Republicans & Conservatives Archives

There are two reasons she is hated:

1. She is a Christian

2. She is conservative

She is one of the greatest threats to liberals in many years. Can she run and get elected, I don’t know. I guess it depends on how much damage liberals do to the nation. But I do know, she has the ability to inflict a lot of damage to the liberal agenda.

Sarah Palin is an object of derision for the left because it is easier to smear than debate.

Her appeal comes from the fact that she is who she is. She is honest. This makes it that much harder to argue that government needs more power when someone who is admirable says its not so.

Propitiation,
Virtually every major Democratic politician is a Christian. Obviously, your first point is wrong. There are a lot of conservatives who are respected by liberals. So your second point is wrong too. Try again.

Concerned about “how much damage liberals do to the nation”? Are you concerned about starting and losing two wars, the way conservative Republicans did under Bush? Are you concerned about the way the conservative economic agenda resulted in the worst economy since the Great Depression? Are you concerned about the way Reagan, Bush, and Bush racked up 90% of the current national debt? Seriously. Just how much worse could anyone possibly make it?

Christine & John,
You ignore the fact- the fact- that many conservatives also dislike Palin. Last weekend, conservative columnist David Brooke called Palin “a joke.” The McCain political campaign accused Palin of lying. Many, many real conservatives despise Palin.

The sad fact is, the most gullible Americans are the ones who follow Palin. These are the people who accept Palin’s statements that Obama was “palling around with terrorists,” and that health care reform would institute “death panels” for the elderly- they accept those as perfectly reasonable assessments. They think evolution is “just a theory,” they believe Global Warming is a hoax, and that education, intelligence, and intellectual curiousity are negative, elitist attributes. She isn’t just a woman from a “non-elite” university; she went to five different colleges before graduating. There’s nothing wrong with being poorly educated, or having average intelligence, or lacking curiousity about the world; but those are terrible credentials for being the leader of the free world.

Phx8

There is a distinction between not thinking her qualified to be president (I would agree at this point) and the hatred we see. The MSM just pay a lot of negative attention to her and treat her unfairly.

The “Newsweek” cover is just the latest example. Of all the pictures they could have chosen, why go to one from “Runner’s World”?

There is more to this hatred than just thinking she should not be president. I am just asking why. Why the Chicago smear a year after the election? Are liberals afraid of her potential political power? I think they just don’t like her for what she is - a conservative woman who was successful. Sarah Palin was the first woman governor of Alaska and the youngest person ever to win that office. She did this w/o the running start of a rich father, a famous family or politician husband. That she could do this AND be married AND have five kids AND maintain a traditional outdoor lifestyle just makes liberals mad. Liberals are supposed to be the first to break these barriers.

Establishment liberals like their “rebels” to conform and to stay on the liberal reservation. They don’t like real iconoclasts when it is their liberal icons that are being smashed.

Other women might get the idea that they can achieve the kind of success that Sarah Palin did w/o the help or even approval of liberal power or an interventionist state. That could put a lot of the “victim industry” out of work. What if they held a conference on gender issues that prevent women from succeeding and nobody came because they were too busy succeeding?

When the liberal establishment tries to tell her she can’t, Sarah Palin tells them, “yes I can succeed w/o you and in spite of you.” That scares them and they hate her for it.

Christine,
Most of your comment makes no sense. No one is mad about a conservative woman winning a political office. I’ve never seen any source, liberal or conservative, exhibit such resentment. If you can cite an example, that would be helpful.

Of course, you ignore the point that many conservatives despise Palin, because that fact completely destroys your point. Many conservatives accuse Palin of lying, and I mean lying a lot. McCain campaign staffers such as Steve Schmidt and Nicole Collins seem to detest her, and hardly a day goes by without another one denouncing her lies.

For example, on November 7th Palin told a small audience in Wisconsin that “In God We Trust” was going to be moved on the dollar coin, and that this represented a “disturbing trend.” In fact, her statement was false.

Her repeated statements conflating end of life counseling with “death panels” was demonstrably false and truly despicable.

The only thing scary about her is her unreflective certainty, lack of curiousity, and casual disregard for telling the truth.

And please note once again: those are conservatives calling her out for lying.

Phx8

I would argue with your use of the word despise. I would not support Palin for president because I don’t think she would make a good president, but I don’t despise her.

You cannot deny the extreme amount of negative attention she gets and much of it is personal, not political. They talk about her older daughter’s problem with her former boyfriend. David Letterman makes stupid jokes about getting her underage daughter pregnant. Her name comes up on sitcoms. “Newsweek” chooses to show her in shorts.

She is a former VP candidate and former governor of Alaska. Liberals claim she doesn’t matter, so why are they always talking about her?

BTW - I would be nice is Dems would call out some of their own for lying or not paying taxes.

Her use of the term “death panels” was provocative, but we will make some rationing choices if we have the kind of health care with government mandates. Some of the advice might be good,but it will be controversial, such as the new breast cancer screening recommendations.

