The Emperor Has No Clothes
One of the more fascinating sociological phenomenon is the tendency people have, in certain situations, to ignore what their own senses are telling them and instead buy into an elaborate fiction just because other people appear to be doing the same thing. The classic illustration of this phenomenon is Hans Christian Andersen's story The Emperor's New Clothes -- where a couple of con men convince the Emperor that they've made him a new suit out of the finest cloth there is, but that only smart people can see it. Not wanting to look dumb, the Emperor and his ministers rave about how beautiful the suit is and organize a procession through town. The villagers, not wanting to admit they don't understand what's going on, also rave about the Emperor's beautiful new suit as he marches naked through the town. It's not until a child points out the obvious -- that the Emperor has no clothes -- that the entire fiction crumbles.
Sarah Palin's manic, rambling, completely incoherent resignation speech the other day was just the latest of her many naked processions through town. Yet for reasons I can't begin to fathom, a large number of people, in both Republican circles and the mainstream media, continue to insist that she's wearing a beautiful new suit. For instance, Mark Halperin of TIME insists-- despite all evidence and common sense to the contrary -- that by quitting her only significant governmental job before serving out her first term, and doing so in a complete train wreck of a speech, Palin actually strengthened her 2012 prospects. And though many on the right are belatedly acknowledging that the Emperor has no clothes, many others continue to insist that Palin is a viable presidential candidate and that her decision to step down may have been a "shrewd" one.
As Josh Marshall so perfectly put it earlier today:
It is nothing short of astonishing what Palin has been able to get away with while still being taken seriously. During the presidential campaign, she was kept completely away from the media for nearly a month after being selected--something that is completely unprecedented. When she was finally permitted to be interviewed, she flamed out in spectacular fashion, displaying a profound lack of policy knowledge and a near total inability to express her thoughts coherently or logically. Her stump speech was riddled with easily falsifiable claims about her record, claims that she continued to repeat even after they had been repeatedly and exhaustively debunked. She never held a press conference or appeared on any of the Sunday news shows. Toward the end of the campaign, polls were conclusively showing that she was a drag on the ticket and her own staff was trashing her in the media. Rather than send her to contested states, the McCain campaign began shipping her off to reliably red states, a clear acknowledgment that she was doing more harm than good in the states that mattered.
Yet despite all of this, many within the media continued to treat Palin as if she was a serious presidential candidate in her own right. They continued to pretend that the Emperor's new suit was, if not spectacular, at least well-tailored.
But this past weekend, even those who continued to buy into this delusion should have been jolted back to reality. Palin announced that she is resigning as Governor of Alaska, just over halfway through her first term. In a hastily thrown together press conference, she gave one of the craziest speeches I've ever seen. It was manic from start to finish, a totally unintelligible hodge-podge of random and often contradictory quotes and metaphors that left you wondering whether she had completely lost her mind and provided no insight at all into why she was actually resigning from office, leaving even her defenders not knowing what to say.
The Emperor has no clothes, people. It's well past time to put an end to this delusion. Sarah Palin is transparently, manifestly unqualified to be in any position of power and this is obvious to anyone who cares to look.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat weighs in on Palin and, thankfully, points out the obvious: that it is "delusional" to believe that Palin's decision to resign the governship will help her presidential chances and that her "bizarre, rambling resignation speech should take her off the political map for the duration of the Obama era."
Ross devotes the second half of his column, however, to spinning the tired narrative of Palin as victim of the cruel misogynist liberal media. Though Ross doesn't seem to realize it, this meme is just as delusional. Does Ross really believe that the media would have been kinder to a male liberal politician who performed as disastrously as Palin did during the presidential campaign? Imagine Obama had picked Tim Kaine as his runningmate and Kaine then hid from the press for most of the campaign, lied repeatedly about his record in every speech, and gave interviews like the ones Palin gave to Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Let's further suppose that this hypothetical Kaine became embroiled in a number of scandals, became an obvious drag on an ultimately losing ticket, and that his own staffers began viciously attacking him in the media before the campaign was even over. Would anyone be indulging in the fantasy that this hypothetical governor was a viable presidential candidate? Would anyone be claiming that he was a victim of the media? Of course not. Indeed, I'm virtually certain that the press treatment this hypothetical Democratic governor would have endured would have been far more brutal than anything Sarah Palin has endured. The truth is, the media has been far kinder to Sarah Palin than she deserves. They've continued to take her seriously long after she gave them any reason to. They've been delicate in pointing out her obvious inadequacies as a politician and gentle in rebutting her repeated bold-faced lies. They've continued to indulge in the delusion that Palin is a serious national candidate long after there was any reason to believe that was true.
This last line from Ross's column also bothers me:
Palin stands for a very different proposition, that if you have the right backers, anyone, no matter how unqualified or unsuited for the job, can potentially become president. That's scary. While I very much want to believe that a smart kid who works hard and plays her cards right can become president someday, no matter where she comes from, I don't want to believe that any random schmuck can become president. The president shouldn't be an average person. The president should be someone who is most decidedly above average in most respects. Pedigree doesn't matter to me, but capability does. And it should to all Americans.
Sarah Palin's manic, rambling, completely incoherent resignation speech the other day was just the latest of her many naked processions through town. Yet for reasons I can't begin to fathom, a large number of people, in both Republican circles and the mainstream media, continue to insist that she's wearing a beautiful new suit. For instance, Mark Halperin of TIME insists-- despite all evidence and common sense to the contrary -- that by quitting her only significant governmental job before serving out her first term, and doing so in a complete train wreck of a speech, Palin actually strengthened her 2012 prospects. And though many on the right are belatedly acknowledging that the Emperor has no clothes, many others continue to insist that Palin is a viable presidential candidate and that her decision to step down may have been a "shrewd" one.
As Josh Marshall so perfectly put it earlier today:
[A]ny pundit who thinks this is some risky but potentially brilliant strategic move is absolutely smoking crack. Hitting the crack pipe, or, just as likely, being witlessly contrarian to set themselves apart from the common herd of sane people.Though I'm sympathetic to the crack-smoking theory, it's probably the second sentence that most accurately describes why people like Halperin say the things they say, and have been doing so since last fall. Sarah Palin has gone out of her way over the last year to display for everyone who is willing to acknowledge what their senses are telling them just how totally and completely unsuited she is to hold high office. She is a complete mediocrity, quite possibly the most superficial, ignorant, joke of a politician ever to have achieved such political prominence.
It is nothing short of astonishing what Palin has been able to get away with while still being taken seriously. During the presidential campaign, she was kept completely away from the media for nearly a month after being selected--something that is completely unprecedented. When she was finally permitted to be interviewed, she flamed out in spectacular fashion, displaying a profound lack of policy knowledge and a near total inability to express her thoughts coherently or logically. Her stump speech was riddled with easily falsifiable claims about her record, claims that she continued to repeat even after they had been repeatedly and exhaustively debunked. She never held a press conference or appeared on any of the Sunday news shows. Toward the end of the campaign, polls were conclusively showing that she was a drag on the ticket and her own staff was trashing her in the media. Rather than send her to contested states, the McCain campaign began shipping her off to reliably red states, a clear acknowledgment that she was doing more harm than good in the states that mattered.
Yet despite all of this, many within the media continued to treat Palin as if she was a serious presidential candidate in her own right. They continued to pretend that the Emperor's new suit was, if not spectacular, at least well-tailored.
But this past weekend, even those who continued to buy into this delusion should have been jolted back to reality. Palin announced that she is resigning as Governor of Alaska, just over halfway through her first term. In a hastily thrown together press conference, she gave one of the craziest speeches I've ever seen. It was manic from start to finish, a totally unintelligible hodge-podge of random and often contradictory quotes and metaphors that left you wondering whether she had completely lost her mind and provided no insight at all into why she was actually resigning from office, leaving even her defenders not knowing what to say.
The Emperor has no clothes, people. It's well past time to put an end to this delusion. Sarah Palin is transparently, manifestly unqualified to be in any position of power and this is obvious to anyone who cares to look.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat weighs in on Palin and, thankfully, points out the obvious: that it is "delusional" to believe that Palin's decision to resign the governship will help her presidential chances and that her "bizarre, rambling resignation speech should take her off the political map for the duration of the Obama era."
Ross devotes the second half of his column, however, to spinning the tired narrative of Palin as victim of the cruel misogynist liberal media. Though Ross doesn't seem to realize it, this meme is just as delusional. Does Ross really believe that the media would have been kinder to a male liberal politician who performed as disastrously as Palin did during the presidential campaign? Imagine Obama had picked Tim Kaine as his runningmate and Kaine then hid from the press for most of the campaign, lied repeatedly about his record in every speech, and gave interviews like the ones Palin gave to Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Let's further suppose that this hypothetical Kaine became embroiled in a number of scandals, became an obvious drag on an ultimately losing ticket, and that his own staffers began viciously attacking him in the media before the campaign was even over. Would anyone be indulging in the fantasy that this hypothetical governor was a viable presidential candidate? Would anyone be claiming that he was a victim of the media? Of course not. Indeed, I'm virtually certain that the press treatment this hypothetical Democratic governor would have endured would have been far more brutal than anything Sarah Palin has endured. The truth is, the media has been far kinder to Sarah Palin than she deserves. They've continued to take her seriously long after she gave them any reason to. They've been delicate in pointing out her obvious inadequacies as a politician and gentle in rebutting her repeated bold-faced lies. They've continued to indulge in the delusion that Palin is a serious national candidate long after there was any reason to believe that was true.
