines...think of all the WARMTH they provide during those harsh winters!!!
".so let's go out and blast the professor who flunks a student for deliberately flubbing a popular quote that anyone with a Google or a WWII history book could find."
Comparing your grammar copping of Palin to try and score points in a political debate to a professor is about as irrational as it gets. Let's just say: INVALID ANALOGY.
Uhhhh...no, Bug, it's not "grammar copping" to say that Palin blew her sourcing, it's plain damn fact-checking. Professors in college are paid far, far less to do such things. Maybe Palin and her handlers could have hired some pros before she delivered that hacknyed speech Friday.
To be fair to Quitter Spice, though..if she had just read the piece what she just posted to her Facebook page instead of that nonsense she did talk out of her....purse....with, then we'd have just a bit more respect for her than we do now. Not much more, I dare say, but at least she'd be perceived as less of a dingbat.
"but, wasn't much of the criticism that Biden was responding to was that the stimulus package wasn't big enough"
He was admitting the failure of the Obama Administration to do things right. Which was what many in the GOP were saying all along, much to YOUR chagrin.
Oh, really, Bug?? As if only people from the Far Right are the only ones who can criticize Obama's handling of the stim package?? As if only the GOP solution of massive tax cuts for the super wealthy, total unfettered unregulation of basic fundamental economics (or at least, only that regulation that benefits the upper 25% of the economic elite at the expense of the 75% of the majority of working and poor Americans), and a shredded safety net totally dependent on the American Taliban for support, is the only true alternative?? WoW, but you really do need to reboot your brain and go out in the real world with the microcode chip turned off.
[to be continued -- Anthony]
[continued from last post]
"Obama has said quite clearly that things would continue to get worse"
What was said was that unemployment would decrease as a result of the stimulus. Obama said unemployment would not top 8%. It is now nearly 10% because his plan is a failure.
Or...it may be because countless right-wing Republican governors have attempted to either not spend their states' share of the stim on programs (like unemployment benefits or infrestructure programs) that really would positively affect unemployment, or even redirect stim spending to their own pet pork projects...all while weeping and moaning in public about how evil and "socialistic" the stim was.
And let's remember that the stim package was passed only four months ago, and only half the money authorized has been spent as of today. But, if you want to make political hay and obstruct your mortal political enemy, I guess that four months is more than enough to allow for a passing of judgment...especially if you want to reenstate the old policies of borrow from the rich, cut from everyone else, and spend like a drunken sailor while claiming the mantle of "fiscal responsibility" for everyone else not under a Haliburton contract or a Pentagon blank check or a Goldman Sachs account....right, Bug??
The rest of your argument is merely refried nonsense that has already been rebuffed by others here...so I won't repeat it.
But, if you still want to continue with your self-wanking to Palin and all things right-wing, then be my guest. It's Nate's bandwidth, not mine.
Anthony
Ugh, I'm sorry you linked to the original Jim Geraghty article, because I read it. Now I sort of hate him! It would probably be a good idea to ASK a liberal why s/he feels a certain way rather than presuming knowledge one of that feeling.
I agree with Nate on this one -- I immediately noticed how Ms. Palin was an extreme version of Bush, so I personally hated her for all of the same reasons.
Geraghty's article is also ridiculous because it completely misunderstands liberalism in the first place. He says that we hate her because she made all of these opposite choices than the typical liberal, but still ended up happy and successful. News flash -- those of us who are liberals are so because we want choices to be available to people, not because we expect people to take a particular side. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state mean that we want people to be free to practice any faith and not for faith to interfere with governing; it's not that we want everyone to be atheist. Pro-choice doesn't mean we want all women to choose to have abortions when they accidentally get pregnant or are pregnant with a retarded fetus. And since when is being liberal associated with divorce?!
I've hated Palin for two main reasons -- 1) she has radically conservative views, and my views are very, very different and 2) she refuses to engage in intelligent debate/discourse, or learn about the other side. She is painfully stubborn. I also hate her for being manipulative, hypocritical, immature, and untrustworthy. I don't hate her for being successful and beautiful. I admire her for those things and for having a career with a family.
