-
#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl
May 23, 2013 | 94 comments
-
What Did Arianna Huffington Know, and When Did She Know It?
May 15, 2013 | 1 comment
-
IRS Scandal Widens: Marriage Group Says IRS Leaked Information to ‘Political Enemies’
May 13, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Is Ed Markey in Trouble in Massachusetts Senate Race?
May 10, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What Are Terrorists Teaching Your Kids?
May 8, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This morning, reflecting on David Frum’s much-discussed attack on Sarah Palin, I found myself pondering the question, “What is this really all about?” And finally I concluded it’s about Bush:
That born-again, down-to-earth, drawling Texas thing — somehow, it had once made Bush seem like Gary Cooper in High Noon. But as the disasters mounted and the poll numbers headed southward, that Gary Cooper glow faded and these conservative intellectuals turned on their TVs to behold, with unspeakable horror, President Jethro Bodine.
Thus their reaction to Sarah Palin. While the Republican Party grassroots looked at Palin and saw an American Margaret Thatcher (except much sexier), the conservative intellectuals looked at her and saw … Vice President Ellie Mae Clampett.
Shootin’ her some vittles! Takin’ care of young ‘uns. Let’s go a-swimmin’ in the ce-ment pond!
You see? The fear and loathing of Sarah Palin among (some) conservative intellectuals is a subconscious reaction to their belated recognition of Bush’s weaknesses.
There’s more, if you’re interested. In the end, the question becomes, “To whom does the Republican Party belong? To the intellectuals, or to the people?” Perhaps you can guess my allegiance in this proprietary dispute.
View all comments (84) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/01/10/putting-my-finger-on-it
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The (Real) Great Divide
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Dondero | 1.10.09 @ 9:43AM
Nope. You got it all wrong my friend. This is not about Bush. This is all about Sarah Palin being a libertarian Republican.
There's one thing the liberal media/establishment fears more than a conservative; and that's a libertarian.
They know libertarianism has enormous appeal to the electorate. They want the GOP to remain conservative, and not boost the libertarian wing to the drivers' seat.
Consider this:
Sarah Palin's ties to the Libertarian Party of Alaska are quite strong. She attended two LP meetings in 2005/06. She enthusiastically accepted their endorsement for Governor. She publicly thanked the LP for the endorsement in front of over 1,000 people in her victory speech on election night.
Yet, all we ever heard of was of her ties to the Alaska Independence Party.
They know Palin is a libertarian Republican. Thus, they went out of their way to paint her as some sort of "social conservative."
This despite the fact that it was Mayor Palin herself who led the effort to stop the religious right from closing down all the bars and taverns in Wasilla in 1996.
Didn't hear much about that one from the media now did ya? Precisely. Playing up that story would establish her cred as a libertarian, and destroy their template that she's a "rabid hick social conservative evangelical."
It's not that she's like Bush, that they fear. It's that she's like Cato, Reason, the Libertarian Party, and the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 12:09PM
Jimmuh Carter is as smarmy as Milton Drysdale chatting up Jed at the Clampett mansion.
Alexander A.K. Hoggsbuckel IV| 1.10.09 @ 1:24PM
I dare say that Mr. Frum suffers from a marginal resume and a big mouth. Obviously the man was a scribe for President Bush, helped draft some of his more memorable speeches, but how does that credential him to state his public opinion of Gov. Palin as fact? Perhaps it is because Gov. Palin is has more moral fortitude than our dear Mr. Frum.
As to whom the Republican Party belongs, may I suggest who it will not belong to. As a fiscal and social conservative, if it compromises its principles to be anything other than was I represent, I and many more will find a different party.
Newbomb Turk| 1.10.09 @ 1:33PM
I think we need to define the term "intellectuals", or maybe, define what intellectuals actually do- both Right and Left.