This last line from Ross's column also bothers me:
Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true.This is a ridiculous statement. If you want evidence that anyone can grow up to be president, how about looking at the current President. It's hard to imagine a more unlikely future president than the biracial son of a teenage mother in Hawaii who was given the name of his absentee Muslim father. But Obama did well in school, worked hard, impressed everyone he met with his intellect and managed to put himself in a position to become president.
Palin stands for a very different proposition, that if you have the right backers, anyone, no matter how unqualified or unsuited for the job, can potentially become president. That's scary. While I very much want to believe that a smart kid who works hard and plays her cards right can become president someday, no matter where she comes from, I don't want to believe that any random schmuck can become president. The president shouldn't be an average person. The president should be someone who is most decidedly above average in most respects. Pedigree doesn't matter to me, but capability does. And it should to all Americans.
posted by A.L. at 9:44 PM
86 Comments:
Well, obvious to anyone looking past the sparklies.
Only saw a very short piece of her speech on the news so can't comment on its content or delivery (although I have no reason to question AL's analysis).
My theory is she has worked a deal with Fox News to have her own show or be a featured commentator. What other job related to politics could she be qualified to pursue?
This is probably the best and most concise recap of the strange public odyssey of Sarah Palin that I've seen. She's been a ridiculous figure from the start, but that rambling "winners quit" speech a couple days ago set a new standard for surreality in American politics.
Does this mean that the rumor about her having Michael Steele's baby is true?
Other than the RILF factor, I cannot understand what it is about this Alaskan mousse that attracts people. Maybe the same thing that makes people think that Michael Jackson was a great musician.
My wife, who is a mental health professional, watched the resignation speech, and said that this woman is clearly suffering from a mental disorder. She could not be more specific based on the one speech, but she said there is no doubt there is a manic compnent; that there is more to it and that she is in need of help.
I can remember this lady scared the living daylights out of us with her convention speech. At the time, she seemed to have turned McCain's fortunes completely around.
As soon as I saw her under post-convention conditions, all my fears departed. Sensibly, the Obama camp did what it does best - never interrupt an opponent who is screwing things up.
Even the convention speech seems superficial now. There are probably people out there who think she has been a victim of liberal media bias and can do no wrong. In fact, the media gave her much more attention and respect than she was worth.
Makes you sweat though. One Obama blunder, and this creation might have been VP and even President.
She demonstrated most of those attributes in her resignation speech, which revolved around her not having received sufficient adulation.
Hell hath no fury like a narcissistic spurned.
Some how the first part of my prior note did not appear so I will repeat it.
I pointed out that the recent Todd Purdum article in Vanity Fair had people looking up the definition of "narcissistic personality disorder." That is given in Wikipedia as:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[
1] has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (megalomania)
(2) believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status.
(3) requires excessive admiration
(4) has a sense of entitlement
(5) is interpersonally exploitative
(6) lacks empathy
(7) is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
(8) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
I wasn't going to say anything on this thread until I saw the update.
Does Ross really believe that the media would have been kinder to a male liberal politician who performed as disastrously as Palin did during the presidential campaign?
Yes, Joe Biden. And now the clown is Vice President. When the hell did Biden tell the truth during his campaign, or even his career? Biden was never challenged.
The president should be someone who is most decidedly above average in most respects. Pedigree doesn't matter to me, but capability does.
And what capability did Obama bring? Nothing but political backing. And this was the case during his entire political career. Even after consistently doing nothing during his terms in office, he managed to get new jobs. Obama's rise is unlike the lie about how Palin got into office (mayor, governor) due to backers. Tell me something, who backed Palin into office as Governor? It sure wasn't the Murkowskis or the Alaska Republican establishment, those she went after with a vengeance.
The truth is, the media has been far kinder to Sarah Palin than she deserves.
Really? Do you think the personal attacks by the media on her family, especially her children, was kind? And don't try to spin things that it didn't happen, because it most assuredly did and does.
What's great about the SteveARs of the world is that they just can't let go. Can't be honest with themselves. Can't just admit she's a punch line. Like AL says, "Sarah Palin is transparently, manifestly unqualified to be in any position of power and this is obvious to anyone who cares to look."
SteveAR... you should care to look. Your party is filled with buffoons. (and fat, ignorant old white people.)
Douthat was hyping Palin as a potential running mate before McCain picked her. This column is a rear-guard defense of the Sarah Palin that existed in his imagination and a lame attempt to spread the blame for her disastrous reality as broadly as possible. He lets the cat out of the bag by suggesting that the Agnew-in-pumps role was 'assigned' to Palin by McCain's campaign. She took to partisan hackery fueled by class resentment like a barracuda takes to chum.
As for SteveAr's post...until the Republican party comes up with something more appealing than "Yeah? So's your old man!" they can look forward to many long years in the political wilderness.
Palin is the most gifted demagogue to appear in American politics since Huey Long. I hope we've seen the last of her, but I fear there's more to come. A lot more.
SteveAR is way way too far gone to even hope to reach. He was just as delusional when living in Illinois as he is now..
What Douthat really meant to say was:
Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that any conservative idiot can grow up to be president.
It doesn't help her chances as a presidential candidate, but it doesn't necessarily disqualify her as a primary candidate. Sure, most of the country considers her either a nut or an idiot, but the 20% who don't, make up about 60% of the Republican Party and 100% of Fox News, which could make her a formidable candidate in the 2012 primaries. Remember, her only competition will be other whack jobs, so it's really anyone's guess how it will shake out.
Steve's been listening to his imaginary friend again.
At least he was able to stop himself from lying about Palin's record this time.
excellent analysis, as usual, al. this is why i read you.
Steve, did you see the Vice Presidential debate. I did. Joe Biden came across as someone with real, in-depth understanding of important national issues, even if he is prone to shooting off his mouth without thinking first. Sarah Palin came across as a press secretary -- someone who gives vapid, shallow answers and can't be pressed for any more depth because she doesn't know any more.
I don't think an Ivy League education is necessary to qualify to be President. I do think the ability to discourse intelligently about national issues is. Biden has that. Palin doesn't.
SteveAR said:
"And what capability did Obama bring? Nothing but political backing."
[Come to think of it, what did George W. Bush bring? His daddy's friends?]
Both Obama and Palin started out in less-than-favourable circumstances. Obama chose one route to success - education, Harvard, prestigious law firm, State Senator, US Senator but with a good grounding as a community organizer. There is no doubt that his uncommon ability and sense of opportunity gave him the chance for a shot at the Presidency much earlier than normal.
Palin chose a different route - mayor of a small town, then higher state office. She too got an opportunity to advance her career sooner than normal - an invitation onto the VP ticket. However, lets be frank - she blew it. It is clear that she had been promoted beyond her ability. Her choice now is to go back to political school and stand for Congress and (then) the US Senate, or leave politics altogether. The first route might give her a shot at the Republican nomination in 2016 or 2020.
However, her combination of arrogance and ignorance probably renders her incapable of showing the humility of asking the voters for a second chance.
Ayatollah Khamenei said of Iran's election that the "hand of god" weighed in and officially re-installed Ahmadinejad. Well since we all know god prefers Christians to Muslims, and especially good god-fearing Republicans like Palin, she knows she's a shoo-in for 2012, regardless of her incompetency.
Enlightened Layperson:
Steve, did you see the Vice Presidential debate. I did. Joe Biden came across as someone with real, in-depth understanding of important national issues, even if he is prone to shooting off his mouth without thinking first.
He came across as someone with a real, in-depth understanding of national security issues because nobody in the media, not even the debate questioner, challenged Biden on his errors and lies. The WSJ points them out, and one can make a nice list from the piece:
-Biden said the U.S. and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Except it didn't happen.
-Biden said the commanding general of Afghanistan said the surge wouldn't work in that country. Except that isn't what the general said.
-Biden said Obama wouldn't sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Yet, Obama did say it, and Biden chastised Obama for doing so during the primary.
-Biden claimed McCain opposed Clinton's Bosnia policy. However, McCain supported it.
-Biden claimed McCain was wrong on the surge in Iraq. Yet, both voted to authorize military force against Iraq, and Biden and Obama (and every other Democrat who opened their big yap against the surge) were wrong about the surge.
Those who supported Obama, which was the vast majority of the press, didn't challenge Biden on any of these errors and outright lies. Neither did those who voted for the Obama-Biden ticket.
So of course Biden comes off as having a greater understanding of national issues when his lies are allowed to stand.
Biden and Palin are similar in their narcissistic tendencies. Mr. Biden is not however afflicted with a pathological disregard for national and international issues.
She more closely resembles our previous president in that they both have formidable social skills, a religious right pedigree and absolutely no interest in or understanding of anyone that isn't trying to kiss ass.
My read on her future is as a primary challenger to be used as king maker in 2012. She will feed red meat to the loyal but radical right and throw her support to whomever she is told to make a deal with. God will tell her who deserves it.
Either that or she wants to compete with Karl over at Fox News.
Toby:
Obama chose one route to success - education, Harvard, prestigious law firm, State Senator, US Senator but with a good grounding as a community organizer. There is no doubt that his uncommon ability and sense of opportunity gave him the chance for a shot at the Presidency much earlier than normal.
What a nice "history". False, but nice. Obama hooked up with the church of the racist Rev. Wright in order to make political connections. His "uncommon ability"? What ability? He didn't do anything except maybe accuse banks of racism and redlining, whether it was true or not. If being a community organizer means being a do-nothing blowhard, there's lots of people who can do that. He got into his state senate seat by having the courts invalidate the petitions of his primary opponents (the official "election" later on was a mere formality). State Sen. Emil Jones embellished Obama's State Senate record in order to make Obama look credible. He got into the U.S. Senate after stories about his primary opponent and Republican opponent "magically" appeared. Finally, he spent a two and a half years doing next to nothing as a U.S. Senator before deciding to run for President (which he said he wouldn't do). And the only way Obama could do all of this, and win the Presidency, was to rely on political backing, not on anything Obama actually did during his political career (which was nothing).
