Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on March 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Call the Palinphobes lacking in logic and they will have tantrums, but this time the sandal might fit. This is the Audacity of Type, a faith-based illusion if ever there was one, the belief that qualities shared by and appealing to pundits and writers – glibness, a worldly patina, and a superficial verbal facility – are those needed to run a great nation in a troubled and dangerous era.
But which is more rational, to place limited trust in a proven reformer, who can learn certain facts she does not know already, or to breathe fictional traits into an unknown quantity, who has never run anything, or ever done much besides talk?”
***
“The key reason Palin would lose to Obama by so much is that even though she might be the top choice for a certain segment of voters within her party, there’s also a number of Republicans who say they would vote for Obama if their party nominated Palin.”
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 4
Republicans need to reach out to more women.
Terrye on March 19, 2009
Here’s your chance. Tell them how.
SKYFOX on March 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Blah, Blah, Blah. Yada, Yada, Yada. Now you want to raise the Africa thing than has been debunked, time and again, by the key people who were actually in the room? You’ve lost your way — MSNBC is down the hall and to the left.
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Steve Z on March 19, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Nice.
ttime500 on March 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Women are okay with other women being beautiful OR smart OR talented OR successful. Sarah goes 4 for 4, which incites an ugly jealousy the likes of which is unprecedented. (and don’t forget that her hubby is also a major league HOT guy and that just fuels the jealousy).
I personally think Palin is off the charts PERFECT for America, and all bullshit aside, she would rock this country and get it back to LOVING ITSELF and being proud again. She could give a speech in a damn croaker sack and make it golden. F**k the detractors!!
Ris4victory on March 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Democrats only talk about faith — witness Obama who claims to have attended church for 20 years, but apparently never once read the church bulletin. I have never heard the Governor “preach” about anything, but then I’m not looking for a pastor. Please, tell us who your choice of morally-perfected candidates is, so we can all be appropriately amused.
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Isn’t it jumping the gun a bit to do a poll for a 2012 election now? Besides I doubt she would run, I think Cantor will…
zembla on March 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM
The candidates themselves are irrelevant. It’s whoever the news media sanctifies and throws the election for. Win the media and you win the presidency. Democracy no longer functions.
Crusty on March 19, 2009 at 10:31 AM
I love Palin.
And I love the way the statists freak out over her … they would be doing the same with the Founding Fathers.
The Democrats HATE the Constitution.
The Democrats HATE the Declaration.
The Democrats HATE Capitalism.
The Democrats HATE America.
The Democrats LOVE Isslamist.
The Democrats SUCK.
ex-Democrat on March 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I’m confused by the idea that women dislike Palin because of these attributes; I may not be a “ten” in those catagories, but I can hold my own, and I don’t focus on any of those qualities when I asess Sarah Palin. To me, all of those are great qualities in a leader. It’s very hard to accept that my views would be so radically different from mainstream America- I think it has much more to do with the media’s pop culture review of Palin that America took as fact. A lot of people never go further than the alphabet networks to form their opinions.
anniekc on March 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Compare these polls with Reagan’s leading up to the 1980 primary season. Even Carter polled higher. George H. W. Bush polled about even with Reagan entering the primary season.
There were tons more Republicans that refused to vote for the Republican when McCain was nominated and many ended up voting for Obama.
JonPrichard on March 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Since early Dec. 08 Sarah has been minding her business in Alaska, not ruffling any feathers except those back home occasionally.
Why is there so much attention paid to a a losing VP candidate who is currently not active in national politics?
Why are Romney, Huckabee, Jindal, Sanford, Crist, Pawlenty and others who have been more active and prominent in GOP circles and in the MSM for the past 110 days not receiving more ‘love’ from Hot Air or the MSM?
And why does a woman out of the national spotlight for so long and Governor of a state with only 3 electoral votes and a populace that always votes for the GOP receive the coveted keynote speaking role at the Congressional fundraising dinner when any of the above gentlemen appear to be much worthier at present?
In the golf world, while golf was being played from July 08 to Feb. 09, even though he was not active, who was most on the lips of most golfers, golf fans, and golf scribes. For non-golf fans his name is Tiger Woods. It was like he had never left the game.
In 1996 Ron Sirak wrote this about Tiger Woods: “An overwhelming significant event…rarely announces its presence. Major moments are recognized much more easily in retrospect than when they are happening.”
Sarah Palin is Tiger Woods. It is like she has never left the national stage. It was if she was only on hiatus.
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I would say it’s because there’s a certain bit of detachment from celebrities. It’s like they live in some other world where we observe them behind the glass. They’re not real, and they inhabit a world of fantasy and make-believe that ultimately has little impact on a woman’s life.
But if Angelina Jolie moved in next door, you can bet even her most ardent fan would start hating her guts the first time Angie smiled and waved good morning to her husband. It’s sadly the nature of the beast.
NoLeftTurn on March 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
NoLeftTurn on March 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
If I am reading you right about ‘detachment from celebrities…they’re not real, and they inhabit a world of fantasy and make-believe that ultimately has little impact on a woman’s life’ then I think what Sarah’s primary goal has to be on the campaign trail regarding impacting the ‘women vote’ is to ‘take that world of fantasy and make-believe regarding the aura surrounding the Messiah, expose its underbelly, and demonstrate how that illusion does indeed have a real, significant impact on a woman’s life, and develop a narrative devoted to how creepy a woman would feel if Obama did move next door to her and how she might be affected after a little while.
Thank you NoLeftTurn I would have never thought of this on my own.
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Yet the court of the electorate found for Obama. Notice, I did not say that Palin was unqualified….I said the electorate judged her to be unqualified. She was unable to fill the job description she was applying for.
She was unprepared for media scrutiny, so the media sensationalized her.
She said some very stupid things in interviews, and allowed the media to characturize her into a national punchline.
