I would be remiss if I did not comment on the extraordinary chain of events that occurred on a Friday before the Fourth of July weekend when Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin who has made a career our of being a maverick and unpredictable, took that to another level by announcing she would resign by August.
Naturally this has touched off speculation ranging from her trying to avoid some sort of scandal to using the extra time to run for President and become the leader in the Republican Party.
My perspective on Sarah Palin began the day that she was announced as the Vice Presidential candidate. It was a baffling moment for a man who while I generally disagreed on policy issues, at least I respected as an intelligent and competent individual. Palin for a few weeks gave McCain’s campaign the energy and purpose it was lacking. But she would be a double-edged sword.
She appeared to the know-nothing wing of the Republican party. The anti-intellectual wing that Richard Hofstadter once so brilliantly described. That wing which is embodied by the anti-science folks, the anti-environmental folks, the religious conservative folks, etc. Her energy policy could be summed up with the slogan, “drill baby drill.”
The initial returns were promising. She delivered what was an electrifying speech for the party base at the convention. However, two weeks into her emergence on the national stage she began to crumble as it began to appear she actually in fact did know-nothing herself. In a devastating string of interviews, she described her foreign policy expertise by suggesting Alaska’s proximity to Russian and failed to name a single newspaper that she read.
As her image crumbled, all along there were people who would step up and defend her. The media became the culprit and she continued to galvanize that 30% wing of the Republican base while at the same time alarming the rest of the country. In a way, she became the symbol for the fall of the Republican Party that would take a huge blow both in the Presidential and Congressional Campaigns.
She did not fade away into oblivion after the campaign. I do not know who wanted her to do so more–the responsible members of the crumbling Republican Party who no doubt wished she would disappear or those of us who believe she has not earned the intrigue and media attention she gets every time she has opened her mouth. And frankly, if her lips are moving, it’s never a good thing. She seems to have a knack for inserting her foot deeper and deeper, never pulling it out. Everything she touches turns into scandal and controversy.
It is of course a dangerous thing to predict demise in the political world. Who would have guessed that only a few years after Richard Nixon said he would no longer be kicked around, he would become President? So to claim to know the future would be difficult.
Nevertheless Sarah Palin must be over if there is to be any justice in this universe. America may be tolerant of many faults if people are honest about them, but they hate more than anything else a quitter. And that’s what Palin has done, she has quit. She has abandoned her state in the time of need. If she were to run for President as some suggest is her plan, she would be crucified for abandoning her state. She would be labeled a quitter. And she would lose based on that alone.
I would not put anything past her at this point however. She has not received good political advise. Perhaps she will not take good political advise. It is striking to me that she is likely at this point surrounded with enablers. People who do not have the fortitude to say no. She has done everything wrong in my estimation since the two week mark of the campaign.
Let us be honest. McCain made a tremendous mistake in picking her. Yes it was a gamble, but his people now acknowledge that she was not vetted well. They saw the upside of that story–popular governor, took on the oil industry, fellow maverick, young, attractive (to some people) woman, etc. They did not see completely uninformed on national issues, loose cannon, undisciplined, scandal ridden, political lightweight. Add to that undisciplined and disorganized. What many of these criticisms have in common of course is the people around her are not providing the leadership and structure for her to utilize her strengths.
I make this point because it is entirely possible that she believes that this is the way to gain national status. She is now free to leave Alaska and become a national leader. The problem is that she has no resume. She was Mayor of a small town and now governor of a small state population wise for two and a half years. She failed to even serve a full term.
As the New York Times writes yesterday, if that’s her goal it’s a huge gamble:
“But if some of her supporters are correct in surmising what she is doing — turning full time to preparing herself, after a tough year, for a presidential campaign in 2012 — it represents a huge gamble, even by the standards of a politician whose short career has been shaped by huge gambles.”
The New York Times goes on to site Nixon in 1962, but it took him six years to rebuild himself.
The article continues:
“Yet Ms. Palin is in a different place than was Nixon, or any other politician who has gone the rehabilitation route. She is viewed disparagingly by many of the elites in her party, no matter how many conservative Republicans have flocked to her. She has grown increasingly unpopular in her own state and nationally; 43 percent of respondents questioned nationally in a CNN Poll in May viewed her unfavorably, compared with 21 percent shortly after Senator John McCain of Arizona chose her as his running mate last August.
And unlike Nixon’s, Ms. Palin’s credentials are a weak point. Nixon had been a vice president, a senator and a member of the House, while Ms. Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska.
By stepping down before finishing her term, she cannot claim to be even a one-term governor. Without a positive record of accomplishment as governor, Ms. Palin may find she has little to run on as she seeks to achieve a critical political goal: expanding her appeal beyond the conservative voters who crowd her rallies and write checks on her behalf.”
What she really needed to do was get out of the limelight and become much more polished and disciplined. She needed to learn the issues. She needed to polish her presence. There was no reason she needed to stay in the limelight from November 2008 until June 2009. None. People were not going to forget her. She should have used that time, even two years to learn the issues, learn the nation, hone her considerable skills.
Now she has nothing to run on and little to say. The Republican Party to this point remains split on Sarah Palin. Some are continuing to back her and defend her. But increasingly people are criticizing her. I think this is probably the end of any realistic chance she had to run for President. But what has to scare anyone is the singular lack of Republican leadership at this point.
It has been a tough year for Republicans and these past few weeks may signal that things are not getting any better. First you had Senator John Ensign who was regarded as a rising star and a leader admitting an affair. Then you have the more high profile and salacious case of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. He may lose his Governorship over this. And now Sarah Palin has to stick her head back in if only to find the exit. That is three people that figured to run for President in 2012.
I just do not see the electorate having the tolerance for someone who could not even finish her job as Governor. Sure she’ll have her devoted core of supporters, but that is probably an ever-shrinking number as many of them have to admit what the rest of us realized in the first two weeks–the clothes simply have no emperor.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Add the 15 ethics complaints currently pending. She’s been described d as a “jet engine on a golf cart w/ no steering” which seems to fit. More time for her to go moose using a helicopter.
Oops. Make that mouse HUNTING using a helicopter.
The beauty of the Vanguard is that it covers local issues.
Thanks Observer. I’ll just note that the two biggest stories in today’s Enterprise are two local stories I beat the Enterprise to the punch on–West Lake and Chancellor Katehi (hey Don Shor, how many stories does that mean the Enterprise has run on Katehi? 😉 ). And I’ll do the same with my story tomorrow. But I thought Sunday of Fourth of July weekend wasn’t the day to break more news.
pieces like these are non-local, and get into partisan politics. Most of what has been said is political sniping.
There was a comment about palin not having knowledge on national issues. Obama is president, yet arguably he doesn’t know crap on national issues either.
for example, in a campaign rally, Obama tried to claim that we should deal diplomatically with Iran because we dealt diplomatically with Russia, and Iran is much smaller than the soviet Empire. In other words, Obama equates the size of the country with the level of threat.
By that logic, nazi Germany was a smaller threat than Canada. Or imperial Japan was a smaller threat than Austrailia.
It showed a fundamental misunderstanding on obamas part. Everytime obama debated foreign policy, he was crippled by Mccain, yet he still managed to get elected.
As far as Palin goes, I’ll stack her intelligence above obama’s any day of the week. She maintained a consistent foreign policy. Obama has not
Obama delivers a speech to iran, and talks about “mutual respect”. Then he talks about bombing pakistan, who is an ally of ours. To openly antagonize our allies and play kissy face with our enemies is dangerous.
he says he won’t meddle in Iran’s affairs, but he has no problem telling off Israel for developments, or pakistan. This is even though Iran repeatedly threatens to blow our country off the map, but Musharaff was a loyal ally of the US.
then he kisses the behinds of hugo chavez and daniel ortega, who are both enemies of the US.
