Sarah Vain and Simple

[Tele-Cat]

You can take the girl out of the trailer park but...

[reddart]

Man, you sure have a hard-on for Sarah...

But whatever floats yer boat, I guess.

Carry on.

[Mark Hammer]

There comes a point where provoking "political debate" starts to turn into trolling. I appreciate your sentiment, but maybe you should give it a rest. Just a thought.

[Phostenix]

I've often wondered why people on the political left are so angered by SP. If she's so vapid & clueless, what's the big threat?

[Bill Moore]

I heard that you get a free tinfoil hat when you donate to the huffpo, do they come in different colors tele-?

[Mark Hammer]

The state of popular "journalism" in the blogosphere is such that it tends to be self-congratulatory, regardless of political stripe. Those 3 airheads who host the morning show on Fox simply agree with each other no matter what, and any attempt to challenge the other would seem out of keeping. Likewise, the Huffington Post is irritatingly self-satisfied.

The result is that you have one "side" who thinks that Sarah Palin is the greatest thing since sliced bread and decline to challenge each other on any potential weaknesses, and the other "side" whose ire is aroused by the solidarity of their opponents. Fundamentally, they each want to rub the "errors" of their opponents' ways in their opponents noses, without ever acknowledging that they are responding not to the issue or person under discussion, but rather to the self-congratulatory attitude of their opponents. Smugness begets smugness, and on and on it goes.

As McLuhan (whom I was fortunate enough to meet and chat with when I was 15) noted, at a certain point the medium becomes the message. For folks on "the left" the message seems to come from the gushing that appears to wallpaper the landscape, and which says to them (or is perceived by them as saying) "You guys are absolute idiots for not acknowledging the brilliance and importance of this person". For the right, the unanimity one sees in places like the HP conveys the message "You guys are absolute idiots for even thinking there was anything of substance to this person."

Oh, Mr. Cronkite, why did you leave us without a suitable replacement?

[Phostenix]

That still doesn't answer the question of why she, in particular, has generated so much vitriol. Why such a concerted effort to discredit & demean her? Do they really think she's going to be elected president? Are her ideas so much more dangerous than other Republican candidates that she must be stopped at all cost?

[Bill Moore]

That is the eternal question!
I think that horse was beat to death in another thread, no one changed my opinion, and I don't think I changed anyone else's.

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I think that horse was beat to death in another thread, no one changed my opinion, and I don't think I changed anyone else's.

WHAT?! An internet political discussion that didn't change anyone's mind?! Shocking!

[Mark Hammer]

There is probably some truth value to the perspective that she generates the vitriol because she is a she. Geraldine Ferraro generated the same degree of controversy. Remember that when one runs for public office, the public judgment is about whether one is "good enough'". And in the case of female candidates, "good enough" brings a number of assumptions with it that would not apply to male candidates in many instances.

That being said, I never found anything substantive enough in the woman. As for the grumbling that her book is instigating, I should think that ANY "sidekick candidate" ends up getting the short end of the stick from campaign strategists who conceive of themselves as working for the principle candidate, and not for "the package". Her claims and dissatisfaction about the manner in which she was treated during the campaign may have every iota of legitimacy she claims. But still, there was never anything about her that made me think "Well, I may not agree with her politics, and she may not get a chance to strut it in the shadows of the main candidate, but underneath is a real contender and someone who is sharper than they are creditted for." Not once. I waited, but it never happened, and at some point the "media bias" hypothesis gets leaky and ceases to hold water. Sharp people with their finger on the pulse of things usually make themselves known under even the most adverse of circumstances. I heard all manner of politicians whose party I loathed be interviewed, and I came away thinking "Geez, I wish they were on our side." Never had that feeling with her. And it's not the views or stance she took/takes, but rather the way she analyses the issues. It never gets beyond shallow. Still, the endless ridicule was simply unwarranted. Now Dan Quayle,THAT was warranted! As was Mike Dukakis.

[Phostenix]

You say tomato, I say potatoe.

[Howlin' Mad Mac]

Can anyone tell me why today's GOP feels so compelled to go extreme right & the DNC extreme left when most people I know are more center? Like him or not Bill Clinton was a good president IMHO due to his ability to bridge the gap. Today's popular dems all seem to be nothing more than a bunch of media-pandering ding-a-lings. Take Nancy Pelosi for example... anyone else get the feeling that somewhere in SoCal there's a minivan in search of it's soccer mom?

[Bill Moore]

Most of the country is center-right leaning, and most folks in a recent poll considered themselves conservative. The problem is our legislators forget who "brung 'em to the dance". I don't know what's in the air in DC, but after a few years there, even good conservatives,(R or D), start thinking we sent them there to spend money.
In 1993, Clinton and the dems were acting just like Obama and the dems today, spending money like a sailor on shore leave. But they got too cocky, and tried to take our guns, the bills they got passed were to be the first step for complete bans. In 1994 the voters threw out a lot of otherwise good people, and the republicans got us back on course, even made Clinton balance the budget. After we got a republican in the WH, the congress started throwing money away again, and the voters started voting for the conservative sounding candidates the dems were running.
Here we've come full circle, the dems are completley in control, and once again we find the conservative sounding dems aren't, and they're spending money as fast as they can print it.
Obama and crew know not to attempt legislation to take our guns, but think they will get it done through treaties, and the UN. Meanwhile, they attempt a complete takeover of the economy, thinking beholden people will keep them in power, I think most voters are smarter than that.

