Monday, February 22, 2010

Palin unelectable, "relentlessly simple-minded," would be slaughtered

Well, here's the word, and it's pretty ominous:

For several decades, it has been an article of faith among politicians and political analysts that no candidate can win a U.S. presidential election unless he can dominate the broad center of the spectrum, that all candidates on the edges of the left or right are doomed. Barry Goldwater's "extremism . . . is no vice" campaign of 1964 provides the classic evidence, reinforced by George McGovern's 1972 defeat in 49 out of 50 states. And since G.O.P. Front Runner Sarah Palin relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if she wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign.

(...)

National opinion polls continue to show Obama leading Palin by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Romney would run better against the President. This suggests that Palin is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the 2012 election and that she clearly faces an uphill battle.

(...)

If popular unhappiness with domestic and world problems finally comes to rest at Obama's doorstep, voters may begin to see all sorts of previously invisible virtues in Sarah Palin.

(...)

Palin cannot hope to win, however, unless she moves beyond the hard-line conservative base that has sustained her since she first appeared on the national political scene as a spokesman for McCain himself. She has no experience in Washington politics or foreign affairs. Both Congress and the federal bureaucracy are as unfathomable to her as they were to Obama. Indeed one of Palin's major supporters in the Senate notes that the Alaskan is uncomfortable even visiting Washington.

(...)

Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Palin's relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems.

Surprised Justin Taylor didn't already post this? It does seem like a natural in the ongoing series. Pretty ominous-sounding and heavyweight. I didn't even put up the part about Palin's idiotic bibble-babble about drilling for oil and becoming self-sufficient.

Yeah, except... it wasn't really about Sarah Palin.

It was about Ronald Reagan, and the sonorous warnings were from Time magazine, thirty years ago.

I saw the original myself here, and was going to do just such a send up — until I saw that Joshua Livestro had already done it.

While you're at it, you might check out I Am Sarah Palin's Brain.

The instant response of the elitists would be: Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

But, as those of us who were actually there at the time remember: neither was Ronald Reagan, when he posed a political threat to the Establishment.

They're only admitting the truth about him now that he's dead.

53 comments:

P.D. Nelson said...

Can I still like Ron Paul more than Palin and keep reading this blog? In all seriousness Dan I know you like her but I think Paul is the better man (so to speak).

Andy Dollahite said...

Dan,

I think you are making a good point about Palin here and other places. But rhetorically, I find the Justin Taylor comment unnecessary. Not that my opinion counts for much, but I hope you don't sarcastically drop his name every time you return to anything related to Palin. And yes, I know that you generally hold him in high esteem.

Paula said...

Gold medal for you, DJP! I hope you sing when you're on the podium, because I think it's unpatriotic not to (unrelated rant).

I would venture a guess, having read Reagan's biography, that Palin has become a student of Reagan, both in policy and political tactics. And she's been a rather accomplished student.

A couple differences I see:

1. Reagan didn't generally strike back at his detractors with the gusto Palin does. He was more, "There you go again" than "Don't mess with my bear cubs!" This gave Reagan a more dignified "aura" (for lack of a better word)(IMHO).

2. The 24-hour news cycle and the internet have completely changed the way candidates are perceived/made/taken down. This is both a plus and a minus. Reagan was almost completely at the mercy of the MSM and had to rely almost entirely on Carter's ineptness and a couple debates to get his message across. Palin has this day in and day out proving ground that (probably) no human alive can survive. However, the alternative media has at least leveled the playing field.

DJP said...

Sure, PD. You can read and like whoever you wish, including an irresponsible nutcase like Ron Paul.

Paula, fair enough. I find her a refreshing change to W, who (I am sure) meant to be being big and above it all by never responding to critics, but instead succeeded in allowing his agenda, his party, and the country to be trashed by his hateful, tireless, lunatic opponents.

I'd say "Hi Mom" was along the lines of what you're suggesting, but others might disagree.

DJP said...

Wow, Andy. Justin puts up just about every elitist Palin-basher he can find, I mention his name once in one response-piece, and you reach saturation-point and cry despair. Yikes.

As to my regard for Justin, however, absolutely right. I still say he puts some of the very finest material out of any blog. Pity he occasionally lends it to the raised-pinkie Palin-bashers.