She willingly allowed herself to used as an attack dog, and branded herself as a race-baiter and an IQ-baiter(anti-intellectual, anti-academic).
Possibly she is very bright but profoundly unready.
Possibly she can get ready.
And, if you like, the GOP sacrificed Palin in a cheap throw away grab for the PUMA votes. McCain thought any XX would do. He was wrong, American women aren’t that stupid.
It is silly to demonize the media for a deliberate takedown of Palin…as an unknown, she had no definition in the public square.
Out of fear or bad management, she retreated to purdah after a few missteps and allowed the media to define to her.
The media is a scorpion….you cannot blame it for its own nature.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM
As one very frank woman pointed out, feminists hate Palin because she has 5 children, which means she likes to f**k and she’s gettin’ more than they are!
As far as Republicans who won’t vote for her? They haven’t gotten the memo that MSM news is not journalism, it’s propaganda and they are being lied to. Whenever I ask them why they won’t support her they cite things that have long since been disproven. But the media brainwashing persists.
Crusty on March 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I’ve been a faithful Republican voter since Ford. I haven’t always been happy about it (Bush I, Dole, McCain). I’m tired of this party nominating moderates and losing. I won’t go with it anymore. This last time did it for me. I won’t do it anymore. I will not!
If the Republicans can’t give me a true conservative, I’ll sit the next one out or find some irrelevant third-party candidate to vote for.
‘Moderates’ can kiss my ass.
trigon on March 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I would say it’s because there’s a certain bit of detachment from celebrities. It’s like they live in some other world where we observe them behind the glass. They’re not real, and they inhabit a world of fantasy and make-believe that ultimately has little impact on a woman’s life.
But if Angelina Jolie moved in next door, you can bet even her most ardent fan would start hating her guts the first time Angie smiled and waved good morning to her husband. It’s sadly the nature of the beast.
NoLeftTurn on March 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
+10
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 1:10 PM
One more thing…to the republican base, Palin is young and attractive.
To my demographic, she looks like our moms.
Thus the youth vote for Obama, 2:1.
The whole anti-intellectual anti-academic thing plays badly with college students and the college-educated, two demographics the GOP failed in.
My mom was a Big 10 homecoming queen, and she was also a lifelong republican.
She said Sarah Palin should stay home and take care of her children.
;)
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It is silly to demonize the media for a deliberate takedown of Palin…as an unknown, she had no definition in the public square.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM
You need to watch “Media Malpractice” by John Ziegler to understand what really happened between Sarah Palin and the Media during the 2008 election. Bernie Goldberg and Ann Coulter also cover that subject in both of their latest books.
One thing you need to know is that the McCain campaign deliberately kept Sarah away from the Media (which made the MSM even more hostile). They also did not prepare her properly to handle hostile interviews like Gibson’s and Couric’s. You need to only compare and contrast Obama’s/Biden’s interviews with Gibson and Couric with Sarah’s and you will see stark differences in tone, demeanor and types of questions asked.
McCain’s staff refused to let Sarah be herself and Sarah had to follow their orders (when she tried to assert herself and change things, she was accused of going “rogue”). I remember at one point, Sarah had to call Rush secretly on her cell phone so she could be interviewed by him. The McCain people even refused to let her go on O’Reilly’s show which was silly because even Hillary and Obama went on eventually. Bill O’Reilly also has spoken out in support of Sarah numerous times so I’m sure he would have given her a fair interview.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
How is that not exactly the same as saying she is unqualified?
Palin’s RNC speech received higher ratings than Obama’s Ode to a Grecian
UrnUrine in Invesco Field, and she knocked it out of the park. In which way was Palin ever “unprepared for media scrutiny”? I will say the media was completely out of bounds in its handling of her children and her family and reporting irresponsible items that took weeks for a retraction. That’s not Palin’s fault, but a failure of journalism.“Characturize” isn’t even a word. What supposedly stupid things did Palin say in interviews? Find an illustrative quote. Now tell me Biden or Obama didn’t say anything as bad or worse.
Where was Palin ever a “race-baiter” during the campaign or ever in her career? An “IQ-baiter” W ever TF that is? BTW, a veep is supposed to be the attack dog, while the top of the ticket is supposed to articulate the campaign message. Elections are point and counterpoint relay exchanges.
Palin could never be as unready as this:
As president, she might have caused the stock market to plunge over 2,000 points in the six weeks after she assumed office, left important posts in the Treasury unfilled for two months, been described by insiders as ‘overwhelmed’ by the office, and then gone on to diss the British Prime Minister on his first state visit, giving him, as one head of state to another, a set of DVDs plucked from the aisles of Wal Mart, a tasteful gift, even if they can’t be played on a TV in Britain. (Note, the Prime Minister, who is losing his eyesight, may even be blind in one eye).
As vice president, she might have told Katie Couric that when the stock market crashed in 1929, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on TV to reassure a terrified nation. Or on her first trip abroad as Secretary of State, she might have, as the AP reported, “raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe…when she mispronounced her “EU counterparts names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe’s,” then gave the Russian minister a gag “reset” button, on which the word “reset” was translated incorrectly.
It’s funny that you call the most popular Governor in America (current 64% approval rates and climbing back to their pre-election figures in the mid 70s) an affirmative action veep selection, when we have the least qualified POTUS of all time, thanks to a media that pushed the “historic” nature of his bid for the White House. Obama’s lack of any experience at all shows now, and you have the audacity to say Palin was picked because of her gender.
Who would have been a better VP? Wait, don’t tell me… Joe Liebowitz. Oh, how about Olympia Snowe? Maybe Tim Pawlenty who has made such a strong case for the GOP brand in his state that Al Freaking Franken is a contender for the Senate.