Bug, it seems to me, has a lot in common with Palin: the inability to recognize how much he or she doesn't know.
Bug, did you read either of the articles I cited? If you're not going to do research, or at least read the stuff that others looked up for you that you should have looked up for yourself before posting, don't bother arguing. While you're at it, find me a cite where Obama says the unemployment rate won't top 8%. I'm not doing your work for you anymore.
And it's clear you've never taken a logic course. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient, for rationality--or at least correct conclusions. If you start with a false assertion, then the entire chain of logically implied statements that follows from that may be false.
And instead of just saying "WRONG" and "silly," you should respond on the merits--if you have something to offer.
Bye!
Get-in2 NEWSFLASH: Mark my words today July 4th 2009. Sarah Palin will run in 2012 as a Independent presidential candidate with every pissed off GOP and Democrat victimized by the Big Zero and sellout liberal Socialist Congressmen voting for her. She'd out do any Indy Party candidate in history. She might not win, but no one else will either, without her Indy party throwing HER votes to them under a Contract with America... under Sarah's terms. She can checkmate both the GOP and Democrats by organizing the majority of mainstream America into a Indy Party. She can now express outrage in the way Congress is selling out to special interests and the Whitehouse is demanding our country turns into a Marxist socialist experimental disaster. That folks is real change we can all believe in... as Sarah exits the Republican Party.
Watch this American Lady of principle raise the USA Flag and charge the lines of those who'd destroy the America way of life she grew up loving. We already saw what she had to offer in just 60 days as the 2008 VP candidate and America, not the America Haters, want more of Sarah Palin. I sure hope she's willing to devote her life to preserving the US Constitution from the failed policies of the GOP & Donkey Party. She can't do that with the hit job/back stabbing GOP handlers assigned her by limp wristed GOP political party hacks. Go Indy --- Go Palin -
Cheer on Sarah to form the Common Sense or Revolution Party in 2012 and immediate get on Rush, Beck Hannity, Ann Coulter Michelle Malkins, O'reilly radio/TV shows and raise millions for her indy run in 2012. All dislike McCain as a fense sitting melba toast candidate.
BOOBS, BODY AND BRAINS
It is sad to watch a beautiful woman that grew up in a time when beauty alone was enough to succeed. We (of an age) remember the airhead cheerleader exemplified by Tiffany in the comic strip “Luann” try to get by with nothing more than a smile taking on a role that is way over their heads.
This thought was brought on by watching Sarah Palin’s resignation speech and then viewing the ten best videos selected by “Talking Points Memo” of her making an absolute fool of herself in front of Katie Couric, Jack Cafferty, and others. Granted, I voted Democratic in the election, but honestly…how could anyone in their right minds have voted for this ding-a-ling? She is an embarrassment, rather than an example of the best and brightest.
Actually, I have no objections to cheerleaders. They are a needed component to society. After all, even George W. Bush was one.
Beautiful women are hampered by their good looks. They are automatically moved to the front of the class, they are in all of the popular cliques and never have to learn. Good looks can be a hindrance in this society. The question here is: “Is it the fault of the society, or the inability of these pampered toys to compete on a level playing field?”
Good looks get you onto the stage. How you perform is everything.
DSimon...here is the first one I found, but there are plenty more to google if for some strange reason you still doubt Obama's claims about his FAILED stimulus bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/01leonhardt.html?_r=1
Here's another one:
http://business.watoday.com.au/business/biden-predicts-more-us-jobs-because-of-stimulus-20090706-d9en.html
Oh, here's another one:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-stimulus9-2009jun09,0,5788007.story
Ohhh....lookie what I found here:
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2009/06/obama-stimulus-plan-results-are-in.html
Sarah Palin will run in 2012 as a Independent presidential candidate
Now THAT'S an interesting idea! It could, though, pretty much guarantee a second term for Obama by splitting the Republicans. I doubt enough Democrats would abandon Obama to give her a real opening to the presidency.
She can now express outrage in the way Congress is selling out to special interests and the Whitehouse is demanding our country turns into a Marxist socialist experimental disaster.