Palin chose a different route - mayor of a small town, then higher state office. She too got an opportunity to advance her career sooner than normal - an invitation onto the VP ticket.
What a broad stroke you used to paint Palin. That higher state office was governor. As a mayor and as a governor, she actually had to run something than a campaign, something Obama never did. She didn't get into those offices based on any political backing. In fact, her path to being Governor was one that was against the Alaska Republican establishment; Obama melded right in with the Daley Democratic political machine to get and maintain his jobs, including his current one.
It is clear that she had been promoted beyond her ability.
As opposed to whom, Obama? Again, I ask, what has he ever done? Even as President, all he has done is further wreck the economy, and continue the vast majority of national security policies of President Bush. Add that Obama has no problem mollifying thugs running dictatorial and near-dictatorial regimes.
However, her combination of arrogance and ignorance probably renders her incapable of showing the humility of asking the voters for a second chance.
Again, as opposed to whom, Obama? Biden? I've never seen more arrogance from a do-nothing, know-nothing politician than Obama. He frequently errs on his loose interpretations of history in his speeches, very much like Biden, but is never called on them.
I personally don't care if Palin runs for office again. I think she should have toughed it out in the remaining year and a half she had left as Governor. My issue is that A.L., in his update, seems to think Palin was treated kindly by the media. That is an outrageous assertion easily debunked (look how the mainstream media took Letterman's side during that recent episode). What is also is a blatant rewrite of history was how he put Obama's and Palin's rise to political office, deliberately reversing their stories.
SteveAR,
Well, you've spoken up again and removed all doubt. No sane person can read A.L.'s post and conclude, as you just did, that he "seems to think Palin was treated kindly by the media".
Personally, I agree that she wasn't treated kindly by the media. She and her family were dragged through the dirt. I do think, however, that that was nicer than she and her family deserved.
Just as you come to these comments with nothing but ignorance and ideology to keep yourself company, and are royally roasted for the inanity, so should Palin have been laughed off the national stage.
She has no intellectual basis at all, or at least none that anyone has ever been able to coherently explain, least of all herself.
She has governed Alaska like she governed Wasilla, basically letting other people do the work while she sat in the corner, yammering like a child, occasionally throwing tantrums and playing games to get attention.
"Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true."
AL, I actually think there's something to this. There are quite a few people who distrust intelligent people. They want people ruling their city, state, and country who are just like themselves. To these people, Palin appeared to be the next door neighbor, the local girl who won the beauty pageant, the person who speaks in rambling, nonsensical sentences about nothing much, and therefore sounds very much like their Uncle Bill and hey, just like themselves, too. She is the reductio ad absurdum of American politics, just as her intellectual forebear, Andrew Jackson, was, long ago: proof positive that intellectual laziness, confusion over private and public selves, and animosity to all who disagree with you are no hurdles to high political office.
C2:
Personally, I agree that she wasn't treated kindly by the media. She and her family were dragged through the dirt. I do think, however, that that was nicer than she and her family deserved.
The politics of personal destruction of fellow Americans is OK for you as a governing concept. I see. Because Sarah Palin committed the "mortal sin" of not being a leftist, the "mortal sin" of being a conservative, the "mortal sin" of being in office as a Republican, the "mortal sin" of accepting to be part of the team running against the Democratic Obama, the "mortal sin" of not aborting her Down syndrome child, the "mortal sin" of not encouraging to have her daughter abort a child conceived out of wedlock, etc. In your words, she and her family were dragged through the dirt, and this was better than they deserved.
She has no intellectual basis at all...
This coming from a person who believes that the dirt the Palin family was dragged through was better than they deserved.
Here's how I look at it. You and others on the left claim she has no claim to be at all intellectual. Yet, you base that argument on the lies of your leftist beliefs; that is, she isn't a leftist. Guess what; basing a governing philosophy on the lies of the left doesn't give anyone a claim they come at things from some sort of intellectual basis.
She has governed Alaska like she governed Wasilla, basically letting other people do the work while she sat in the corner, yammering like a child, occasionally throwing tantrums and playing games to get attention.
You just described the thin-skinned and extremely arrogant Barack Obama. And unlike Palin, Obama never ran anything other than a campaign.
To appreciate the GOP base's love of people of limited intellectual capacity and incompetence, you only have to understand that their ruling emotion is fear. Fear of those more intelligent or at least less ignorant, in this case. The spectacular failures of the GOP have whittled the base down to the rather small number too dim to see the failures as failures, too ideologically blinded to admit them, and those with too tenuous a grasp on reality to understand the concept of failure. (I'm not saying these groups are disjoint, BTW.)
Consider just how dim a person has to be to imagine that the Bush administration wasn't a dismal failure and you begin to understand how dim a politician would have to be to not strike fear into that person. Hence Palin.
And, as a case in point:
SteveAR,
You say: "The politics of personal destruction of fellow Americans is OK for you as a governing concept."
No. And I think your ability to understand what others say is pathetic.
Palin destroyed herself, even impeded by the gloss the media gave her.
You say: "you base that argument on the lies of your leftist beliefs; that is, she isn't a leftist"
That's pure, SteveAR gold, internally consistent -- because the reasoning comes around in a tight circle.
But there's a loose thread there. I agree she isn't a leftist. She isn't anything. She has no more coherent political philosophy than a two year old.
NOTE: if you disagree with this, feel free to translate her political philosophy for us. I'm willing to bet a substantial amount that it will, coincidentally, be completely the same as yours.
Please point out one "tantrum" that Obama has thrown that's remotely comparable to Palin's blow-up with Letterman, Palin's blow-up with the McCain staffers, or any other of Palin's blow-ups.
SteveAr:
You and others on the left claim she has no claim to be at all intellectual. Yet, you base that argument on the lies of your leftist beliefs; that is, she isn't a leftist.
No, we base that argument on the quality of Palin's thought, as revealed by her speeches, interviews, and writing. Are you suggesting that she's a serious conservative thinker? With her dead fish and point-guard analogies? Her invented spelling, love of 'quotation marks,' and random use of ALL CAPS?
If that's the Republican version of an intellectual candidate, then it's going to be a long, cold winter for the Republican party.
C2:
To appreciate the GOP base's love of people of limited intellectual capacity and incompetence,...
You're kidding again, right? The Democrats, especially the leftists, claim to be looking out for the common man, but all you do is look out for yourselves, and would destroy freedom and the common man.
I said: "The politics of personal destruction of fellow Americans is OK for you as a governing concept."
You said:
No. And I think your ability to understand what others say is pathetic.
Nope, I understood exactly what you said. How do I know? You admitted that the personal attacks by the left and the media on the Palin family was kind because they deserved it.
This is all the Democrats and the left have towards anyone who is critical of the lies of leftist policies, the politics of personal destruction. You want to talk about fear? You're afraid of the freedom that conservatives believe in that is derived from the Constitution, and what it offers as possibilities for every American individual. So if there is a politician that comes close to believing in those same things (not exactly, but nobody but the left thinks in exactly the same way), you can't compete with it. So all you can do is treat them in a vicious, hateful, and shameful manner like the left treated Palin.
Tom:
No, we base that argument on the quality of Palin's thought, as revealed by her speeches, interviews, and writing.
No, you don't. What you said is a complete fabrication. The left hates her guts because she criticized the left's failed policies.
Are you suggesting that she's a serious conservative thinker?
See, you don't even know what conservatives want. We don't want what you want. A.L. admitted in his post what you people on the left want:
The president shouldn't be an average person. The president should be someone who is most decidedly above average in most respects.
You want a philosopher-king. The last I checked, this isn't in the Constitution. It's also not what conservatives want; we want Americans to be the President.
SteveAR,
Among your ravings I find: "You're afraid of the freedom that conservatives believe in that is derived from the Constitution, and what it offers as possibilities for every American individual."
Spoken like a true Palinite. Incoherent, meaningless, and accusatory all at the same time.
You are totally free to continue to make an ass of your ignorant self, to provide unintentional hilarity for our "leftist" pleasure. That's a freedom I would never take from you.
She is a complete mediocrity, quite possibly the most superficial, ignorant, joke of a politician ever to have achieved such political prominence.
No no no NO!
Absolutely, without a doubt, without even close contention, Dubya holds that title.
And heaven help our ravaged nation, he actually made it to the Oval Office. Not legitimately, mind you, but he was there, where being a "superficial, ignorant joke" really matters.
John McCain should never be forgiven for putting this lunatic dolt in striking distance of matching Dubya's horrific "achievements."
Oh, and SteveAR,
It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that us "liberals" over here on the left don't want no stinking kings.
Now, if by "philosopher" you mean someone with an understanding of the human condition, and a not-entirely uneducated worldview, with a capacity for analysis and the ability to express themselves without resorting to dog whistles and talking points, yup, we'd take one of those, although that's not what almost anybody else regards as a "philosopher".
But we'd settle for a person less incurious, incoherent, and dull than George Bush (that lets out Sarah Palin right there), less rigidly ideological than Ronnie Reagan (although that may have just been the Altzheimer's), and more internally consistent than John McCain (which pretty much does in the rest of the GOP field).
Call me an elitist, but, with 300 million people to choose from, I think we can get an intelligent, accomplished, and competent person for president. We don't have to settle for subnormal, or even average. Unfortunately, that is apparently far too much to hope for in the case of Congress.
Steve-
What happened? You used to make some sense.
