Want a laugh or two? Then go here and read the post and its 28 or so comments. I'm thinkin' the Palinistas give Firedoglake and Kos a run for their money when it comes to unswerving and largely unthinking dedication/worship to/of their heroine. YMMV, of course, but I simply don't get the fascination with Mrs. Palin.
Don't misunderstand me: I like the woman and I like what she's doin' at the moment; absolutely NO ONE is better at getting under the skin of the right people. She pisses off lefties like no one else I've seen since Reagan left office, including Dubya. And good on her for doin' that... it's an admirable thing. But President Palin? Mebbe someday... after considerable study and immersion in foreign policy issues, just to name ONE area... but not NOW.
"Mebbe someday..."
ReplyDeleteI think it's probably a good thing she doesn't have big feet. My feeling is that she needs a lot of schooling about specifics.
I'm with you Buck - I like her and how she pushes all the right buttons.
ReplyDeleteBut President? No. She can be far more valuable to the party behind the scenes.
I'm with you and Kris. Heck, I can do what she does, but I don't look as good. And I'm smart enough to know I should not be President.
ReplyDeletePalin makes a lot of white noise and as a result garners a lot of attention. In this media run day and age in America that counts for something. I used to dislike her for her moral stance on some issues which was basically all I knew about her but have since then completely changed my mind about that issue. I just don't think moral positions should play the keenest role in politics these days. The economy should.
ReplyDeleteWhy should Lady Thatcher have any interest in meeting Palin does anyone know? Even if the Iron Lady were not in poor health, what would be the point or purpose of any such encounter? Palin hasn’t laid out any clear stickable policies with regard to her own ethos which has been largely chalked up as small government, neither does she have a clear world view. Margret Thatcher was a great woman who had devoted her entire lifetime to the service of her people even before she was elected & more than fulfilled the requirements of the position that she held in our government. Sarah Palin has simply been lifted up by America’s mighty slick media machine almost as fodder it seems at times, this machine offers the illusion that a person would be great for any particular office and that same machine installed Obama. It’s time to demand more of your representatives, surely.
The best summary I read yesterday was as below. Palin isn’t stupid or evil or all the nonsense spouted about her but she lacks substance, deep critique, economic savvy, facts and the ability to win people round in an age when most people are bricking it about how we all carve up the future from what’s been inherited economically and internationally. (If anyone is truly deeply stupid by the way it is that Weiner fellow).
"By the time Thatcher was elected, she'd enjoyed a 20-year parliamentary career. Her clearly expressed views — clearly expressed, I stress — about every crisis, problem and debate of concern to Britain were a matter of public record. Palin has neither said nor written a line so far that would allow anyone reasonably to conclude that her opinions about economic and foreign policy are as cogent and informed as Thatcher's. No one (not me, anyway) can argue with her conservative instincts, but to compare her ability to express them with Thatcher's would be ludicrous."
I enjoyed reading your debate Buck. Morgan, who never has anything particularly good to say about my country I don’t think (I don’t understand why), is certainly a keen debater (we locked horns over healthcare and he kindly re posted my “knicker” piece once!) but my own take on all this is that this isn’t truly madly deeply about Palin. It’s about Obama. And I can understand why people are bricking it on that score.
In the end what both our countries need is in fact.. a Margaret Thatcher. Limited government, solid protestant work ethic, grounded principles, a huge intellect and the ability to make mince meat out of both her political opponents and journalists - using facts. The only statesman I can think of who has come close to this on th einternational stage of late is Tony Blair and he bloody well batted for the other side even though deep down the man was his father's son - a Tory.
The only problem I have is the media has gushed on and on about how supposedly stupid she is, and people seem to echo what the media says. Any of us readers will be found wanting on the intelligence front if we were bombarded every day with questions from a vicious media.
ReplyDeleteCould you imagine if our President was required to pop up answers to a hostile media? Nevah hoppin.
I agree with the Buck about political maturity, but really, who is really ready for the big job?
The real problem is (to use a school yard analogy) that the media and the Left cannot stand that the red hot cheerleader does not want to hang out with them. She'd rather hang out with the unpopular kids...
I see Sarah Palin as an amazing woman who takes all the abuse that the media and the liberals (as well as some in our own party) dish out and refuses to let it affect her love for this country, her enthusiasm, her ideas which I agree with pretty much 100%, and her passionate defense of her beliefs. I don't see another possible nominee out there with her stamina and her commitment to her values. She is one tough woman and she doesn't back down to all her critics and I think our party and our country needs moral toughness right now. (Note: we do not have another candidate out there who makes the impact that she does. Are we willing to settle for a wimp as our candidate? I'm not.)
