You have to say this much about Sarah Palin -- she might be more of a stimulus package for the economy than anything Obama and his minions have done this year. She's already sold tons of books, given Oprah Winfrey the best rating she's had for a show in years and caused the Associated Press to assign an 11-person task force to debunk her book.
It's also amazing that she inspires such a reaction from both left and right. There are a lot of people on the left who just HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE her, yet on the right I see plenty of this. She's human litmus paper, I tell ya.
39 comments:
RE: NewzWeak Cover Story
"I've never seen Governor Palin dressed in that kind of attire at a political event," Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee said. "What is the necessity of highlighting that picture among the thousands that have been taken of her?"
You'll also never see someone who is going to be so scrutinized and discredited....The bet here is that it will backfire on some level.
discredited?
K-Rod,
That's hilarious -- if Sheila Jackson-Lee is calling you out, you have to be waaaaay out.
Mark,
There's nothing too puzzling about the media obsession over Palin. It’s the same impulse that drives the obsession with Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson: Articles about her sell. Palin is the Britney Spears of politics. People love talking about her, even the folks who are not usually the types who care for politics. Instead of in depth discussion of foreign policy, unemployment, health care or climate change, which all can be fairly complex topics, you can discuss Death Panels, Sarah’s victimization, what Palin's up to today, Tina Fey's impressions of Palin, Palin’s baby, the daughter's baby, Levi, et al. She's the embodiment of the old trope “the personal is political.” And none of this should come as a surprise - she's good-looking, draws huge crowds, her book is a best-seller, and she provides an unending source of blunders to feed our famished media. Not to mention the circus that is her family, or that she appears to be a pathological liar. These all add up to one thing: Ratings.
Personally, I love her, but probably not for the same reasons you do. She certainly doesn't scare me, but her fanaticism and seeming lack of knowledge do repel me. I fervently hope she never stops doing her thing. She is quickly becoming the mouthpiece for what now passes for Conservatism, and in that respect, she is a gift from God…the best thing I could imagine for my side. Why liberals and moderates would attack her is beyond me. The longer she's around and the longer she's getting attention for the nativist, know-nothing strain of thought that's in ascendancy on the right, the more discredited it becomes. So run, Sarah, run and drill, baby, drill! Don't let those coastal elitist snobs keep you down.
Regards,
Rich
"her fanaticism and seeming lack of knowledge do repel me"
And that's what makes me chuckle. Palin a fanatic? That, of course, is the narrative. Do you really believe all the narratives that are on offer? I hear Obama's concerned about the deficit. I've also been told that he's doing everything he can to improve the job situation.
You know what repels me? The current administration. Because their fanaticism and lack of knowledge are on full display, day after day. We actually have to live with their mistakes. And how much do I hear from anti-Palinistas about what a failure Obama is? Not much.
Maybe Palin isn't the bees knees, but it borders on pathetic to spend so much time criticizing her when we've got President Nincompoop bungling everything he touches.
Rich, that is one of the most pigheaded partisan comments of recent memory. Long on talk and short on substance.
Sputtering left-wing talking points must have been a result of all that Kool-Aid you have been drinking.
Now repeat what you said but replace 'palin' with 'obama'.
.
My Karma just ran over your Dogma
Personally, I love her, but probably not for the same reasons you do.
Actually, I don't. But I do love that she engenders the sort of response you've offered here. Kinda proves my point.
It proves your point big time, Mr. D.
I think it proves all of our points...unless I am not getting the point. In the mean times, I say go Sara, go.
Rich
I guess you don't get it. You've constructed a straw Sarah Palin. Let's get to the key phrase in your dismissal of the lady:
her fanaticism and seeming lack of knowledge do repel me
What are the things she's fanatical about? If you actually study her record and career, you'll see that she's actually pretty libertarian, although she's quite pro-life. That wouldn't ordinarily be a problem for a Catholic voter, right?
As for her lack of knowledge, what specifically is she ignorant about? Give examples. And using Tina Fey doesn't count.