You're kidding again, right? The Democrats, especially the leftists, claim to be looking out for the common man, but all you do is look out for yourselves, and would destroy freedom and the common man.
Who's trying to “destroy freedom and the common man?” It sounds very, I don't know, Lord of the Rings-ish, but what on earth are you talking about?
This is all the Democrats and the left have towards anyone who is critical of the lies of leftist policies, the politics of personal destruction. You want to talk about fear? You're afraid of the freedom that conservatives believe in that is derived from the Constitution, and what it offers as possibilities for every American individual. So if there is a politician that comes close to believing in those same things (not exactly, but nobody but the left thinks in exactly the same way), you can't compete with it. So all you can do is treat them in a vicious, hateful, and shameful manner like the left treated Palin.
I would be very pleased to see Ms. Palin debate and be critical of “leftist” policies. But people on the left don't like Palin (really, they are scared of her being in a position of authority), because she couldn't name Supreme Court decisions she didn't like (even though the Exxon Valdez case had just come down), she had foreign policy bona fides because her state was in close proximity to foreign countries, couldn't name any newspapers or magazines she read, she wanted to fix the impact of cliamte chage without taking about the causes, and claimed McCain was a maverick pro-reform regulator, but couldn't come up with a single example to back that claim.
This whole thing doesn't make sense – the “politics of personal destruction” was what Clinton said the right was doing to him – it's his phrase. Why would I be afraid of freedom? What the hell does that mean? We support gay marriage, Boumediene, warrants for wiretaps, no torture. I feel like the right is the group more afraid of freedom. But really, its a silly argument – no one is against “freedom”, but some people seem to define what constitutes freedom differently.
No, we base that argument on the quality of Palin's thought, as revealed by her speeches, interviews, and writing.
No, you don't. What you said is a complete fabrication. The left hates her guts because she criticized the left's failed policies.
Actually, yes, that's exactly why we don't think much of her. It's fascinating that you know the motives of “the left” better than “the left” itself. Absolutely fascinating.
Are you suggesting that she's a serious conservative thinker?
See, you don't even know what conservatives want. We don't want what you want. A.L. admitted in his post what you people on the left want:
The president shouldn't be an average person. The president should be someone who is most decidedly above average in most respects.
You want a philosopher-king. The last I checked, this isn't in the Constitution. It's also not what conservatives want; we want Americans to be the President.
Actually, part of the reason for the electoral college (and state legislatures choosing senators) was to allow a level or two of separation from the average voter. The assumed better learning and expertise of the middlemen would make the leaders they chose to more likely be above average. So, yes, this “philosopher-king” Platonic Republic concept (something greatly relied upon by Madison, et al), does have a very strong mooring in the original Constitution. That being said, the leftists of the time (you know, the founding fathers) didn't like hereditary kings, and neither do I.
Speaking just for me, my problem with Sarah Palin is not that she is conservative. It is not that she is a conservative feminist. It is not that she has a blue collar background or that she did not go to a Ivy League school. It is not that she did not have an abortion of a Down's baby. It is not that her daughter chose single motherhood and/or shotgun marriage over abortion.
I have three closely related problems with Sarah Palin:
(1) She doesn't have a clue about national issues. (And if you doubt me, must listen to the Katy Couric interview or the debates).
(2) She doesn't want to have a clue about national issues.
(3) She (or at least hear admirers) equates this ignorance with virtue.
As any number of posters here have commented, we just got through with eight years of a President who equates ignorance with virtue. I know McCain did not plan to die in office, but there are some chances I just don't want to take.
As for this whole business of wanting a philosopher king -- it is true, I don't want to adopt the ancient Athenian system of choosing office holders by lot. I don't think if we threw the names of all natural born citizens over 35 into a giant hat and pulled out a name at random, we would most likely get a qualified President. I want a President who understands national issues and can discourse intelligently about them. If that makes me an elitist, so be it. As DougJ says, "Nothing annoys me more than the conservative myth that to be an ordinary American you have to be a moron."
C2:
It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that us "liberals" over here on the left don't want no stinking kings.
Don't lie. Sure you do. You had one in FDR and LBJ and you've been trying to relive those days for 40 years. You have respect for the health care system offered by a murderous tyrant like Castro. You don't have a problem with large takeovers of private business by the government even if it violates contract and private property law (and thusly, the Constitution). You talk about economic equality; the only problem with that is it makes everyone poor, except those whose heads are up the asses of those in government. That's the kind of system you vote for, that's the system you like, figuring you aren't going to be one of those who are screwed (which would be the majority of Americans).
Now, if by "philosopher" you mean someone with an understanding of the human condition...
This coming from a supporter of the killing of some 35 million dead humans, calling it a choice and a right.
You don't understand the human condition; you just vomit up leftist drivel about the human condition. You don't believe in the pursuit of happiness; you demand it as a right, regardless of the consequences.
Call me an elitist, but, with 300 million people to choose from, I think we can get an intelligent, accomplished, and competent person for president.
Really? Then why would you vote for a Barack Obama, someone who has never done anything in his political career, and is proving adept at being incompetent?
nerpzillicus:
What happened? You used to make some sense.
I do make sense.
But people on the left don't like Palin (really, they are scared of her being in a position of authority), because she couldn't name Supreme Court decisions she didn't like (even though the Exxon Valdez case had just come down)...
I'm sure she's mention Roe now and again. Of course, that's a "mortal sin" to be critical of Roe.
...she had foreign policy bona fides because her state was in close proximity to foreign countries...
Stealing lines from Tina Fey? That was her line. Besides, Palin actually negotiated her energy deal with Canada. Obama gives DVDs, in the wrong format, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He got no help from NATO in regards to Afghanistan. He's ready to let Iran have nuclear weapons. And Obama is ready to throw the people of Honduras under the bus supporting a scumbag with the same political philosophy.
...couldn't name any newspapers or magazines she read...
I don't read any myself, at least not in paper form. Not worth the money.
...she wanted to fix the impact of cliamte chage without taking about the causes...
Yeah, that's a problem. A conservative should know that the left is lying about "climate change".
...and claimed McCain was a maverick pro-reform regulator, but couldn't come up with a single example to back that claim.
Yet, she actually did work on trying to clean up the Alaska Republican establishment, which is something neither Obama or Biden every would have thought about doing when it came to Democrats; not kissing Daley's ass would have killed Obama's chances for any office.
That being said, the leftists of the time (you know, the founding fathers) didn't like hereditary kings...
That's pretty funny you referring to the Founders as leftists. I rather doubt that they believed in the cradle-to-grave, nanny-state tyranny you leftists would impose on America. Don't embarrass yourself.
By the way (and I am OT), what is going on in Iran is a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, not the ridiculous crap spewed by Justice Stevens.
..she had foreign policy bona fides because her state was in close proximity to foreign countries...
Stealing lines from Tina Fey? That was her line.
Steve Steve Steve Steve, the first mention of this was not by Tina Fey, but Fox & Friends, (not 2 days after she was nominated). Quit making it so easy for us. Geesh. But this bit of full blown ignorance on your part leads to my second point.
No, you don't. What you said is a complete fabrication. The left hates her guts because she criticized the left's failed policies.
Uh, no. The left hates her because we're pushing back against the right trying to shove someone down our throats - someone whom they need to resort to ridiculous arguments to defend (see above). Arguments so ridiculous, that you think they came from a comedienne. Your side insists we should vote for the most powerful person in the world based on terms like "flip/flop". Your side tells us it doesn't matter if George Bush is smart, what's important is that we know where he stands. And now you're telling us that someone who was mayor of a town the size of Mayberry, and governor of a state with the population of my county is more qualified than Barack Obama because "at least she ran something".
Please. Your arguments are moronic, and they're in defense of morons. So if you so much as try to force yet another moron on us, we're gonna do everything in our power to make sure it's clear as day just how much a moron that person is. And if we need to get mean and brutal to accomplish that, then either deal with it or give us someone smart.
Steve -
I don't have much time so, I'll only answer the one now-
...she had foreign policy bona fides because her state was in close proximity to foreign countries...
Stealing lines from Tina Fey? That was her line. Besides, Palin actually negotiated her energy deal with Canada. Obama gives DVDs, in the wrong format, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He got no help from NATO in regards to Afghanistan. He's ready to let Iran have nuclear weapons. And Obama is ready to throw the people of Honduras under the bus supporting a scumbag with the same political philosophy.
Palin/Couric
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.
Couric: Mocked?
Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
The funniest part about Tina Fey's skit on snl was the amount of material she didn't have to write.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/07/07/tomo/
sometimes humor gets says it best.
nerpzillicus:
Palin/Couric
Still stuck on this one thing. And yet, Palin still had more foreign policy experience that Obama; her push to get the gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 via Canada. What was Obama's foreign policy "experience" at this time? Obama dissed Canada with overreaching remarks on NAFTA, which required some backtracking and pandering; Obama was ready to meet with the Iranian thugocracy without pre-conditions, and he spent most of the campaign trying to cover his ass over that remark, going so far as to have Biden lie about what Obama had said (which is ironic since it was Biden who criticized Obama for this; I already showed this earlier). Both items should have wrecked Obama's campaign since he was obviously a foreign policy neophyte, even compared to Palin, but the media let him off the hook, along with letting Biden off the hook for his lie.
Here's what is interesting. Obama is still willing to deal with the brutal thugs running Iran, those doing everything they can to brutalize their own people who are sick and tired of the mullahs' "leadership", Obama believing the mullahs and that pig Ahmadinejad will negotiate in good faith. At the same time, Obama wants to put leftist pig Zelaya back into office in Honduras, despite the fact that the Honduran government did what they did in a lawful manner.
