The Problem with Sarah
| Sun Nov. 9, 2008 11:17 AM PST
THE PROBLEM WITH SARAH....James Joyner explains why he soured on Sarah Palin even if she probably does know that Africa is a continent:
Bill's right that it's inconceivable that she got elected and re-elected to so many offices over the years, culminating with a state governorship, by being an airhead....I saw little evidence, though, that she's very interested in foreign policy or most issues of American domestic policy. That doesn't make her a bad person — she's in the same boat as most Americans on that score — but it made her a bad choice for the vice presidency.
This is what Palinophiles — and, to be fair, some Palinophobes too — don't seem to get. Palin's problem isn't that she's a social conservative, or that she's an airhead, or that she's inexperienced. Her big problem is that prior to August 29, 2008, she quite plainly didn't have the slightest interest in national or international policy issues of any sort. And no matter how much prepping she gets over the next four years, no matter how much better she gets at dealing with the press, no matter how much she does or doesn't smooth off the rough edges of her social views, conservatives have to ask themselves this question: do we really want our standard bearer to be someone who didn't become seriously interested in either domestic policy or foreign affairs until the age of 44? What does that say about how seriously we ourselves take this stuff?
In the end, I don't imagine many of them will ask that question. But they should.
UPDATE: Well, Mark Lilla is asking, at least. In the Wall Street Journal this weekend he wonders how conservative intellectuals could "promote a candidate like Sarah Palin, whose ignorance, provinciality and populist demagoguery represent everything older conservative thinkers once stood against?" It all began in the 80s, he says, when the same conservative intellectuals who had powered the movement for three decades decided to throw in their lot with know-nothingism:
Over the next 25 years there grew up a new generation of conservative writers who cultivated none of their elders' intellectual virtues — indeed, who saw themselves as counter-intellectuals. Most are well-educated and many have attended Ivy League universities; in fact, one of the masterminds of the Palin nomination was once a Harvard professor. But their function within the conservative movement is no longer to educate and ennoble a populist political tendency, it is to defend that tendency against the supposedly monolithic and uniformly hostile educated classes. They mock the advice of Nobel Prize-winning economists and praise the financial acumen of plumbers and builders. They ridicule ambassadors and diplomats while promoting jingoistic journalists who have never lived abroad and speak no foreign languages. And with the rise of shock radio and television, they have found a large, popular audience that eagerly absorbs their contempt for intellectual elites. They hoped to shape that audience, but the truth is that their audience has now shaped them.
For a movement that decided long ago that slogans and shibboleths mattered while serious policy discourse was merely a distraction, a candidate who showed no interest in domestic policy before the age of 44 is the perfect public face. But is that really the face they want to adopt permanently?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
... do we really want our standard bearer to be someone who didn't become seriously interested in either domestic policy or foreign affairs until the age of 44?
Y'mean like. "do we really want our standard bearer to be someone who was a total slacker alcoholic who succeeded solely on the sufferance of his family and their friends, and didn't even have a passport, until the age of 40?"
Oh, wait ...
amazingly, i was able to get a conservative i know to agree, by using this analogy: as a pro football fan, i could go on air as the color man on my favorite team with zero advance prep, because i've followed them for nearly 50 years.
i could go on air as the color man for any other team with a week or two's prep, because i know football.
but my conservative friend, who has no interest in football, could spend 16 hours a day for the next six months and still not be sufficiently up to speed to go on the air as a color woman (in her case): she simply doesn't have the background and interest.
she understood.
PS. that said, i'm not sure we should leap to the presumption that she's not an airhead: being good at reading attack lines is not evidence of a functioning intelligence.
"conservatives have to ask themselves this question: do we really want our standard bearer to be someone who didn't become seriously interested in either domestic policy or foreign affairs until the age of 44? What does that say about how seriously we ourselves take this stuff?
In the end, I don't imagine many of them will ask that question. But they should."
To be blunt: Bullshit. One can only hope they consider Sarah Palin too liberal and intellectual for their tastes. I want conservatives to ask : Can we dig up Terry Schivo and run her braindead body as our candidate for as many elections as we can keep the corpse from decaying? And I want the answer to be a resounding "YES!" We need to look forward to the day that being a member of NAMBLA is seen as being more socially acceible than being a member of the Republican Party. Don't give them advice on how to improve; feed their worst strategic and tactical buffoonery until they waste away. You don't give serious advice to your enemy on how to beat you; you insure they are beaten down so badly that the genes of their grandchildren dictate they bow to you as an unconscious action. You show compassion to those who are in need; to those trying to hurt those in need, you exteminate them like the vermin they are.
