July 07, 2009
Governor Sarah Palin, Cowardice Deserter or Courageous Patriot?
Before you decide if Sarah Palin is a quitter, consider the following. From the time Governor Sarah Palin was announced as the Vice Presidential Candidate, on the republican ticket with John McCain, she has weathered countless assaults from liberal democrats, pundits in the media, and even a good number of republicans.
The insidious onslaught reaches beyond the Governor, who is seemingly unshakable, and instead resorts to attacking her family. Governor Palin’s family has warded off attack after vile attack. Attacks targeted at her children, who are innocent, uninvolved, and, by all rights, should be regarded as politically inconsequential and off limits.
The contempt for Governor Palin is mind-boggling. She is intelligent, confident, articulate, and attractive. In general, most people are not only attracted to these traits, but actually aspire to them. So, why is she so despised?
Identifying the reasons Liberals revile Governor Palin is easy. Liberals detest anybody who has an ideology, or even an opinion, that differs from what they espouse at a given moment. If someone disagrees about the current direction of the political winds, a liberal is ready to attempt to discredit their detractors, by any available means, and at almost any cost.
I believe the reason for the opposition’s contempt, in a word, is fear. The character assassins fear Governor Palin because, try as they may, they cannot understand her popularity. Governor Palin’s ability to rouse a crowd into a supportive frenzy is incomprehensible to them, thus she petrifies the self-appointed elitists who display public abhorrence toward her. Therefore, the only answer, in their feeble minds, is to attack.
Amazingly, the simple truth about Governor Palin’s popularity has little to do with her aforementioned traits. Rather, it is her plainness. She is remarkably ordinary. She is an average American with many of the same issues and stresses in life as the rest of us. Therefore, she relates to a large portion of the “average” population, who seem to have an ability to relate to her.
That is the danger. The perpetual threat, to the “Beltway Elites”, is her ability to relate to, or connect with plain, ordinary, average Americans. To make matters worse, she practices what she preaches. The Governor actually lives the conservative values that she espouses, and that is unacceptable. Because that is not the way things are done by American Politicians.
As of late, Governor Palin has announced her early resignation explaining that she is spending more time defending against frivolous ethics charges than governing. She considers the time, energy, resources, and money spent in her defense, unproductive for her State, and feels they are all better spent elsewhere. In effect, she has determined that her desire to maintain the title of Governor is not in the best interest of the State of Alaska, and therefore is stepping aside to allow the very capable Lt. Governor Parnell to take over.
Instead of those who wanted Governor Palin to step down previously, simply allowing her a quiet resignation of her office, the character assassination took on a whole new vigor. Now Governor Palin is being publicly denounced, and being accused of being a “cowardice deserter”.
Following this line of reasoning, I suppose these accusers also consider John Dickinson a “cowardice deserter”. Who is John Dickinson, you ask?
Mr. Dickinson was a delegate from Pennsylvania in the Second Continental Congress; considered the most important Moderate in the Congress at the time, he led the opposition to the Lee Resolution. Mr. Dickinson believed in reconciliation, and knew that passing the Lee Resolution would bring conflict, which went against his devotion as a Quaker.
When Congress resolved to vote on the Lee Resolution, Mr. Dickinson refused to abandon his devotions as a Quaker. More importantly, he was unwilling to allow his personal convictions to hinder what was right for the Country and removed himself from the floor insuring his vote would not be counted, and the Lee Resolution passed unanimously.
Mr. Dickinson’s act of removing himself was one of the most patriotic actions of the day, as the Lee Resolution, passed on July 2, 1776, was the legislation by which Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.
No. Mr. Dickinson was not a “cowardice deserter”, and neither is Governor Sarah Palin. On both accounts, it took great courage to do, what they believed to be, the right thing for their State. Therefore, in all reality, they both share a commonality in the role of being Patriots.
David,
Today, Sarah Palin said in an interview with ABC:
“I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out.”
The ‘department of law’?
“She is intelligent, confident, articulate, and attractive,” you write.
The “department of law there in the White House?”
Seriously. You’ve got to be kidding.
