Audio: Laura Ingraham versus Heather MacDonald on Palin and identity politics

posted at 3:46 pm on October 15, 2008 by Allahpundit

The 15 most entertaining minutes you’ll spend today, unless Maverick turns to Obama tonight and asks, “So, what’s up with you and terrorists?” The identity politics argument is tangential, really; most of the time is spent dancing around the questions of judgment and experience. Ingraham politely reminds MacDonald that The One has neither and MacDonald reminds Ingraham that he’s at least able to talk intelligently about the issues, demonstrating that he’s thought about them to an extent Palin hasn’t (yet, anyway). Ultimately, she’s making the same point as Buckley: They’re both confident that Obama has a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament, to borrow a phrase that’s been circulating, and so they’re both trusting somewhat blindly that he’ll take an intellectual, pragmatic approach to problem-solving rather than a nakedly ideological one. The bet, quite simply, is that events will pull him to the center. That’s some bet.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Did you all see the new post on Ace’s site?

I’m not surprised–socialists have no morals.

m064404 on October 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Unreal

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Didn’t know that. Doesn’t make a lot of sense since it is

an eastern rite. Who calls the shots on this issue? – neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Il Papa. The hammer came down in 1910 or thereabouts after a large number of Russian Catholics emigrated to California, bringing their married priests with them. The Irish clergy freaked out that other Catholic priests were getting laid (let’s face it, that was the REAL reason)and hissed a fit to Rome. The rest is history.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Roger Waters on October 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM

We have a bet. Start writing that apology. Make it painfully long and uncomfortably obsequious.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:18 PM

(let’s face it, that was the REAL reason)and hissed a fit to Rome. The rest is history.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM

:)

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Note to self… don’t ever trail off in the middle of the word “continuation.” Especially when talking about a woman.

Start listening at 2:11.

Mark Jaquith on October 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM

The most wonderful contribution that Sarah Palin has given us as conservatives, is being a lightning rod for bringing out the posers. She has been more effective than any other political figure I have seen in helping to identify the elitist crowd from the real conservative.

Let me inform Heather MacDonald of just a couple points. The purpose of the President is to run an administration. They power and prestige of the executive branch has been vastly perverted over many years. As a conservative the President should revert back to the role that they were intended to be.

The responsibilities of the President to present issues to the American people are more about communication than they are of perfect syntax and deep philosophical depth. I feel that Sarah Palin is extraordinarily effective and connecting with the American people and getting them to understand her points. Just like with Ronald Reagan, that is all that is required. Remember that Reagan gave fits to the elitist crowd too. Are we saying that his plain speech caused him to fail at communication?

The most important job of the President is to listen to advisers and make decisions based on sifting through information. No person can be an expert on everything. There are many paid experts that tell the President what issues and events mean. It is much more important that the President can think through information and make a good decision than to be an expert themselves. In fact, the self-described experts as President have often been too egotistical to take good advice.

The record of Sarah Palin as an administrator demonstrates and ability for her to sift through issues and find effective solutions. That is more important that talking about them the way an ivy league alumni would.

Hawthorne on October 15, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Why the magnanimity, Rog?
ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Picking a new trolling handle isn’t ‘magnanimous.’

The rules are simple: if you want to play “make fun of the retard,” that’s terrific. Just don’t ever play WITH HIM.

Recalibrate your pathetic-ometer. This loser doesn’t have the faintest clue that he is being mocked; all he knows is that someone is paying attention to him, and that never happens in the real world.

logis on October 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM

If you can’t vote McCain for your own sakes, then do the rest of the world a favour folks and vote him for us. Because if America tanks – as it will under Obama – she takes the rest of her allies down with her.

saint on October 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Thus my reason for voting for McCain, and really only because of Obama’s behavior in the last month or so. He’s proven that he’s a chameleon capable of just about anything to secure power for himself.

Regardless, the last thing I want holding the reins in Washington is an incompetent, spoiled brat of a politician that’s had everything his whole life handed to him. His whole life has been a procession of triumphal entries with no fight preceding it: state senate (no opposition, because he disqualified them), U.S. Senate (no real opposition). You could mark up the primary as something resembling a battle, but considering that every known media outlet out there was actively in the tank for him the whole time, there wasn’t much work for him to do but make a few speeches and look pretty.

Besides, do you want someone running the country who’s only real experience with professional adversity is one primary?

spmat on October 15, 2008 at 6:23 PM

She rocks and she is my leader. If she say destroy Roger Waters I must obey and destroy you(sorry)

kangjie on October 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM

She would never say that. She would dig me and I could probably get her to leave that redneck hubby of hers. Then, I could show her a newspaper and stuff.

