What Palin Offers -- and What It Would Cost
She has a son going to Iraq; Joe Biden has a son going to Iraq. She has a baby with Down's Syndrome and is raising it with love; Biden lost a wife and daughter and raised his sons as only a truly loving father could have done.
She drives herself to work; he takes Amtrak home at night, not a chauffeured car. Her state is small; his is just as small -- even smaller. She is a staunch supporter of the war; Biden was the only Democratic presidential candidate to reject rapid withdrawal and to insist the situation is more complicated.
Yet if you didn't sense last night how deeply Sarah Palin channeled some of the country's deepest, most powerful currents of pent-up indignation and yearning, you don't sense the trouble we Democrats are in.
Rhetorically, she was the anti-Obama,. She was stirring precisely because she was so artless, matter-of fact, and "American" -- with no cadences or grand, historic resonances, but with plenty of mother wit and shrewdness. Credit her as much as the speechwriters..
The two currents she tapped -- the ones that roared up from so deep in the crowd that you could feel them riding on love more than hate -- weren't the ones unleashed by her or Rudy Giuliani's disparagements of Obama.
They were riptides of deeply wounded pride and groping loyalty, a yearning for vindication of something that is not to be disparaged at all.
The first such riptide was unleashed by Palin's and Giuliani's accounts of John McCain's career-threatening commitment, a year ago, when his campaign was hopeless, to an American military victory in Iraq, Right or wrong -- and i think it was wrong -- it was a commitment grounded in an uncommon courage that will be dismissed as stupidity only by smart-asses who really want to lose this election.
The second current was tapped by Palin's own grounded, calm confidence that "ordinary people's" common sense - her kind, and a lot of other people's - is what it takes to pull this country through its converging crises.
But if McCain and Palin bring character and faith of a kind which many Americans identify with instantly, they're also a lot more confused than even Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes were about how to lead a government, and toward what.
For some reason, courage and generosity never showed McCain what they showed Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s -- the true dangers of our military-industrial juggernaut in a world where corporations are more powerful and corrupting than states and where the biggest threats to liberty are no longer taxes-taxes-taxes, and the strongest defense of liberty is no longer what now passes for "national security."
Trapped into making war for laissez faire, conservatives such as McCain and Palin can't reconcile their yearning for a sacred, ordered liberty with their obeisance to every whim of global capital, which is abandoning Palin's small-town America and Obama's urban America, a capital whose injustices and consumer palliatives are subverting our republican institutions and character.
About all this, they haven't a clue. To find one, their folksy common-sense, defiant courage, and religious faith are more necessary than some of us acknowledge or even understand, and therefore we may lose the election.
But common sense, defiant courage, and faith, while necessary, are not sufficient, and that is why, if McCain and Palin win, they will lose the America they mean to defend, as surely as America lost the pointless, vicious war that killed 58,000 Americans and countless others and made McCain a hero.
Don't be so scared. She really wasn't all that good. Americans are looking for new ideas and real leadership. She offered none. Her personal story will only carry her so far. Obama and Biden are serious leaders. McCain and Palin look like lightweights, mostly about insulting their opponents and reciting platitudes. Palin's mocking tone was just a tad low class, I thought. It's better to show a bit more respect.
September 4, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Jim Sleeper needs to shed the Democratic Party's traditional Stockholm Syndrome and suit up for some smash-mouth politics. I mean, for crying out loud: some cynical nobody Republican woman from north of nowhere waves a baby blanket at him and his knees start to buckle? Whatever happened to laughing off the ludicrous? The repugnant troglodytes face the real problems this election cycle, not us Democrats.
It only took this Vietnam Veteran about twenty-five minutes after hearing some of this typical republican trash-talking to conceive and compose a little campaign ballad in dishonor of the disreputable diva Sarah Palin. I call it:
It takes a hell of a lot more than a baby blanket and another snarling, ghost-written republican speech to scare this Democrat. If Mrs. Palin wants to climb into the ring and throw some low-blow punches at better, more qualified Democratic Party candidates for high office, then I intend to see that she gets both her political eyes dotted and a few of her own political teeth knocked out. She asked for it, and she has no complaint coming when she gets it. She has apparently never been to a fight on the ice where occasionally a hockey game breaks out.
September 4, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the "smashmouth," knock-em-upside-the-head crowd on our side, I see a couple of encouraging signs:
1) Palin's attack on Obama, which shoved aside any phony deference to his race, frees Democrats to slam her without fear of being called sexist-- as long as they do it as well as she did.
2) Michael Murry's comment should remind all of us -- and we should not hesitate to remind the American people -- that the war in which McCain showed so much courage killed 58,000 Americans and countless others for nothing: Vietnam won but wound up in the capitalist world orbit, anyway, as it would have done had we not fired a shot. And it was liberal Democrats, running scared of the right, who started that war.
You see, my post isn't a caution against fighting. It's a caution against dismissing with a sneer what we're up against. A lot depends on Joe Biden, to show, as I said at the end of my post, that Palin and McCain can't lead us anywhere because they haven't a clue.
September 4, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
What states is she going to bring that McCain didn't already have? We already know the first tier states: MI, FL, OH, PA. We know that Obama is likely to win MI and PA, is leading in FL and tied in OH. Does she change that equation in your mind? Is she the reason Ohio is tied?
What second tier states, if any, does she secure? Is she going to secure VA and CO for McCain? I haven't seen any polls out of there since her nomination. What about NV and MN? Has her inclusion on the ticket brought them?
Kerry states plus one, folks, Kerry states plus one. We already have Iowa, evidently (a Bush state), with a recent poll showing Obama up by a mind blowing 15 points. If Obama loses Ohio, he makes up for it by taking NV and NM, right?
I am just trying to understand your hand-wringing. This election is about swing voters, not the base. The base, despite ludicrous conventional wisdom, had no intention of staying home on election day and no intention of voting for Obama. The only thing she potentially brings is better fundraising, because she doesn't bring any "base" votes he didn't already have. So what does she bring to swing voters?
Just curious, would love to hear what others think.
September 4, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one real threat posed by Palin [and she's got a basketful] is that state that were poised to at last elect a Democratic Senator [MN, AK & NC, to name three] will now be out of reach because of all the nutjobs who flock to the polls.
September 4, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the reply, Mr. Sleeper. I appreciate your taking the time to compose it. In lieu of a point-by-point reposte, I will simply post links to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and John Stewart of The Daily Show for the necessary and proper skewering of a vicious republican-party hypocrisy that not even a sneer could dignify:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/04/gop/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080904_busted_rove_morris_and_oreilly_flip_flop_on_gender_bias/
Personally, I find myself waiting with un-baited breath for the usual-suspect Democratic Party "heavyweights" -- Senator Clinton, former President Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, et al -- to publicly rip President Deputy Dubya Bush a new asshole for scurrilously equating us anti-war Vietnam Veterans (the "angry Left," Dubya labeled us) with the North Vietnamese whom "the heroic" John McBush claims tortured him for bombing and killing so many of them for not attacking America.
Yet somehow I suspect that any defense of us "liberal" Vietnam Veterans will not materialize in my lifetime; certainly not during the present duck-and-run-for-cover Obama/Biden campaign. I can still only-too-vividly remember Senator You-Know-Her disdainfully recommending that if we "in the anti-war crowd" didn't like her vote to authorize Dubya's stupid vendetta in Iraq, then we could "vote for someone else." So I did as she suggested. Barack Obama benefitted.