Yet you see Palin as not knowing anything about foreign policy. Maybe one day you all in the "reality-based community" might want to live in reality.
SteveAR,
Do show us where, in the Honduran Constitution, a supreme court justice can legally sign an order authorizing the military to remove the president and exile him without a trial.
Scanning the news, it looks more like the only people claiming it was legal are the people who took power and right-wing pundits in this country. Oh, and BTW, the question here isn't whether Zelaya committed an impeachable offense, but whether his removal was legal, so don't blather about "article 239" of the Honduran constitution.
Needless to say, the current government of Honduras is on shaky legal ground.
Meanwhile, in Iran, the mullahs have absolute authority to declare the winner of an election. This is not questioned, so, although it was obvious that the election wasn't determined by the voters, it is perfectly "legal."
Yet, in SteveAR's mind, this legal result is perfectly illegal, while the government of Honduras, created through an obviously extra-legal act, is perfectly legal.
I think some of SteveAR's obvious problems are the result of cognitive whiplash.
Or, just to be an equal opportunity hater-what about all those liberals who justify Obama's disappointments and AWOL action on issues like DOMA and DADT and preventative detention by making him out to be the smartest n-dimensional constitutional law chess master of the universe ever?
C2:
Do show us where, in the Honduran Constitution, a supreme court justice can legally sign an order authorizing the military to remove the president and exile him without a trial.
Do show us where, in the Honduran Constitution, a President can set up a personal dictatorship along the lines of Castro and Chavez via an illegal amendment. Do show us where, in the Honduran Constitution and Honduran law, a President is legally allowed to fire the commander of the Honduran military for refusing to organize a referendum.
Meanwhile, in Iran, the mullahs have absolute authority to declare the winner of an election. This is not questioned, so, although it was obvious that the election wasn't determined by the voters, it is perfectly "legal."
For anybody but a leftwing lemming, one who only vomits up what he's told to vomit up, it's quite a bit more complicated than that. For example, the election was given to Ahmadinejad a couple of hours after the polls closed. This isn't a big deal in America since we have electronic voting. But they don't have that in Iran; it's still all paper.
Next, there are quite a number of the Iranian religious who have condemned the election results, and have condemned Supreme Putz Khamenei for saying that the results were "a divine miracle", especially since Khamenei doesn't have the religious cred to say something like that. Of course, a leftist lemming will not know about this because they are told not to know about it.
Lastly, what does it say about these pigs (in particular Khamenei and Ahmadinejad) having nuclear weapons? Obama is ready to do less than Bush just so he can be done with Iran, thus guaranteeing they will get nuclear weapons.
You said earlier that you support those who are concerned about the human condition. As with everything you've said, that is utter rubbish. Your support of Obama is a perfect example of it. He is content with mass death and being associated with regimes that threaten the liberty of their own people and others.
This post has been removed by the author.
SteveAR,
Are you incapable of simple logic? Look, if you defend, on legal grounds, the coup in Honduras, as you have done, twice now, based on Zelaya's violation of the Honduran constitution, then aren't you, by simple logical consistency (hah!), required to defend the mullahs, based on their entirely legal declaration of the the result of an election?
Oh, of course you aren't, because whatever is legal is just what you say it is.
Just as "freedom for all!" is your cry, until reproductive freedom is the issue, and then it's "freedom for the blastocyst!", never mind freedom for women.
Your logical and moral inconsistencies, and your fact-free rants, are the mark of a mind struggling for, but failing, to achieve simple rationality.
Amanda and Steve,
Compared to Palin, yes, Obama is a mastermind, and a beacon of liberalism. Unfortunately, that's what's termed "damning with faint praise."
Do, please, point out a paragon of politics and morality that we can all get behind.
C2:
Are you incapable of simple logic?
And can't you answer a simple question? I asked you where, in the Honduran Constitution, a President can set up a personal dictatorship along the lines of Castro and Chavez via an illegal amendment, and where, in the Honduran Constitution and Honduran law, is a President is legally allowed to fire the commander of the Honduran military for refusing to organize a referendum? Should they have simply let Zelaya establish his dictatorship, which is completely against the will of their courts, their legislature, and their people? Is that OK to you? What part of Zelaya's unconstitutional and illegal actions had to do with the "rule of law" you claim to love? And, why was Obama so quick to condemn the actions of the Honduran government while dithering on Iran, where the government has made a show of brutalizing their people? I know Obama said he didn't want to give the Iranian thugocracy an excuse to blame America; they did anyway (Duh!!! Anyone with a clue could see it coming 10,000 miles away!!!)
But to you, this is all about the "rule of law", right? Then how in the world can you say you care about the human condition? What I said earlier about Obama and those who support him still holds true:
He is content with mass death and being associated with regimes that threaten the liberty of their own people and others.
Don't mind SteveAr's bloviations about Iran. The wet dream of any good conservative asshat like SteveAR is a good old fashioned shooting war in Iran (fought by people other than the conservatives screaming the loudest for it). Let the Iranians sort this out (if you read Andrew Sullivan, the Iranians are STILL in the process of doing that).
The original Iranian revolution took about 18 months from beginning to end, but conservatives live in a cartoon world where things instantaneously occur if they just will it to be. The final chapter of the Iranian election has yet to be written, and its a good thing that the US didn't do anything dumb like threaten to use military force.
Let's move on to Honduras. Of course, if Steve had been able to put his blinders down and observe that by the US and the EU condemning the military coup in Honduras, that Chavez's position as South American kingmaker got knocked down a few pegs. He can't scream "US/Western imperialism organized the coup" when the US is decrying the coup.
I've never completely understood the conservative's obsession with Chavez as all-purpose boogeyman. One would have thought that our complete inability to drive Castro out of power in 50 years would make us rethink our "ooooh Chavez is a big scary brown man" strategy towards Venezuela.
Now, for Palin. So Steve, you're claiming that Palin gained foreign policy experience through her work on a gas pipeline from Canada that has yet to be constructed? That certainly is much more impressive than working with Richard Lugar on the Armed Services committee on Lugar's long standing project to account for loose Russian nukes, huh?
I think ultimately what concerns the swing voters about Palin is her temperment. Leaving aside the "quitting is somehow not quitting" argument Palin has feebly tried to put forth, let's look at her track record. She has demonstrated no actual knowledge of domestic issues or foreign policy. Simply regurgitating 1980's era Reaganism is not an acceptable substitute for policy knowledge.
She has a long track record of vindictiveness and a seeming theory of governance as "take revenge on those who wronged you".
Firing the Wasilla librarian is Exhibit A.
Her incessant running to friendly reporters to bitterly whine about whatever perceived slight of he week indicates that she is a person with an extremely thin skin. Her slash and burn responses to perceived political enemies is alarming, especially if you consider the consequences if she popped off during a military crisis for instance.
So, in short, you'd have in Palin all the worst qualities of Bush Jr., combined with a preening narcissim and a chip on her shoulder that would make Nixon look like Deepak Chopra in comparison.
Besides, if she can't handle David Letterman, how in the hell can she handle Al Queda?
Steve,
By your "the Iranian government would blame us anyway" logic, does that mean the US is obligated to live up to the stereotypical image of "meddlers" in the region?
No offense, buddy, but the Iranian government, as odious and illegitimate as it is, damn well knows that the US is in no position to do anything militarily against it. Remember the two other wars we're fighting, badly overstretched military, worn out soldiers, unwillingness of US populace to support a third war, etc.
So even if we screamed "we'll bomb you Persian bastards into the Stone Age", would that frighten the Iranians one iota? They'd say "bring it on". Steve, the reality is that if we invaded Iran, we would lose. We don't have enough money to pay Iranian insurgents not to kill us like we did in Iraq.
This post has been removed by the author.
SteveAR,
I answered your question already, but you apparently couldn't understand it, so I'll tell you a third time: it certainly appears that Zelaya acted unconstitutionally.
Shouldn't he have been impeached, then tried, then removed, rather than removed, then tried, in absentia and in what sure looks like an afterthought? (Actually, the Honduran constitution seems to have no actual means to remove a sitting president. My spanish is a bit rusty, and the document is long, so I could be wrong here.) I'm guessing the Honduran politicos might be thinking about an amendment about now to cover that.
There. I've said it three times. Perhaps you could stop pretending that you can't understand.
Of course, having a legal means and having the political will to impeach a lawless president are two different things, which is why we need to watch even the best of them. On the other hand, I think it would be disastrous to elect a person like Palin, who apparently has no clue what the "Department of Law" (which, translating from ignoramus-speech might mean Department of Justice) does. Or any other part of the government, for that matter.
Actually, Palin now has a position uniquely suited to her talents, one with no responsibilities she can screw up as she has screwed up ever responsible post she's ever had, with no policy requirements, suiting her intellectual attainments perfectly, and, hopefully, no scrutiny of her family, friends, or business associates, suiting her rather lax personal ethics.
Steve-
Sometimes, I gotta wonder if you remember what you write from sentence to sentence.
You said:
Palin/Couric
Still stuck on this one thing.
You then follow this up (not refuting the point, by the way) by being stuck on “pre-conditions” and the NAFTA/Ohio pandering fluff up. Talk about being stuck on something.
But more to the point, my response was to your wrong contention that I was stealing Tina Fey's lines. Your candidate said this herself. The Tina Fey line is when she slightly exaggerated this exchange into “I can see Russia from my house.” The reason why no one can tell the Tina Fey impression from the real thing is that there isn't that much extra to write.
