Article about Sarah Palin by David Kahane

[SezMe]

I'm already sure just the fact it's national review will mean some won't even give it the time of day, ...

... how the left behaves politically. Engaging in the politics of personal destruction at all times, and viciously.

I'd like to hope it would shame some on the left, but I suspect that many won't even read it.

I'd like to comment on the OP, not the article.

I know that you feel like you are in the distinct political minority here, Whiplash, but the chip on your shoulder does not help you. First, you start off by assuming the some here won't consider the article you cite. Why? We're a pretty inquisitive bunch so give the benefit of the doubt. If some don't read the article and move on, no harm done. If some don't read the article but still make some derogatory remark, then - and only then - are you justified in firing both barrels.

Next you broad brush so badly that you risk turning off those who might disagree with you but still want to hear an alternative view. "...at all times, and viciously." is hardly a phrase to engender spirited give and take. Speaking personally, after such a characterization, I'm inclined to respond with something like, "up yours" but I'll be cool.

So you want the article to shame those with whom you disagree? What a strange attitude. Why not present the article as something that might provoke thought on the part of those you disagree with? If you did that, I would certainly be inclined to look further. Conversely, why the hell should I read something that sets out to shame me? When presented that way, my natural reaction is to remember what my pappa used to say, "Consider the source and forget it." So if you want me to read the article, don't give me a reason to shoot (ignore) the messenger.

 

[HansMustermann]

Seconded.

However, others have responded that in the past, it was the best-of-the-best who got us into wars and other troubles...

As opposed to GWB which was... definitely not best-of-the-best, in fact he was a retarded monkey which by the end was wearing a radio because he couldn't be trusted to remember his speech or proper English... and ended up one of the most reviled warmongers on the planet? You know, the guy who, as it turns out, was telling the British PM that he's probably not going to find any WMDs after all, but here are plans B, C, and D on what pretexts can be used to attack Iraq anyway? Including being prepared that if somebody assassinates Sadam, he'll invade Iraq to avenge that, no matter that the other backup plans were about invading because Sadam is still in power?

As opposed to GWB who was personally receiving messages from God, so maybe not just retarded but also schizophrenic?

So, how was electing him better than electing best of the best?

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm already sure just the fact it's national review will mean some won't even give it the time of day, but it really sums up exactly how I feel about the entire Palin situation, and how the left behaves politically. Engaging in the politics of personal destruction at all times, and viciously.

Well, I'll admit that the whole campaign style in the USA doesn't make much sense to me. But it doesn't seem to me like Sarah Palin got anything worse from the "left" than the vicious attacks all Democrat candidates got from the right wingers.

I mean, to take Obama alone, it's like it's made every nuthouse inmate come out of the medical supplies closet and launch another retarded accusation. Seriously, there has been stuff, and there still is stuff going on, like:

- accusing Obama of being unamerican and just short of a traitor for not wearing an american flag pin... when actually he was wearing one, it was McCain that wasn't wearing one.

- accusing Obama of being a muslim, which not only wasn't true, but makes me wonder: since when is America a christian theocracy anyway? In what other _civilized_ country would be implied that you're disqualified for not being the right religion? I mean, I can see that happening in Iran, but in America? Really? Did the right wingers completely miss the whole "age of enlightenment" thing?

- the whole "birther" lunacy long after the birth certificate was accepted even by most Republicans

- implying that his talking in Germany in front of a crowd of Germans, you know, brings back spooky historical bad memories just for being in front of Germans... never mind that GWB did the same and then it was all right

- accusing him of being a communist and nationalizing banks... when the whole bailout thing was actually started during Bush's administration and supported by Republicans back then too

- retarded lemmings like Chuck Norris writing idiocies like basically "I'm scared of Obama because other Republicans are scared of Obama". Really, it was the first item on Chuck's list. How's that for saying, "I have no own personality or brain functions, I just follow the party leader like a good drone; and you're evil because they tell me to think you're evil"?