I will also never forget Bogus Bill Clinton boasting: "I have always defended President Bush against the Left on Iraq." It seems, you see, that the Clinton Partners in Pathos -- and perhaps Obama and Biden, as well -- have just as jaundiced a view about us "angry liberal" Vietnam Veterans as do the cynical and vicious republicans who mocked John Kerry's service and wounds in Vietnam. The complete absence of a peep of protest from our self-styled "champions" confirms me in my justifiably jaundiced view of the Democratic Party leadership's congenital campaign cowardice.
In short: I'll do my own sneering at (and attacking of) reactionary fascist republicans, if you don't mind. You see, I've learned in my sixty-years of life not to wait around for a play-it-safe Democratic Party to stand up to (and beat down) imperial fascist militarism in browbeaten America. As you correctly point out, a self-styled "liberal hawk" Democrat would rather start (or continue) a war he or she didn't believe in than have the republicans accuse them of not wanting needless war as badly as republicans do. True for JFK in Vietnam and true for Barack Obama in Afghanistan and Georgia. So, since I won't likely live long enough to see the happy day when a Democrat-for-President grows a pair of anti-war testicles (or ovaries -- whatever the relevant gender metaphor), I'll just unapologetically do the needed sneering and jeering at repugnant republicans myself. Baby-blanket-and-breast-pump browbeating doesn't work on me -- especially when a snarky pit-bull nobody republican with lipstic starts shooting off her malignant mouth.
September 4, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is truly wonderful, sir. Well done.
September 5, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you don't sense the trouble we Democrats are in."
What trouble? Comfortable lead in the polls, a well thought out carefully planned, well funded campaign on the Dems side.
Just the opposite on the Repub side.
That says "trouble????"
September 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so pessimistic. I don't sense trouble. You say it strikes you of the populism Reagan tapped into in the 80's. I don't see it that way. Once the 'what a great speech she delivered' wears off and people really see what she said and stands for I don't think she will be viewed as a champion of the people but as an fringe fanatic. It struck me more as Pat Buchanan culture war speech of 1992.
But who knows maybe Obama/Biden will be too 'gentlemanly' and not go after her and McCain with the ferocity they should. BTW...it is still McCain at the top of the ticket, right? It isn't Obama vs. Palin for the presidency. Attack McCain's record, policies, advisers (Phil 'A country of whiners' Gramm), age, health and temperament...and his VP running mate who has many things she is alleged to have done in Alaska which raise serious questions.
It is very simple McCain/Palin = 4 more years of George Bush. Palin won't/shouldn't be the defining factor in this election by a long shot...unless the D's allow it to happen.
Imo...gloves come off and fire away.
September 4, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
this was 'mostly' a typical rah rah Republican speech; punch lines, applauds lines, flags, patriotism, Christ, I almost expected to see George M Cohan come out on stage. What made this speech a tad differenet was the Republican NEED
to make the event a barn burner becasue she's such a lightweight.
By the way, did all the avatars disappear from your connection too?
September 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree that everyone at the convention was "thrilled, so thrilled" ecstatically and vociferously as a what-are-we-going-to-do-with-this? response. Like McCain on the tarmac embracing the shotgun groom, they just have to be pleased beyond all previous limits, what else could they have possibly wanted than this platter of ____.
September 4, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both McCain and Palin are bullies. They have survived by taking advantage of others... over on CNN she was being slammed by Roland Martin...
See here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/4/0829/95775/196/585598
welcome to the big leagues... those comments will definitely come back to haunt them.
September 4, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Palin represents "some of the country's deepest, most powerful currents of pent-up indignation and yearning"?
Are you insane?
All of the pent-up indignation and yearning is about the war we fought for no reason, the money we borrowed to fight that war, the incompetent domestic governance we've had because of the money we diverted to that war and, more than anything, the inflation that's been a result of our devaluing the dollar in order to pay for that war!
How on Earth does a lightweight nitwit like Palin get to win the indignation argument?
September 4, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23 says:
Destor, perhaps he's referring to the right wing christians, the racists, and the homophobes.
They're forever upset.
September 4, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, their appetite for victimhood will never be fulfilled by any amount of power. So let's give them none. Think of it as a away of doing born losers a favor.
September 4, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very fine, incisive and thought-provoking piece of writing. Just wanted to say that because I have supported criticism of some of your work in the past.
I'm not interested in adding any two cents on Palin's speech at this point. Would just add that I hope, like I suspect you are hoping, that Obama can rise to execute yet another change in his finely self-crafted image, one that is about relating to people out there in a way he hasn't shown much of as yet. (Anyone who takes offense at what I said in that last pharse, let me give this pre-emptive: the man has published two books and both were very largely about defining and refining his image/persona/beliefs.)
September 4, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know what everyone else saw ... but I saw a viciousness in Palin. (Her lies, exaggerations and spin turned my stomach.) In giving the media a finger, she may have made a mistake. In response, the media may be no where near done vetting her.
September 4, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A female friend stated and expressed how Indignation is exactly how she felt after Palin's comment "How dare you" when questions are raised by sincere people inquiring to know, how she can raise so many kids and still perform her duties.
What responsibility to her family, does she kick to the curb, in her quest for fame and glory.
My friend told me that older women who choose to have children, in advanced years, run the risk of abnormal births. Does anyone know what causes Down Syndrome? What RISK CAN OCCUR.
Is it RISKY BEHAVIOR?
How dare she question my friends motives as an insincere question.
It's an example of her SELF Rightous attitude, attributing bad motives for a ligitimate question.
That's all we need, another 4 years of haughtiness. How dare WE THE PEOPLE question the VP or Republicans.
September 4, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Generally, the risks of a chromosonal abnormality goes up as a potential mother ages, so much, so that the testing is routinely done on every pregnant woman above the age of 35.
PS) I'd advise anyone to tread lightly on this subject because one, it could happen to anybody and as George Stephanopolis said last week; There's something like five million folks in that same boat.
September 4, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odds are about 1 in 2000 for a teenager, about 1 in 40 for a 45 year old. But the vast majority of babies with Downs are born to younger mothers, because, hey, the vast majority of all babies are born to younger mothers.
Every woman who gets pregnant is taking a risk. Living in a tight-knit community close to extended family as Gov. Palin has all her life, the prospect of raising a special needs child while continuing her career might not have been quite so intimidating as it would to someone with less of a support system. In any case, I think it is stupid to try to paint her as reckless on this count.
September 4, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The comments below are not necessarily my own, and are issues raised by female friends.
I agree with you about treading lightly.
She stated that she would be an advocate, for people who have children with special needs. Sounds great
I could back a cause like that.
How do we now advocate and yet don’t discuss it?
Was it for the sympathy vote? Using her child for political gain is crass.
HOW DARE YOU
As a woman did she have a choice? Do other woman have a choice?
When she say’s she’ll advocate, advocate for what? Health care?
Advocate more government jobs, with benefits, paid by taxpayers, to alleviate financial pressures, created by caring for family members with special needs.
Then decide she can take a job, with so much demand, shirking her responsibilities to give 100% family first.
Many women leave the work force for a time, or change jobs, understanding, you can’t serve two Masters, either you give full devotion to one or the other. Whatever her excuses, she’ll not convince me that she’s Superwoman.