“Before you decide if Sarah Palin is a quitter…”
David? Uh, David? David! Wake up, David! Snap out of it, man! Today is July 7th, 2009.
She
already
quit.
[Gasp]
Nice little diatribe on liberals. Personally, I think the problem with liberals is that they ‘pal around with terrorists.’ As you say, it’s all about “fear” and “attacks”.
You write: “Amazingly, the simple truth about Governor Palin’s popularity has little to do with her aforementioned traits. Rather, it is her plainness. She is remarkably ordinary.”
Pardon my liberal elitism, but I do not want an ordinary person elected to high office. If extraordinary isn’t good enough for American citizens, the least we could do is shoot for above average. The average American reads one book per year. In an interview with that veritable tigress of ambush journalism, Katie Couric, Palin couldn’t even name what she read.
“Department of law”?
Snort.
Most liberals, including myself (intentionally not labeling myself a democrat, by the way) hate Sarah Palin because she represents so many problems with America it’s almost offensive, no, it is offensive that the GOP thought throwing her up there as arm candy for McCain would steal votes away from Obama.
Ahhhhhhh…you lost me at “articulate.” She may be a lot of things, but articulate isn’t one of them.
Posted by: Donna at July 7, 2009 06:50 PM“She is intelligent, confident, articulate, and attractive” ?!?!?!?!
She is certainly confident and attractive (I guess) but there is no way she would qualify for your other two adjectives. I’m sure there are some other positive adjectives that would be fitting of her but intelligent and articulate? Really?
Posted by: tcsned at July 7, 2009 07:16 PMMy favorite was the way she derided quitters as she was giving her I Quit speech.
Left hemisphere doesn’t apparently know what the right hemisphere is saying, hence they contradict each other when they both speak in the same session.
Quitters are not good. I quit.
S. Palin is her own worst critic.
SM,
“Let me see if I can get this straight; Sarah Palin is the scum of the earth, the left wants to help republicans win elections by advising them to dump Sarah Palin, and at the same time they want the republicans to continue to support Sarah Palin so that the republicans will continue to loose elections. Have I got this right?”
No. You do not. You got it wrong.
No one said Sarah Palin is the “scum of the earth.”
She appeals to the far right, a constituency of the GOP which most Americans reject. This constituency is only a part of the GOP, yet this far right wing demands the GOP move farther in that direction, virtually dooming the party to regional status. It is becoming a group incapable of compromise or cooperation. Conservative Republicans ruled incompetently. After the 2006 midterm elections, which they lost in a landslide, they have responded by blocking legislation with filibusters and presidential vetoes. After losing even worse in 2008, and now facing a Democratic Executive Branch, a supermajority of Democrats in the Senate, and a huge majority of Democrats in the House, the far right GOP insist of pursuing the same course.
It’s not good for the country when a portion of the electorate pursues such a destructive path, a path personified by Sarah Palin.
The political pendulum swings back and forth, of course, and if the GOP cannot recover from its self-destructive course, another party will take its place, or more likely, the Democrats will split between moderates and liberals. In the meantime, the self-destruction of the GOP harms everyone. The country is involved in two losing wars and a deep economic recession that could easily become a depression. For the vast majority of Americans to face a small minority rooting for the country to fail…
As for whether Sarah Palin is running for another office after quitting her current one, no one knows.
Posted by: phx8 at July 7, 2009 10:41 PMYukon Jake,
Interesting take. As much as I dislike her politics, I don’t perceive her family’s appearances on the stage as any worse use of them as props than what other politicians do. Well, ok, maybe she puts her family into play more than McCain, Biden, or Obama, but still, I don’t have a problem with that.
Most families with a Downs baby and an unwed teenage mother would be destroyed by the medical bills, cost of child care, and cost of institutionalization for the Downs child, depending upon the degree of retardation. It’s one thing for the Palins to choose it for themselves and live with the consequences. That’s their choice. They will probably make enough money to cover the costs. To politically force their choices upon others through an agenda that includes abstinence for sexual education, and the revoking of Roe v Wade, well, that is another matter.
Ethics complaints? Politics is not beanbag. She has attacked, and she has been attacked. She quit four colleges, she quit her job on an Alaskan board, and she quit as Governor. Time to rake in some money on a ghostwritten book.
