Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on February 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“You’d think that after eight years of George W. Bush, conservatives would have discovered a new respect for the difficulty of successful governance. Yet just as Tanenhaus diagnosed: it is cultural hostility that still most excites our passions…
Cultural populism comes in many forms, and it’s not at all clear that Palin’s particular style of populism has much shelf life. The resentments of the future are much more likely to be expressed with a Latino accent.
In one respect, at least, I very much agree with [Yuval] Levin. The Palin story was always less about Palin, and more about the response to Palin. And the continuing inability of even our conservative best and brightest to elevate their concern for the responsibilities of government over their cultural animosities suggests that this story’s most painful chapters remain to be written.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Well let’s see. You argued that Exxon wasn’t satisfying the lease requirements, Palin was using Point Thompson for leverage for the pipeline and Exxon didn’t have a strong case. You even cited some legal experts as I remember when I stated that Palin didn’t have a case and was going to lose.
Now you’re making the argument “She got exactly what she wants from them. And she still holds more cards.” What did she get from them? What cards does she hold? Exxon is going through with the exact same plan of development they proposed a year ago, the exact same plan. All Palin did was use this to demonstrate how she’d tough on big oil for populist reasons and after a lot of time and money fighting them she caved because she had no case. Just as I argued with you way back when.
lowandslow on February 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Palin represents common sense, not intellectual nuance. Rare in a politician.
huckleberryfriend on February 7, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Alaska –> Galt’s Gulch North
Texas —> Galt’s Gulch South
Having summer and winter homes is okay with me.
petefrt on February 7, 2009 at 8:32 AM
No, snookums, I’m not new to the neighborhood.
AP has had it in for Palin since she came on the scene and in my opinion for all the wrong reasons. He hides behind cherry picking Quotes of the Day that attack Palin. It’s cowardly and it’s lazy. But AP is a big boy and I think he can handle some criticism.
My prior post is clear. Try reading it again. Slowly.
CarolynM on February 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Were you raised in the Southwest?
The Democrat Party provides the loophole for any personal discontent with Christian Dogma that supposedly “determines” one’s values, regardless of race.
Latino values are Christian values; and Latino politics are Democrat. Where there is an inconsistency with Dogma, the Democrat power politics will determine the Latino/Latina party vote. If there were actually a moral conflict between the Christian value vs. democrat party platform, there’s always confession for forgiveness. That would seem the Catch-22 in attempting to convert the Hispanics from their traditional “place” in the DNC to the RNC.
Hispanics harbor a tribal grudge against Anglos. Since Hispanics are already entrenched within the Democrat Party, they utilize the RNC as their Gringo whipping boy, and any wooing by Republicans is rejected out of sport. Really, it boils down to Hispanics realizing their own inconsistencies in ideology vs. politics. Dream on.
maverick muse on February 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Frum is really starting to tire me. This tool has such animosity toward Palin that he just can’t let it go. Since when is asking your state legislature to tighten the belt not “conservative”?
Just goes to show how far yankee republicans have fallen from the ideals of the republic. I am afraid they are lost forever.
conservnut on February 7, 2009 at 8:59 AM
So if a coalition of conservatives include evangelicals, lunch bucket conservatives, community college graduates, midwest farmers, Latino business owners, and Appalachian whites, the elites of the GOP had better take it and run. Raising the issue of whether the GOP should go “upscale” or “downscale” tells me that the party elite doesn’t even get it. But I think that Michael Steele probably does get it.
DrStock on February 7, 2009 at 9:00 AM
quoted for unrepentantgeek and others who claim i’m arguing with cartoon strawmen when i say palinite populists are anti-intellectuals who worship her.
let’s try that first part again:
hmm. smells the same to me.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Do you mean all pro-palin supporters “worship” her.
the_nile on February 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM
I agree with your post. My comments were aimed at refuting Frum’s premise of ‘cultural animosities’ as the driving force of the conservative movement, without regard to other operative factors in Latino voting, such as Democrat power politics.
While I agree with Rove and others that Latino’s cultural values would seem to give them a natural affinity for conservative candidates, other forces are at play here, as you suggest. My suspicion is that, among Latino voters, economic class will be the main determinant of voting patterns. The lower the economic status, the more likely Democrats will succeed in playing the victim card. The more middle class and up, the more likely the interest in creating one’s own wealth (rather than looting another’s) and the propensity to vote GOP.
petefrt on February 7, 2009 at 9:17 AM
nearly all.
i’ve yet to hear an argument in support of a palin 2012 campaign which is of the dry-eyed, cool-headed variety.
maybe you’ve got one.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Yes, that’s exactly what it shows. I agree about Michael Steele, too.
petefrt on February 7, 2009 at 9:19 AM
This values coalition is pretty much just traditional Americanism. Elites in our country, on both sides of the aisle, depend on the support of the populous. The Dems understand that, but infuse their message with racial and class hatred. Republican elites seem to have forgotten entirely what holds them up. And Republican media elites may feel they can ignore that entirely, because they can still maintain their aloofness from an opposition perch–Peggy Noonan being perhaps the best example.
Let’s hope that Steele understands that “downscale” is the way to broaden the party. That’s where America lives. :)
JiangxiDad on February 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM
So her fiscal policy “reagan economics” isn’t true? etc.
the_nile on February 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Why do I get this feeling that you consider ANY support of Palin to be wet-eyed and hotheaded?
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Frum doesn’t even rise to “yankee republican” status. He’s a Canuck.