JackW said...

I couldn’t agree with you more Dan. I love it when they underestimate conservatives. But then, at one time I thought Newt was going to be the next great President. Now, not so much.

Scott said...

Dan,

Your comments on JT's blog were ridiculous. I'm glad Andy pointed out that your comments about him on this post are equally absurd.

If you had actually made a reasonable attempt to criticize George Will then perhaps others would have taken your position more seriously. As it was, you simply called him names and got your feathers ruffled when you were called out for it.

DJP said...

So, this comment of yours is, I take it, a model of how I should have interacted?

Hm... in that case, I'll have to find a way to go back and delete all of the content in my various comments.....

Scott said...

Seriously Dan. This is exactly what you did on JT's blog. Someone points out that you never made an argument, and your response is to accuse them of doing the same.

Great sarcasm. You do it well.

DJP said...

{ taking off shoes }

Let's see... two times zero is....

Chuck said...

I usually love DJP, but I guess I'm on the outs since I like Ron Paul- who, incidentally, is my Representative down here in Texas. I don't think he has a snowball's chance, but I still like him. Honestly, his 'skill set' seems to lend itself to being a Congressman anyway. Even if he is an 'irresponsible nutcase'.

I don't agree with all of JT's critiques, but I'm not a big Palin fan. In the future? Maybe, but sometimes I get the feeling she's a little too green. I don't think she's stupid (which is the general critique I hear) but she doesn't always come across as informed either. And if that makes me raised pinkie, then whoa. Never been called that before.

Totally off topic- I am reading Sailhamer's new book. My undergrad was NT heavy so I decided to dig into the OT. Let me tell you, Sailhamer is stretching me. So even if we disagree politically I think we can agree on that. Right?

LeeC said...

The hack job on Palin is pretty amazing. I think shwe would do a fine job, certainly better than anyone else I might see running right now. I'm still pining away at how we treated Fred Thompson though.

To be honest if I had my druthers I'd like to see a McClintock / Norris ticket. Perhaps with Ted Nugent as Sec. of State just to hear the wailing, and not his wailing mind you.

DJP said...

That would certainly be a lively ticket.

Chuck said...

Ok, so twice in the last three days blogger automatically logged me in to an old account that I forgot existed and I didn't even notice until the comment popped up with an old gravatar. I think I'll go delete that soon.

So that Chuck and this Chuck actually are the same. Man, I am so technologically impaired.

DJP said...

No, Chuck; that's not the raised-pinkie critique. She's a lot less "green" than the clueless neophyte currently occupying the Oval Office.

I've criticized her, and am in no way wed to a Palin candidacy. However, (A) there STILL is no more effective opponent to Obama's agenda, and I do love that about her; (B) I love who she drives nuts; (C) I find the general line against her contentless, elitist, and obnoxiously smug.

And Ron Paul is a barking loon who will have no positive impact on the situation.

If you're okay with knowing I think that, I'm okay with your not thinking the same.

DJP said...

Oh, and Sailhamer! I'm buried in 'way over head working on my Proverbs manuscript, or I'd probably be reading his recent book. He was a terrific teacher. I wish I could have studied under him a lot more.

Chuck said...

Nice to know my pinkie is safe.

I completely, on every level, agree about Obama.

It's alright about Paul- I defend your right to be wrong. :) I'm hoping his son Rand wins in KY- he's similar to his dad but will probably have broader appeal. Not so mean and grumpy. Fun fact: Paul got so popular because at one time there were only 2 OBGYN's in our county, Dr. Ron and his partner.

And one of the best parts of Sailhamer is that he can actually write! I mean, I was afraid it might be like reading Ladd. Pleasantly surprised.

Andy Dollahite said...

Dan,

I think it's a gross hyperbole to say JT "puts up just about every elitist Palin-basher he can find." I've followed you long enough (because I honestly like and respect you) to know that you tend to bring up the same names in connection with a particular topic. Like I said, I'd like to read your opinions on Palin in the future without seeing a shot in the ribs at JT too. Blessings on the day.

DJP said...

Then we read differently.

Carlo, how about you? See it Andy's way?

So Andy, how about if I promise not to mention Justin in this connection in a post any more frequently than he posts elitists Palin-bashes? Sound good?