Posted by: phx8 at July 8, 2009 12:16 AMYukon Jake,
Well, you didn’t ask me, I live in Indiana and I’m a taoist so I could care less what her religion is…
But, weren’t you the one who told everyone hear how great of a governor she was? Singing her praises? Now she’s incompetent? Interesting…
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 12:50 AMhttp://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/006140.html#260138
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 12:55 AMThe other day my wife and I were talking. She is very much a city girl.
“I saw two raptors flying around the wetlands,” I said. “I think they were a pair of young ospreys.”
“Ospreys can fly?” she said incredulously.
“Yes. They’re like hawks or eagles.”
“I thought they were like storks,” she said.
“Um, storks can fly too.”
Everyone commits gaffes. My wife is a successful upper level executive for a large corporation. Ospreys and storks are not her area of experties. Politicians commits gaffes too, of course- Obama, Biden, and McCain all do it from time to time.
The thing about Palin is that she commits gaffes on a constant basis, even when the subject should be within her wheelhouse. I didn’t have to wait a week to see if she’d say something ridiculous. She did it today with her comment about the “department of law.” The problem is that she does not know what she is talking about, and as a result, she sounds foolish everytime she tries to wing it.
That would be fine if she were a mediocre student running for student council. However, she ran as a candidate for Vice-President, the second highest position in the Executive Branch. Knowledge of White House organization should be second nature. And yet…
This is a person who rose far above their capability. That is not acceptable in a person who could have been a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Posted by: phx8 at July 8, 2009 12:56 AMI didn’t see greedy, blowhard narcissist among the choices, which lever do I pull for that selection?
Posted by: gergle at July 8, 2009 01:08 AMIt’s amazing how rabidly Democrats and a lot of “Republicans” (notice that i did not say Conservatives) are already afraid of this woman. And they should be. If they aren’t why do they attack her with such viciousness. If she was everything they spit out: inexperienced, can’t speak well… compare her performance Friday to any Big Barry talk show, i mean news conference… He can’t do anything without his teleprompter at his scripted news conferences, complete with setup questions.
Now that they can’t squawk about false allegations, devoting valuable time and energy to them instead of her gubernatorial duties, stupid logo innuendos… what will Democrats and spineless (Moderate) Republicans whine about her for next. Continue to call her childish names?
Meanwhile, she can move on and really take her game to the next level.
Just like she SAID she is going to.
Myles, The reason the democrats and republicans (not conservatives) hate Sarah is that she is an extremely charismatic woman and her unadulterated political appeal is the one real thing that will reinvigorate conservatism and republicanism. That’s why the democrats and spineless republicans are afraid of her, and attacking her.
Posted by: Marcie S. at July 8, 2009 04:07 AMMr. Black nice tongue in cheek article on Palin. I was laughing all the way. You have demonstrated the principles of conservatism to which Palin subscribes with this humorous piece. Good job.
I especially like the way you point out how Palin as a VP candidate could accuse the opposition of so many things and then fall apart when the half truths, rumours and outright lies are directed to her. Blame others for doing what you are is a fine conservative principle as demonstrated here.
Bringing in the well used fear mongering principle of conservatism is admirable and the more I think about it I guess I would fear Palin running the country, wouldn’t anyone that cares about the country do the same? She could do it but only if she wasn’t criticized and if she is the subject of an ethics investigation she will get mad and resign. But let me ask, wasn’t this ongoing investigation of her a conservative principle that was used against her? I refer to it as the Clinton principle of conservatism.
But the best of course you saved for last. Comparing the resignation of Palin as Governor of Alaska to John Dickinson and tying in the Declaration of Independence is awe inspiring. Comparing apples to oranges is such a fine conservative principle. Using “courage” and “patriotic” in the same sentence as Palin despite the irrelevance is conservatism at it’s best.