Buddahpundit on February 7, 2009 at 9:27 AM
I’ll tell ya what, eh. Name me a politician you do support, and why; and I’ll tell you whether or not I think your support is dry-eyed and cool-headed.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Here, have a Bloody Mary. I’m buyin’!
petefrt on February 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Well I could draw some comparisons between the Palin bashers on this site and some of the BDS sufferers at the Daily Kos.
conservnut on February 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Ha, good point. But of course north of the Red River qualifies.
conservnut on February 7, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Look, after four years of Obama double-speak, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and hip-hop temper tantrums, even dummies like Frum will come to appreciate plainspoken conservative values. Otherwise, he and his confused colleagues will have to waste a lot of pixels defending the Trillionator’s catastrophic administration.
EMD on February 7, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Allah,
Cultural Animosities Political Speak for calling people racist?
Here is the thing, down here in the fairy tale world of Aztlan, they do distinguish between their own, and everyone else. How come the same standard doesn’t get applied to them? Do they have cultural animosities…YOU BETCHA!
Dr Evil on February 7, 2009 at 9:36 AM
This?:
One more time: Allah never provides his own analysis to the “Quote of the Day”. Therefore, that “criticism” is without merit.
For someone who claims to support the First Amendment it is ironic that are demanding that Allah change the established format of this blog to suit your personal preferences in order to meet CarolynM’s version of your personal “Fairness Doctrine”.
Buy Danish on February 7, 2009 at 9:39 AM
eh –
Palin is a damn good administrator, and has demonstrated it in her governance of Alaska. She gets things done, and I think would be very pragmatic executive on the national level. That is what I perceive is needed in Washington. That is why I support her. I have extensive managerial experience in high level fortune 500 companies, and have grown to appreciate politicians who can truly effect ANY change. (Unlike Obama, who is a puppet)
No one will be able to “solve” the mire in Washington in a single 4 or even 8 year term, it will ultimately take a “reset” (God forbid) or a series of truly conservative waves of politicians. This unfortunately will not happen as long as we allow our educational institutions to continue to be so heavily influenced by the extreme left agenda. Conservatives are far too complacent. They win the war and then allow their enemies to write the history – not the way it should be done. One thing that does give me hope is seeing these bright liberals as they exit college go out and try to earn a living – and encounter high taxes for their start-ups, a myriad of problems navigating the complex human resources code ( I know that is an awkward wording there, you get my point), or even the day to day survival in a corporation. Hmmm, practicality starts to set in = and natural human selfishness – why should any of these young liberals share their sushi with the someone who hasn’t “earned it”? It is at that point that they begin the slow ideological conversion to conservative principles, ie, big government/entitlements bad, small government, free market good.
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Palin is great! Huck/Palin 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!
marklmail on February 7, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Be honest, Danish, what’s really bothering you? Is it that I know how to shoot a gun?
I suspect that AP is not nearly as thin-skinned as you. I don’t believe that he would interpret my calling him to task on his repeated critical posts of Palin as a call to pass actual legislation stifling free speech.
As for the rest of my prior post, which you ignored, I was not “blindly shooting” (it is the gun, isn’t it?) but instead highlighted Frum’s default position that conservative cultural values are somehow “cultural animosities.”
I doubt he would say that about liberal cultural values-the values of diversity at all costs, abortion at all costs, multiculturalism at all costs, open borders at all costs, recycling at all costs, and Godlessness at all costs.
But you keep on nitpicking the format of the HA blog. It continues to be utterly fascinating.
CarolynM on February 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I don’t know who the GOP will run in 2012, but I do know that Palin and Huckabee, as two examples, can bring the support of voters who believe that personal characteristics such as being “down to earth” and “plain speaking” are important. It doesn’t matter to me whether Palin runs or not, I just want the value of her supporters to be appreciated by the GOP. I want Huckabee supporters to be welcomed by the GOP. The lessons of this past election for the GOP had better be: DO NOT ridicule republican primary voters no matter who they support.
If Michael Steele understands the importance of this, he needs to systematically diminish the influence of the Noonans, Frums, Parkers, and Barones of the world.
DrStock on February 7, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Fwiw, and not trying to re-kindle old debates, but Huck wore his religion too much on his sleeve to satisfy this non-Christian. Rightly or wrongly, I didn’t feel included in his message. That being said, if it had turned out to be Huck in the last election, I would have voted for him happily, as I will do in the next if he’s back.
JiangxiDad on February 7, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Frum reads Hot Ai’r'r.
That wins at the cost of whichever principle necessary, except when Palin runs, and when I don’t like it.
Speakup on February 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM
palinite populist socialcon principles are not conservative principles.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Tell us what those true, honest-ti-goodness conservative principles are, then; and point out their most appealing proponent at the moment.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM
JiangxiDad on February 7, 2009 at 10:16 AM
So-called GOP pundits run the risk of alienating some conservative voters, not only by ridiculing certain candidates but by ridiculing the voters themselves for supporting them. This is the “resentment” that the RNC needs to worry about. Michael Steele needs to articulate the central themes that resonates across a diverse audience.
DrStock on February 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Uh, no. Should I be impressed or something?
You complained that he links to opinion pieces which are critical of Palin and demanded that he provide analysis, which was a “thin-skinned” demand that he change the format of the blog. The Fairness Doctrine would change the format of talk radio. My comment was a metaphor.
I ignored it because you ended your list with “And I hunt” which was delivered with sufficient animus to qualify as a “cultural animosity.