Its not suprising that since obamas inconsistent, reckless, and vague foreign policy, Iran and North Korea have ignored his pleas for peace by test firing missile after missile.
and obama’s response to all of this is to beg china and russia for assistance, even though they are the ones egging north korea and iran on! Obama says those two countries are being isolated, but from what I can tell, obama is being isolated. Maybe if obama made it clear he IS ON OUR SIDE he might not be having so many foreign policy problems!
And we won’t even go into obamas spending orgies in the middle of a sunken economy and budget crisis. (can we say inflation anyone!)
The previous post has to be one of the most uninformed, biased pieces I’ve read and should be struck from this blog. Nonsense, partisan, and just plain misinformed.
I just find it insightful that he cannot defend Palin, he has to attack Obama.
She’s dead man, let her go.
To jon taylor.
you don’t say how I’m uninformed. obama said those things. its just amazing how many people who are drooling over obama and think he’s so smart. he’s a moron.
as far as attacking obama, well, I answer a hit piece with another hit piece. I don’t like to play defense. obama isn’t getting off the hook here. Obama is so much PC eye candy who is fumbling all over, but the press is trying to let him off the hook completely, even in light of his retarded positions.
I never let my opponents have the battle on their terms. Palin was criticized for lack of intelligence so I turned it around on them by showing how obama is no einstein. that’s the GOP’s failing, they spend all of their time answering charges instead of making ones of their own. and there is plenty of mud to sling.
Palin was criticized because she quit and has behaved erratically. You want to criticize Obama fine, but I’m not engaging you on it.
We don’t know why Palin resigned. It is possible she or a family member have health problems. Let’s wait and see before we pass judgment.
And if your only criticism of Palin is that she puts her foot in it every time she speaks, and doesn’t know foreign policy, I would say that profile fits many politicians on both sides of the aisle, and fits Obama extremely well in particular.
Maybe, to play a local angle, at a stretch, UC Davis can entice Palin to come be Chancellor, now she’s got some free time? What with the People’s Republicans ready to jump on her from the platform of this blog, can you imagine the spectacle?
Although she never got to be veep, I see Sarah Palin as a less-informed, less prepared, equally stupid, equally uninteresting and slightly more incompetent version of Dan Quayle.
Some pollster told John McCain what qualities he needed in a running mate:
Young, attractive, female, governor, outsider, social conservative, self-made, energetic and ambitious.
The McCain campaign then plugged in that formula and out popped Sarah Palin. No pollster bothered to ask if she had this quality:
Intelligence.
Palin had her 15 minutes of fame. But as David said, past that, her only appeal was to the moron-wing of the GOP. That remains the case, today. They don’t see her as stupid. They don’t find her empty-rhetoric cloying. They see Mrs. Palin as one of their own, which is just what she is.
Sara Palin was only the VICE presidential candidate, and since the day McCain announced her, she and her family has been continuously harassed, slandered and victimized by the liberal entertainment and media monopoly at a level unprecedented in American national politics. Joe Biden IS the VP, and has demonstrated a far more troubling idiocy and tendency toward unintelligible and foolish gaffs; yet the media barely registers a blip. Liberals and controlling left-tilted media are genuinely obsessed with Sarah Palin. They seemingly will stop at nothing short of destroying this woman and her family. Their actions provide a window into the collective minds and worldview of the contemporary American left, and it is not a pretty sight.
Assuming Sarah Palin is contemplating a future run for national politics… let’s talk about the ethics of stepping down because of the time commitments. Compare this to Barack Obama who retained his Senate seat while voting “present” by proxy while he was attending the William Ayers’ school of liberal terrorism. Liberals have a messianic view of their savior Obama, so it is understandably difficult for them to find fault with anything he says or does. However, for the rest of us the contrast of the focus on Sarah Palin’s personal life while Obama proceeds to destroy the fabric of our economy and country and Biden does absolutely nothing except exhibit poor verbal judgment, demonstrates the perpetual insecurity that plagues the left and makes them unfit to govern. They are in fact, so afraid of what Sarah Palin represents to them (invalidation of their pseudo-religion ideology) that almost nothing else matters.
Sarah Palin appeals to regular folk; and those that have learned to distrust professional politicians. Maybe the left has good reason to fear Sarah Palin. Certainly a couple years of training like Obama received will go a long way in helping to polish her speaking and interviewing skills. She will never come close to Obama’s gifts. However, I suspect that by 2012 Americans will be motivated to distance themselves from anything that looks, acts and sounds like Barack Obama.
“I h8 these pieces”
Amazing! “—some of the people all of the time, …”
Palin wanted out of her fifteen minutes of fame. She has a solid base of supporters, the social conservative wing of the Republican party. She still has major influence, which will now be exercised “behind the scenes.” As for her stated reasons for quitting–that she didn’t want to “milk,” her word, the system for goodies like many previous lame-duck governors while not having the power to do much of anything: That is, you have to admit, honest and unique reasoning. Already the pundits are lining up to say that her putting her reason for quitting in those words is an insult to many a previous lame-duck governor (who milked the system for goodies).
“Sara Palin was only the VICE presidential candidate”
To a man 72 years old with a history of health problems. Next…
“she and her family has been continuously harassed, slandered and victimized by the liberal entertainment and media monopoly at a level unprecedented in American national politics”
And most of it was self-inflicted. The whole family values thing when her house wasn’t in order was fodder. But the real problem was her inability to answer basic questions.
“Sarah Palin appeals to regular folk”
In what sense? Leaving aside the question of whether we want regular folk to be president, we are still stuck with the question that she’s probably not regular folk given her income level, etc. She tried to play up that image, but it gets back to the anti-American strain of American Life as Hofstadter wrote about or put less eloquently by Rich, the moron-wing of the GOP. That appeals to you? And now she’s quit…. So why are you defending her? Oh that’s right, you’re one of them.
“Oh that’s right, you’re one of them.”
So what are you saying, all Republicans are evil? How infantile, and lazy thinking…
To Jb:
You cherry-picked bits and failed to respond to anything of substance, but let me respond.
“To a man 72 years old with a history of health problems. Next…”
So, as I understand you are saying that Joe Biden, because of his age and his health problems, should be given a certain victim status and this justifies the contrast in attention paid to Sarah Palin over him? Huh?
“And most of it was self-inflicted. The whole family values thing when her house wasn’t in order was fodder. But the real problem was her inability to answer basic questions.”
So, what may I ask constitutes an acceptable ordered house in your opinion? It sounds like you have consumed the tabloid material and made a shallow-thinking opinion of her house. What specifically do you want to point to that indicates some problem and justifies all the left and media attention and attack? At the same time, why not tell us how this differs from what a liberal would consider ideal or model.
“In what sense? Leaving aside the question of whether we want regular folk to be president, we are still stuck with the question that she’s probably not regular folk given her income level, etc. She tried to play up that image, but it gets back to the anti-American strain of American Life as Hofstadter wrote about or put less eloquently by Rich, the moron-wing of the GOP. That appeals to you? And now she’s quit…. So why are you defending her? Oh that’s right, you’re one of them.”
Well, first let me say that it is apparent that you are also “one of them” from the other side. So now we have demonized one another, let’s see if we can have any intelligent dialog. Probably not, but let’s keep trying.
You need to do a bit of reading on the Palin’s income level. They are solid middle-class similar to what is the norm in the People’s Republic. In this, she is similar to the Biden family.
“Moron-wing of the GOP”. Both wings have thier share of morons. I find many hyper-educated liberals to be moronic… void of common sense and prone to analysis sans decision. There are different types of intellegence. A woman that raises five children, stays married and has a successful political career obvioulsy has something that many hyper-educated Davisites do not.
I find it amusing that libs will demonize the “moron-wing of the GOP” while they deified uneducated members of their party. As if it is okay to be stupid as long as one votes for the left. Get the elitism? I bet not.
