Home / Sarah Palin vs. the “Elite” Republicans

Sarah Palin vs. the “Elite” Republicans

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, of whom I have sometimes been a fan, made waves in the 2008 election with her vigorous distaste for Sarah Palin. She went so far as to call on her to drop off the ticket because she was supposedly so ill-qualified.

She's milked the controversy and negative responses that she's gotten for several columns, including a new one just today. When writing a response, it got long enough that I figured to just make it an open public letter:

Miss Kathleen, I don't want you to be able to easily dismiss my criticism, so I'll try to be nice. I'm not angry anyway, but I have to admit to being a bit contemptuous of some of the Beltway-type anti-Palin Republicans. Leaving you specifically out of it, Peggy Noonan and even the usually totally righteous George Will lost some points with me over Palin.

You all gave in to some really petty idea of elitism here. Now, I'm all in favor of an aristocracy of merit, a kind of elitism, but that's not where Palin fell short.

She's perfectly intelligent and obviously highly competent in her work. She's run things, and Lord knows that she's a multitasker. She knows a lot about a lot of things. Ask her about energy policy or wildlife management issues or child rearing or commercial fishing. Plus, she has a temperament that translates to actually getting stuff done and the character to take on bad actors even in her own party.

She's quite legitimately elite in her knowledge, experience and character. That's how a schoolteacher's kid from the boondocks got where she is. But she got bitten by "conservative" so-called elites largely over stupid prejudice. She didn't go to Harvard. She's got that Marge Gunderson accent. Heck, she even really actually believes in Jesus as opposed to making a mere sophisticated elitist nod to our founders' Christian traditions.

She probably doesn't know much about French symbolist poets or whatever crapola like that we use as an arbitrary standard of intelligence and sophistication but would probably have squat to do with running the country or anything else useful or meaningful. Christopher Buckley just couldn't imagine such a barbarian as a guest at one of Dad's famous dinner parties. This reasoning does not represent truly an elite judgment, but a petty and low-level childish emotionalism based on superficiality.

I've never been one to shoot the messenger. All the columnists in the country collectively didn't have the power to change the election. But you anti-Palin Republican messengers were wrong. Completely, 100% off base. This business of yours about how she should have quit the ticket was just complete foolishness that at least looks like a cheap ploy for attention. But maybe that's just my jaundiced perspective.

In any case, Palin certainly did not cost McCain the election. People hardly ever vote for the veep candidate anyway. McCain was a weak candidate to start with and the Palin pick was the high point of his campaign. Indeed, that pushed him enough that he was actually edging ahead in polls after her pick until the unprecedented market meltdown washed him away. There was no way that even the sharpest veep candidate could have saved that for him.

A voter runs into the governor with her newborn at the grocery storeI would like to direct you specifically to this image. During the campaign, Palin was traveling with Trig and stopped off (in her cheap comfortable traveling clothes obviously not bought by the RNC) at a local Wal-Mart for some diapers. Here she is just standing in the aisle with baby over the shoulder chatting it up with another customer.

This isn't even an example of a politician having "the common touch." There's not a sense of skillful manipulation in her carefully relating to the lower class, but just a couple of normal gals chatting it up in the aisle as equals.

This image and the working class identity implied seems to me to encapsulate a lot of what conservative (and other) elite types really object to. And that is utterly bogus. Plus, it's one of the reasons that she's going to be president someday.

May the ghost of William F. Buckley have mercy, Palin might invite the likes of this Wal-Mart mom into the White House. Fortunately, we elected another Harvard and Princeton team, so we'll be expecting a decent minimum of education and erudition among White House guests in the Lincoln Bedroom. I just hope Bill Ayers doesn't decide to blow it up while he's there.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • Glenn, DD,

    There are not enough links you could provide me with in any given comment to find the bigoted coverage of the mass media when it comes to Israel. And, I wouldn’t have the time. I like honestreporting.com because they do go after every little thing. After being lied about so much in the NYT, the French media, the British media, the European media, the Indian media (should I even bother mentioning the Arab media), the folks who go after falsehood have decided on a take no prisoners policy of chasing every shmuck around. Ane there are no shortage of shmucks to chase.

    The BBC, Reuters, AP, NYT, LAT are just a few of the top of my head.

    I was just filling in details that Baronius didn’t have in chasing the BBC. Truth is, I have better things to do – like going after the traitors on Government Hill here.

  • Ruvy – perhaps you missed my comment on that reporter – I had already seen that link:

    “Second, okay – so the BBC had ONE bad apple for a reporter…so you’re going to blame the whole as a result?”

    Just because there’s a whole bunch of bad apples in our government, should I condemn the whole? Just because there’s a couple criminals who attend some church, should I condemn the whole?

    You gave three instances, Ruvy – but the BBC gives that many reports on Israel and the Middle East every hour of every day of every year. You’re going to have to come up with something FAR more substantial – a true pattern of prejudice, rather than this or that incident. If you can prove the pattern, then you will find support. But as of yet I see no such pattern.

  • @ #128: Sorry, Ruvy, I didn’t see it. Got distracted by the riveting Prince discussion…

    Your first citation is just hair-splitting. I’ve read your links to the work of Honest Reporting before, and they’re clearly eager to jump on even the slightest thing that they think the BBC may have done or said wrong.

    We went over the BBC’s reporting of the second incident at some length, as I recall. As Glenn reminded you, the BBC was working with a breaking story and was using the best information it had available at the time. You know how these things go. Just think of all the unsubstantiated stories and rumors that were flying around the media on the morning of 9/11/01.

    Thirdly, From Our Own Correspondent is a program in which journalists working for the BBC (they are not necessarily BBC employees) have an opportunity to give their personal reflections on the news they cover. The sympathies of that particular reporter happened to be with the Palestinians. However, I don’t see an anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian tone in this report from the same show, for instance.

    And I can’t really see how reports like this one are nastily anti-Israel.

    Lastly, British public opinion is not particularly hostile to Israel. The prevailing view of the region is one of exasperation – WITH BOTH SIDES.

    Nevertheless, because Israel holds the UN seat and possesses a wider array of things that go bang in a variety of sophisticated and expensive ways, you will get more of the flak.

  • Clavos

    Haven’t really looked into it, Jordan.

    As a good Democrat, my sister doesn’t complain about the stringiness.

    She is becoming troublesome, though; she’s insisting that after January 20th she wants to move out of the shed and into the house with the rest of us.

  • Jordan “Boss” Richardson

    We feed her live rabbits and the occasional stray Ron Paul supporter.

    Is there a sauce you can put on the Ron Paul supporters? I find them stringy.

  • zing,

    It’s past your bed-time – already 02:15 in the morning….

  • zingzing

    but just end up looking like an..

  • No comments, eh, DD?

    I don’t usually complain about the bigotry in the MSM. If I did, I’d have three articles a day here. But the truth is, I follow the model of Rav Meir Kahane, z”l, hy”d. He didn’t blame the goyim for perfidy, lies and distortions – he didn’t expect better from them. I feel the same way. I don’t expect better than lies and distortion from the goyim either. After all, they’ve only spent 2,900 years trying to murder us off. So, perfidy, lies and distortions are the least I should expect.

    I only really get upset when Jews, craving approval from their enemies, side with the goyim against their own. Like the pricks on J-Street – or the traitors on Government Hill in Jerusalem. I won’t mention names of people who have written here….

    I try to be a gentleman.

  • Oh sorry Dreadful, I’ve not put in enough links back to MoreThings.

    Here’s one for you
    Here’s another one for you

    If you need more, let me know.

  • (2) Your second and third instances are about the same incident –

    My bad, Glenn. I was having trouble getting that comment posted and thought the URL’s were messing things up, so I went to tinyurl.com and fucked up the works in the process.

    The third instance is here, how the BBC uses Arab propagandists to spin the story wrong.

    As to the rest, the bottom line is that a reporter is supposed to get his facts straight, and the editor is supposed to keep them straight. At the BBC the “facts” are that the Israelis are wrong and the Arabs are right. Everything else is cut and molded to make sure the reader/viewer gets that impression.

    Therefore, a neighborhood in Jerusalem, Gilo, is a “settlement”. You guys haven’jack shit of an idea of what either look like here, a neighborhood or a small Israeli village or town. And the BBC boys are too damned lazy to learn Hebrew.

    éizeh mamzerím ‘atzlaním, kus’ómak

    Go ahead, Glenn: your first real Hebrew (and Arabic) lesson.

  • Dreadful, you just got NO idea about me. I had a big framed poster size print of the Lovesexy cover in my living room for most of three years during college at Ball State. If you didn’t want to hear Prince, you just needed to stay off my frickin’ block. It entertained me a couple years later when it came back to me that this made some folk think me gay.

    The Lovesexy album is a top contender of Prince albums, but it’s like picking between Sgt Pepper or the White Album. Lovesexy or Around the World in a Day or Sign o the Times or Parade?

    Now go in there and up on that new wig the RNC bought you…

  • “[Prince] penetrates all boundaries!”

    that sounds wrong no matter how many times I read it.