It’s one thing to have a working mom doing all she can to provide for her family. It’s another to have the ability to stay home, raising our progeny.
Instead like some crackhead queen, go for the high.
Leaving the kids to fend for themselves, letting the daughters play Cinderella, until someone rescues them.
How dare I could believe this could happen in America
September 4, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putin won't play softball.....
September 4, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
... or hockey. But he WILL spot gross ignorance in foreign affairs immediately! Yup. Yup.
September 4, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
JFK at Vienna in 1961?
September 4, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
All heat and no light.
September 4, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she and McPOW try the attitude they have about liberals on Putin, it would backfire badly. What McPOW did in Georgia will have lasting consequences. Bush thought he could threaten WW3 get away with it. You notice they have retreated somewhat from they idea that they can do anything. They had to back down because they couldn't back it up with real action. Do you really think americans want to fight WW3? I seriously doubt it. Most people want peace for a good reason.
September 4, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno,
excluding the military industrial complex, most people don't want to start a new Cold War.
September 4, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know you have to wonder with the rising inequality in America. Aren't fewer and fewer Americans benefiting from the Corporate Military Complex. Who will fight these wars? What are they going to round up all the unemployed and send them to war? I know it work for Germany for a little while but at what cost. The promise that fascism offers is temporary at best. The world would be left in ruin in the long run and the future of the civilized world in question.
September 4, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Palin has talent. She can deliver a speach well and has an ability to connect with an audience. But she was connecting in a sort of mean spirited way, connecting to the lesser common denominator. She definitely can do attack dog, but doesn't understand nuance. Overall the tone of the evening was very negative and insular. Palin's speech was no exception. I was very put off by her sarcasm. But I do recognize her potential to appeal. I looked at the discussion thread on cnn.com talking about her speech and the impressions were overwhelmingly negative. Pitbull with lipstick? I guess that was apt.
September 4, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bademus,
the Dems need to sic someone like Hillary on her, maybe Barbara Boxer. Just a few words now and then from any of those two would take Palin down a few pegs and not risk a male going after her.
They should check into her 'book burning' thing at the local library when she was Mayor.
September 4, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW,
Spot on. Hillary would have her guts for garters. Boxer is more of stiletto artist. I like Donna Brazile, who has such a beautiful laugh as she pounds the crap of a lightweight. Pelosi would do well if she can just stay off desert isles. No lack of ladies I wouldn't want to cross in the Dem ranks.
z2v
September 4, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think any of the Democratic ladies that you named need to "take her on." Not one thing that Palin said could be considered "wise" or "thoughtful." I think we need to fight both of them on issues, temperament, and diplomatic assets.
No one with more than two brain cells can say in honesty that McCain OR Palin have wisdom, a steady temperament, or even a desire to have diplomatic assets.
They are both nasty, vindictive, and would carry that in to our national and international relations. Do we need more of that? NO!
September 4, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville,
The Republic Party is going to run the same kind of campaign that they did in 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Republics manufactured silly little fibs about Internet invention, Love Canal, Love Story, etc inn order to portray a Gore as a silly fibber. While W was lying about his DUI, his budget, his "humble" foreign policy, etc. In 2004, Kerry, who volunteered for the only duty where someone on a boat could be killed, was Swift-boated while the deserter and the draft dodger were portrayed as tough on national security. And then there was the silly little flip-flop, against it before he was for it, smear. And the rich, elitist tag -- coming from a Bush!! And the windsurfer ad -- coming from a "rancher" who's afraid to sit a horse, but wears spandex shorts to bicycle around his horse and cattle free ranch.
Nastiness, dishonest nastiness, unopposed nastiness, has played a large role in winning the last 2 election. Was it the attack bitch or the moralistic prig divorcee who trotted out the "against it before he was for it" line on Wednesday? Or was it both? Is Schmidt leading this campaign for the Republics?
September 5, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno, poor people have no power. Hungry people will do anything for food - even go to war. Make the country poor and the Prez will command legions ... which fits well should he have an imperialistic view.
September 4, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but i can go another way just as easily.
September 4, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant it can go another way easily....
September 4, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if the poor come together, the do have power, the power of the majority.
September 4, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The poor may have the 'power of the majority' but the rich have the powers of influence and money. They also control the flow of information.
The rich have used the control of information to get the poor majority to either not vote or vote against their own self-interest for a long time now.
September 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why racism and sexism are so important because they are dividing forces.
September 4, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outside of not changing her views on teaching abstinence only, it seems if you are her demographic, she'll be great for you.
I don't really know how, but she pledged to help people with disabled children. It has no meaning. That is one group that our society does provide for, because that really is a problem shared equally with all economic groups. Didn't she basically say, "Vote for us! I have a Down's Syndrome Baby!"
And she wants to help Alaska - has any ticket run on how they would help their home state? Esp. Alaska - it may as well be Siberia as far as most Americans know.
They've kept her in seclusion, and have been rehearsing her all day, taking her to the stage, showing her where the teleprompter is; how was she going to screw this up?
September 4, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone's getting caught up in the mechanics of campaigning. You're forgetting these are conservatives. Sarah Palin represents them beautifully. We have to take this down to core philosophies of governance. In the resent past, Democrats have let the other side define them. That has to stop now. Liberals have to come out and make the case forcefully for their way of governance, in their words while defining the other side in the most honest terms possible. It's now or never. Forget about experience, or preparedness, those are loosing arguments.
September 4, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
recent past....
September 4, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno, Zeno, Zeno.
You crack me up! Don't you know that liberals can't "make the case for their way of governance" beacuse mainstream America will fight it with all of their (our) being? That is why your folks have to continue to redress Obama, and he has had to continuously parse his words - when he's not speaking off a teleprompter (uhh, uhh). He is merely trying to find the best way to skate around what he really believes.
This is why loons like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney can never win. We'd just look at them and laugh.
Look at what happened when Maxine Waters made her little Freudean slip about "socializing" the Oil companies. Even your own democrats on the panel had a snicker.
Never will true liberal policies be mainstream. Never.
September 4, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Public schools, public libraries, public parks, public recreational centers, public universities, social security, Medicare, even that public hockey arena they built in Wasilla .... have been mainstream for a long time. Liberals have simply stopped talking about community in a way that makes common sense. There's really nothing conservative about providing a hockey rink for a kid and not providing him health care when he breaks his ankle playing hockey.
September 4, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are not mainstream. All of those that you named were enacted by the government though, due to its own benevolence on behalf of the average citizen.
The average american believes that you should offer the money that it takes to fund all of those institutions directly to them based on the average cost-per-person, and allow them to provide for their own education, or get their own healthcare, or save for their own retirement. The ones who don't have the drive to work toward those ends - for whatever reason - are not in that average.
September 5, 2008 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that most of the country (say, 60% or more) agree with most "liberal" philosophies, such as teaching real sex-ed, teaching evolution, right to choose, etc... Completely boggles the mind that the Republican party, which once had high ideals and values has sunk to being the party of anti-abortionists and lies repeated loudly and often.
The entire Republican party in it's current form has pandered to the lowest common denominator for so long that it has become the lowest common denominator... and will go the way of the Moral Majority.
September 4, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lowest common denominator? You mean the average American, who chases the dream that many of us do? Really now, you don't mean to insult us like that do you?