A couple thoughts in addition.
1. I think you can be cunning without being smart. All available evidence indicates that Sarah Palin is very, very cunning. And while clearly she's no genius, I wouldn't be surprised if she is in fact stunningly dumb. Did you ever see those notes of her's that TNR posted from when she was considering her run for mayor of Wasilla? Her own working notes contained non sequiturs like being qualified because she's a "TAXPAYER!!" (her opponents weren't?) and being a "life-long Alaskan resident" (she was born in Idaho). She's clearly very driven and ambitious and successful at climbing a state political ladder, which brings me to my second point.
2. Winning statewide Alaskan office is, I'd argue, roughly equivalent to winning the mayoralty of a medium-large city (i.e., not Wasilla). And governing Alaska, at least during the reign of La Palin, is like governing a medium-large city with nothing but budget surpluses in sight. So, not hard to appear successful. If oil stays below $60 for a while, let's see how she does then. And I don't know about anyone else's medium-large city, but my own medium-large city has elected its share of charlatans and fools to the office of mayor, so regardless of Sarah's undeniable skill at climbing the political ladder, I'm not terribly impressed by her accomplishments thus far. OK, the VP thing was pretty impressive, just for all the wrong reasons.
Submitted by Martin (not verified) on Sun Nov. 9, 2008 11:41 AM PST.
I find it kind of hilarious that conservatives are actually having this debate. It must be hard to be confronted with a candidate who has several of the prime qualities you would want in a candidate and is nevertheless disqualified from nationwide office on pretty basic principles. In short, they want her to be viable so badly, they demonize those who (accurately) admit she is. Until the Couric interview, I thought that she had a big future in national politics, but not as VP, more likely as a Senator and then later maybe as a Sec'y of Energy under a Republican president. But I don't think that anymore. It used to be that the Democrats had a hard time finding a candidate who appealed equally to the party and to persuadable undecided voters. Now it's the GOP who cannot for the life of them figure out who might fill that role. And that isn't going to change for a while.
The "drown gov't in the bathtub" types just want a tool in the Presidency for their agenda. They thought they had one in Dubya, didn't quite work out so well. If they think Palin can win, why would they care about whether she can run the government, when her job will be to dismantle it?
For crying out loud Kevin, George W. Bush didn't have a resume longer than being the figurehead of state government in Texas and the conservatives practically anointed him king in 2000. Never underestimate the collective stupidity of the "base" when it comes to finding an authoritarian figure to prop up as Dear Leader.
Watch and enjoy:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=209420
...represent everything older conservative thinkers once stood against?
Yeah, as I can remember a time when the fact that Palin spent $ 150,000 for campaing clothes would have SHOCKED conservative voters, particulary older conservatives, like those that remembered the depression the way my now deceased grandparents use to talk about. BUT they complain about Kerry and Edwards hair cuts.
AND these awful unbid contracts whereby Bush fired government employees, who were paid to watch government spending???? Bush did those firings without ANY complaints at all from the GOP. And lets not forget that Bush blow through the money Clinton saved even before 9/11 struck, out-spending every president in US history but still talking about big government Dems, and those big spending liberals.
Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove turned the GOP voters into nothing but bunch of radical, hate-driven herd of idiots. Old time conservatives would hardly understand the neo-con crap-shoot in Washington these days. I see why Bush doesn't fund he No Child Left Behind Policy. People have to be utterly stupid to vote for Republicans any more and that is a FACT.
Submitted by Frank Wilhoit (not verified) on Sun Nov. 9, 2008 12:15 PM PST.
The shift that Mark Lilla describes is axiomatically a pander, which vitiates any attempt to deplore it. Ask any stand-up comedian: if you want to tell different stories, you have to get a different audience.
For the most part the pander has been a very successful one. It has kept the Republican Party in power for twenty-eight years, including eight years of a nominally Democratic administration. It remains to be seen whether it has suffered a genuine setback. It got 46 percent of the vote (most of this year's scattering probably ought to be included as well); that's not defeat at the box office, it's just one bad review.