  • Clavos

    My kid sister went to college in Notre Dame, IN.

    It messed her up, too; she became the only Dem in the family.

    We keep her locked up in a shed in the back yard — wouldn’t want to embarrass the neighbors or scare their kids.

    We feed her live rabbits and the occasional stray
    Ron Paul supporter.

  • In the recording studio. Or for flossing one’s tooth. Or the myriad other uses they doubtless have for the instrument down Al’s way.

  • zingzing

    prince crosses all borders! he penetrates all boundaries! he makes every member of the human race purple! he sprays his semen on all… wait. sorry.

  • Clavos

    “Use banjos” for what?

  • Somehow I’d never have figured Barger as a devotee of the diminutive divo. Or indeed of anyone who doesn’t tend to use banjos.

  • zingzing

    oh, shut it, doc. he’s doing so in the service of the purple one, so he can do what he likes. his cause, for once, is good.

  • Ooh look, Al links multiple times to his own site. Now there’s something we haven’t seen before.

  • zingzing

    and do you know the work?

  • zingzing

    oh, i’ve seen your prince site. i’ve read most of it. and i found the bob george essay, on your site (it was the first one i looked at a while back) and, just recently, on blogcritics.

    as for 7, i believe it is a great song, but is trumped by lovesexy, which takes his weird religion to album-length. (lovesexy is also my all-time favorite prince album–that doesn’t mean i think it’s his best… that, of course, is sign–but it’s my favorite.)

    then again… what is that comic book on the 7 page? did he really have a comic book?

    i’ll kick yo ass. twice!

    turn it out.

  • Zing- this is yo conscience motherf#$#er!

    Prince SO rulez.

    Brother Zing, you may wish to review my entire modest Prince site, photos and such, and this essay on “Bob George”

    I must also point you to the apocalyptic grandeur of “7”

  • zingzing

    why can’t we just dance? why can’t we just dance? no, fuck that, fuck that.

    didn’t you write an article about that song years ago? that’s actually the song that michael j. west played for me junior year of high school that made me say, “hey, this prince guy is pretty damn cool.”

    and now my itunes shows 921 prince songs, and i’ve got most of his purple period (albums and 12″ singles) on vinyl (so that isn’t showing up). so this is where my obsession began.

    i think it was the glorious rhythms of “that slicked back paddy with all the gold in his mouth” that initially hooked me. although that beat is so damn tight, i can only imagine that that had something to do with it.

  • Now go in there and put on that new wig I bought you… NO, NO, the reddish brown one

  • zingzing

    squirrel meat!?

  • Brother Jordan, perhaps then you’d prefer the Barack Obama Golden Child Inaugaral Collection

    Zing, Brother Maurice be around in a minute with a bucket filled up with suqirrel meat.

  • zingzing

    al, she’s a freaked out, funky electric mama with double cups… but, u know, i just hate 2 see an erection go 2 waste.

  • Jordan Richardson

    The “Wal-Mart Moms” one is great because I can imagine Palin tossing her baby in that woman’s shopping cart and running away.

  • Outstanding idea, Brother Jordan. You might consider the links to the whole Sarah Palin 2008 Lipstick Vogue collection – pinback buttons or magnets.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Al, your article made me want to buy a “Wal-Mart Moms” fridge magnet. Thank you, sir!

  • Oh Zing you’re right, I’m just rock hard in a funky place. And how’s your mom?

  • Ruvy –

    What you’re describing is akin to trying to describe an ocean by looking at a glass of water.

    (1) In the first instance you’re expecting that the reporter (OR the editor who may have changed the wording) MUST have known that it was a settlement and not a neighborhood.

    However, if you would have checked your source’s reference, you would have seen that the BBC ALSO called it a ‘neighborhood’: “Since 1967 the Israeli authorities have extended the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to include the territory on which Gilo and other neighbourhoods were built for Jewish Israelis.”

    If the reporter isn’t deeply familiar with that section of Jerusalem, is it truly a sign of prejudice that he didn’t get it just as YOU expect he should?

    (2) Your second and third instances are about the same incident – and again, you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. First, the story was breaking news and the BBC was trying to put out as much information as they had AT THE TIME – which is why they later amended the story. EVERY news agency that deals in up-to-the-minute news works this way.

    Second, okay – so the BBC had ONE bad apple for a reporter…so you’re going to blame the whole as a result?


    That’s why I like to read LOTS of news from different sources – some will report one way, some will report others, and some will report not at all. Frankly, I trust Al Jazeera almost as much as I do Fox News, and I trust the BBC slightly more than I do the New York Times – I hold both in high regard. I trust the New York Post, the Washington Times, and ‘World Net Daily’ only if I can find corroborative information from a more trustworthy source.

    Here’s a source you won’t like…but they often have some truly good stories that the mainstream media won’t cover: rawstory.com – but bear in mind it does have that pernicious liberal bias that’s not found too often these days….

  • Ethnically he was still a jew, and in that time ethnicity meant much more than religion did. He was certainly singled out for criticism as a jew by his enemies.


  • Dave,

    I hate to remind you of this basic fact, but Benjamin D’Israeli, who looked every inch the Jew he should have been, and even wrote about them in badly written stories, was baptized in the Church of England.

    Only then was he good enough to sit in the House of Commons and later in the House of Lords.

  • Hey now, Britain was the first country ever to have a jew in its highest governmental office. And they haven’t had one since despite the fine job Disraeli did.

    Perhaps people don’t see the anti-Israel bias of the BBC because they share at least some of it? Israel has made plenty of enemies, you know. It’s a hard country to embrace wholeheartedly.


  • DD,

    You Brits all have trouble acknowledging the nasty anti-Israel slant of the BBC. Chris Rose is no different from you in all this.

    The BBC doesn’r exactly come out and call us all Sheeny bastards in their reports – but in their distortions and misrepresentations, they might as well.

    I have only room for three links, so here goes. The Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo is referred to as a settlement in the BBC report talked about in this link. I live in a settlement, Ma’ale Levona. Gilo is a neighborhood in a city. But the liars and distortion artists at the BBC seem to think otherwise.

    Quite a bit of argument went on here at BC over this BBC distortion, caught by Honestreporting.com at one of my articles.

    Finally, we see how the BBC distorts news by using Arab propagandists to present its “news”. Even not terribly pro-Israel sources disputed this BBC version of the death of an Arab.

    I don’t much care if the BBC is liberal, conservative, sociali$t, fascist, left wing, right wing or if its politics sits inside the cloaca of the British wren, dropping out democratically in the heaths wheresoever the wren should feel the need to eliminate its feces.

    But it is a plain fact that British society is not friendly to Jews or Israel, and neither is its government run BBC.

  • Baronius

    Dread, I sure can’t provide evidence supporting my impression of the BBC. I don’t watch it often, still less often with a notepad and pen.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “I am very much not a “social conservative.” I would very much appreciate that you not lump me in with them, as you did in comment #85.”

    i know, clavos, and i wasn’t meaning to lump you into that general “you.” it was more for al, who needs to go have some good anal lovin’. was that too much?

    oh, albert b., will you play with me? i will pay the usual fee.

  • The BBC unfailingly takes the position which would be called liberal in America, with a nasty anti-Israel bent.

    Your cultural bias is showing, Baronius. Would you care to provide support for your assertions – particularly the anti-Israel one?

  • Baronius

    Dread, I’m not complaining about the partisanship of the British papers. They do an overall better job than the newspapers in the US, from what I’ve seen.

    The BBC unfailingly takes the position which would be called liberal in America, with a nasty anti-Israel bent. I assumed that the government oversight had something to do with it. They also have a europarochialism that’s not dangerous or anything, but it’s a reminder that every continent is somewhat self-absorbed.

  • Clavos


    While I describe myself (in part) as a conservative, I am very much not a “social conservative.” I would very much appreciate that you not lump me in with them, as you did in comment #85.

    Gracias anticipadas,


  • Doc –

    That’s a wonderful example of those who assume that a government-run agency can’t be impartial. I love reading the BBC online and I have yet to see any partiality in either direction.

  • I really don’t want the British tv system, in which the government dictates to the media.

    That’s not how it works, Baronius. The BBC operates by government charter, but it is mandated to be free from political interference and answerable only to its audience. The only requirement is that they be impartial in their political coverage. They do this extremely well, and much of the world’s finest journalism is done by BBC reporters.

    If you have cable and you get BBC America, try watching Newsnight or BBC World News for a few days. You might be lucky enough to catch one of their trademark investigative interviews, in which some hapless government minister is skewered more skillfully and mercilessly than any American journalist would ever dare.

    As far as the newspapers go, yes, most of them are blatantly partisan, but it’s very rare, even at the Murdoch-owned papers, that a journalist will be held back from doing a report because it doesn’t fit with the paper’s political line.

  • Ruvy –

    Yeah, I’m slow 😉

    That’s because when you said that she wouldn’t be any better than the others, to me that’s an implication that she wouldn’t be any worse, either…and the implication is strengthened by your many other comments about Obama.