The “public square” — Do we have town criers, too? Weird that you use an obscure word like “purdah,” that means roughly “the veil” or “curtain.” We do not lock our women away in this country.
Make excuses for the media all you want, but here are the findings of the Culture and Media Institute last fall:
After examining the TV news coverage of Palin from September 29 to October 12, CMI found that ABC, NBC and CBS news shows ran 69 stories about Palin. 2 stories were positive, 37 were negative and 30 were neutral. The 2 positive stories were a two-part interview with Palin’s parents on the CBS Early Show. Not one of the major network evening news programs – ABC’s World News, NBC’s Nightly News, and CBS’s Evening News – ran a single positive story about Palin.
ABC was hardest on Palin, as 60 percent of its stories on Palin were negative. NBC came in second, as 54 percent of its stories were negative. CBS also ran 54 percent negative stories, but also ran the only two positive stories (8 percent).
CMI found that the networks promoted three major narratives about Palin:
1. Palin is an unqualified dunce. Networks established this narrative through their decisions to re-air clips of actress Tina Fey’s impersonation of Palin and the most embarrassing clips from Palin’s interviews with CBS’ Katie Couric. Overall, 21 network stories attempted to portray Palin as out-of-her-league in her vice-presidential bid. Eleven clips of Fey’s impersonation were replayed over the course of two weeks, and 14 clips of the Couric interviews were re-aired.
2. Conservatives are rejecting Palin. Nine stories emphasized attacks levied at Palin by conservative columnists. However, the networks failed to mention the support Palin has by popular conservative pundits Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin.
3. Palin is McCain’s attack dog. Fourteen network segments demonized Palin for criticizing Barack Obama. No story analyzed in the study featured parts of her speeches that did not focus on the Obama-Biden campaign.
Sarah Palin’s nomination changed the presidential race, creating a real threat to the media’s preferred candidate, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. ABC, NBC and CBS have rallied to Obama’s defense by working hard to bring Palin down.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute
Sarah Palin’s greatest strength, if she chooses to run in 2012 or another year, would be that she would be the top of the ticket and could present her own narrative, which is undeniably one of the more compelling ones in modern politics. She would have her own campaign staff rather than McCain’s inept handlers. She would have more than two months in the spotlight, and I think she would benefit from that time.
Ultimately, Obama could not fully unload on McCain, because a war hero will always be respected. So, he used cheap cliches about dirty old men to besmirch a lengthy record of public service for both McCain and his running mate respectively. It says a lot about you that you pick up this theme and run with it. You have no decency, and you cannot think for yourself.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
well…the past is dust as they say.
For whatever reason, the media got to define Palin in an information vacumn.
If wishes were horses, then beggers would ride.
Of course the media treatment was unfair…Palin was a gaffe mine until Team McCain muzzled her.
She should have started with Rush and BillO, not retreated to them in ignominy after an Epic Fail.
Team McCain wanted the prestige interviews, which Palin was just unready for. The Couric interview was not unfair….Palin just gaffed.
You can listen to the tapes…a gaffe-mine.
“…when Putin raises his head..”
jeezus.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
My apologies to Joe Lieberman for forgetting his name.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
You still haven’t produced one of these alleged gaffes.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Sarah Palin neither appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s show or Bill ORLY’S show.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
chunderroad….Palin refused meets with her own press corps.
She took no live interiviews with Q&A after her stumps until well after the damage was done.
Can you think of anything more likely to piss off the media than being denied access?
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Yesterday, I made the point that Sarah Palin’s ascendancy to the national stage was similar to Tom Brady being thrust into the starting QB role in 2001 when New England Patriots QB went down because of an injury.
Tom Brady and his team won the Super Bowl in 2001.
In the 2008 campaign Sarah Palin was prepared to lead the GOP to victory over Obama but her coach (McCain) and her teammates (McCain’s handlers) performed so poorly in developing a game strategy to take advantage of its opponent’s weaknesses and on the field by missing blocks, incurring penalties and dropping passes to such an extent that superstar Sarah, even with her talent, could not make up the difference and carry the team over the finish line.
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
That’s a gaffe?
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM
One more thing…to the republican base, Palin is young and attractive.
To my demographic, she looks like our moms.
Thus the youth vote for Obama, 2:1.
The whole anti-intellectual anti-academic thing plays badly with college students and the college-educated, two demographics the GOP failed in.
My mom was a Big 10 homecoming queen, and she was also a lifelong republican.
She said Sarah Palin should stay home and take care of her children.
;)
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I don’t think Sarah looks like the typical mom at all. Most people agree she’s hot but many think she is dumb (“Caribou Barbie”). The main problem for Sarah regarding the youth vote is that the MSM caricatured her as a dumb hillbilly anti-feminist religious right-wing nut. Most young people trend liberal anyway.
The teen girls I know that can’t stand Sarah base that opinion on what the MSM reports about Sarah. When I explain that Sarah is conservative but has libertarian leanings and talk about Sarah’s record then it does make them want to take a second look at her. Despite all that, Sarah does still have a lot of young fans. Check out her rallies from 2008 – you’ll see a lot of young people out in her audience.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM
You still haven’t produced one of these alleged gaffes.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
well I thought “…when Putin raises his head..” (her exact words) was pretty funnie, but not being able to name a supreme court decision she disagreed with outside of Roe (Valdiz anyone?) was a gaffe.
And then saying she agreed that privacy is in the constitution.
Are you u sure she’s on your side?
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM
No thanks, I’ll just run with the election results.
My cohort thinks like this…
XY college students– “she’s hot, but she’s a retard”.
XX college students– “she’s a retard.”
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
If Palin had been running for PotUS, I would agree with you. However, I seriously doubt ANYONE was voting for Biden to be VP, they were voting for Obama to be the PotUS, agreed? Similarly, McCain lost the electorial judgement although he may have picked up votes due to his VP pick, its nearly guaranteed that Obama did not pick up votes because of either Biden or Palin.