[quote][u]Sara[/u] Palin was only the VICE presidential candidate[/quote]Only? That’s an important job. Even if she never assumed the presidency, the VP has become (in recent decades) one of the two or three most influential advisors to the president. You don’t think Dick Cheney was influential with President Bush? [quote]… since the day McCain announced her, she and her family [u]has been[/u] continuously harassed, slandered and victimized by the liberal entertainment and media monopoly at a level unprecedented in American national politics.[/quote]To quote the great Artie Lange ([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p97/Captain_Killgore/artie_lange.jpg[/url]), “waaaah.”
It might help your argument if you could name some articles in “the liberal entertainment and media monopoly” which [i]victimized[/i] Gov. Palin. I am equally dubious that you can point to where a mainstream publication “slandered” her. I’ll check back on this thread in 24 hours. I expect you won’t tell me anything which objectively supports your contentions.[quote]Joe Biden IS the VP, and has demonstrated a far more troubling idiocy and tendency toward unintelligible and foolish gaffs; yet the media barely registers a blip.[/quote]There is a huge difference: Biden is not stupid, inexperienced and ill-informed.[quote]Liberals and controlling left-tilted media are genuinely obsessed with Sarah Palin.[/quote] I read the NY Times every day. They almost never mention Gov. Palin. However, when I flip the cable dial around, Fox News ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530088,00.html[/url]) seems to be talking about Palin non-stop. I doubt it’s the case that Fox is out to destroy her. [quote]They seemingly will stop at nothing short of destroying this woman and her family.[/quote]Why don’t you give an example of something the mainstream media (or any other media for that matter) has done to destroy Sarah Palin? Is your angst largely built on a questionable joke David Letterman told which Palin misunderstood and took offense over because she did not get the joke? [quote] Assuming Sarah Palin is contemplating a future run for national politics… let’s talk about the ethics of stepping down because of the time commitments. Compare this to Barack Obama who retained his Senate seat while voting “present” by proxy while he was attending the William Ayers’ school of liberal terrorism.[/quote] This is why I hate partisan politics, left or right. GW Bush ran for president for 2 years while he was being paid to be the governor of Texas. John McCain ran for president for even longer (counting 1998-2000 and 2006-08) while taking a paycheck as a senator. It may not be fair to the taxpayers, but it’s not a one-sided affair. Pols from both parties do that. [quote] Certainly a couple years of training like Obama received will go a long way in helping to polish her speaking and interviewing skills.[/quote]Her problem is not her speaking and interviewing skills. Her problem is she is a dimwit. There are plenty of dimwits on the Democratic side of the aisle. I’d rather we did not elevate dimwits to our highest public offices. The results (2001-08) can be disastrous. [quote]I suspect that by 2012 Americans will be motivated to distance themselves from anything that looks, acts and sounds like Barack Obama. [/quote] If that is so, America (hopefully) won’t turn to Palin. Dan Quayle tried twice to run for president, and thankfully he stayed on the golf course, where his talent lies.
I’m pretty sure I made no mention of “evil.” I’m also pretty sure that I made a clear mention of the “moron-wing” meaning a portion of the party, which by definition preclude “all-Republicans” entering into any sort of equation. There are quite a few intelligent and thoughtful Republicans, most that I know were as embarrassed by Palin as I was.
The danger you run when you put less substantive portions into your comments is that people will respond only to them.
“So, as I understand you are saying that Joe Biden, because of his age and his health problems, should be given a certain victim status and this justifies the contrast in attention paid to Sarah Palin over him? Huh?”
No. What I was saying is that when the Presidential candidate is older it makes your selection of VP more important than it might be. Joe Biden as the VP himself doesn’t even enter into the equation.
“It sounds like you have consumed the tabloid material and made a shallow-thinking opinion of her house.”
To a good extent, she is being judged by her daughter’s actions. To the extent that she is, it is due in part to her stressing family values issues and the hypocrisy thereof–hence the reference.
On Palin’s income:
“The McCain campaign released financial documents Friday indicating that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska and her husband, Todd, have assets of more than $1 million, consisting largely of an ample retirement portfolio and real estate.”
Source: Source ([url]http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/30455644.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciatkEP7DhUsX[/url])
The same article reports she received $166,000 in 2007 in taxable income.
That hardly seems the stuff of “solid middle-class” and certainly is well above that of regular folk.
“I find it amusing that libs will demonize the “moron-wing of the GOP” while they deified uneducated members of their party.”
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Have you read Hofstadter, if not, I suggest you do so, it’s one of the better books ever and still holds today.
We adviSe persons to accept good adviCe.
Sarah Palin was not part of the club and didn’t desire to be. As such she was a real threat to the establishment that participated in cozy inside dealing in Alaska and the insiders of both parties went after her. She has much in common with Sue Greenwald here in Davis. Both occasionally make remarks that are remarkably misguided and demonstrate amazing ignorance on some issues, but yet they demonstrate a certain independence that is often admirable. Also, both have been subjected to snide and sexist remarks, especially Palin.
[quote]I am equally dubious that you can point to where a mainstream publication “slandered” her[/quote]
Did I say “mainstream”? Rifkin, you need to pay better attention to what has happened to your industry. The NYT is certainly liberal, and I can point to many NYT stories and opinion hit pieces on Sarah Palin. However, blogs, late night talk shows and cable news has supplanted what you would rather believe sets the precedent for quotable reporting. That is the new trick of the left and those that lament the erosion of old-guard media influence… point to the increasingly irrelevant historically-important institutions for proof that bias and attacks do not exist. Why don’t you send me a list of qualified media outlets before I waste my time making you an extensive list?
While we wait… did you catch amnesia over all the media reports and talk show hits about the origin of her baby? What about the attention paid to what should have been a trivial administrative firing of the state trooper? There are also plenty of more veiled slanderous and attack bits that show up in almost every story. Think a bit Rifkin and point to pieces on any current Democrat politician or candidate that inserts anything close to this level of meanness and snark. Let’s compare our lists including both the traditional media and also the new media that you seemingly want to ignore.
“Only? That’s an important job. Even if she never assumed the presidency, the VP has become (in recent decades) one of the two or three most influential advisors to the president. You don’t think Dick Cheney was influential with President Bush?”
And you are obviously comfortable with Joe Biden giving advice to Barack Obama. He is one chain-smoker’s heartbeat away from the presidency. Doesn’t that warrant some media attention above and beyond what we get to constantly read about Palin?
“Her problem is not her speaking and interviewing skills. Her problem is she is a dimwit. There are plenty of dimwits on the Democratic side of the aisle. I’d rather we did not elevate dimwits to our highest public offices. The results (2001-08) can be disastrous.”
First note that I didn’t write that I supported Palin for President or even VP. Even so, let us address this “dimwit” notion you have developed. So, Obama and his supposedly more intelligent meritocracy are so much the better choice for this country? You keep holding on to that believe I and I will keep checking back with you. While we wait, note that there were a lot of very smart and well-educated people working for Wall Street. How did that work for you?
Sue is a brilliant woman and an intellectual. Palin is an anti-intellectual. She has no grasp of the world. Sue may not have the best people skills, but her intellect and grasp in the issues have never been questioned by anyone.
[quote]The same article reports she received $166,000 in 2007 in taxable income.
That hardly seems the stuff of “solid middle-class” and certainly is well above that of regular folk.[/quote]
Well, you quote facts that back my opinion, but then seem to not understand your own quoted facts.
The income level puts them squarely in Davis’s middle-class income group. Compare this to the Biden family’s $319,853 in taxable income (btw, the Bidens only gave $369 to charity… choosing instead to let others pay more taxes so the government can provide charity).
[quote]No. What I was saying is that when the Presidential candidate is older it makes your selection of VP more important than it might be. Joe Biden as the VP himself doesn’t even enter into the equation.[/quote]
I still don’t know what you are trying to say. Do you?
“Sue is a brilliant woman and an intellectual. Palin is an anti-intellectual. She has no grasp of the world. Sue may not have the best people skills, but her intellect and grasp in the issues have never been questioned by anyone.”