    She managed a town – poorly. Whoopee. She’s a governor…and combined with the fact that she has less than a high-school understanding of civics, culture, and geography says a great deal about those who elected her, doesn’t it?

    You’ll see her run for president – I’m sure of it. This much was made obvious by the Republicans who pointed out how unwilling she was to pay attention when they were prepping her on basic facts that she needed to know for debates and interviews.

    BUT I think I can safely say you’ll see her career crash and burn. There’ll still be many who support her if only because they think “she’s filled with the Holy Spirit!”…but such will be greatly outnumbered by those who see right through her.

  • Baronius

    I don’t want the government in charge of deciding what speech is unfair. I really don’t want the British tv system, in which the government dictates to the media. The British newspapers are much better, because they’re overtly partisan. The only growing media in the world is online, possibly because it’s the wild west in here.

  • Glenn,

    You neither showed what actual indication there is that Obama is a ‘narcissist’, nor did you show how someone who has less than a high-school understanding of civics, culture, and geography could actually be as good as a magna cum laude Harvard graduate.

    Boy, you’re slow.

    Read this carefully:

    As Sarah Palin is today, she will be no better than anyone else in handling a cataclysm that faces your nation.

    But all this is besides the point.

    Your nation is headed for disaster – the only question is when the disaster will occur, and how quickly. So it is irrelevant who is the leader. The cataclysm will overcome that leader. That means Obama, Bush, NcCain, or Palin or Biden. It makes no difference.

    My comments regarding Palin as a possible American national leader are only after this disaster occurs. And they are pure speculation. Right now, her job is to govern Alaska. That is the third time I’ve writen that here. I guess ideologues have trouble reading things that they do not agree with.

    If you are dumb enough to trust in a Harvard degree on the sleeves of an empty suit over someone who has actually managed a family and been the executive of a town, and then a state, well, you just do not know where to look for talent, do you? Harry Truman was a fellow who was a politician pulled out of the Missouri shit-pile by FDR. He was a haberdasher along with being a machine politician who did what he was told in the Senate. But he proved to be one of the most astute leaders the United States ever had. Sarah Palin would have been something like Truman.

    Obama may turn out, at best, to be like Wilson – an empty ideologue who ultimately led the American Progressive Movement into the dirt while the WCTU and a pack of red-baiters took over its heart, and led the United States into a disaster of mob rule. His lasting legacies to you are the Federal Reserve – private anonymous bankers who determine how much money is in your wallet – and the income tax.

    Mazel tov!

  • zingzing

    look, i’m basically saying that our media has become just so much distortion on either side. you can’t get the whole truth from any one source, and you can’t find the truth by trying to combine two lies. something should change. how we go about that, i don’t know. a fairness doctrine that actually works, however that might happen, could be an answer. i doubt it as much as you do–especially as it is currently written.

    but the more general point is this: the fairness doctrine is not out to kill conservative opinion. it’s the opposite. it’s there to make sure that both sides are heard, and if done correctly, it could vastly decrease the amount of lies we have to sift through in order to find out the truth. that’s what i said. and that’s what i mean.

  • zingzing

    again al… oh, fuck it. fine. fair enough.

  • What you lot need is your own version of the BBC*, which operates under a government charter (renewable every sump’n years) and is mandated to be politically impartial.

    That doesn’t mean it has to be politically wishy-washy, and there are many tough political programmes produced by the BBC. Many of them hit politicians where it hurts, whereupon there is the inevitable whining that they are not being fair.

    The point being, of course, that fairness is subjective. Impartiality isn’t, or shouldn’t be.

    * Of course you have PBS, but it’s hardly the sort of muscular behemoth that makes politicians squeal.

  • But Zing, you’re off base on my basis of calculus. I’m not calculating what position to take based on what I think will best advance my partisan advantage. I don’t WANT to get the guv’ment to step down on Chris Matthews. I just want people to know what a cheesehead he is – and let them make their own judgments as to the credibility of various media outlets.

    I think though that this proper and actually fair democratic method of letting the marketing decide also tends to get the optimal results for everyone all around. Every consumer can cleave to as narrow or as broad a palette of news media as they wish. It’s a beautiful thing.

  • zingzing

    i know, i know.

    but you must admit that american social conservatives are a joke in most of the world. not that they care.

    and it’s nothing to sneer at that most of the creative (arts, etc) people in the world are liberals. while the most destructive people (war, radical islam,) currently at work would have to be social conservatives.

    eventually, you’ll wipe yourselves out… if you don’t have to many (easily indoctrinated) babies.

  • Clavos

    and that’s why your kind will be done in a generation.

    Wishful thinking…

  • zingzing

    jesus, al.

    AGAIN–the point i was making is that the fairness doctrine is not about destroying conservative opinion in the media.

    you said: “It is, of course, liberals wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine just exactly to quash opinions dissenting from the NPR/NBC line.”

    that’s bullshit. i called bullshit. that’s all.

    if conservatives don’t want a fairness doctrine, then just shut the fuck up about liberal bias. you can talk crap about liberal media, but don’t talk shit about some grand overarching liberal bias in the media… it’s of your own making if it’s there.

    the basic fact is that those who want to work in creative fields, such as the media, are going to be liberals. that’s the kind of jobs we’re attracted to. those are the kind of lifestyles that expose people to liberal ideas. they’re the kind of people that move to big cities/media centers, where they have to live in diverse societies.

    that’s why the conservative media is built upon the cheap ass radio, a few silly websites, a magazine and one australian’s tv station. you could greatly benefit from a truly fair fairness doctrine, but you’re too fucking busy thinking everything is a liberal plot to figure it out.

    and that’s why your kind will be done in a generation.

  • But Zing, you can’t be considering any form of having the government dictate content without getting into these other issues. Perhaps you imagine some fairy princess from Imaginationland to be a neutral arbiter of fair opinion. Problem there is that person doesn’t exist.

    I bitch a little about pinko media types not from sense of being overwhelmed as a partisan, but just because I’m offended by the blatant dishonesty of a lot of it. But the way to deal with that is exactly to call them out and denounce the red bastards – and develop alternate sources for important information to be found and spread without the stranglehold of a half dozen newspapers and tv anchors.

    Call bullshit on the bad actors, and then offer better alternatives. That’s proper democracy in action for you. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    May the holy spirit and peace of Obama be upon you.

  • zingzing

    then why the fuck do you (conservatives) constantly COMPLAIN about the media?

    truthfully, i’m more inclined to believe the leftwing media than i am the right, but that’s just the game. and as much as part of me wouldn’t mind a liberal bias in the media, i think fairness in media would decrease the amount of bullshit we have to nose through. just how we could accomplish that… i don’t know.

    AGAIN–the point i was making is that the fairness doctrine is not about destroying conservative opinion in the media. that’s where i depart from you. stop thinking i’m saying anything else.

  • Ohmygod Zing, would you look at the pile of gibberish you just wrote? Why in the world would the guvment presume to make life “fair”? That cure is far worse than the disease.

    Yeah, there’s a lot of pinko slant to some of the top corporate news names, but I don’t want the government doing a damned thing about it. We’re addressing it properly, as private consumers. Many of us get a daily clue to the important issues from Drudge and/or Limbaugh, and especially National Review. Mix that in with a little NPR and the Obama jihadists at MSNBC, and somewhere emerges a decent basis for having a broad picture of what’s going on. Add a spoonful of Ann Coulter for flavoring.

    No Fairness Doctrine needed. We’re supposed to be fighting this out in the marketplace of ideas. Some areas are more left dominated, some other mediums are more right dominated. It works out in a beautifully diverse market equilibrium.

  • Ruvy –

    You neither showed what actual indication there is that Obama is a ‘narcissist’, nor did you show how someone who has less than a high-school understanding of civics, culture, and geography could actually be as good as a magna cum laude Harvard graduate.

    If you are ever in a hire-and-fire position, I hope you take more care in choosing workers than you are in choosing leaders

  • zingzing

    no… why would that be? equal time is equal time. i’m not really sure how to work this, of course, and i think fines would be… better than loss of license. but, you know, the fcc is rather silly about what they fine already, and i don’t want to see them have too much power.

    i’m not even sure if the fairness doctrine should come back. the POINT was that the idea behind the fairness doctrine is not to shut down conservative opinion on our airwaves. the idea is to be fair.

    if conservative opinion was lost because of some sort of “fairness” doctrine, that wouldn’t really be fair, would it?

    i like the idea of a real “fair and balanced” media. it would shut up conservative yahoos who complain (through the media, as it is) that the media is too liberal. it would also make it so the media, on either side, couldn’t get away with too much bullshit.

    i don’t particularly like the media’s political coverage these days, as it just seems like two sides making up malarky. but, i also see the pitfalls of the fairness doctrine as it stands. it needs to be rewritten if it’s going to be put into affect.

    if a fairness doctrine can be written that truly makes the media fair, i don’t see how you could have a problem with that. you’d benefit, if you want to believe in the liberal bias of the media. all the tv stations would have to put on conservative shows… what, do you really think radio has that drawing power? or are you just trying to hold onto what you’ve got, as small as it is?