Correction; she didn’t “allow” the media to characterize her as anything. Comparing apples to apples, Biden is a noted gaffe-machine and has a history of idiocy even after being a US Senator for 30+ years. The media could have lambasted Biden endlessly if they had wanted to do so and with much more material to go on, but they didn’t because the media is notably left-leaning and are no longer shy about it either. The media slammed Palin due to her party affiliation. You will note that if Palin had been a Democratic candidate (with a son in Iraq), the storylines would have been that those against her were sexist and people were un-patriotic.
Sorry, that’s nonsense. Show me quotes where she “branded herself” as a race-baiter or an IQ-baiter. The branding was done by the media, and it was not at Palin’s behest. Again, comparing apples to apples; why doesn’t Biden’s idiocy get displayed as him being a moron, anti-intellectual, or anti-academic? Look at where Biden placed in his class out of law school, or at any of the stupid/erroneous things he’s said and contrast their highlighting by the media vs. Palin’s. The packaging by the media makes all of the difference in this regard.
I’m sorry, but this is a case of you buying the Democratic/Liberal talking points, which were guaranteed to get a reaction from the Clinton supporters (noted feminists would react strongly to being labeled a gullible to such an endeavor). In fact, the Palin pick was due to the known weakness of McCain. McCain was the centrist pick that all of the moderate-Conservatives wanted fronted, and they knew that if they had to fight over the center with Obama or Clinton, that they would lose because the McCain camp couldn’t pull in right-wing voters (many would stay home rather than vote for him), his polling numbers would have shown him as much. The moment he picked Palin, his numbers and donations shot straight through the roof from the RIGHT, *not* from the females.
That would be nice to believe, but for one problem…Barack Obama. President Obama was an unknown, with little or no track record to mention. He was a first term Senator with no bills written/sponsored, less time voting in the Senate than campaigning, and had only been on the national scene since the 2004 DNC conference where he gave a speech. There was next to zero investigation into his background to give the people the low-down on his record/history and the media had 2 years to work on it.
Consider this;
– In two months, the media was able to produce a story about Palin’s church and her beliefs.
– In two years, the MSM ignored the outrageous racism and anti-Americanism of Obama’s church of 20 years even though the church had audio tapes of Rev. Wright’s speeches posted on their website. You’ll note my credulousness at his contention that he never heard the racist, anti-American rants even though he attended on a near weekly basis.
– In two months, the media was able to produce a story questioning the birth mother of Trig Palin.
– In two years, the MSM could not conjure up a story on the legitimacy of Obama’s birth in the US (although John McCain’s birth on a US military base was considered). I’m not a “birther”, but it is something that should at least be looked at (if they are going to go so far as to question Trigg’s legitimacy, is it so difficult to imagine them delving into Obama’s legitimacy?).
– In two months, the media was able to produce a story about Palin’s associations with a “secessationist” group.
– In two years, the MSM did not relate the associations of Obama with any of his past employers, boards that he resided, or persons/friendships that he had.
Why is it so hard to accept or even acknowledge that Sarah Palin was treated differently by the media than was Barack Obama? Is it not obvious from just these few and simple examples that she was railroaded, whereas Obama was given the red-carpet treatment and was completely unvetted by the media? What role does the media have if not to act as a spotlight upon our political candidates and elected officials?
– In two months, the media was able to conjure up an image of Palin as a radical right-winger with a poor education and completely disregard her performance as a governor of a state.
– In two years, the media was unable or unwilling to investigate Obama’s radical left-wing associations, delve into his academic career, or investigate his record in the Illinois state senate.
I’d be willing to grant that Palin was a poor choice or even unqualified to be VP. However, I would expect that under any criteria, she was no less so than Obama was for PotUS. Her demonization and his coronation are proof positive that the MSM is now no more than an arm of the Democratic party. If you need more examples, I’d be more than glad to provide some…
Geministorm on March 19, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Sarah Palin neither appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s show or Bill ORLY’S show.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Rush did a call in interview with Sarah on his show one afternoon. As I mentioned above, Sarah had to call Rush on her cell phone (in between campaign rallies mind you) without telling her handlers because McCain and his staff hate Rush. At the time, Sarah sounded rushed (no pun intended) and not at her best. Later when I found out the circumstances of that interview and what Sarah had to suffer through during that campaign, I realized this woman is a true fighter and a survivor. It is bad enough having to fight with the MSM, Obama Dem Machine, MoveOn.Org, ACORN, traitor RINOs but to have your own campaign staff undermining your every move – I don’t know how she did it. There were painful lessons learned by her that will serve her well as she moves forward in life.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Let’s face it…Palin told my demographic that we are not real americans because we are going to school in univerisity cities, and that we are elitist intellectual snobs and poseurs and that we are wasting our sweat, blood and tears on degrees that meaningless.
Plus she
welcomedattracted this particular cadre of Palin-admirers to herNurembergrallies, a subdeme of American culture that we would mostly die before associating with.strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Why is there not more comment that Sarah was right regarding the various nuances of the Bush Doctrine (according to Charles Krauthammer) and was also right in her assertion of Kissinger’s position to meeting with Iran was not in line with Couric’s assertion and mischaracterization of Kissinger’s position (from McCain’s first debate with Obama)?
And to boot why did the McCain campaign not promote these facts to legitimize Sarah’s ability to understand foreign affairs and this nip the ‘bimbo narrative’ in the bud?
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Ryan Corsaro of CBS News and Jake Tapper of ABC both traveled with Palin and wrote about — in fact, devoted columns to it — how accessible Palin was. You are lying again, or repeating lies.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
They generally don’t vote. They have a short attention span. When they get a job they will learn that they were the “retards”. You can’t go by the election results because she wasn’t runnning for POTUS, McCain was. This kind of basic instinct is what got us the “retard” we have in the WH right now.