Oh please. Check out this pie chart on what percent of corporate business assets are held by the US government; it's 0.21%, and it's not as if the administration wants to hold on to car or bank companies any longer than necessary. http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php
If the reference is to health care, well, there's no socialism being proposed. No one is suggesting that doctors become government employees, or that the federal government take over hospitals. The whole "socialism" thing is a canard. Unless you look at the state of Alaska, which is much closer to socialist than the rest of the US.
I sure hope she's willing to devote her life to preserving the US Constitution
I sure hope she's willing to educate herself as to what the Constitution means. During the campaign, she seemed to think that media criticism of her constituted an abridgment of her First Amendment free speech rights. That's so wrong it's hard to know where to start. You have to know what something means before you can defend it.
Still, the whole running as an independent thing is intriguing.
Oh, WOW...that better be satire, EcomCity, because if that really reflects the true opinions of Wingnut Nation, then the only landslide we will see in 2012 will be that of Obama putting the GOP out of its misery once and for all.
And I'm not even a backer of Obama, either.
Yeah, right...so, Palin will rally "real America" through her Fixed Noise gabfest and Boss Limbaugh backup stints, and will come back roaring into the Republican primaries (provided that she can beat Newtie in Iowa, Mittens in New Hampshire, and Huckleberry in the Southern primaries), show her true self off at the '12 Republican convention....only to take her ball and go home when Mittens or Gingrich or Jeb Bush gets the nomination and Bo Jindal stiffs her for the VP slot. She then, in a fit or rage, forms her own party or latches on with the Constitution Party or Conservtive Party or New Confederate Party (with perhaps Goodhair Perry as her Veep), pledging to campaign that only she, not Jeb and the "socialist" Repubs, can save the nation from the abject failure that is the Democrats.
Yeah...that will do the trick.
Problem for the Palin groupies, is that all the mooderate conservatives will use Palin's new party as an excuse to back Obama, who by now has moved so far to the Right in response to the economic crisis (because that is always how Dems in power react to economic crisis) that even the most doctrinaire conservatives will take a second look at him. Of course, Obama will have his own issues with a revolt from the Left, which will cut into his ultimate win...but the Right will be in such an uproar and meltdown that they will be effectively toothless to respond to Obama's center-right triangulation...and Big Biz won't be sending any cash their way to bail them out, either.
Besides, we all know that the Fixed Noise/WSJ/Boss Limbaugh Axis of Banal won't allow Palin to even think of bolting the GOP for her own party...they are fundamentally committed to taking over the GOP and rebuilding it in THEIR own image. Palin will sooner bolt the GOP than she will give up that $150,000 wardrobe budget they gave her for the 2008 convention.
But...we all can dream, can we??
Anthony
Now, let's review the four sources that Bug uses to prove his point.
The first: from the NY Times, quoting stats from advisers who say that the stim probably won't be enough to overtake the grim economic conditions. Not an enlightening endorsement, but not quite a GOP talking point either.
Source link #2: A BusinessDay article featuring Joe Biden's ThisWeek interview where he admits that perhaps the Obama admin may have underestimated the depths of the recession. Been there, done that.
Then we go to Link #3: where the LA Times basically resets the same identical point that Link #1 did.
All this leads to the main punchline of Link #4, which is: a South Dakota wingnut blog that cites as support the likes of John Fund of the Wall Street Journal editorialist (well known for their fair and balanced opinions, of cours); and whose linkage includes the likes of John Hindraker, Hugh Hewitt, and Glenn Renyolds.
Nice try again, Bug, but most of us can see through your game..or lack therof.
Anthony
Just when I thought I was out...
Glad you're looking things up. I'll accept the 8% prediction. (Do you accept the 10 years to get new offshore oil drilling to market?)
But Bug, did you read the articles you cited?
Leonhardt says that while it's possible that the economy deteriorated because the stimulus failed, "The second answer is that the economy has deteriorated in spite of the stimulus. In other words, the patient is not as sick as he would have been without the medicine he received. But he is a lot sicker than doctors realized when they prescribed it...To me, the evidence is fairly compelling that the second answer is the right one." So I don't think this article makes your point, unless you're reading very selectively.