So yes she did the patriotic thing and deserves to be rewarded by all those that have appointed her the conservative messiah. Please keep her in the spotlight and secure her a place on the 2012 ticket. Palin and the Plumber, 2012, is the ticket that represents the repub party. It is the conservative thing to do, reward the guilty, It is the patriotic thing to do, as they have both been victimized by …well, themselves.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 8, 2009 10:32 AM
you know, I can somewhat see the political benefit of attacking Sarah and even some basic underlying disagreements with her that would cause democrats to demonize her…
But for the life of me I cannot understand what has Democrats riled up about Joe ‘the plumber’? I seriously just don’t get it, could someone please explain it to me? I must have missed it in all of the real political issues that I’ve been working through while this was going on. He must have really done something unthinkable for him to be brought up with such bile every chance it is offered….
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 12:19 PMRhinehold, I can’t speak for all or any dems but speaking for myself I just think Palin and Joe the Plumber would make a good combination for the repubs. They seem to represent those on the right that were disenfranchised by the past election quite well IMHO. If you look back at the recent threads regarding Palin I think you will find that I am the one that keeps referring to Joe the plumber and I am not sure that the dems should or will accept ownership for me expressing my opinion.
I don’t know of any unthinkable acts he has done but he did campaign with Palin and seems to have the same conservative ideology as she does. In fact I thought he had a better grasp of the issues than she did at the time.
Because many conservatives seem to think the repub party needs to go further right than they are and because many conservatives hold Palin in such high esteem, thinking her to be a conservative leader worthy of high office I thought Joe the Plumber would be a good choice to be the VP on the ticket with Palin should she decide to run for office.
rhinehold - I criticize Palin because she is so obviously unqualified for any public office that I am baffled as to why anyone would defend her. I don’t know how she was judged qualified to be mayor of Wasilla much less governor of her state and a candidate on a national ticket. She is shallow, misinformed, and makes outlandish attacks on her opponents that have no basis in fact. If that is the future of the GOP we should start digging the 6’x3’ hole for the party and getting a headstone engraved. Maybe that is your angle. If the GOP collapses under the weight of its anit-intellectualism a more libertarian party would likely take its place. I would welcome such a transition because the GOP doesn’t stand for anything that Barry Goldwater would have recognized as conservative. They have become the unthinking, moralizing, nanny party and Sarah Palin would certainly fit in as leader of that.
As to Joe the Plumber - I think that is the first time I heard that name in some time. The only reason any one paid any attention to him at all is because John McCain couldn’t shut up about him and Joe couldn’t get enough of the publicity. He is totally irrelevant.
Posted by: tcsned at July 8, 2009 01:13 PMtcsned,
There have been people on the right talking a good game about libertarianism, but I don’t think any of them are really ready to embrace it. They still want to be able to control people’s individual actions through law and if you are for that you can’t really be a libertarian (but a republican or democrat will fit the bill).
Though it wouldn’t surprise me to see them try.
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 01:17 PMAs to Palin’s “Law Department“comment, I’ve not heard or seen the interview. However, I can only interpret the statement to mean that she was referring to the White House Legal Team, which every president has employed since George Washington. I would not get too hung up on irrelevant differences of verbiage, as I have been on law school campuses and legal offices alike, which have “Law Departments”.
I point out the attacks on Palin, not to defend Governor Palin, she is quite capable of defending herself. It should be noted however, that even liberal pundits admit that the attacks are over the top. Even Hillary Clinton has not come under such viciousness. As to my point though, attack the candidate’s position, their message, and their ideology, the political game even allows for the spreading of half-truths and rumors, though in truth the practice does no good for the American Voters. Palin bringing her family into the light of publicity is no excuse however, for the vicious attacks targeting her children as a means to get to their mother, the Candidate. I did not hear conservative pundits attacking Obama’s children. As a matter of fact, they went out of their way to express that such assaults were off limits.
As to Palin being “average”, I was illustrating her ability to connect with “Average Americans”, thus an inference to the fact that most politicians are out of touch with their constituency. Someone on the national scene, appearing to have some commonality with ordinary citizens, gives the “average” people something to relate to, thereby explaining the sudden rise in her popularity and why she strikes fear into the heart of “elitist politicians” that do not have the ability to connect with the masses.