Here's what is interesting. Obama is still willing to deal with the brutal thugs running Iran, those doing everything they can to brutalize their own people who are sick and tired of the mullahs' "leadership", Obama believing the mullahs and that pig Ahmadinejad will negotiate in good faith. At the same time, Obama wants to put leftist pig Zelaya back into office in Honduras, despite the fact that the Honduran government did what they did in a lawful manner.
Wow! This is why you and I can never see eye to eye. Objectively, clearly, with no doubt whatsoever, the removal was not legal. Whether he should have been removed is a political question for the people of Honduras. The method in which he was removed was clearly illegal. The legislature had begun discussion on impeachment, and the Supreme court had ordered Zelaya arrested. But there was no action performed to remove him from office, and no legal grounds to remove him from the country. He should still be the president, even if under trial. That's the problem. The Chief Justice said the deportation was to prevent riots and bloodshed. But it was still illegal.
Although the bigger problem is the horrible drafting of that Constitution. It does not actually have an impeachment provision!
I acknowledge, as far as coups go, this is fairly democratic. But they really should have done some kind of legal function to remove him, as opposed to having him sent into exile. Whether we should look past the legal violations or not due to the circumstances is an argument. I do not know enough about the politics of Honduras to know which side really speaks for the people, so I'm not going to make any value judgments on this. But the deportation was illegal.
Yet you see Palin as not knowing anything about foreign policy. Maybe one day you all in the "reality-based community" might want to live in reality.
I used the words straight from her mouth, yet I am the one not living in reality?
Amanda-
I can't speak for everyone, but I have always felt Obama is an n-dimensional chess master when it comes to politics, not constitutional law. That has been evident to me since the FISA debacle.
Anonymous (12:57pm):
The wet dream of any good conservative asshat like SteveAR is a good old fashioned shooting war in Iran (fought by people other than the conservatives screaming the loudest for it).
Biff:
No offense, buddy, but the Iranian government, as odious and illegitimate as it is, damn well knows that the US is in no position to do anything militarily against it.
Steve, the reality is that if we invaded Iran, we would lose.
It is amazing how small-minded the left is. You think the only way we conservatives would want to make the Iranian government sweat is to use the military to bomb or invade the country.
What we could do is something intelligent, like turn an economically poor government that has one industry, oil, into one that is poorer. This would help destabilize the government, and prevent it from getting nukes, the primary goal.
Anonymous:
That certainly is much more impressive than working with Richard Lugar on the Armed Services committee on Lugar's long standing project to account for loose Russian nukes, huh?
This was Lugar's project, right? How did it become Obama's project? How many meetings did Obama attend? I mean Obama started running for the Presidency pretty much as soon as he became a U.S. Senator, so I doubt he spent much time on Lugar's committee. After Democrats took power in 2007, Obama was supposed to chair some foreign affairs subcommittee; he never called a meeting. Probably too busy running for office.
The issue with Palin is that the left wasn't content to attack her on policy, but to attack her and her family personally (as Andrew Sullivan did incessantly). Then, as C2 did earlier, call the vicious personal attacks on the Palin family as something they as a family deserved. Lastly, as A.L. did, the left ignored what they did.
Believe it or not, I don't blame the left for Palin leaving office; Palin did that on her own. Politics is a bloody business, and I don't have a problem with that. She should have guessed that the left would attack her like they did because all the left offers is their hate. I think it's a good argument that for Palin to be considered for higher office, she should have toughed it out.
But here's something else. She quit that commission she was on because of the corruption in her own party, and quitting was the only way to expose it. She came back to run as Governor against that same establishment and won against the corrupt Republicans and the Democrats.
On a side note, what was Obama doing at the time Palin exposed Alaska corruption? Kissing Daley's and the Chicago Democratic Machine's corrupt asses, and nothing else.
SteveAR,
One question:
It is amazing how small-minded the left is. You think the only way we conservatives would want to make the Iranian government sweat is to use the military to bomb or invade the country.
What we could do is something intelligent, like turn an economically poor government that has one industry, oil, into one that is poorer.
How?
One point:
The issue with Palin is that the left wasn't content to attack her on policy, but to attack her and her family personally (as Andrew Sullivan did incessantly).
Andrew is on the left? He consistently touts traditional conservative values, and may be a bit surprised at your mischaracterization of him.
Ah yes. Palin has done "nothing" to warrant her being a Presidential candidate---so says the Left and their spewers of vitriol.
What, exactly, had Obama done before becoming President, that was of any significance? Other than running for President for two of the six years he was elected to be the junior Senator from Illinois? Less than one term in the US Senate, and an unheralded one at that, and all of a sudden he's a capable executive?
Please...
Well, at least you can't deny that the emperor is wearing pasties.
With little propellers on them.
(AL has written an eloquent post here, but its essence is so obvious that I could never have presented it as a serious argument. It's like trying to explain to a wingnut that, no, Obama really isn't like Hitler. Ridicule is really the only answer to this kind of thing, if you don't want to permanently impair your own intelligence.)
nerpzillicus:
Objectively, clearly, with no doubt whatsoever, the removal was not legal...The method in which he was removed was clearly illegal. The legislature had begun discussion on impeachment, and the Supreme court had ordered Zelaya arrested. But there was no action performed to remove him from office, and no legal grounds to remove him from the country. He should still be the president, even if under trial...The Chief Justice said the deportation was to prevent riots and bloodshed. But it was still illegal.
Do you always live in a bubble of legalese claptrap? What a ridiculous assertion. The law isn't supposed to exist so that it can be abused. Zelaya was already working on an unconstitutional measure to make himself a dictator; do you think that would have stopped even if he were on trial while still President? Do you think the deportation of a dictator or wannabe dictator is something that is always done cleanly? It never happens; it is always after the dictator heaps death and ruination on his people. How is that part of the "rule of law"? What the Chief Justice did was in every respect constitutional and very much a part of the rule of law, to keep a wannabe dictator from usurping the government, something Zelaya would not have stopped doing if he remained as a President on trial.
On Palin. Earlier you said:
...she had foreign policy bona fides because her state was in close proximity to foreign countries...
Then you put in the transcript from the Couric interview. She said more than than what you implied and you know it. Also, in that whole foreign policy section of the interview, Couric never mentions Canada or the pipeline deal. Considering this was about foreign policy, one would think that would be mentioned.
Here's something else. CBS News has that whole foreign policy interview here. The transcript of that interview is here. There are about 2 1/2 minutes from the video that aren't in the transcript. If CBS, the network that gave us Rathergate, is willing to edit the transcript (badly), how do we know there wasn't more in the interview about what Palin said about Russia than what is in the video? It isn't that Palin can call them on it since she probably doesn't have access to all of the footing since it is the property of CBS. It's not as if CBS isn't already known for trying to get away with using false "evidence" in order to make Republicans look bad.
You then follow this up (not refuting the point, by the way) by being stuck on “pre-conditions” and the NAFTA/Ohio pandering fluff up. Talk about being stuck on something.
Here's what's interesting. That whole thing about Obama meeting with the Iranian thugocracy without preconditions pretty much seems like it's going to happen. He obviously doesn't seem interested in that regime's brutalization of the Iranian people; apparently, Obama wants to sign a quickie deal with the thugs as a photo-op just so he can show the world what kind of a great guy he is, then let them go on their merry way towards nuclear weapons.
Translating from SteveARspeak to English:
"The law isn't supposed to exist so that it can be abused." -- means "the law is only relevant if it supports my position."
"Do you think the deportation of a dictator or wannabe dictator is something that is always done cleanly?" -- means "I've never heard of Richard Nixon, the Orange Revolution, or the end of the Cold War."
So, SteveAR, how do you imagine Zelaya would retain power, if, as events have proven, he didn't have the support of the military?
I'd like you to answer Fraud Guy's question about how, as you suggest, the USA is going to impoverish the Iranian regime.
I'd like you to answer Fraud Guy's question about how, as you suggest, the USA is going to impoverish the Iranian regime.
Dementors.
Who hates her? I think she's intellectually incurious, just like George Bush. She appears to have a mean streak like Dubya as well. Also, like Bush, she seems to be an effective campaigner who has no real interest in policy or governance. That she is still taken seriously by some in the beltway shows how little they know about life outside the beltway. Like David Brooks they study people in flyover country like we're an exotic species. They think that we're idiots and thus Palin's meaningless platitudes will appeal to us. I'd love to see her run for President in 2012. She has enough of the base wrapped up that she could probably win the Republican nomination. The resulting election would be a lot like '64, a bloodbath. The funniest thing I see among commenters on blogs and news outlets is that because liberals are so derisive toward her, we're scared of her. I'm not scared of her in the least because I don't think she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the predidency.
Steve-
Do you always live in a bubble of legalese claptrap? What a ridiculous assertion.
Yes. I am a lawyer. I believe in the rule of law.
The law isn't supposed to exist so that it can be abused.
Thus, your solution – abuse the law to send into exile a duly elected president through military coup with no process other than a secret behind the scenes trial? Bravo!
Zelaya was already working on an unconstitutional measure to make himself a... something Zelaya would not have stopped doing if he remained as a President on trial.
As I said, I really don't know if what the Supreme Court did was legal (it was unanimous to place Zelaya under arrest). But even if the act of the Court was legal, there was no legal authorization to remove him from power or the country. That is simply fact.
Further, I honestly have no idea what the political situation in Honduras really is. I do not know what Zelaya has done or was planning to do. From what I have read, he basically tried to do what Bloomburg did in NYC – get an extra term that he was legally barred from getting. He wanted to change the Constitution to allow the President to serve more than one term. Unless there is more, that is a pretty weak dictator. Now, the Constitution says something to the effect that the term limit is not amendable, and anyone who tries to do that is booted out of office. Zelaya says he was trying to have a plebiscite (supposedly legal) to determine whether the people wanted to call for a Constitutional Convention (supposedly legal) to rewrite the Constitution so a President could have more than one term. What should have happened was the Court issues the arrest, Zelaya stands trial on the accusation that he attempted to amend the Constitution illegally, and if he is convicted, he is booted from office. Instead, charges were filed, no trial was had, and he is suffering the punishment – sort of like Gitmo.
