Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Evangelical scholar John Mark Reynolds has a review of Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue in First Things and the results are not pretty (from Palin's perspective). Reynolds is a fan of Palin's, yet he absolutely blisters the book and finds that it rather dramatically diminished his ability to support her in the future.
He gives a list of ten things he learned from the book. Here are some samples:
Her publisher did not fact check this book well (if at all). She was badly served by her publisher and editor. People who criticize me for nit-picking her use of quotations miss the point. I am a fan . . . though now a weary one . . . and I found the errors. The publisher had to know that her critics would check every fact.How can I in a single day with no help find error after error when I am no writer, no editor (as this blog post indicates), and no specialist?
Second, Sarah Palin has not grown in the year since the election. Those of us who hoped that Palin had been "hidden" by the campaign know the truth now. She still is what she was.
She is smart, but not book-smart. She has common sense, but not practical wisdom. These are not fatal flaws, but she shows no signs of changing or recognizing them...
Fourth, Palin has the makings of a splendid executive and is a gifted speaker. She could learn what she needs to know, but my fear after reading this book is that she does not care to learn it...
Sixth, Palin is most effective in new media because the way it is typically used plays to her strengths. However, it also encourages her weaknesses as it tends to build a like minded community with too little criticism and allows her to stick to sound bites and generalities.
Seventh, Palin uses books as entertainment, to get information, and to confirm beliefs. I see no evidence she reads as an intellectual adventure or to change her mind. This is dangerous in a political leader as it tends to make leadership personality driven rather than idea driven.
Eighth, Palin is sensitive to the charge she is "dumb," but has not been given the tools or the teachers who can help her. (Has she sought them out?) She needs teachers who assume her intelligence, who challenge her, and speak her Evangelical language. Such teachers (see Moreland, J.P.) exist and she should seek them out...
Sadly, I now believe the burden of proof has shifted. While an excellent chief executive in Alaska, there is reason to believe that Palin lacks the intellectual skills needed to be an effective President. Most important, she does not seem to recognize this and shows no sign of getting them.
I think that last point, expressed several different ways, is the key to the whole thing. Palin has internalized and firmly believes all those stupid misological platitudes about "common sense" being more important than deep knowledge and the ability to reason about it in a meaningful way. What choice does she have but to internalize such cliches? It's not as though she has an option of being anything other than what she is.
That's the source of her endless bleatings about the enlightened virtues of the "Joe Six Packs" of the world, as opposed to those arugula-eating and book-reading "elitists" and "pointy headed intellectuals." This is a very deep strain in American culture and Palin is not only the president of the anti-intellectual club, she's also a client. She is a victim of it just as surely as she is its more prominent advocate.
George W. Bush was virtually identical in his approach to such issues. He was absolutely convinced that he had some special insight, some mystical ability based on prayer, to reach the right conclusion and to hell with those high-fallutin "experts." His self-confidence in that regard was virtually supernatural. Palin is his doppelganger in this respect. And those are very, very dangerous people to have in power.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: a different phil | December 1, 2009 10:17 AM
The first week Ms. Palin's book was out I spent some number of hours commenting in reviews written by Amazon users. I fisked both those writing reviews and those who joined me in commenting in the reviews though they in defense of Ms. Palin. My comments nearly exclusively focused on presenting empirical evidence coupled to independently validated citations falsifying the Palinista's perspective of Ms. Palin, e.g. her supposed: honesty, leadership skills, devotion to public service, team player, common sense, similarities to President Reagan, etc. All the exact opposite of Ms. Palin's actual qualities.
I got to know Ms. Palin's fans quite well. The single distinguishing lesson I learned about this subset of her supporters is that they are far more deluded and idiotic than I imagined or what is portrayed in the media. Their inability to deal with reality is mind-boggling and the quality of their defense of Ms. Palin is no better than what a dim seven-year old could present. The mindless devotion I encountered was similar to what one finds at the lower churches or when dealing with long-time devout Elvis fans* (which I think all overlap).
With this experience under my belt my observations of Mr. Reynold's comments that Ed posts here:
Reynolds' frustration with the dishonesty of the book:
Mr. Reynolds' misses the point. Lying helps Ms. Palin, it encourages her critics to report her dishonesty which helps feed Palinistas "evidence" that "far left liberals" hate Ms. Palin and will do anything to destroy her. Perhaps a dozen times I pointed out dozens of examples of Ms. Palin telling whoppers, where I didn't even depend on mainstream media reports, but instead used state and federal records, direct quotes from Sen. McCain, and even sources from the Right. Zero of these people were able to even consider these facts, my pointing out her honestly appeared to actually reinforce the idea that she distinguished herself with her honesty, the exact opposite of reality.