To me, it seems that "intellectuals" has become a euphemism for vain social or public policy engineers. I use the term engineer specifically because it always seems like "intellectuals" are trying to build or change society or public policy ponzi initiatives based on wild contraptions that are doomed to failure. These self styled "intellectuals" continually create grand schemes to "save the (insert appropriate voting group)" or "provide security" or "protect the children". The schemes always seem to provide politicians the ability to grab enough votes to stay in power while the money is sloshing around, but when the money wheel stops and the pain begins- they retire to a cushy 6 figure lobbying job.
My 6 year old nephew got 2 jumbo Lincoln Log kits as a present this Christmas. I was watching him and his younger sister as they were building with them on the coffee table in the living room . He was building a huge tower with cantalevered overhangs and windows and doors. My 4 year old niece was complaining because he was taking using all the best logs and she was left with building a simple 4 wall box. My nephew was so proud of his tower design he ran into the other room to grab my brother in law to show him what he built. When he got up and ran to the other room he bumped the corner of the table and his contraption collapsed into a heap of fiddlesticks. Then came the tears.
On the other hand, my niece's simple 4 walls were still standing and suddenly she had lots of materials to expand her simple building with and in a few minutes she went from a 1 room box, to a 4 room box occupied by a pony, a cowboy, and Luke Skywalker.
I thought that was a simple but powerful lesson.
GeneCar| 1.10.09 @ 1:35PM
I was curious that David Frum thinks that Governor Palin's interviews are worse now that she has her own handlers. I watched two interview given by her on Canadian TV. One was mostly about the gas pipeline and other Canadian/Alaska issues, while the other was more general (on CBC's 'The Hour"). I thought both were excellent and that Palin handled the questions very deftly. She also exuded optimism and enthusiasm, both commodities in short supply at the moment. I also find it interesting that Governor Palin was elected Governor and enjoys high favourability ratings (recent Daily Kos poll) in a state with a relatively proportion of registrated Independent voters (43%). Along with Eric's take on her libertarian sympathies, this suggests that she is quite capable of attracting the middle given the right strategy.
Sean| 1.10.09 @ 2:11PM
The biggest problem that Palin had is she teamed up with McCain. Anyone that watched the Republican debates would know that McCain doesn't have a clue about most issues including the economy. A VP candidate doesn't get to state their own views on policy.
Lloyd| 1.10.09 @ 5:51PM
No real conservative is attacking Governor Palin. The Republicans who are allegedly attacking her will attack any real conservative.
By now you realize that my position is that there is a distinction between a conservative and Republican. I'm no Republican; I just tend to vote that way.
Which is more than Senator John McCain can say with complete honesty.
Hence the attacks of McCain supporters on Governor Palin, and Senator McCain's lack of vocal support for her.
Interloper| 1.10.09 @ 6:23PM
If Sarah Palin has any future on the national scene, it is as the diva of a cult of Sarah on the far Right speaking circuit or radio. Her narcissism and lack of interest in issues are so obvious that even people who supported her at her introduction have dropped her like a wormy apple.
Frum's piece is right on point. Listening to Palin whine and lie has no appeal to anyone other than members of her relatively small cult. Everyone else realizes she managed to maneuver her way into positions for which she was not qualified and should be more than satisfied with having gotten away with as much as she has. There's next to no interest in seeing Palin rise higher.
Jason Smee| 1.10.09 @ 6:47PM
Eric, besides all the small government/ low taxes rhetoric, I have trouble identifying Palin as a libertarian. During the debates she wants to blame others for the mortgage mess (libertarians blame the ultimate enabler: the consumer), is way too evangelical, and is proud of her husbands union membership. She comes off way more populist than libertarian.
Second, the real reason I can't stand her is that she is an idiot. While we don't need to nominate Marilyn vos Savant, we need someone that is at least intelligent enough to comprehend and take an interest in the issues (Bobby Jindal is a start) Of course, for sheer entertainment I would love watching a few debates between Pres. Obama and Mrs. Palin.
