Sarah Palin Denial Syndrome?

[MikeMangum]

Barack Obama is an imbecile who became president.
Bill Clinton, while a bad president, was not an imbecile.

I'm pretty sure that both Obama and Clinton have IQs well in excess of 50.

 

[Sporanox]

I see where you're coming from, but look at it from the other side. Palin has embraced and promoted the "snowbilly" image; in fact, it's the only image of herself she's promoted. Her best answers in interviews have been little more than repetition of vacuous talking points that you can get from any Republican; taxes bad, free market good, and so on.

Compare to, say, Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher from a small town in Arkansas with a working-class background. In every way he's just as much of a "hick" as Palin, but you rarely ever see people harping on that particular image.

I would posit that the difference between the two is that when you ask Huckabee a question, he'll give you a thoughtful and intelligent answer. Say what you will about the guy - but he's got a head on his shoulders and is very well-spoken. He's got a similar "folksy charm" as Palin, but he backs that up with something more solid than repeating "maverick" every five minutes.

In short, I think that a good chunk of the reason why people go on about Palin's "ethnicity" is for two reasons: #1, she's intentionally cultivated that image, and #2, that's all that's there. Once you take away the image of a folksy hockey mom from Alaska who can skin a moose, there's nothing left.

I will agree that Palin has made the Alaskan image a part of her. I will also agree that she never showed as much substance as Huckabee in '08. The question is, does that make mocking redneckitude justifiable?

Suppose we have a black presidential candidate sometime in the future who also emphasizes his culture. Is it okay to mock that culture at that time if you believe the candidate to be a moron?

 

[KingMerv00]

My point was that, on the night of Palin's introduction, with almost nothing to base an opinion on other than her speech at the Republican convention, a liberal editorial pops up that attacks her for nothing other than her mannerisms and her supposed group identity as a redneck and white trash. There was no substantive disagreement with anything that she said mentioned in the editorial, just the equivalent of "she's a hick".

So your point is that the author of that particular article is a partisan hack and a poor analyst. I agree.

Why did you feel the need to bring that to our attention? Are you surprised that editorials can be poorly written?

 

[tyr_13]

I will agree that Palin has made the Alaskan image a part of her. I will also agree that she never showed as much substance as Huckabee in '08. The question is, does that make mocking redneckitude justifiable?

Suppose we have a black presidential candidate sometime in the future who also emphasizes his culture. Is it okay to mock that culture at that time if you believe the candidate to be a moron?

What, have you forgotten Al Sharpton? Black folk mock him for his 'blackness' all the time.

 

[Sporanox]

What, have you forgotten Al Sharpton? Black folk mock him for his 'blackness' all the time.

Only black folks.

 

[Brown]

Takes one to know one.

Ooh, good one. Haven't heard it since second grade, but it's still a good one.

 

[MikeMangum]

So your point is that the author of that particular article is a partisan hack and a poor analyst. I agree.

Why did you feel the need to bring that to our attention? Are you surprised that editorials can be poorly written?

I take it you haven't read the entire thread.

There is a very big difference between attacking someone's policy positions, honesty, and intelligence versus attacking them for being a tacky, redneck, white trash, porno actress look-a-like hillbilly which sums up a CBC editorial about Palin and her family, or referring to her as the Trailer Trash Candidate.

 

[KingMerv00]

I take it you haven't read the entire thread.

There is a very big difference between attacking someone's policy positions, honesty, and intelligence versus attacking them for being a tacky, redneck, white trash, porno actress look-a-like hillbilly which sums up a CBC editorial about Palin and her family, or referring to her as the Trailer Trash Candidate.

I agree. There is a huge difference. I still don't know why you posted the article though. Did someone say that personal attacks were OK or that such articles didn't exist?

I guess I should get to MY point. Did you post the article to show that liberals are particularly nasty or was there some other reason?

 

[MikeMangum]

I guess I should get to MY point. Did you post the article to show that liberals are particularly nasty or was there some other reason?

Like I said, I take it you haven't read the entire thread

 

[Skeptic]

And what are you basing that on?

Let me be clear what I'm claiming.

I'm NOT claiming merely that being attacked for being a conservative is evidence of anything, for two reasons:

1). Naturally conservatives attack liberals, not other conservatives (for the most part), so I would be less likely to notice the attacks on the liberals;

2). Merely being in the minority in my social circles guarantees I get attacked a lot more without liberals individually being more vicious. E.g., if in academia 90% are liberal, which seems about right for where I am, then a conservative by merely being in the minority has a nine times as large chance of being attacked for his views than a liberal.

My point however is not to try and quantify the number of absolute attacks, but to qualify them. What bothers me is not that the number, but the style of the attacks. When I am attacked for being a conservative, the attack is very often one of sheer emotional hatred and fear, as if I grew another head. This is very odd from people who pride themselves on their rationality and openess to other views!

 

[tyr_13]

So the argument isn't that Palin is bad, but that she isn't nearly AS bad as you think liberals believe she is?

 

[MattusMaximus]

In 1920s South Africa, mine owners fired white miners and hired black ones, who worked for less. The miners' unions didn't like that, and appealed to various socialist organizations abroad for support.