You are traveling in small circles if you really believe that statement.
Or is that you Sue, writing under a pseudonym?
Which part are you arguing with?
[quote]I can point to many NYT stories and opinion hit pieces on Sarah Palin.[/quote] Where are they? I asked you to point to these articles, and thus far you have not pointed to any. [quote] However, blogs, late night talk shows and cable news has supplanted what you would rather believe sets the precedent for quotable reporting.[/quote] You first said there is a liberal media monopoly and now you are pointing to blogs. Are you suggesting that liberals have a blogging monopoly? If so, you are misinformed. Second, with regard to late night talk shows, I think you would have to be a political extremist (one side or the other) to conclude that those rather mainstream comedians are grinding a political ax against one particular political persuasion. I’ve watched David Letterman for 30 years and could not tell you one political position he holds. I sense he cares a lot more about comedy and Indy race cars than he does about which party is in office. [quote] did you catch amnesia over all the media reports and talk show hits about the origin of her baby?[/quote] Who cares? [quote] What about the attention paid to what should have been a trivial administrative firing of the state trooper? [/quote] I did not follow that closely. However, on its face, it seemed as if she was using questionable judgment in firing a public employee because he had a bitter falling out with a relative of hers. Yet even if she was completely right in that instance, it was a normal news story, covered the same way scandals of the left or right are reported. (I recall almost the exact same story with regard to Democratic Congressman James Traficant, when he fired someone who had a falling out with a relative of his.) [quote]Think a bit Rifkin and point to pieces on any current Democrat politician or candidate that inserts anything close to this level of meanness and snark.[/quote] You are assuming facts not in evidence. You have failed to objectively demonstrate that Sarah Palin has been treated differently due to her politics or unfairly. It seems to me, given how little she has accomplished in public life and how little mental wattage she has, she has been given far too much credit. Many reports have suggested, even since she prematurely quit her job as governor, that she should be considered a presidential candidate. Why? Nobody would take her seriously but for the fact that for a couple of disastrous months she was hand-selected as McCain’s failed running mate. That makes her worthy of being considered for president? I think everyone should ignore Mrs. Palin. She was a nobody and is once again. [quote] And you are obviously comfortable with Joe Biden giving advice to Barack Obama.[/quote] Comfortable is a relative quality here. Biden served in leadership positions in the US Senate for about 20 of his 30+ years in that chamber. He’s very well-informed and experienced in all aspects of foreign and domestic policy. So, of course, yes, I’m comfortable with him being the VP. However, as someone who believes we need a different tack in foreign wars, who believes we need less federal government, as someone who believes we need a simpler, easier tax program and less direction from Washington, and as someone who prefers justices a lot more like Antonin Scalia and a lot less like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Obama-Biden is not my first choice of administration. Yet we are a country of 300 million souls, so naturally I’m unlikely to ever get my first choice in that regard. But Biden is eminently well qualified to serve as VP. [quote] let us address this “dimwit” notion you have developed. So, Obama and his supposedly more intelligent meritocracy are so much the better choice for this country? [/quote] I want a president who is bright, able to understand basic science, able to reason and able to coherently articulate positions. Barack Obama fits that. Alas, Mrs. Palin and Obama’s predecessor do not.
Greenwald:
You make many observations that were once in politics conventional wisdom. All that’s out the window now. One only has to look at the bonafides of the current sitting President.
I totally agree with David that it would be great if we have seen the last of Sarah Palin. I don’t feel like gloating over the fact that Americans hate a quitter. First off, I don’t know that it’s entirely true. I particularly don’t agree that Americans tolerate faults in politicians as long as they are honest about them. That’s what people would like to believe about their political heroes, but in practice claiming to be honest seems to matter more than the real thing.
Palin herself is a good example of that. Even though she banked on
ethics reform, she has been as false as any politician. She implied as much in her resignation speech. Her claim that she wants to spare Alaska the cost of ethics investigations makes no sense — this is the same woman who wanted to build a $4 billion road across Alaska to little towns on the far Alaska coast. What is true is that the ethics investigations have been expensive for her personally. And there may be more to come.
Sue Greenwald is a completely different type of leader than Sarah Palin. The job is completely different and the person is completely different. As in other states, the governor’s salary in Alaska is not really competitive for management, but it is a real job. Even the mayor’s office in Wasilla is a real job. By contrast the Davis city council is practically a volunteer position. Apart from specific policies, people who serve on the Davis city council should be praised for donating their time.
As for the person, I would probably disagree with Sue Greenwald on a number of key city issues. But I get the strong impression that she knows how to disagree with people. That is, I think that she can cooperate with people even when she doesn’t agree with them. I respect that.
By contrast, it doesn’t sound like Sarah Palin knows how to disagree with hardly anybody, not even people who have supported her or who she hired herself. There is even evidence that she doesn’t know how to disagree with Bristol Palin, who comes across as a more mature person in some ways than her mother. Sarah Palin might be good at working out a disagreement with her husband, or with her parents, and that’s about it.
I liked her quote “The only thing that goes with the flow is a dead fish”. She just doesn’t realize exactly HOW it is apt.
My read is this is just about money. She has the appeal right now to the right wing/corporate circuit, so will soon be collecting $100k per speech. Why not cash in for her family while she has a chance? I’m not a fan of hers, by any means, but could understand that logic.
Everyone is an expert on a blog….
Including Mr. Greenwald
I think the length of this commentary, as well as the contributing comments, speaks volumes to the impact this woman has on the political forefront. Her magnanimous existence is a threat in itself to those of opposing views. I am appreciative of Mr. Greenwald for keeping Palin in the public’s eye, albeit speculative and opinionated, as intelligent voters will be forced to be kept apprised of the actual facts surrounding Palin and her political stance. I doubt that articles such as this will truly waiver intelligent readers. It is truly just another leftist singing to the choir.
Mr. Rifkin,
Here are just a few NYT pieces. I found these in two minutes even though the NYT likes to delete some of their archive quickly (eliminate evidence?). There was a story circulating about the NYT publishing 60-70 negative pieces about Sarah Palin only 3 days into the announcement of her VP candidacy. I will find that list.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/palin-ethics-investigation/?scp=6&sq=Palin “is no hillary”&st=cse
However, the problem that you seem to ignore is the current irrelevancy of the NYT influencing public opinion. Why not check the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post for the real influential voices of the Left? Do a search on “Sarah Palin” and let me know what you find. And don’t tell me that there are as many right-leaning blogs doing the same and with the same reach. It ain’t so. Also, I find it astounding that you don’t view Letterman as a biased liberal. Here we are more than half a year into the Obama Presidency and Letterman continues to bash the Bush administration and GOP. He is a funny guy, but he is far left and he influences the population of younger voters. His show has gone much more political since the days where he dropped stuff from the roof and donned a Velcro suit. Letterman is one of many shows with a notable left-tilt. Name a talk show or news show other than Fox News that leans right. There are only a handful.
[quote]I want a president who is bright, able to understand basic science, able to reason and able to coherently articulate positions. Barack Obama fits that. Alas, Mrs. Palin and Obama’s predecessor do not.[/quote]
Fine, you like a book-smart President and VP. Palin is not, but I think you are on thin ice with your claim of dimwittedness. Are you basing that on Tina Fey’s performances? You might also consider that there are different kinds of intelligence attributable to quality outcomes of leadership. I understand that Hitler was brilliant and was gifted with articulation skills. Certainly Obama isn’t Hitler, but it is apparent that he lacks the mental capacity to understand the long-term damage his policies are doing to the economy and our freedoms. Also, he seems to lack understanding of the natural tendencies of human behavior influenced by both foreign and domestic policy. Either he lacks understanding or he is an ideologue. In any case he is demonstrating a bit of confusion is he not?
Again, I am not a Palin supporter, but I am disgusted at the treatment of her by the left and the media. Politics is a nasty business, but there is no other politician – especially female – in my memory that has had to take this much crap. Name one.