Mark,
did you see the word-salad of a speech she gave when she resigned? That speaks for itself.
Rich
did you see the word-salad of a speech she gave when she resigned? That speaks for itself.
It does. And if it were the only thing she'd ever uttered, it would be definitive. But it's not the only thing she's ever uttered, not by a long shot. Her speech at the 2008 RNC convention was one of the best speeches I've ever seen. But I don't judge her on just that, either.
And let's also remember that being silver-tongued isn't the only measure of intelligence. If she were as dumb as is asserted, there's no way she'd have ever been elected governor, nor come to the attention of the McCain campaign, nor have captured the imagination of millions of people. But keep telling yourself she's dumb. She likes that.
Mark,
Read my quote. I said seeming lack of knowledge because I don't think she is that dumb. She plays it up to appeal to her base. She does the same thing with her sex appeal, and that is my point. Look at how she is complaining about Newsweek running a photo that SHE POSED FOR. (And I can only imagine the reaction from the Right if one of the most prominent most prominent Libs in the country posed with the Flag as a prop).
Let's also consider the now infamous Couric interview.
A few excerpts:
COURIC: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries?
Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy. Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.
And then there's this:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
And what do you make of Palin's bizarre non-answer to the Couric's request for her to "Muse vaguely about the Supreme Court and some decisions they've made that you oppose." Palin seemingly couldn't even call to mind the SCOTUS case she had personally spent lots of time actively opposing.
It was over this interview, and particularly, these questions that the Right accused Couric of committing "gotcha" journalism. I ask you, in what alternate universe is this gotcha journalism? This is Larry King style softball journalism that practically any politician would jump all over.
It's this sort of inability to hold Palin to the same standards of a normal politician - from the left or the right - that makes Palin defenders sound so unreasonable. Instead, she is a perpetual victim. But most people thankfully can see through it.
Rich
I said seeming lack of knowledge because I don't think she is that dumb. She plays it up to appeal to her base. She does the same thing with her sex appeal, and that is my point. Look at how she is complaining about Newsweek running a photo that SHE POSED FOR. (And I can only imagine the reaction from the Right if one of the most prominent most prominent Libs in the country posed with the Flag as a prop).
She posed for the picture for Runner's World Magazine, Rich. Would you have expected her to be wearing a Hillary pantsuit for that?
And you have a problem with a woman using her sex appeal? Didn't know you were such a prude, Rich. I thought folks on your side of the aisle were the open-minded ones. :)
Sheila Jackson-Lee understands the problem with what Newsweek did. I'm betting you do, too. Tell you what: when Newsweek puts, say, I dunno, Mary Landrieu on the cover in a pair of running shorts, then you'll have a point. Or when Newsweek turns over a significant part of a future issue to rip the memoir of a prominent female politician from your side of the aisle, then you'll have a point.
It's this sort of inability to hold Palin to the same standards of a normal politician - from the left or the right - that makes Palin defenders sound so unreasonable.
That's pretty, uh, rich, Rich. That you actually claim that Palin hasn't had to live up to the standards that other politicians has to live up to is simply hilarious. You're right, of course. She's gone through a hell of a lot more scrutiny than just about any other political figure I can think of. Riddle me this: can you name any other politician who's been trashed at every turn the way that Palin has been trashed? Did the Associated Press use 11 people to go through the Obama books, looking for errors or contradictions?
Look at how she is complaining about Newsweek running a photo that SHE POSED FOR
And the photographer who snapped the pic EXCLUSIVELY for Runner's World has his ass in a sling over selling said photo to Newsweek.
Your ignorance is forgiven, Rich!
The Left is pushing strenuously to promote a caricature of Governor Palin as dim-witted, fanatical, hypocritical, etc., because deep down they know she's not those things.
Forget Couric -- watch the interviews she's doing now. Without the shackles of McCain's "handlers," we now are seeing the Sarah Palin we'd hoped to see more of last fall: charming, knowledgable, savvy, and unabashedly conservative.
I don't believe the Left is trying to dimishish her because they've underestimated her, though. On the contrary, I think they understand she is their worst nightmare.