  • Really now, Zing: “if radio would die because it had to be fair, then, well, it deserves to die.”

    That seems to get to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? And of course YOUR side gets to pick the referees of what constitutes “fairness.”

  • zingzing

    but that’s not all the fairness doctrine addresses–radio is not the only important form of mass media. and you should read what i had to say just a couple comments back if you want to know what i think about the subject.

    and i don’t listen to radio at all, not even npr these days, so i’ve got no problem if it all goes away. it’s a scourge. except college radio, which kicks ass.

    seriously though, the world won’t end if rush limbaugh gets a tv show. although it would underscore just how ugly he is. if radio would die because it had to be fair, then, well, it deserves to die.

  • Clavos

    do you know what the fairness doctrine is? obviously, you misunderstood the point of it. or really believe in the power of radio.

    Actually, zing, I think he’s dead on.

    Liberal talk radio doesn’t sell much advertising, so if the FD is reinstated, radio station owners, rather than provide money-losing air time to liberal shows in counterpoint to the conservative ones, will simply drop the conservative shows.

    The liberals pushing the reinstatement of the FD figured this out some time ago.

  • Jet

    Al:”Rush Limbaugh. That is also a good alternative information source” I’d laugh my head off if I didn’t think you were completely serious.

    What’s he doing Al; sharing his Oxycodone with you?

  • zingzing

    al, certainly the fairness doctrine needs to be worded differently, but the general aim of it is not to shut down conservative opinion. in fact, one would have to think, what with the “liberal bias” of the media, that it would be to the left’s general detriment if it was reinstated as currently written.

    like many good ideas, the execution of the fairness doctrine was not perfect, or even preferable. but, we’ve seen where it failed before. and we see the problems we have today. the left and the right make up crap and present it as news. if some sort of fairness doctrine was in place, i think the general level of rhetoric would improve/decrease. we may actually get both sides of the story without having to take everything with a grain of salt.

  • Zing- I’m perfectly well aware of what the Orwellian-ly named “Fairness Doctrine” is – are you? It is absolutely nothing other than the intent of quashing opposition viewpoints, and a complete travesty against the First Amendment.

    Working around the Pravda press, the NYT et al, there are some of the sources that are more or less just not pinko biased. Lots of regular newspapers across the country are halfway reasonable and more or less neutral sources of information.

    Then there is conservative talk radio, ie Rush Limbaugh. That is also a good alternative information source, bringing forth relevant and important facts ignored or purposely covered up by the Obama media mafia. Trying to suppress him in particular is the point of leftwing brown shirts wanting to re-impose the fascistic “Fairness Doctrine.”

    Then, of course, it’s important to have more info sources than Rush Limbaugh. He is an unabashedly partisan information source, and would not claim to be the only source of information you need. He’s not the paper of record – just one guy with a golden microphone.

    I see your distinction between disliking Christians vs just not trusting them with the nukes. DIG THIS God bless the Louvin Brothers.

    So, I can understand the trepidation in theory, but watching Miss Sarah, she does not seem like she’s going to turn into Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone. “The missles are flying. Hallelujah!” Faith of her fathers besides, Palin seems like one of the most positively grounded individuals near high office. Mitt Romney comes to mind as another one relatively pure of heart and sensible.

    In both cases, one might understandably raise an eyebrow over their religious beliefs. But a lot depends on how you take things. I’d judge the proof of the pudding by the eating. Both of these specific people seem to be kind, loving, well grounded individuals coming from strong, positive communities. Beyond that, they could be praying to Ba’al for all I care.

  • zingzing

    “Sounds to me like some of y’all are just going to go on a hatey-hate rant against anyone who appears to be an actual believing Christian.”

    nah, just don’t want one of them crazy loons in office.

    “Instead, they have their own alternative information sources, mostly through smaller and more neutral papers, talk radio and the internet.”

    how, really, can “conservative media” be considered neutral? it’s more CONSERVATIVE, al. it doesn’t even have to try to be neutral, apparently.

    “It is, of course, liberals wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine just exactly to quash opinions dissenting from the NPR/NBC line.”

    do you know what the fairness doctrine is? obviously, you misunderstood the point of it. or really believe in the power of radio.

  • Jamminsue sez re: Palin’s pregnant daughter “A word in season, understanding and/or providing access to prevention would have averted that problem.”

    Ha, ha, ha! Good one! If Mom had just told her not to get laid, she wouldn’t have done it. Yeah, that works. That Christians sometimes fall short of their ideals does not discredit their ideas. And that their child might slip from the most preferred behavior certainly does not discredit them.

    You seem to be whipping up a pretty evil and largely fictional accounting in which to lump all religious people – as if Muslim fanatics are equivalent to American Baptists. Then you lay all that on Sister Sarah. I’ve never heard her bashing on gays or on any such.

    Sounds to me like some of y’all are just going to go on a hatey-hate rant against anyone who appears to be an actual believing Christian.

    Also though, conservatives have every good reason to bitch about the over the top cheesy liberalism of much of the press. Just note that the conservatives are NOT clamoring for some kind of gummint regulation to change that.

    Instead, they have their own alternative information sources, mostly through smaller and more neutral papers, talk radio and the internet. It is, of course, liberals wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine just exactly to quash opinions dissenting from the NPR/NBC line.

  • Glenn,

    As Sarah Palin is today, she will be no better than anyone else in handling a cataclysm that faces your nation.

    Perhaps the one thing she might do better is push for people to pray – to give thanks to G-d for x or y occurring or not occurring.

    I too have been a supervisor, and from litle I saw of Sarah Palin, she was someone I could trust to get things done. A man who has voted present in the United States Senate is not one who will get things done – except when it benefits him personally.

    But all this is besides the point.

    Your nation is headed for disaster – the only question is when the disaster will occur, and how quickly. So it is irrelevant who is the leader. The cataclysm will overcome that leader. That means Obama, Bush, NcCain, or Palin or Biden. It makes no difference.

    My reference to Palin is to a period after this disaster has occurred, when conditions will be entirely different. And any leader of your country will have to have grown spiritually to be effective. Under these changed conditions, a narcissist will not be an effective leader.

    In addition, that Palin might be your leader is only a speculation on my part.

    Both Obama and Palin appear to be here in prominent roles by Divine Hand. That does not mean that either of them is a positive influence. It simply means, IMHO, that their presence is a sign of an approaching change that will be huge, and for many catastrophic.

  • Ruvy –

    Something I learned over the years of supervising people is that a highly competent subordinate that you REALLY don’t like is FAR more preferable to an incompetent and unqualified subordinate.

    On another topic, I told you that I worked with a narcissist for years – and I did. Very smart guy, very, very good at his job, but he and I had many shouting matches, sometimes mere inches from each other’s face I also had another guy working for me at the same rank, and this guy was much friendlier and shared my world view on many things.

    The narcissist also tried to get me busted. It was nothing personal on his part – I was simply in his way in his climb to the top. The other guy I could trust not to stab me in the back.

    HOWEVER, as a supervisor, I had to say then and now that the narcissist was a better part of the team due to his skill, qualifications, and work ethic…and ability to lead the crew in my absence. The other guy I could not trust to do these things, even though I liked and personally trusted him.

    YOU LIKE SARAH…but she is not only ignorant of high-school-level civics and geography (which ignorance has been pointed out to her by the media), but does not even seem to comprehend WHY she should be concerned about her ignorance.

    If Obama’s and Sarah’s levels of knowledge of civics, geography, culture, and the Constitution were reversed…I’d vote for Sarah in a heartbeat even though I REALLY don’t like her. Why? Because I don’t want someone who knows less than I do being in charge of the nation’s economy and the nuclear trigger.

    We’ve already had eight years of an intellectually incurious president – one would hope that would be enough for us to choose a more qualified, more professional, more educated president from now on.

  • It may well be that after your country suffers the collapse it appears destined to suffer in the near future, Sarah Palin will be the president who pulls you out and gets you organized the right way.

    This is pure speculation on my part, nothing else.

    G-d may have a larger role for her to play in history – or He may use her briefly and allow her to drop back into obscurity. I truly do not know.

  • ruvy: “In the Midrash, it is related that one rabbi says to another “Nafli is coming”

    zing: is that some sort of a joke?

    zing, I decided to look this up myself because I had only heard about it on Friday evening from our hostess when she invited us for a Sabbath meal. I had it wrong – the rabbis talked about “bar nafli” coming. But, go read for yourself at the Shirat Devorah web-site.

    The bottom line here is not that Sarah Palin is some kind of savior of any kind. But for some reason, she is to serve a reminder to us Jews that indeed G-d has a Redeemer on the way, and that every time, we hear her name, that is the point we need to remember.