The fact is Republicans just want this nation to continue in the principle that makes it attractive to all who strive to come here - the chance that every hard working person has a chance to make a good life for themselves and their families.
Liberals are the ones who want to take from those hard-working Americans and give to less harder working ones. Conservatives are the ones who realize that hard working Americans should have the choice to do what they want with what they make. Period.
September 5, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The gap between the wealthy and everyone else has gotten larger every year. That means that wealth is concentrating, not flowing, not encouraging a healthy economy or allowing everyone to have these great opportunities you speak of.
But that is the natural consequence of the greed unleashed by a deregulated market. Instead of quality, you get gimmicks, waste, and a government that is Soviet in its stupidity and intrusiveness. Because the controls are removed from government itself, too. It's 'liberal' to believe in good government, and so you get bad government.
That benefits the corrupt corporations, and is poison to everyone else.
September 6, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
jaycee,
can you give me a cogent, articulate, and thoughtful definition of "liberal"?
September 4, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can do better. I'll describe.
A Conservative - I "have", and because I see your situation, I want to: (either or all)
a) Help you "get"
b) "Give" you
c) "lend" you
d) "Keep" mine for myself and those like me
A Liberal - I "have", and because I see your situation:
a) I want to "give" you.
b) I want to MAKE all others who have the means "give" you
Cogent enough?
September 5, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but you lose your America under fascists.
September 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, McCain and Palin appear to have more in common with the average, poorly informed American citizen but that's where it stops. The problem for these two is that what they're for is so at odds with what the average, poorly informed American wants. After seeing her in action, I am feeling much, much better about Obama's chances than I ever have.
September 4, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do the average poorly informed Americans want? Can you define that, oleeb?
September 4, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bread and circuses!
September 4, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bread and circuses!
September 4, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a moving plea some years ago for appointing a mediocre Supreme Court Justice since most of America is mediocre in its non-pejorative sense of being about average. Sarah would certainly represent the mediocre as VP. With McCain graduating 894 out of 899 at Annapolis, which covers stupid, we would have an administration that could not look down on any American. Never forget we tried smart and suffered a long national nightmare of prosperity and peace under Clinton. Who wants to go back to budget surpluses and rising median incomes?
September 4, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! Wonderful article. I think you got it.
The first question that came to mind when I heard of her selection was "Could she handle herself on a national stage?". Apparently, the answer is a resounding "Yes!". As you describe her she's a female Harry Truman or even a character out of American mythology.
Politics being what it is, there will always be opponents and haters but they don't really matter; her base loves her and people such as you - of somewhat independent mind and judgment - are deeply impressed.
I think you nailed the issues pretty well, too; really different perceptions of what threatens modern America and how to handle those threats. I don't know how you can bridge the divide. There's such a deep hatred and contempt between the two sides as seems to me virtually unbridgeable.
September 4, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote my first response before reading the comments
If these are typical - and I think they are - the Democrats are going to lose the election big time. Which is too bad, since I think your view of America's problems and solutions is generally better than theirs.
September 4, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
After waking up this morning and hearing about Sarah Palin's "gee whiz" speech, I feel like the wind has been knocked out of me. So I went straight to the Obama site and donated. I also signed up to volunteer in my state.
Democrats are going to be rightly nervous about the race after her speech. We need to fight back! Donate, canvass, talk to your friends, do whatever it takes to win this election. America, and the world, cannot afford this Republican ticket!
September 4, 2008 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno, Zeno, Zeno.
You crack me up! Don't you know that liberals can't "make the case for their way of governance" beacuse mainstream America will fight it with all of their (our) being? That is why your folks have to continue to redress Obama, and he has had to continuously parse his words - when he's not speaking off a teleprompter (uhh, uhh). He is merely trying to find the best way to skate around what he really believes.
This is why loons like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney can never win. We'd just look at them and laugh.
Look at what happened when Maxine Waters made her little Freudean slip about "socializing" the Oil companies. Even your own democrats on the panel had a snicker.
Never will true liberal policies be mainstream. Never.
September 4, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
jaycee says:
How about those old liberal Social Security and Medicare programs, not mainstream?
jaycee, you aren't the reincarnation of OldSarg are you?
September 4, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roe v. Wade.
September 4, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Oh yeah, Democrats are going to lose another one.
And this is why. Government leading? How statist. How Big Brother. How Orwellian. I've been planning to vote Obama, but the appearance of two people that have overcome immense obstacles and can still smile while looking forward is a compelling image.
As for corporatism, heh, when you folks decide to denounce all the wonderful things corporations bring you, then I'll take you seriously and not before.
And oh yeah, who brought down Enron? Why Bush'43. Goodness gracious.
September 4, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is one of the most interesting comments I've read in months! Enron brought themselves down, and the justice department was stuck with prosecuting the Enron leadership. Which they did reasonably well, if a bit slowly.
I recall that Ken Lay was a Bush pioneer, that Wendy Gramm was on the board as a member of the audit committee (that really worked well, didn't it), and that Phil Gramm was instrumental in getting relaxed regulation for a few of Enron's enterprises (yup, that was a HUGE savings, particularly for the state of California).
In 2001 I was working for a startup whose primary and funding customer was a gas pipeline and well management company. That company was a member of a small group of companies, one of which also participated in the gas trading market. Enron's market manipulations caused significant turmoil in that marketplace, causing huge price swings in very short time intervals as a market maker. One of those swings led to our funding customer being financially destroyed in a single day of trading.
That single event "changed the economic outlook" for about 200 people in various places including Texas and Ohio.
Enron's market manipulations are also a well known factor in the major spikes in California's energy costs back then. The market whipsaw transferred multiple billions of dollars from California's energy customers to the traders in a single season.
I am sure you could have found a better example than Enron.
September 4, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
More interestingly wasn't it California's energy policies that allowed if not encouraged Enron's arbitrage? It's usually what happens when markets are distorted by government edict.
September 4, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree Robert Rubin was overly friendly with the financial bigwigs. (Actually, your reference to him as a Clintonista is in my opinion spot-on. That's why I did not support Hillary Clinton in the primary, and was none too happy with Bill as president. I won't even get into what he and congress did to communications...)
All markets are always being manipulated by someone. The only question I have ever had is whether there is anyone policing the market and subject to being voted out of office when they screw up. There are *always* manipulators who are private decisionmakers doing their thing beyond public purview. They are invisible, much less accountable for their actions.
Temptation exists everywhere, and executives require policing just like everyone else.
September 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242 says:
Wasn't it the "Government edict" that Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy erased that caused ENRON to be exempt from their energy swap operation and which led to ENRON's downfall?
September 4, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorance of the highest quality. California had a functioning energy policy -- monopolies are necessary for efficient public utilities, but require regulation, and are limited to a reasonable rate of return. Worked for 80 years. In 50 states and 1000's of towns.
Then came freebooters masquerading as free market advocates. They chanted deregulation will lead to competition and lower prices; they offered (well, insisted) that industry experts would be invaluable in writing the new rules. Which were full of gameable loopholes, but not because of carelessness. And what happened to prices because of people you think are just the best Americans? You should not speak of what you know not, shooter242.
September 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I'm not feeling it. Whatever Palin is channeling, it doesn't represent anywhere close to the majority of the country in 2008. The Republicans are reaching back and trying to run an old, tired campaign of resentful cultural conservatism in a new era.