The second article notes that the package allocates spending over 18 months, and that we're only 120 days in. So isn't it early to tell whether the package has "failed" or not?
The third article similarly says that 100 days in, 6% of the funds have been spent. You can't have it both ways, complaining about spending and then that it "failed" because it hasn't been spent. (And even when all is said and done, it will be hard to assess the effects of the stimulus because we can't run the experiment over again, as Leonhardt points out. That doesn't mean it will have failed, or succeeded for that matter.)
The last one is a blog where the conclusion isn't related to the data. Yes, things are worse than anticipated. But it doesn't logically follow that things are still not better with the stimulus than they would have been without it, as Leonhardt explained above. Like I said, a logic course would come in handy.
I'm willing to agree to everything in the Leonhardt article if you are. I agree with Leonhardt that the economic models may be too optimistic and we should prepare for sober times ahead. But I also agree with his assessment that while it means that the economy is in worse shape than some people thought, it would be still worse without the stimulus. That's what his article says, at least.
The citations were for the 8% figure, which you conceded. I did not provide them to vouch for anything else they contained. But if the promise was 8% and we are nearly at 10%, then it has failed so far.
"But it doesn't logically follow that things are still not better with the stimulus than they would have been without it"
That goes both ways. A lot of economists were predicting a self-reversal within 18 months of the start. Either way, a trillion in largely backloaded spending, mostly public works and a lot of pork and earmarks, is not a sound solution. If the GOP could get their act together on this they could take the House next fall, but somehow I don't think they will.
"You can't have it both ways, complaining about spending and then that it "failed" because it hasn't been spent"
Wrong, that would be the point, and would be a valid explanation for the > 8% issue, and why Obama has been a failure.
"I'm willing to agree to everything in the Leonhardt article if you are"
You requested a cite for the 8% claim and you got it. Red faced, you are now trying to move the goalposts. Not that I disagree with all of your statements, I'm just claiming VICTORY. You have been defeated by someone in Georgia no less who voted for BUSH two times. That must really stick in your craw.
"Sarah Palin will run in 2012 as a Independent presidential candidate"
You know, for her and her agenda, that is an excellent idea. Obama has too much room for electoral error to lose in 2012, so it would be a great time for conservatives to cleanse their party of RINOs and start the process of stocking Congress with true conservatives.
It has the added bonus of exacting revenge on those in the McCain Camp who trashed her.
I would love to see her do this, after all she has had to put up with.
@Bug - Speaking as a Goldwater-conservative, I agree that an independent Palin candidacy would be an excellent idea...for the Republicans and the Democrats. It would finally allow the GOP to divest themselves of the hyper-religious Southern theocrats that have dominated the Party since the 80s and get back to their traditional limited-government roots.
For the Republicans such a split would gain them back the supporters they've lost in the rural Northeast, Midwest, Mountain West and Pacific Coast due to continuous use and abuse of religion in government by the Right. As it stands now, these voters have thrown in their lot with the Dems because they've become unwelcome in the modern GOP, being very uncomfortable with the GOP's current obsession with big-government. Divesting themselves of the religious conservatives on the extreme right would get the GOP the center back and make then competitive nationally again.
The benefit for the Democrats is that a split of the GOP into two parties would get them pluralities in many places, giving them rock-solid control of government until one of the two "conservative" parties becomes dominant or the Dems collapse under their own weight.
For many years the Republicans have needed to get rid of the religious wing of the Party as their politics no longer are complimentary to limited-government conservatism, however the GOP has been unable to do so because the organizational skills of the religious wing are so exceptional. As the election of 2008 clearly showed, they have outlived their usefulness as Republicans. An independent Palin candidacy would encourage and formalize the ideological split that already exists within the Republican Party. The GOP will be far healthier in the long term without the theocrats. It is long past time to let them go their own way.
I don't hate Sarah Palin because she's a successful woman.
I hate Sarah Palin because she's a willful know-nothing who stands, in blissful ignorance, opposed to just about everything I hold to be true. A lot like that guy who used to be President before Obama.
