Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Baiting the liberal bloggers
Baiting most liberal bloggers over matters of American history is a little like shooting fish in a barrel, but this moment is pretty funny.
I'm coming around to the point of view that Sarah Palin does this sort of thing on purpose.
27 Comments:
By 
Bomber Girl, at
Wed Oct 20, 09:38:00 AM:
I wonder what happened to all the grown-ups in politics.
By 
, at
Wed Oct 20, 10:00:00 AM:
She provokes an almost allergic reaction from lefties.
Given that independents rule election results, and that she is so incredibly polarizing a figure, I'd say she has no political future herself (unless she can somehow broaden her appeal). But I do think she is having an extraordinary effect of politics.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 10:15:00 AM:
It's either Sarah or her team or both, but they're getting quite good at leading the narrative. Is there any national politician making better use of Facebook and Twitter? Recall Sarah's comment on "death panels" on her Facebook page and the effect it had.
Yes, "1773" was a set-up. Brilliant.
But no, she's still not electable .... at least not yet.
By Bomber Girl, at
Wed Oct 20, 11:41:00 AM:
Sarah certainly seems to be having fun in her role as provocateur but she is polarizing and her tactics, while techy/modern in some ways, seem often to border on H.S. student government level of maturity, but less civil. So if you are searching for the "temperature" of the Bomber Girl vote, Ignoramus, it is decidedly cool. Which is different, I note, than the "allergic reaction" of alleged lefties.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 12:43:00 PM:
Actually Sarah Palin is the only electable republican. All the other candidates are dull, boring, ruling class types. Only a country class candidate will win. The objections all come from the ruling class and the Pravda Press.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Oct 20, 01:16:00 PM:
All this talk of 'class' makes me nervous... shades of Marxism.
It's a convenient label to make generalizations about people, and may actually be accurate and effective if narrowly defined. For instance, I like the talk about 'ruling class,' because it 1) depends on conduct and 2) reflects the reality that modern politics has become incestuous and self-perpetuating, with decades upon decades in office, handing office down from one generation to the next (Kennedy, Bush, Gore, Murkowski, etc.), and the in-bed relationships (sometimes including actual, physical cohabitation!) between media, politicians, and various special interests. People who don't fit those circumstances are not included.
But membership in a social or economic class is almost irrelevant, politically. Some of the worst elitists are those who did actually pull themselves up from the poor house, and some of the most honest everyman convictions come from people born to privilege. It's not a reliable heuristic for political decisions. We vote for individuals here and individual character, not background, matters.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 02:04:00 PM:
"Ruling Class" v "Country Class" can be read to mean "those inside the Beltway" versus "the rest of us" and not have that much to do with social class. "Inside the Beltway" believes in centralized control and expanding government, with well-credentialed elites in charge. There's some correlation of "well-credentialed" to social class, but it's not total.
Sarah's appeal is that she's as far from "inside the Beltway" as you can get. She might have broader appeal had she been recruited to Wellesley to play point guard, had an obligatory girl-girl fling while she was there, and gone on to law school so she could rap about con law opinions ... pity, that.
When I was growing up, "Shithead" meant someone who thought that they were smart but really weren't. It's hard to reason with a Shithead. "Inside the Beltway" is filled with Shitheads. Not all the Shitheads that I know went to good colleges, but most of them did. Go figure.
By pam, at
Wed Oct 20, 03:20:00 PM:
I'm an alleged lefty who is disinterested in Sarah Palin. She provokes a yawn at most.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 03:24:00 PM:
Bomber Girl:
...her tactics, while techy/modern in some ways, seem often to border on H.S. student government level of maturity, but less civil....
Do tell. I was in HS student government, and have no idea what you are talking about.