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM
So no, I don’t think Palin is going to draw the youth vote anytime soon.
But you just go ahead and knock yourselves out that it is a big media conspiracy.
rotflmao
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
But Obama doesn’t look like your dad? He’s four years older than Sarah Palin.
Wow, that was just . . . an ASTOUNDINGLY sexist statement. I don’t know your gender, young one, but if you happen to be a guy, I’ll make sure to pray for your someday-wife. She’s going to need it.
Furthermore, the anti-intellectual/anti-academic thing is little more than a baseless construct of the media and other elitists. Most people in this country haven’t been to Ivy League institutions and many are quite successful. As a public university graduate, I’ve really grown a little weary of the meme that only pointy headed policy wonks and constitutional scholars with Ivy League pedigrees are qualified to be president. Reagan was a graduate of Eureka College and was routinely dismissed as a dunce by liberals and elitists in the Republican Party. It worked out pretty well for him. Consider her stupid if you’d like, but you do so only at your own peril.
NoLeftTurn on March 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM
She didn’t do that until it was too late.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Let’s face it… Palin told my demographic that we are not real americans because we are going to school in univerisity cities, and that we are elitist intellectual snobs and poseurs and that we are wasting our sweat, blood and tears on degrees that meaningless.
Plus she
welcomedattracted this particular cadre of Palin-admirers to her Nuremberg rallies, a subdeme of American culture that we would mostly die before associating with.strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Provide the quote. Where did Palin say minorities attending urban universities are “not real Americans”?
When did she say minorities or anyone with a degree was an elitist or a snob? Because I can provide the quote where Obama demonised rural dwellers who believe in the right to bear arms.
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
When did Palin “welcome” neo-Nazis? You say she attracted them. How so? Is there any time when Palin said you are” wasting our sweat, blood and tears on degrees that (sic) meaningless”? Generally, “blood, sweat and tears” refers to the families of our armed services personnel, not students, minorities or even minority students at Hah-vahd.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM
One of your own– Ruffini.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Considering these blog entries were posted in the second week of October and Palin was introduced in Dayton, OH the last week of September, you’re wrong.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Other than not putting Sarah Palin on Rush Limbaugh’s program right away after the convention and the Couric interview, I think the other major error in strategy was to not spotlight Sarah Palin in TV commercials in the battleground states during the last week of the campaign, and allowing her to use her charisma, authenticity and cogent speaking abilty to communicate and connect with millions of American voters who may not have made up their mind yet.
Every time I bring the latter up I never get a response from posters.
Was McCain afraid of surrendering the spotlight to Sarah and one-up him, was he out of money, or was he afraid she would turn off more voters than she attracted? Did the polls dictate this would not be a wise strategy? Was the Messiah’s infomercial a factor in this decision?
What was it in your opinion?
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Gee, I thought you listened to all Sarah’s speeches, chunder.
Guess you missed this one.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Dude, if you really believe this nonsense, you are a poser. The propaganda clip you linked to says more about the rable rousing low-lifes who were heckling and hate mongering in front of a McCain-Palin rally than it does about Palin. Naturally, the invective being spewed by the Obamabots was edited out except for the chant “Hope, not hate!” — meanwhile they were showering the rally participants with nothing but hate and fear. If you associate yourself with this cadre of Obama cultists, then you are dead already, at least from the neck up.
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I think the other major error in strategy was to not spotlight Sarah Palin in TV commercials in the battleground states during the last week of the campaign, and allowing her to use her charisma, authenticity and cogent speaking abilty to communicate and connect with millions of American voters who may not have made up their mind yet.
1. Team McCain was out of fundage for spots.
2. By the week before the election Palin had become a bona fide anchor in the battleground states with 59% of independent women under 55 viewing her unfavorably.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Dude, I’m a grrl and a math/physics major.
Sarah told me that “real America” was small town and rural.
I live in a big uni town.
Do the logic.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Yep, youth vote virtually unchanged. Also caught up in the Obama hype. Palin not a relevant factor.
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Why is it even a mystery why the youth vote went overwhelmingly for Obama? Young people have historically been whores for whatever is hip, hot and trendy as defined by media and popular culture. When I was in college, Bill Clinton was the hottest thing since sliced bread. He was going to save the world. I, as a Bush supporter, was an outcast, along with a handful of other rare conservatives on campus. Same song, different generation. Given the massive propaganda machine operated by David Axelrod in cooperation with his willing shills in the MSM it should come as no surprise that youth voters were attracted to Obama. He was packaged brilliantly and young people are nothing if not suckers for that sort of thing. There’s nothing to see here — everyone can just move along.
NoLeftTurn on March 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Logic? You don’t need simultaneous equations to know that she was stoking the crowd — you know, paying them a complement. She was referring to those who only pay lip-service to America, like on the 4th of July — folks like Congressional Democrats who voted to authorize the Iraq war and then fell all over themselves to disavow their votes, once the troops were commited to the battle field. You should try some independent, logical thinking for a change instead of allowing the HuffPo ranters to rule your mind.
littleguy on March 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Wally keeps walking right into each pothole every night.
It’s like watching one of the world’s ugliest videos shows.
Popcorn?
Sapwolf on March 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
What was it in your opinion?
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The McCain campaign was dealt 2 major deathblows when:
1) McCain agreed to public financing and Obama did not. McCain did not have the money to counter Obama’s media campaign. I followed various political blogs (Dem and Rep) closely during the election. I saw many comments about how the only commercials running non-stop on tv and radio were Obama ads, especially in the battle ground states. I thought maybe McCain was waiting for a media blitz in the closing weeks but that never happened. McCain did a lot of web ads which don’t reach as wide an audience as tv/radio. Obama was swimming in money and spending it like there was no tomorrow.