    It may well be that after your country suffers the collapse it appears destined to suffer in the near future, Sarah Palin will be the president who pulls you out and gets you organized the right way. But if that is true, and I am only speculating here, she will not be the woman you have seen. She will have experienced spiritual growth that will enable her to fulfill the task. From my point of view, she is a passionate believer in G-d. That is what caught my own eye in the first place. And she is not a religious crazy, the kind of person who would have a thousand people drink poisoned Kool-Ade to fulfill some stupid fantasy.

    She is, in my opinion, the kind of person that can experience this spiritual growth and carry out the task that will be needed to bring your country back from the disaster it will have fallen into. But before she can, she will need to change somewhat herself.

  • Zedd


    I think you missed the point. The frustration wasn’t about her alma mater. It wasn’t about her getting the folksy image right. I was about her lack of substance. Much like your article, you miss what is important as she didn’t articulate what was important. The Republican base is addicted to imagery and have lost the understanding of what is needed in a good leader. The imagery and “awe shucks” were used by Regan to woo you guys and now you crave them to feel good about a candidate. You missed the message and got addicted to the feel goods. The smart folks in your party realize just how destructive that tendency is to real ideals and real solutions being carried out.

  • jamminsue

    It just occurred – I should have knocked the partly smart or smart and narrow minded: Clinton was a know-nothing with reference to Foreign policy, and succumbed to group-think, and so was also part of the problem. Carter was narrow in his viewpoint (that parochial thing again) and should have known better. Nixon had some good ideas on foreign policy but was also narrow in viewpoint. He had no clue on domestic stuff, pissed off the press, and really, really dirtied his nest.

  • jamminsue

    Ok, my turn to rant:
    It was not OK for Palin to have a pregnant teenage daughter because she had touted her pro-life, “Christian family values” and “soccer mom” attributes, which indicated a certain set of parenting skills and standards, which she does not seem to have passed to her daughter. If she had not claimed this certain behavior set, she would not have been venerable to attack. A word in season, understanding and/or providing access to prevention would have averted that problem.
    As an unbeliever, I find the parochialism of the narrow Protestants that are against anyone or thing that does not fit into their narrow, selective understanding of a great literary work that they elevated to a fantastic status to be a positive danger to an enlightened society. When given power, whether Christian, Islamic or whatever creed, they have done unspeakably vile things. It would do the rest of us some good to remember, and remind others.
    Homosexuality: Most psychologists and medical doctors I have spoken to on the subject have indicated 5% are treatable with psychoanalysis and the rest are made that way and nothing can change it. Those that said “let he who has not sinned cast the first stone” are off base, too, (sorry) as something that occurs naturally should be understood as part of God’s Plan (if there is such a thing) therefore, one is sinning when he/she demonizes homosexuality.
    Knowledge: How can a person make an informed decision if they have not read about it? And, by “read” I mean explore issues by reading, talking, asking others; including more than one opinion position. Know-nothing Presidents – most recently Bush II and Regan were dependent on advisors, but how could they pick good advisors if they did not have SOME understanding? Bush II is a prime example of this. The impact of his know-nothing is abundantly clear. Regan began the current merry-go-round that is the “spend by borrowing” while playing “chicken” with the USSR. Those that think he was a great President now may change their tune after the next 10-20 years. The debt issue will most likely bring the US, and because of the international interdependence of finance, the entire world market to its knees. I sure hope not, but don’t see anyone talking sense on the subject of how to get out of this. Not that I think I know, in fact, I definitely do not.
    The Obama Press: Those conservatives cannot complain about any press that is liberal, as it was they who got rid of the fairness doctrine, along with the rest of the necessary regulations that they are now decrying the loss. And who said the press is liberal? A look at ownership of the big 5 would most likely force some reassessment.

  • Baronius

    Glenn – Since you mentioned it: I’ve looked into the Saxby Chambliss thing, and the ad was nothing like it’s been depicted. It’s negative, but nowhere near as rough as some of the 2008 presidential ads. But it’s one of those stories that’s grown with the telling, shall we say.

  • zingzing

    no, al… the idea is that he doesn’t have more than $250k, so he doesn’t get his taxes raised by 3%.

    if he buys the business, his taxes are going to go up (by 3%). it’s not that hard to figure out. he can then just use some tax law loopholes to mitigate that 3% down to nothing.

    you really don’t get the idea, do you? he doesn’t have enough money to even think about buying the business, so obama lets him keep a little more of his money, so that the day when he does have money enough comes a little bit faster. no bank on earth would loan him the money he needs to buy that business right now. but, if he keeps working and saving, on day they will.

  • See Zing, that’s some perfect Democrat thinking right there: Joe doesn’t have the money, ain’t no way he’s ever going to succeed, fuggedabout it. And that’s why he needs Lord St Obama to take care of him.

    Whereas, people do stuff every day that can’t be done – much harder stuff than raising money to buy a little plumbing business.

  • zing, stop using the facts of the matter.

  • is that some sort of a joke?

    I thought it was when I first heard it. But, no, it isn’t.

    is obama the messiah? i’m sure you could find some torah code for it.

    A legitimate Torah Code search on any of these things will not turn up predictions for the future. Only prophets can do that, and I sure as heck ain’t no prophet.

    There is a Moslem prophecy that right before the End of Days, a black man will arise as leader in a major country.

    My point here is that all these events do smell of something that is Divinely inspired as a series of signs, and only a fool would ignore the “rough pavement ahead” signs that seem to be posted on History’s Road….

  • zingzing

    al: “See that’s the thing with Joe. He doesn’t have that much money, but he’s aspiring to making it – and Obama ain’t particularly interested in waiting till he’s got money before figuring out how the gummint’s going to spend it for him.”

    the point is that joe the plumber didn’t have the money to buy that business. so he wasn’t going to buy that business. and he wasn’t going to make of $250k. so obama wouldn’t have increased his taxes, as joe the plumber fits in with that large group of people that obama’s tax plan would benefit.

  • See that’s the thing with Joe. He doesn’t have that much money, but he’s aspiring to making it – and Obama ain’t particularly interested in waiting till he’s got money before figuring out how the gummint’s going to spend it for him.

    Thus Obama demonstrates with his Marxist talk how to discourage wealth creation. Joe’s thinking on how to make a nut, but there’s the new president already telling him how he’s going to take it away from him if he does. No sense trying to make any real money, and going through the risks and the sweat just to have it sucked down the government rathole.

  • al: “He wants to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around.”

    Can you have wealth when you have tax liens?

  • zingzing

    al: “He wants to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around.”

    no he doesnt. joe the plumber is not a plumber or rich.

    ruvy: “In the Midrash, it is related that one rabbi says to another “Nafli is coming” The other rabbi, puzzled, asks, “Who’s Nafli?” The first rabbi says, “Nafli is the messiah.” When you switch the Hebrew letters around according to the Atbash code, you get “Palin” (in the Hebrew alphabet, the “p” and “f” are the same letter).”

    is that some sort of a joke?

    “Obama, who got his start in presidential politics on Tish’á b’Áv – the “birthday” of the messiah according to Jewish tradition – is a sign of the big ‘enchilada’ about to be served mankind….”

    is obama the messiah? i’m sure you could find some torah code for it.

  • Brother Al,

    Ruvy, a “saint” is exactly what we don’t need. Some messianic visionary who will save the world and heal the planet is a likely disaster. I’m looking for someone with a more humble view of their and our place. Big moral vision will lead us into crap quicker than almost anything. A green eyeshades type of guy like Romney is more what is needed.

    I happened to have admired Palin, especially how she was able to work a crowd. McCain was stupid to have waited as long as he did to consider her at all. And if he was considering her, he should have let her know, so that she could bone up on her weak points. McCain was a fool. But you Repulicans picked him and there you aren’t – in the White House.

    I got what I wanted: a clear anti-Israel putz in your White House. Now I have to work on the other side of the deal – getting America-worshipping puppets in J-lem tossed into the jails they belong in.

    But don’t count Palin out just yet. In the Midrash, it is related that one rabbi says to another “Nafli is coming” The other rabbi, puzzled, asks, “Who’s Nafli?” The first rabbi says, “Nafli is the messiah.” When you switch the Hebrew letters around according to the Atbash code, you get “Palin” (in the Hebrew alphabet, the “p” and “f” are the same letter). I don’t think that Sister Sarah is the messiah, but apparently her appearance from “nowhere” – just like Obama, who got his start in presidential politics on Tish’á b’Áv – the “birthday” of the messiah according to Jewish tradition – is a sign of the big ‘enchilada’ about to be served mankind….

  • Indeed Zing, you can hang, you can trip on it – you surely won’t fall.

    Another little clue Jet- I’m voting for the preachers in primaries, not the general election. I voted for Pat Robertson for one thing as a gesture of distaste for Bush the elder that he was running against. Plus, I wanted to do my little bit to break Jesse Jackson off up in the Democrat party. Plus, there’s the fun I knew I’d have for many years telling people that I actually voted for Robertson or Al Sharpton.