Really? We’re getting into parallel universe territory here.
Buy Danish on February 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM
i suppose that at root it’s generally conservative to acknowledge that people are essentially bestial and atavistic, and that social constructs reform them into social beings. that it follows from this that rights are best conceived as negative premises and defined proscriptively. further, human agency is too vast and random to be known discretely, and escapes theoretical prediction, and that only naturalistic tendencies can be known of it in only a general sense. therefor functional traditions are best preserved to the extent that they are preservable, while orthodoxy is just a nostalgic version of radicalism, similarly doomed to fail.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 10:58 AM
eh on February 7, 2009 at 10:58 AM
You just spent an entire paragraph not saying anything. Now try again and explain to us the conservative principles you have been alluding to that you claim bypass the intellect of Palin supporters. I have seen a lot of people use multi-syllabic words to mask the fact that their argument has no legs to stand on. Now please tell us forthrightly why you believe Gov. Palin and “social cons” in general are not true conservatives or disengage.
kingsjester on February 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM
I am a staunch Sarah Palin supporter but having said that I do not want to become an apologist for her or disregard certain moments that do not reflect well on her political ability or effectiveness but what I want to do is to clarify for the thousands who read my essay why I stand behind her 150%.
Every person, including every politician has an overarching weakness, an Achilles’ heel, that if triggered by circumstances places him or her in the worst possible light.
In church one would be praised for possessing this trait. In politics it is the kiss of death. It is SP’s FAITH or from a secular point of view ASSUMPTION that grounds her but it also led to her difficulties. Reading up on Sarah, she performs best when she knows the lay of the land, knows and is confident with who she is talking to and knows her political playbook. That is why Sarah is such a successful and popular governor.
But transport her to national politics where she did not fully understand the cut and thrust and the passion of the debate or opposition, where she was handled by people by her own admission who she had no previous contact or relationship with, and that she was not all that conversant in certain areas of domestic and foreign policy you have the prescription for a quintessential validation of the Peter Principle (rising to one’s level of incompetence at a certain point in the ladder of progress).
That Sarah Palin did not fall victim to the Peter Principle is one of the main reasons I support her wholeheartedly.
Let us take each of the three components of her faith or assumption as it related to the national campaign.
First let me state that McCain made a profound statement a few days after he selected Sarah that in retrospect he should have chosen her back in July or August if he had known what a difference Sarah’s presence on the ticket would have made in his fundraising and the ability to attract volunteers to GOTV.
At the time the MSM focused most of its attention on Sarah’s ability to connect to the ‘base’ of the GOP, but very few speculated at the time that the greater truth of that statement lay in the fact that if McCain had acted on a different timetable it would have given Sarah more time to prepare her to do battle.
In football parlance, Sarah would have had a chance to go through a modified training camp and become more familiar with McCain and her handlers, what to expect in the campaign and what she was expected to know as the two-month campaign sought to reach peak performance.
Quite simply, in crude terms the selection of Sarah appeared on the surface could be likened to an arranged marriage, where a mail-order bride is sent for to help a man work his farm, to cook and do the chores, and give birth and raise the kids and who the man has either never met or has only communicated with her by letter.
In political parlance this is considered ‘not vetting a candidate properly. The MSM played this theme to the hilt, implying that improper vetting equated with Sarah possessing a lack of political ability or talent.
But if one were to witness the many marriages on the prairies in the 19c that were ‘arranged’ one would realize that many of these marriages did work out, that the woman after a time to get used to her new ‘duties’ became valuable to her husband and performed admirably.
So let me be clear. It was not Sarah’s fault that McCain chose her so late in the game. Scuttlebutt had it that he wanted to choose Lieberman but that at the last moment had to turn to Sarah because of political considerations.
But despite the odds of success, Sarah had one of the greatest debuts on the national stage: in her introductory sspeech in Dayton, Ohio she fired up the conservative base of the GOP where heretofore it was lukewarm at best; at the convention she wowed the delegates and the 37m onlookers over the various TV networks with her Reaganesque delivery of conservative principles and a week later up to September 15th McCain and her by some estimations were leading Obama or at least even with Obama in the polls.
In other words, in spite of not going through training camp, Sarah Palin was able to demonstrate the first rule fof any successful politician: she was attractive, charming, charismatic, inspirational and a vote-getter. And Sarah performed this well on the national stage in spite of the MSM’s efforts to take her out by mocking her or accusing her of lying or hypocrisy. Quite simply, in sporting terms Sarah was a ‘natural’.
Now let’s move to the second component of her ‘faith: that is McCain and his handlers. By right McCain was the Presidential candidate and the goal of his handlers was to get him elected POTUS. The selection of his running mate, his itinerary, the content of his speeches, his policy positions, his appearance on stage, the content of his advertising and the type of media used etc. were decisions made by McCain and his team to hopefully advance his cause and give him the best opportunity to become POTUS.
I am not here to praise or condemn McCain’s actual tactics or strategy but I want to point out that Sarah did not have adequate preparation to tap into the various decisions made by the McCain campaign over the last year but even more importantly as it turned out Sarah was at times (although she may not have voiced them aloud in September)at odds with McCain and/or his handlers on strategy, policy positions, media availability as to whom she would grant interviews to, and what she could say and not say.