By Bomber Girl, at
Wed Oct 20, 04:11:00 PM:
H.S. candidates like to generate enthusiasm around their platforms. Sarah's FB feed would fit right in: "Check out this great video for Sean Duffy!", "Take a look at this awesome ad!", "Happy one year anniversary to the "sisterhood of mommy patriots"." "Rock your news gathering world". If she is looking to attract the teen vote, maybe she has something there, although I would guess many would roll their eyes (teens do). And, as I have said before, after reading her book, I was less than impressed by many petty sounding diatribes against those she felt had maligned her during the campaign (which also reminded me of a high schooly clique type of thing). Granted, she was maligned and excessively so but I still feel there is a huge lack of gravitas/wisdom which I would like to see in a real candidate for office, other than class president.
By PD Quig, at
Wed Oct 20, 04:17:00 PM:
Come on, folks. You're being too hard on the lefties. Remember: they learn all they know from the movies, TV, and the music industry. When they heard Palin's comment, it just confirmed that she is an idiot who doesn't even know The Artist Formerly Known As Prince's song lyric was "party like it's 1999."
By the way Alleged Liberal: you are UNINTERESTED in Palin... not "disinterested" in her. Perhaps you have learned your English from the Hollywood crowd that doesn't know history?
By Bomber Girl, at
Wed Oct 20, 04:22:00 PM:
PD Quig, uninterested alleged liberal may be taking a page from Sarah's playbook in terms of wordsmithing. Just sayin'.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 04:43:00 PM:
She is probably unelectable in the same way those dangerous cowboys Ronald Reagan and GW were. Too extreme, too unnuanced, and stupid too (the MSM said so).
By Bomber Girl, at
Wed Oct 20, 04:50:00 PM:
Daran, cowboys perhaps but RR and GW had a resume.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 06:12:00 PM:
"She is probably unelectable in the same way those dangerous cowboys Ronald Reagan and GW were."
Reagan was unelectable for President for well over a decade. The times had to come to him. He only pulled away from Carter about a month before the election in 1980. In the end, he won over most of the independents and even pulled voters away from the Democrats.
Sarah isn't there yet and may never be.
GW isn't worth comparison. Not a bad guy, but an awful President. He's why Obama's President right now. It's like Nero following Caligula.
By pam, at
Wed Oct 20, 07:45:00 PM:
I'm not that clever, BomberGirl. Palin doesn't interest me, but the issues she's involved in do. I chose disinterested for that reason. I am not interested in her in the least. I don't care what she says--why should I? Too many people give her too much credence. I feel the same way about Joe Biden. There are more intelligent people to read/listen to and not enough hours in the day. I'd rather read this blog...
By pam, at
Wed Oct 20, 07:49:00 PM:
Can I be both un- and dis-interested at the same time? Hmmmm.
Too much hollywood for me I guess. Whatever that meant.
By Andrew X, at
Wed Oct 20, 09:22:00 PM:
Pam, not to criticize your disinterest, which you are enirely entitled to, but the entire point of this post is that the left could not only choose that very disinterest themselves, and also that it would be categorically the smartest thing for them to choose "disinterest" of Palin overall....
..and they just cannot do it for the life of them!! They just can't. And therein is the rollicking good fun, as this intellectually middling but enormously politically savvy grandmother makes them all dance like her little puppets on a string.
Congrats on your lefty indifference. If your cohorts across the board shared it, Palin might just disappear.... but they just cannot bring themselves to do it. And so we will laugh of the spectacle.
Why they cannot do so, is a question I leave to the psychologists.
By Bomber Girl, at
Wed Oct 20, 09:49:00 PM:
druu222, i don't find the lefty (negative-toned) interest as bizzare as the righty interest in her - is this the best the GOP can offer? for an outside (independent) observer it seems as if the GOP doesn't know what to do with her and, more importantly, finds few candidates that do seem worthy of (non blind-partisan) support. It is disconcerting that someone you describe as middling intelligence but politically savvy seems to be defining the conversation. That is not a propitious equation for the country.
By , at
Wed Oct 20, 10:16:00 PM:
disinterested
1.
unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives: a disinterested decision by the referee.
2.
not interested; indifferent
uninterested
1.
having or showing no feeling of interest; indifferent.
2.
not personally concerned in something.