2) McCain suspended his campaign during the financial crisis and pulled ads and made Sarah also stop campaigning. He lost valuable time and momentum. Sarah was also sequestered during this time while the MSM ran amok with lies and smears about Sarah and her family. McCain wound up looking very foolish when he had to back down and debate Obama and then returned to the campaign trail without having done anything to help resolve the crisis. Obama suckered and outmanuevered McCain in all this.
There are so many things that the McCain campaign screwed up, you could write a book about it all.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Jindal and Palin are two that need to get counseling from true, old-school, Reagan conservatives (Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, etc.) about how to go beyond the media. Palin was on the verge, her appeal to the right/conservatives went over the viscous media trashing she received daily and John McCain changed his schedule to go with her (she was more popular than he was). I think Jindal still has a tendency to stand with the main stream Republicans, but his principles are there, he just needs to stand by them and stop taking the moderate-cons advice.
Palin should have been a wake-up call for the moderates. Her appeal was beyond anything they could imagine. The moderates think that the way to win an election is to move to the center (left from our perspective) and get off of social issues. Well, John McCain was an illustration that the centrist plan is a loser. Palin brought in the money and the attention/fervor from the right which will win both the center and the right, which is the ONLY way to win (note that the Democrats won via this method).
Geministorm on March 19, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Sarah Palin brought up the populist complaint that the nation’s capital, these Capitol Hill insiders, are out of touch with mainstream America. She pointed out that people in Middle America work hard and love their country, without even mentioning university campuses or metropolitan areas, and you cite this as an example of her attacking segments of the population? She mentioned, “Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us.” Aren’t teachers found on campuses?
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Of course, that was text from strangelet’s linked Huff Po “article.” Kindly refrain from linking that garbage here unless you have a solid point v. propaganda. I am not your friend, either, so please don’t address me personally. Thank you.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
It sounds like you’re the bigoted and prejudiced one. You would die before associating with a “subdeme of American culture.”
Funny how you compare the GOP base to Nuremberg, while actual enemies of the Jewish people who voice and commit hate daily are given $900 million by the Obama administration. As usual, a Democrat accuses while they’re guilty.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Let me get this straight;
Palin attracted anti-Nazi’s and you think its (a) a subdeme of American culture and (b) would rather die than associate with them? So, you think Americans are Nazis or Nazi sympathizers or that its only a small portion of the population that would want to try Nazis/mass murderers? And, you’d prefer to hang with Nazis or Nazi sypathizers? WTH, that’s kind of a weird position to take up.
Unless you really don’t know what the hell you’re talking about? The Nuremberg trials were the trials where the infamous (living) members of Nazi Germany were tried for war crimes. Running guys like Goring, Hess, Speer, Rosenberg and Frick up on war crimes is something that you think was unfair or somehow un-American? Maybe that education you’re getting has somehow let you down…
Please, once you’ve gotten a little more life experience under your belt and/or education, then come back here and tell us why Palin is such a poor candidate. I really don’t expect my kids to understand the intricacies of life and how politics works with such a limited understanding.
You should continue voting for liberals or moderate conservatives until you get your “coming to Jesus” moment when you’ll finally understand the whole philosophy behind conservativism, there are many moderates that apparently have the same problem. Read up on some Edmund Burke, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Once that sinks in, you’ll be on a better footing.
Geministorm on March 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Most universities are in small towns, or what we refer to as college towns. Palin would be able to relate to them easily, but the media presented an image of her that was not true. Also, Sarah is quite popular with younger voters in Alaska. The media painted a lie about her and younger voters easily fell for Obama despite all the signs that he would turn hard left after he took office. The poll that showed Sarah 20 points behind Obama is a very ominous sign for Obama given that a similar poll was done showing Reagan 20 points behind Carter very early in Carter’s presidency. This is just the beginning of the downfall of Obama. You can really see how he is floundering. He has no experience and is so out of touch with Americans already. The media can cover for him for awhile, but between his incompetency and Sarah’s competency in Alaska, I just can’t see him getting a second term unless the economy, unemployment, and inflation don’t get out of control before say 2012. And if Sarah won the primary and united the GOP by picking Romney or another moderate easterner, that team would be pretty tough.
Sapwolf on March 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Sapwolf on March 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Is Obama truly incompetent or is he feigning incompetence to mask his true ruthless brilliance in his efforts to destroy the American economy, destroy capitalism and install a Marxist socialist regime bent on converting America into an authoritarian state that suppresses personal initiative, stifles opportunity, impoverishes the middle class for the sake of the Obamatrons, and represses the natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sapwolf, I am convinced this is one big con game as the AIG mess is a diversion to divert people from Obama’s intentions to destroy America through insidious and unscupulous means.
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Actually, many conservatives have found a right to privacy in the constitution without thinking it covers the aborting of fetuses.
Yuval Levin at National Review Online cleanly rebutted the idea that privacy = abortion, citing both conservative, anti-Roe Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative, anti-Roe Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, arguing their belief in a right to privacy within the Constitution as written. Levin concluded that “The general view that the Constitution protects a right to privacy does not require… support for Roe v. Wade or an abortion right.” The First and Fourth Amendments, for instance, clearly draw boundaries between individuals and government.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I think it was meant to distract the public from noticing too much the Fed was putting another trillion into the economy, something you will see in the markets next week nonetheless
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Breaking news: Sarah Palin through KVTA just announced that she is proposing a bill that would allow the state (Alaska) to accept only 55% of federal recovery funds (and thus rejecting nearly $515m of the almost $1B).
I wonder if this will get as much play in the MSM and if the WH will come after Sarah as it did with Sanford?