Fmr. Gov. Palin is not “hated” by most liberals. It’s just that some are very scared a person who demonstrated that she had no grasp of certain issues last year. The fact She did not know what Charlie Gibson meant by the “Bush Doctrine” was the most disturbing for me. The other thing that rattled me the most was the hypocrisy she has displayed. As governor she supported Senator Stevens’ bridge to nowhere, but as VP candidate she lied right to the American people by saying she had opposed it from the start, and not only when her support became politically untenable.

Also, I found it very hypocritical that she campaigns against an alleged socialist welfare state that apparently is the goal of the liberals, yet Alaska is the closest thing we have to a welfare/nanny state. Alaska’s state government is one of the most subsidized ones in the union, with $1.84 coming to Alaska for every $1.00 sent to Washington. Between the oil revenue and the federal subsidies, Alaskans enjoy all the services of government without their associated costs. Oil revenues mean the state doesn’t have either an income tax or a sales tax, in fact everyone receives a check from the state government each year instead.

And don’t get me started on all the allegations of corruption including all the shenanigans by Fmr. Senator Stevens and current Rep. Don Young. Also, Palin’s predecessor engaged in nepotism by appointing his daughter to the state’s senate seat. During the 2008 campaign I heard all sorts of claims that she reformed the system in Alaska, yet I have not seen any evidence to support this claim. Maybe if Palin challenged Lisa Murkowski in 2010 for her senate seat and actually served time in the federal government she would have changed a few minds regarding her inexperience, but she chose not to and that is unfortunate.

Regarding her treatment by the media, maybe they would leave her alone if she stopped making statements which were both provocative and untrue such as when she falsely claimed that the health care bill would somehow allow government to make life or death decisions regarding her youngest son. You can’t be provocative and wrong and not expect some push-back from others.

Phx8:

Let me repeat my statement, in case you didn’t understand:

“There are two reasons she is hated:
1. She is a Christian
2. She is conservative
She is one of the greatest threats to liberals in many years. Can she run and get elected, I don’t know. I guess it depends on how much damage liberals do to the nation. But I do know, she has the ability to inflict a lot of damage to the liberal agenda.

“Virtually every major Democratic politician is a Christian. Obviously, your first point is wrong. There are a lot of conservatives who are respected by liberals. So your second point is wrong too. Try again.”

Answer to 1st statement, “I doubt it”
Answer to 2nd statement, “liberals respect RHINO’s, but they don’t respect conservatives”

Here we go again; bring up the state of our nation and all liberals can do is blame Bush and company. When do you take responsibility????

“The sad fact is, the most gullible Americans are the ones who follow Palin. These are the people who accept Palin’s statements that Obama was “palling around with terrorists,” and that health care reform would institute “death panels” for the elderly- they accept those as perfectly reasonable assessments.”

So, anyone who agrees with Palin is gullible and ignorant. You paint 40% of the American people with a broad brush. What makes you right?

“They think evolution is “just a theory,” they believe Global Warming is a hoax, and that education, intelligence, and intellectual curiousity are negative, elitist attributes. She isn’t just a woman from a “non-elite” university; she went to five different colleges before graduating. There’s nothing wrong with being poorly educated, or having average intelligence, or lacking curiousity about the world; but those are terrible credentials for being the leader of the free world.”

Some of these things are evangelical Christian beliefs; so now you are telling Christians what to believe, or that what they believe is false? Who is the elitist?

There is nothing wrong with being “poorly educated” or “having average intelligence”, this is the most condescending remark I have ever heard. But it is typical of liberals. So Al Gore is an example of intelligence on the left?

Christine, you are talking to deaf ears, they do not care what her accomplishments are. They only know she is a threat, she’s outspoken, she has a can-do attitude, she thinks for herself, and she is liked. They want to shut her down for the same reason they want to shut down talk radio and Fox News.

Again your answers fro WR are blame someone else and change the subject.

As per “death panels”: yesterdays ruling about when women can receive mammograms falls in line with a government controlled healthcare system that controls who can receive healthcare. Someone might want check this out, but my understanding is that there were conditions placed in the stimulus bill that allow for these panels. I will have to research.

Here is a link that proves Christines point:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/

I couldn’t let it rest, I just had to do the research for the rumors I had heard. I will post a small quote of the article and also post the link:

“H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council’s purpose.

Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept ‘hopeless diagnoses.’”

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2009/08/death-panels-in-stimulus-bill.html

Now according to this, either liberals are ignorant to the facts, or they are flat out lying.
Do you suppose the liar Obozo knows these facts?

Way to go Propitiation. So what u r saying is that liberals r lying and trying to smear Palin? Liberals r the biggest liars. They r full of dembs!!!

This is the first time I ever saw this info. I reckon there r some apologies needed.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the Republicans like Palin most because Democrats like her least. They seem to take most criticism of her as a challenge to rise to her defense.

Folks, you didn’t get one of the worst Congressional majorities and Presidents in recent times because you were discerning and exacting in your standards.

I don’t know why real conservatives like her. Most of her policies are just warmed over Gingrich and Bush conservatism. What sort of Mavericky-ness are we really talking about here, in substance?