Your assertions of gloom and doom don't fit reality either, since
1)there was evidence that the plebiscite would have failed anyway
2)the military is obviously not on his side, since they followed the order of the Court
3)the legislature unanimously appointed its president as the new president.
4)The legislature unanimously removed him from office ex post.
Hell, the military admits as much:
On June 30, the military's chief lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño, showed a detention order, signed June 26 by a Supreme Court judge, which ordered the armed forces to detain the president, identified by his full name of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at his home in the Tres Caminos area of the capital. It cited him for treason and abuse of authority, among other charges.[6] Colonel Inestroza later stated that deporting Zelaya did not comply with the court order: "In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us."[14] He said the decision was taken by the military leadership "in order to avoid bloodshed".[45]
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_political_crisis
So, is this claptrap? No. It is respect for the rule of law and legal processes. It is also correcting your manifest misrepresentations. I like a good, open honest debate, as you and I have had before. But I do not like right wing nonsense masquerading as fact. The act of deporting the President of Honduras, without trial or impeachment, was ultra vires and illegal. It should be denounced. Furthermore, it seems unnecessary, since he could have gotten removed in a number of other ways. So, why not do it legally, since he certainly did not have the structural support to actually become a dictator? I simply do not know enough about Honduras to answer that.
On Palin. Earlier you said:
...she had foreign policy bona fides because her state was in close proximity to foreign countries...
Then you put in the transcript from the Couric interview. She said more than than what you implied and you know it.
Then is should be very easy for you to show me where the “more” is.
She was given three chances to explain how the close proximity of her state gave her bona fides. Instead of saying “Katie, that's ridiculous, it is the interactions I have with Canada and Russia that give me foreign policy credentials.” Instead, she said when Putin enters US airspace, he flies over Alaska first. We can watch him from there.
And again, the point was she said this. Instead of apologizing for accusing me of putting Tina Fey's words in Sarah Palin's mouth, you make up a conspiracy theory about what happened.
Also, in that whole foreign policy section of the interview, Couric never mentions Canada or the pipeline deal. Considering this was about foreign policy, one would think that would be mentioned.
And Palin doesn't bring this up why now?
Here's something else. CBS News has that whole foreign policy interview here. The transcript of that interview is here. There are about 2 1/2 minutes from the video that aren't in the transcript. If CBS, the network that gave us Rathergate, is willing to edit the transcript (badly), how do we know there wasn't more in the interview about what Palin said about Russia than what is in the video? It isn't that Palin can call them on it since she probably doesn't have access to all of the footing since it is the property of CBS. It's not as if CBS isn't already known for trying to get away with using false "evidence" in order to make Republicans look bad.
Whatever. Sorry, it didn't take creative editing to make her look bad. McCain's advisors said she was looking bad, and they didn't know why they went back for two more days of it. Call it a bad day if you want, but don't pretend it was someone else's fault.
C2:
"I've never heard of Richard Nixon, the Orange Revolution, or the end of the Cold War."
First off, Nixon wasn't a dictator, no matter how much people want to paint him that way.
Second, it took decades for the Soviet Union to end. How many tens of millions did they murder before ending somewhat quietly? Or do you consider those that were murdered post-birth abortions, a choice?
Third, the Orange Revolution isn't over since Russia is still meddling in Ukrainian affairs.
Shouldn't he have been impeached, then tried, then removed, rather than removed, then tried, in absentia and in what sure looks like an afterthought? (Actually, the Honduran constitution seems to have no actual means to remove a sitting president...)
How can Zelaya be impeached and then tried if, as you admit, there is nothing in the Honduran Constitution that covers such a situation? And if that is the case, how do you get a wannabe dictator out of office?
So, SteveAR, how do you imagine Zelaya would retain power, if, as events have proven, he didn't have the support of the military?
How do you know he didn't have some level of support in the military? I don't even know if he did or not, but I would guess he had some, enough to cause trouble. As long as Zelaya had access to some supporters, it's likely he could have.
I'd like you to answer Fraud Guy's question about how, as you suggest, the USA is going to impoverish the Iranian regime.
I'll leave that to the policy wonks, like you, to figure it out. I think it's a good idea. I would find it amazing if anyone in government, even those of the U.S. allies, could stomach the courage to try it.
Back to the beginning:
I'm sure she's mention Roe now and again. Of course, that's a "mortal sin" to be critical of Roe.
Yes – that's the problem. That was the only court case she could think of. Back to the tape:
Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?
Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.
Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.
Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.
Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.
Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?
Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/eveningnews/main4493062.shtml
That's what I'm talking about. You could name, I bet, 10 cases you disagree with right off the top of your head. You also throw out the strawman that “it's a mortal sin to criticize Roe”, when we are talking about the fact she seems to have no idea how federalism and the judiciary work, and can't name any other case she dislikes (couldn't even cop out with Dred Scott). Although, she complains about “activist judges.” If she's so mad at them, why doesn't she know more than one case in which they activated?
That's pretty funny you referring to the Founders as leftists. I rather doubt that they believed in the cradle-to-grave, nanny-state tyranny you leftists would impose on America. Don't embarrass yourself.
First, you obviously have no idea what I believe. Second, I said they were the leftists of the age, which is inarguably true (in fact, they were radicals). But whatever. Your goal is to score rhetorical points.
Absolutely on point..thanks for stating what should be blindingly obvious to anybody who is not bat-shit loony. Anybody who has half a brain and still continues to defend her is, plainly, evil.
Palin's whole populism is the desire to see her naked...
nothing has changed except those guiltily (or professionally) shying away from this thought...
I'm not concerned about Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge concerning federalism or how the federal government works. She could have the Department of Law help her with those issues.
nerpzillicus:
The law isn't supposed to exist so that it can be abused.
Thus, your solution – abuse the law to send into exile a duly elected president through military coup with no process other than a secret behind the scenes trial? Bravo!
Allow me to rephrase. The law isn't supposed to exist so that it allows national suicide. Besides, as C2 noted, the Honduran Constitution didn't cover items like this. Your idea that you leave a wannabe dictator in office while he is being tried is narrow-minded based on your probably never having to deal with living under a dictatorship.
Instead, charges were filed, no trial was had, and he is suffering the punishment – sort of like Gitmo.
Spare the hyperbole. He's better off than Mussolini or Ceaucescu.
So, why not do it legally, since he certainly did not have the structural support to actually become a dictator?
You answered it yourself. Because you don't know enough about Honduras.
There is a simple legal solution to the whole problem. Zelaya stays out of Honduras, and the new President pardons everyone involved with Zelaya's deportation. Then everyone can move on without impacting the rule of law, without impacting democracy, and without the carnage of a potential civil war. Think of it as similar to the firing of a football coach.
She was given three chances to explain how the close proximity of her state gave her bona fides.
Palin answered Couric's first question just fine, and took a jab at the media (not a bad thing). Now, take a look at Couric's second and third questions:
Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin then mentions trade missions, which is entirely valid, before adding the bit about Putin. But Couric cut Palin off while she was giving the answer to the second question. That wasn't "a chance" as you describe it. I notice that you don't even acknowledge that it happened. So spare me about how the Couric interview showed she had no bona fides in foreign policy.
That's what I'm talking about. You could name, I bet, 10 cases you disagree with right off the top of your head.
Yeah, but that's me. And not being a lawyer, I had to look them up, and took the time to do it. And if you're going to knock Palin for not knowing any cases other than Roe, would you also knock Harry Reid who came out and said he isn't going to review any of Sotomayor's cases before he votes to confirm her? I mean, it is the job of U.S. Senators to confirm judicial appointments; it would seem like a review would be part of that job.
SteveAR,
You say: "First off, Nixon wasn't a dictator,...".
Neither was Zelaya -- yet, as you admitted. And if you don't think Nixon had dictatorial tendencies, I guess you really don't know anything about him.
You say, when asked how to implement your scheme to "impoverish the Iranian regime", that "I'll leave that to the policy wonks, like you, to figure it out. I think it's a good idea."
Translation: "I have no clue, but I don't want to admit I spoke out of my ass." An honest person might just admit that you have no idea.
Speaking as a policy wonk (your words), it's a stupid idea. The mullahs are doing a fine job of discrediting themselves, with help from Obama, and any overt moves to push will alienate the populace, which, right now, is moving the way we want. In my opinion, we should negotiate with the current government now, quietly. Their weakness at home makes them vulnerable.
Jesus Christ you liberals are stupid. Anon Lib, do you read anything your write or do you just spew infintismal bullshit couched in stupidity. Who the f*k is Josh Marshall? One of your toys? Sarah Palin flamed out after her introduction? Tell me, how many interviews did your lover boy do after securing the dem nomination? None, you dumb whore, until his "handlers" were sure he could read a teleprompter. Sarah Palin could run circles around every moron on this pathetic blog. Keep it up, you stupid bitch, I've copied and forwarded to everyone on facebook, and all the non-existent Palin supporters had a really good laugh.
The love of Palin, I think, is like the housing market: people have no idea what the real value of their home is other than what they can get some other fool to pay for it.