Andy Dollahite said...

Sounds reasonable to me if you feel compelled to respond to every JT Palin post. Your blog, your choice. Blessings.

CR said...

DJP: Carlo, how about you? See it Andy's way?

Respectfully, no. To my knowledge, B2W has always referenced the conservative establishmentarians that don't like Palin - David Brooks, David Frum, George Will and "That is bullbleep" Peggy Noonan. (For those that don't know, when the announcement was made that Palin would be McCain's choice of VP, Noonan said, unbeknownst to her, over a hot mic, "That is bull!@#$."

Not once to my recollection, has B2W cited anyone outside of the conservative establishmentarian raised pinky group. I've not read B2W, for example, citing anything from Bill Kristol.

Sir Aaron said...

I live in Houston, Texas and most conservatives here think Ron Paul is absolutely nuts. So it's not as if Dan's position on RP is unique. With respect to Palin, I'm on par with DJP this one. Only out of sheer fascination, I'd love to see a Cheney/Palin ticket. Just watching the crazy libs writhe on the ground and foam at the mouth would be quite entertaining.

Paula said...

My points with point 1 and point 2 are that Palin probably has no choice. Our radically altered mass communication landscape calls for an immediate response to attacks in many cases.

That said, there's a question of familiarity breeding contempt. Palin, at times, has been guilty of over-sharing. If you're going to be leader of the free world, we don't need you to tweet, "Bought feminine hygiene products at Walmart today." Obviously, she hasn't done that, but like our pastors, we don't want to see our national leaders in the wild.

CR said...

Paula: If you're going to be leader of the free world, we don't need you to tweet, "Bought feminine hygiene products at Walmart today."

Why? (First, we don't know if she wants to be President, but that aside...), don't you women tweet and facebook about shopping sometimes? Should she stop being a woman, and just run to be a man politician?

I mean that's why people tweet and facebook because they want to advertise to the world about their personal lives. You won't catch me tweeting or on facebook, but if you're on it, that's what it's purpose is, no?

Scott said...

Ah, the infamous raised-pinky group! So good to see that this crowd loves the moniker, even if they haven't given the slightest clue as to why they choose to use it.

Look, you can bash Will for being pinky raised (which I gather indicates a disdain for his intellectual fortitude). However, I fail to see how that is any different than when the "liberals" critique Palin for being a simpleton.

Perhaps 3 x 0 = 0. Right.

Andy Dollahite said...

Dan and CR,

Searching B2W for Palin returns 4 relevant posts since the election (3x in July when she resigned, and 1x last week). JT linked once each to Noonan, Wehner, Hinderaker, Goldberg, Will, and Douthat. He never links to Brooks or Frum in relation to Palin, and we certainly never see him linking to Huff Post or Daily Kos where the real Palin-bashers reside. Given that JT posts about 32x/week, I'd hardly call 4 posts (1 post since last July) out of 2100+ since the election "[putting] up just about every elitist Palin-basher he can find" a reasonable description of the facts - at least if words still have meaning.

DJP said...

You, Andy, have an obsession, and an odd one.

Why limit it to post-election? I don't.

Let's see, in this post, Justin links to a Noonan piece, and quotes David Brooks.

But how many would it take to make you feel better about my doing this post, Andy? Has Justin linked to Steyn, or Wilson, or lesser lights such as yr obdt svt, offering different perspectives on Palin?

I mention Justin's name in this connection one time (among a history of often praising him, and linking to his as one of very few other blogs), and you're still wrought up? Should you maybe take a walk, or something, see if it passes?

Mesa Mike said...

> And since G.O.P. Front Runner
> (Sarah Palin | Ronald Reagan)
> relies upon a base of support that
> is on the far right wing of the
> Republican Party,


Where they make their mistake is in picking the reference point for what they call "center."

You see, if the Democrats are -5 on the number line, and the republicans are +5 on the number line, then it's reasonable to say that zero is "center.".

But if the number line is laid out against what the American people think about politics, then it seems like the Democrats are more like -20 on the number line and the Republicans are about a -2. The Democrats want us to think that -9 is "center."

CR said...

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to do this search... it was time wasted. I never said that Justin shared hit pieces written by all of these establishmentarians on his blog.