"One can only hope they consider Sarah Palin too liberal and intellectual for their tastes."
I have to strongly disagree with that sentiment. I'd say that an intellectually capable conservative movement can benefit liberals as well. Sometimes we're wrong too. And it would be helpful if someone with credibility would point it out. The conservative movement made Bill Clinton a better president. And Bill Clinton being a good president made our movement more credible. We need intellectual competition to keep us on the right path.
So that's the new litmus test is it? One must display prior personal "interest" in foreign affairs.
What "interest" did Obama display prior to starting his presidential run?
You can probably dig up something vaguely plausible, but you also have to demonstrate that it is "sufficient", whatever that means.
Your time starts now. Have fun!
Do you want to knwo how lost conservatives are right now? This summer an unwed pregnant teenager took the stage at their national convention, standing next to the high school drop-out that knocked her up.
And the Republicans gave them a standing ovation.
a, trust us: if you'd like the republican party to support candidates whose ratiocinative abilities are as poor as yours, we won't stand in your way, honest.
meanwhile, here's the simple answer to your nitwit remarks. it has two parts: a.) barack obama got the most important foreign policy issue of the last 8 years - whether we should invade iraq - correct; b.) he demonstrated plenty of command of foreign-policy issues while campaigning.
unlike that supposed foreign policy expert, john mccain, who in his typical erratic, impulsive way declared the russia-georgia conflict a world historical moment.
see, a, i agree: knowledge, per se, doesn't grant you judgement. obama has knowledge and judgement; mccain has knowledge but not judgement; and palin has neither.
They hoped to shape that audience, but the truth is that their audience has now shaped them.
That's isn't true, that's not what Ralph Reed was, was he?
He went out looking for stupid people to exploit. Reed needed some ignorant voters purely for his own personal self-serving agenda. Hey wasn't that what Wendy Gramm, (ex-Senator Phil Gramm's wife) was doing on the board of Enron too? They The GOP ridicule intelligence individuals in order to shut them up.
The problem is a deep-seated corruption within the Republican Party and it's NOT anything else. Now we see Ted Stevens, after being convicted of 7 counts felonies, being elected to office. But I do have to wonder because Daily Kos paid an independent polling company to check on the Ted Steven race.
The WaPo. ...Mark Begich, an Anchorage attorney, was leading the 84-year-old Stevens by 22 percentage points (Daily Kos apparently paid for the polls).
And of course the readily admitting Pro-Repug slant WaPo wants to insinuate that Daily Kos wanted a biased poll count instead of an accurate one.
There were other polls too: Alaska pollsters Ivan Moore, Craciun Research Group and Hays Research Group all also had Stevens and Young trailing in the lead-up to the election.
AND this: With 81,000 uncounted absentee and questioned ballots, some of which will be disqualified,
And the news is sure making a point of saying some of which will be disqualified - which ones will be disqualified, only the Mark Begich ones?
So now the news is saying Sarah Palin will get Ted Stevens Senate position if poor Ted has to go to jail which is very likely to occur. No wonder she is asking Teddy to step down. She wants his Senate job. And of course big oil wants ANWR Annie Oakley on the US Senator to vote for ANWR.
We need paper ballots in those e-voting machines, because if Big Oil, which is showing up in congress without having to be under oath in those congressional hearings - because they own our congress, that those guys would throw an election in an e-voting machine if they could.
I'm telling you guys, the Republicans has gotten a whole lot more corrupt than most folks realize.
"It all began in the 80s, he says, when the same conservative intellectuals who had powered the movement for three decades decided to throw in their lot with know-nothingism:"
Actually, I would place the date in February 1988, when GHW Bush beat Bob Dole in the New Hampshire Primary, then proceeded to win the White House with a campaign based on supporting the Pledge of Allegiance, opposing flag burning and Willie Horton, and making his famous pledge of "no new taxes".
Submitted by c (not verified) on Sun Nov. 9, 2008 3:01 PM PST.
"do we really want our standard bearer to be someone who didn't become seriously interested in either domestic policy or foreign affairs until the age of 44? What does that say about how seriously we ourselves take this stuff?"
Has everyone really forgotten that George W.Bush
could fit that description? He also admittedly had an alcohol problem and finally quit drinking at the age of 40.