I pointed out that there is a significant difference in quitting and stepping aside for what she believes to be the best interest of her State. Therefore, I drew the comparison to John Dickinson, who put his personal feelings aside for what he thought was best for his State. In that regard, Governor Palin is doing the same thing.
Is Palin the right person for 2012? That all remains to be seen. There is still a lot of time between now and then. She is one of many who represent a large number of conservatives that do not believe in the compromising of values for political expediency or acceptance. There are those of us who do not believe that the GOP needs redefining, but rather we desire the GOP return to the conservative values that made them successful to begin with.
we desire the GOP return to the conservative values that made them successful to begin with.
Which are?
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 01:32 PMFor starters, individual liberty and freedom based on personal responsibility, the promotion of the ideals represented in our nations founding documents and what the founders envisioned for our nation as a representative republic, fiscal responsibility whereby the government should cease and desist the practice of being over burdensome and unsustainable, strong national security, including the protection of our borders.
Smaller government that adheres to the belief of the all power and authority, not granted to the government in the Constitution, be reserved to the People and the States respectively. Thereby eliminating the practice of the Federal Government usurping the rights reserved to the States and all Federal Social Programs that should be administered by the separate states.
Ok, so how does consistently violating individual liberty and freedom with sex laws, drug laws, anti-abortion laws, morality laws, opposing gay marriage, etc all fit into those values?
Because, what you have described is pretty ‘libertarian’, it makes me wonder if you are really conservative or a libertarian. Your answer to the above question will be a good starting point to determining if that is the case or if the conservative values are simply hypocritical…
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 02:40 PMRhinehold, I would rather you expand a little as to your meaning regarding “sex and drug laws”, as each covers a broad spectrum of subject matter.
As to abortion, I stand firmly against it as a primary form of birth control or contraception. However, I recognize it as a legitimate medical procedure, and understand its usefulness in the event of rape, incest, and when a decision must be made between the survival of the unborn child and the expectant mother, specially when the woman already has children. The children need their mother more than they need another sibling.
I admit that my opinion is somewhat confusing when one takes into consideration that I do not believe in legislating morality. In part, based on our first amendment rights, it would be impossible to create a just and fair system of legislating morality as it constantly changes through the prism of individuality.
Gay marriage, in my opinion, is not as controversial a subject as it has been made out to be. I could, and may write an entire article on the subject. For now let me just say I oppose gay marriage, yet do not believe people should be punished for their desire to be involved in a same-sex relationships.
Posted by: D. Black at July 8, 2009 03:38 PMD,
Ok, let’s start simply, do you support or oppose the sale and use of Marijuana? If so, under what aspect of the constitution does the federal government have the authority to do so and even if you feel that they do, should they? According to your listing of conservative values, doesn’t outlawing the use of a plant by an individual a violation of their individual liberty?
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 04:16 PMrhinehold - what you are getting at is at the heart of the problems with the GOP - they talk the language of libertarianism but don’t really believe it. If they do believe it in principle they are so beholden to the religious zealots in the party that they are forced into becoming the party of the moralizing, oppressive, nanny state. While I am no libertarian but would certainly be on board for getting the government out of anyone’s personal life or choices even if I disagree with their choices. The GOP is really the worst of both worlds. They are as I have stated the moralizing, oppressive, nanny state party and the party of corporatism. Sarah Palin is the poster child for this direction for the GOP as George Bush was and she may be less intellectually capable if that’s possible. Moral certitude without any moral authority.
Posted by: tcsned at July 8, 2009 07:01 PM“Identifying the reasons Liberals revile Governor Palin is easy. Liberals detest anybody who has an ideology, or even an opinion, that differs from what they espouse at a given moment. If someone disagrees about the current direction of the political winds, a liberal is ready to attempt to discredit their detractors, by any available means, and at almost any cost.”
After reading that paragraph, read Stephen Daugherty in the left hand column of this site. Where David makes tiresome generalizations that make no sense, Stephen makes intelligent fact-based points that deserve consideration.
I just don’t understand why a blogger who aspires to being read would continue to wheel out this rubbish. I’m disappointed to even see this kind of junk on Watchblog, which I thought had a more cerebral bent.