Finally, what really works me up is she isn't a conservative at all: crying about the lipstick on a pig comment, blaming mortgages on the mortgage brokers, crying that her interviews were unfair, etc... Sarah, there's a place for PC speaking, personal responsibility shirking crybabies, and it's called being a liberal.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 7:10PM
no one can deny Sarah Palin has a future in politics, but please lets not be premature; she has got a long way to go until she is a Thatcher or Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
Conservative means making conservative predictions, not making fatuous predictions.
Fatuous predictions are for futurists saying "a laundromat will open on the Moon in 2097".
Interloper| 1.10.09 @ 7:11PM
"Sarah, there's a place for PC speaking, personal responsibility shirking crybabies, and it's called being a liberal."
No way! The far Right has Sarah Palin and all her assorted baggage. You WILL keep her. You've earned Failin' Palin.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 7:45PM
Failin' Palin?
a failure is someone, say, with no future, not a woman who has definitely got a future; we dont know what her future is, how high she will rise, but she has a good future.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 7:50PM
Jimmuh, not Sarah, is a failure politically (theres nothing wrong with growing peanuts), Carter hasn't run for anything since 1980 save for Smarmeister General.
Ran| 1.10.09 @ 11:51PM
RSM:
The Republican Party belonged to the Media and to liberals.
Our last nomination contest was a farce state-to-state, where liberals and Demos crossed lines to vote-down our better, more conservative candidates. The Media piled-on, supporting our weakest and most easily-defeated. Our "brightest" stars ponced-off notions of mediocre conservatism "that can win again". Voila... (the other) McCain, and six months of concession speeches.
QED.
As for Davy Frum, he has some redeeming conservative tendencies. [Though it has been several years since I last wasted my time reading his work.] Elitists of his ilk have until recently believed that they influence the base - that we look up to them for guidance and advice and clear analysis. They got the candidate of their dreams in McCain. If it had not been for the quirky and inspiring choice of Palin, their defeat would have been even more humiliating.
The effete, elite girlie-boys have had their day. Puntin' some pundits. They're not the heirs of Reagan or Goldwater or Buckley. We are - those of us who hold to conservatism's timeless principles.
If the Republican Party is to become the party of its conservative base, conservatives are going to have to get involved at all levels and mutiny.
All that I might add to Mr. Ferrara's insight is that we probably need to demand closed elections at the local and state level, if that what will neutre the media-liberal assault on our candidates.
As it is, we have the Media and Liberals steering the ship and a lot of little effetes running about thinking they do. That is, until the mutiny.
Ran| 1.11.09 @ 12:04AM
Eric D... Thanks for the data on Sarah's Libertarian leanings. No wonder the girlie-boys can't stand her.
wnwhite| 1.11.09 @ 12:50AM
We are in a dire situation. We have elected an under-qualified liberal to steer our country and economy for the next four years. He enjoys the support of a congress and senate who agree with his most damaging positions and will rush headlong to implement them.
The Obama administration will hand our next President a nation with Socialized medicine, bloated inefficient government, high tax rates, low investment, and weak national defense. A fog of malaise and demoralization will hang over our country. American exceptionalism will be considered an obscenity by the President and the media as being too nationalistic and racist. In recent policy speeches Obama has already assured us that the future will be grim.
After this dark night in our American history we will need a leader who speaks with a confident, optimistic voice, provides a clear vision, and a moral compass. The goals: to reduce the size of government, build a strong defense, pay our debts, lower taxes, end inefficient labor practices, restore credible journalism, and renew a sense of pride in our country. (We may never be able to fix Obama's disastrous health care initiatives).
For the future of this country, I would proudly vote for Sarah Palin as our President.
GeneCar| 1.11.09 @ 6:29AM
Jason Smee: In the VP debate, Palin did in fact lay part of the responsibility for the mortgage mess on the consumer. As I recall, she said something to the effect that people had bought 300,000 dollar houses when they could only afford 100,000 ignoring the advice of their grandmothers about thrift. Governor Palin was the only candidate who did make this point. Watch that part of the debate again.