Imagine that Sarah is taking an oral exam and she knows that the teacher will grade her depending on how well she conforms to what he or she believes to be accurate, correct or more worthy of a higher grade. Sarah, when asked a question, instead of giving an answer that reflects truthfully what she believes and demonstrates her intelligence and independent thoughtfulness, she regurgitates an answer that complies with a standard that she knows she must adhere to in order to pass the test or advance to a higher grade.
Now I believe if there is any facet of Sarah’s presence on the national stage that can be properly criticized it is that she gave or parroted answers or put forward views in her speeches that she was did unequivocably support or believe. Anti-Palin haters will label Sarah’s behavior shameful expediency and intellectually dishonest. I, as a supporter of Sarah, will call it ‘getting with the program’ or in terms of parental decisions ’speaking as one’.
Folks, I am sorry to have admit this, but politics is not all aboveboard. And that is especially true when it comes to being a VP candidate who disagrees with the Presidential candidate on multiple issues dealing with the campaign. Obviously if a Presidential candidate chooses a running mate that is fully attuned to whatever the top of ticket does then there are fewer occasions for these rifts to occur. But as to the McCain campaign, whose fault was it to discount these disagreements between Sarah and McCain and his handlers? Sure some it is Sarah’s fault for being naive to think that she could have her own way but I believe if there is any fault for the perceived rift that developed between Sarah and McCain’s handlers you have to lay it at the feet of McCain. Yes, McCain wanted to choose Lieberman because Joe knew John and just as important knew John’s policy positions and how he wanted to conduct his campaign. By choosing Sarah so late in the game McCain ran the risk of Sarah saying something out of school which in turn could have severely damaged his campaign.
But to Sarah’s credit she was able to somewhat master McCain’s positions and usually communicated these positions adequately and was a good enough actress to make her audiences and the MSM believe this is how she truly felt.
However, the flaw in this arrangement was that the flip side was exposed where there were things that SHE WAS NOT TO COMMENT ON or skirt the issue or did not have sufficient knowledge to comment on bearing in mind that her answer had to line up with what McCain and his handlers expected and demanded from her.
Thus we have the Couric interview where she appeared ignorant to various impactful Supreme Court decisions, gave a convoluted answer to the bailout question, and refused to answer the question as to what she specifically reads. In addition as I have commented on other threads Sarah appeared tired, fatigued and worn-out-after all she is flesh and blood–perhaps the daily grind of going non-stop from city to city and living out of a suitcase for 3-4 weeks finally caught up to her. Recently in an interview with Esquire she mentioned that she was not able to go on her daily run every day.
Overall though, Sarah handled herself very well in interviews, especially in October. If McCain’s handlers had allowed Sarah to get her feet wet with right-wing talk radio and personalities I believe that Sarah would have been better prepared for Couric. And I am not the only one who has said this. Yesterday Steve Forbes in an interview also echoed this sentiment. This was a major mistake by the McCain campaign and unlike many who blame only the handlers I place the blame squarely on McCain for allowing his previous hostility to right-wing talk radio to blind him from the reality that Sarah could have been his pipeline into the conservative movement and may have convinced more conservatives to vote for him rather than vote for Obama, vote third party or sit out the election altogether.
Overall, Sarah performed well in interviews, especially in October after her debate with Biden. If there is one major criticism I have of the MSM, conservative pundits, or elitist catty scribes, it is that they are intellectually dishonest to focus on one interview with Couric to brand Sarah as stupid, a moron, an imbecile or a moron and not take into account the several interviews Sarah did with Sean Hannity, Greta Von Susteren, Carl Cameron, local TV media, right-wing talk radio (eventually)and Drew Griffin of CNN.
Now let me turn to the final component of her ‘faith’-the ability to know her playbook. Here is where the McCain campaign made its biggest mistake where they tried to pass Sarah off as a foreign policy expert because of Alaska’s proximity to Russia. Not only did this assertion offer fodder for the antics of SNL and the parody by Tina Fey, it gave Obama and the MSM a gigantic opening where a MAC truck could driven through to ridicule Sarah mercilessly as not qualified for national office and by extrapolation a dunce or an idiot, not much better than trailer trash.
Back to my original point Sarah was chosen so late in the process that it probably did not allow the McCain’s team time (including McCain) to properly assess the ramifications of such a ludicrous assertion. As I have stated before this is the approach that the McCain campaign should have taken. Sarah Palin is governor of the state of Alaska. Heretofore she had mainly been focused on state issues, as any good governor should be. However, the Goveror is well-versed with what is going on around the world-she has a higher security clearance than any other governor in America; her son will be soon deployed to Iraq; obviously she well-acquainted of why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The governor also is an expert on energy issues, and advocates energy independence for America. She understands that America has a vital role to play in world affairs and is looking forward to acting as a participant in the various issues presented to America in the 21st century. With that in mind the Governor, as well as giving her acceptance speech at the Convention and campaigning actively with Senator McCain will be going through briefing books and meet with experts in the next 2-3 weeks to bring her up to speed with the details as related to specific domestic and foreign issues and policy now on the table. On October 2 the governor will be on full display to America and the world and they will be able to judge whether or not she has the credentials to become our next Vice-President. Of course during her campaign stops before the debate and after the debate she will be able to display her prowess there as well.
Now would this approach have been any worse than McCain and his team trying to rationalize Sarah’s capabilities. The McCain campaign placed itself in an untenable position and even more important exposed Sarah to attacks and mockery that diminished her as a serious candidate to many voters.