I think I understand the appeal of Palin to the frothing leftists. They can point at someone else and say, "What an idiot!"
They hope that no one pays close attention to President Obama. Do you remember his promise that if the Stimulus Bill was passed quickly then unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%? Oops.
And what about his promises that the health care bill will be deficit neutral? It's a flat-out lie for which we are going to pay dearly.
And how about his limp dithering on Afghanistan?
The point being, we've got a selfish president who, for the sake of his radical agenda, is stifling economic recovery and throwing people out of work. We've got a foolish president who is only too happy to run up record deficits for political gain. We've got a weak president who would rather be popular with tyrants than defend American interests abroad.
Barack Obama is already a proven disaster after less than a year at the helm. But liberals make a fuss about Palin because they would hate for anyone to notice what happens when they are given power.
Didn't know about that part, Brad. I suspect the photographer will have to fork over money and more as a result of that move.
Dan, yes. She is doing better now. Not surprising for a number of reasons.
WBP, that's all true, too. It didn't hurt the President to have at least part of the nation's eyes diverted from the cavalcade of folly that's going on in Washington right now. "Limp dithering" is a nice turn of phrase, too.
during the kerry-edwards campaign, kerry's daughter was photographed at the cannes film festival wearing a see through, not sheer, but misquito net see thru blouse, no bra, breastages and nippers on full playboy style display, for all to see.
where was the criticism in the press about what his kids were up to?
where were the letterman slut jokes?
surely, those would be at least as fitting,no?
but sarah's daughter having a baby is scandal,right?
sarah welcoming a retard baby is fodder for daily kos,and huffpo right?
its all fair,aint it...
compassion and values lived in life instead of a political throw away line.
double standard?
what sarah has shown to liberals is their own hypocrasy. they hate her, becuase when they look in the mirror, they see somebody who can never be like her.
she loves her baby. she's independant minded. and she's The Thing without having to ride a man's shoulders to get there.
i think the coverage and hate toward sarah when paired with the fawning admiration of obama has shown us the soul of the left.
and its not a soul necessarily cloaked in white.
Hey, I am a Palin fan. I think she is great.
Limp dithering...If only Obama would be a man and say "Bring it on." That is what we need more of. A Decisive leader who isn't afraid do some manly posturing with calls to ambush American troops in the field. Maybe Obama should declare Mission Accomplished on Afghanistan.
And if we want to go back and review some numbers really botched numbers, how about this one: Less than 50 Billion dollars...that is the amount the Bush administration said the Iraq fiasco would cost. But they did qualify that by noting that the cost would be defrayed by all of the countries involved sharing that burden. So it wouldn't actually cost us anything close to that. They were only off exponentially, but who is counting.
Bring it on indeed.
Rich
I really don't think you want to talk about budget numbers, Rich.
Weak.
Mark,
I will be glad to talk about budget numbers.
Picklesworth,
I am failing to wither under the strength of your awesome rebuttal. Wow, how much thought and effort did that take. Do you care to elaborate? Or do you want to continue to parrot the talking points of Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney. A man who ignored Afghanistan for 7 years and now criticizes the President for taking a few months to make one of the most important decisions of his presidency. If only Bush and Cheney had dithered on a few things, like Iraq and torture, we wouldn't be facing half the problems we are now, especially on the budget. Because Iraq was deficit neutral, and oh so important.
Seems to me that taking the time to make the proper decisions over really critical issues like war used to be a hallmark of Conservatism. What the hell happened to you guys?
Regards,
Rich
So are you saying that Obama is doing a good job? Or are you just saying that Bush and Cheney did a lousy job? Because when you pull out the old 'chickenhawk' and 'rush to war' chestnuts it makes it sound like you are doing the latter. Do you actually think that Obama is governing well?
Too many assertions to counter right now, but let's just look at one:
Seems to me that taking the time to make the proper decisions over really critical issues like war used to be a hallmark of Conservatism. What the hell happened to you guys?