And so on, and so forth. Etc, etc, etc.

I'm sorry, but the political side which is itself doing such retarded attacks has lost all right to complain that the other side is attacking their candidate.

And... Sarah Palin? The girl about which even the right wing, the best thing they could say about her was that they get a stiffy at her wink? (Never mind that when you also listen at what she was saying when she winked, it was completely inapropriate. It was like putting a winking "just kidding, I don't really mean it" smiley on something which should have been dead serious for anyone who could be president if old McCain expires.) Geeze, some of those guys didn't want to see her in the White House with John McCain, they wanted to see her in a flick with Peter North.

And, I'm sorry, but most of the complaints quoted there as shameful leftie behaviour are exactly the kind of thing which is actually relevant when you consider a potential president. E.g., "Attack her politics, her background, her educational history." Because apparently God forbid that when you're electing someone you'd be concerned about their politics, background or worry about their being qualified for the job. Geesh.

It's written by a conservative, but written in a style as if he was a liberal. It's a parody, but much of it reads just like actual posts on these very forums.

So, basically the parody part is building a strawman?

 

[Skeptic]

I suggest Kahane should not hold back, and tell 'em what he REALLY thinks.

A bit overreacting, I'd say.

 

[Brainster]

Weren't you just criticizing Tom Tomorrow in another thread for putting words in the mouths of conservatives?

ETA:



I'll just pick out a few points:

- It's a bit weird to give too much credit or blame to Palin for the acceptance speech, which was largely written before she was selected as the VP candidate.

It was a superb delivery under enormous pressure.

- It's also weird to imply that what was done to Palin is somehow different from what happens to every presidential and vice presidential candidate every four years.

Oh, really? Compare and contrast: John Edwards and Sarah Palin. Edwards had four years of public service experience under his belt when he became the VP nominee. Sarah Palin had considerably more, although admittedly only 2-1/2 years at the governorship level. Edwards was a lawyer. Who channeled dead babies in the courtroom for money.

And yet somehow nobody was offended that John Edwards was going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Nobody thought it was a joke that Edwards was nominated solely because he looked good and was from the South. Why is that?

Now let's consider the man that Palin was matched up against. No, not Obama, but Joe Biden. Graduated bottom third of his class in college, and near the bottom in law school. At Syracuse. Despite that unimpressive resume he's been in the Senate since the Nixon years, and I will admit that experience counts for something (although Obama voters were happy to say otherwise when it came to comparing his resume to McCain's).

But if ever there was a man made for parody, it's Joe Biden. Mano-a-mano Joe? Seriously?

Note: I am not saying that Palin was a terrific candidate. What I am saying is that the idea that there's some yawning intellectual gulf between her and the jokers the Democrats have nominated the last two cycles is absurd.

- It's weird to imply that Andrew Sullivan and David Letterman are on the left.

Sully still claims to be conservative, but a poll of his readers showed that only 2% of his readers self-identify that way, whereas in 2002 his blog was one of the most influential conservative blogs around. I don't know Letterman's politics, don't care, but I'd be very surprised if you have some evidence that he's center-right.

- It's weird that the same article that implies there's something improper about this: "Attack her politics, her background, her educational history. Attack her family. Make fun of her husband, her children." also includes this: "Maureen Dowd ... taking a beer-run break from her quixotic search for Mr. Right ... post-funny comic David Letterman ... Katie Couric, the anchor nobody watches ... former New York Times hack Todd “Mr. Dee Dee Myers” Purdum," and wraps up by describing the Democratic party as "a criminal organization masquerading as a political party."

Yes, I agree that it's weird that the article implies there's something improper about attacking her politics. The rest of the stuff should be off limits.