    And “Marxist” is a exactly the right word for Obama. He speaks glowingly and lovingly of his time hanging out with Marxist professors as a college student. His whole outlook reflects it. He wants to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around. You know, from each according to ability to each according to need.

    Generally, most Christians in my experience don’t particularly sit around hating and judging on people for being gay, but homosexual behavior is pretty clearly sinful if you actually believe in the Bible. They might leave the judging to God, but they believe that is His standard.

    You can just decide that anybody who doesn’t approve of your lifestyle is a dirty bigot. But then you should just accept that any serious Bible believing Christian is an evil bigot by definition.

  • zingzing

    if you people don’t know what lovesexy is, and at the point, you are “you people,” then you need to gain some knowledge.

    lovesexy is the glam of them all.

  • zingzing

    al: “I like to vote for a man of the cloth where I can[…]”

    good god, why? have you never heard of church and state? you know that we try to keep the two things separate, right?

    look, lovesexy is one thing, but for fuck’s sake… alright, lovesexy is the greatest thing ever, but it’s not an answer to our spiritual problems.

  • Jet

    AL-…even ones who believe in the Bible and therefore think that homosexual behavior is a sin…

    And after you condemn all the homoSEXuals to Hell, you’ll all go marching home to your biblical multiple wives and smear some lamb’s blood on your doorsteps to make sure God loves you? That’s what all the GOP fundraiser barbeques are all about, they’re sacrificing an ox to the Lord Reagan in heaven so they’ll be prosperous?

    What did Jesus say?

    Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

    I shudder at what secret sins you’ve got hiding in your closet. What does the bible also say?

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    Probably why AL likes Palin so much, she’s not a he (I hope) so technically she can cast the first stone… Carefully though-she can see Russia from her house and we wouldn’t want any international incidents when she breaks a window with that first stone.

    Let he who is stoned cast the first sin?

  • zingzing

    al, you’re a political moron, and i mean that in the kindest way. the only thing keeping you in check is prince and sinead o’connor. palin is a…

    you know what? hey, let people like al keep palin. she’s a detriment to her own party, and therefore a benefit to ours.

    take a hint, people. these are our easy targets.

  • Al Barger –

    If my accusations are false, then please point out which of my accusations are false.

    And while you’re at it, whom should we believe when it comes to what led to the spike in death threats against Obama (more than 500, more than any other president-elect)? Should we believe you? Or the Secret Service?

    And you’re actually claiming that it’s a GOOD thing that her husband belonged to a party that supports secession from America, whose founder cursed America and the flag? That, Mr. SUPER-patriot, has to be the most egregious hypocrisy I’ve EVER seen on any political forum.

    That’s almost as bad as Republican Senator Saxby-Chambliss (who never served in the military) comparing his Vietnam Vet triple-amputee Purple-Heart awardee Democratic opponent to Osama bin Laden.

    I really, truly believe that you don’t believe any such thing, that you’re simply trying to defend Palin no matter what. But I’m curious, Al – have you EVER admitted on BC that you’ve been wrong about anything? Except for times that sarcasm served your purpose, of course….

    Oh yeah – if you need references for ANY of my claims on this or any other post, just ask. I do my best to only point out facts from reliable sources.

  • Jet

    Was it me? or was the reason the Palin news conference was only 4 questions long because of the governors she’d herded up behind her, that looked like they were going to bolt off the stage before she embarrassed them with the answer to her 5th question?

  • Jet

    You said you voted for Pat Robertson-I feel absolutely stupid that I’d think of you as a social conservative.

    Wielding the word communist puts you right up there with Sen McCarthy calling Lucy Ball a communist back in 1952 in a blatant and unsuccessful attempt at ruining her career.

    You should be more careful with your adjectives. If you meant Marxist you should’ve said Marxist.

    in any case Obama is neither.

  • Jet- I suppose you could object to the word “communist.” Speaking strictly, I should probably just call him a “Marxist.” That would be a reasonably accurate and not unnecessarily inflammatory description of his stated positions.

    I don’t think that Sister Sarah will be swept into the White House. She will have to fight hard to get in there.

    Calling me an “ultra right social conservative” is just silly and hysterical of you. As long as you’ve been here, you should know better than that foolishness. I’m a good libertarian. I’m (reluctantly) pro-choice, and certainly pro free speech. If it’s done properly through the legislature, I’m open to the possibility of gay marriage.

    But I would like to have a little respect for just plain old fashioned decent Christians – even ones who believe in the Bible and therefore think that homosexual behavior is a sin.

    If it makes you feel better about me voting for Pat Robertson, I also voted for Jesse Jackson and in 2004 I wrote in Al Sharpton in the Democrat primary. I like to vote for a man of the cloth where I can – though there was NO way that even I could vote for Mike Huckabee.

  • Jet

    You predicted Palin would get swept into the whitehouse… but if you’re naive enough to believe that, who am I to argue?

    You called Obama a communist-which he isn’t… but if you’re naive enough to believe that who am I to argue?

    I should’ve known you’d vote for Pat Robertson, I’d actually given you credit for more intellect than that, I was wrong. Your attitude on this website just reeks with ultra right social conservative, so I figured (wrongly-sorry) you vote for Bush twice out of desparation. At this juncture I bet you tried to write in Joe the Plumber… right?

    I guess I underestimated you in the wrong direction.

    silly really

  • Jet, what is your particular problem? I don’t recall predicting that McCain would be swept into the White House. I must admit that I didn’t think the public would elect a communist with no record, but stranger things have happened.

    For the record, I have never, ever voted for anyone named Bush. I in fact absolutely voted for Pat Robertson in the 88 primary rather than vote for Bush the Elder.

    And what false judgment have I handed down on Obama supporters? This article is nothing to do with Obama or his supporters.

  • Jet

    Yeah right Al, like you predicted McCain would get swept into the whitehouse. You need to put a bumbersticker on your car that proudly claims


    then another that says Palin in 2012!

    You’re so great and proud at falsely handing down judgment on Obama supporters, where’s your proud boasts about how right you were in this election?

  • Zing and Bliffle- Do please keep telling yourselves that she’s dumb, or melting down, or supposedly discredited. Keep telling yourself what you want to hear, and keep saying it even as ol’ girl gets swept into the White House.

  • bliffle

    Bush? Then Palin? Dumb and dumber.

  • zingzing

    oh god, al. palin as president? that would have been a total disaster for the republicans. not that it wasn’t already, but sheeeeesh. that’s some crazy talk. try to get one intelligent person NOT to smirk at you when you say that malarky out loud.

    she’s nowhere near ready, even on a political-savvy level, to be president. she got manhandled by katie couric! katie! couric! the today show! or access hollywood, wherever she came from. she would have been a pin cushion in the middle east and the laughing stock of europe. she’s melting down right now because of all the criticism. imagine, just for a second, if she was president. yeah, that’s how long it takes for the white light to flash and then you’re just a shadow. *shudder*

    as far as the “nutsy” stuff goes, i’m inclined to believe some of it, although not other bits. i won’t say which because, frankly, there’s far too much nutsy shit about her to go over and pick apart. if even 1/4 of the stuff they said about her is true, then… she’s a nut. “you betcha” goes too far.

  • Zing, maybe the “bad problem” with Palin getting more ink and love than McCain was that she should have been on TOP of the ticket.

    Being anti-literature and nutsy was of course the story line pushed by the opposing campaign staff, eg NBC, etc. But that doesn’t mean it was true or that most people actually believed it. They talked much the same way about pre-presidential Reagan, didn’t they?

  • Alas, the poor girl did not even have the benefit of an ivy league education. She should have remained at home taking care of her kids. Doubtless, wise counsel will prevail upon her to do so in 2012. The sort of change she represents is not wanted, gosh darn. Any fool can see that. Go for it Joe (Biden, not the reactionary, poorly educated, middle class plumber)!


  • Baronius

    Lisa, Al’s got you there. You think an accusation of jealousy is sexist, but you say that Palin “charmed the pants off” people. No one would say that about Biden – ACK! I just got the mental picture of Biden charming the pants off of someone. Looks like I’m drinking this weekend.

  • zingzing

    among a certain group of republicans, there certainly was a groundswell of approval for mccain when he nominated palin. that lasted about two weeks. then the story became what a nutter she was. her anti-literature campaign, be it true or not, became a bigger story than mccain. her wolf hunting activities got more print than mccain’s years of torture.

    she certainly was the “most popular” of the two. but for all the wrong reasons. and when your vp nominee’s crazy antics overtakes your presidential candidate in terms of print space, you’ve got a bad, bad problem.

  • Baronius

    Dread – Dole is over 70. McCain needed a younger VP nominee. Snowe and Collins are pro-choice. They wouldn’t have been accepted by the conservative base. All three are in the Senate, and McCain had good reason to avoid picking a fellow senator.

    Eisenhower and Fiorina don’t meet my criteria of experience. And considering that McCain was trying to avoid association with Bush, Rice wasn’t an option.

  • Oh Doc Dreadful, Vice-President Olympia Snowe or Liddy Dole – puh-lease. What big, boring piles of nothingness. And it’s not like Palin wouldn’t challenge him. She’s not the quiet and submissive type.