At which point he became interested in domestic policy and foreign affairs, I guess.
> I have to strongly disagree
> with that sentiment. I'd say
> that an intellectually capable
> conservative movement can
> benefit liberals as well.
> Sometimes we're wrong too.
I used to think that back in the 80s when I had a lot of Reaganaut friends. Good to argue with; sharpen the saw; etc.
That was before Grover "drown it in the bathtub" Norquist and PNAC ("stir the beehive"). The goal of the Republican Party is quite literally to return to the 1890s, kill me, and enslave my children. I really see no point in engaging with them on any polite level.
Cranky
The goal of the Republican Party is quite literally to return to the 1890s, kill me, and enslave my children. I really see no point in engaging with them on any polite level.
In part Cranky, because there are those who have put into practice taking kids away from perfectly good parents, and those people like to claim they are liberals.
So when feminists can tell you of court room bias against mothers, and fathers can tell you of court room bias against fathers, while NOW lobbies for sole custody laws and fathers beg for a law giving a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody,
Well, NOW's stance on sole custody tells me what NOW recognizes is happening in the courts. If there is a courtroom bias against mothers, why would NOW be lobbying for sole custody laws? And this wrongful intrusiveness and bias happens with Kevin Drum's full and clear consent and refusal to examine the underlying issues.
Progressive liberals have been led to do some wacky things that have caused disasters.
We actually *do* have to hope that some sort of responsible opposition party comes along to challenge our nuttiness.
Judging by Ms Palin's responses to interview questions, she did not become interested in foreign policy at age 44 - she never became interested, she merely hoped to learn enough buzzwords to pass for eight weeks & hope the Republican base was still large enough to carry her & McCain into office, where a lifetime on the Govt teet awaited her.
Easy money.
Submitted by Coturnix (not verified) on Sun Nov. 9, 2008 5:41 PM PST.
Yes, the Democrats need the opposition voices to keep them on their toes, both from the Right and from the Left. But there is no need to think that this opposition will be any version of the Republican party. If the GOP moves Right, it will bleed moderates and become a tiny little regional party or go extinct. If it tries to move Left, it will bleed the fundies and also bump into a barrier - the Democrats smack in the Center (and more believable as such). They have no direction to go and still be able to retain roughly half of the popular support among the voters. And the changing demographics will just make it harder over the years. Expect a complete re-alignment in the near future, as third parties (Libertarians, Greens) smell blood in the water emenating from the bleeding and dying GOP and move in for the kill.
That Sarah is a pill, isn't she? I have doubts about the Africa and the towel stories. Yet you folks might be even more grateful Obama won, if you listen to this purported dramatized transcript of an actual Wasilla town council meeting overseen by Sarah Palin in 1996. Lots of girl-talk about donating for the coffee or whatever. She sure sounds ditzy:
Submitted by JeffB (not verified) on Sun Nov. 9, 2008 6:42 PM PST.
I think you're going to see whackjobs rise to prominence as long as fringe elements continue to hold sway in party politics. This is more true of 'Pubs than Dems at the moment, but both parties have had their share. Hopefully the pendulum swings to the middle for a while and the wingnuts and moonbats will be drowned out by reason.
Nancy Pelosi is right in line of succession for the presidency, and the fact that she is naught but a typical diaper-changing Eyetalian mama and no intellectual doesn't seem to bother libs. It must be something else, like someone's politics that bothers libs, not their intellect.
Submitted by TC (not verified) on Mon Nov. 10, 2008 12:08 AM PST.
Palin's lack of knowledge doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of empathy. She does not care enough about the country to invest time and effort in understanding it's problems and solutions. She does not care for the people in it, other than as tools for her advancement.
That someone so patently corrupt could get so close to leading an institution that has such historical esteem is what is making us so angry.
I predict that Palin will NEVER wash off the stupid.
(I believe ALL of the stories being dished by the McCain campaign.)
You see, she doesn't appear stupid - she IS stupid. Nothing you can do about that one.
Therefore, she has a great chance of being the Republican nominee.
She has exactly zero chance of ever being President.
She also has this problem - given her creepy ambition (I don't fucking blink! I want to make a concession speech too!) how will she ever be able to wait until 2016?
But, if she gets the nomination in 2012, she'll have to debate Mr. Obama.