My sense is that Americans in 2008 want competence, class and intelligence back in Washington. They've already taken a chance on a folksy rube, and it didn't pan out. Palin is a young candidate, but she represents only a minority component of an older generation.
Her crack about community organizers was shockingly tone-deaf. All across the country there are people helping to organize their communities for some purpose of other. Some of these organizers are Republican; some Democratic; some independent. They won't appreciate being told they are a bunch of lazy-asses. But apparently for Palin, the only real Americans are the one's who sit on their butts, watch television, and leave the community to politicians. It was insulting.
I immediately thought of a co-worker of mine who spent about two years working to keep an incinerator out of her neighborhood, along with its toxic fumes. She's a regular mom too, just like Palin is supposed to be. She had to fight the incinerator all the way through various state boards and courts until she finally won. And she organized to get the whole town on her side. Does Palin really want to criticize such people? Or is she only disdainful of dangerous black rabble-rousers who organize black people in inner city neighborhoods.
And the Republicans are really miscalculating in their assumptions about middle class values in their decision to elevate the Palin domestic melodrama to a televised spectacle. Americans don't want their teen pregnancies and shotgun weddings flaunted and paraded before the America and the world as the model of American values.
September 4, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno.
In America white men vote; and white women vote; African-Americans and Hispanics vote. Even Asian-Americans vote.
The question is not what "Americans want" but whether Sarah Palin can pull in some politically apathetic white women who barely know what they want (there's a whole passel of them out there) together with some apathetic Hispanics who would, in her absence, have voted for Obama or not have voted at all.
September 4, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
our State Senator lives in our town, he's a real lightweight but a long time resident/businessman.
In Harrisburg, the Capitol, they don't take him seriously, they bypassed his seniority to give a committee chair to a junior member.
A woman neighbor of mine voted for him because she thought "he was a nice guy."
September 4, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanK,
excellent post.
Her speech was directed at the base.
September 4, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is a harridan and the speech was a bitter nag.
But more than that, when I look at her, I see a child abuser. In her vainglorious attempt to have her Warholian 15 minutes of fame and celebrity, she has exposed both her daughter (and daughter's boyfriend Levi and his family) to the contempt and ridicule of the nation by exposing her teen-age pregnancy, and has condemned her to motherhood and marriage to an equally abused child of 18.
Gone are the daughter's and Levi's aspirations of higher education, or career or a fulfilled life, all because this overeaching woman has the audacity to believe she should be President. This is not the audacity of hope, but the audacity of chutzpah. The gods first smile on those whom they seek to destroy. She should have followed the advice of an earlier prominent republican woman and just said no.
September 4, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well my guess is that the boyfriend is just being paid off by the McCain campaign. After November, win or lose, he and the daughter might go their separate ways. He's very good looking, and can probably parlay his moment in the sun into some sort of reality show role as the new Kodiak K-Fed.
September 4, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, post-November 4 his mother-in-law will still be the Governor of Alaska and she can find him a job.
September 4, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently there's a job opening at the Alaska State Troopers!
September 4, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Veep slot often goes to someone who will do the dirty, negative work. The label is attack dog. Sarah is a female which makes her the attack ...?
September 4, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people are made uncomfortable by the sight of Palin's daughter on the podium holding Trig, not because of the rumor that Trig is the daughter's baby, but because if Palin is so down-homey and family oriented, how the hell is she going to care for this Down syndrome child and be an effective VP?
How many mothers and fathers will say, "I wouldn't do that."
Of course, she'll have the best health care we tax payers can pay for, and at the same time her mother will vote to make sure none of our kids get the same.
September 4, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm not in any way a Palin supporter, won't her child have great care in Washington, D.C. considering her mom is the VP?
September 4, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just reread your post and apparently we agree on the healthcare her child would get.....my apologies.
September 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are absolutely right. Everyone should read Jay Rosen's piece: The Palin Convention and the Culture War Option. Democrats, especially well-educated ones, always underestimate the potential of built-up cultural resentment. Identity politics all over again, but instead of female identity politics, it's identifying with a woman who is small-town, regular folk put down by the media and "elitists." It doesn't matter if it's fiction. Palin is obviously an opportunistic politician through and through and will know just how to play it. She may even be a true believer and buy into it herself. Might as well save my breath, though, on this site. Obama will not underestimate her, so I still have hope.
September 4, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I turned off the speech at the point she started ragging on the "elite liberal media" (I figured the rest of it would be red meat for the Repug faithful).
But the part I did listen to was very good -- witty, humorous, and well delivered (so much for being teleprompter challenged). Unless she blows the debate, she'll help McCain -- and more than the Senator from MBNA will help Obama.
September 4, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
She was reading a prepared speech. Even George has gotten pretty good at using the teleprompter to read someone else's words. (I miss the hilarity of ... the first speeches where George would break ... whenever his memory was drained. No ... matter how eloquent Gerson ... was.) She's given interviews where her answers would benefit by translation from the Venusian or whatever her native tongue is. I don't know what the Veep debate format is, but Biden should be able to move her off speaking points.
September 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
you think anybody but a hard core koolaide drinking repuglitard believes a fucking word mcsame or palin say ???
we;re making our choices the easy way now
if it has an (R) beside the name, pass it by
while smarmy and sleepy are collecting the repuglitard flock, the other 70% of the country is preparing to slap these corrupt mutherfuckers up side their pointy heads
September 4, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin asked the Librarian how to go about banning books.
Much of the Republican time will be spent on justifying Palin, they'll probably just try to cloud the issues. Don't expect her religious fundamentalist beliefs to be advertised. She won't be giving any speeches on getting ready for The Rapture.
When she debates Biden she'll be destroyed.
September 4, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ johnw1141
Whatever you think of Palin and her policies it is clear that McCain has made a great choice for his party.
In that light go back and reads all the threads posted BEFORE her speech. You know, the ones questioning McCain's judgment, even his sanity.
If you're honest you'll have to admit that all those pundits and posters were painfully, terrible wrong in their understanding and prognostications.
Yet here you are again, predicting with absolute certainty that Biden will "destroy" her in the coming debates.
Only "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"...
September 4, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
Argumenative.
Those posters haven't been changed by her speech.
Again? What do you mean, "again"?
"Absolute certainty"? You're stretching what I said by adding an exaggeration.
What I said was an opinion, that should have been obvious to all.
September 4, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
With an analysis like that, John, you don't have a chance of being right about anything.
September 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
Did your last comment convey any useful information?
z2v
September 4, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
zeno,
there he goes again :-)
September 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW,
o2u has improved a lot. He no longer goes high school vulgar with regularity which has improved the Cafe and his posts. He also doesn't seem to be so easily offended and some threads he's in flow smoothly and don't end in blows.
September 5, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW,
Hey, and later on he quietly corrected your spelling of argumentative w/o resorting to Usenet Flame #37.
September 5, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno2vonnegut
Take the first blockquote in John's reply. What's argumentative about it?
September 4, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
I'll type real slowly. I don't believe you can convince anyone that the statement of yours, to which I objected, was anything but a generic insult that conveyed no specific debatable information. I do appreciate that you are largely refraining from obscene, vulgar taunts.
September 4, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno2vonnegut
I can see why you would feel that way but in this case it wasn't.