I am of two minds about whether Palin should have done the interviews with Ziegler or not. Inevitably it will be construed as 'whining'. But she is not dealing here with something wholly personal--the so-called 'politics of personal destruction'. She is dealing with a new phenomena, the 'politics of family destruction'. The tactic of the anti-Palinistas is obvious--make life hell for her family so she will be forced to withdraw from public life. In that case she has every right to hit back.
David Frum's point about the poll that showed that 59% of Americans thought Palin was unready for the Presidency (who is?) is a hard political point. But surely the whole point of Ziegler's investigation is to understand the degree to which opinions are 'manufactured' by media malifeance. If 70/80% of print and television is liberal (don't deny it) and constructs a narrative about a candidate based on assertions that are verifiably false, they then flood the populous with this narrative for two months, then take a poll and--voila--they get their narrative repeated back to them. If this is in any way the case, then the implications are frightening way beyond the fate of Sarah Palin.
Quin Hillyer| 1.11.09 @ 9:20AM
Dammit, Stacey, again you offer a false dichotomy. Frum's analysis was well within bounds. It is not heresy to criticize Sarah Palin. And it is not evidence of snobbery. Every time somebody tries to draw lines in the sand like you do is one more time that the conservative movement is narrowed rather than broadened. There is as much danger in hyper-anti-intellectualism as there is in intellectual snobbery. How about just taking Frum's arguments on their own terms, rather than automatically assigning some nefarious motive to them and by clear and direct extension to everyone else who agrees with him?
Interloper| 1.11.09 @ 11:28AM
It is ludicrous to try to blame Sarah Palin's awful image on the media. The most damning evidence against her is usually her own words (or lack thereof) from interviews. That includes the few interviews she gave during the campaign, and, as Frum observes, her interviews after she was no longer being handled by the McCain campaign, as well. Palin is unable to mask her inadequacies. Indeed, she appears to not even know that she has inadequacies, as glaring as they are.
Palin's core problem is reality. She is an uneducated, information adverse person with, as she put it, 'redneck' roots. She knows next to nothing about the issues that serious people think about. Her personal life is like a particularly bad soap opera, including thefts from the state and McCain/Palin campaign, at least one grandchild born out of wedlock when she is only 44, an semi-in-law who is allegedly a drug pusher, a putative affair she has never denied, etc. Her public life is equally troubling, ranging from her tendency to lie without hesitation, long record of seeking more earmarks than any other politician in similar circumstances, Troopergate, misuse of state funds, appointing friends to positions they are not qualified for, etc. Reality is such that no one needs to make up bad things about Palin.
Robert Stacy McCain and Palin's other supporters see her as an ideal vessel for their far Right views. They would not want an intelligent person with a mind of her own because they could not use such an individual for their own purposes. But, Palin, a natural demagogue, is just what they are looking for.
Thomas| 1.11.09 @ 11:36AM
Mr. Hillyer,
That is exactly the point. The "Conservative" movement needs to be narrowed, not expanded. The reason that the Republican party is in such dire straits is precisely because they have braodened the definition of conservative ideals to the point that they have become meaningless. For God's sake, John McCain billed himself as a conservative and the Party let him.
As for Frum, his statement [quoted above] is either a sarcastic slap at elite Republican snobbery or, if it represents his true feelings, is a prime example of elite Republican snobbery.
I will agree with you that Frum's analysis is within bounds, but so then is Stacey's.
Interloper| 1.11.09 @ 11:44AM
Thomas, if the GOP gets much narrower, you all will be able to meet at Katon Dawson's country club.
Eric Dondero | 1.11.09 @ 12:11PM
Ran, you're welcome. There's much more than that. I've got a whole book full of info on Palin's libertarian ties and leanings on the issues. Amazing that nobody has really checked into her libertarian past.
But then again, everyone has an agenda. Figure:
Conservatives don't want to bring up the fact that she's a libertarian cause, they want to claim her, and hold her up as a social conservative heroine.
Liberals don't want to delve into her libertarian past, cause they prefer her as a social conservative so they can continue to rip her as a "dumb hic."