There's no amount of book-learnin' possible that could prepare her for that debacle.
It would be sweet, but also hilarious, and fatal.
Was it Jon Stewart who said that while 60% of Republicans support her running in 2012, 100% of Democrats support her running?
I disagree with your article. The majority of the american people, next to George Bush who they elected twice, have just elected the most unqualified, inexperianced person to the presidency. The media's amour with Obama overlooked all his flaws that would have terminated any other presidental candidate. As a democrat for voted for McCain/Palin, primarily becuase of Palin, it was her honesty, directness and willness to connect with the average american that attracted me. If we as a country are no longer going to look at experiance as a qualifer for the presidency, i.e., Bush and Obama, is it fair to critize Palin for not being the most astute politican. It's not just change that the american people wanted, they wanted to connect to their candidate and that is what Obama/Palin despite their inexperiance accomplished. And why shouldn't we have that as a pre-qualifer. Obviously, the american people aren't as interested in the most experiance person as they are interested in feeling they are being included in the decision making. That was the failure of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Their failure to be upfront and inclusive. Instead they ran a government of secrecy and need to know basis. In my opinion, that is what drove Obama to victory and Palin to acceptance. The american people saw them as someone who they could trust and bring openness back to government. Bush/Chency never trusted the american people to handle the truth. They misunderstood that the people will accept good news and bad from our government as long as its open about its successes and failures.
Posted by: TC on 11/10/08 at 3:08 AM Respond
Palin's lack of knowledge doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of empathy. She does not care enough about the country to invest time and effort in understanding it's problems and solutions. She does not care for the people in it, other than as tools for her advancement.
That someone so patently corrupt could get so close to leading an institution that has such historical esteem is what is making us so angry.
-----------------
I voted for Obama and have an open mind. So isn't your argument the same thing as when Obama went to Pennsylvania and told the people how much he liked them, then when to a private event in San Fransico, and told the people that the people in Pennsylvania are bitter and cling to guns and religion? That was complete lack of understanding and he didn't care enough to learn more about them and understand them, but instead he did it behind their backs. The only reason he cared, was because someone let that audio out. Again, I voted for Obama, and support him ,but unlike most Obama supporters, I have an open mind and even see the faults in the candidate I voted for and can make those comparisons to the candidate I didn't vote for.
It never changes. One blog is Repubs hating dems, the next is dems hating repubs. what a sad state of affairs we have in America today. While you continue to be the main part of the problem, some of us will try to be part of the solution. If we as a nation cannot find a way to stop the hating that is so prevalent in our society, then it won't matter what is going on in four or eight or twelve years. There will not be a recognizable America for you to spew your hate in. There will be a big hole in the ground where we used to be. We need to stop the hate. I know it is fun and you are all having a good time, but I would think you could realize that the name calling and butchering of each other is just not working. If we can't find a way to heal our land, then all the changes in the world won't amount to a hill of beans. Look at what you are saying to each other. If you were facing each other with guns you would be killing each other. Is that what you really want? Probably yes for some of you. Your hatred has blinded you to the reality that you are the problem. I'm not talking about red and blue, I am talking about me and you. I am as much American as before the election and I love this country. I do not want to see it destroyed. It does not matter who is at fault here. there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. If we can't find common ground and work together we will never solve the problems that face us. If we can't stop hating, we will never find that ground and never work together. We will never fix anything and the rest of the world will watch with glee as we Americans destroy ourselves with our hatred for each other. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. You can only change yourself but with that change you can have an effect on others to change. If you think I am crazy, I hope you are right. But I know that the hate is not working for anyone. We have better things to do. We are more alike than different. think about it. thanks
Here's another way to look at Palin's knowledgeability:
Maybe she is a very practical person who knows what she needs to know for the task at hand. She sounded perfectly comfortable and fluent giving her speech on energy shortly before the election. I think she ignored most other national issues because, in Alaska, they weren't very germane. If you've never been there, you should know it really is a very different place than the lower 48.
She should have been given a chance to get up-to-speed on issues before the Republican Convention. Instead McCain sat on his hands for months while the Democrats fought over who would be their nominee. That was precious time SP needed in order to learn about the issues she would have to discuss to be a credible candidate for VP.