ReplyDeleteWould I vote for her for president? In a heartbeat. She would be 1000 times better than what we have in the White House at present. I am not sure why so many people have been convinced by the media that she is stupid; I see her as just the opposite: smart and savvy.
My only concern is -- why would anyone want to be president of this country and face being attacked and ridiculed day after day? She would be crazy to run for the job when she already serves an important role as what I consider the head of our party.
Go Sarah. You rock.
Morgan, who never has anything particularly good to say about my country I don’t think (I don’t understand why), is certainly a keen debater (we locked horns over healthcare and he kindly re posted my “knicker” piece once!)...
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, I have met many wonderful, highly gifted, highly intelligent and downright friendly people from your country Alison, and I have a vast abundance of positive things I can say about it. I've scribbled at length about the virtues of the James Bond franchise and how much Western civilization owes to it, and in my opinion our nation owes yours the same gratitude any child owes a parent. Many's the time I've felt bad that what emerges in my pages is a study in the contrasts of how people think...that has a lot to do with my blog's whole reason for existence, although it isn't what I'm all about. What we end up studying is: A lot of the things that become controversial over here, and endlessly so sometimes, just completely baffles and bewilders people from over there, to whom it should be a case of -- the solution's obvious, we're done talking. There is clearly a cultural difference in how people look at things and how people think about things...I'm clearly biased toward one side. But no, there are lots of countries on the planet I consider to be wastes of acreage, and yours is not one.
It comes down to, our country was founded on a tax revolt, and yours was founded on the Domesday Book which is the polar opposite of a tax revolt. So we think differently. Some of the headlines that come out of your side just completely stupefy me. I'd like to see there's nothing on the Yankee side that compares...I'd like to say that...but, in the end, can I say such a thing? No.
My feeling is that she needs a lot of schooling about specifics.
ReplyDeleteWe're in the same boat, Skip.
Kris: Yup... on both counts.
Lou: You look EVERY bit as good as Mrs. Palin.
Why should Lady Thatcher have any interest in meeting Palin does anyone know? Even if the Iron Lady were not in poor health, what would be the point or purpose of any such encounter?
There's nothing in such a meeting for Lady Thatcher, Alison, beyond a dubious association with a run-of-the-mill American politician/celebrity. I think Mrs. Thatcher did the right thing in refusing the meeting if that's what happened. I trust the media about as far as I can throw any editor or reporter.
But, speaking of the media, thanks for that quote. I wholeheartedly agree and I also agree that what we and you need is a second coming of Lady Thatcher. Or Reagan. But we'll get neither, so we'll just muddle through. "Interesting times."
I agree with the Buck about political maturity, but really, who is really ready for the big job?
I don't think anyone is really ever ready to be president, but there ARE certain litmus tests. We elected our last president while ignoring the lack of specific accomplishment and a temperament suitable for the job, largely choosing him on emotional appeal... I'd hate to see us repeat that blunder with someone from the other side.
Sharon: We shall agree to disagree.
Regarding Ms. Palin, I see the link you sent went back to subscription-only at the WSJ. But not before I could become mighty unsettled about the following passage, and perhaps you can clear something up for me:
ReplyDelete[P]rior to getting tapped in 2008, Mrs. Palin’s reputation was as a clear-eyed, inclusive reformer—one with soaring bipartisan approval ratings. Instead, Mrs. Palin has chosen to cater mostly to her loyalist base.
One of many generalities about which the Palinophobes seem to absolutely dig in their heels and refuse to release any specifics:
What, exactly, is this "loyalist base"? Is that people who somehow think a global carbon tax might not be called-for to keep the planet from burning out? People who think politicians shouldn't be forcing the flyover riff-raff to send their kids to crappy failing public schools, and then send their own precious offspring to Sidwell?
I could go down through a very long list just inventing things Ms. Strassel might have meant by this...I could make it quite unflattering to her...and maybe that would be unfair. But it seems to me, if you're of a common mind with her and see some productive angle toward which Strassel might be headed, you should have some understanding of what she means.