I thought people had underestimated Palin badly and continued to do so. I talked to a friend who's attitudes are common on this site; Palin was little more than a kind of low-class attack dog with an irritating voice and little intellectual power or relevant experience parroting the standard line.
But she made a much different impression on Clive Crook and Jim Sleeper and Martin Kettle, seasoned reporters very, very far from the Republican base (which was positively enraptured by her). What impressed them was her wit and delivery. If she can maintain those during the debates, away from a script, she's going to be a great surprise.
September 5, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
Your last post was very good, informed and informing. Thanks. I wish we could erase the other post.
September 5, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
I tried to say that this most recent post was informed and informing and should have replaced the objectionable post, but I think the server ate my homework.
Thanks,
z2v
September 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
'All attitude and very little substance' is what Sen /V.P. nominee Joe Biden should have been saying to the press afteward.... not the dumb azz comments of acknowledging her performance as noteworthy.
Is this why Dems lose??? because they can't stand up to a bunch of liars.... how many more times is Obama going to say how much we honor McCain's POW heroism, only then to be followed up by another smack down by the Bush-in-a-Dress V.P. nominee.
September 4, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
pol360,
I postd something like this last week:
The enxt time I see a Democrat on TV telling me about McCain's honorable service and his years as a POW, I'm going to throw the TV out the window.
Memo from DCCC to all members: Prior to you're voicing your disagreement with Candidate McCain on the issues, you first must plant a big kiss on McCain's ass by mentioning his honorable service to our country. We mustsn't seem impolite or the Republicans will criticize us.
September 4, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't do it, JohnW1141!
I promise you. The "Antiques Road Show" is coming to a town near you soon, and you never know what that B&W television -- in good condition -- will fetch.
September 4, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
I'm old, my television isn't. I got rid of my Muntz round screen black and white 3 weeks ago :-)
September 4, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't watch the speech last night -- I hope I'll have time on my lunch hour to watch it -- but even so, Jim Sleeper, your post strikes me as defeatist, in a very fundamental way. Not defeatist in the particulars of whether Democrats are underestimating the indignation and yearning of the right wing, but rather by accepting that the right to indignation and yearning are solely owned by the right wing. You seem to be of the belief that Democrats cannot afford to be seen as angry -- that for example 1968 killed the party due to the rabble-rousing in the streets.
If that is true, and if Obama runs the risk of being tagged with the epithet of "angry black man", and if this somehow hurts him in a fundamental way while someone like Palin is not hurt by being tagged as "angry white trash", then we are indeed in trouble. But why should it be that way? Why do you believe that the right wing's anger is going to continue to rule the day, and that Democrats should cower before it?
As for left-wing anger, Bush called us the "angry left" the other day. Should we run away from that, or embrace it? Speaking for myself, I am angry, and fed up, with the way this country for the past 8 years, and in particular the way politics have been run for even longer than that.
Look at the comments this morning that people have left on the I-Report about Palin's speech on cnn.com. They are running about 90%-10% along the lines that Palin's speech was rude and disgusting. Of course since the comments are anonymous you don't know whether someone who claims to be a disaffected GOP-er really is, but it feels to me that the only ones energized by Palin's speech are the haters that were in the convention hall -- there are plenty of comments by folks who said they were leaning toward McCain but were totally turned off by Palin's vituperance.
As for your statement that "John McCain's career-threatening commitment, a year ago, when his campaign was hopeless, to an American military victory in Iraq, Right or wrong -- and i think it was wrong -- it was a commitment grounded in an uncommon courage that will be dismissed as stupidity only by smart-asses who really want to lose this election." -- I beg to differ. It was a commitment grounded not in courage but in stubborn-ness. We have had far too much stubborn-ness the past eight years. It takes courage to admit that you were wrong, and we have not heard that from these clowns. And his and Palin's so-called "righteous anger" is not righteous, it is the bluster of bullies who are finally being called out.
September 4, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed...
September 4, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
nedbalzer,
excellent post.
September 4, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Over at Bad Attitudes, Jerry Doolittle snagged an article from the Manchester Guardian. Biden thinks it would be just for a new administration to investigate and if wrongdoing is uncovered, prosecute, convict, draw and quarter (just my fantasy), and jail anyone below Bush in this administration who violated criminal laws. If I read it right, AG's were specifically included. http://www.badattitudes.com/MT/
September 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, nasty names, cursing, vitriol and condescension. Seems as if Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ for "The Obama"
Smells like fear to me.......
September 4, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Family Guy,
sure its fear, the fear you smell coming from McCain, fear of losing the race, and the fear that drove him to choose Palin, his "Hail Mary Pass".
September 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
John,
It is completely backwards on McCain's part. It is a disaster to pander to the base after he should have won them, and he should be moving to catch Independents, who have heard this "outsider-coming-to-bust-up-elite-Washington" line already-from George W. Bush.
September 4, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
diac,
I couldn't agree more, no "change" there. As you noted he already had the base, any chance of grabbing a few Hillary fans is now gone, if it ever existed, and her extremism will alienate the many Indies. I suggested yesterday she may cause him to lose 1 or 2 points.
September 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's some hope for our "Let's go smash-mouth," "hit-'em-upside-the-head" crowd, as represented in some of the comments here.
First, Palin's ability to attack Obama without any undue regard for his race frees Dems to slam her without fear of being sexist -- if, that is, Biden can keep from putting his foot in his mouth.
Second, it's time to remind the country that the war in which McCain showed courage was a disastrous folly that killed 58,000 Americans and countless others. The Vietnamese won, only to wind up in the neoliberal capitalist order, anyway, as they would have even had we never fired a shot. Nothing in McCain's bearing or thinking suggests that he would do anything but repeat such folly.
So, I'm all for slamming 'em. But a lot is going to depend on how we do it, and I'm not so sure that some of the ranters and ravers here are up to doing the job right. Doing it requires "knowing your enemy," not just hating him.
September 4, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like to think of it as a "rebuttal", not "slamming" them. The Obama campaign knows what I am talking about, and has provided us with some fodder.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php
September 4, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Jim Sleeper
You're going to take a beautiful, charming, accomplished, intelligent, modern-day female combination of Ronald Reagan, Annie Oakley, and Johnny Appleseed and "smash her in the mouth"? Boy does that ever sound like a loser strategy.
Now if the Dems were running JFK or some old style Southern gentleman (like the guy who ran the Watergate hearings) then you could outcharm her, outwit her, and outthink her.
But you haven't anybody like that so its going to be much harder. To start with hide the ravers and ranters. Bury them. She's got wit. They haven't a chance...
September 4, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you look at the Obama camp's response. Who is ranting?
Did you see Axelrod's quote? Who is raving?
You are.
September 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ dorn76
Oh sorry. The software has us both confused, I think. If you were responding to my first post, the "ranters and ravers" referred to Sleeper's use of the phrase. I was suggesting a strategy. Nowhere did I suggest that Obama and his advisers were ranters and ravers.
September 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has as much charm as you do which is next none. And not where did Sleeper condone "Lets go smash mouth".
September 4, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno
Here's what Sleeper said
It's so easy to check yet you still couldn't get it right...and you've got the rest of it wrong as well. It's you who've got about as much charm as I do which is why I recommended that the Democrats bury you.
September 4, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Jim Sleeper
I really like "Atlantic Monthly". So Here's Clive Crook's take. I'd say you and he are in total agreement.