The article itself does get tedious in the second half, I will grant you that. As for the rest of the characterizations, Maureen Dowd has made no secret of how unhappy she is about being single at her age; indeed she's written many columns and a book about it. I dunno if Letterman ever had it; I never watched late-night talk shows. Katie Couric's ratings are pretty terrible. The description of the Democrats as a criminal organization is stupid and clearly part of the red meat to the partisan faithful. Indeed, the major reason the second half of the article sucks so much is that the writer can't seem to remember that he's supposed to be writing this as a liberal.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, I agree that it's weird that the article implies there's something improper about attacking her politics. The rest of the stuff should be off limits.

The article itself does get tedious in the second half, I will grant you that. As for the rest of the characterizations, Maureen Dowd has made no secret of how unhappy she is about being single at her age; indeed she's written many columns and a book about it. I dunno if Letterman ever had it; I never watched late-night talk shows. Katie Couric's ratings are pretty terrible. The description of the Democrats as a criminal organization is stupid and clearly part of the red meat to the partisan faithful. Indeed, the major reason the second half of the article sucks so much is that the writer can't seem to remember that he's supposed to be writing this as a liberal.

You're missing the point, though. A hack who writes that kind of attacks about others, then complains about it being done by others, is a hypocrite. Plain and simple. If there's anyone with a moral high ground to criticize the attacks on Palin from, it's not him.

 

[Merko]

There are some 'leftists' who use dishonest, sexist, elitist smears towards Palin. Maureen Down springs to mind. These people should be criticised.

But blaming all leftists for this is silly. There's no leftist conspiracy. There have been lots of leftists defending Palin against the sexist attacks. In general, most well regarded commentators have refrained from it.

Let's put it into perspective: Fox News have regularly been giving room for Obama birth certificate conspiracists. That's a charge that is more unfair and vastly more crazy than anything I've ever heard about Palin. Even the early rumours that her latest child wasn't really her child but her daughter's appears very sensible by comparison. Imagine if MSNBC had kept having guests spouting off such theories, long after it became clear that Palin's child was really hers. That's not even nearly happening. And even if it had happened, what Fox have been doing would still have been far worse and far more crazy.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in my opinion, right-wingers who complain about unfair criticism of Palin have absolutely zero credibility unless they can demonstrate that they are themselves doing something to counter unfairness from their own side.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Seconded.

However, others have responded that in the past, it was the best-of-the-best who got us into wars and other troubles...

I'm not saying that highly qualified people are some sort of talisman against failure; I'm just gobsmacked at the slack jawed worship of incompetence and unpreparedness that makes the electorate agog sometimes.

Some part of me wonders if some of Palin's supporters admired her not inspite of her stammering, her bald faced lies, her bizare home life, her vindictiveness, her inexperience, and her whacko husband, but because they identify with those qualities.

 

[Brainster]

There are some 'leftists' who use dishonest, sexist, elitist smears towards Palin. Maureen Down springs to mind. These people should be criticised.

But blaming all leftists for this is silly. There's no leftist conspiracy. There have been lots of leftists defending Palin against the sexist attacks. In general, most well regarded commentators have refrained from it.

Let's put it into perspective: Fox News have regularly been giving room for Obama birth certificate conspiracists. That's a charge that is more unfair and vastly more crazy than anything I've ever heard about Palin. Even the early rumours that her latest child wasn't really her child but her daughter's appears very sensible by comparison. Imagine if MSNBC had kept having guests spouting off such theories, long after it became clear that Palin's child was really hers. That's not even nearly happening. And even if it had happened, what Fox have been doing would still have been far worse and far more crazy.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in my opinion, right-wingers who complain about unfair criticism of Palin have absolutely zero credibility unless they can demonstrate that they are themselves doing something to counter unfairness from their own side.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. Now do I have some credibility?

 

[SezMe]

I'm not saying that highly qualified people are some sort of talisman against failure; I'm just gobsmacked at the slack jawed worship of incompetence and unpreparedness that makes the electorate agog sometimes.

I see no worship of those qualities. I do see political attacks against "east coast liberalism" and "elitism" and the like as effective slogans against "others".

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I see no worship of those qualities. I do see political attacks against "east coast liberalism" and "elitism" and the like as effective slogans against "others".