Roger Waters on October 15, 2008 at 6:24 PM

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Mind you, I have practical reservations about a married clergy. Christ was correct when he said a man cannot serve two masters.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM

She would dig me and I could probably get her to leave that redneck hubby of hers. – Roger Waters on October 15, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Sorry Rog…she doesn’t do minatures.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:33 PM

Then, I could show her a newspaper and stuff.

Roger Waters on October 15, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Bless your heart, but continuing to insist that Governor Palin is unfamiliar with newspapers is asinine.

Kensington on October 15, 2008 at 6:33 PM

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM

I agree with you. I feel the responsibilities are too great (and 24/7) to be able to take care of a family adequately as well, except maybe in extraordinary cases.

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM

who frickin needs newspapers anyway? Hell they can hardly give em away anymore.

Jamson64 on October 15, 2008 at 6:40 PM

who frickin needs newspapers anyway? Hell they can hardly give em away anymore.

Jamson64 on October 15, 2008 at 6:40 PM

You never know, there might be a shortage of toilet paper some day.

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM

There are many paid experts that tell the President what issues and events mean.
Hawthorne on October 15, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Remember when George Bush said that he didn’t read any papers? To the media, this was outright blasphemy!

Did somebody ask Obama about that? What did he do, drop the names of a couple of chic-sounding fish wrappers?

And I’ll bet they thought that was the most “intelligent and judgment-validating” thing they’d ever heard in their lives.

logis on October 15, 2008 at 6:44 PM

I agree with you. I feel the responsibilities are too great (and 24/7) to be able to take care of a family adequately as well, except maybe in extraordinary cases. – neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM

And yet, the Eastern Church and the Orthodox have done alright with this arrangement for the past 2,000 years. Then again, what about married men with no children or those whose children have left the nest? These could be an enormously valuable resource to the Mystical Body of Christ.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Being able to explain in a way that distorts your policies so they appear other than they are is certainly a talent. I don’t see why I, as a conservative, should put that above actually being consistent in your beliefs ie prolife, or having an actual record of fiscal responsibilty, fighting corruption etc.

aikidoka on October 15, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Then again, what about married men with no children or those whose children have left the nest? These could be an enormously valuable resource to the Mystical Body of Christ.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Yes. Part of the problem now is that priests are really overwhelmed due to the large (or multiple) parishes that they need to serve. If this ratio could be improved through men in the situation that you describe then it would be a win-win. I don’t believe there is any settled theological reason not to allow it.

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Yes. Part of the problem now is that priests are really overwhelmed due to the large (or multiple) parishes that they need to serve. If this ratio could be improved through men in the situation that you describe then it would be a win-win. I don’t believe there is any settled theological reason not to allow it. – neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Priestly celibacy is a purely rulebook issue that has both merits and demerits, as we have seen. The reason for the vocational crisis is a very simple one: we have a shortage priests for no reason other than the fact that we have a shortage of PRACTICING Catholics. One can harvest crops only if the land is both fertile AND farmed.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 7:04 PM

What the – how the heck are these comments even remotely relevant to the post?

corona on October 15, 2008 at 7:12 PM

What the – how the heck are these comments even remotely relevant to the post? – corona on October 15, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Others have moved on and we were chatting amiably.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM

The reason for the vocational crisis is a very simple one: we have a shortage priests for no reason other than the fact that we have a shortage of PRACTICING Catholics. One can harvest crops only if the land is both fertile AND farmed.

ManlyRash on October 15, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Absolutely right. And this is closely related to the loss of reverence for the priesthood and, more importantly, the Eucharist which we have seen over the last few decades in great part as a result of the miss-interpretation and misguided implementation of V II reforms. And of course, of a deep misunderstanding of the concept of personal conscience.

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 7:20 PM

First-rate intellect and first-rate temperment? What intelligent person would chose/reject a political candidate based on this criteria? Many people (good and evil) have met this criteria (including Lenin, Hitler, Stalin to name a few), while I do not think the left would consider Reagan or Bush as having first-rate ‘intellects’. This is a phony liberal talking point to hide Obama’s views and lack of record. Palin has actually done things that conservatives support (cut taxes, negotiating pipeline, run city and state governments). These arguments are 180 degrees opposite from what they have argued as conservatives for many years. Have they been undercover liberals all these years and now everyone is being called out of the shadows for one last push to put America out of commission? These so-called conservative commentators are like something out ot the Stepford Wives or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They have no logical or intelligent reasoning for their positions and come across like robots/zombies spouting the party line that they have supposedly opposed for many years.

jerseyman on October 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM

For the first time in my life, I understand why Nixon made an enemies list and am working on one of my own. At the top of it are cretins like Parker, Noonan, Buckley and Mac Donald.