Palin seems to me to be a pop culture product, more than a serious stateswoman. She’s like those celebrities you often see, these seemingly witless twits who never had a serious success on their own terms, who just try to use some embarrassing incident as a launchpad for a career they don’t have the skills or real charisma to maintain.

I mean, they accused Obama of being a celebrity candidate, but Obama had really force of personality and charm, not just forced folksiness laced with venom.

Which brings me to another issue: her inconsistent tone. Minnesota Nice meets Limbaugh Raw. The conflict makes the nasty things she says about Democrats and liberals all the more intolerable.

It also doesn’t help that she’s joyfully anti-intellectual, and embracer of the kind of religious political philosophy that doesn’t see the problem in imposing their personal religious beliefs on matters even where substantive proof and theory contradict her.

If you want to believe the Earth is flat, hollow, center of the solar system, six thousand years old, a gnostic-style illusion foisted on us by the Demiurge, fine. But don’t insist on bending science towards it, requiring the country to teach both sides of an argument that by scientific criteria these ideas aren’t even in the right discussion about.

This nation is not going to redeem itself from the failures of the last few decades by insisting on policies that view the practical disciplines of science as some form of religion, or magic.

Sarah Palin represents the kind of intellectual laziness that has been slowly dragging this country down the last few decades, where people get ahead less by being clever, or even competently productive, and more by operating with political cunning, skillfully applied dogmatism, and ruthless competitive practices that often amount to chronic dishonesty and fraud.

We don’t need more people like her running this country, we need fewer. We need more people who are conscientious, intellectually strong, and not in denial about their strengths and weaknesses.

Palin is not liked partly because she puts out this hockey mom image when behind closed doors she is not so wholesome. Yes, there are a lot of people who try to expose this and the Palin defenders call foul on priciple while ignoring content.

Propiation - if you are the ultimate christian that few others measure up to - just what is your position on heath care? Unlimited for the rich,and rich only right?

The Peter Principle was evident in both GW Bush and Sarah Palin. The difference is, it didn’t become evident to national voters for GW Bush until he became president. It became evident for Sarah when she ran for V.P. Which doesn’t say much for Alaskan voters who made her governor, I hate to say. I have always been enamored of Alaska, until I got to know Palin.

Palin is likable for many. She has star appeal in the way Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts have. She also has a very appealing speaking style, somewhat reminiscent of Will Rogers. My apology for pointing out the obvious, but, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, nor Will Rogers are, or were, viewed as being capable of holding the position of President of the United States.

Stardom does not good presidential material make. Stardom does, regretfully, a good candidate nominee make. Sarah Palin has a following, and that will make her an influential person in American politics. But, always a polarizing figure due to her home spun views lacking formal education in domestic and foreign affairs, as well as lacking education in world and American history and law. This is what separates Obama and Palin, and why Obama is president, and why Palin was not V.P., McCain’s shortfalls excluded.

Sarah Palin is a great example of manufactured celebrity. I was excited when McCain chose her for his nominee because it brought excitement back to the campaign by not being predictable and choosing someone outside of the beltway. Unfortunately, she was, and still is, just not up to the challenge of what was thrown at her. I think she is probably a nice woman who has started to believe the hype that she has a shot at being relevant, and I DEFINATELY think that Levi is a dirtbag, but unfortunately she is a very polarizing figure because of her ill-formed positions that contradict themselves.

She infuriates liberals because she is not one. She scares many republicans who understand how much of a lightweight she is in understanding politics. She is loved by the ‘heartland’ because she represents a push back to the repeated unclassy way the media, both right and left, portray those who live there.

The left does NOT want to let her out of the media spotlight, just as they don’t want Fox, Hannity or Rush to go anywhere either, because they use these ‘icons’ as a way to further their own agendas. I listen to people on the left talk about her and it is with a distinct bile and hatred that I’m not sure they realize they present. The leadership of the left of course is harnessing that. I got into a discussion with a woman during the election who called her ‘anti-woman’. I tried to point out that just because she was ‘pro-life’, that did not make her ‘anti-woman’ if she truly believes that the unborn fetus has rights that trump those of the mother. I was cussed and told off, even though I shared the views of abortion that the liberal does, just because I defended this ‘bitch’ by suggesting that even though she was wrong, it was coming from a good place and she wasn’t the devil because of it…

It is a shame that she wasn’t able to adequately defend the scorn that the left displays on those who live in the heartland and are not liberals. They do need good representation in the national media but no one has been able to step up and be able to put them on their heels, as it were. Palin is unwittingly playing right into their hands by believing that she is relevant when all she is is a tool used for recruitment by the left.

Rhinehold, and a tool for recruitment by the Right, as well.

She is however, her own person, finding her own way into that all American dream of the spotlight and fame, wealth, and always hoped for, influence. She is a growing person, and if disciplined, she has the potential to grow a lot in the coming decade or two. Time will tell.

Open minds will review again Palin in years to come, based on the merits of her growth and education in relevant social, cultural, and political affairs. She shares wifehood, motherhood, success and disappointment in her occupation, and that provides a lot for many in America to identify with. Though insufficient for national political office at this time, unless she wants to run for Alaskan Senator or Congresswoman. Qualifications for these positions have never been very high, resting largely on money, connections, and a great political PR campaign manager.