In spite of this fact, Sarah performed brilliantly in the debate and in my humble opinion bested Biden in the foreign affairs part of the debate and at least broke even with him on domestic issues. From that moment Sarah did gain more crediblity with the base-they had seen enough-Sarah was the real deal; with moderates the reviews were mixed. The daily 24/7 onslaught by the MSM to destroy Sarah did have an effect on the perceptions of Sarah by those not politically aware or active.
However, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out in his address to Hillsdale College, the McCain campaign would have lost by double-digits without Sarah on the ticket; Obama would have won in a landslide; instead Obama only won 28 states and the D of C and only won by 7.2 %
In conclusion, I support Sarah because she proved to me that she has courage, guts, nerves of steel in spite of the entire world media (excluding Fox News) against her; she possesses the eloquence, the grace, the humor and the charisma to be a superstar. I am a huge sports fan. Superstars are game changers. Teams that possess superstars more often than not make the playoffs and are in contention for the championship.
Sarah is a burgeoning superstar. I support Sarah, quite frankly not because she is pro-life, believes in the rights of gun owners, is a passionate defender of the Constitution or is fiscally prudent which I do wholehearted line up with but because quite frankly Sarah Palin gives the GOP the best chance to make gains in 2010 and win back the White House in 2012. This is as political as it gets but I live by the phrase “It is what it is.”
technopeasant on February 7, 2009 at 11:25 AM
“real” conservatives never accept that sort of answer because it contains “multi-syllabic words” and therefor sounds too much like smart stuff – and you know who says smart stuff: east-coast elite liberal types.
so, to please you i’ll type some hannity-approved buzzwords for you.
faith, family, leadership, responsibility, life, security, borderslanguageculture, greatamerican, conservatism 2.0, sunshine, fuzzy bunnies, etc.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Can we please look at Governor Sarah Palin’s RECORD, which is what’s actually important, and what’s most fantastic about her. I hope to God it is her record that her campaign focuses on.
ashleymatt on February 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Your answer above might be an anti-deterministic posaition, but it still didn’t answer the question. Like kingsjester said, you’re just hiding behind verbiage.
I’ll repeat the question. Give us a REAL conservative platform, and point out a likely candidate. Or else go back to your Philosophy 101 text.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM
* beauty pageant contestant
* sports announcer
* mayor of a town with a five-figure population
* half a term as governor of a sparsely populated state where she’s so far done only standard governor stuff.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Point out an alternative.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Come on, eh. Point out an alternative. Give us some specifics. Let’s examine them. Come on. You can do it.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM
We got that , now give us “the lesser evil” of your choosing.
the_nile on February 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM
That is as strong and eloquent an answer supporting Sarah as any I’ve read. I don’t think I can say anything to top it. If eh cannot accept your answer as the well-thought out, rational argument, then he’s not really serious about seeking said answer–his mind’s already made up so it’s not worth the effort to even try to reach him. But…hopefully, your answer will convince some of the others on the fence to at least keep an open mind about Sarah and give her the chance to show us and them what she can do.
Matt Helm on February 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM
hmmm, getting a pipeline going that has been stalled for 30 years is “standard governor stuff?”
show me the other “standard governors” sitting on at least 7 billion dollars in a savings account
joey24007 on February 7, 2009 at 11:54 AM
you don’t get it. i don’t have to mount an affirmative case. i’m not the one trying to declare the 2012 gop presidential nominee three years ahead of time. that whole larger context is ludicrous to me, whether we’re talking about palin, jindal, cantor, giuliani or whoever.
for all the talk of “getting back to basics,” nobody here wants to do that. they want to take the same ship that sunk just a couple months ago and put it back in the water.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM
eh on February 7, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Nice cop-out. The key is: it “sounds” like smart stuff,,,but it really isn’t. As Dear Leader said, “Words. Just Words.” If Elitism was the way for the Republican Party to go, they would have won the election. Obama won the election because he appealed to the population. The average American is concerned about their family and their economic future. He promised to rescue them. Now they are starting to wake up to the fact that he is just another politian who said one thing and is doing another with the Porkulous Bill. The American people want someone who will talk to them, not down their pseudo-intellectual nose at them. Pomposity is a waste of time and gets nothing accomplished. Gov. Palin has a groundswell of support because she is not one of the Beltway Elite and seems to be talking to people and not down to them. So, continue to make believe that you’re an intellectual and so much smarter than the Conservatives on this website. You’re just an example of why this website was named.
kingsjester on February 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Well, someone who takes such delight in pointing out the negative surely can come up with the positive side of their own argument. Or are you afraid of having your own position town to shreds?
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM
*torn, not “town”
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Hmmm, let’s see:
1)She sold the Governor’s jet (and flys commercial coach btw).
2)She fired the chef and chauffeurs.
3)She’s smoked out corrupt politicians.
4)She drives herself to work and doesn’t live in the governor’s mansion.
5) She has CUT government, in her words, “When I say reductions, I don’t just mean a slowing in the rate of increases, I mean actual reductions.”
All of these things are amazing, not because they make her more folksy and ‘in touch’, but because she saves the taxpayers’ money!
6)She has Alaska’s job future and helped our national security future by being a crusader for tapping American energy with American workers.
7)She secured the pipeline deal by opening up bidding to the free market, which no one was able to do for decades.
She has an open door policy with all state legislators, no matter how junior they are (unheard of in a governor’s office).
8)She is suing the federal government for insane and economically destructive Endagered Species regulation.
9)She is a lifetime NRA member and advocates for our second amendment.