    Zing- Who was poison within what campaign? I’d say that she pretty well pissed off the right people, worthless political operatives and the opposition. The carping from supposed anonymous McCain sources is just trying to pawn off blame for a bad election on the vice-presidential candidate. This would be nonsense in almost any campaign – and especially so in this one. Palin was WAY the most popular thing that McCain did.

  • zingzing

    seeing as how she very quickly became a poison within his campaign, she was obviously the wrong choice. she allowed herself to be completely destroyed by the media, and put up only a feeble, yet shrill, fight against it. she may have done well in alaska, but in the national spotlight, she proved to be little more than a little folksy charm and a couple facial tics.

    i would bet good money that if mccain had it to do all over again, he’d stay the hell away from palin.

  • Al, you have a point in that the vice-presidency involves little more than chair-warming. All Palin would have had to have done (oy! what a convoluted tense!) was to sit around DC, go and attend a few things, and say “what he said, you betcha!” when asked about her opinion of McCain’s latest policy decision. So yes, in that respect she was qualified.

    However, ideally you also want someone with a little political nous who is also experienced enough to act as a sounding board and to advise and challenge you on your decisions. That, as Obama explained it, was the reason why he chose Biden.

    With that in mind, Hutchinson was one of the women I was thinking of, along with Carly Fiorina, Condoleeza Rice, Liddy Dole*, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Susan Eisenhower and others.

    * Although admittedly the name Dole doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to tilts at the White House.

  • “Eloquent” as regards Joe Biden means merely that he’s a good BSer and can keep making sentences and sounding confident even when he’s talking gibberish or saying things that flatly aren’t true. Biden is totally a lightweight. I can’t see where he’s ever, ever accomplished anything except warming a senate chair.

    Sister Sarah is ordinary in some ways, with her upbringing and working class history – but she’s extraordinary in other ways. No dumbass could have come up like she did and got that pipeline deal done.

    And Miss Lisa, you start to sound like a jealous female when you go on and on about her charming pants off. She’s done a lot more than be charming.

  • Lisa Solod Warren


    She’s supremely ordinary…. is my point. Read the NYer piece on her a couple of weeks ago. If whe weren’t so pretty and hadn’t charmed the pants off a couple of influential conservative men (mainly Kristol) she never would have been pushed for the job. She’s a lightweight and Parker and Noonan and others called it right. You may not respect Biden’s opinions but he isn’t a lightweight. Palin is very ambitious. That may be what gets her farther. Other than that…..

  • Baronius

    Lisa, I didn’t use the word jealousy either. I don’t think it’s the right word at all.

    But to describe someone as far inferior in nearly every way to everyone, that’s pretty strong stuff. I think about Joe Biden: I don’t respect much about him, but he’s eloquent and probably a good father, and he got over a stutter which is a pretty tough thing to do.

  • Dreadful, there were certainly women who have served more time in public office, but warming a chair is not the same thing as being qualified. Hutchinson is older and has been in the senate for awhile, but what has she ever actually accomplished?

    Palin was not picked just because she’s a woman. Gender was a plus, but there were several other obvious reasons to pick her besides her plumbing. The reformer credentials, opposing corruption even within her own party – that was highly important to her selection. Plus, she’s gotten more stuff actually done – particularly the big pipeline deal – than I’ve seen out of any other women or most of the men that McCain could have chosen.

    She might reasonably be argued to be a little green yet, but definitely at least as qualified for the job as any other Republican woman – or any but maybe, possibly a couple of men.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Don’t go there. Palin is far inferior in every way–except in looks to some, I admit–to any woman I know personally….(and far inferior intellectually to both Parker and Noonan.)

    It has nothing to do with jealousy. When men criticize other men, no one ever uses that word.

    Lots of women like her because she’s ordinary and they’re ordinary; same reason they liked Bush. It’s that simple. And no big mystery. Certainly doens’t make her presideny-worthy. If the GOP wants to run her it’s their call. But WHY she’s worthy of discussing at this point is beyond me.

    I think the Repubs need to work at 1) Finding a new message 2) Figuring out ways in which their many Governors can work on fixing problems in their many states 3) stop worrying about 2012 right now and get to work on helping to fix the country and be bi-partisan 4) stop thinking bout ME, ME ME ME and why they didn’t win…

    But, hey, that’s just my opinion.

  • Baronius, that’s one of feminism’s greatest laments. Men have exploited it for millennia!

  • Chris Rose Al Barger – I do weary of your constant and baseless accusations that I am full of hate, particularly since you’re supposed to be the editor monkey enforcing the “no personal attacks” business. Not agreeing with your pinko ludicrous crap doesn’t make me a hater. You simply proclaiming it over and over doesn’t make it so.

    As Clavos would say, there you go Al, I fixed up your comment for ya!

  • Baronius

    Dread, we agree on comment #20. And I don’t think that Noonan is jealous; I don’t know quite what it is. There’s an aphorism that the only thing more obvious than a man when he likes a woman is a woman when she doesn’t like a woman.

  • And Baronius, I don’t think it’s so much that Noonan and Parker were jealous of Palin. It’s that if McCain was going to pick a female running mate, there were literally dozens of more experienced and qualified Republican women he could have chosen.

  • I agree that everyone has a right to strive for a college degree, Baronius. My father-in-law couldn’t read or write at all until he was 12. He’s now an anesthetist at UC Davis Medical Center pulling down almost 200 grand a year.

    But colleges shouldn’t be pandering to the illiterate: that’s what remedial schools (and the military, which was my father-in-law’s route) are for.

    (I realize your tongue was in your cheek there: just wanted to make my position clear.)

  • Baronius

    Dread, in America, everyone has a right to a college degree. Haven’t you heard? We leave no child behind. We’ll pay for your college, and we’ll get you through to a diploma, no matter how far we have to lower standards. It doesn’t matter that my dad graduated high school with more knowledge in more fields than you’d pick up on your way to a Master’s degree.

    Al, imagine if Palin hadn’t spent the money to be well-dressed. Half the press would have mocked her lack of fashion sense; the other half would have accused her of playing hillbilly to pander to red state voters.

    Tobyt, interesting comments. I suspect that Noonan isn’t so much an elitist, as the kind of down-to-earth, intelligent woman who can’t stand it when another down-to-earh, intelligent woman succeeds. I don’t know about Kathleen Parker, but it was noticeable that Palin’s two strongest critics on the right were females.

  • Al, re comment #15,

    I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Keep in mind the old legal principle, if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table.

    Actually, I am reliably informed that 99.87% of the hate spewed during the recent campaign came from the dastardly Republicans and their minions, while only 0.13%* came from the enlightened Democrats and their loving compatriots, who hardly ever stooped to such things. I am confident that you already know this, but suggest that you keep it firmly in mind.


    *See, I can make up numbers pretty good. The first number may be too low, and the second too high, but it is not nice to offend anyone.

  • It’s also no coincidence that many British universities make you turn in a college-standard paper as part of your application. You also have to attend an interview, just as you would if you were applying for a job.

    If you can’t do basic things like read, write, add up or wipe your own arse, you shouldn’t even be considering college, IMHO.

  • Clavos


    Dead on. My criticism wasn’t of gummint schools, but of Amurrican gummint schools.

    It’s not a coincidence that all American colleges and universities offer remedial reading and writing courses to incoming freshmen…

  • Chris Rose- I do weary of your constant and baseless accusations that I am full of hate, particularly since you’re supposed to be the editor monkey enforcing the “no personal attacks” business. Not agreeing with your pinko crap doesn’t make me a hater. You simply proclaiming it over and over doesn’t make it so.

  • So how come I attended a guvmint school and know all kinds of weird stuff?

    I guess the British government knows how to edyumacate – or at least they did back in the fourth century BC when I was at school…

  • Clavos

    An average illiterate American high school student would know that much.

    And the average American high school student (and graduate) IS illiterate, because they’ve attended American government schools.

  • “Glenn, again so inflamed with hatred to not really know or care about facts or reality.” Big pot, kettle, black. Hilarity ensues!

  • Glenn, again so inflamed with hatred to not really know or care about facts or reality. You’re happy to take any little snip of anonymous backstabbing as gospel, like the nonsense about not knowing Africa is a continent. That doesn’t even pass the smell test. An average illiterate American high school student would know that much.

    That role of the vice president thing is pretty bogus as well. The specific constitutional role is pretty simple, and she would know that. But what exactly does a vice president do all day besides waying for the big guy to die? That’s something of an open question, with different answers in different modern administrations. One might legitimately have some questions about that.

    Granted, she has very little foreign policy experience. That’s definitely her weak suite, resume wise. But again, most presidents come in as governors with no foreign policy experience. Obama certainly doesn’t have any bit more credentials in foreign policy than she does – and I’d trust her judgment a LOT more than his.

    That she’s a little bit friendly with the Alaskan Independence third party is definitely a plus for her. Todd was apparently never a member in fact, other than on a voter registration form.