Speaking for myself, if I'm a "loyalist base" for one reason above all others, I'm sick to death of the Obama worldwide apology tour. You and I probably don't have a disagreement there, which might mean you're part of the loyalist base too. You probably agree with me, further, that it takes one hell of a lot more than thinking highly of your country, and being grateful for having been born into it, to be a fringe-kooky right-wing nutjob.
I don't think I'm running off on a bunny trail here, by the way. ALL of Ms. Strassel's point seems to be based on this -- Palin hasn't compromised with some undefined force as much as Strassel seems to think she should've. It's only fair to inquire as to who makes up this force.
In which case I apologise Morgan I think I mixed you up with somebody else. Our print media here is pretty good generally. The Guardian for all it's marxist credentials only has a readership the size of Hampstead so I don't care too much about them. The BBC is the politburo par excellence unfortunately. Tough one though because other than news programming everything else they produce is superb. What I found astonishing about the last decade was just how bat shit crazy they went over the Iraq war and I chalk that up (working as I do for News International) to one Michael Moore. I mentioned him in my post last night but he truly is fully responsible for sending journos over the edge. And quite why they all love Obama is beyond me. I find less of that nonsense in the Telegraph and I highly recommend their blogging staff. In particular Ed West, James Delingpole and a slew of others. Blogging certainly put the print media on the back foot so they tend to be more balanced and nuanced these days.
ReplyDeleteI get to spend a lot of time with my US colleagues, all Democrats and Im surprised at just how fearsomely they loathe Republicans. If these people were stupid kids I would get the dumbness but invariably they are adults. My boss for one. On her Facebook page recently she 'liked' a comment by someone who decided that all Tea Party members were insane racist murderers and that Palin was one of them. When I angrily replied that I thought that was bullshit she emailed me to explain how "wrong" I was. Wacky. But I won't get involved anymore as it's not worth risking my job over since I'm not American.
You probably made the right choice. It stinks like rotten meat, but the conventional wisdom of not arguing about politics at work, if it wasn't true before it certainly is true now...
ReplyDeleteProgs seem to instinctively understand that a careful and reasoned deliberation of the facts will end up painting them into the corner, and sooner or later there is an attempt to depart from it. They'll go back to some hackneyed trope about the conservatives are inferior people...it'll always be some variant of that, each and every single time. Thick, stupid, can't deal with "facts" like evolution for example, prejudiced, bigoted, strident and shrill, have our minds made up and aren't open to new evidence.
Not what you want work colleagues to be saying about you, even if they don't believe it and are only deploying it as a tactic.
Regarding mixing my name up with someone else -- I doubt it. I'm very quick to write about it when your government is observed taking an inappropriate, or rather un-American, relationship with its "subjects" and I've said several times that this story or that story makes me want to travel to Boston and throw crates of tea in the harbor all over again. I'd hate for people to take such comments and infer from them that I have something against the people; I've often thought I don't say enough to highlight that distinction. I should try harder in the future, I think.
On the press over there taking a more even keel because of the blogging -- you've got that one on us. We're still waiting for it to happen here.
Oh and Buck, on the 28 comments: I honestly don't know. I seem to recall 63 somewhere but I don't know where...and to generate a list it seems I would need to export to XML and then do -- something.
ReplyDeleteThe lady sure does get people to talking. Not everything they say makes sense, but everyone does seem excited about whatever it is they're saying. Not so unqualified after all, perhaps.
...perhaps you can clear something up for me... What, exactly, is this "loyalist base"?
ReplyDeleteMuch to the chagrin of most every woman I've been in a relationship with, I'm neither mind-reader nor psychic so I can't tell ya what Ms. Strossel meant by that. But I can tell ya what I think: La Palin has devoted precious little effort to swaying the so-called "independents," catering instead to that "loyalist base," of which you and the majority of your commenters (if not readers) are part. Not that there's anything wrong with having a loyalist base, that's what politics is all about, innit?
As afr as those independents go, Palin's negatives remain at an all-time high and one would think a politico with all the wit, charm, and intelligence ascribed to her by folks like you and your commenters at HoE would try and DO something about that, no? I'm part of that crowd that believes you cannot win a presidential contest without the independents, and I count myself in that so-called demographic. Yer Girl remains the most divisive (non)candidate in the GOP field and that's NOT a Good Thing for conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and conservative-leaning independents.
Why should any candidate bother to come up with a solid foreign policy? The current administration can't even find the drawer where its foreign policy is filed.
ReplyDelete2012 is going to be highly entertaining. And frightening.