Those organizations agreed, and for a while there was a world campaign to help the white miners under the slogan: "Workers of the world unite for a white South Africa!"

Wow... that sucks on so many levels. And, pardon the pun, it is an excellent example of how one cannot break the world up into simplistic black-and-white pieces, as too many (on both the right and left) in this political subforum would like to do.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I would posit that the difference between the two is that when you ask Huckabee a question, he'll give you a thoughtful and intelligent answer. Say what you will about the guy - but he's got a head on his shoulders and is very well-spoken. He's got a similar "folksy charm" as Palin, but he backs that up with something more solid than repeating "maverick" every five minutes.

I agree with this. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with many of Huckabee's socially conservative views, I do get the impression that he is a thoughtful man. Given a choice between the two, I'd go for Huck in a second - but thankfully there are other choices

 

[Distracted1]

I will agree that Palin has made the Alaskan image a part of her. I will also agree that she never showed as much substance as Huckabee in '08. The question is, does that make mocking redneckitude justifiable?

Suppose we have a black presidential candidate sometime in the future who also emphasizes his culture. Is it okay to mock that culture at that time if you believe the candidate to be a moron?

I usually respond to that particular argument (or variations on it) by pointing out that while a "hick" (to use your term) can get a four hundred dollar haircut, and take elocution lessons, a person who is black has no such option, and therefore, the mocking is not equally unjust.

 

[Sporanox]

I usually respond to that particular argument (or variations on it) by pointing out that while a "hick" (to use your term) can get a four hundred dollar haircut, and take elocution lessons, a person who is black has no such option, and therefore, the mocking is not equally unjust.

Huh? Blacks Hicks have ebonics speech impediments and fros bad haircuts?

And why are black people prevented from doing either of those things?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

My point was that, on the night of Palin's introduction, with almost nothing to base an opinion on other than her speech at the Republican convention, a liberal editorial pops up that attacks her for nothing other than her mannerisms and her supposed group identity as a redneck and white trash. There was no substantive disagreement with anything that she said mentioned in the editorial, just the equivalent of "she's a hick".

I hope we can agree this is the usual partisan hackery that is a complication to the process. That it would be nice if we could find a reasonable measure by which to expunge this type of attack. Obviously any valid candidate needs to be able to withstand this as a matter of course. Such attacks are here for the long haul as far as we can tell.

I have no qualms about disavowing this article as mean spirited character assassination.

As to the types of attacks that liberals use. I have experienced being in the majority in a mainly liberal setting and being in the minority in a mainly conservative setting. I have not witnessed much variation in the use of character attacks and hyperbole between the two. I have noticed however when I disagree with both my liberal and conservative friends/acquantainces that the liberals keep debating me until the conversation ends and we continue about our day. With the conservative friends/acquantainces the debate ends with an epitaph of me being a communist/terrorist/nazi/babykiller/satanist/pussy/coward depending on the issue and flavor of conservative then a refusal to be around me for a time. I have heard of this happening to my conservative friends from their other liberal friends, but I have never actually witnessed it.

This is of course just my own experience and doubtfully represents a trend any more than any other experience on here.

 

[Distracted1]

Yes, reading my post, I can see how poorly worded it was.

My father was raised in Arkansas, he was born in 1925 and his family were sharecroppers who migrated to Detroit in the 1940's for factory work. In his later years he used the term "hicks" to describe them.

Had you met my father as an adult, you would not have been likely to assume that he came from such a background- he made a choice to reject that stereotype. He could never have afforded a $400 haircut (that was a reference to John Edwards, by the way, not a suggestion that anyone has an unacceptable hairstyle) and would'nt have paid that for one if he could have.

I digress. The point I am struggling to make is that my Father had the option of no longer being a "hick" (once again, that is a term introduced into this thread by yourself)- and therefore felt entirely comfortable using that vernacular when the mood struck him. An aspiring politician (or anyone else) who is black does not have the option of not being black anymore in response to ridicule. To ridicule one for identifying with a culture they can walk away from is not the same as ridiculing someone for identifying with a culture they can abandon at will.

I don't advocate ridicule in any instance. I am asserting that the two are not morally equivalent, for the aforementioned reason- as a direct response to your post #282

 

[tyr_13]

Huh? Blacks Hicks have ebonics speech impediments and fros bad haircuts?

And why are black people prevented from doing either of those things?

Poor speaking habits and bad hair cuts would be mocked on any candidate no matter the ethnicity. But you're right, how dare we apply that to white people.

Hick is not an ethnicity. Neither is redneck. A black candidate who spoke and acted like Flav R Flav, wouldn't get a pass either. I'm not seeing your point here.

 

[Thunder]

loving Sarah Palin simply because liberals don't like her, is a pretty pathetic reason.

i hate charlie manson. you gonna love him now?

 

[MaGZ]

If the bar is Obama himself, Palin clears it. As does pretty much anybody I can think of.
Barry sets the bar pretty low.

Right, he is hiding his transcripts.

The dope .... literally.