I also hate the venality of the woman. The shopping spree on the GOP, while amusing and a better use of funds than actually campaigning for McCain, is indicative of something deeper in the woman... she is a drinker of other people's milkshakes. Given her ethical struggles in Alaska and on the campaign trail, I think she could make Cheney look positively squeaky clean, ethics wise.
Lord Calvert said...
For the Republicans such a split would gain them back the supporters they've lost in the rural Northeast, Midwest, Mountain West and Pacific Coast due to continuous use and abuse of religion in government by the Right.
You left out a couple of word, Lord Calvert. Where you state "such a split would gain them back", it should read "such a split would give them an opportunity to gain them back".
You see, a lot of the people who left the GOOPers finally caught on to the double talk of the GOOPers, and don't trust them anymore. They are also finding that many of the GOOPers are nothing but hypocrites.
And many of the people who left the GOOPers are finding that (unlike all the GOOPer talking points for the last 30+ years) the Democratic Party is NOT socialist, but is actually trying to find ways to help the American citizens who are not rich. It is NOT the party of 'spread the wealth' in the manner the GOOPers want everyone to think, but a party that is trying to help EVERYONE gain a sustainable and good economic future, along with a focus of keeping the government out of people's bedrooms.
The GOOPers won't automatically gain back everyone they've pushed out of the party. Many now realize that the GOOPers are not the party they claim to be, and any new re-invention of the GOOPers will have to demonstrate that they will actually be the party they say they will be.
Remember the old saying: Trust, once broken, is an extremely difficult thing to get back.
The GOOPers have broken the trust that many used to have in them. It will be extremely difficult for the GOOPers to get that trust back. And until they do (IF they do), the GOOPers will in inhabitants of the political wilderness.
And you forgot one other thing - many of the people under 35 never DID trust the GOOPers, but have greatly different social and ecological viewpoints than any reincarnation of the GOOPer party would have, so you never had them in the party to begin with, so you cannot 'win them back' as they never were a part of the GOOPer party to begin with. And the ones who DID leave the party in the last 30 years are getting older and starting to die off at faster and faster rates. Kind of hard to (legally) vote from the grave in election after election, isn't it?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
i think the bolded part you emphasized is right on. and i think it's also a big part behind dislike of G.W. bush.
Methinks a lot of the posters on this site fear that a woman may someday become president. Well, get used to the idea. You smacked Hillary around last year when it appeared she might make it but I think you may have met your match this time. You don't understand Sarah so you vilify her. I would suggest that you get out of your ivory tower and listen to what real people are saying about her. It may be in 2012 or 2016, but I feel very certain that Sarah Palin will make it in spite of your prejudice.
Mike in Maryland said: You left out a couple of word, Lord Calvert. Where you state "such a split would gain them back", it should read "such a split would give them an opportunity to gain them back".
I think that in areas where the religious wing of the GOP has little power or appeal, they'd get that opportunity. The limited-government conservatives in this area (upstate New York) that were deliberately driven out of politics by their own party would most definitely take advantage of that: people like Jack Quinn, Bill Paxon (who left politics after his failed revolt to take the Speaker's chair from the religious-wing's Newt Gingrich) and Amo Houghton. While it is unlikely that those particular individuals would ever run again, they would certainly be involved in any traditionally-conservative revival in the GOP. Also, now that he's gone, they have the legacy of the late Jack Kemp to build upon.
If the GOP ditched the religious-wing of the Party, Upstate New York would once again turn solid red instead of having only two congressmen, one of whom (the 26th's Chris Lee) was elected by a slim margin against a political neophyte in a gerrymandered "safe district" for the Republicans.
Methinks a lot of the posters on this site fear that a woman may someday become president.
Methinks you are clueless. I would have had no problem with Hilary - I merely thought Obama was the better person for the job. I wasn't particularly fond of Granholm as Michigan governor, but that was due to the state's economy being in shambles, not because she's a woman.