By Gary Rosen, at
Thu Oct 21, 01:19:00 AM:
"I still feel there is a huge lack of gravitas/wisdom which I would like to see in a real candidate for office"
BG, even though I have mostly defended Palin I see your point. The only problem is that we elected BO precisely because he seemed to project that "gravitas/wisdom" despite an even skimpier resume than Palin's and now people are finding out we've been had, big-time. Though some of us *did* see through it before the election, ahem. So gravitas/wisdom isn't playing well right now because all the gravitas/wisdom boys, not just BO but the whole establishment before and after the election, blew it badly with the economy and are *still* blowing it.
To enlarge on this a bit, I feel that Palin's continuing stature derives in part from the fact that she is the anti-Obama. Nearly everything you can think of about her, from gender and race to background, politics and demeanor stands in stark contrast to BO. So she has become a lightning rod for both the President's detractors and defenders.
By , at
Thu Oct 21, 06:56:00 AM:
"I still feel there is a huge lack of gravitas/wisdom which I would like to see in a real candidate for office"
For all the alleged lack of gravitas of Sharon Angle in the Nevada Senate race, by most accounts she won the debate with Harry Reid, who began his political life over 40 years ago. One would think that a lawyer and politician with such experience would have enough gravitas to crush an alleged lightweight such as Sharon Angle, but he did not.
Regarding lack of gravitas: how many Congressmen read more than a page of the two thousand page health care bill they voted for?
We voted in a President whose experience metric compared to other US Senators who were also elected President best resembled that of Warren Harding. You get what YOU voted for, Bomber Girl.Not too much gravitas in THAT decision, methinks.
IOW, we have had fools in office for quite a while.
By Bomber Girl, at
Thu Oct 21, 08:16:00 AM:
There was a fabulous observation in Sarah's book, within the context of her concerns about the relentless scrutiny and dirty politics most candidates for public office face: I paraphrase, "only nuts run for office", or something like that - maybe it was "nobody normal" runs for office - since to subject oneself to the process requires, seemingly, some abandonment of reason or at least of the hopes of a civilized life. So, BT, if you say we have had fools in the office for quite awhile, perhaps we are getting what we deserve. I would hope we can shift course but it does not seem to be the way we are heading, although there are some candidates who seem to break out of this mold.
BTW, I do take my voting decisions seriously, so youthinks wrongly. It does not mean we cannot disagree civilly.
By , at
Thu Oct 21, 08:20:00 AM:
Look to the visceral response of the left to Palin when nominated to be vice-president and, for that matter, any woman and minority running as a Republican.
The left is running scared and relies upon the media to perpetuate the misinformation spewed forth by Democratic operatives.
By , at
Thu Oct 21, 02:00:00 PM:
Bomber Girl, my mistake was to personalize it.
I stand by my generalized opinion of a decided lack of gravitas on the part of many voters.[Recall the poll several days after the 2008 election where a substantial proportion of Obama voters thought that prior the election, the Pubs controlled Congress.] Another candidate for lack of gravitas is the press, which preferred partisanship to getting the facts out.
By Bomber Girl, at
Thu Oct 21, 05:31:00 PM:
I agree with your point about the press, BT. I make it a point to read papers and online media which have different partisan biases - which doesn't mean The Truth is Out There (sorry to borrow Ig's old moniker, take it as a compliment) but at least I am aware of different points of view before arriving at my own opinion. As to voters, I won't dispute what you say about a lack of gravitas but my own universe of peers, friends, contacts is relatively well informed so it may not be a representative group of voters as a whole.
Although New Yorkers are maybe, uhm, blessed by having such "interesting" candidates to keep us engaged in the political process....who can ignore the Rent is Too Damn High candidate for governor?....Gravitas? not so much.
By , at
Fri Oct 29, 08:30:00 PM:
So now that Sarah Palin knows the original date of the Boston Tea Party rebellion, shall we tell her that it was actually to protest a corporate tax cut in favor of the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence?
Heh. So much history, so little time.