Libertarian Party people don't want to play up her libertarian past, cause she's competition for the LP. (Though, interestingly enough, this doesn't apply to the LP of Alaska who warmly embraces her, and issued a press release the day after she was picked congratulating her on the VP spot.)
So, who's left? Just libertarian Republicans. We're the only ones who ever bring up her libertarian past.
Eric Dondero | 1.11.09 @ 12:15PM
For all you Palin Haters posting above, both liberal trolls and snobby conservatives who hate real country folk blue collar Republicans, ask yourself this question:
Is there any other Republican out there, in the entire Republican Party, who can attract 70,000 people to a campaign rally?
Schwarzenegger? Bobby Jindal? Mark Sanford? Charlie Crist? Mitt Romney even?
The answer is NO.
Sarah's our gal for 2012!!! And if you don't like it join the Democrats.
GeneCar| 1.11.09 @ 1:15PM
I have often been puzzled by the allegation against Governor Palin that her son Trig was not really her son, and that she had engaged in an elaborate cover-up to protect her daughter Bristol. I have wondered what kind of sick mind could cook that one up. As I watched her talk about this in the interview, the probable reason hit me. In accepting the gift of a child, who had down syndrome, Sarah Palin, perhaps unwittingly aimed an unbearable moral rebuke at a whole generation for whom abortion is a neat solution to this and other problems. I know it sounds a little banal but such an act of sacrifial love was like lighting a candle in a very dark room. So the challenge for the cultural and political left was; how to snuff that candle out? Why--easy. Turn it into a dark narrative of deception and hypocracy! Repeat it over and over again until it either becomes an 'incontrovertible truth' or at least a source of grave doubt about Sarah Palin's truthfullness! The real twist of the knife is, of course the contrast that can be made between this deception and her alleged 'Christian family values" Make her whole family feel pain about it. And if she doesn't withdraw from public life to protect her family from such pain then call her a bad mother. Nice try!
Somehow I feel that Sarah and her family are made of sterner stuff.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.09 @ 1:53PM
dont get it, arent very many real country blue collar folk so cons and not really libertarians? if they arent aware of her libertarian tendencies then maybe they arent serious about that aspect.
we DESERVE the O. predicted 'grim future' until we straighten out our morality! And libertarianism doesnt quite cut it in the morality dept; not enough. You guys got to think more on it.
Sarah is a great lady-- i'd vote for her-- but she has a very long way to go and four years is an eternity in politics.
Dont fantasize about her prospects too much, thats self deception. in dec. 1998 the time of Clinton's impeachment Maha Rushie said to dozens and dozens of callers
"if you all want to fantasize about Slick's removal from office, well go ahead if it makes you feel better. wont happen, though. but dream on."
dont you know how omnipotent self deception is?
its still almost two years till the midterm.
but dont get caught up in your dreams of the divine Sarah. please dont be dreamers like my fam!
Thomas| 1.11.09 @ 4:37PM
Interloper,
You miss the point. Republicans are not conservatives. When the Republican party fields candidates that truly embrace conservative principles, they win. When they field moderate, liberal or even liberal light candidates they lose. That is what they have been doing for the last ten years and the Republican party has been losing more and mor ground.
But hey, it is up tothe Republican Party leadership to either return to the conservative principles that gave them control of congress and the White House or continue to embrace liberal light and become a foot note in history. Either way; Conservatives are not going anywhere.
Interloper| 1.11.09 @ 4:53PM
Thomas, candidates who win presidential elections are able to put together coalitions . A private club can pick and choose its members. But, a political party that behaves like a private club is destined to not only to lose, but become irrelevant in national politics.
Ran| 1.11.09 @ 8:51PM
Eric,
Thanks. Sarah belongs on a very short list at the top. I share her values, I dig her courage and I believe the base and a good block of "undecideds" will support her - flaws, lipstick, 30-06 and all.
My list, for what it's worth, has plenty of room on it for other qualified libertarian leaning conservatives. I hope there are others out there cut from similar cloth. Her chances improve if she's amongst company, as one candidate within a general movement towards [constitutional? libertarian?] conservatism.