What I said was B2W always cites conservative establishmentarians. These establishmentarians have one thing in common, they don't have much appreciation for Palin. They've written it somewhere else, but not necessarily shared on B2W.

Andy Dollahite said...

What's crazy is that Dan can say JT "puts up just about every elitist Palin-basher he can find," I spend about five minutes on B2W and find this isn't true (search tools make this very quick), and somehow that is evidence that I'm obsessed and wasting my time rather than checking the facts. I do hope Mrs. Palin continues to be blessed, and y'all likewise. Enjoy the day.

DJP said...

I see; because "just about every elitist Palin-basher he can find" is actually, in common usage, a mathematical formula meaning "every article ever written by any elitist Palin-basher on the planet, anywhere, since the election."

That does clear things up.

threegirldad said...

Scott: Look, you can bash Will for being pinky raised (which I gather indicates a disdain for his intellectual fortitude).

In which case you "gather" incorrectly. What it actually indicates (speaking for myself, at any rate) is a disdain for his breathtaking arrogance and hubris.

Andy Dollahite: I do enough blog reading to recognize your name; you aren't a complete stranger to me. And I have a hard time believing that you can't recognize hyperbole when you see it.

Scott said...

A "disdain for his breathtaking arrogance." Wow. That's incredibly ironic on a so many levels.

DJP said...

...he sneered blithely once again.

Sir Aaron said...

Conservative establishmentarians, IMHO, tend to try to eliminate social conservative values from the conservative moniker. That's why they are safe. They only tend to be fiscally conservative and even then, will at least shade left. There's a little secret that people haven't quite figured out. It's the conservative social values that lead to conservative fiscal policies. Once you divorce social principles from your worldview, it's difficult to remain conservative fiscally.

BTW, women seem much more vicious towards Palin than do men, at least IMHO. Which is odd because if it weren't for her stated social values, shed be the model for a woman can have it all and do it all feminism.

Sir Aaron said...

Conservative establishmentarians, IMHO, tend to try to eliminate social conservative values from the conservative moniker. That's why they are safe. They only tend to be fiscally conservative and even then, will at least shade left. There's a little secret that people haven't quite figured out. It's the conservative social values that lead to conservative fiscal policies. Once you divorce social principles from your worldview, it's difficult to remain conservative fiscally.

BTW, women seem much more vicious towards Palin than do men, at least IMHO. Which is odd because if it weren't for her stated social values, shed be the model for a woman can have it all and do it all feminism.

threegirldad said...

Andy: I missed a previous comment of yours where you objected by saying, "I think it's a gross hyperbole..." My apologies.

Scott wrote:
That's incredibly ironic on so many levels.

Naturally. Feel free to come back and put some substance behind that ditty.

Here's the thing, Scott: I've been watching and reading George Will -- pretty closely, in fact -- for about 30 years now. I can be a selective admirer of the man and also call a spade a spade (that's where the disdain comes in; it's directed at his contemptible behavior, not his intellect).

There's nothing even remotely (much less incredibly) ironic about it.

Andy Dollahite said...

3GD,

Hope all is well this evening. You said, "I have a hard time believing that you can't recognize hyperbole when you see it."

I hope my 8:55 am comment this morning soothes any concerns you may have had about my reading skillz ;)

See ya around brother.

CR said...

That's an interesting point you raise, Sir Aaron. Wasn't that the issue with the Republican establishmentarians when Reagan was running for office? I don't know, didn't follow politics then, I was more interested as a child watching the "Superfriends." Didn't they have disdain for some of the social values that Reagan stood for? Hence, now replace Reagan with Palin? Hmmm...why am I thinking that, oh yeah, it was the topic of Dan's post.

As far as women hating Palin more than men, I have two theories. One is Palin is an affront to so-called women's rights. There was no way they were going to have a Vice President with her down syndrome's child running around in the White House lawn because it would remind them of their sad and pathetic lives.

Second theory is this: you know how liberals fear Palin, well, the reason is because a lot of voters like her (hmmm...maybe it's why the conservative establishmentarians dislike her too...but anyway), I think that's another reason why more women hate her, because a lot of men like her.