Yes,the MSM hates Sarah Palin, John and Kate Gosselin, Paris Hilton, The Balloon Boy parents, and The Octo-mom.

Their own behavior has nothing what so ever to do with the derision they receive. I also have land in Florida to sell you.

Harry Truman, I believe, had an expression for these folks. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Perhaps if some Republicans would stop making themselves martyrs, they might win an election.

Dan-o
I’m comfortable being ‘far-left.’ My comments and occasional predictions over the years have been proven correct by events. It would seem being ‘far left’ is consistent with being correct and realistic.

Most people consider Brooks a conservative pundit. His views consistently match conservative stands.

Propitiation,
You “doubt” most Democratic politicians are Christians? Really? I’m not a Christian. It doesn’t hurt my feelings whether people are or are not Christians. However, I’ve noticed most Democratic politicians profess to be Christians. Do you mean they’re just not the right kind of Christians?

Palin objects to the AP researching and fact-checking her claims. She never addresses the merit of the claims. She objects to being caught lying. She never defends what she said. She makes the same emotional appeal over and over again, and the same old claims that all objections to her lies are based on negative emotions, as if the objections or the noting of lies are based upon irrational hatred, rather than based in fact.

You write: “Some of these things are evangelical Christian beliefs; so now you are telling Christians what to believe, or that what they believe is false? Who is the elitist?”

Yes. When people’s beliefs contradict facts and the evidence, they need to be called on it. There’s no need to be polite about it. Faith does not justify making stuff up. That’s not elitism. That’s realism. It’s the product of being educated and knowledgable.

You write: “There is nothing wrong with being “poorly educated” or “having average intelligence”, this is the most condescending remark I have ever heard.”

It’s not condescending. A poor education and average intelligence and not good qualifications for being president of the United States. A person can overcome those drawbacks, and maybe even make a good president. But it sure is a lousy jumping off place.

Rhinehold:

I have to agree with everything you have said. I don’t believe Palin has ever said she was running for the WH. The only ones spouting she is running, are the left. I believe she can do much more damage to the liberal agenda simply by speaking. Yes, she has a great following and conservatives love her, would they vote for her if she ran, I doubt it. But she is able to bring to light those conservative values. Yes, the left hates her because they really fear her and she is hated by the Rockefeller, northeast, blue blood, cocktail sipping, RHINO Republicans. She is a redneck from flyover country and not someone RHINOs would want to identify. It is more likely she would run for Senator in Alaska.

SD:

“I don’t know why real conservatives like her.”

Perplexing isn’t it Stephen? At least it is to you. Perhaps they like her because she is real; because when she speaks, she can be believed. I can understand why the left would have a hard time understanding this. It’s actually called integrity. This is a new word Stephen “INTEGRITY”: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
synonyms see honesty

I can understand why a liberal would have a hard time with this word. It eludes many politicians on both side, but middle America understands the word.

Schwamp:

“Propiation - if you are the ultimate christian that few others measure up to - just what is your position on heath care? Unlimited for the rich,and rich only right?”

You make a false statement simply because of your hated for Christians. Concerning healthcare, well there’s just no reason for me to answer the question. You wouldn’t be able to understand it.

DRR:

One of our greatest and most popular Presidents was a movie star.

You guys on the left have a real hang-up with education, don’t you? Everyone is stupid except for lefties. Perhaps you could name a real conservative who has not been attacked as uneducated? Reagan, Bush, Clarence Thomas, Palin, and who else? I must have missed a few. There must be a psychological problem here somewhere.

I hate to be the one to just throw thoughts out, but this link is hilarious:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/with-hurricanes-at-thirty-year-low-gore-turns-to-photoshop.html

This is for you liberals worshipping at the altar of lobal Warming.

Or perhaps this:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091119/D9C28MC00.html

For all the hype, by the left about conservatives destroying the Republican Party, one can’t help but wonder if the Democratic Party will survice the first and only 4 years of Obozo.

Do any of you liberals ever go to the Drudge Report. I love it, no wonder the administration is trying to shut him down. I grew up in a time when the only news we saw came from the MSM. But today, we know eveything, love it.

Propitiation-
Anybody who thinks the word integrity is new to me hasn’t read my prose long enough to absorb the size of my vocabulary.

All kidding aside, do you think this display of contempt for my values impresses me? I’m very much about integrity, that’s one of my mine complaints about this woman. She has none.

She makes a series of claims in her first speech (which becomes her rehearsed stump speech for quite a while) that are so easily debunked that it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Oh, poor Sarah Palin. They thrust this nearly complete unknown onto the world stage, and then expect nobody to be curious what she stands for, especially after she makes a series of claims about how mavericky and reformy she is.

Palin seems to me to be one more symptom of denial from the Republican party of its current situation. She’s continually billed as the next bright shining star, but that seems to be more wishful thinking than substantive prediction.