I'm having trouble reconcilling that with the ouright derision conservatie media comentators had for Obama's academic credentials, Gore's when compared to Bush's "have a beer with"-ness, and so on.

 

[HansMustermann]

I see no worship of those qualities. I do see political attacks against "east coast liberalism" and "elitism" and the like as effective slogans against "others".

Well, it's precisely the fact that they worked as slogans that is the most damning.

1. For a start the attack wasn't just on "elitism", but at some point it became an attack on just being an "elite" in any form or shape. It wasn't an attack on the idea that some born social elites (which incidentally the Bush were) should rule, but it actually turned into the idea that just being an educated elite in your field is something which makes you some kind of aristocrat and unfit to rule.

And that some slack-jawed yokels actually fell for the idea that being, say, an elite in economics or political science is bad and a retarded monkey you could have a beer with is good... well, that's what makes me _wonder_ about a segment of America.

2. And "east coast liberalism"... well, ok, I'm not against being against the group that's your opposition party. It's even expected. But, way I understand all those attacks, the right went far beyond the expected "well, their ideas are wrong" level.

A. The whole talk was turning the whole idea into an ad-hominem. Republicans, we were told, are the _real_ Americans, while those damn liberals hate America. Republicans are the real _people_, those liberals are some ivory-tower elitists which probably haven't even seen the real people up close. Those liberals, I kept being told, _hate_ the troops. And that they should just pack their bags and leave America instead of trying to change it. Etc.

It was a concerted attack not just on the ideas of the Democrats, but the usual repulsive propaganda trying to make the very notion of "liberal" be something sub-human, traitorous, and so on. That wasn't a political campaign, it was smear campaign.

And Sarah Palin was very active in using that us-vs-them class warfare card even more than the bushies. She was very quick to proclaim who the real americans are, and obviously the others aren't that. Those were the speeches of a hateful woman, of a woman quick to reduce everyone who's not on her side to not even being really American, not one of the people, and probably barely even human if at all.

At the risk of Goodwinning this thread... ah, screw it, I don't even need the Third Reich for that, you can look just as well at Stalin's or Mao's speeches. They were just as quick to proclaim that whoever isn't with them, is the Enemy Of The People. Maybe less subtle than Sarah Palin, but not by much.

So, sorry, I can't feel any sympathy for her when she got attacked in return. If you start slinging mud at half of America, you're just begging for someone to build a big trebuchet and _bury_ you in your own medicine.

And again, it just makes me wonder about the kind of people on whom that kind of smear campaign worked and passed for a good thing.

B. Just look at what ideas were being attacked. At some point in the past it quit even being the idea that "yeah, but see if we give the rich all sorts of tax breaks it will be good for you too", and just ended up basically a sort of a "f*** you, if you have any sort of empathy, if you even give a damn about the tens of thousands of veterans sleeping under bridges, if you want to give a free meal to starving kids instead of telling them to get a job at McDonalds, then you're a failure of a human being." That was the big "shame" that being a "liberal" was transformed into by the right-wing propaganda machine.

And I'm sorry, but there's "right wing" and then there's being a psychopathic prick. At least Faux News, plus quite a few Republican representatives, sound to me like a cult of psychopathy.

In other countries they _beheaded_ the likes of Marie Antoinette for saying the people should eat cake if they don't have bread. That quote is used to _villify_ her.

But when Republican representative Cynthia Davis wants to end a program of cheap free meals for poor kids, under such cheap excuses as that it undermines families, that "hunger can be a positive motivator" and something as heartless as "tip: if you work for McDonalds they'll feed you for free in the break"... she gets elected for it. Never mind that there aren't enough McDonald's jobs in any state for that many children anyway. But I'm sorry, but basically that a poor child should starve so you get to keep $2.5 in taxes, is psychopathy pure and simple, and wouldn't fly in any other western country.