“I want a president who is bright, able to understand basic science, able to reason and able to coherently articulate positions. Barack Obama fits that.”
You’ve got to be kidding?! Obama couldn’t find his way out of a paper bag! The economy tanks, while $1 million dollars is spent on UC Merced’s commencement, bc Michelle Obama was in attendance. The Obama’s are living the high life, giving out tax dollars like it was candy, as the economy tanks even further. North Korea grows bolder, firing off mid-range missiles, bc it knows Obama is a paper tiger, as he whines something about “I’m going to sick the UN on you”. Obama is an embarassment.
Sarah Palin lacks experience. If she wants to play with the big boys, then she needs to run for US Congress, and hone her skills, before any run for the presidency. Accusations of her being a “dimwit” are hardly the point. Most of our politicians on Capitol Hill fit that description.
geez, I’ve always known Davis had its population of mean-spirited, uninformed, undereducated, evil republicans, but this particular article brought them out in droves. One of them asked if you thought republicans were evil…let me say clearly, yes,I consider them evil. They worship money at the expense of humanity and environment, they kill all species (humans are a species) without regard, if they get in the way of making money….and remember, money is the root of all evil. As for Sarah Palin, if republicans permit her to represent them, they deserve her.
[quote]geez, I’ve always known Davis had its population of mean-spirited, uninformed, undereducated, evil republicans, but this particular article brought them out in droves. One of them asked if you thought republicans were evil…let me say clearly, yes,I consider them evil. They worship money at the expense of humanity and environment, they kill all species (humans are a species) without regard, if they get in the way of making money….and remember, money is the root of all evil. As for Sarah Palin, if republicans permit her to represent them, they deserve her.[/quote]
I feel sorry for you dear. You are quite misinformed in your bubble of liberal brainwash. Republicans are not evil any more than Democrats are evil. I think Republicans more easily rationalize the emotion that is often the driving force for a liberal Democrats worldview. You see it as evil, but mostly it is a more evolved mindset. Aren’t we supposed to learn to rationalize our emotions as children?
Most Republicans care as much about the disadvantaged than the bleeding hearts you associate with. The difference is an emotive-stasis view verses a rational-dynamic view. Republicans accept the messiness of freedom because it creates a fertile and dynamic society of constantly shifting winners and losers. In our view, very few people qualify as victims because it is bad for them. Libs see every individual loss as a group struggle having some permanency that requires them to go about saving people. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy… saved people go on needing to be saved… thereby perpetually validating and deifying the liberal saver while creating a large population of generally unhappy victims.
Liberal Dems see a person in a wheel chair as someone in need of substantial social services. Republicans see a person in a wheelchair as a potential CEO of a successful business. If that means liberals see Republicans as evil, so be it.
[quote]Here are just a few NYT pieces.[/quote]You contended that these were in effect hit pieces on Palin. I’ll read each of them and then in a later post tell you if I think they were unfair from my point of view.
You should keep in mind, when debating me, that I’m no left-winger. I’m somewhere in the middle on most issues. So when you portray those who dislike the politics and stylings of empty suits like Palin as all being part of some left-wing group, you are wrong. What your attitude reflects, I think, is why the GOP is so unpopular, right now. It comes across as, “everyone who is not a right wing nut is a leftie.” [quote]I find it astounding that you don’t view Letterman as a biased liberal.[/quote]The only people who could watch David Letterman on a regular basis and think he has any political ax to grind are people on the far, far edges of our political spectrum. Because he is wealthy, successful, funny, an auto racing enthusiast and works for a major corporation, I suppose there are folks on the extreme left who view him as a right-winger. Because he’s made a few jokes at the expense of some conservative politicians — never mind he’s skewered Bill Clinton for the last 17 years, too — and maybe because he doesn’t include jokes which appeal to right-wing religious nuts, it sounds like people on the extreme right think Letterman is a leftist. But for the 95% of people who are not extremists, Letterman is just a comedian, nothing else. His act is not partisan at all. [quote]Here we are more than half a year into the Obama Presidency and Letterman continues to bash the Bush administration and GOP.[/quote]Did it ever occur to you that Bush is just a ripe target for comedy?
“Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?”
“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”
“You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.”
“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.”
“For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It’s just unacceptable. And we’re going to do something about it.”
“Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.”
“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.”
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on –shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
Are you unable to understand that Bush The Stupid is hilarious? Letterman makes Bill Clinton jokes every week, too, and he has not been president for 8.5 years. Clinton, like Bush, is a good target. Obama, thus far, is not. [quote] (Letterman) is a funny guy, but he is far left and he influences the population of younger voters.[/quote]Look, you keep saying he is “far-left.” What is one opinion Letterman has ever expressed on any public policy? [quote] His show has gone much more political since the days where he dropped stuff from the roof and donned a Velcro suit. Letterman is one of many shows with a notable left-tilt.[/quote] You know that you are speaking from the position of a political extremist. [quote] Name a talk show or news show other than Fox News that leans right. There are only a handful. [/quote] I think Fox is the most popular of all the cable news channels. But I don’t watch that crap much. I just don’t care to keep hearing reports on Jon Benet Ramsey or the latest overcovered crime stories.
Republicans are evil. They see someone in a wheelchair and complain about all the building upgrades landlords will be faced with in order to allow for wheelchair ramps. They see someone homeless and they flee to gated ‘communities’. They see someone on drugs so they incarcerate them and fund ‘just say no’ ads rather than provide treatment.
They think ketchup is a vegetable.
JB, I’ve now read the first piece: “Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting.”
I could not find one thing in there which seemed unfair. However, one aspect of the article proved ultimately to be untrue: [quote]Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.[/quote] I don’t think they ever married or plan to, but I don’t really care about that.
JB:
Ronald Reagan once said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party left him.
At this point I think the Republicans have returned the favor. If you’re targeting David Letterman as being a left wing influence, then it looks like the Republicans have swung too far from the mainstream in connecting with voters.
I’ve now read the second article you cited, “Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes.” I was unaware of this piece. (I don’t care to follow the antics of an idiot governor from an unpopulated state.) But it sure seems to show in detail that your darling governor of Alaska had poor ethics: [quote]When there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, [u]Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows[/u] as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages. [/quote] I don’t doubt that other politicians have been guilty of ripping off taxpayers in the way Palin did, hiring unqualified friends. However, it should be no knock against the NYT for reporting Mrs. Palin’s ethical abuses. [quote]In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing. [/quote] That doesn’t bother you, JB? [quote] Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) … When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show. [/quote] Is it unfair of The Times to show that Mrs. Palin lied to support her political stance?
This is a very long article and contains both positive and negative stories about Palin. This is among the many positives: [quote]Mr. Murkowski … gave Ms. Palin the $125,000-a-year chairmanship of a state commission overseeing oil and gas drilling. Ms. Palin discovered that the state Republican leader, Randy Ruedrich, a commission member, was conducting party business on state time and favoring regulated companies. When Mr. Murkowski failed to act on her complaints, she quit and went public.[/quote]Unless you are blindly biased to support whatever Mrs. Palin has done, I think anyone would see this article as sound journalism.
Mr. Rifkin,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23palin.html?scp=7&sq=sarah palin clothes&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/americas/22iht-palin.4.17176795.html?scp=1&sq=sarah palin clothes&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02assess.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02palin.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E2D8133EF930A3575AC0A96E9C8B63
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/politics/13memo.html?_r=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/archive/236/news/2008/09/02/where_did_you_hear_it_a_sarah_8660.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/21/rnc-has-spent-over-150000_n_136736.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/palins-180000-campaign-cl_n_160313.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/23/palins-180000-campaign-cl_n_160313.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090311/bristol-palin/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-jane-seymour/the-runaway-daughter-sara_b_138848.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlotte-hilton-andersen/sarah-palin-bikini-pictur_b_123234.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akmuckraker/sarah-palins-approval-rat_b_198658.html
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/18/10233/4375
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/3/211436/9804
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/25/9453/43679
I could spend hours doing this. If you are a center guy and a journalist as you claim, then I would expect you to stop denying the truth of liberal bias and copious attacks on Sarah Palin. You will note that these are primarily articles about her wardrobe and her daughters. They come from both the old media (with more precise nuance) and the new media which I think truly identifies the mindset of those that control the Democrat Party and majority media apparatus. This is just a small sampling of a very large pile of crap.