Kensington on October 15, 2008 at 4:25 PM

As I understand it, Nixon’s enemies list wasn’t people he disliked, but people (usually media) that had shown that they considered Nixon their enemy.

Count to 10 on October 15, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Heather MacDonald has to be a very stupid person. How can anyone goes against his political principles just because he thinks that the 2nd tier candidate has less than perfect experience and judgment. Her premise is not even correct. Gov. Palin is competent to be president. Her missteps in the beginning of the campaign were solely due to the fact that she thrust onto the nation stage from being a governor. She is certainly answering all the questions now.

Even if Gov. Palin was less than able to be president I would still rather have someone who agrees with me than someone who doesn’t. MacDonald may have some pointy head principle for picking conservative candidates but it fails the reality test. Obama would be a disaster. Palin, even granting the idea that she was less than capable, would be at worst a less than perfect execution of the correct policies.

scrubjay on October 15, 2008 at 7:40 PM

As I understand it, Nixon’s enemies list wasn’t people he disliked, but people (usually media) that had shown that they considered Nixon their enemy.
Count to 10 on October 15, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Nixon never even called it an ‘enemies list.’ It was just a list of people he didn’t want at one of his White House parties. The liberal media (back then, that was the only kind) came up with the name.

Hmm… Whine like little babie girls much? Yeah, I guess you do!

logis on October 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Heather MacDonald has to be a very stupid person. How can anyone goes against his political principles just because he thinks that the 2nd tier candidate has less than perfect experience and judgment. Her premise is not even correct….
scrubjay on October 15, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Did you read the “explanations” that Hitchens and Baby Buckley gave for their snit fits. The diatribes they sat down and thought through made Heather MacDonalds’ gibbering rationalizations sound downright brilliant.

Seriously, there are individuals who work for me who’re roughly as articulate as any of these clowns – and more intelligent than all three of them put together.

Remind me once again: WHO, exactly, is it who keeps telling us these are the most brilliant and wise conservative intellects the world has ever seen? ‘Cause if it were up to me, I’d be handing out termination notices.

logis on October 15, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Hmm… Whine like little babie girls much? Yeah, I guess you do!

logis on October 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM

?

Count to 10 on October 15, 2008 at 8:32 PM

This “intellect and temperament” thing seemed to have sprung up around the time that Obama was called back to D.C. to work on the bailout.
At which time Obama’s “intellect” was not noted for any helpful ideas, and his “temperament” was to be a follower.

Count to 10 on October 15, 2008 at 8:38 PM

What is wrong with Heather? Palin mentions Hillary and all of a sudden that’s pandering to Identity Politics?????? And she’s comparing Palin against Obama??????

JimC on October 15, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Heather’s argument boils down to “McCain is old and will probably die.” She can’t be serious. I think she’s lying.

JimC on October 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM

You never know, there might be a shortage of toilet paper some day.

neuquenguy on October 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM

And as we wait in line to by some, kathleen parker and peggy noonan will drive by in a limo and marvel at barry’s intellect.

peacenprosperity on October 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM

My God, I just listened to this audio clip of MacDonald and Ingraham.

Then I found this quote off an interview question to Heather:

“I grew up in Bel Air, Los Angeles and my father was a business consultant. I went to secular private schools – John Thomas Dye and two years at Westlake”

That’s her problem right there:

Bel-Air ( RICH and and totally out of touch)
Los Angeles (no explanation there)
secular private schools (HUGE warning sign)

Toss this one out.

This woman is SSSSSSOOOOOOOO jealous of Palin. No doubt about it.

WHERE’S THE F’ING BUS TO THROW HER UNDER?

Sapwolf on October 15, 2008 at 11:35 PM

If Heather is the heart of intellectual conservativism, I’m going populist and keep my pitchfork (and my rifle), thank you.

People, we have a ton of purging needed in this party, and not just the Repubs. in Congress, but the entire Repub. establishment.

And when we do, we are gonna need a fleet of buses and we are gonna break some axles, so get ready.

Sapwolf on October 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM

If Heather is the heart of intellectual conservativism…
Sapwolf on October 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Well, not quite the heart; more like the spleen, maybe.

logis on October 15, 2008 at 11:47 PM

She would never say that. She would dig me and I could probably get her to leave that redneck hubby of hers. Then, I could show her a newspaper and stuff.

