Site Presented By
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009
Joe, you have no idea.
I have a YouTube account that is pretty active. Like most active YouTubers, I get lots and lots of haters. Most of them, though not all, are American. And their incoherence, their inability to form a simple, complete sentence, more than answers your question.
I suspect that the GOP uses this kind of folksy, dumbed down populism because they have to. As the party's policies have moved further and further in the direction of benefiting the ultra-rich no matter the consequences to everyone else, there is a desperate need to put up just this kind of front--to goad the opposition into calling Republican politicians dumb hicks as they continue to push an agenda of government by and for the wealthy.
If being a woamn was the only requirement. There are smart, savvy women in the Repub party who would have been formidable, even if I don't agree with them on the issues.
If you wanted an insider with experience, you have Hutchinson from Texas and Rice.
If you wanted an outsider, you had Carly and Meg Whitman.
No, they thought about it and picked Palin. I'm not impressed.
I'm also not impressed with the misspellings in my last post.
"Choose" and "woman" are normally words I can spell.
Sorry.
As difficult as this is to believe, Palin has more actual leadership experience than Obama, who never even held a meeting of the committee that he was put in charge of in Congress. Of course, Palin is nominated as VP. The Dems nominated someone with no leadership experience for President.
If Palin is so proud of being a Washington outsider, why is she so eager to become a Washington insider?
Is it not correct that Dan Quayle belonged to the same fraternity as G.H.W. Bush? I've always thought that was the reason that Bush picked him.
Joe, I think you assume that a new GOP president and the vice president would have actual personal power and authority. But they will be nothing but acceptable figureheads, fronting for the true power brokers crouching BEHIND them.
The Repubs could prop up My Dead Dog for president and/or vice-president and it would be all the same.
The US must be the only country that considers it an advantage for its leader to be as common as possible. Kerry was derided for speaking French. Even if you are very smart as Bill Clinton is, you never try to come across as an intellectual. Adlai Stevenson was ridiculed for being an egghead.
Contrast that with Margaret Thatcher who never brought up her humble roots to the point of learning to speak with an upper class accent. French presidents are better known for their imperial attitude than the common touch. Winston Churchill was from a high born family, a gifted writer and amateur painter. Chechoslovakia elected a playwrite as president. Most countries want to look up to their leader. Americans seem to want to look at them across the kitchen table.
I don't think it's a coincidence that McCains support among evangelicals was luke warm until Palin was picked. Yes, there are other women, all more infinitely qualified. But would they have spread the simplistic narrative of Good v. Evil that Palin does? Would they have continued the Bush dog whistle tactics? I don't think so.
And, yes, in some parts of this country, this kind of non-thinking is very appealing. As a matter of loyalty they have to defend her no matter how bad she does. But ultimately her ability to answer the questions doesn't matter to them, only her position on abortion and gay marriage and Israel. Their priorities are not everyone else's priorities. They want a simplistic world and they don't care if real problems get int the way.
The few cons who tried to defend her today at my local papers blog could only try and point to Obama's tax policy and blame Gwen Iffil for not asking "conservaitve" questions (read: abortion and activist judges). And after months of chastising Obama, some of them tried to suggest that experience conviently no longer matters. Loyalty over consitancy. But it isn't about consistancy, it's about their issues. All three of them. The same ones that got Bush elected. The same ones that are still around after eight years of him anyway.
Wow, that is weak.
No, seriously, how many times have you had to repeat that in front of the mirror until you believed it?
Obama fought through a rough and tumble Presidential primary and could not let up on the gas until shortly before the actual convention. In doing so he bested a slate of worthy opponents, including his VP candidate and the 21st century equivalent of the Kennedys as far as political clout in the Democratic party are concerned. Obama has appeared as intelligent, coherent, and sympathetic to the dilemmas of the working-class citizen.
Palin, to my knowledge, has gone 0 for 3 in that regard. She has made a fool of herself, repeatedly, and her selection by McCain was just that. A selection by one man.
If Obama was truly that unqualified, it surely would have kept him from getting nominated, right? But experience isn't everything. Heck, Bill Clinton showed that it isn't much of anything. In this case, intelligence and good judgment are far greater than experience, and I have never seen Sarah Palin demonstrate either in her appearances.
Feel free to respond with some lame right-wing talking point if you like. I'm bored and watching Boston spank Los Angeles in the ALDS.
The theocrats opened their money spigots when McClueless announced his veep choice. He is still having trouble raising as much money as Obama, but her presence on the ticket (predictably) has brought in a lot of cash.
Which makes McWarmonger a what?
I trace this trend back to Reagan. While more capable than the others who have followed in his footsteps, it was with Reagan that the party realized the power of speaking to America's "heart" rather than their "brain".
Having a charismatic lightweight in the office has advantages - like when you try to trace accountability, and your trail dead-ends into a person who clearly couldn't have been the visionary behind the program, and who can credibly deny having any idea about the scope of things carried out in their name. Maybe they are even of questionable mental capacity, as Reagan was by the end of his second term. What do you do then? You are never going to get your hands on the responsible parties, and hanging the patsy out to dry has pretty limited public appeal.
It is also useful because they are easy for the real movers of the party to manipulate. They can be easily flattered, and their viewpoints aren't supported by strong facts, only gut feelings, so they can be redirected by the proper pitch. As this president shows, you can make sure they only hear what you want them to hear, and their limited intellectual curiousity means they won't look for better answers.
For religious types like Bush or Palin, they are particularly easy to manage, because they are so gung-ho about a narrow range of issues. The rich have nothing to fear from restricted access to abortion, or limited rights for gays, or even prayer in schools. Their power makes those sort of limits inconsequential. They can always find a doctor if their daughter is in a pinch, lawyers can construct a legal arrangement that is the equivalent of marriage, and they don't send their children to the public schools. Lip service to a bunch of issues that don't affect them is a small price to pay for the slavish devotion of 20-30% of the electorate.
The Wasilla soap opera just gets weirder as Palin complains critics are "picking apart a good point guard"
The media outlet's use of Bush euphemisms sparks a much-needed debate on journalistic standards.
And so are his Fox News pals, who lambasted Sen. Al Franken's "stolen election"
An inflexible right wing is allowing the Golden State to drown in debt. But it's not alone
Thanks for sharing, Governor. Now please take a cue from Norm Coleman, and go away
Salon headlines in your mailbox