I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (maybe slightly right of center on a few issues), but unlike you I despise the bias and lack of civility in what has become of the once-respected media (old or new). Ideological differences are important and should be constantly debated. However, with the media acting as more as a marketing and influence engine for the left (or right in the case of Fox News), we have a problem worthy of potentially hostile revolution. Our republic, our carefully crafted system of governance, was not designed to handle this. The freedom of the press was conceived to combat tyranny and the potential for renewed taxation without representation; not to promulgate one Party or one ideology over another. Obama is a populous messianic politician that is only just now beginning to be questioned by the old and new dominant media for his policies. Meanwhile Sarah Palin and her family are constantly skewered. Few know Obama is a chain smoker, but all know everything about Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter. Oh yeah… it is all those family values that justify the target, right? Well what about a President who wants free healthcare for all who smokes… isn’t that worthy of some story? While doesn’t Letterman do bits on Obama’s smoking habit? Just one example. I’m sure you don’t need me to add more. Are you really okay with this out of balance and biased junk?
You have not responded with a list of right-leaning media or entertainment outlets other than Fox News (let me add Rush Limbaugh for you).
JB, I don’t care to read any more of your articles. I read the first 3 and they had nothing. Just cite me an example from “the media monopoly” which supports your contention.
[Quote]Ronald Reagan once said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party left him. [/Quote]
skeptic:
I don’t get your point. Reagan was saying that it was the Democrat Party that changed… turned left to be exact.
[Quote] At this point I think the Republicans have returned the favor. If you’re targeting David Letterman as being a left wing influence, then it looks like the Republicans have swung too far from the mainstream in connecting with voters. [/Quote]
There were no politicians attending late night talk shows until Bill Clinton played the sax on the Arsenio Hall Show in 1992.
Johnny Carson was a Republican, but you wouldn’t know it because as most Republican entertainers do, he separated his celebrity from his politics. Letterman is a self-professed liberal. He has no problem lampooning the GOP and Republicans while he makes nice with the other side. Most of his material had gone political since Obama started campaigning. He is probably the most gifted comedic wit on TV, and I watch his show quite regularly. I think he is hilarious, but it is clear what he supports and it has influence on many.
You could make a case that the US has moved more left and the Republicans have not, but please don’t pretend that the Democrats are have remained the same while the Republicans have grown more conservative. That is one of the marketing tactics of the Bill Ayers school of liberalism… say the lie enough times and the truth becomes irrelevant. Ask a standard Democrat of 30 years ago what he/she thinks of Socialism and you should note a significant shift within the current Democrat Party.
“Joe Biden”: “Few know Obama is a chain smoker, but all know everything about Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter.”
Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Obama is a “chain smoker” or even a heavy smoker, and the only source for this claim appears to be fringe rightwing blogs and forums, this kind of undercuts your whole argument.
Bristol Palin is a reasonable topic for discussion because Sarah Palin advocates abstinence-only sex education. Her daughter’s pregnancy does seem to contradict the efficacy of such programs.
I have been watching Letterman for years. The only specific political topic he has spoken out on has been climate change. Bill Clinton has been the target of more jokes than any other politician, continuing to this day. Hilary Clinton has been a favorite target of all late-night comedians. Letterman has given lots of air time to John McCain, treating him very cordially until McCain abruptly stood him up last year. Even after that, Letterman had him back on and it was a reasonably cordial conversation.
I think McCain did Palin and the nation a disservice by selecting her. In fact, I think he disqualified himself from the presidency with that choice. It reminded me of when Nixon picked Spiro Agnew: the most common reaction, then and later, was “what on earth was he thinking?!”
She clearly was unprepared for the intense scrutiny of a national campaign. She might be an ok governor in Alaska (population less than San Jose), having some reformist impulses in a state with a LOT of corruption. But she doesn’t have the political skills or (as Colin Powell put it) the intellectual rigor for national politics. Just read the text of her statement on Friday and I think you’ll see what I mean: [url]http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php[/url]
“Ask a standard Democrat of 30 years ago what he/she thinks of Socialism and you should note a significant shift within the current Democrat Party.”
In 1979, 30 years ago, the Democratic Party was in the midst of an epic primary battle between Edward Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. I’m not sure you really made your point.
Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Obama is a “chain smoker” or even a heavy smoker, and the only source for this claim appears to be fringe rightwing blogs and forums, this kind of undercuts your whole argument.
Bristol Palin is a reasonable topic for discussion because Sarah Palin advocates abstinence-only sex education. Her daughter’s pregnancy does seem to contradict the efficacy of such programs.
umm, excuse me, but that last statment you made is a royal cheap shot. If Palin was pregnant, that would be one thing, but Palin cannot control her daughter in the bedroom. So to hold her daughter’s getting pregnant against her is a royal cheap shot.
think McCain did Palin and the nation a disservice by selecting her. In fact, I think he disqualified himself from the presidency with that choice. It reminded me of when Nixon picked Spiro Agnew: the most common reaction, then and later, was “what on earth was he thinking?!”
She clearly was unprepared for the intense scrutiny of a national campaign. She might be an ok governor in Alaska (population less than San Jose), having some reformist impulses in a state with a LOT of corruption.
So, basically Alaska doesn’t count as a state. To govern a state with a small population doesn’t count as a job in your view.
As far as Alaska having a lot of corruption, you need to look in the mirror. Gray Davis was a posterboy for corruption.
But she doesn’t have the political skills or (as Colin Powell put it) the intellectual rigor for national politics. Just read the text of her statement on Friday and I think you’ll see what I mean:
I wouldn’t judge Palin based on something Colin Powell said. He prostitutes himself to whichever side the wind is blowing, which happens to be Obama at the moment. He is a weasel of the lowest sort.
“Palin cannot control her daughter in the bedroom.”
Doesn’t that speak to the entire movement.
Sarah Palin’s children should be off base, just as Cheney’s children should have been off base, or Chelsea Clinton. It doesn’t matter one wit what position their parents took. It has long been accepted practice to leave the children of politicians ALONE.
Letterman told a tasteless joke about Palin’s children, that he had to apologize for. The only reason he apologized was to save his own career. It was a mean-spirited attack on a defenseless child. Period. End of discussion.
Palin is no more dim than Obama. Bush was no more dim than Clinton was venal. What does that say about the quality of our political leaders? Not much.
All Republicans are evil? Talk about lazy thinking.
IMHO, talk shows have become news outlets, bc politicians have foolishly started using them as a political venue. It is highly unprofessional, and beyond stupid. Late night talk shows are meant to be silly, inane, not to be taken seriously.
However, news coverage is so biased now (e.g. Dan Rather scandal, NYTs scandal), it cannot be taken seriously. It is very hard to get just the facts. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is almost impossible to just get the facts.
The left is ruining this country, and the right is sitting back and letting the left do it without much of a whimper. A pox on both houses!
[Quote] JB, I don’t care to read any more of your articles. I read the first 3 and they had nothing. Just cite me an example from “the media monopoly” which supports your contention. [/Quote]
Mr. Rifkin,
They are not my articles, but it is your choice to ignore them.
In the Times today:
“Sarah Palin showed on Friday that in one respect at least, she is qualified to be president.
Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy.”
A Pox on Both Houses,
Well said. I agree.
I read somewhere that the left attracts A-players to the game of politics, but they had been routinely beat by the B-players on the right. (Republican A-players are the industrial producers that play the game from the sidelines.) A perfect storm (literally and figuratively) allowed the left to finally win a game. But now they are overplaying their hand and causing real problems that the A-players on the right can no longer ignore.