10)She ran on the concept of “frugal government”, which is straight out of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy.
11)She lives her values.
That’s only the tip of the ANWAR glacier. And that’s only half a term ;)
ashleymatt on February 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM
that was well-thought out and rational. i want to be clear on that. my comments about palin supporters being hotheaded and irrational can’t be applied to what technopeasant wrote.
but yes. i remain unconvinced. it was mostly just a very generous explanation for her failure as a vp candidate. the affirmative arguments in the final paragraphs amount to the “she’s got pizzazz” claim, which, along with her pro-gun and anti-corruption creds amount to something, for sure, but not enough for me to cancel the 2012 gop primary. sorry.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM
eh – I have to say I am disappointed in your responses to people calling you on your over the top pseudo intellectual rant.
Your initial rant truly did not say very much, and it said this bit of nothing in a very wordy way. I can write paragraphs like that at will due to years of experience in the corporate world.
Do not make the mistake that us non east coast conservatives can’t handle your multi syllabic words – we can, but would prefer that when you fling them about that they actually say something worthwhile – yours did not.
Your childish responses to relatively benign criticism do high light the main fallacy of all intellectuals on either side of the political spectrum. When their positions are questioned, (either in a “nice” or more aggressive manner) they immediately denigrate the person who “dares” to question them, and assumes the position of higher intelligence, therefore the right to “talk down” to said person – hence the “bunnies ” statement you made.
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Oops, numbering error; there were actually 12.
She’s also been a small business owner and paid her own way through college. Again, that’s not great because it makes her more populist, it’s great because she’s had a real job and knows money is not just green paper to be spent on programs.
ashleymatt on February 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM
You’re good at constructing straw men. I don’t think anyone is saying that Palin should be handed the nomination without a primary fight.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM
How does a VP candidate “fail”? What’s always conveniently forgotten is the big boost she gave to McCain in the polls, before the “economic crisis” (which McCain ****ed up, not Palin).
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:13 PM
i hope you don’t think that “groundswell” extends beyond the walls of the echo chamber.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 12:15 PM
We’ll see, won’t we? If it doesn’t extend beyond the walls of the “echo chamber”, Palin will vanish away. If not, she won’t. Why are you concerned? And why not offer an alternative? Surely you have someone, anyone, in mind? Come on.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM
You see, here’s one of the fascinating things about the Palin phenom from the very beginning. That “antis” have always been far more fervent than the “pros” will ever be, and on a far more personal, almost primitive level. Absolutely fascinating.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:23 PM
If Sarah Palin was not a rising star (or superstar) why is she attracting such immense support (65,000 on Team Sarah and hundreds of thousands on Facebook) and donations from multitudes that know full well that she was part and parcel of a losing ticket.
You anti-Palin haters may purport Sarah to be stupid but do you really believe that hundreds of thousands of her middle-class supporters are also morons to the nth degree. Be intellectually honest for once–nobody develops this kind of following if they haven’t got the potential to deliver the ‘goods’. Sarah’s job is to turn that potential into reality and our job, as supporters of Sarah, is to stand behind her and encourage her to be the best she can be and to defend her to the death against those who throw up roadblocks or are obsessed with thwarting Sarah from fulfilling what we perceive as her eventual destiny.
technopeasant on February 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM
She really was a drag on Chambliss election rallies..
the_nile on February 7, 2009 at 12:35 PM
actually, it said a lot in a very compressed way. ddrintn understood what i said. you didn’t and perhaps that’s because of your years of experience in the corporate world where words are employed to dazzle and obfuscate more often than not.
like this?
we’ve covered this already: when palinites can come to the discussion without setting the table with rancor and contumely, they can demand respect from their opponents. untill then, go fuck yourself with these phony appeals for civility and mutual respect. you sound like obama calling for bipartisan unity while he has pelosi and ried working the opposition over in the alley.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I’ve not attacked you personally. Just asked you to provide an alternative. Come on now. Can’t do it?
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM
well, let’s use facebook then.
sarah palin: 438,000 friends
barack obama (as of june 2008) 1.1 million friends
65k on teamsarah? 900k on obamaforamerica.
you must have comparatively high expectations that obama will deliver the goods, no?
that was quite a bit less rational than what you offered before.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Eh -
I don’t believe that I addressed you with rancor at all.
I am not a palinite – I like her okay, but there ARE other potential candidates out there.
I got what you were trying to say in your intitial wordy post, but felt it was “non value added”. How is that for a typical corporate response??
BUT THE BIG POINT HERE IS:
You responded EXACTLY how pseudo intellectuals do when they are politely or non politely challenged on their position. Look at your response – you threw a tantrum! You are started to use obscene phrases and jump up and down (metaphorically speaking).
By the way, I didn’t make an appeal for civility and mutual respect, I pointed out that people who consider themselves intellectually superior always revert to ranting like schoolyard boys when they are challenged, just like Obama.
I agree with ddrintn, you can’t provide an viable alternative, you just know that you don’t like the one currently presented. No one wants Palin elected today, she needs to run through the primaries to really get a feel for her potential.
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Step back for a moment, take a breath and relax a bit, techno. You’re letting him goad you into making exactly the sort of response he wants you to make. eh wants to paint Sarah supporters as essentially the conservative equivalent of Obamatrons, which, of course, we’re not. But don’t let him paint you with that brush. We’ve made good solid cases for her. He’s not interested in listening. Don’t waste the effort.