Posted by: Jon Rice at July 8, 2009 07:10 PMThe rep and dem attacked her rightfully so. She was chosen for one reason. How would you define an elected official who resigns their office? Why would we want to elect a quitter?
Posted by: mule at July 8, 2009 11:15 PMI don’t know mule, what would you call someone who runs for another office 1/3 into their term after promising not to do that when running for their office?
Posted by: rhinehold at July 8, 2009 11:31 PMLet me point out something first to the author of this entry: Sarah Palin resigned. She gave up the office, and midway to boot.
The question we have to ask is not whether Sarah Palin is a quitter, but what kind of quitter she is.
In my view, her greatest flaw is that she’s simply irresponsible. She gets the crowd riled up because she’s willing to say anything to get them to rise up. She’s not that consistent of a conservative- just look at her record on earmarks (without the excuses, just take their meaning at face value). She’s not much different than Bush in her ideology, her taste for the nastier side of politics, and her dearth of talent in actually running governments well.
There’s something about combining a Minnesota Nice accent and Rush Limbaugh raw rhetoric that makes her particularly annoying to people she directs her pseudo-folksy attacks at. My mother commented to me that she just wanted to staple things to Palin’s forehead when she spoke.
Contrary to the author’s claim, the last thing she is is articulate. Before Palin, I’d never heard such an amateur performance in debates. The term “non sequitur” describes it well. I distinctly recall her actually ending a response in such a way that it actually took people a minute to realize she had finished her response.
Palin’s couldn’t answer basic political questions. She couldn’t speak of much beyond the doctrinaire world of conservative politics. Worse, she wore that ignorance as a badge of pride.
Now she’s wearing her irresponsibility as a badge of pride. Just what is it that she’s deciding is more important than being a public servant and a governor of the state that elected her? Is it her political career? Her partisan inclinations? Whatever it is, she didn’t want to have to be bothered with a real job in politics. She has chosen instead to likely do something that won’t require her to carry actual responsibility.
Perhaps that’s a blessing for some, but if we’re dealing with anything truly scary, it’s not the political movement, it’s the strident, self-important crazies that the movement gives inspiration and strength to. The Republicans played with fire before, and the last “blow-ups” with the Right Wing Extremists did neither their party or the country any good.
It just seems like the right keeps on escalating these political battles, keeps on making the exaggerations of our political stances bigger and scarier, until you can’t even suggest a moderate course of action without getting the kind of blistering, nasty rhetoric that one once thought could only come from the far fringe of the party, not its leaders.
And the concern starts to build that the people who are inciting and encouraging this disregard for anything but their own political will won’t stop with just political defeat of you, but seem prepared to go all the way past that.
Everytime, you think to yourself, they couldn’t, wouldn’t go so far- and then they do.
I just have to hope that at some point, short of a national tragedy, somebody figures out that you can’t just keep cynically blowing the dogwhistles, and blowing the political conflicts way out of proportion, and not expect something to go terribly wrong.
There is a common peace, and a common rule of law that we must respect. We cannot simply imagine ourselves entitled to some kind of dispensation for our political good intentions. And we shouldn’t excuse the worst in our parties out of the expedience of supporting our parties in every fight. There are some fights not worth fighting, some things that are not worth defending.
Palin is the party’s narcotic at this point, a way to soften the pain of what must seem like a terrible situation, but whose relief comes at the cost of impaired judgment and perception. Palin is a false hope, and no amount of ad hoc rationalization will change that.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2009 12:26 AMrhinehold
“But for the life of me I cannot understand what has Democrats riled up about Joe ‘the plumber’?”
he embarrassed the mesiah. c’mon even you know you just don’t dare do that.
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 09:27 AMtc
all those traits that you have listed could just as easily be tied to the democrats, so what really is the point?
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 09:37 AMrhinehold
“I don’t know mule, what would you call someone who runs for another office 1/3 into their term after promising not to do that when running for their office?”
i got this one man. the answer is, who is barack obama. is that right? do i get a gold star?
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 09:41 AM“he embarrassed the mesiah. c’mon even you know you just don’t dare do that.