Obama is a cool and likeable guy, but he is in way over his head. He has made so many promises that will be broken and he has run out of people and groups to blame. The GOP will shed the old-guard, B-grade, political hacks to be replaced with talented business-minded folk just in time to leverage the growing discontent within the voting population.
If this is wrong and Obama and all his book-smart cronies can fix the country, then the GOP-faithful might consider backing down to enjoy the ride of being the snarky minority party for once.
“Ronald Reagan once said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party the Democratic Party left him.
skeptic:
I don’t get your point. Reagan was saying that it was the Democrat Party that changed… turned left to be exact.”
I used to think that the Republican party was all about fiscal responsibility until I watched what GW and the Tom DeLay/Dennis Hastert congress did. They had a budget surplus and a good economy and led us into this mess. Based on recent track record, the Republican party doesn’t stand for much of anything, economically. In the last presidential election, the Republicans didn’t make a very good case for their stance on the economy.
“Sarah Palin’s children should be off base, just as Cheney’s children should have been off base, or Chelsea Clinton. It doesn’t matter one wit what position their parents took. It has long been accepted practice to leave the children of politicians ALONE.”
Personally I don’t care about Palin’s children. But Cheney’s lesbian daughter is an adult, and if the Republican party takes a stance against same-sex marriage or possibly against homosexuals openly serving in the military, then I want to hear from such a Republican leader for some guidance as to how a parent should reconcile those issues for a homosexual child.
If you were a fiscally conservative gay Republican eight years ago, then the Republicans today don’t look so appealing today. The Republicans have left such a person behind.
I used to think that the Republican party was all about fiscal responsibility until I watched what GW and the Tom DeLay/Dennis Hastert congress did. They had a budget surplus and a good economy and led us into this mess.
Actually the dot.com bubble burst right as bush/cheney took office. Second, I’m not buying the budget surplus crap. As I recall, bush was blamed for turning a budget surplus into a deficit just 6 months after he took office. How could that have happened that fast?
Based on recent track record, the Republican party doesn’t stand for much of anything, economically. In the last presidential election, the Republicans didn’t make a very good case for their stance on the economy.
I agree. However, I don’t see the democrats standing for much economically either. I see them spending $ on things we can’t afford. I think we are going to see massive inflation before this is all said and done.
Personally I don’t care about Palin’s children. But Cheney’s lesbian daughter is an adult, and if the Republican party takes a stance against same-sex marriage or possibly against homosexuals openly serving in the military, then I want to hear from such a Republican leader for some guidance as to how a parent should reconcile those issues for a homosexual child.
Cheney’s daughter is not a public figure, and is off limits. It doesn’t matter that she is an adult.
I would also like to reiterate the other persons point about letterman. letterman is a dirty old man, who only thinks between his legs. his defense is he meant only to make sexual jokes about palin’s older daughter,and not her younger one, as if that made it okay.
“Cheney’s daughter is not a public figure, and is off limits. It doesn’t matter that she is an adult.”
I completely disagree. She chose to participate in her father’s re-election campaign and represent her family to the public; she showed up in public at numerous campaign events. If she wanted to eschew the public and avoid the limelight, she could have done so and that would have represented a different level of privacy.
The Republicans support a number of issues politically that have a very personal effect on the lives of many. You don’t just pretend it’s a game that has no effect on personal lives. As such, it is fair to ask the Cheneys how they reconcile their and their party’s position on legislating these personal lifestyle issues on their own family.
The Republican Party is in disarray. If they want the dumb woman “maverick” image to be the party image then more power to them. At some point they will host a round table discussion as their numbers continue to drop and ask themselves where they went wrong. I will save them lots of high consultant costs by giving them one of many answers, which is Sarah Palin. She is an embarrassment to the party. Get rid of her. Better yet, keep her and the Democrats can stay in power for for at least sixteen years.
“Better yet, keep her and the Democrats can stay in power for for at least sixteen years.”
God help us if Obama stays in power another four years. God help us if he stays in power one more year!
“I completely disagree. She chose to participate in her father’s re-election campaign and represent her family to the public; she showed up in public at numerous campaign events. If she wanted to eschew the public and avoid the limelight, she could have done so and that would have represented a different level of privacy.”
At some level, every politician’s child becomes part of the campaign of his/her parent. However, the unwritten (and wise) policy has been for the press and the opposition to keep hands off the children of the candidate running for office. Some Democrats have chosen to ignore that unwritten rule of civility to further their own nefarious ends, just as some former Presidents have chosen to criticise the sitting President, also something that didn’t used to be done for good reason.
IMHO, the Democrats have become all about demonization, and the Republicans have become all about allowing the Democrats to immolate at the expense of the country. Neither side’s motives are pure, both sides are reprehensible in their conduct. What I don’t see is politicians pulling together and doing things for the good of the country.
Even Matt Rexroad doesn’t like Sarah Palin’s actions:
[url]http://www.rexroad.com/tabid/59/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2233/Governor-Palin.aspx[/url]
“Even Matt Rexroad doesn’t like Sarah Palin’s actions:”
I don’t consider Matt Rexroad an authority on Republican values…
That said, I do not believe Sarah Palin was a good choice for McCain’s running mate – never did. She did not have enough experience, which showed. Do I think her latest maneuver was a good one? I really don’t know, bc I am not sure why she did it. Until I determine why, I don’t intend on passing judgment. However, what I would say is that Obama lovers calling Palin a dimwit bc she “knows nothing about foriegn policy” and she “puts her foot in it”, is the pot calling the kettle black – pardon my pun! Obama is a lightweight when it comes to both foreign and domestic policy, and is constantly apologizing after he puts his foot in his mouth. Demonization does not become the Democrats.
“Some Democrats have chosen to ignore that unwritten rule of civility to further their own nefarious ends, just as some former Presidents have chosen to criticise the sitting President, also something that didn’t used to be done for good reason.
IMHO, the Democrats have become all about demonization,”
The problem is that the Republicans have becoming so much about campaigning on and legislating personal morality. As such they become vulnerable targets for pointing out hypocrisy. For instance, Gov. Sanford supported impeaching Clinton and felt that the President should resign. Yet Sanford doesn’t feel that he should resign as SC governor.
“The problem is that the Republicans have becoming so much about campaigning on and legislating personal morality. As such they become vulnerable targets for pointing out hypocrisy. For instance, Gov. Sanford supported impeaching Clinton and felt that the President should resign. Yet Sanford doesn’t feel that he should resign as SC governor.”
The problem with the Democrats is they are so busy criticizing everyone else, they are not solving any problems. Maybe they should spend a little more time coming up with solutions, and a little less villfying the Right.
[quote]The problem is that the Republicans have becoming so much about campaigning on and legislating personal morality. As such they become vulnerable targets for pointing out hypocrisy. For instance, Gov. Sanford supported impeaching Clinton and felt that the President should resign. Yet Sanford doesn’t feel that he should resign as SC governor.[/quote]
First, which news organizations play up Gov’ Stanford or Senator Larry Craig as prominent stories? Are these the same new organizations that paid little attention to Senator William Jefferson’s freezer full of bribe money?
So the GOP is open to this stuff because of their stand on family values… So then, what does the Democrat Party stand for that would come under similar scrutiny? The environment? Well from what I can tell, these days Democrat politicians are using more energy and burning more carbon than the GOP. Obama jets to New York on a private government flight just to have dinner and see a show. Senator Kennedy fights to prevent wind farms from being built next to his vacation mansion. Let’s see, not many articles on these “environmental values” issues. How about Democrats values on the poor and support for public education? How many Democrat politicians live in mansions in gated communities? How many send their kids to private schools? Also consider that William Jefferson “I never had sex with that woman…” Clinton served out his term while every GOP politician with evidence of sexual misconduct lost their job or seat. I guess it pays to be a Democrat since you don’t have to be held accountable for any family values. Or, maybe it is the media drops the story quicker?