Mr. Reynold's states:
Mind-blowingly false. Ms. Palin is adept as positioning herself in a certain manner and it has carried her far beyond her capabilities. She is neither intelligent nor does she possess common sense, she is like a lotto winner who believes she earned her winnings, like Bush waking up on 3rd base thinking he hit a triple. She has proven to be both ambitious and almost totally without scruples. If she were smart she'd be able to speak and write articulately.
Mr. Reynold's states:
Totally absurd. I don't believe Ms. Palin would be able to gain an entry-level post-undergrad job at most world-class corporations, let alone become a supervisor, lower-level manager, middle-manager, director, or executive. This perspective comes from someone (me) who managed recruitment for these types of people up to and including director level. If the initial screener had delivered an interview subject to my team as incompetent as Ms. Palin proves every single time she opens her mouth or puts fingers to keyboard, I'd be considering firing the initial screener.
The one exception to my observation is that it is a fact that attractive people enjoy a halo effect that could very well get through some hiring processes. However, I'm comfortable predicting she'd never last at any corporation that extended a lot of responsibility to its employees, let alone advance to an executive level. In fact I observed only four people in last year's presidential primaries who obviously displayed executive skills: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
Reynolds states:
Perhaps in certain tightly controlled venues. However, there is absolutely no way Ms. Palin could come out of a press conference unscathed or deliver a speech that would convince well-informed independent thinkers. All she has is shallow talking points and a posse that ignores her inability to speak coherently about any subject matter, which includes the duties she held as governor and on Alaska's oil & gas commission.
Reynolds states:
Is she a bed-ridden invalid who can't communicate and can't get her fanny to a library or bookstore? What an absurd statement. She's dumb because she both is and is also because she's willfully ignorant. In fact she's aggressively ignorant. If she wanted to bone-up she'd have started that many years ago. In addition, she shows absolutely zero capability to study and learn. Forcing herself to go through coaching would only provide her with a more compelling set of talking points, any foundation underlying such talking points would still be non-existent or incapable of adapation to fit the actual environment.
Reynolds states:
Either Mr. Reynolds shares Ms. Palin's willingness to make statements based on ignorance or he's depending on his readers' ignorance regarding the fact that Ms. Palin was such a failure as governor much of her staff and the Alaska Republican party's state legislators turned on her because of her incompetence. The fact is she got lucky entering office with rising oil prices, by the time she quit even she knew her governorship would result in failure if she remained through the end of her first term, either because she'd have to avoid vetoes by flip-flopping on her VP campaign talking points or having her principles vetoed even by her own party's legislators.
I concur with Ed's excellent analysis of Reynolds' last statement.
*My wife and I are both fans of the young Elvis' music and movies; but we also don't think he's Jesus' slightly less divine little bro merely because he's one of the coolest guys to ever walk the planet.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 10:26 AM
It may well be that Sarah Palin, like George W. Bush, has enough mental horsepower (am I showing my age, should it be RAM and processor speed?) to do the job. They just don't want to use it, and don't respect its use. FDR was never the smartest guy in the room, but he knew what he didn't know and was thoughtful and curious enough to seek out people who did know and to meld their expertise with his matchless political instincts. Simple ignorance is a curable condition, stupidity is a misfortune, willful ignorance is a character flaw.
Posted by: CJColucci | December 1, 2009 10:43 AM
Michael Heath - You had me right until the footnote. An ELVIS FAN??? Now I'll colour your arguments on that basis, dagnabit. :)
CJColucci - I've quoted it before, but for Palin it's always germane: "Beauty fades; stupid lasts for ever." - Judge Judith Sheindlin. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 10:52 AM
She is smart
No, she isn't.
She could learn what she needs to know
No, she couldn't.
Sarah Palin has not grown in the year since the election.
It's a tragedy that he expected her to, or even believed her capable of it.
Ed: George W. Bush was virtually identical in his approach to such issues. He was absolutely convinced that he had some special insight, some mystical ability based on prayer, to reach the right conclusion and to hell with those high-fallutin "experts."