She was intended to be a Republican Obama, just like Michael Steele. She was intended to attract disgruntled Hillary voters. She was intended to break the pattern of old white guys being the only folks in line for the highest office in the land.

But like Michael Steele, she did not have the skill to know how to speak, and now not to, and struck nearly everybody else who wasn’t a diehard Republicans as utterly inane without a scripted speech. The Hillary voters were utterly repulsed by her far-right ideology. And ultimately, though she was a relatively young woman, she couldn’t escape resembling one old white guy whose presence haunts the rest of the party: Bush.

In short, her candidacy was a rather disingenuous play at all those who wanted change. Voters wisely went for Obama, who wasn’t a fellow traveller with the last president, like Sarah clearly was.

So don’t talk to me about her integrity. That’s just the kind of ungrounded propagandizing every politician applies to themselves with glossy commercials and booming political slogans.

And what’s with this obsession with Middle America? Most Americans live on the coasts. Are they somehow, well, marginalized? What did they do so wrong not to be born in the middle of the continent?

Maybe you’re talking about moderates. but most Americans still have an unfavorable opinion of the woman.

I’m a writer. I like doing Epic Fantasy. I know how to build a legend from scratch. I know about “the power of myth”.

And I know every damn politician tries to latch on to it. What the Republicans do nowadays is so transparent, it’s not even funny. They don’t have real leaders who are suited to actually having the kind of heroic presence, much less reality that makes them compelling across party lines. The Republicans give them no freedom to follow their own course, and therefore no room to actually develop the kind of integrity that people need to appeal to more than just the extreme base of the party.

As for Drudge? Maybe he was interesting a decade and a half ago, when the internet was new, and everything was looking up for his political brethren, but now just about everybody does what he once did by himself, and they do it better than him now.

The administration doesn’t have to shut him down. Obama’s friends among the Democrats and Liberals have greater web presence than he has now, and a better reputation for getting the facts straight.

Propitiation,
Most Americans value education. Most Americans are proud when their children graduate from high school or college. It teaches critical thinking. If you do not value that in a politician, well, that’s your choice.

The link on global warming is full of falsehoods. First, Global Warming models do not predict an increase in the frequency of hurricanes. The models suggest hurricanes do will be more intense. There’s a difference. Sadly, the article you cite seems to be blissfully unaware that Global Warming applies to the entire world, not just to Atlantic hurricanes, and that typhoons in the Pacific have in fact been more intense.

This kind of disinformation is pathetic.

Propit. said: “One of our greatest and most popular Presidents was a movie star.”

Greatest is highly debatable and partisan. Popular, yes, for a time.

He was ALSO extremely well read, had an above average command of the English language, and for much of his later adult life, he was nearly unmatched in staying abreast of current events, foreign, domestic, political, cultural, and social. The same cannot be said for Palin, or far too many in the House of Representatives, for that matter. That was also a foible of GW Bush’s, who never even potentially held a candle to Ronald Reagan’s breadth of knowledge and relevant information base.

David

I am glad you acknowledge Reagan’s intelligence. He was a very intelligent man who developed his ideas himself in true intellectual fashion. His hand written notes now confirm that. Yet during his time in office. The dishonest diplomat Clark Clifford called him an amiable dunce and it stuck among many lesser men.

Reagan was the most talented leader of his time. It is true that Palin and Bush cannot hold a candle to him. But neither can Obama or Biden.

Obama has comparable rhetorical skills, but he lacks the moral basis for that makes it good.

Reagan called his wife “Mommy.” Do I have to even explain how many things are wrong with that?

When Lincoln heard the smears that Grant was a drunk, he said “Find out what Grant drinks and send a barrel of it to each of my other generals!” Explain what is wrong with that.

If it will improve Obama, Biden and the like, let them call their significant others whatever they like.

Sarah Palin, already made into a comic figure by Tina Fey and herself, makes 43/41 look intelligent by comparison. 43/41 made RR, a prior failed and clueless governor of Cali, look like a statesman. RR made Nixon look like he wasn’t even so bad. Nixon made almost everyone who came before him look better. The Rpblcn party is set on a course of always trying to find someone worse, instead of people more like Ford, Dole, and Romney, because they need the votes of losers and failures to win elections. This makes the Rpblcn party into the Punk party, but I don’t think we’re going to get any good music out of them.

Let’s not forget the power of comedians to tarnish a person’s character.

Ford was a smart and good man. Because one person didn’t like him (Chevy Chase) he was ridiculed and became a laughing stock. Chevy has admitted that that was the reason that he started doing parodies of Ford, because he wanted to see him fail.

How many things that have been attributed to Quayle started out as a comedian’s jokes? An example, ‘latin america, I don’t speak latin’ was never said by Dan Quayle, yet routinely shows up on lists of quotes.

Regan was portrayed as a dottering old fool who would sleep through important meetings. This was hardly accurate.

Carter was also portrayed as being a southern hick, his brother being the tool for employing this. The fact that he was a Nuclear Engineer for the Navy (as was I) means that he passed not only one of the toughest programs in existence, but also one of the most stressful. He was not a slouch.

George HW Bush was ridiculed for saying ‘a thousand points of light’ but our current president uses almost the same rhetoric in some of his speeches.

Bob Dole was seen as a mean old grump, but as has been seen since, he had a great sense of humor and was a nice man as well.

The press’ portrayal of Palin as a ‘religious wacko’ was off of the beaten path as well, for anyone who actually wanted to look into it and didn’t want to damage someone for political gain.

The reality is that most of the people we laugh at and scoff are very rarely evil or as one dimentional as we like to portray them for our own gain. They genuinely care about what they are doing and believe themselves to be doing what they think is right for the country. We can find them to be wrong, or lacking, or not what we want all we want, but it doesn’t really do anyone any good to tear a person down to unfairly as we do with our political leaders and potential political leaders.

I feel some pity for Palin because Fey destroyed her for the same reasons that Chevy did Ford. People see that character that she created as the breadth of what Palin is and dismiss her without a second thought. How callous humans can be to dismiss someone so thoughtlessly for our own political gain. It is embarassing, IMO.

Of course, I would never vote for her myself, but not because I think ill of her, I just disagree with her views and her lack of what it would take to be a good leader. I feel the same way about Obama as well, but don’t think he is evil in any regard… Nor did I think Bush was evil.

Perhaps that’s just how I see things, I am not unused to being in the minority.

Rhinehold,

The caricatures of public figures don’t just appear out thin air. If there isn’t an thread of truth to the performance it isn’t funny, just cruel.

From wikipedia;

“At the January 2, 2007 funeral of Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush reminisced in his eulogy about how Ford took it in stride when SNL’s Chevy Chase made Ford the object of impressions. Bush cited this as a valuable lesson in learning to laugh at one’s self as a part of public life. “I’d tell you more about that,” Bush continued, “but as Dana Carvey would say, [imitating Carvey imitating him] ‘Not gonna do it! Wouldn’t be prudent!’”.”

The point about Palin is that, even though she was thrust into the public spotlight, she wasn’t/isn’t “ready for prime time”. She seems incapable of taking the ribbing in stride and as a result creates even more fodder for those that would make fun of her foibles.

All that said I personally don’t hate Palin, I do, however, intensely dislike her public persona.
IMHO Palin plays to the lowest common denominator, and if she is the best the conservatives have…

Palin is a caricature.

And, after all, Palin “playing” Palin is much funnier than Tina Fey could ever be.

Rocky

Christine said: “Obama has comparable rhetorical skills, but he lacks the moral basis for that makes it good.”

And you make this judgment after only 9 months in office, knowing nothing about the man before he ran for office, do you?

This health care reform is pro-life bill which will save 45,000 American lives each year who now die for lack of health care insurance. I call Obama’s stance on this predicated on moral duty and obligation. Why don’t you.

Calling and end to Bush’s torture policies is founded on sound moral ground. How is it your assessment misses that?

A stimulus package that is employing Americans during the worst recession since the Great Depression, and extending unemployment benefits, and providing 50 billion of repaid TARP money to homeowners in need of help keeping their homes, are all sound moral decisions by Obama. And all this in only 9 months.

I frankly find your comment about Obama, thoughtless, since, it fails to take all these into account. Reagan knowingly violated both the Constitution and laws of this land regarding the Iran-Contra Affair. You can argue it was for moral reasons, and I would agree, but, Reagan was not above putting the interests of the few ahead of the good of all in this.

He was intelligent, and he was courageous in accepting and taking responsibility for that Affair. But, I truly fail to see yet, any basis for holding Reagan up higher than Obama on intelligence, definitely not on education, or on moral grounds, and so far, definitely not on fidelity to the Constitution, separation of powers, and fidelity to the law.

Many on the Left criticize Obama for not taking a stronger stand on forcing Congress’ hand on various legislation. Obama, to his credit, respects that separation of powers and speaks to it publicly stating that it is Congress’ obligation to legislate, and his to approve or veto on behalf of the greater good of the nation, present and future.

You can disagree with his vision of the future, but, Obama has a higher respect, so far, for the Constitution and its design, than Ronald Reagan proved to have. But, it has only been 9 months. We will have to compare Obama and Reagan at the end of 4 years for any meaningful comparison of record.

I disagree that Palin is funnier than Tina Fey. We live in a post-Diana era of PR, where a public figure has to admit to their own faults or be pummeled by the media. The Globe is running a story this week about BHO and cancer, and that’s pretty mild compared to previous cover stories. Palin goes on TV and feels she has to “respond” to Tina Fey saying “I can see Russia from my house”. My opinion of Ford was never affected by anything done by Chevy Chase, or Dole by Norm McDonald.

Romney is a fairly traditional Rpblcn, but is not currently polling as well as Huckabee because he doesn’t appeal to the people Rpblcns need to get elected. Maybe Romney will do better if he claims that he wants to become President to preside over the end times, as predicted by Joe Smith. That’s something his party could get behind.

save 45,000 American lives each year

Again, BS.

worst recession since the Great Depression

Since 1982, not since the Great Depresssion. Again, BS.

definitely not on fidelity to the Constitution

I am watching this one closely as the, IMO, unconstitutional Health Care bill makes its way through congress. If he signs it with that provision, it will prove this one false as well.