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 09:27 AM”
dbs he only hoped to embarrass Obama, but ended up making the Obama/Biden ticket stronger assuming you are referring to Obama as messiah. Speaking of messiah it seems you guys on the right have created your own messiah in Palin and cannot believe she can do any wrong on her own, that it is the dems fault for her resigning. Such a weak argument for a worthy candidate don’t you think. Not the kind of self reliance I think of when I hear those on the right espousing their ideology, but please keep defending her and her self made publicity stunts so she can save the repubs come next election cycle.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 9, 2009 10:38 AMj2t2,
How did he make the Obama/Biden ticket stronger exactly?
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 9, 2009 10:43 AMj2t2
“he only hoped to embarrass Obama, but ended up making the Obama/Biden ticket stronger”
exactly, thats why the press, and the dems spent so much time shinning that spot light up his a$$, because obamas comment to joe about spreading the wealth around made that ticket so much stronger. that dog won’t hunt, in case you haven’t noticed.
dbs, the plumber went on tour with the McCain/Palin ticket. McCain was constantly singing his praises. The corporate media covered both tickets and those that were relevant to both tickets. Were they supposed to take him at face value or do their job and give us the facts? Remember he chose the spotlight the spotlight didn’t choose him. Did he get any more or less vetting than others who spoke out on an ongoing basis on the public stage?
The only dog that don’t hunt here is the moaning and wailing about the media bias when it comes to conservative candidates. Especially when Faux has more viewers than most other outlets. Time for a reality check on the media bias thing.
Rhinehold see for yourself. Joe’s imaginary business and stock conservative talking point was given a chance to be vetted by Obama. It made the case as Joe’s truth stretching was later revealed. Lets face it he was never going to vote for Obama yet by espousing the half truths of conservatism he, IMHO, helped to convince others that were undecided by allowing a more detailed explanation from the candidate himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0
dbs - I don’t see the Democrats being terribly interested in what goes on in your bedroom, who you choose to marry, or what you do in the privacy of your home. Not that the Dems don’t have issues especially related to the 2nd amendment. In general, I think that both parties have some common ground with libertarian ideology. I would argue that the more progressive Dems take what I would agree with in the area of personal liberty and not so much with the unregulated business arena (though they have a jumped on this bandwagon way more than I would care for). Seems like the GOP is just the opposite. Rhinehold could probably better address this. I am not a libertarian, I would call myself a progressive, I just see that there are some good ideas in that ideology.
As to the continuing discussion of Joe the Plumber - I don’t think he embarrassed Obama nor helped Obama’s chances. He took a right wing radio talking point and parroted it while pretending to be an undecided voter. I don’t think he even understood what he was talking about (much like the subject of this thread). If he is a good example of the common man, the common man needs to read a newspaper, or go to school, or at least engage in some critical thought.
Posted by: tcsned at July 9, 2009 12:50 PMdbs-
Obama didn’t quit in the first year of his Senate career in order to win his next office. He stuck with the job until he got the new one.
What’s the problem with Joe the Plumber? He was a joke. During the debates, he was a crutch for poor McCain, who almost built a shrine to the man on the table. So first, he was part of a transparent attempt by McCain to appeal to the working class voters.
Second, he was not as undecided as he made himself out to be, and further demonstrated that by basically leaving a trail of far right opinions floating around.
Third, he took material advantage of his newfound fame, and got sent out on several so-called journalistic assignments exploiting his supposed appeal to the working class folks.
I don’t know why folks on the right hype these folks as being such devastating forces to be reckoned with. McCain lost quite a few former red states, so folks must not have been that impressed with the people overall.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2009 01:10 PMtc
i don’t really agree, the dems are the ones who seem to always to be trying to save people from themselves. trying to control what we eat, what we drive, punishing smokers with punitive taxes that are really just disguises for raising more revenue to spend on pet projects. just look at newyork, and california. now they wan’t to force all americans to be covered with health insurance. what about those who don’t want it, and don’t want to pay for it.
the dems may not care what you do in your bedroom, but they wan’t to dictate every other aspect of your life. i’m not defending the transgressions of the republican party, but to say the dems are a better alternative, and have more in common with liberatarians, and are more friendly to personal liberty is IMO nonsense.