I am a Dem, I voted Barack, but I like Palin because she reminds me of my mother. My very conservative mother who is ridiculously practical and has almost no imagination, but is very sweet and the most loyal and tough fighter for the people she loves. I believe these things to be true of Sarah Palin as well. She brings a much-needed level of diversity to the Republican Party and I applaud their progress.
Kevin,
Thanks for affirming to me once again, that you are a smart and fair liberal. I am glad ( even though it is a quote of a quotation ) that you seem to admit on your site that the idea that "Palin is an airhead" is farfetched and irrational.
What I am curious about is how many of those who regularly comment on this site, initially believed, or still believe she did not know Africa was a continent? Shouldn't you get some kind of award for gullibility? ( The desire to believe something true is a strong inducement to believe, isn't it )
To those who do believe this I would say, the claim that "Sarah Palin( a sitting governor ) did not know that Africa is a continent" is an incredible claim.
As has been said "..incredible claims demand incredible evidence." So your incredible evidence that Palin did not know Africa was a continent is...
An anonymous report from a aide in a losing campaign.
No offense, but I think that sinks way low on the evidentiary grading scale. Certainly not the type of evidence I would base a belief on.
More to Kevin's point though is my thoughts on intellectuals in the first place. I think I could easily qualify as an intellectual. I graduated summa cum laude from UCLA ( GPA 3.95 ). Not only did I graduate Phi Beta Kappa, I received a Phi Beta Kappa award. I went on to receive my Ph.D from UCLA in physics in 1990.
But I would make a lousy president. I am well able to analyze a situation, but I am not a good decision maker. I tend to be able to see too many sides of an issue, and need to resort to extensive analysis before I can make up my mind. My seat of the pants estimates, tend to be wrong. As a president of a corporation, I know I would fail. By the time I am ready to make a decision, the market opportunity has moved on. I understand this is one of my weaknesses.
This was exactly the problem with someone like a Jimmy Carter or Woodrow Wilson as President. These types of people make good advisers, not good leaders.
So the truth of the matter is, in my opinion it simply does not take a very long to learn the material that is necessary to be a leader. Just plain life experience is probably the best preparation.
I think a good leader comes from someone who has the that special life quality, of being able to quickly integrate material and make an in time, adequately reasoned, seat of the pants decision. These instinctual decisions do not come from an extensive analysis of every piece of material, but an almost uncanny natural ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. This type of decision making will confound intellectuals who disagree with the leader, but will give the best decision.
For the sake of the country, I hope that Obama has this ability. I hope that he realizes that even if he is able to gather hundreds of advisers, he will have to know how to find the correct argument out of the many presented.
Based on her record, so far, I suspect that Palin has this ability. I do not think that right now she is qualified to be elected President, and is probably more than four years away from that. But I do predict that she will some day be on a winning presidential ticket either as the vice president or president. Liberals should just face the fact that she is not going away. She will remain a force in US politics no matter how hard they try to destroy her, and how many intellectuals refuse to recognize, that it is decision makers, not intellectuals, who usually make good leaders.
As we've seen over the last eight years, having someone who runs on their ability to "separate the wheat from the chaff" is pointless if the same person surrounds themselves with a team unwilling or unable to feed them wheat with the chaff. And when you are unwilling to hear all points of view, no amount of gut instinct is going to pick the right option.
Palin (as Bush does) supports creationism. This alone shows an instinct for allowing ideology to remove certain options from the decision pool, regardless of their correctness. How she reached her decision to support creationism, given the great leadership ability you ascribe in her, raises a massive question as to whether she indeed has such an ability.
At the end of the day, denigrate all the intellectuals you want. But you still want that someone making decisions basing their decision on the advise of experts. And people who go out of their way to actively ignore experts, or downplay their advice, are not the sort of people who make good decisions, period. You don't want people like this running the country.
Her big problem [was] not that she ... didn't have the slightest interest in national or international policy issues of any sort.
Her problem is that she lacks the self-awareness to acknowledge the above, and instead tried to bullshit the nation.