Similarly, Bailin' Sarah Palin is clearly less qualified to be president than my cat, but policy skill or leadership is immaterial in conservative circles these days. As long as folks like Bill Kristol are willing to buy in and say Palin has the indescribable "it", the only slightly less reality-detached folks like Halperin will say, "she's got support", Druge will post the headlines, and the right wing fever swamps will march forth with their talking points -- no matter how fact or principle free those talking points might be.
A.L.'s best observation is that if a liberal, heck even a moderate Dem acting even REMOTELY like Palin, or REMOTELY had her "qualifications", that Dem would be laughed off the national stage after being roasted alive by the MSM.
Hot on the heels of Bush's Lost Decade, we've entered a Republican Twilight Zone were ignorance is a triumph, belligerence is grace, and behaving erratically is "going maverick!"
If Sarah Palin marched down Main Street with a live, flapping fish in her mouth and a flower pot on her head, Bill Kristol would claim she's making a wily self-marketing move. There really is no point in arguing reality with people like Kristol (or SteveAR) because they simply have no interest in it as the majority of Americans understand it.
When you say the sky is blue, and the guy standing next to you says, "no, its polka dot with tangerine stripes," there really is no point arguing. Your options are a) to mock them if they are dangerous, or b) to shrug your shoulders and walk away if they are harmless.
Anything else is a waste of breath.
I respectfully disagree with your (and many others') statement that Palin's speech was "completely incoherent." When I heard it live, it was a bit hard to follow. But I read the transcript. She basically says: 1. Alaska is great. 2. I've don'e great things for Alaska. 3. Since I was tapped for VP, the mainstream media & partisans have descended upon me, leading to a bunch of worthless ethics complaints. 4. Because of those complaints, I can't help Alaska anymore. 5. I want to help Alaska -- and maybe the entire USA -- so I'm going to step aside and do what's best for the state. NOW, you may or may not agree with this. I don't. But her supporters, and perhaps independents, do get it. It fits in with their predisposed view of the world. So if we are to seriously rebut what she says, let's examine her actual points rather than just say it's nonsensical.
C2:
And if you don't think Nixon had dictatorial tendencies, I guess you really don't know anything about him.
I've seen more dictatorial tendencies out of Obama in 6 months as opposed to what I saw in the entire Nixon administration. And where, pray tell, did Obama learn his lessons? From the dictatorship that runs Chicago.
Speaking as a policy wonk (your words), it's a stupid idea.
Uh-huh.
The mullahs are doing a fine job of discrediting themselves, with help from Obama,...
Don't you read? Obama is doing his utmost to legitimize the mullahs. The more he does it, the more the Iranian people will lose heart.
In my opinion, we should negotiate with the current government now, quietly. Their weakness at home makes them vulnerable.
Negotiate? All that does is further legitimize the mullahs' rule. What in the world makes you think the theocratic clowns running Iran would a) negotiate in good faith; and, b) stop continuing to push for nuclear weapons? Do you actually understand America's goal here? I mean, even Obama has said he doesn't want the mullahs to have nukes (whether he means it remains to be seen). And you call my idea stupid? Maybe your back-asswards idea would include the U.S. giving them our nuclear technology, thinking it would help bring down the mullahs as well, eh?
Came to this through Balloon Juice and I thought it had to do with her actual clothing. I know you aren't talking about her clothes but that isn't going to stop me from talking about her clothes. Look at that red jacket/blazer that she was wearing on Fri. Pretty sure it was one of the RNC convention pieces.
I have had to deal with honest-to-God narcissists in the course of my professional life, and have learned quite a bit from the experience. While successful politicians all have big egos and hold grudges, I do think Sarah P crosses the line into personality disorder. Now, narcissist is in desperate need of adulation, and fears more than anything unrefutable evidence that he/she is losing it. No one seems to be noting the fact that her approval rating in the red neck socialist state of Alaska (which gets $2 from DC for every $ it sends in taxes, and pays out oil tax revenues from the rest of us to every resident) is tanking. If she stayed in office, she'd surely face serious opposition. Just looking like she might lose is probably too much for her fragile self esteem, so she is quitting while she is ahead and blaming everyone else. This is utterly classic behavior for someone with a narcissistic personality disorder.
A question to all of you except SteveAR: Why do you spend time responding to this pinhead? He obviously thrives on it. He is willing to ignore all cogent and historically grounded arguments. AND he is going to tell you what YOU "think" even when you flatly tell him it isn't what you think, and who'd be the expert on what you think, your or him. Ignore the pinhead, let him play in traffic until he gets run over.
Palin stands for a very different proposition, that if you have the right backers, anyone, no matter how unqualified or unsuited for the job, can potentially become president.
Actually, I think that the previous President stood for - and proved - the truth of this scary proposition. I think Palin was meant to drive the point home and, in the process, put a stake through the heart of the progressives' vision of enlightened, benevolent, and effective government, once and for all.
OMG...I have never met you, but I am in love with you. I have been saying this... "The Emperor has No Clothes" for months regarding Palin, but you said it better than I could have ever done.
As I watched the press drool over Palin in the remote fishing location, racin' to go fishin' with her, and the follow up praise, I just about chocked. It seems they are all afraid to say, the Emperor has no clothes". Is it the wrath of Paln they fear? I'm just not getting it.
You are correct, I can't imagine any male ever being considered a serious candidate if they performed as poorly as Palin. Or, can you imagine a plain looking woman getting this kind of attention if she had failed so many "tests" on the National stage? This circus would have left town a long time ago.
But,the media continues to give her credibility by singing her praises and essentially blaming themselves for Palin quitting her job (Palin blames the media and they keep repeating it as truth).
It seems their intent is for this freak show to continue for years. Sigh.
Ross Douthat compared Obama as an example of "meritocracy" and Palin as an example of "democracy", in suggesting that "anybody can grow up to be President".
The second supposition is wrong, absolutely WRONG.
Palin is an example of a scion of "plutocracy", in that she wormed and wiggled her way into the "good ol' boys club" up in Alaska, grifted her way through some good paying jobs while picking up a little extra loot for herself on the way (Housegate...decorating her office with city funds, without council OK) -- and with their backing conned herself into the gubernatorial race, winning by pandering with populist slogans.
Now she's become a full-fledged example of "kleptocracy". She HAS milked the Governor role for all she can, and is getting out before she's impeached.
Well, maybe not. If the Alaska state legislature must meet anyway (costing the state all that money she's supposed to be saving by quitting) to approve her Lt. Governor choice, they might as well impeach her while they're at it, and also override her veto of the federal stimulus energy conservation funds she's rejected.
Palin is a cheating, lying, shifty crackpot con artist.
You know who's really got to be pissed about the Palin phenomenon Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Here are two republican governors who you know, actually completed their terms (multiple terms for Huckabee). And despite their many MANY faults can actually manage to get through a tv appearance without sounding like they're on drugs, and here comes Miss Wasilla, with a fraction of their experience and intelligence, and all of a sudden she's anointed the new savior of the GOP on the basis of her good looks and her convention speech. And they have to grit their teeth and support the party ticket.
Secondly, and this CANNOT BE REPEATED ENOUGH, how cynical was the pick of Sarah Palin for VP by John McCain? Instead of McCain, or Maverick, or whatever other monikers he may have, he should forever be known as the guy who picked Sarah Palin as vp. On on top of it had the nerve to run under the slogan of country first. The country was the last thing McCain was thinking of when he made that pick. I don't know how he sleeps at night
I'm hoping - praying, even - that the 2012 Republican ticket will be Palin/Sanford.
I'd even give them money for the primary.
Tell me, how many interviews did your lover boy do after securing the dem nomination? None, you dumb whore, until his "handlers" were sure he could read a teleprompter.
uhhh...i'm pretty sure that's not correct. In fact I seem to remember an interview right after he secured the nomination, but regardless by the time Obama had won the nomination he had gone through one of the longest primary process in history, which included 21 debates, plus he had held numerous press conferences, sat down with editorial boards, plus been on every major sunday show multiple times. To say after all that, he hid until he could read a teleprompter makes no sense. Now would I have liked him to have given more interviews during the general election? Sure. But comparing Obama's interview quantity and quality to Sarah Palin's hardly proves your point.
The name "Palin" should be replaced with the name "Obama" in this pile of spittle. That would make it accurate.
No one has ever walked (waltzed actually) into the White House less qualified, less prepared than Obama. It is being proven now, and will be daily for years to come. Don't anyone say anything though, because he is sorta black and he must be coddled
Sarah Palin does have some skill - she was known as 'Barracuda' in high school. She's very good at the sort of skills that give you such a nickname; the problem is that such skills without any intellect or work ethic can get you only so far - that it's the governor's office of Alaska still astounds me.
Tell me, how many interviews did your lover boy do after securing the dem nomination? None, you dumb whore, until his "handlers" were sure he could read a teleprompter.
And to piggyback on the comments from one of the Anons in the room, how many interviews, in the form of Presidential debates, did he partake in during the Democratic primary? Seemed they had a debate every freakin' week. And Barack Obama sat down with Bill O'Reilly. Bill Freakin' O'Reilly. And Rick Warren. Barack Obama sat down with people who are overtly opposed to his views. And Sarah Palin gets tripped up by someone asking her to name a newspaper. The fact she couldn't name a newspaper she reads was bad enough. But given how easily lying comes to her, the fact that she couldn't even lie and just name a newspaper is even more troubling. The only difference between her and those bozos on the street that Leno would ask questions of is that Palin was better at BS'ing her way out of it.
So, obviously, the GOP should run her for Prez in 2012. Or . . . think outside the logic box and -- run her for President in 2010! That's crazy . . . crazy like a fox! Catch the Dems and the media completely off-guard. And Joe the Plumber for Veep!
Amen brotha.
Dingy as I like to call her.
Short for dingbat.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home