Just as a quick reminder of the timeline:
Sept. 2001: The American mainland is successfully attacked, as part of a series of attacks that began all the way back in 1993. The first part of the war begins almost immediately.
2002: War is prosecuted in Afghanistan and Bush administration spends ENTIRE YEAR making the case for, and preparing for, second phas of war in Iraq.
2003: War in Iraq begins.
Yeah, they really rushed into that, didn't they.
Now, here's the difference between the scenarios. The Afghan theater has been ongoing. Obama, like Harry Truman and Richard Nixon before him, is now responsible for prosecuting the war. Truman made tough but ultimately correct decisions, Nixon made good and bad decisions. They did decide, though. Obama hasn't, even though the chain of command is fairly begging for a response and direction.
Yes, you have to take your time to decide what do on a strategic basis. But you also have to make ongoing, day-to-day managerial decisions. And I know you understand the distinction. Obama is being asked to make a managerial decision. And it really can't wait much longer.
He wanted the damned job. You and many other people wanted him to have it. We're seeing the results now. And despite what Hillary Clinton thinks, you don't get to do a "reset" button in this job.
What I am saying is that taking the time to work out a strategy, and not just tactics, and confirming the underlying facts used to support the final recommendations and decisions is a strength, not a weakness. And, yes, I do think the President is doing a good job. He inherited a shit storm and it is going to take a while to dig out of that. But so far, I think that is what we are doing. The recession appears to be over, and Bush and Obama together managed to stop the complete melt down of financial markets that was taking place at this time last year. Was everything that was done in the heat of crises a slam dunk? Hardly. But we do seem to have averted the worst case scenario that appeared to be very possible at this time last year. If I remember correctly, Ronald Reagan didn't snap his fingers and end the recession he inherited in 1980 in 10 months. It took time and deficit spending. So all of the arm chair quarterbacking and new found criticism of deficit spending that so many on the Right are suddenly so concerned about is falling on deaf ears here. We are looking at moderate growth in this quarter and for next year. Yes, banks are still reluctant to lend, and the job market will recover slowly, but we are on an upward trajectory. This was a severe structural recession, households are going to remain cautious about spending, which is a long-term good thing because it means Americans are actually saving money, which is something that we weren't doing a year ago (we actually collectively had a negative savings rate 12 months ago.) and the recovery will be more L-shaped than V-shaped, but it is a recovery.
And Mark, the Bush admin made the decision to go to war in Iraq, and had averted their eyes from Afghanistan long before we actually went to war in Iraq. On 9/11, Rumsfeld was breathlessly pounding the table in the War Room at the WH saying he now had his cassus belli for attacking Iraq. Talk about your foregone conclusions.
Rich
What I am saying is that taking the time to work out a strategy, and not just tactics, and confirming the underlying facts used to support the final recommendations and decisions is a strength, not a weakness.
Not in this case. The real issue is that the Afghan people don't have any idea if America will have their back or not. That's the primary reason the Taliban is gaining strength; the people who would be at the business end of their wrath are making a separate peace with the Taliban because they know the Taliban aren't going away. They don't know what Obama is going to do.
Obama has to make a decision one way or another to arrest this process. Either we're in and we fight to win, or we need to start the process of getting out. That is why we are complaining about his dithering. Everyone prefers to think about long-term strategy, but you still have to manage the situation as it is right now. McChrystal gave Obama a plan for that months ago. Obama has to make a decision for what is happening right now. He can then look at the longer term strategic implications. But right now no one knows what to do. And that is unacceptable. And it's going to bite him in the ass.
The whole "snap his fingers" thing is a straw man. No one expected him to "make it all better." Well, I didn't at least. And I was willing to give him some room for maneuvering because it was a really tough situation, no doubt about it.