Right now it’s still early in the game. Naturally Sarah doesn’t have the machinery in place that Bambi had on the eve of the election. It took Bambi four years to get his machine up and running. Sarah’s got time to work on her flaws and develop her message while at the same time demonstrating her administrative skills. Maybe she’ll be up for the challenge (I think she will be), maybe she won’t. But she’s got the time. And–she’ll have to present her case to conservatives and the Republican party against possible rivals during the primaries should she decide to toss her hat in the ring and then later in the 2012 election should she make it that far.
Ultimately, it depends on Sarah and her family as to whether she wants to put herself–and them–through that grind again. We should have a clearer answer in the next year or so. Until then, I’m keeping an open mind and looking at all possibilities.
Matt Helm on February 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM
technopeasant
That was a good post on why you like Palin. Brought up some good points for thinking about. Thanks
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Matt Helm on February 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM
True statement
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM
++
the_nile on February 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM
lol!
catch the fever!
sarahpac
team sarah
she will. obama worship occupies the space if populism and that majority populist mass was specifically mobilized against palinite populism. the more the palinites’ minority populism asserts itself against the majority obamaite populism, the more pushback it will encounter, until it’s ultimately pushed off the board. if you’re counting on the majority waking up and becoming rational about obama, the gop had better have something rational to offer them. populism will only keep the reaction/counter-reaction going, and going against the right.
waste. embarrassing, appalling waste.
i have the humility to admit that i have no idea what set of issues or qualities in a candidate could potentially be responsive to events three years down the road. again, sorry.
seriously, i couldn’t say.
honestly, i…
jesus! i’m ready to say lindsay graham just to piss you off.
so silly…take me to the teamgiuliani2012 page. i can’t find it.
lol!
eh on February 7, 2009 at 1:30 PM
You can bitch and moan about a potential candidate some people DO support, but can’t come up with an alternative? I mean, voicing support for Lindsay Graham would at least be SOMEthing.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 1:35 PM
You can b*tch and moan about a potential candidate that some people DO support, but can’t come up with an alternative? I mean, voicing support for Graham would at least be SOMEthing.
Well, that’s just this site. I would have to have at least a couple of weeks to come up with the lowest-common-denominator attacks on Palin.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Consider me a dichotomy. I feel passionately about what and who I believe in but more often than not accept that reason should prevail over emotion and the truth is the truth whatever form it takes or wherever you find it.
With regards to Sarah I accept how she performed in the last campaign and why she did what she did but at the same time look forward enthusiatically to her fulfilling her potential and just as important dethrone Obama in 2012.
If you have read any of my past postings I am virtually obsessed with Obama and his defeat. I am a student of history. I know what tyranny Obama and his merry men and women are capable of. Read Mein Kampf, Rules for Radicals or Atlas Shrugged if you doubt my sincerity or my reasons for pessimism.
technopeasant on February 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Sorry for the semi-repeated posts. I thought the first one didn’t take.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM
eh
There is a Youtube video that my teenage son showed me about people getting upset over posts on blogs. You need to watch it. Seriously, dude.
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Eh , apparently you’re a fraud if you can’t provide even one candidate that fits your bill somewhat.
the_nile on February 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM
you’ll never find it’s match on any conservative site. guaranteed.
the palinites didn’t start being obnoxious on november 6th. before they even knew her name they were attacking mccain more harshly than they would attack obama. palin’s selection only trans-substantiated the “real” conservatives anti-mccain hate into a human body. from then on throughout the election cycle, while the despised “rinos” supported the entire ticket and defended palin against her leftwing assailants, the palinites did everything they could to polarize the ticket, adopting leftwing talking points in the course of it. even now when he’s safely back in congress doing exactly what you claim to want him to be doing, and what he’d probably be doing right now if he were president, the palinites still talk smack.
eh on February 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM
See, you’re creating straw men again. I haven’t attacked McCain in the same way I criticize Obama. I don’t worship Sarah Palin. Your line of reasoning seems to be, “Palin has some real, unthinking zealots supporting her. Therefore she is garbage.” THAT’S garbage.
You still haven’t voiced an alternative. I don’t think you have one. You seem to be clear about what you’re against, not what you’re for. I don’t have much time for such people. Buh bye.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Frankly, I was thrilled when McCain chose Sarah Palin. At the end of August and early September on many blogs I commended John for such a bold move.
Rush Limbaugh even called McCain John McBrilliant.
Having said that, as a conservative I was never blind to McCain’s flaws as a Presidential candidate. I knew that if all he could focus on was bipartisanship, abolishing earmarks, and winning in Iraq it would probably be a losing proposition.
I also knew if McCain could not become more eloquent and enunciate forcefully conservative principles his fate would probably be sealed. Obama was just too charismatic and the MSM was just too much in the tank for him for McCain to have much of a chance. You could equate this to a football team who is capable of performing well against Team A but not matching up well against Team B.
And of course the financial meltdown and McCain’s support of the bailout bill proved to be the final nail on the coffin for McCain’s campaign.
Supporting Sarah and recognizing McCain’s limitations are not mutually exclusive. Conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time.
At least McCain gave us the means (Sarah Palin) to rebuild the conservative movement. For that I am grateful to him.
technopeasant on February 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM
technopeasant on February 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I agree with you on McCain. I thought his addition of Palin to the ticket was the first thing he did right. It energized the base. Otherwise, we really would have been slaughtered.
catlady on February 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I’d still hit it, even though that crazy Jim guy threatened to gut me with a caribou knife and then throw me off a fishing boat — or was he going to gut me with a fishing knife and throw me off a caribou? I can’t remember which.