He asks "Who could fail to be moved by this?" Well, look around this site.
And he says of the Democrats "They had a few days of calling her a clueless redneck, a stewardess, a nonentity, and she has hurled that back in their bleeding gums. (If I were Joe Biden, I'd start practising for October 2nd right now.)" So who among the Dems wants to continue doing so? Well, look around this site.
I'm in agreement with you and Crook about Republican policies but if I have to choose between them and the ranters, ravers, and fools over here, I'll take the former every time. Without a second thought. And never look back. No regrets.
September 4, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice broad brush. You manage to dishonestly lump everyone together to make your point, which is you would rather support policies you disagree with than lunch with liberals (gasp!).
That's telling. You hate the people on the site so much you will take the Republican "anytime".
Your convictions seem limited to hating those you disagree with.
That's helpful given all we are facing in America right now. Real helpful.
September 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dorn76
Really? But didn't I just say I was in total agreement with Crook and Sleeper's analysis and opinions? Maybe I went too fast for you. Shall I spell it out?
September 4, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you look at the Obama camp's response. Who is ranting?
Did you see Axelrod's quote? Who is raving?
You are.
September 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dorn76
What do Axelrod and Obama have to do with this site? I never had a problem with Obama. I had - and have - a terrific problem with his base, with the anti-war Left, and with white-hating blacks like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
I have much less of a problem with the Republican base and I don't know why since I can't stand their religious or environmental views.
I think it's because I don't believe the Left is that much better when it comes to really difficult decisions about the environment or real understanding of science.
September 4, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in SE Ohio the local fundies and wingers are touting Palin as Margaret Thacher and Golda Maier all rolled into one.
Golda and Iron Maggie she aint.
The R base is truly base........ but, so what, Geezer and Gidget have got the treller trash vote sewn up.
September 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in SE Ohio the local fundies and wingers are touting Palin as Margaret Thacher and Golda Maier all rolled into one.
Golda and Iron Maggie she aint.
The R base is truly base........ but, so what, Geezer and Gidget have got the treller trash vote sewn up.
September 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in SE Ohio the local fundies and wingers are touting Palin as Margaret Thacher and Golda Maier all rolled into one.
Golda and Iron Maggie she aint.
The R base is truly base........ but, so what, Geezer and Gidget have got the treller trash vote sewn up.
September 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ hootowl
Wow! That's HUGH!
September 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliantly written.
Palin, and the other speakers' paeans to McCain, struck me as an implicit claim that what we need is just some (self-professedly) moral, and ruthlessly non-analytical, good folk in office, who will then just give effect to the public's unarticulated impatience with everything, and we'll be just fine. Very much like the 2000 cycle argument for George W. Bush the Pragmatic Cowboy Reformer, although without the false nod toward compassion.
September 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah introduces Trig (cheer), says she'll be an advocate for special needs kids in Washington (cheer)...and I read that she cut funding for special needs kids in Alaska. Is this true?
And is she using the McCain operatives to design a new investigation on her abuse of authority by pushing back the Oct 31 date that would have concluded the first one? If she believes in transparency and has nothing to hide, what's up?
But Sleeper, your commentary is dead on. They can run after a base but they are confused about how to lead and where to take us. There are too many issues in front of us. We all know the economy is one of those. The GOP can no longer deal with the economy. Check the article by Alan Blinder at Princeton
(NYT 8-31) that described the economic differences between the parties over decades. It concludes that Obama's victory in November would create the opportunity for faster growth and less inequality.
September 4, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason they don't see the dangers of the military-industrial complex and the related social dangers of the increasing inequality of incomes is that the conservatives see only individuals as having power.
Individuals are guided by common sense, defiant courage, and faith. Individuals make decisions, organizations don't. Organizations are just conglomerations of individuals. Individuals making individual decisions can change corporations and government because corporations and government are made up of individuals.
There is also the strain of anti-intellectualism that runs through American conservatism that prevents conservatives from recognizing the power to influence individuals' beliefs that resides in corporate and governmental institutions. Combine this with the magical thinking (the "invisible hand" of the Libertarians and God's miracles for the social conservatives) and you get a profound blindness to the evil that the military-industrial complex represents.
The "glory" of the Greatest Generation, followed by the long Cold War in which every four years or so a new Communist Threat was discovered to fight against has created a myth that America is its military and the military industrial complex that supplies it.
But this is primarily emotionalism fed by political propaganda. That mechanism is invisible to the people who believe that all human decisions are made freely by individuals and that organizations are simply temporary structures built by those individuals to implement their decisions. To them every individual can decide to change anything.
That brings us the "Lift yourself up by your bootstaps" mentality and Phil Gramm's "Nation of whiners" suffering a "mental recession." Gramm is philosophically an Austro-Libertarian like Ron Paul. That is also the source of the belief in deregulation.
September 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Richardxx
While I look much of your analysis, you really ought to get out more. This is the age of the Internet. Sure, you can find conservatives who are as dull as you describe but you're certainly going to lose if you don't get a better picture. I suggest you go to Free Republic, register, and start debating.
Be honest and up-front. Tell them what you want to do and why you want to do it. Otherwise you'll immediately be banned.
The first thing which will happen is you'll immediately be inundated with a hail of insults and put downs. Ignore them and state your case. You'll then be surprised. People who know their stuff will come out of the woodwork. They won't change your basic position but they will give you a much better understanding of the opposition than you now possess. Much better than I could give you.
That's what I wrote before I reread your stuff. Now I'm not at all sure you could handle it. You are really way, way off the mark.
September 4, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
What states is she going to bring that McCain didn't already have? We already know the first tier states: MI, FL, OH, PA. We know that Obama is likely to win MI and PA, is leading in FL and tied in OH. Does she change that equation in your mind? Is she the reason Ohio is tied?
What second tier states, if any, does she secure? Is she going to secure VA and CO for McCain? I haven't seen any polls out of there since her nomination. What about NV and MN? Has her inclusion on the ticket brought them?
Kerry states plus one, folks, Kerry states plus one. We already have Iowa, evidently (a Bush state), with a recent poll showing Obama up by a mind blowing 15 points. If Obama loses Ohio, he makes up for it by taking NV and NM, right?
I am just trying to understand your hand-wringing. This election is about swing voters, not the base. The base, despite ludicrous conventional wisdom, had no intention of staying home on election day and no intention of voting for Obama. The only thing she potentially brings is better fundraising, because she doesn't bring any "base" votes he didn't already have. So what does she bring to swing voters?
Just curious, would love to hear what others think.
September 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libgirl,
If McCain can't bring out the base, swing voters are irrelevant. He will lose. And he hadn't sold the social conservatives on voting before he chose Palin.
Last night was aimed at the social conservatives to get them to the polls. for last night to work McCain had to do something spectacular for the christinists. Giuliani's speech and Palin's presence and her good showing accomplished that.
The anger that Rudi was calling out runs deep in the christianists. They did have George and they nearly have the Supreme Court, but now George is being taken from them. They are reacted last night like a dog when someone steals its bone.
That could have left them sitting at home in November because McCain "is not one of them" and they can't trust him. But now they have someone a heartbeat away from the old man who they can make President - God willing. The anger will now be redirected away from McCain and towards Obama, Liberals, Democrats, the Media, and intellectuals and cosmopolitans. Instead of sitting at home in November they will come out in droves to vote against Obama who represents all the above.