Roger Waters on October 15, 2008 at 6:24 PM

You prepared to change Trig’s daiper big guy?

Sapwolf on October 15, 2008 at 11:51 PM

They’re both confident that Obama has a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament, to borrow a phrase that’s been circulating, and so they’re both trusting somewhat blindly that he’ll take an intellectual, pragmatic approach to problem-solving rather than a nakedly ideological one. The bet, quite simply, is that events will pull him to the center. That’s some bet.

Especially since his only executive experience as chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a big fat waste of philanthropic cash, and he consulted with (if not blindly followed) the lead of William Ayers, whose reason for living since getting off on a technicality is trying to turn public schools into radical runt factories. I’m disappointed that McCain didn’t crush Obama on that final question from Schieffer — B.O. was given tens of millions to improve education, and FAILED because the basics were NOT emphasized.

In addition, I believe Buckley, Brooks, Parker, et al are so enthralled with Barry’s vaunted brain that they think, “He smarter than Iam, and he will do something even better than I would do if I were him!” What they don’t consider is that Obama — who doesn’t flinch when he is lauded with Messianic fervor — may himself be thinking, “I AM smarter than you. And I don’t care that socialism has not worked anywhere ever, I can make it work!”

L.N. Smithee on October 16, 2008 at 1:30 AM

People, we have a ton of purging needed in this party, and not just the Repubs. in Congress, but the entire Repub. establishment.

Don’t worry about purging, in the coming fascist state there will be plenty of purging; purging conservatives from government, from the media, from the workplace. Got a liberal working for you who doesn’t like you and wants your job? The table is being set for those people and all the other looters we’ve been warned about but decided not to do anything about.

peacenprosperity on October 16, 2008 at 6:06 AM

If you can’t vote McCain for your own sakes, then do the rest of the world a favour folks and vote him for us. Because if America tanks – as it will under Obama – she takes the rest of her allies down with her.

saint on October 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Gee, thanks. Now I want Obama to win.

TMK on October 16, 2008 at 6:23 AM

Heather MacDonald sounds like an ass.

Hilts on October 16, 2008 at 10:19 AM

They’re both confident that Obama has a first-rate intellect and a first-rate temperament, to borrow a phrase that’s been circulating, and so they’re both trusting somewhat blindly that he’ll take an intellectual, pragmatic approach to problem-solving rather than a nakedly ideological one. The bet, quite simply, is that events will pull him to the center. That’s some bet.

A major reason why I cannot support Obama is that I have only the fact that he seems unable or ashamed to tout in a completely transparent manner his past. He continues to lack any candor about his college years, his time in New York and Boston, and in Chicago prior to formally entering politics. He also has lacked candor about much of his time in Illinois politics except when confronted with irrefutable evidence that he was lying about the abortion bills in the Illinois Senate. He appears to be running at full speed away from his spiritual mentor of 20 years, his fellow CAC and Woods Foundation board member who also happens to be an unrepentant terrorist bomber as well as radical anti-capitalist not to mention the so-called nonpartisan, but radical left organization ACORN which is under investigation in at least 11 states (or is it up to 12, now?).

How is it that I am supposed to feel comfortable with a person who seems to have only associated with some of the most radical, most left-leaning people, who has never stood up to them or for that matter perhaps the most corrupt political machine in the country?

Obama’s campaign words and rhetoric are diametrically opposite those with whom he has associated for the better part of his adult life. He has not shown any inclination to oppose anyone he is with nor to admit his mistakes. He has shown instead that he “goes with the flow.”

Clearly, he has given me absolutely no reason to believe he is the type of leader needed in the White House. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience vote for him to be President of the United States of America.

Wildcatter1980 on October 16, 2008 at 10:49 AM

That’s her problem right there:

Bel-Air ( RICH and and totally out of touch)
Los Angeles (no explanation there)
secular private schools (HUGE warning sign)

Toss this one out.

Check out her page at the Manhattan Institute. She clerked for the devil himself, Stephen Reinhardt, at the 9th Circuit. She worked in Washington for the EPA and volunteers at the National Resources Defense Council. She’s a Green Mole in the conservative movement. Laura’s been deluded by her immigration stance into thinking she’s conservative. There is a Green faction that detests the enviro impact of illegal immigration. I’d bet that’s where her “conservative” views are coming from.

rcl on October 16, 2008 at 12:30 PM

A homely looking gal that’s for sure.

Hilts on October 16, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3