Is Palin perfect? "Goodness, no"... Then again, Mike Ledeen pointed out in Freedom Betrayed that America's better leaders are most properly less-than-perfect beings. Caught me at first.
Upon reflection, such individuals know their own limits and are less beguiled by their own genius with "success". In the matter of character an advanced degree from the school of hard knocks beats a Ph.D. from anywhere.
Palin owes nothing to an inside track of D.C. connections and Media pals. That independence is a huge advantage with people suspicious of the present crowd.
My apologies for the expressed attitude towards Frum.
Interloper| 1.11.09 @ 9:40PM
Palin is perfect. A perfect disaster as a candidate. It is revealing that some people still do not realize that.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.09 @ 9:44PM
this is a man's world.
women are too civilized to reign in a man's world..
nothing wrong with Palin but a betting man wouldn't wager the house on Palin becoming president or vice president.
Bob| 1.12.09 @ 8:55AM
Quin, your comment was so right on I almost couldn't believe it. I haven't been saying it as nicely as you (I don't work here), but keeping an open mind and welcoming discourse is certainly an enlightened view. The comment you made about not being overtly anti-intellectual was, as you know, a point I have been making consistently.
Now, let's deal with fact rather than hyperbole. The concept that if Republicans narrow their focus to fiscal conservatism/social conservatism mix, they can win, is intellectually dumb. Republicans now account for about 28% of voters (Democrats are about 39%). Evangelicals/social conservatives are about 19% -- which is about 68% of total declared Republican voters (almost all of them are registered Republicans). In order to achieve a majority, Republicans need 22% of independents and Democrats to vote for them. The logic that tightening your message to what appeals to 19% of voters will broaden the base is at most, a farce and the height of stupidity. You have to be so self-centered to believe this.
My thoughts on Palin are well known here. She is certainly not an idiot, but she severely lacks knowledge and intellectual curiosity. I cannot understand how someone who lacks knowledge of foreign policy, history, the Supreme Court, health care, and economic principles could make good decisions and not be a puppet of those around them.
Analytically, I've proven that she was a burden to McCain, and not helpful except in the areas of increased donations and increased crowds. But dumb rock stars can get large crowds.
If you notice, the support for Palin is more of what she is not, than what she is. It is the "Attack of the Anti-Intellectuals". So why would people attack intellectuals? Is it because they are not very smart themselves?
Interloper| 1.12.09 @ 10:46AM
Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are both itching to run for office as Republicans. It is interesting that they are not receiving the welcome Sarah Palin is.
Bob| 1.12.09 @ 11:03AM
Interloper, of course they are not getting the welcome of Sarah. Palin has a lot in common with her supporters -- a lack of knowledge. Unfortunately for Meg and Carly, they have both a top notch education and knowledge of the issues.
Thomas| 1.12.09 @ 11:50AM
To Interloper and Bob,
We have had this discussion before. The Republican party has two, and only two, ways to go, if it wants to win. It can model itself after the Democrat Party or it can return to following the platforms of the mid-90's that saw it rise to ascendancy. The whole point of politics is not simply to win elections and gain power. It is about choice. If there is no clear choice, then it becomes a crap shoot; totally dependent upon personality rather than substance.
In the last Presidential election, there was little choice. The Democrats ran a very liberal candidate and the Republicans ran a liberal moderate candidate. Both were anathema to conservatives. The Republicans lost. By your reasoning, they can only win if they run an even more liberal candidate next time. If they choose to do that, they will lose again. But it will be the choice of the Republican Party leadership, not of conservative voters.
As for governor Palin, she is still a largely unknown quantity. She may achieve prominence in the Party, or not. As for her lack of qualifications, no one, let me repeat that, no one is qualified to be President of the United States of America. Because no one can prepare for the job. Barack Obama isn't, John McCain wasn't, Joe Biden [with his track record of being wrong about nearly every foreign policy problem in the last 20 years] certainly isn't. Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton, by virtue of her close association with a former President while he was in office, was probably the most qualified for the office. As for women running for office as Republicans, Meg and Carly who? I don't remember seeing them televised at the convention. Nor were they prominently on the stump for several weeks in a national venue. Palin was. She has vastly more face and name recognition than 90% of the politicians in American. I hope that answers that question?