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 06:40 PMstephen
you guys can dance around this all you want. obama told joe that he believed we should spread the wealth around, it was used against him, and rightfully so. i don’t care about joe being trotted out by the republicans, if obama hadn’t answered his question with that phrase it would have been a non issue. it made him look like he was out to redistribute wealth. a definitely marxist concept, and it bit him in the a$$, whether or not he was able to overcome it.
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 06:48 PMdbs-
If Obama wanted to be a real Marxist, why the hell does he put Timothy Geithner or Lawrence Summers in charge of the nation’s economy? The accusation of extremist socialism is on such a hair trigger that it’s a joke. Literally.
You guys use it as buzzword, like Parents use mythical beasts and boogeymen to scare children into submission. Some of you even actually buy it yourselves.
But the rest of us live in a world where decades of Republican policies have allowed the wealth to flow more relentlessly upwards than it should, depriving people of their hard earned rewards, their employment, and their investments.
To spread the wealth a little better would not be a crime. In fact, it would be an improvement. And it wouldn’t necessarily be uncapitalis to do that. For some reason, Republicans have forgotten that wage pressures, by necessity, go up, as much as they go down. What happens in an economy, when the rich charge more for goods and services, but don’t pay more for their employers work? How does that equation square up, and at whose expense? The answer can’t always be, soak the poor. Sometimes the rich have to pay for what they want out of the rest of us, just like the rest of us pay for what we want out of them.
Economies are built like circulatory systems, and those work best when what’s at the bottom circulates well and what’s at the bottom does so, too. Forget either part of the circulation, and the body dies, or at least weakens terribly.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2009 07:42 PMPardon me: and what’s at the top does so too.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 9, 2009 07:44 PMstephen
“If Obama wanted to be a real Marxist, why the hell does he put Timothy Geithner or Lawrence Summers in charge of the nation’s economy”
i see, and pushing by geithner to have congress draft legislation that would allow the fed to intervene in the affairs of private business if they decide a business is to big to fail, and don’t agree with the decisions they make isn’t? give me a break. why not just embrace the idiology and admit what it truely is? why all the deflection?
“To spread the wealth a little better would not be a crime.”
and it is also not a power alloted to the fed gov’t in the constitution. but hell since when has that ever stopped a politition from doing it anyway? silly old thing is just a roadblock to the gov’t doing what they know is best for the people. dumb commoners don’t know whats best for themselves anyway. Jeeeeeeeeeezzz !
Posted by: dbs at July 9, 2009 08:09 PMPalin is just turning her back on her public commitments in order to pursue a golden opportunity for private gains. Hell, most Republicans and Democrats I know, would do the very same thing in her shoes. Not very noble, or ethical. But, pretty damned human, as human foibles go.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2009 01:24 AM“and it is also not a power alloted to the fed gov’t in the constitution.”
Yes they do, if “spreading the wealth” is used in it’s usual connotation by the conservatives, it is called the 16th amendment to the Constitution. To consider this as Marxism is outrageous it is Capitalism at work within our government. Much like a corporation uses laws to increase its advantage over other corporations and to create opportunity to profit so does the government.
David
Most in government wait until their term has expired to reap the profits of their government experience in the private sector. And most don’t make up silly stories about doing so for the good of the state or people.
Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2009 10:31 AMDavid R. Remer-
No, most Republicans and Democrats I know would have better sense than her. Unfortunately the current Republican Party encourages people to do stupid things because not observing standards is a way to get out of the confining expectations that people measure you by.
And Republicans, nowadays, don’t like to be hemmed in. The consider strength in freedom, in the ability to do what they want.
But the truth is, nobody, not Republican, not Democrat, can do anything they want without repercussion. That’s the nature of Democracy.
Palin was a lousy candidate before. Now folks will be able to say she sacrificed her duties for her political career, for her partisan interests. She might be able to convince supporters that she’s playing three-dimensional chess here, but its not your supporters in Politics that need the most convincing, its the people whose allegiance and interest in you is provisional, who are only distantly pulled on by your influence. Her mouth writes checks her political skills can’t cash.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 11, 2009 09:18 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