But the deficit spending seemed less about spurring the economy or even establishing stability and more about political handouts. The ensuing failure to actually create (or save!) many (any?) jobs speaks to how poorly this was done. Or rather, it speaks to how it wasn't actually designed with that end in mind. When you combine that with the attempt to bullshit people with phony numbers from phony congressional districts, then it just starts to smell like politics, not an honest attempt to do what's right. I think all the folks who are out of work have a right to be angry about that. Not so much because Obama hasn't created jobs as because his avowed goal was to do so, he spent an enormous amount of money to do so, and he has, instead, impeded the creation of actual jobs.
The economy is going to recover sooner or later, but the evidence so far is that it is doing so in spite of Obama's actions, not because of them.
and the left always brings up 'bush torture' like its one word and it means something.
maybe it should...
but i also think, from a catholic prolife perspective, obama infanticide should be one word.
and far more important a concern for a self professed prolife catholic.
rich: we've had this one before. every time you bring up bush torture, i will remind you about obama infanticide.
i may not be a perfect soul, but at least i can tell the difference between creating discomfort to a criminal mind and ... well... i think you understand the substance of the other.
enjoy your Eucharist.
Holy Crap! 30 comments on this. I haven't even read them yet, but I'm rolling up my sleeves...
Preemptively, I will say: "Palin. Blech."
Mr. D - And you have a problem with a woman using her sex appeal?
Sheila Jackson-Lee understands the problem with what Newsweek did. I'm betting you do, too. Tell you what: when Newsweek puts, say, I dunno, Mary Landrieu on the cover in a pair of running shorts, then you'll have a point. Or when Newsweek turns over a significant part of a future issue to rip the memoir of a prominent female politician from your side of the aisle, then you'll have a point.
It sounds like you are defending Palin for capitalizing on her sexuality, and then criticizing others for doing the same. I don't understand the problem with Newsweek's use of the cover. (Because her whole existence is sexist.) And as far as Newsweek dedicating a ton of space to Palin - that's just money talking. If there were currently a 'Democrat Palin,' publications would be just as likely to try to make money off of that person's illustriousness.
The fact is - there *wouldn't* be a Democrat version of a Palin. What would that person even be made of? The Feminists wouldn't get behind a woman like that, so I imagine he would have to be a man. But men aren't trained to manipulate others with their sexuality - so there couldn't be a Male Palin, either. Really, if you can imagine what her equivalent on the Left would be, I'm interested in hearing about it.
(Politician trashed as much as Palin - G.W. Bush comes to mind.)
Also, just to state for the benefit of this comment thread, until someone can present proof that 11 or more AP peeps weren't assigned to fact-check Obama's bio, this speculation that it didn't take place doesn't mean anything.
(Blogger is making me break up my comments.)
Brad - It sounds like they're asking about it, but not to extent that anyone's ass is in a sling. They're all shuffling around and saying "I don't know." (Not that I think you're so wrong; I just particularly hate news articles that aren't actually news yet.)
Dan - How did McCain's campaign handlers prevent Palin from articulating her views? The woman couldn't even name a media publication. She could have said the name of ANY publication - no one would have been the wiser!
WBP - But liberals make a fuss about Palin because they would hate for anyone to notice what happens when they are given power.
That statement doesn't strike me as logical. People on the Left don't agree with you that, well, I will sum it up with "everything Obama is doing sucks." So why would they be afraid that people would notice the bad job that they don't think he is doing?
Gino - Ironically, the points you bring up to demonstrate hypocrisy of the Left exactly demonstrate the hypocrisy of Palin and Palin supporters. Kerry's daughter was a 31-year old woman, who is allowed to dress however she wants. The media MUST have made mention of it, because you know about it, but how could there have been any story? (Other than "hey, this happened.") Kerry's grown daughter dressing how she wants says nothing about Kerry's policies as a politician.
Letterman's jokes WERE out of line, the media DID call him out, and he apologized, as he should have. (Obvs, he never should have made the jokes in the first place.)
Palin's daughter having a child isn't a scandal. But it's a demonstration in Palin's OWN HOME that only teaching your kids about abstinence - which is part of her unwavering agenda - DOES NOT WORK. And sex education is an important issue in our country. Not comparable at all to how Kerry's adult daughter dresses. Further, Palin is the one who used her baby for a publicity stunt in a Wal-Mart. She brought her baby out so the media would talk about her baby being there. Or else the baby wouldn't have been there.