By the way these are rhetorical questions, because I already know the answers.
technopeasant on March 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I personally think that Sarah Palin was the strength in McCain / Palin ticket. Unfortunately, the American People who voted in 2008 were all mesmerized into drinking out of a mirage. My friends and people I know were all decrying her wardrobe, her smile, her style, her candidacy. I think they were in a state of denial about Sarah. How could she question The One like that (or The Second for that matter)? They saw SHE HAD WHAT IT TOOK. McCain did not do himself any favors at all.
Even though The One is not likely to be a strong candidate in 2008, and even though Sarah will prove to do a worthy job in Alaska, there will be people propping Prez’s candidacy in 2012 and we will scratch our heads again.
2012 maybe 4 years from now but we need to find our candidates (Mitt, Sarah, Cantor, Bobby) and bring them on on the national stage to show the fallacy of the current administration at EVERY opportunity.
OneConservative on March 19, 2009 at 6:29 PM
well……okfine then.
No skin off my nose.
Ya’ll just keep right on with that magical thinking that the youth demographic really lurvs Palin but the eevul msm tricked them into voting for O.
Poor little Meghan McCain wanted to start a youth outreach to nuture young conservatives, but ya’ll had one of those gaunt adams-apple-blonde tranny skanks give her a good curbstomp. Coulter or Ingraham, they are interchangeable.
Good luck with persuading independents and swing voters.
You know…..Palin has about the same appeal to college students as Michael Steele does to the Wu-Tang Clan.
And a tribe without children cannot survive.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 9:32 PM
CNN: 2008 voter turnout same as 2004 November 6, 2008
“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.”
Obama won more because fewer traditional Republican voters showed up at the polls in support of Meghain McCain’s father, than because there was a gigantic turnout for Obama. He barely improved over John Kerry’s 2004 stats.
John “Frankenstein” Kerry.
We don’t need any “poor little” rich girls who can’t get dates or decide on a life direction or work out their daddy issues to spearhead a youth outreach when they have no political experience, nothing good to say about who they are supposedly applying to (funny career move, launching your Republican party activist stint on The Daily Beast and The Huffington Post), and can you name any PR job where you don’t need basic social skills?
You can keep her, and she can keep your postmenopausal turkeyneck dry pussy no man having hag banshees company. Maybe she can have a spot on The View, and I bet she’s jealous of Elizabeth Hasselback and would jump all over her with Joy Behar.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM
lmfao!
……but I thought Coulter and Ingraham were republicans?
You forget, we are the Beautiful Party.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 10:21 PM
You see..it isn’t just academic elites, media elites and intellectual elites on our side…..we own the cultural elites: art, music, theater, dance…… the Beautiful People.
That sorry 80s chick with the big hair and mall bangs couldn’t even command the allegiance of has-been 80s hairbands.
Come to think of it, since all you got is C&W, Gretchen has a good theme song for the GOP……..
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Meghan McCain makes her debut on The View.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Palin doesn’t have to call you anything to make you look ridiculous.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Allow me to remind you, Obama really won this time because of the Econopalypse. Lol, think of how many votes would gotten if he had been white. But in 2020 you won’t be the biggest mob anymore…in 2020 caucasian becomes a minority.
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 10:56 PM
In fact…..the only elites you can claim are the elites of the church.
And we know how appealing church is to the 18 to 29 year old demographic.
;)
strangelet on March 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Beautiful People, indeed. I heard the fat Wilson sister ate herself into a food coma, she was so mad about “Barracuda.”
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Not because I’m as preoccupied with race as you are, but The New York Times says you’re wrong.
Whites will still make up by far the largest number of Americans but not as big a percentage as they do now. The white population will shrink from to 78.2 percent, from 83.3 percent.
Immigration and rapid population growth are expected to make people of Hispanic descent the nation’s largest minority by 2020, totaling 51.2 million, or 15.7 percent of the population, up from 9.7 percent in 1993.
Blacks will be the second-largest minority at 45.4 million people, 13.9 percent, up from 12.5 percent.
Asians and Pacific Islanders, too, will see significant growth, rising to 22.6 million, or 6.9 percent, from 3.4 percent.
American Indians will increase their share of the population from eight-tenths of 1 percent to nine-tenths of 1 percent, rising to 3.1 million in 2020.
If Obama had been white, he would have been run out of politics hanging out with a race-baiter like Rev. Wright, or a terrorist like William Ayers. He would have had a hard time explaining his resume.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Let’s see how appealing debt slavery is to the 18 to 29 year old demographic. As for “elites”, real Americans don’t carry on like they’re better than everyone else. They believe in equality, yet recognition and the deserved reward for hard work.
chunderroad on March 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Yeah. A fishing boat will do just fine. Or, an assembly line. Or, a store.
This nation is supposed to be governed by it’s own people. Not a political ruling class. Too many in government have never held a job in the private sector. They don’t know how to run anything. Fix anything. Produce anything.
Your thinking is wrong. You are dependent on a political class that is corrupt, power-hungry and totally incompetent. I say we should take this entire class of people and drop them in the nearest convenient hole and fill it in. Then park something heavy on top so they can’t dig their way out.
Then, we might have a hope of getting out country back.
So, yeah. A fishing boat.
trigon on March 20, 2009 at 4:56 AM
trigon, you are a moron if you think that we haven’t been ruled by elites all along. republican elites just pretend to be Noble Yeoman Farmers in order to scam votes. Even Reagan was a cultural elite.
But a candidate with only populism to recommend them is a demagogue.
Need skillz.
The GOP base worships Palin because she actually is joe sixpack with boobs, the “real deal” as joetheplumber so accurately put it.
And the republican ruling class and brain trust understands perfectly well that Palin is hateful deathpoison to independents and swing voters, and are trying desperately to persuade the base away from Palin.
Quite a dilemma, lol.
strangelet on March 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM
It amazes me how little you know or understand.