The family values thing is tired bunch of crap to justify media bias against the GOP. Human sexuality is human nature and even the high and mighty fall off the wagon. It is no less or more significant that a politician who preaches family values fails to follow his own sermon, just as it is no surprise that Obama, Gore and Peolsi still continue to burn more fossil fuel in a day than most of us do in a year. Beside, the hypocrisy here is the left claiming indignation over sexual misconduct while they also claim inclusion and acceptance of just about all human sexual practices. I know, it is fun to continually dig at the enemy even if you continually look foolish doing it.
“The family values thing is tired bunch of crap to justify media bias against the GOP. Human sexuality is human nature and even the high and mighty fall off the wagon. It is no less or more significant that a politician who preaches family values fails to follow his own sermon, just as it is no surprise that Obama, Gore and Peolsi still continue to burn more fossil fuel in a day than most of us do in a year. Beside, the hypocrisy here is the left claiming indignation over sexual misconduct while they also claim inclusion and acceptance of just about all human sexual practices. I know, it is fun to continually dig at the enemy even if you continually look foolish doing it.”
Well said.
“So the GOP is open to this stuff because of their stand on family values… So then, what does the Democrat Party stand for…?
No family values?
JB —
Your original point was how unfair everyone is to the Republicans (Sarah Palin specifically). You then raise a few Democratic scandals that are pretty well-known [Clinton, Jefferson]. That rather undermines your original rant.
“consider that William Jefferson “I never had sex with that woman…” Clinton served out his term while every GOP politician with evidence of sexual misconduct lost their job or seat.”
Senator Ensign doesn’t seem to plan to resign. Mark Sanford is still governor of S.C. Larry Craig also served out his term. All Republicans. So what’s your point? Are you going to start redefining what “every GOP politician with evidence of sexual misconduct” means?
Sarah Palin has not been treated any more unfairly as a woman than Hillary Clinton. Saturday Night Live made a lot of mileage satirizing the initial glowing treatment that Palin got, vs. the “bitch” image that Clinton often got during her campaign.
Don’t forget to throw out Eliott Spitzer as another pummeled politician (and Democrat) who ended up resigning over his sexual misconduct. So Democrats also suffer uncontrolled urges and stupid choices and have to pay the price.
Here’s a link to an NPR opinion piece defending Palin on the double standards of the media:
[url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106384060&sc=fb&cc=fp[/url]
I thought some characterized NPR as being left-wing. If so, I would wonder why they’re running this.
“Here’s a link to an NPR opinion piece defending Palin on the double standards of the media:”
It hardly defends Palin!
A prominent Republican woman doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Peggy Noonan (former speech-writer for presidents Reagan and George HW Bush) in today’s (Saturday’s) Wall Street Journal:
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html[/url]
Interesting summary of divided GOP opinions over Sarah Palin:
[url]http://www.alternet.org/media/141162/it’s_the_right-wingers_who_are_unloading_the_harshest_critiques_about_palin’s_bizarre_departure/[/url]
“Interesting summary of divided GOP opinions over Sarah Palin:”
Just goes to show how dysfunctional both parties are, and the media. If all they can do is fixate on the resignation of a governor and past failed VP candidate, rather than concentrate on getting us out of the economic mess we are in, it shows a complete lack of reality.
“Just goes to show how dysfunctional both parties are, and the media. If all they can do is fixate on the resignation of a governor and past failed VP candidate, rather than concentrate on getting us out of the economic mess we are in, it shows a complete lack of reality.”
At this point, you’re making an odd comment about professional pundits. They’re paid to give opinions about anything topic that’s demanded of them. If they can’t produce an interesting opinion, they don’t make a living. And they make a living because people read and listen to them. That’s what makes capitalism so beautiful.
Most active politicians didn’t offer any comment on Palin.
[quote]A prominent Republican woman doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Peggy Noonan (former speech-writer for presidents Reagan and George HW Bush) in today’s (Saturday’s) Wall Street Journal[/quote]
So this proves what?
Let’s get back to the media bias thing.
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp) includes the following principle:
– Minimize Harm – Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Additional principles include:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
However, we have the following “paparazzi principle”:
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
So, now that Sarah Palin is no longer a public official on record seeking a public office, will the media start to honor this principle? Somehow, as evidence by the denial of media bias from even more politically independent journalists like Mr. Rifkin, I doubt it.
You may have to get the Republicans to stop the circular firing squad first: link ([url]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-palin-gop13-2009jul13,0,2642211.story[/url])
[quote]So, now that Sarah Palin is no longer a public official on record seeking a public office, will the media start to honor this principle? Somehow, as evidence by the denial of media bias from even more politically independent journalists like Mr. Rifkin, I doubt it.
[/quote]
These are comments coming off of opinion pages, mostly from conservative commentators. I don’t see why folks can’t express and opinion.
[quote]These are comments coming off of opinion pages, mostly from conservative commentators. I don’t see why folks can’t express and opinion.[/quote]
I think this is an over-simplification. Opinion is news, and news is full of opinion. Although Mr. Rifkin and others like to challenge the accusation of Palin media bias by demanding evidence of specific journalistic malice, the proof is in the larger dataset of negative reporting. Regardless of the suspected political lean of the media organization, Sarah Palin and her family has been pounded like no other before her. She has only been in the public spotlight for how long? Eight months? Nine months? The journalistic junk started the day after her electrifying speech at the Republican National Convention. (Everybody high-five Katie for her successful ambush interview!) Did the same happen to Obama after his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democrat National Convention? What about… (can’t think of another losing VP candidate, so you choose.) Not even close. Frankly, there is no other politician that I can think of that has been pounded this hard in so little time for so little justified reason.
If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, the left pundits would be howling sexism, gender discrimination and every other complaint they could extract from their bleeding hearts.
There is a story within all the stories on Sarah Palin. It seems to point to something deeper and more sinister than many can comprehend or want to admit. I am not a psychologist, but I suspect there is something individually emotionally dysfunctional at play. There are people that love Sarah Palin. There are a lot in the old and new media, and in politics that seem to dislike (hate?) her. Those that dislike her seem to be fearful of her or of her image, or have some obsession with her. She is not the sharpest tool in the shed, so why does she motivate so much media coverage? Is it because she is pretty? Because she has five kids and a career and a handsome husband and successful marriage and believes in god and attends church and can shoot a moose and catch a fish and run a marathon? Don’t agree? Name another losing VP candidate that got close to this level of coverage just for being the losing candidate.
Geraldine Ferraro? Sarah Palin is not the first politician to receive more than her fair share of media garbage. If she can’t handle it, then she’s not cut out for politics.
Geraldine Ferraro? Are you kidding? It was a press love-fest for months until it was reported that she failed to report her husband’s finances on her congressional disclosure reports. After Mondale lost she dissappeared from the press radar only to reappear in 2008 working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Another Palin hit piece just in from the esteemed NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/politics/13palin.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all
[quote]“Almost as soon as she returned home, the once-popular governor was isolated from an increasingly critical Legislature. Lawmakers who had supported her signature effort to develop a natural gas pipeline turned into uncooperative critics.
Ethics complaints mounted, and legal bills followed. At home Ms. Palin was dealing with a teenage daughter who had given birth to a son and broken up with the infant’s father, a baby of her own with special needs and a national news media that was eager to cover it all.
Friends worried that she appeared anxious and underweight. Her hair had thinned to the point where she needed emergency help from her hairdresser and close friend, Jessica Steele.
“Honestly, I think all of it just broke her heart,” Ms. Steele said in an interview at her beauty parlor in Wasilla, the Beehive.[/quote]
There is much more fun to read.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning junkyard newspapers like the NYT wonders why readership continues to plummet while quality newspapers like the Wall Street Journal are increasing circulation.
Bye-bye, Sarah! Clearly she just can’t handle the heat, then. Other Republicans and Democrats have done just fine when the media appeared adversarial.