I remember a friend of mine asking me why in the world I liked Palin and it just bugged him (he couldn't stand her) and even though I tried telling him it's about her stances, he came back with, "oh, I know why, it's because she's beautiful, you are attracted her, that's why, it's the only reason why." He could not get into his thick headed skull that it was about the issues.
So, I thought, I wonder how many women think the same?

I suspect a lot of these women hate or dislike her, especially liberal women, but maybe some of the female establishmentarians also because their husbands really like her too. They do see a beautiful woman (I'm allowed to say that because I'm single), yes, but one that is smart, down to earth and not uptight about life. The men like that and the women are jealous. So, that's my musing on it.

GrammaMack said...

CR said, "I think that's another reason why more women hate her, because a lot of men like her...They do see a beautiful woman (I'm allowed to say that because I'm single), yes, but one that is smart, down to earth and not uptight about life. The men like that and the women are jealous."

I'm thinking that with condescending and ugly beliefs like that about women it may be fortunate that you are single. Or maybe you need a wife to set you straight.

DJP said...

Oh, Gramma, I don't think CR's being condescending. I've heard many women say the same thing, women jealous of other women. Haven't you?

GrammaMack said...

DJP, I AM a woman, with four sisters and other female family members and friends. I have never hated or disliked a woman because she was beautiful, smart, and/or attractive to men, and I highly doubt that any of them have either. That's just ridiculous to me. Is it true of a few women? Probably, just as some men may hate other men who are more athletic or attractive to women than they are. Is it true of all or most women? Not the ones I know, and I think it's a terrible assumption to make and, yes, condescending and demeaning. And I'm in no way a feminist.

GrammaMack said...

Also, CR said about his friend: "'oh, I know why, it's because she's beautiful, you are attracted her, that's why, it's the only reason why.' He could not get into his thick headed skull that it was about the issues."

Then CR turns around and says in effect about women,"oh, I know why, it's because she's beautiful, you hate her, that's why, it's the only reason why."

By the way, I'm a Sarah Palin fan.

Over and out.

DJP said...

Then CR wasn't talking about you, was he, Gramma? And yet you responded with about the most insulting personal attack I can easily remember on this blog.

I'm disappointed you wouldn't accept my attempt to smoothe the waters. You're dead-wrong about CR. I know him personally, and he's a good guy. If I knew a single woman interested in meeting a good Christian brother, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him.

I may have made a mistake in not deleting your initial response, but I was confident the misunderstand could be easily cleared up.

I'll have no more of it, though.

Chuck said...

I bet the reason DJP doesn't like Ron Paul is because Paul is so attractive. ;)

Sir Aaron- Whereabouts in the Houston area, if I might ask? I'm down in Brazoria County- not really Houston, but there's nothing else here so that's what we always tell people. Down here, people either love Paul or they hate him; he definitely evokes a strong response.

sem said...

I'll have to second DJP. While I don't know CR personally as he does, I've read enough of him over the past year or so to agree that you have judged him rather harshly.

Just because you are not petty enough to judge another woman out of jealously doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and with alarming frequency. I've been on the receiving end in a business setting, more than once. It does happen.

Andy Dollahite said...

GrammaMack,

I don't know CR personally, but I trust DJP's testimony concerning him. Further, I am married (happily so), and I think his point about jealousy is quite reasonable (as was his first theory!). It's truly splendid that you and your family/friends don't respond to other women the way he has described, but I've seen more than a few instances of it in the last seven years teaching high school.

DJP said...

I bet the reason DJP doesn't like Ron Paul is because Paul is so attractive. ;)

Gahh! Found out!

GrammaMack said...

"And yet you responded with about the most insulting personal attack I can easily remember on this blog."

My sincere apologies to you, to CR, and to the rest of the readers. It was not meant to be a personal attack, but that doesn't matter if that's how it was taken. I should have worded it differently. Please forgive me.

DJP said...

For my part, apology gladly accepted.

And if you'd said "maybe you need a wife to set you straight" to me, I'd have been compelled to plead guilty. Thank God I've got just the woman for the job.

(c:

CR said...

I accept your apology, GrammaMack!

GrammaMack said...

Thank you so much.

Sir Aaron said...

For the record, I've had a lot of female colleages tell
me that they had to be careful around other women colleagues much more so than male colleagues because "women are more vicious towards each other."

chuck: I'm in north Harris county near cypress. Zipped to 77095.