And that whole propaganda campaign against liberalism, not just this election but generally, seems to me like it turned long ago into just that: a cult of psychopathy. And the idea that if you care about anyone else than helping Rupert Murdoch get yet another million or the right to buy yet another newspaper, that's inherently something shameful and unamerican.

So, yes, that anyone would actually be motivated by that kind of a campaign and slogans makes me _wonder_.

 

[Oliver]

Could someone explain to me why an eltist attiude toward candidates for the highest ellected offices in our nation is bad? I want the best people, not the folks-y-est.

Which is a quite plausible and rational desire. But let's compare your wish to the majority of Republicans:

CNNTicker [July 7, 2009]: 7 in 10 Republicans would vote for Palin
The survey also suggests a wide partisan split over whether respondents would likely vote for Palin if she decides to run for the White House in 2012. More than seven in 10 Republicans said they would be likely to vote for Palin for the presidency. That number drops to 34 percent among independents and to 17 percent among Democrats.

 

[linusrichard]

It was a superb delivery under enormous pressure.

Reread the first two paragraphs of the piece. It sounds to me like he's talking at least as much about the content of the speech as the delivery, or the pressure. YMMV. Either way, I agree with you that it was a superb delivery under enormous pressure. But so what?

Oh, really? Compare and contrast: John Edwards and Sarah Palin. Edwards had four years of public service experience under his belt when he became the VP nominee. Sarah Palin had considerably more, although admittedly only 2-1/2 years at the governorship level. Edwards was a lawyer. Who channeled dead babies in the courtroom for money.

And yet somehow nobody was offended that John Edwards was going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Nobody thought it was a joke that Edwards was nominated solely because he looked good and was from the South. Why is that?

First, that's just not true. Obviously some people thought Edwards was too inexperienced for the job.
Second, you have to consider whose heartbeats we're talking about here. Not that Al Gore is the healthiest man in the world, but he was 20 years younger.
Third, and most importantly, Palin's inexperience was not so much an issue per se, it was an issue because one of the GOP's big lines against Obama was his inexperience, and nominating someone with even less experience seemed foolish in light of that.

Now let's consider the man that Palin was matched up against. No, not Obama, but Joe Biden. Graduated bottom third of his class in college, and near the bottom in law school. At Syracuse.

Just as a side note, I don't have a problem if you want to be a snob about where someone went to law school, but you might get some argument from Skeptic, who believes that type of snobbery belongs on the left side of the aisle.
Also, since your point is to compare Palin to Biden, it would be useful to know Palin's law school class ranking. Or, if she didn't get a JD, something about her MA, MBA, PhD, MD, DO - whatever it was.
Carry on.

Despite that unimpressive resume he's been in the Senate since the Nixon years, and I will admit that experience counts for something (although Obama voters were happy to say otherwise when it came to comparing his resume to McCain's).

I don't think Obama voters said experience doesn't count for anything. Well, I'm sure some of them did. Some people will say anything. But I think more people were of the view that experience does count for something, but it doesn't count for everything.

But if ever there was a man made for parody, it's Joe Biden. Mano-a-mano Joe? Seriously?

Agreed.

Note: I am not saying that Palin was a terrific candidate. What I am saying is that the idea that there's some yawning intellectual gulf between her and the jokers the Democrats have nominated the last two cycles is absurd.

I'm not in love with Edwards or Biden, but... well, let me ask - did you watch the VP debate?

Sully still claims to be conservative, but a poll of his readers showed that only 2% of his readers self-identify that way, whereas in 2002 his blog was one of the most influential conservative blogs around.

Well, he is of course quite unconservative on one particular issue, and he's been very critical of the Iraq war (which is not an inherently unconservative position, but does put him at odds with many self-identified conservatives). So I'm not surprised that he's lost a lot of conservative readership. But of course he's a conservative.

I don't know Letterman's politics, don't care, but I'd be very surprised if you have some evidence that he's center-right.

[on being called a non-voting Republican]I believe I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. Am I either one? Absolutely not. Ladies and gentlemen, I am an American.