[Mark Hammer]

I admire your conviction, Bill, but it flies in the face of reality. Are there a lot of folks who view the federal government as pissing away money? Sure That's what EVERY taxpayer thinks, no matter what country they live in and no matter what government is in power. Hell, I work in a federal government, understand completely how money gets spent, and *I* grumble about how it gets pissed away. Very few people enjoy paying taxes, and virtually all complain about how they are spent. Tell me what else is new. Does that make them either fiscally or socially "conservative"? I don't think so. Yes, a great many ARE, but then there is an equal number that are not conservative so much as libertarian (there's where your gun lobby tends to come from most, I think), and yet another contingent whose chief complaint about how Washington spends taxes is mostly about it being spent on the wrong things. They too feel that DC spends money like a drunken sailor, even though you might feel that they represent "the problem".

Are there folks who feel that the government spends too much time and effort meddling in their lives? Absolutely. But those same people turn around, and when something bugs them they are the first ones to proclaim "There oughta be a law against..." or "Why aren't they doing anything about...?". I see very few fiscal or social conservatives declaring that Border Protection Services is spending way too much money along the Mexico border, or circulating petitions that the government should just keep its nose out child labour issues and let the market forces prevail. I'm not suggesting that conservatives are hypocrites. Rather, just about all sides complain about the same things: laws and policies that they perceive as personally burdensome, and expenditures that they see no personal benefit from (like those folks who think they should not have to pay taxes to support school because they have no children, or not pay taxes to support a military because they are pacifists). The differences are very often simply in how they brand themselves politically, or what affiliation seems personally meaningful to them, and not in the general approach they adopt.

I'm not one of those who will scream about GWB "stealing" the election from Gore, but the facts are that if so many people in the USA are fiscally and socially conservative, it seems odd that it took so much finagling for him to get elected by a ridiculously slim margin in 2000, yet Obama won by a very comfortable margin with no finagling at all in 2008. They may not be the overwhelming majority, but the constituency to whom Obama's message appealed are not some little fringe element holed up in Vermont in a shed behind the Ben and Jerry's facility. They are far more numerous than you imply.

As for federal and state spending, I think we can probably agree that when the public debate ought to be about competing plans for how something can be effectively accomplished with the greatest impact and greatest good, the axis of discourse is generally how many zeroes are attached to the budget line item announced or proposed. Far too many voters seem content to not demand a concrete itemized plan from officials. What they seem placated by is how much money is promised for some cause dear to them. Poor folks and advocacy groups just want to know that XX millions have been promised for social housing without having any idea of whether there will be value or impact for money or a clear plan in place about how such housing is to be allocated. Other folks are contented by the announcement that XX billions are being spent to provide "our men and women overseas" with the best and latest of equipment, without any discussion of whether the mission is actually the wisest and most efficient expenditure of their blood. Voters of EVERY stripe are placated by the superficial, and don't want to fess up to it.

Once again, I am reminded of a remark made by shock comedian Andrew Dice Clay in an old Rolling Stone article I read about him. In response to heckling about a joke that an audience member found too far over the top, Clay responded with "Hey, I don't write these jokes. YOU do.". And he was right. In the case of public officials and the folks who make decisions about how your taxes are spent, quite often they're not the ones who make up bad policies, WE are, because we demand the expedient and superficial, rather than the wise and detailed.

[Mark Hammer]

The low quality of debate is everywhere, not just in Washington. We get it here too in Canada. Just once I'd like to hear legislators, whether in the opposition or governing party say "Well, that's a good and well-intentioned idea the honourable member has, but it fails to accomplish the following mutually shared objectives. Instead, let me propose something that I think will do the job more effectively." I would love to hear these folks duke it out with better ideas; "I see your bright idea, and I'll raise a bit of foresight.". Instead what we get are gotcha moments, blinding displays of big spending, and ad hominum dissings. All sides, and the media as well, have forgotten that the essence of politics is the development of policies, of ideas that address commonly experienced and often enduring problems. Does anybody like poverty? No. Does anybody like war or famine or child abuse or unemp-loyment or disabilities or ignorance or cancer or fragmenting families or mental illness or oppression, whether domestically or in other less fortunate nations? No. What distinguishes political parties is how they think those issues can be effectively addressed and "fixed". It's the ideas that matter, not who got caught with a hooker or how much they spent entertaining a lobbyist or who has aaaaallllllllmost enough seats to take control.

[Diablo]

OK, let's steer this debate back onto fertile ground.
Who's got a nicer set of cans?
Sarah Palin or Nancy Pelosi?.....seriously, check 'em out.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Diablo

OK, let's steer this debate back onto fertile ground.
Who's got a nicer set of cans?
Sarah Palin or Nancy Pelosi?.....seriously, check 'em out.

Dude, you're crazy! LOL!

[casey73]

Originally Posted by Tele-Cat

You can take the girl out of the trailer park but...

Do you have any original thoughts or is your entire life cut and paste?

I apologize to the others here in advance for stooping to your level, but you are a shining example of why incest is illegal and why people who's IQ is the same as the number of teeth they have should not be allowed to vote. Your insipid contributions here add nothing to the conversation. But they do tell me we have a long way to go when it comes to adult literacy in this country.

[Mark Hammer]

Apology accepted. Post that follows, less so.

It IS reasonable to draw attention to other sites when an article strikes one as worth reading. At that point, those who take the time to read the article can then express their disappointment at what they were directed to spend their time on.

One of the things I learned while writing my dissertation was that often in life, there are turns of phrase that give you a private tickle, and despite how much you just want to use them, now is not the time. I hate knowing that, but its true. Nuff said. Carry on.

[Phostenix]

This is classic. I love the look on Shattner's face.

The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien - Shatner Gets Served By Palin (12/11/09) - Video - NBC.com

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Phostenix

This is classic. I love the look on Shattner's face.

The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien - Shatner Gets Served By Palin (12/11/09) - Video - NBC.com

Hah! That's pretty good. Good for her, she comes across as extremely likable, except I suppose to the ideologue whose ideologies are opposite of hers.