The animosity we on the left have for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her multiple abuse-of-power scandals, her woeful ignorance (and pride in said ignorance), and her willingness to dismiss anyone who disagrees with her views as not part of "real America", whatever that is supposed to mean. Those are not characteristics of anyone I want in power, regardless of gender. Even Bush the Younger didn't combine all three of those at the start of his presidency (though by the end it could be argued).
Lord Calvert,
May I remind you that 'upstate New York' is not the entire United States?
And also remember, if a lot of the religious wackos of the GOOPers in Missouri, Arkansas, or many of the southern states are driven out of the GOOPer party, either directly or indirectly, they can either go to a third party (which won't decrease the Democratic Party vote) or just sit at home (which won't increase the GOOPer vote), and thus the GOOPers will be worse off in a lot of those areas. Enough to more than off-set an increase in GOOPers from upstate New York sitting in Congress.
And don't forget, New York as a whole is losing representation, but the 'liberal' areas in downstate New York is increasing, and staying as liberal, or becoming even more so, than upstate New York. That means even more representation in downstate, less in upstate, New York.
Also remember that the younger generations are much less conservative than the older generations. The older you get, the greater probability of death, and so the more conservative older generations are dying off faster than the younger generations, even if there is no change in total population as a whole. And stats that I've seen says that upstate New York is older on average than downstate New York.
So go ahead and drive the religious wackos out, and in the short term, it will benefit the Democratic Party.
In the long term, unless the GOOPers begin to demonstrate that they can be an honest party, willing to listen to the opposition, sit down to discuss policy differences, and try to come to some agreement, but remain the party of "NO, NO, and HELL NO!", the GOOPers have lost their reason to be a political party.
It also would help the GOOPers to realize that science is not always against big business - think about it.
Just one example - the entire high tech and electronics industry was a result of the scientific discoveries (some of them of just basic research, not applied science) of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And most of that basic research of science was funded by government, whether in the US or in other countries, NOT by big business.
Atomic research?
The Internet? (An outgrowth of basic research into particle physics)
Space exploration and research?
Weather prediction?
All examples of government funding of scientific research that big business then reaped trillions of dollars in income as a result.
And don't forget that government funding allowed some innovations the private sector developed to be expanded to much greater influence.
Railroads?
Interstate highway system? (the original concept was developed in Germany and put in place by Hitler [the Autobahns])
Air transportation?
Mass communication (radio and television, for example)?
Any idea where all those would be without government funding and guidance?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Mike in Maryland said - So go ahead and drive the religious wackos out, and in the short term, it will benefit the Democratic Party.
Oh, I certainly agree that it will benefit the Dems in the short term, just like when they bolted the Dems in 1968 it benefited the Republicans in the short term. I'm concerned about the long term. If the GOP does not get rid of the religious wing of the party or at the very least remove their members from leadership positions within it, they're dead in the long term. They will be nothing more than a regional party with the same constituency as Wallace's AIP.
The short term price for jettisoning the Scudderites is one that the GOP is going to have to pay if they are to survive as a party. So far, they have been completely unwilling to do so. Perhaps after 2012 they will be more willing.
Lord Calvert,
Thank you for addressing the portion of my post about the short-term problem for the GOOPers.
Now please address the long-term problems the GOOPers will face if they don't change their lying ways, their adulation for big business ONLY, and the generation problem.
Also, please acknowledge that 'upstate New York' is not synonymous with the rest of America, or if it is (in your mind), exactly how it is.
Lack of the above just shows that you, as a representative
I guess I should complete my post from above:
Lack of the above just shows that you, as a representative of the GOOPers, is just blowing hot air in the hope that all that hot air will lift the party, not realizing it will not.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I've never visited this site before, and while I think the stats/posts are great, the readers views on the Liberalism versus Conservatism debate are dangerously insular. Many of the greatest writers, especially in the 19th century were deeply devoted to conservative principles and ideals. Pick up Brothers Karamazov and if you pedantic-smarmy-liberals can get through the book and still claim that conservatism is only for dumb nutwings, I will lick your feet.
two words:
ignorant.
arrogant.
it's a dangerous, scary combination.
Post a Comment