So McCain's got the base now with the choice of Palin. Tonight is going to be aimed at moderates and swing voters.
September 4, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry states plus one may be a nice slogan and easy to understand, but I'm suRE NM wasn't the only state to go for Gore in 2000, then Bush in '04.
Personally, I think that if Palin keeps up with the populist (little guy) rhetoric, she keeps PA in play and she probably helps a lot with northern Michigan and central Florida. I'm not sure which way NV is going to go, irregardless of the Republican VP candidate and with her help, OH might actually become closer.
As others have noted, Palin doesn't really buy any states, but neither does Biden. Though, they both seem to make this race more of a battle for Pennsylvania, if you had to reduce it down to where most of their efforts will most likely be focused.
September 4, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
What states is she going to bring that McCain didn't already have? We already know the first tier states: MI, FL, OH, PA. We know that Obama is likely to win MI and PA, is leading in FL and tied in OH. Does she change that equation in your mind? Is she the reason Ohio is tied?
What second tier states, if any, does she secure? Is she going to secure VA and CO for McCain? I haven't seen any polls out of there since her nomination. What about NV and MN? Has her inclusion on the ticket brought them?
Kerry states plus one, folks, Kerry states plus one. We already have Iowa, evidently (a Bush state), with a recent poll showing Obama up by a mind blowing 15 points. If Obama loses Ohio, he makes up for it by taking NV and NM, right?
I am just trying to understand your hand-wringing. This election is about swing voters, not the base. The base, despite ludicrous conventional wisdom, had no intention of staying home on election day and no intention of voting for Obama. The only thing she potentially brings is better fundraising, because she doesn't bring any "base" votes he didn't already have. So what does she bring to swing voters?
Just curious, would love to hear what others think.
September 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libgirl raises some interesting questions about what effect Palin could passibly have on the two campaigns' first- and second-tier states, and other commenters note that the Recpublican convention was, after all, a friendly, low-risk environment for her, and far from representative of the rest of the country.
For me the key question (still unanswered to my satisfaction) is how big a bounce, if any, McCain got out of the Republican convention, including Palin's performance. If she and the convention only firmed up the Republican base -- not a negligible accomplishment, given that McCain nearly vowed to throw most of his Washington Republican colleagues out of power -- then Democratic worries may be unfounded, and we can assume that many Americans who watched the thing were put off by what they saw. I hope so.
My intent in both this and my subsequent "Yoo Es Ay!" post (which at this writing is still on the homepage) was to get inside the Republicans' minds with some understanding, the better to counter them. We can't jump up and down screaming in an echo chamber and think that we are accomplishing anything (I realize that libgirl and most others here aren't doing that.) My worry is that these people aren't going away and that, whether the idea-less McCain wins or loses, what's eathing them will metastasize.
September 6, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
She was speaking at the *Republican* National Convention! Did you think it was going to be an unfriendly audience? Those people are not neutral observers. They're not average Americans. They're not representative of anything except the Republican party! So yes, maybe she channeled something for them. But she didn't channel anything at all for me or my moderate Republican dad or my liberal son.
September 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sydnew said:
Sydnew, she gave them what they needed and what they get daily from Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hewitt, and the rest of the right wing media....an enemy to point to.
Its what McCain will give them too.
September 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a speech and that is all! Americans want instantaneous heros (American Idol) instead of real role models and genuine consistency. It's the Beatles versus Milli Vanilli. One is hyped and the other just was.
The republicans keep trying to equate themselves to TR, Truman, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, and then they pull out the Reagan myth on top of it. They all live off the glow of real accomplished heros and hope that if they repeat it enough times we will see them in that glow. How weak and simple minded.
Palin has not proven anything except that she can give a speech and most probably one written for her. Attacking is easy but making a stand on an issue that can be tracked is another.
In a desert looking for water a little rain sounds and feels good, but the sun comes out and it can be very dry - very fast. Welcome to American Politics in the year 2008.
September 4, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the authors point (and even that point is now becoming shopworn?) is that if Democrats cannot/will not speak to ordinary Americans the same way the Republicans do that we cannot win them over.
I think Obama did a great job in his acceptance speech of trying to cross that divide by saying, for instance, "we can disagree about abortion but we ought to be able to agree there should be less unwanted pregancies". This thinking makes sense to rational Democrats/liberals but the Right tends to think of such things in black and white terms. THus, the continual perceived references to "compromise" in such issues as abortion, national defense, morality are anthema to Republicans. I say "perceived" because they are subject to misinformation as the Left.
Can we ever thruly win them over? No, but Obama is simply asking that the dialog be civil. In this election the economy is so strange for most people that appeals to the hard-core morality don't (hopefully) mean as much as bread and butter issues. I think this was what Peggy Noonan was referring to in her off-mike remarks yesterday.
My take at least...
September 4, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmmm, platitude. That sounds soft and yummy. can I have some.
September 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds simplistic, reductionist, and elitist to me. I'll vote for Obama and Biden because I think that they will give the most attention to the issues that matter most to me -- energy/global warming, health care, and the economic well-being of US citizens, not because I'm mad at some woman whose teenage daughter got pregnant.
September 4, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely with your response!
September 4, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sleeper is right on. People vote their gut and the Republicans are evil geniuses at that strategy which views politics as the systematic organizations of hatreds. (See Krugman in the Times today.) More than ever, run against Republican corruption. Stress the same players will be in the background (didn't a former Bush speech-writer write Palin's speech) in a continued GOP administration.
September 5, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman talks about the GOP game of the orfinary folk's resentment of the elites..... but people resent the Republicans of the Bush Era now, at least as much as that of any imaginary 'elite.'
In fact, if they weren't so nakedly greedy and incapable of controlling themselves, we could say they are the 'elite' now.
September 6, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
People PLEASE register to vote before October 3rd. If possible request an absentee ballot and vote EARLY. I am not taking any chances with the republican this year; they like to disenfranchise voters, especially minorities.
So, if you don't have to deal with them on November 4th do NOT!
In Maryland you can request an absentee ballot. The deadline is October 28. PLEASE, vote and vote early!
http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/2007_English_InternetVRA.pdf
http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/2008_Absentee_Ballot_Application.pdf
Please pass along similar information about your state, thanks.
September 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
People PLEASE register to vote before October 3rd. If possible request an absentee ballot and vote EARLY. I am not taking any chances with the republican this year; they like to disenfranchise voters, especially minorities.
So, if you don't have to deal with them on November 4th do NOT!
In Maryland you can request an absentee ballot. The deadline is October 28. PLEASE, vote and vote early!
http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/2007_English_InternetVRA.pdf
http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/2008_Absentee_Ballot_Application.pdf
Please pass along similar information about your state, thanks.
September 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably a mistake to focus too much on Palin.. She gave a good speech and the goopers love her- but so far there is no evidence that she is moving the needle..
Obama got a convention bounce, McCain is getting one- both will fade out by next week and we will be about back where we started in my opinion.
Palin is probably about as hot as she is going to get- it's likely to go downhill from here as more info seeps out about her miserable record in Alaska..
Agree that dems need to go after the working class vote- and they know it. That was the whole point of Biden and his message....
Palin doesn't walk on water and it's been decades since a veep made a difference in an election.. (Kennedy).
September 6, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink