We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, December 3. 2010
I am not a Palin "fan"
I think she is a celeb, and if she runs for office, she'll be a celeb candidate. Obama was a celeb candidate, and we see how that worked out. We live in a world of non-serious, lens-lice celebs who take themselves all too seriously, and I don't like that.
Furthermore, I refuse to get all tingly about any pol. I tend not to think very highly of pols, as a class, and I tend to be suspicious of any pol's seductive talents because it is so often a substitute for substance.
It's been explained to us here that Presidential candidates are just figureheads of vast, sprawling political parties and power and money interests. The candidate is "the talent," as they say in show biz and in the sports biz. I take that into account, and I know that in our TV and YouTube age, this applies to politicians much more than it used to.
This is not to say that I do not like Sarah. I do like her, and she's clearly a colorful figure and an exciting spokesperson for many people. I'd hunt or fish with her anytime.
My thoughts are in reference to Potemra: Rumblings of Discontent — on Palin
Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 15:49 | Comments (54) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I like Mrs. Palin too, quite a lot. But we all saw how the MSM, who are very good at what they do, demonized her in the eyes of the public, and rather quickly at that. She went from "tough... fresh... appealing... principalled" to an inexperienced stupid country bumpkin in record time.
In my opinion, she just can't win. We need a real man, emphasis on MAN, to step up to the plate. Someone with the balls and intelligence to counter the MSM's BS, or go over their heads directly to the American people. Remind anyone of a certain former president?
The more the camera and microphone is put to her the more her real self displays; she is an inexperienced, stupid Alaska bumpkin.
That she ain't a man is the sinker, i agree.
"High floor, low ceiling" is what you guys wrote, and I agree. Palin isn't qualified, and I don't see her studying up (like someone said Reagan did) to get there.
She got way too much guff, in her VP run. On a NPR interview Feb 2008, rebroadcast the night of her nomination, she was quite conversant and intelligent.
She seems to believe that by sticking to bumpkin grass roots, she's more endearing. That's style, not substance. She can communicate on that level, but what she's communicating needs to be well-informed and well thought out. She's not doing the heavy lifting part of that.
She won't win a general election if she doesn't do this, and I agree w/ the author's acquaintance, she won't win the primaries if she doesn't do this.
Unfortunately, the GOP has no-one poised to win the 2012 general election. Make no mistake, they do have to win it...Obama is bad, but he does have his true believers, "High floor, adjustable ceiling."
A couple of points:
1. If we let the MSM define our candidates, we have lost already. They will always glorify the leftist regardless of his qualifications or lack of same.
2. It seems to me that Palin has displayed some balls when she kicked out a bunch of corrupt 'pubicans' in AK.
3. While she is somewhat polarizing, she has certainly succeeded in creating a buzz around her (I also agree that her celebrity status is not enough for a serious candidate - that is conservative candidate. It's plenty for a leftist candidate.) The left is falling all over itself to demonize her and it seems pretty funny to me. That seems to demonstrate some ability to go around the MSM.
4. I agree she would probably have a hard time winning and I would prefer a different candidate. I think she makes a better "spokesperson" than a candidate.
5. There are other people who can win. It's likely that we don't even know who they are yet. I could support any number (actually almost anybody but Obummer) such as Haley Barber, Bobby Jindal, and Mike Pence.
I’m amused that so many are spending so much energy trying to convince each other of her shortcomings.
Meanwhile, she’s out there working on what might be a brilliant campaign to extend the value of her brand. If her negatives are not rooted in much fact and are more the product of Big Media defining her, she needs more people to see more of her without too much “handling”. Then the eyes will start to contradict the preconceptions and she gains credibility and support.
There are a million reasons to lose and only a few paths to victory. Rather than dwell on all the difficulties, I find it far more interesting to speculate on how she could win. So far, she’s on the path.
IMO, Palin is a lightweight. Definately a celeb, too.The MSM may have made her a celeb but she was a lightweight long before the MSM got ahold of her.
How can such a lightweight influence the political narrative so much? Recall death panels. IMHO, if she were the lightweight you consider her, she would not have such influence on the political narrative.
Yes, she does lack experience, and yes, a large percentage of the population has a very negative view of her. That is important for electability.
She has 4 years of executive action, successful results, and experience at the State level. 8 mayoral years. She left the governorship because it was best for Alaska, and best for her family. She is an archetypal American success story: hard work, positive attitude, priorities straight. This is a good enough backstory to start from.
She does things her way, and she's successful at it. That she doesn't do it your or my preferred way is not necessarily bad. Time will tell. Like MacArthur, she's not retreating, she's choosing to advance in a different direction.
She said herself, if she see's somebody better who represents and will defend her values, she's outta there. Who would that be? I cannot imagine any of the other candidates saying such a refreshingly honest thing. Palin competes from the front, doesn't hide behind layers of advisors and focus groups.
The way to gain the Presidency has to be the candidate's way. There isn't anyone alive who can say what will happen in the next two years. Successful candidates fire up the enthusiastic base first, and then suck in the wishy-washy middle who in their rational ignorance, really just want to side with a winner. But for each candidate, the path to do this is idiosyncratically unique.
If you go with the candidates you've got, rather than the theoretical one you want, who best can do these two things? McCain's way, first be and then woo the middle, because your base will hold their nose and vote for you, is now shown to be a fail.
To gain the presidency, your voters are enthusiastic and run to the polls, while the other side trudge there and hold their noses.
Why's everybody pro and anti talking about her? Because she generates enthusiasm! The key to the Presidency.
Will there be a person yet alive in these United States who will be enthusiastic about voting again for Obama?
Could it really be that during Missy Pit Bull with Lipstick's 2nd mayoral stetch Wassilla's long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million?
Waw, waw, what a woman!
Yall yankee's need to stop spending so much tiome chasing an education and get a firm grip on yall's mind.
are you kidding me .give me someone with old fashioned values any day. I dont care if she lives in a log cabin and eats opossum stew,just protect my freedoms and the American way of life.
I have long been leery of Affirmative Action candidates. Having said that, I believe the bottom line is that Palin has a real chance to win the primary and become the nom.
If that happens it comes down to who you gonna vote for, Palin or 0bama?
If things stand as they are now, I think even Bonzo would have a shot at beating the 0 in 2012. Whoever runs against him will have a good chance to win. My opinion.
Principles --"THE" Principles. If ya gotta be a rural to be able to voice them so that the world can can make no mistake, then so be it.
BTW Reagan started studying political economics while president of a union, after seeing the outside red influence at work and noting its lack of any scruple. He wrote his own speeches, in longhand on a legal pad, at least on the way up and then some. "The speech" in 1964 (see it on youtube)? Yup --wrote it hisself, all by his lonesome.
The continuing worry about Palin, on the right, is that she is a charismatic, not that she's stupid --tho many making the argument don't even realize that that's the bug.
That the left snorts that she can't win, is typically numbskull --if she can't win, they should be lovin' on her. The hatin' on her means they're scared shitless of her.
I respectfully disagree, Barrister. Governor Palin's celebrity has ridden atop a tsunami of Marxist Media sewage which has repeatedly failed to soil her character and left the left covered in, well, you know. She is more than man enough for the job, and has done more to lift America's spirit in these hard times than all the "spread-the-wealth" Socialists that occupy The People's Houses. You betcha' I'll vote for her.
I don't hold anything against Sarah Palin. It is a fact of life that many people focus on a set of attributes, and personal charisma, and "tribal" associations, in the "race" for elective office, most especially to the office of President.
The problem is that the very characteristics that make for an exciting race and an appealing candidate have little or nothing to do with the ability to govern, and to carry out the duties of the constitutional office of the President.
So every four years we look over all those coiffed and polished Senators, do we like their personalities and their "positions on the issues"? Or worse, are they "emblematic of our best hopes and dreams and self image as Americans"?
What we need in the office is executive talent and willingness to use the Administrative branch to accomplish things sometimes in conjunction with Congress, sometimes despite differences with Congress. And we need a foreign policy and national security leader, hopefully with statesmanlike qualities.
The election process and race filters for one type of outcome, but governing requires a different focus.
Me, I would rather skip the fun and games of the election excitement and do a serious hiring decision based on what the job really requires.
Palin would make a fine senator from alaska or talk show host. President? not so much. If this is the best the GOP can do, good luck with that.
Well, we'll see how things go, no? I think Romney has the best resume and I'd be happy to see him in the cabinet, but I don't want him making the big decisions about the direction to go, I don't think he has good instincts at that level, Palin might be a better choice there. And in a war you want a general, not just staff officers; without leaders and fighters you might as well go home. I think we are in a war in this country and I want a winner. So we'll see who steps forward to make their mark.
When I look back at the presidents who've occupied that office since Eisenhower, I see the character of the person and his political philosophy as way more important than his "experience" as a politician. Jack Kennedy was inexperienced when he was elected president; today many people long for a return to those halcyon days of Camelot. Nixon and LBJ were both very experienced in government service; they left us with the legacies of Watergate and Viet Nam, respectively. Does anyone reading this blog actually long for a return to either of those administrations? I think not. The problem with Obama is not that he was inexperienced when he was elected, but his Leftist ideology. Would anyone here seriously have voted for a Leftist Obama in 2008 if he had had the experience in government of a Nixon or Johnson? I don't think so.
H-m-m, let's see, which argument should we try this time?
1.) "She's inexperienced" - councilwoman, then mayor of small city, then commissioner of Oil-Gas for Alaska (pretty big job I think) then governor of largest state. Nope, no executive experience there, especially compared to what her opponent had when HE was first elected...
2.) "She polarizing" - I think that any principled candidate would HAVE to be, especially when her predecessor is so far to the OTHER end of the spectrum. For me, she’s shown enough independence to indicate that this is NOT correct. While governor, she showed enough pragmatism to get the job done. Her mistake was in allowing “the gnats to continuously bite her ankles” i.e., the nuisance lawsuits that were continuously filed against her, taking her time and attention away from governing. Will she have that problem in the White House? Possibly, but she has shown that she can take a punch, and get back up. Pres. Obama, not so much...
3.) "The left and media HATE her" - IMHO, “this is a feature, not a bug”; More of the country self-identifies as conservative (39%) rather than liberal (20%), so in order to get all of those people out to the polls, the election of 2012 MUST generate enthusiasm. I think we can agree that Gov Palin's charisma will accomplish that, for BOTH sides, actually. How can more participation in the electoral process be a bad thing?
4.) "She's stupid" - I have seen interviews that she gave BEFORE she was ever selected as a vice-presidential candidate; I didn’t see much difference between that Sarah, and her speeches now, except that the subject matter is different, and the media has now had a chance to form our opinion about her for us. Look, the media has TRIED everything and anything they can think of, to firmly entrench their vision of her, in everyone's mind. The fact is that no matter how you look at it, NO ONE in recent memory has had this much (whatever) thrown at them, and never backed down. You CERTAINLY cannot claim that she is not “well vetted”, compared to the current resident of 1600 Penn Ave; we STILL don't know what kind of things he was doing during his years at Columbia. Again, with all the scandals that occur in politics these days, I say "this is a feature, not a bug."
5.) "She's not ready to govern" - see #1. But seriously, I believe that she has the capability to surround herself with good people, AND that she is can make a decision, which is what a LEADER needs to do; not be a policy wonk, or “the smartest person in the room”, or any of those things the press has accused Mr. Obama of being (wrongly, in my opinion). Again I stress, we need a LEADER as president, who is able to gather opinions from others, and then make a decision based on that info.
I'm sure I missed some of the Democratic opposition’s talking points, but I'd sure like to hear them, so I can refute them too!
Golly, Senator Harkin thinks Obama may be a Palin supporter, too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/harkin-if-obama-caves-on-_n_791589.html
There's a half dozen i could enthusiastically support (Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christi, others), but Palin has something none of the others have (well duh, but i don't mean femaleness) --i think it may be that the common virtues are so much a part of her and yet so lightly rest there --and some of us, many of us, are simply soul-sick stuck here in the Age of Irony and would love to escape with a president who just says ''pooh'' to all that, and goes right to work.
If i can't have 1955, then at least gimme Sarah!
--and the 50s BTW were far more stylish and sophisticated than today --i was just a little kid but I have TCM and history and do recall that adults were confident and funny and serious and had no notion of being anything but fully-realized weighty people with full rights to be here on the planet. i mean, if you have to regard your convictions, they ain't convictions --they're preferences --and you're 'tentative'.
Tentativeness is our cultural energy sink --and Sarah Palin is not tentative.
(wow, when you write it down, it gets clear!)
Yep, not a East Coast Lib or Ivy Leaguer, or an "Academic" so you do not like. Oh wait, and the MSM doesn't like her, with their noses in the air, or up someones rectum.
Just a citizen politician, "Real" person, someone who has contributed to her community on a local and state level (unlike BHO).
I like her and would vote for her. Should she run, I would volunteer for her campaign. She represents what the independence/tea party movement is all about.
Certainly few thought Truman would be a great President -he was considered just a book-end, a place holder. Not quite the way it worked though was it?
BTW, whoever posted the original illo has over-contrasted and overbrightened, the classic way to almost subliminally uglify a pic and harshen the human image in it.
So she's not good enough to be President in your eyes? I'm disappointed in you Barrister. She's not like you and yours so she should just slink off and shut up. Well guess what she is a lot more qualified and smarter than you and she has convictions and sticks to them. The big deal and you can admit it, is that she isn't from the Northeast and wasn't educated there. She's not good enough for you is she?
Mike, I don't need to defend Barrister here (now that's rich--Barrister can represent himself in this court!)...
...but it sounds like your issues would be much better handled by talking to Dr. Joy Bliss!
I've got no issues, i'm just tired of a certain segment of the population thinking that they are entitled and better than the rest of the country and the Barrister seems to be infected by that as are you. It really gets under some people's skin when someone comes out of nowhere and on their own makes something out of themselves without the right family and connections. It's called jealousy I think. You people think wait a minute, I'm smarter and better educated than her, why aren't I in the public eye like her? Envy, no matter how high minded and well-disguised is still one of the deadly sins.
I just don't get how you infer all these feelings from Barrister.
One thing that concerns me about Gov. Palin is her supporters. I was, and am, deeply troubled by Pres. Obama's cult of personality. We shouldn't replace it with another one.
Yall have made a cogent point; her supporters are sure tell sign this girl, Missy Sarah ain't got the right stuff.
Do you mean, the celebrity appeal? I'd say that's unfortunate but not her doing --that's an existing info channel and a pretty wide and deep one at that.
A true personality cult would pertain if she could say, start violating tea party principles --and her cultists would go along with it, zombie-style. This wouldn't happen --she'd be abandoned post haste.
What creates the enthusiasm is her determined persistence in holding to the great time-tested idea of conservatism.
What the left media says is vapidity is her refusing to allow vanity to lead her off into a show of ''see how smart I am?'' --exactly the trap the left media is trying to goad her into.
She does Will Rogers' "All I know is what I read in the papers" --just before she puts flounders out of their misery --and that includes sometimes the fish.
...like i said, leag, not all flounders are fish.
The number of comments on this site proves that Sarah sells soap! However, soap is not the product at hand.
Hey - we'd vote for her over any Lib alternative. Not to worry about that.
It was flame bait, BD. When you've got marshmallows to toast on a snowy morn you need a bit of heat. Now, what I would be interested in is The Barrister's thoughts on who he would like to see run and what they have done to polish their Marciano credentials. The presidency isn't all execute this and execute that, nor can the president fire an obstreperous public. Politics at the top level is a blood sport and the only two punchers I see at the moment are Christy and Palin. Palin didn't pick the fight she is in, it was forced upon her, but she is holding her own against the hordes after starting on a shoestring. I don't see anyone else who comes even close in that department.
to chuck, and everyone else that has expressed the similar opinion:
I love her. I too would vote for her against any liberal, for sure. Principles (I spelled it right this time) count way more with me than any polished politician crap....
SHE CAN'T WIN!!!
That's all there is to it, she can't win. You think it was bad what the media did to her just running for VP? You ain't seen nothing yet. I believe she can personally hold her own in the face of the coming attacks, but that's not the point. Public opinion, and votes, is the point. And we all know, or should know, how that will work out. The election of one Barack Hussein Obama, despite all his shady past, should alone be proof of that.
Al, the one thing I have learned over the last couple of elections is that I'm absolutely lousy at predicting the future. So I'm not even going to hazard a guess at who is electable or who will be nominated. Two years is an eternity in politics.
I agree with everything you just said, chuck, and I hope I get proven wrong regarding Palin, in lieu of a better conservative candidate.
#22.214.171.124.1 Big___Al on 2010-12-04 19:06 (Reply)
I think there is truth in how different parts of the country view Sarah Palin. She deifies the "approved" method of being a serious candidate from urban and Northeast Corridor areas.
I have news for some of you that take this view. The Tea Party revolt is much more than just limiting government. A big part is getting rid of politicians that play the DC or State Capital two-step. Tell me one thing on the campaign trail and then do another once safely elected. A lot of us don't see Palin doing the two-step. We also identify with her background and views of matters. Call it common sense if you will but it's a trait that is sorely lacking form the approved politicians.
I love Sarah. I love her attitude and I love how she can get the conservative up on their feet clapping and moving them to the polls to vote. I think she is a very good spokesperson for the conservative movement, however, she would not be my choice for the republican nominee.
I have to conclude......PALIN OVER HUCKABEE ANYTIME.... I can't stand that "Gome Pyle" lookalike.
I know that a lot of people like Huckabee, though I have to wash my hands after I see him.
Christian Huckster is what I see.
Makes a good TV Evangalist though, doesn't he?
Gotta hose myself off after Hucksterbee, truly...
Please let it be someone else!
As of 2010, Wasilla's population is 10,524 people. Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 92.29 percent.
In 2008, Wasilla's current mayor credited Palin's 75 percent property tax cuts and infrastructure improvements with bringing "big-box stores" and 50,000 shoppers per day to Wasilla. A local gun store owner said Palin made the town "more of a community ... It's no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat." At the conclusion of Palin's tenure as mayor in 2002, the city had about 6,300 residents.
The debt build leag mentions is as usual framed in the utterly nonsensical 'single-entry bookeeping' style of partisan politics and little babies in the financial woods.
It describes half of a transaction. The spending side of a transaction, half a ratio, which is no analysis at all.
In fact it is such a remarkably ignorant thing to use it to describe a change in a balance sheet, that it is in fact slang-used as a description of expenses, operating costs, consumption, et cetera, as a shorthand, with the implied discrimination that a balance sheet item is not the topic at all, where the lack of any capital spending and the value of the capital assets is listed on the other side of the ledger, the other entry in 'double-entry bookkeeping'*.
As such, then, to slip it in as a balance sheet item without mentioning that it is not all expensed but represents capitalization appearing on the other side of the ledger, is to tell a fiberooskie, a whopper, a big phat ell-eye-eee.
*Double-entry, which has been in use worldwide since the Abacus was developed during the dawn of history.
So, two things are needed --what was the money spent on, and if property, how does it appraise? Does it cash flow? What is the net discounted value of the cash flow?
THEN, leag, my dear wall-eyed friend, you can begin (if you are able) to form an actual opinion, rather than lazily launched smear tactics, on Palin's record as mayor of Wasilla.
(BTW, it it getting any clearer why Palin's supporters are accused of personality cultism? Could it have anything to do with having to defend against attacks that aren't even attacks, but just something akin to loud farting in public gatherings?)
Thanks for doing the leg work on that, buddy. I must admit that leag had me wondering for a while on that one. Glad you cleared it up.
(Naughty, naughty leag!)
you bet, big al --frankly i had no idea she had done so much to actually ''found'' a ''new'' Wasilla --which, if you read the mtrl on the web, she more or less did. The excerpts i quoted are just a quickie couple of finds in a large volume of material --
If mz Palin was a Dem, i guarantee you'd be hearing ad nauseum bumper sticker slogans about "Mother Palin the Savior of Wasilla" and motions to put her on Rushmore.
But she's NOT a Dem, so you gotta wait for leag to come blathering along and force ya to dig it out of the web --LOL
"Mother Palin the Savior of the Native American Peoples of Wasilla!"
Boo, yall didn't clear anything up but cemented once again that yall are a trooper for the Alaskan demagoge and Founder of Wasilla and Savior of the Natives now (???), too.
How do yall know when yall've caught a fish, Boo?
#126.96.36.199.1 Leag on 2010-12-06 19:01 (Reply)
leag, maybe the reason nobody can ever clear anything up for you is not due to the arguments but due to your being really really dense.
Waddaya think? Possible?
#188.8.131.52.1.1 buddy larsen on 2010-12-06 20:20 (Reply)
Golly boo, does yall really think i'm lookin' to yall, a wagging tail for clearin' anything up?
How do yall know when yall've caught a fish, boo?
#184.108.40.206.1.1.1 Leag on 2010-12-06 20:52 (Reply)
LOL --no, to repeat my previous comment for you, i think you're not looking for anyone to clear anything up for you. If you were, you'd argue or debate every once in awhile.
#220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 buddy larsen on 2010-12-07 06:00 (Reply)
Boo, anyone is welcome but yall need understand i don't argue with mentally challenged.
You should give it a try. You want to make progress, don't you? Besides, you might win one someday.
We'll have a whole slew of "qualified" candidates to choose from. We'll have the "qualified" Mitt Romney, who will know from experience just what to do to make ObamaCare work right. We'll have the "qualified" Mike Huckabee. He'll make compassionate conservatism work this time. Who knows, we might even have Big John McCain a second go-round, now who could possibly be more "qualified" than Big John.
Why, there's all kinds of people in the Senate and the House who are more "qualified" to be President than Mrs. Palin. Why not give them a shot at healing our country and solving our problems. Why, they've had years of "experience" and an insiders knowledge of all of our problems.
Every single one of them!!!
I think a great deal of Governor Palin's media image is the result of persistent 'decapitation' hits.
There seems to be a pattern of MSM going after any rising conservative political figures.
The tactic is a win if you have a vague feeling of unease about a political person, and little solid to go on to say why.
I'd rather have a candidate with some blemishes, if they get me closer to a smaller, less-controlling government.