This statement of Bob's is as applicable to the current President elect as to Sarah Palin.." I cannot understand how someone who lacks knowledge of foreign policy, history, the Supreme Court, health care, and economic principles could make good decisions and not be a puppet of those around them." Well that sums that up nicely, doesn't it? And this was the man elected overwhelmingly (?) by the American electorate.
On anti-intellectualism, most intellectuals bring it upon themselves. How? ... by believing and pointing out to all who will listen that they are superior to the rest of society. Nothing will engender a backlash like calling someone stupid to their face. Yet, that is what many self-styled intellectuals do. The more knowledge you accumulate, the more you realize that there is vastly more knowledge in the world than you can ever accumulate and utilize effectively. This should cause a person to develop a strong sense of humility. Unfortunately for some, the opposite is true. It is usually these people who scream the loudest against "anti-intellectualism".
Bob| 1.12.09 @ 4:30PM
Actually, Thomas, you are wrong on several accounts. First of all, the choice of ideology is not bimodal, it is multimodal. The simplistic "liberal" or "conservative" all or none rhetoric is the type of good/evil scenario I'd expect from belief only oriented social conservatives. In fact, you can be fiscally conservative -- more conservative that most Republicans -- and socially moderate/liberal. There is no inconsistency there because these two ideologies are mutually exclusive. In fact, logic might ordain that the fiscally conservative/socially liberal position is far more intellectually consistent as both aim to limit the amount of government in our lives.
The fallacy with your argument that Republicans must be the party of the 90's is again, not consistent with the factual data of the electorate. Since Reagan, the only way Republicans could win was with a coalition -- i.e., conservatives, libertarian leaning independents, and conservative Democrats. Remember in the 90's, Clinton was elected twice nationally. That is not an example of Republican power. Furthermore, registered Republicans are now at a lower level than any time in recent history. Even the Reagan coalition wouldn't win a national election. So are libertarian leaning independents going to vote for strong social conservatives? I doubt it.
If you'll notice, I never talked about qualifications, I talked about knowledge. We saw Obama in 22 debates, a large number of interviews, press conferences, etc. He has written 2 books and the press looked at his background in detail. He certainly knew as much about the issues or more than any other presidential candidate and you have to be an idiot to believe otherwise. He certainly lacked experience, but he did hold elective office for more years than Palin.
Regarding anti-intellectualism, it is just populism in disguise. It is no more than an excuse for not doing well in school and not understanding the issues. Otherwise, as in every other field, we tend to admire the people who succeed. So no, I don't buy your argument about smart people who are educated.
Interloper| 1.12.09 @ 5:29PM
Thomas, I think the average well-informed voter knows who Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are. After all, a person who reads about politics is also likely to be interested in business and technology. And, the hoi polloi should recognize Meg's name even if they don't keep up with things. Both women spoke out for their candidates during the campaign, though Carly was told to shut up after she said Sarah Palin is not qualified to run a corporation. Also significant is that Whitman and Fiorina are rolling in dough, thus able to pay their own way.
You are just plain off the heezy in your sneering at President-elect Barack Obama. He has every advantage Palin does not, beginning with an intelligent mind and active curiosity.
Frosty| 1.12.09 @ 11:53PM
Amusing and a little thin-skinned, Interloper, to whine about our sneering toward your beloved, Obama. He doesn't have any experience, he has emerged from THE cesspool of politics in our country and he is ripe to be made a puppet of more experienced hucksters. He's way in over his head, and if we get hit by terroists during his tenure--he's toast and so is your stupid liberal party.
sidnee| 12.11.09 @ 12:41PM
jack wills
ugg mayfaire boots on sale