And Obama’s EXPANDING of the Executive Branch’s powergrab on immunity for spying on americans that Bush started is, again, cause for concern in regards to the constitution.

Rhinehold, thank you for remaining true to the extremist views of the Libertarian Party despite facts, logic, and reality.

Study points to 45,000 lives lost due to lack of health insurance.

Where is your study Rhinehold showing an absence of health insurance does NOT result in death figures this high? Oh, yeah, we’re supposed to take your Libertarian word for it, huh?

Back in Jan. or even June, this recession was not worse than 1982. But, your data is outdated, Rhinehold. It is worse NOW. I repeatedly suggest research research before your comments are writ in indefensible fashion. To no avail, apparently.

What the Congress legislates, and the President signs, and the Courts uphold, IS BY DEFINITION IN THE CONSTITUTION, Constitutional. Labelling health care reform unconstitutional is just plain Libertarian looney-tunes. A lot like Ron Paul’s insane bill calling for the partisan politicization of the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy. Libertarians are coockoo on issues like this!

Are Libertarians Sarah Palin students? Sarah doesn’t have to have any answers, just more than enough blame to pass around toward everyone else is good enough. Ron Paul excepted of course. But, then there is that lunacy factor.

“Palin got the “Chicago Treatment” during last year’s election. It was dirty politics and nasty opposition research, but that was not surprising. This is what they do in elections, but it is supposed to stop after Election Day. What surprised us is that the attacks on Palin in the mainstream media and entertainment industry continued and even intensified after the election.”

Seems to me both sides, especially your beloved conservatives dished out the “Chicago treatment”. I know, Jack, that you haven’t forgotten the campaign smears many of your conservative friends bandied about prior to the election. You couldn’t have as they are still smearing Obama. Yet it is only the left that is doing this , Yea right!

Have you noticed, Christine, that McCain is not in the news and not putting himself out there with the outrageous half truths, misconceptions and out right lies with the same audacity as his VP running mate? I wonder if is coincidental that it is only Palin, who is putting herself out there with half truths misconceptions and outright lies on political issues that is being “attacked” by those on the left?

Sorry, I meant to say John not Jack in the first paragraph.

j2t2 has a point, there, Christine. I mean, “Death Panels” for crying out loud. She accused Obama of wanting to kill her retarded son.

Palin has never been shy about shaping the rhetoric to the purpose of political expedience. That’s what makes it so easy for Democrats to do Oppo research on her. She says one thing, it gets on the record (like support for the Bridge to Nowhere), and she says another, that she said no thanks to it, and that gets on the record.

Instead of admitting the foolishness and excesses of your politicians, you rationalize it. That means you put more ammunition in the Democrat’s belts to fire back at her.

She’d be a terrible politician, if it weren’t for the fact that she knows what buttons to push, and the folks on the right want their buttons pushed.

ohrealy,

“I disagree that Palin is funnier than Tina Fey.”

Sorry I forgot to attach the sarcasm alert.

Rocky

David

Back in Jan. or even June, this recession was not worse than 1982. But, your data is outdated, Rhinehold. It is worse NOW.

So let’s get this straight. It wasn’t the worst when Obama took office, even though some people said so. But it is worst now that Obama has been in office for ten months. Didn’t Obama tell us that his jobs plan would keep unemployment below 8% and isn’t 10.2% bigger than 8%?

I don’t believe the actions of presidents can fine tune the economy, but most liberals do. So why can Obama not keep his promise, or is his analysis just so messed up that he doesn’t understand what is happening?

We have an interesting syllogism here. Liberals believe that government runs the economy to a large extent. Obama is running the government. Therefore Obama is messing up, by liberal logic.

By now, many of them are coming around to a more accurate, more conservative, point of view. Economies have their own logic. Government can influence the economy, but indirectly and not very rapidly.

So now they have to conclude that either (1) GW Bush was largely NOT responsible for the downturn manifest in 2001/2 and Barack Obama is largely not responsible for the one now or (2) It was Bush’s fault in 2001 and it is Obama’s fault in 2009.

The political logic is clearer. From that point of view, it WAS Bush’s economy in 2001 and it IS Obama’s economy now.

IMO, Obama’s policies will lead to a slower recovery than we experienced in 2003. The 4.5% unemployment rates of the middle of the Bush presidency will look very good and that slower recovery in 2010/11 will indeed be Obama’s fault.

“So let’s get this straight. It wasn’t the worst when Obama took office, even though some people said so. But it is worst now that Obama has been in office for ten months. Didn’t Obama tell us that his jobs plan would keep unemployment below 8% and isn’t 10.2% bigger than 8%?”