(I'm sorry, but saying that Liberals want to be like Sarah Palin is pretty outrageous.)
The biggest thing though is what you say about not having to ride a man's shoulders to succeed. What do you think using your sex appeal to get ahead is all about?
_____
Finally, the Palin stuff is already making this comment too long, so I'm not even getting into the Obama/Bush War discussion. I just wanted to comment on Gino's mention of abortion.
We DON'T live in a theocracy. The Catholic Church (along with every other religious organization) has no business lobbying for ANYTHING in public policy; individual Catholics would be much better-served worrying about their *own* souls - only. Seriously.
Amanda,
Talk about making up for lost time! You made a comment just at the end that I don't want to leave unchallenged,
"We DON'T live in a theocracy. The Catholic Church (along with every other religious organization) has no business lobbying for ANYTHING in public policy."
Now there's some wiggle room, depending on what you mean exactly, but you seem to be saying (or maybe I'm just understanding) that religious organizations must avoid public policy in our form of government. Where in the world do you get that from? The Constitution prevents the establishment of a state church, it doesn't prevent the church from talking in public. I'll grant that it isn't always wise for it to do so (my own church regularly makes an ass of itself when it pipes up), but it certainly has the right.
It sounds like you are defending Palin for capitalizing on her sexuality, and then criticizing others for doing the same. I don't understand the problem with Newsweek's use of the cover. (Because her whole existence is sexist.) And as far as Newsweek dedicating a ton of space to Palin - that's just money talking. If there were currently a 'Democrat Palin,' publications would be just as likely to try to make money off of that person's illustriousness.
No, what I'm saying, and what Sheila Jackson-Lee said, is this: if you're looking at Palin the politician, why didn't Newsweek depict her on the cover with a picture of her in what would be more typical political garb? I'm betting there are pictures of Mary Landrieu, or Blanche Lincoln, or Kathleen Sebelius, wearing more casual clothes. But you'll never see them published on the cover of a national magazine.
The fact is - there *wouldn't* be a Democrat version of a Palin.
But there is. And he's sitting in the White House now. You just don't see it.
What would that person even be made of? The Feminists wouldn't get behind a woman like that, so I imagine he would have to be a man.
Yep. I just conceded your point.
But men aren't trained to manipulate others with their sexuality - so there couldn't be a Male Palin, either. Really, if you can imagine what her equivalent on the Left would be, I'm interested in hearing about it.
Men don't manipulate with their sexuality? Really? So Brad Pitt is just playing chess or something? Or Bill Clinton, for that matter?
"We DON'T live in a theocracy. The Catholic Church (along with every other religious organization) has no business lobbying for ANYTHING in public policy"
amanda: the abolitionist and civil rights rights movemnets were all led by churches, and their congregations.
do you oppose these, as well?
but more to my point: as a catholic, i do not lose my right to free speech. or do i?
and since you dont think i should be bringing my values into the arena, maybe i shouldnt have to pay income taxes as well?
"did you see the word-salad of a speech she gave when she resigned?"
Mark, ummm, I, ahhh, understand that, ummmm, that can happen, aahhhh, to some of the most, errrrr, ahhhh, silver-tongued snake-oil salesmen when, ummmmm, ahhhh, they, ahhhh, don't have their, ummmm, errrr, teleprompter.
"until someone can present proof that 11 or more AP peeps weren't assigned to fact-check Obama's bio,"
FAIL. As far as you know there wasn't even one person from the AP to fact-check anything about your Obamassiah.
....
"We DON'T live in a theocracy."
At what point should the government protect human life?
http://stark-raving-sane-dont-go-in.blogspot.com/2009/11/human-life.html
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee said. "What is the necessity of highlighting that picture among the thousands that have been taken of her?"
Such a simple question yet the Obama supporters can't seem to find the intestinal fortitude to answer.
Like I said, it proves your point big time, Mr. D.
Post a Comment