I always thought he was a moderate Republican, but I guess I was mistaken.

Yes, I agree that it's weird that the article implies there's something improper about attacking her politics. The rest of the stuff should be off limits.

You didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say that I think it's weird that the article implies there's something improper about attacking politics, or the "rest of the stuff." I said that the juxtaposition of making that claim and following it up with several nasty (even if true) personal attacks is weird.

The article itself does get tedious in the second half, I will grant you that. As for the rest of the characterizations, Maureen Dowd has made no secret of how unhappy she is about being single at her age; indeed she's written many columns and a book about it. I dunno if Letterman ever had it; I never watched late-night talk shows. Katie Couric's ratings are pretty terrible.

Yeah, even if true, these are nasty attacks, which would be fine, except that the piece had just gotten done implying there was something wrong with personal attacks.

The description of the Democrats as a criminal organization is stupid and clearly part of the red meat to the partisan faithful. Indeed, the major reason the second half of the article sucks so much is that the writer can't seem to remember that he's supposed to be writing this as a liberal.

Again, it was not the attacks I found weird, nor the criticism of personal attacks that preceded them. It was that they were both in the same article.

 

[hgc]

There are some 'leftists' who use dishonest, sexist, elitist smears towards Palin. Maureen Down springs to mind. These people should be criticised.

I take exception to that. Dowd's purile junk of a column is generally apolitical. Don't insult "leftists" by lumping her in.

 

[Morrigan]

Seriously, that article was really whiney.

Did you expect anything else?

 

[Upchurch]

...but it really sums up exactly how I feel about the entire Palin situation, and how the left behaves politically. Engaging in the politics of personal destruction at all times, and viciously...

...Because it's spot on.

The article was a giant straw man argument and not a very good one. Do you honestly think that is a realistic portrayal of what happened to Palin?

Palin was a bad choice. Not because she was a conservative, but because she was not equipped to handle the job.

It's a parody, but much of it reads just like actual posts on these very forums.

I'd like to hope it would shame some on the left, but I suspect that many won't even read it. But you should. Because it's spot on.

Are you equally ashamed of the personal attack campaign the right enacted on Clinton and then Obama, or are you only outraged when conservatives are attacked?

 

[dudalb]

Could someone explain to me why an eltist attiude toward candidates for the highest ellected offices in our nation is bad? I want the best people, not the folks-y-est.

It is when you identify "Best" with having gone to a Ivy League college or being from a certain region of the country that problems ensue.
I am not convinced that having degree from Harvard or Yale makes you more qualified for the office then having a degree from the University of Wyoming.

 

[dudalb]

While it's true that Palin got, and gets, elitist and sexist barbs sent her way (note the latest atrocity from WaPo's Richard Cohen, referring to her as a "ditz"), her defenders use that as a cover to ignore the legitimate criticisms --

Sarah Palin is corrupt politician.
She is entirely ignorant and uncurious about all the issues for which a politician on the national stage is responsible to understand.
She is a religious freak.
She uses her underage children as political props.
She got on an airplane for a 10 hour journey while leaking amniotic fluid, about to give birth to a child with Downs Syndrome.
She is a pathological liar, speaking untruth about things that are instantly verifiable (far beyond what I consider to be the typical lying of a politician).

The Second is the real damnation for me.
The corruption does not bother me that much since I think that most polticians dip into the public trough for dubious purposes. That seems to be one thing that extends across all party lines.

 

[Cleon]

It is when you identify "Best" with having gone to a Ivy League college or being from a certain region of the country that problems ensue.
I am not convinced that having degree from Harvard or Yale makes you more qualified for the office then having a degree from the University of Wyoming.

And I am not convinced that many (if any at all) have been identifying "best" with having gone to an Ivy League school, or being from a different region.

The closest I've seen is the "Caribou Barbie" bit, and that always struck me as having more to do with the fact that she's a pretty face with little substance (a la Barbie).