J&C it was worse, we just didn’t realize it or have the data at the time to back it up. The economy was in free fall, the bucket meant to bail out the sinking ship was to small due to the ideological right’s refusal to compromise and the timid left’s refusal to do it right. The political blame was left conveniently at the feet of the new president for the problems caused by the ideology of the last president. Any attempt to fix the problem has been thwarted by the tea baggers and their conservative leaders with shouts of “more water less bucket”.
Meanwhile those that can add more jobs, Corporate America, to the economy have not done so while becoming more profitable by continuing to shed the bucket holders that could help bail out the economy. Yet we continue to blame the president in a fit of partisan politics while we let the job creators off the hook for … well not doing their job.

Christine-

So let’s get this straight. It wasn’t the worst when Obama took office, even though some people said so. But it is worst now that Obama has been in office for ten months. Didn’t Obama tell us that his jobs plan would keep unemployment below 8% and isn’t 10.2% bigger than 8%?

The pace of the growth in unemployment before Obama intervened was much greater. That growth is now slowed. He is also not claiming, like Bush would, that this is the best we can do, and we should do no more.

And isn’t it your folks who are saying he should be doing nothing at all?

A broad consensus of Economists say otherwise. I would agree that the eight percent number was too optimistic, but so would Obama administration officials. After years worth of a Bush Administration that would consistently say “the fundamentals of the economy are sound,” even as the bottom was rotting out of it, the new administration’s willingness to admit that we are not out of the woods yet is refreshing.

I don’t believe the actions of presidents can fine tune the economy, but most liberals do. So why can Obama not keep his promise, or is his analysis just so messed up that he doesn’t understand what is happening?

So, you’re asking us a question, you already believe you know the answer to?

Presidents can affect the economy with their decisions, as can Congress. What I would say is that the economy is rather complex, so not all policies have their intended effect. However, I don’t take this as good cause just to keep our hands off. I think it means that managing the economy is not a simply matter of taking an ideological position and sticking to it, regardless of how events unfold.

That was what got us in this mess. The Bush Administration allowed Lehman Brothers to fail without full understanding what the secondary consequences of that failure would be. The Republicans then did a partisan-line vote against a bailout, which sent the markets into a tailspin, raising the price tag for the recovery. Then the Bush administration and conservatives balked at a stimulus plan then, which could have been implemented more cheaply and more effectively at that point.

We have to deal with the consequences of all those decisions. They don’t just instantly happen and instantly register. The ripple effects of those decisions create a burden on efforts downstream of them.

We have an interesting syllogism here. Liberals believe that government runs the economy to a large extent. Obama is running the government. Therefore Obama is messing up, by liberal logic.

I don’t believe any such bull. But neither do I believe the bull that the President can’t control some aspect of things.

This thing we’re dealing with, with the economy, is more complex than just a syllogism. Government makes the rules that define the freedoms, the rights, and the obligations of the folks who operate in this economy, whether they’re a big corporation or an average individual.

What I would say is that you can’t guarantee yourself simple responses to obvious solutions. The ecosystem of our economy is too complex for that. There’s causality there, regularities, synchronicities and other emergent structures that we can make some predictions about, and there are other aspects that just don’t behave so cleanly

Which all boils down to the fact that we can’t ignore what’s going on in our economy and simply hope for the best. We got to study the way it actually works when we do something, and then strategize from that understanding, rather than from a position of narrow philosophical belief.

So now they have to conclude that either (1) GW Bush was largely NOT responsible for the downturn manifest in 2001/2 and Barack Obama is largely not responsible for the one now or (2) It was Bush’s fault in 2001 and it is Obama’s fault in 2009.

No, we do not have to conclude any such silly thing. We can point to policies of Obama’s that have succeeded, to whatever extent they have, and point to policies of Bush’s that didn’t, or worse, caused the mess in the first place. Your argument is so generalized in its assumptions as to how and why blame is put on Bush’s shoulders that it misses the details that allow us to blame Bush and not Obama.

Bush inherited his good numbers. His policies didn’t produce them. In fact, even without the economic downturn, he was going to be the first president in a long time to end his tenure with fewer people employed than when he entered office.

Lots of talk of lies above. Where is the proof of any lies. Lots of rhetoric, opinion and foolish remarks.

We should all be more concerned with the Constitution being shredded by our Congress as a precursor to being an Islamic nation in ten years or less.

The so called health reform is strictly a power grab by our federal government-nothing more nothing less. Bailout-purchase of commercial enterprises is only a step for full ownership of business by the federal government. Sad thing is that so many of you need to study intensely history to see where we are heading. That admonition will probably fall on deaf ears.

Tom Humes

Stephen

Just consider time. In the case of both Bush and Obama in their first year, their policies have not had time to produce the results, good or bad.

I guess you just don’t accept the fairness principle. For you it just makes too much of a difference if the label is Republican v Democrat or Bush v Obama. I could change your opinion about just about anything just by changing the name associated with it

It is like the dialogue in one of those old defective movie. “Is it true?” “Depends on who’s asking”

So if someone asks you if a 5% unemployment rate is good or bad, the answer has to be “depends on who is president.”

A question I wish you would answer - at what point will this become “Obama’s economy”? I understand that you probably cannot answer, since it will depend on when it gets better.

President Reagan used to joke that they called it “Reaganomics” until things started to get better. It is the opposite for Obamanomics.