Someday, it may come to you, but I’m seriously wondering whether you’ll be able to reason your way out of the liberal sack of lies that has encased you. You might start by looking a little deeper than the surface, say by figuring out if there are more people that move from being Democrats –> Republican, Liberal –> Conservative. Its like understanding why people from Cambodia would immigrate to the US in the 70s.
Listen, I hate wasting time like this (because you’re probably a drone and a hopeless cause), but here it goes;
I was born and raised a liberal. I was a liberal until my mid-20s. There are reasons that I turned to the far-right. To be as brief as possible and not lose you due to your short attention span, the philosophy of conservativism is the best path for individual liberty/freedoms and a strong nation. It is *not* primarily about becoming rich and saving on taxes, although smaller taxes = smaller government and being “rich” = success, so those are still desirable ends.
The right EXPECTS that the youth will vote primarily for liberals because they are inexperienced and easily swayed by emotional pleas on topics that they *have not* thought through on their own. That’s OK, eventually the philosophy soaks through to some. Often what “middle America” has is an upbringing that instills those values and principles so that they are ahead of the game even though the libs like to portray them as rubes, red-necks, regressives, etc. As I said before, read some conservative thinkers (Burke, Friedman, Goldwater, Reagan, Smith, etc.), even if you’re not interested in the conservative philosophy, you should know your “enemy”, right?
Palin is attractive to the right because of her principles and “common man” persona. Look at the elected branches approval ratings, the reason why they are low is why Palin is popular. Forget the crap you’re regurgitating about Palin being “hateful” and really look at *why* she’s popular…if you continue to think its because America is racist, or religious nut jobs, or whatever other derogatory label, you’re heading in the wrong direction (just to let you know).
The conservative party does need a shake up and a rebuilding. Its because too many undisciplined “Rebublicans” (what we label as RINOs) have come into power. RINOs have abandoned the philosophy to appeal to what is perceived to be the populist vote, and that is where the battle is lost. The moderate Republicans think that the middle is where they should stand, but they don’t really stand for anything adamantly, they have no philosophical grounding. The philosophy should drive the policy, not polls or bipartisanship.
Geministorm on March 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Actually, Reagan was a C average economics student from Eureka College, and he was in a movie with Bonzo the Chimp. Don’t even argue with me that how Reagan fixed Carter’s economy didn’t usher in the longest economic peacetime expansion since World War II.
How is that AIG bonus fiasco working out for you? I love schadenfreude.
If you actually are a woman, you must have serious body image and self-esteem issues. For you to make sexist comments about a female politician would indicate as much.
I can rip on Meghan McCain, because she is a media personality. Gov. Palin is a highly respected elected official, popular among her constituents, with an impressive record of achievement focused on reform over social issues.
… is a star, which is why she was asked to be a keynote speaker at a fund raising dinner for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and she turned them down.
Snobs Are Wrong About Palin
I know Maggie Thatcher. The two women have a lot in common.
By JOHN O’SULLIVAN
Mrs. Palin had four big occasions in the late, doomed Republican campaign: her introduction by John McCain in Ohio, her speech at the GOP convention, her vice-presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden, and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. With minimal preparation, she rose to all four of them. That’s the mark of a star.
chunderroad on March 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM
BTW, let’s repeat this for the umpteenth time; Reagan was put down at EVERY opportunity by the “republican ruling class and brain trust” as being a(n) (a) idiot, (b) un-educated (he didn’t attend an Ivy League school, he), (c) too religious, (d) out of touch with modern America, and (e) too right-wing. First with Ford Republicans, and then with “moderates” like John Anderson…conservatives see the same spirit in Sarah Palin. The fact that the left and the elitists in the Republican party deride her so aggressively is exactly why we KNOW she is a good candidate.
/sigh
Geministorm on March 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Palin is only a good candidate for the incredible shrinking base.
When was Reagan president?
A quarter century ago.
Palin will simply never appeal to blacks, browns, youth, colleged educated, academics, urban dwellers, pro-choice, gays or independents and moderates.
Your chances of regaining a majority with Palin as your designated candidate approach negative infinity.
strangelet on March 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM
The base problem is that the conservative ethos stands oppositional to cultural and demographic evolution.
Can’t fight mother nature.
lol
strangelet on March 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM
The base problem is that the conservative ethos stands oppositional to cultural and demographic evolution.Can’t fight mother nature.
strangelet on March 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM
You can’t fight history, reality or gravity, either. There are a lot of constants in human nature that outweigh race and the fads of the moment.
chunderroad on March 20, 2009 at 8:45 PM
The conservative movement in America has its philosophical roots in classical European liberalism. The US was the first liberal nation, therefore conservatism is inherently liberal.
From Wikipedia:
Modern classical liberals trace their ideology to ancient Greek and medieval thought. They cite the 16th century School of Salamanca in Spain as a precursor, with its emphasis on human rights and popular sovereignty, its belief that morality need not be grounded in religion, and its moral defense of commerce. Other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance thinkers such as Erasmus and Niccolò Machiavelli represent the rise of humanism in place of the religious tradition of the Middle Ages. Rationalist philosophers of the 17th Century, such as Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza developed further ideas that would become important to liberalism, such as the social contract. However, liberalism’s classic formulation came in The Age of Enlightenment. John Locke‘s Two Treatises of Government argued that legitimate authority depended on the consent of the governed, while Adam Smith‘s The Wealth of Nations rejected mercantilism, which advocated state interventionism in the economy and protectionism, and developed modern free-market economics. These early liberals saw mercantilism as enriching privileged elites at the expense of well being of the populace. Another early expression is the tradition of a Nordic school of liberalism set in motion by a Finnish parliamentarian Anders Chydenius, not to mention David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.
chunderroad on March 20, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4