Sarah Palin Denial Syndrome?

[fishbob]

I think she makes a fine....Mayor. In Alaska.

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell citizenry of Alaska was "Oh no, not again."

Apologies to Douglas Adams.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Reading your arguments, Sporanox, I am struck with the idea that one could use them (with minor tweaking) to assert that the majority of the animus towards the President from both Republicans and Teabaggers can be attributed to their racism.

This.

I say it simply because I observe that your argument boils down to an assertion that the level of disapproval Sarah Palin is subject to (from some) is based more upon her cultural background than her actual flaws.
You point out that the "Caribou Barbie" stereotype is threatening to some due to its' alienness. The hunting, and the "you betcha' " are code for- "not like us" to her detractors.
Could the same not be said about "Barak Hussein Obama" and his "community organising"?
Can I not use the same rationale to link ODS to racism?

And this.

Ya know, some of us hick country folk from small towns who talk funny and hunt or fish might simply not like her because she has demonstrated how really really terrible she is at governing a town or a state. Didja ever think of that?

And this.



I find it delightful that the conservative faction, who've taken particular effort to defend the sufferers of ODS in just these terms ("hey, did you ever consider that we don't care a fig about his color, but just don't like his policies, plans, record, whatever...?") are so blinded by their own biases that they can't seem to understand that there are legitimate political reasons to not like Sarah Palin.

I don't care if she hunted wolves by leaping on them from tree branches and ripping their jugulars out with her teeth. I don't like her politics. Others have listed many of the points so I won't bother repeating them, but they are legitimate political concerns. Dig up a big city conservative with an intellectual bent (where's Condie from?), and I'd be against her/him, too. Not because I'm against big city intellectuals, but because I'm against conservative politics.

How hard is this to understand? Or does anyone care? I think it's too easy to work with two-dimensional imagery for both sides and painting someone's critics as non-thinking emotional neanderthals is far preferrable to discussing actual issues.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The provision of the bill which raised her ire got pulled. Like it or not, that's political power, and denying it (as Parky did) is just stupid, regardless of what side you're on.

I won't deny that's power alright.

What I would say however is that viciously lying and I'm being charitable here, I could just assume she's a total imbecile who really DIDN'T know this was nonsense is a really awful way to use your political power. This wan't here forcing those damn Dems to remove the killer bill, this was here falsely CLAIMING that she was doing that.

Personally, I find that disgusting, no matter how much power it displays. Disagree with a bill or a person or a group all you want, but the moment you have to lie like that about it? You don't deserve to run a race, let alone a government.


Incidentally, as a non-US citizen, as much as I dislike US gun culture and hunting for "sport" (ugh) I couldn't give a toss about where she comes from, what her accent is or whether a lot of guys think she's "cute" (I don't). I don't like her because:

1. I disagree vehemently with her politics.

2. I think that her demonstrated lack of knowledge about and interest in world politics is an absolute disgrace from any politician. Even when she was running for governor this should have blocked her. Cheney, who I also disliked the politics of, was VERY interested in and VERY knowledgable about world politics, and quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Nixon was the smartest, most astute and on the ball President you ever had. Palin is NOT. Palin is weak, ignorant and unwilling to learn. This is not a good person to be an elected official for the local library, let alone President.

 

[Praktik]

How hard is this to understand? Or does anyone care? I think it's too easy to work with two-dimensional imagery for both sides and painting someone's critics as non-thinking emotional neanderthals is far preferrable to discussing actual issues.

Exhibit A

 

[Brown]

What I would say however is that viciously lying and I'm being charitable here, I could just assume she's a total imbecile who really DIDN'T know this was nonsense is a really awful way to use your political power.

I want to follow up on this point. By saying that Sarah Palin is drop-dead stupid, this is being kind. The alternative is to suggest that she is a lying sack of rhymes-with-spit or a raving lunatic.

The evidence, of which there is a mountain visible to anyone who cares to pay attention, is that this woman has said many foolish things, many untrue things, many ignorant things. I have previously discussed on this forum the foolish, untrue and ignorant things that spewed from the pie holes of Reagan and Little Bush. And the conclusion is unpleasant. Either these folks were imbeciles who really believed the nonsense they were spewing, or they were dishonest in the extreme. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, the evidence supported the conclusion was that they were imbeciles.

The evidence did not then--and does not today--support the position that these folks were correct, wise or intelligent. No, they met at least one (and probably all three) of the "George Carlin criteria": (1) stupid; (2) full of [fertilizer]; and (3) [extremely] nuts.

 

[Lurker]

As opposed to teleprompters in front of sixth graders?

Dude, you listen to talk radio, right? Turn the dial to the off position and educate yourself.

http://factcheck.org/2010/01/school-photo/

I note that Hannity continues this attack despite it having easily been refuted.

 

[Lurker]

Well, certainly the "how can the moronic knuckle-draggers deny their candidate is evil and stupid? They must be in denial!" Democratic standard-issue policy -- which had failed completely to stop the election of Nixon (twice), Reagan (twice), Bush Sr., or Bush Jr. (twice) -- isn't working.