Art, please tell me that your 11:44 is a joke.
you're welcome to any take you want on obama's "qualifications," but anyone who admires palin's "honesty" doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about.
this is a women whose introdcution to the american people consisted of lying about the bridge to nowhere, a lie she repeated at least 34 additional times.
she also claimed that she had been cleared by a report that documented that she abused her official powers to pursue a private vendetta, she attacked obama for being "barack the redistributionist" even though she herself runs an administration that redistributes oil money to the citizenry, she claimed to read "everything," and on and on.
if there is one thing we can say with certainty about sarah palin, it is that honesty is not a quality she possesses.
as for connecting directly with the american people: sure she did. that's why her net favorability ratings collapsed faster than any public figure we've seen in a very long time. that's some connecting.
john hansen, i have no idea what you mean when you say "palin is not going away."
in the literal sense, of course, this is true: we'll know where she is, billing the citizens of alaska for her personal expenses and then not paying taxes appropriately.
but i digress: presumably you mean that she will remain a force in republican politics.
i got $100 which i'll donate to the RNC every national election that she is part of the ticket as long as you'll donate $100 to the DNC every national election she isn't.
i don't plan to start saving any time soon....
The conservative movement failed precisely because it gave in to the "we have to appeal to a broader audience" weaklings within its own ranks. How else to explain the nomination of Dole, the two Bush's, and McCain. All left of center moderates who stand for nothing, which is a basic characteristic of a moderate.
Let's hope that the next time the Republicans will nominate a true conservative, one who will place America first, will use a Darwinian approach to failing businesses and social problems and who will support a strong military.
Palin was the only reason I held my nose and voted for McCain.
Not sure how long we're going to bother with the Palin argument. It's a loser. Palinites, by constitution not deeply analytical or self-reflective, have made it clear that they don't care that she is uninformed, ethically-challenged, embarrassingly ill-spoken and downright mean. In fact, those are her most sterling qualities in their judgment. Palin haters will gobble up any tidbit of gossip that diminishes her as a person and a politician regardless of how implausible it is. This is an unbridgeable divide so all these attempts to persuade and cajole people to one side or another are simply exercises in futility.
Fred T., thank you for your endorsement of socialism (what else would you call taking money from oil corporations and giving it to the citizens?).
it is amazing how much right-wingers convince themselves of crap, as michele just noted.
Sorry about your reading comprehension problems- where did you ascertain that I "endorse" socialism. The Alaska Legislature decided to pass oil money around many years before Palin became Governor. Do I agree with it? No.
But as an invasion of individual rights and "redistributionis" philosophy it pales in comparison with the lefts ideology of taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't.
And Obama will punish all who actually contribute to our society by creating wealth.
Fred T., there is no reading comprehension problem here, there is an understanding problem, on your part.
it doesn't matter when alaska introduced its unique brand of socialism by state: what matters is that palin is perfectly happy to live with it. she has made zero effort to change it. she likes it.
as an invasion of "individual rights," whatever that may mean, it is, in fact, a purely redistributionist philosophy: the shareholders lose their ownership of the profits so that the citizens of alaska can gain them.
exactly how is that not a "redistributionist" philosophy? one can hardly wait to find out.
as for "punishing:" what a strange vocabulary you right-wingers have. obama has called for a return at the high end to the tax rates that obtained during the clinton administration: you aren't going to tell me that no one created any wealth in the '90s, are you? (maybe you are, who knows?)
meanwhile, if you want to talk about "punishing" anyone, maybe you ought to consider the "punishment" that republican policies have brought to asset holders and the future punishment that republican policies will cause to every taxpaying citizen of the united states in the form of an enormous interest line item in the federal budget (and a corresponding surrender of a certain degree of sovereignty to those who own our debt).
btw, fred t, i'm always struck by people like you who appear to have no awareness of the constitution: there was a reason this country was founded, and that reason was outlined in the preamble. shall i quote it for you?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
damn redistributionists!
For a conservative, voting Republican was a real chore and it's no wonder about 3% stayed home.
McCain was no prize for conservatives and the choice of Palin certainly didn't help. She isn't stupid, but she was clearly untutored in the larger issues. Being ignorant on a subject isn't a showstopper for most politicians - they all rely on staffs to get them smart when the need arises on most things. But a sometimes erratic McCain as President would have needed someone to back him up and, if need be, act as a counterweight.
It was a mark of how badly run his campaign was that they picked Palin in the first place. And the post-election sniping at Palin by McCain staffers showed me they weren't ready for the big time, anyway. Imagine what damage those jerks could have done from a desk in the West Wing.
Palin could run for the Senate - in six years, she'd be as prepared as anyone to act on a national stage.