Blacksheep on February 7, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Don’t take my fake name in vain, man
I said I support Pence, not Palin, for POTUS
Frum is what I said he is, and more. I explained why.
Read his books and articles: he’s a badly-flawed person, to put it mildly
Janos Hunyadi on February 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Quite to the contrary. If one engages a cultural neodialectic theory of political dialectics, one is faced with a choice: either accept the textual paradigm of discourse or conclude that consensus is a product of the collective unconscious. If cultural neodialectic theory holds, it could be said that conceptualist Marxism demonstrates that the primary goal of the existential being is social comment.
Structural predialectic theory compels a further choice: either reject cultural neodialectic theory or conclude that truth serves to entrench capitalism. Herschberger states that we have to choose between conceptualist Marxism and textual materialism. Thus, the main theme of d’Erlette’s analysis of cultural neodialectic theory is a mythopoetical whole.
Finally, if cultural neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between conceptualist Marxism and the cultural paradigm of consensus. The characteristic theme of Parry’s[6] critique of capitalist materialism is the fatal flaw of neotextual sexual identity. Lacan suggests the use of Sartreist absurdity to attack capitalism. However, the primary theme of the works of Stone is the role of the political activist as observer.
“Class is intrinsically elitist,” says Sartre; however, according to de Selby, it is not so much class that is intrinsically elitist, but rather the stasis, and some would say the rubicon, of class. The premise of constructivism implies that reality has intrinsic meaning, given that Sartreist absurdity is invalid. Thus, any number of narratives concerning the bridge between class and culture may be found.
petefrt on February 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM
To make sense of the post, check out the Postmodernism Essay Generator. It’s a barrel of laughs, by the way.
petefrt on February 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Not even close. The population of Wasilla never exceeded 6,000 when palin was mayor; even today the town’s own website lists the population at 7,000. In other words, there are high schools that are bigger than Wasilla. This photo should help outsiders understand the executive experience a Mayor of Wasilla gains.
More recently, palin has been governor of a state with as many residents as Boise Idaho for about a year (when she finds the time between photo-ops in the lower-48).
palin/bachman 2012… PLEASE! :D
benny shakar on February 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Which is about 6,000 more than Obama was ever responsible for…until now. And it’s showing.
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Benny shakar
And what was the executive experience of Obama prior to becoming President ? None , zilch , nada , wala and zero . What was his experience in real life prior becoming POTUS . A community organizer which he failed , a University professor in a prestigious university in Chicago that was afraid to participate in friendly debates between conservative and liberal professors and oh btw , never bothered to do a paper for peer review . A Harvard Law Review editor whose editorial trail leaves something to be desired . A state senator who never wrote a bill but due to Emil Jones , was able to get his name as the principal author on bills that other senators wrote and worked hard for that became part of Illinois law . A junior Illinois Senator that spend more time campaigning to become President rather than being Senator .
Explain to me again why Palin who was running for VP was deemed unqualified when Obama who is now President had a background while impressive in paper had nothing to say about leadership , working under pressure and under adverse situations in real life ?
DinobotPrime on February 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Why, our unqualified success was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, of course!
ddrintn on February 7, 2009 at 10:09 PM
ddrintn
Well , I like to see and read all the editorials he had written during his tenure at the prestigious Harvard Law Review . Of course , being a former editor @ HLR doesn’t exactly meets the criteria of real life , does it ??
DinobotPrime on February 8, 2009 at 1:08 AM
I don´t know what Frum is trying to achieve here but it´s not about fighting liberalism.
No, I don´t think Palin is perfect as she is; clearly she still has a lot to learn. But she is a hell of a lot more impressive in terms of character than our current clown of a vice president (and let´s face it, he doesn´t know much either). Palin would hardly have done more damage to the nation than Barack Obama and the current congress are doing right now.
Once again: THEY are the party of Michael Moore and Al Franken and Jack Murtha, of urban decay and machine politics and tax cheating politicians who ought to be in jail. And I´m supposed to be ashamed of Palin or Limbaugh or whoever the libs´ current bête noire is? Screw that.
Let´s cut the crap. I don´t consider myself a strong social conservative and I am not even religious but it is pretty obvious: If Palin had been moderately pro-choice and said exactly the same things but in accent-free English, even Frum wouldn´t question her experience and potential.
el gordo on February 8, 2009 at 8:41 AM
On Frum´s new website, I wonder how much energy they spent going after Geithner, Daschle, Holder, Holdren and all the other corrupt and/or marxist appointees (or how much energy they spent going after Republicans who cannot wait to get their place in our new socialist order) as opposed to whining about Sarah Palin. “I wanna new majority but it´s gotta have no Palin in it.” To which I say: Grow up. The people who like Sarah are real. Their donations are real. Show me the people who will walk door to door for your secular, moderate GOP. Oh, sure, there are voter like that. So what. When have the Democrats ever rejected a constituency? No, it takes a moderate conservative to split them off.
el gordo on February 8, 2009 at 11:47 AM
One more point, even if nobody reads it.
Frum complains about the “cultural animosities” in the conservative base. To which I say – if someone feels compelled to vote for a socialist because social conservatives scare him,
a) he cannot be much of a sensible secular small government conservative either.
b) he is certainly full of “cultural hostility”.
el gordo on February 8, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I’ve yet to hear a cogent one against her.
hawkdriver on February 9, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3