    The founder of this group many years ago talked a little radical, but unlike Obama’s WU pals, was never involved in acts of terrorism or violence against the US. They’re perhaps a bit on the radical side, but being friendly with them mostly would seem to mean being at least somewhat sensitive to states rights issues. That’s good.

    And BULLSHIT on the death threat thing. In fact, the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama were pretty tepid. What you’re saying is that no one should criticize the guy. Just let him roll in to the office (which is pretty much what McCain did anyway) lest you be held responsible for whatever jerks want to at least run their mouth about shooting him.

    The Obama press corps (NBC,etc) went on and on about one guy supposedly shouting kill him at a Palin rally – as if one random idiot would be a reflection on her, and despite the fact that it apparently never happened. Not even one idiot. Secret Service checked that out, and couldn’t find a second person among thousands to second one idiot’s malicious claim.

    But you want to just insist on your little narrative that McCain-Palin were trying to get Obama whacked – again, despite the kid gloves treatment McCain insisted on giving him. Geez, he wouldn’t even TOUCH Rev Wright.

    Somehow I doubt you were on the barricades condemning leftwing foamers at the mouth for their Bush Derangement Syndrome. Don’t you imagine that years of calling him BusHitler and a war criminal and other rabid, insane stuff resulted in more people wanting to whack W?

    What would Republicans say if Obama’s teenage daughter got pregnant? Not a goddam thing, or it would be to offer support. Which is MUCH better than the good compassionate tolerant left did for Bristol, isn’t it?

    Ruvy, a “saint” is exactly what we don’t need. Some messianic visionary who will save the world and heal the planet is a likely disaster. I’m looking for someone with a more humble view of their and our place. Big moral vision will lead us into crap quicker than almost anything. A green eyeshades type of guy like Romney is more what is needed.

    And enough with the dumb shit about the clothes. That’s largely a sexist thing. It’s not a significant point or a scandal that the RNC spent money to dress up the fam. Plus, it’s pretty obvious by this point that Palin did not request any of these clothes, and has been at some pains to sort them all out and send them back to the RNC that bought them.

    She’s a working girl, and not a clothes horse. It would be against everything we know of her to think that she would be grasping after some fancy rags. She’s never, ever been about any of that nonsense.

    Also, Sister Sarah is a beautiful woman, but don’t dismiss people’s admiration for her as sexual. That’s more cheap sexism. There’s no Republican carrying on in a sexual way about her that would equal Chris Matthews’ tingle. The Obama phenomenon has a far greater sexual component than Palin’s.

    As to me needing reminders, note that I’m addressing her as “sister” not “hottie.” As cute as the idea strikes me, I am refraining from the GILF theme. There are lots of good looking women, and nice tits are not a point of qualification for POTUS, anymore than THIS is any reason to vote Obama.

  • Good ol’ Sarah –

    Who didn’t know Africa was a continent, and not a country.

    Who didn’t know the job description of a Vice President – even after being asked a fourth time in three months.

    Who thinks her foreign policy experience is sufficient because (1) there’s a small Alaskan island where one can see Russia, (2) the Russian president’s plane flies over Alaska on its way to D.C., and (3) she got her first passport last year.

    Whose husband belonged for five years to a party that advocates secession of Alaska from America, whose founder cursed America and the American flag (never mind that as governor, she gave a taped welcome speech to the party’s convention earlier THIS year).

    Whose attacks on Barack Obama’s patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.

    And what’s really sad is that I’m going to get flamed for posting all this about Ms. Palin – and if any Democratic candidate had been guilty of any of the above, the Republican party would have raised hell nationwide. But since she’s a Republican, that’s all okay.

    (And one can only imagine what the Republicans would have said if Obama had a teenage daughter pregnant out of wedlock, whose boyfriend just dropped out of high school!)

  • tobyt

    Al, I am reading your post just as I am digesting the turnout analyses for the ’08 election. My sentiments exactly. Turns out, the most sophisticated disaggregations to date are showing that while the Dems turned out in dramatic fashion, the GOP’ers either (1) sat on their hands and/or (2) left the CEO-of-the-country part of the ballot
    frankly blank. Why don’t we admit what my lovely wife has been telling me for some time,
    “What in the world was our party thinking, leaving candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the dust?” JMc was not the best candidate for ’08; arguably, he was the worst. His best decision, which was, in fact, a hail mary for his campaign, and it almost worked, was his judicious embrace of Gov. Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin saved the GOP ticket from a historically embarrassing rout. Sans Palin, it was over at the GOP convention.
    I have been an avid reader of the conservative intelligentsia such as George Will, Peggy Noonan,
    the Buckleys, for decades, but I am with you on their elitism. Enough of the criticism of Obama being an elitist. It appears their affinity for elitism trumped their putative conservatism. In doing so they contributed mightily to the evisceration of the Republican party in 08.
    Still, with all this, my question is, was the majority sentiment anti-Palin or pro-Obama?
    My sneaking suspicion is that their disgust for
    W, and in many ways, rightfully so, for his faux-conservatism, led them, in their heart of hearts,
    to Obamaland. But, I reserve my greater disgust, or perhaps disappointment, for Charlie Crist, Florida GOP governor, who jumped ship and endorsed John McCain at the last minute, tipping, in my opinion, the eventual nomination to the least attractive, and in many ways, the least conservative of the GOP candidates. The political postmortems, their journalistic mercantilism notwithstanding, of the Palintologists is a bit premature.

  • Brother Al,

    I’d leave Sister Sarah to deal with the caribou up in the Freezer State, for the time being. I have the nasty feeling that you’ll need more of a saint than a Wal-mart mom to put your country back together in 2012. Maybe by then, Mrs. Palin (someone needs to remind you that she is a married woman) will have morphed into one.

    I tend to agree with you that she is more qualified than Mr. Obama to run the country, even though Obama has a better intellect and has seen a lot more of the world. He is, as you observe, a narcissist, writing his memoirs while still a youth. He is probably a gifted writer. Like Seinfeld, he wrote about nothing – and got people to buy it. Mrs. Palin, rushing to take advantage of the RNC chit to buy clothes while she had the opportunity, is far more like I would imagine most American women to be.

    But my real question is: since you wrote this as an open letter to Kathleen Parker, did you at least make sure she received it? Just curious….

  • Al: Very, very good article. You want somebody who went to Harvard? How about Jamie Gorelick? She’s got enough Harvard polish to f*** up anything.

  • Jindal is definitely likely competition. How’s about a Palin/Jindal ticket – or vice versa.

  • I’ll not be displeased if the GOP nominates Bobby Jindal in ’12. While I disagree with him strenuously on most social issues, there’s no doubt that he’s proving himself to be a very capable governor.

  • Baronius

    Al, I voted against Bush in the 2000 primary because I thought he didn’t have enough experience. I want someone to have experience at the grown-up table: Senate, House, Cabinet, Supreme Court, governor’s mansion, or military command. Palin has 2 years, Obama 4, Bush 6. I want to see more than 8 and less than Biden.

    Both parties have done a lousy job of building their starting lineups over the last 16 years. Cabinet jobs have gone to specialists and old-timers. House and Senate leadership has been, um, I can’t think of a polite word for it. If Obama’s smart, he’ll be grooming a new generation of party leadership. Republicans have got to support guys like Palin, Jindal, and Pence, and get people like Allen and Bolten into the think tanks and lecture circuits.

  • Brother Richards, I could imagine a number of possible points of why one might not dig on Sarah Palin, but narcissistic seems like a perfectly arbitrary accusation plucked out of the air. Anybody running for president has to have some ego to even think they could do the job.

    Now, Obama is WAY the most narcissisitc character of the current crop. He wrote basically two autobiographys – without ever having actually done anything. That One is the one with the messianic delusions that his own pure awesome wonderfulness will heal the planet and dissuade terrorists. The Wal-Mart mom here seems about as far from self-absorbed as anybody could be and actually run for office.

    Brother Baronius, I don’t understand why anyone would think that Sister Sarah is NOT perfectly well qualified for the job. Right now, she’s FAR more qualified based on experience and resume than President-elect Obama.

    Likely scenario is that she runs for re-election as governor. She’ll be a two term governor, and just as qualified or moreso than Bill Clinton or W. Now, she hasn’t had 100 years of residence in the senate like Biden, but she arguably has accomplished more to show herself capable of running things than Biden or Obama, or candidates W or Clinton.

  • Baronius

    Al, I like Palin, but I could never understand the notion that she was qualified for the presidency. People talk about Palin for 2012, but 2016 seems almost too soon. Let her prove herself as a governor for two terms before she starts touring the country campaigning. Or, there’s talk that she’ll move to the Senate, in which case she should put in at least a full term.

    I know that some people will say to strike while the iron is hot. It worked for Obama. But it’s never worked for anyone else. Republicans particularly give their nomination to the candidate with the most seniority.

  • Lee Richards

    She’ll never be president;not that many people can or will work with her narcissistic personality.