And yet the Democrats keep unleashing this strategy, codenamed "Operation Foot Bazooka", every election, since the previous defeat merely convinced them the electorate is even dumber than they thought, and that if they patiently explain to the skeptical voters in even more detail exactly how stupid they and their candidates are, they'll win in a landslide next time.

(Sigh)

Ah well. Somebody's being a moron here, all right.

But it isn't Palin.

Agreed. Dems and liberals do not seem to do good PR for themselves. We even see it on this very thread where Palin's and Obama's resumes are compared and Palin's is ridiculed. I know the temptation to do so and have engaged in it as well. But that ridicule does not win converts in an election. It alienates and charges of "elitism" become real. Dems and liberals need to stop the ridicule of middle America and embrace it more.

 

[Thunder]

True, true, but there's a huge difference between "I think Palin isn't a good candidate" or "I think so-and-so would do better" and "Ha ha, dumb knuckle-dragging Republicans like stupid broad, ha ha".
.

have you spoken to anyone about this compulsion to make strawmen arguments?

 

[Seismosaurus]

The argument about Obama's qualifications is long over. He's served a year as President. She hasn't. He wins. She doesn't.

Youmight have said she was more qualified during the campaign, but one day after he took office, any claims she had over him in experience were blown clear out of the water.

 

[Skeptic]

We even see it on this very thread where Palin's and Obama's resumes are compared and Palin's is ridiculed. I know the temptation to do so and have engaged in it as well. But that ridicule does not win converts in an election. It alienates and charges of "elitism" become real.

Yes, but you're forgetting that one of the main reasons many people identify as "liberals" is to feel all superior to everybody else.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, but you're forgetting that one of the main reasons many people identify as "liberals" is to feel all superior to everybody else.

Right. You can stop complaining about people's motivations for attacking Palin as we are now painfully aware of your motivation for defending her. ('Liberals baddd')

 

[varwoche]

The argument about Obama's qualifications is long over. He's served a year as President. She hasn't. He wins. She doesn't.

Youmight have said she was more qualified during the campaign, but one day after he took office, any claims she had over him in experience were blown clear out of the water.

Indeed. Obama's thin resume, which was fair game in '08, won't be so thin in '12.

 

[Skeptic]

Nobody's going to care about Obama's resume in 2012. They will however care about his performance. If the economy does better and his laws are popular, he will be reelected.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, but you're forgetting that one of the main reasons many people identify as "liberals" is to feel all superior to everybody else.

...as opposed to Conservatives? Get serious, Skeptic. People self-identify with any political label because they think that group has superior answers to political questions. If you're doing it for some other reason... well... I have to wonder about what that reason is.

 

[applecorped]

any[/I] political label because they think that group has superior answers to political questions. If you're doing it for some other reason... well... I have to wonder about what that reason is.

The Republicans have a lot of bad ideas, bad policies, and bad leaders........but the Democrat's are worse.

 

[tyr_13]

...as opposed to Conservatives? Get serious, Skeptic. People self-identify with any political label because they think that group has superior answers to political questions. If you're doing it for some other reason... well... I have to wonder about what that reason is.

It is also worth noting that ad-hom is still a logical fallacy. "You're just saying that because you're a liberal," is a perfect textbook example of an ad-hom. That it is being used so much as a defense for Palin in this thread, by people who by all rights should know better, is saddening.

 

[Tricky]

The Republicans have a lot of bad ideas, bad policies, and bad leaders........but the Democrat's are worse.

Yeah, well I think the same thing, except with the party names reversed. Am I saying that to feel superior? I'd like to think that this isn't the case, but if I didn't believe my opinion was the better one to hold, then why the heck would I hold it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So quitting in the middle of the term when the going got tough is considered doing quite well?

Hey when the going gets tough, the tough run to fox news.

 

[Praktik]

Yes, but you're forgetting that one of the main reasons many people identify as "liberals" is to feel all superior to everybody else.

I think this is common to nearly all points of view and can even be extended to things like buying CDs, books and clothes. Most individuals are in a long-term quest to stake out their own personal identity. This includes politics.

While people vary in the degree to which they display conceit, there is usually an underlying conceit (however well camouflaged) beneath the construction of their identity (I am no exception).

So I think most people, even the humble, "feel superior" because of the choices they made and the views they hold. The conceit underpinning some strains of conservative thought is one that holds the individual as belonging to "real" America, the idea that they're "the salt of the earth" and when you think about it, proudly proclaiming that you are without conceit - while highlighting the conceit in others - is itself a form of conceit.

Most people think that their personal politics are more true than others, whether you're a capitalist, socialist, paleocon, theocon, neocon or incremental liberal. That is a form of conceit, more pronounced in purists of any stripe than in those willing to concede and moderate their views by the influence of others.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes, but you're forgetting that one of the main reasons many people identify as "liberals" is to feel all superior to everybody else.

If by superior you mean refusing to make ignorant strawman arguments like this, then yeah, I guess I feel superior.