Absolutely - and this is why they need to be marginalized as much as possible.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 1, 2009 11:01 AM
Ed,
Dead on with the Bush comparison.
Michael,
Thanks for that detailed analysis of Palin and her fans. Very interesting.
Posted by: Evan | December 1, 2009 11:05 AM
Ed:
Your final paragraph above comparing GW Bush and Palin is very telling.
Yet I would argue that Palin is far worse than Bush in that at least Bush had the moxy to graduate from Yale (albeit he was a legacy and just skated by), and Harvard Business when Palin wouldn't set foot on either campus for fear of her winky, backwoods wisdom being tainted by Ivy League elitism.
Either way, as even Palin's critics are knocking her book, I'm beginning to believe more than ever that her next career track will involve a TV/radio gig instead of running for POTUS.
Even under the rosiest of poll forecasts, Palin would face a very steep climb (even if she scored the GOP nomination) via opposition from women and minorities. And I don't see how she could ever breach that span, as even Mr. Reynolds admits above that Palin doesn't seem to see any need for self-enrichment or personal growth.
In short, Palin is her own worst enemy, and everyone can see it but her (and her lemming-like fans).
Posted by: CHV | December 1, 2009 11:08 AM
One thing I still haven't managed to uncover: Why pointy-headed intellectual? Egg-head I can grasp; a large brain due to lots of thinking meaning big headed, and you get to play on the fragility of eggs. But pointy-headed? Where did the term come from and why?
Posted by: DerelictHat | December 1, 2009 11:08 AM
Michael, you have written some terrific analyses in the past, but this one is going in my favorites pile.
Posted by: Josh | December 1, 2009 11:09 AM
Michael Heath,
Well reasoned response as always. Palin is ludicrous but her devotees are absolutely frightening. As for the Elvis thing, well, I'm with DingoJack on that.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 1, 2009 11:14 AM
Shorter:
She has the potential for greatness, but sees no need (or perhaps room) for improvement over who she is now.
A scholar might recognize that this almost directly refers to several classical definitions.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 1, 2009 11:44 AM
I hate to draw the comparison, but Sarah Palin is a much worse student than Adolf Hitler was. Neither gained any intellectual depth from their schooling, but Hitler at least tried to engage complex ideas, and was a voracious reader. He believed anything he was told that fit into his worldview, of course, which undermined his overall reasoning. Palin has the same problem, but without interest in ideas she doesn't understand. Hjalmarr Schacht reported being "mesmerized" upon meeting Hitler and a discussion of his economic programs: Could anyone imagine that being said of Palin meeting a top economist?
Palin is not unintelligent, in my opinion: She is just not interested in the world of ideas. She has learned a few tricks that moved her ahead in her political career, but never bothered to investigate anything else. If only she had the study habits of a Hitler, she might be dangerous.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 1, 2009 11:48 AM
How about a review on a book worth buying (I hope -- got it already, but haven't had the chance to read it) "Going Rouge" . . . . Anyone out there have anything to say about it?
Posted by: Don | December 1, 2009 12:00 PM
>>>[Palin] . . . a gifted speaker
For as much as Obama's critics knock him for being too reliant on teleprompters (as if any prior presidents haven't used them all the time), what ultimately separates his oratory skills from Palin's is that while both can READ a speech very well, only one can WRITE one with any level of competence.
Imagine Palin and Obama being assigned to draft and polish a semi-detailed foreign policy speech (say, with Eastern Europe as the topic) without help under a four-hour deadline, and having to deliver it on live TV thereafter.
It would be a bloodbath.
Not that Sarah's army of apologists wouldn't then immediately complain that she had been victimized by the topic or forum at issue, and wag a finger of outrage at Obama for politely trouncing her.
Posted by: CHV | December 1, 2009 12:02 PM
Michael Heath eloquently stated everything I could have ever wanted to say, and then some. You need a blog, Heath--your fans decree it. :)
I will say that, while I suppose it's encouraging to see an alleged Palin fan still possessed of a modicum of critical thinking skills, Reynolds' backhanded ass-kissing of Palin was nonetheless disheartening and painful to read.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 1, 2009 12:16 PM
Those of us who hoped that Palin had been "hidden" by the campaign know the truth now. She still is what she was.
Paging Dennis Green.
She is who we THOUGHT she was!
Posted by: Jeff | December 1, 2009 12:17 PM
Translation: Heath has expressed views with which I agree.
Michael Heath is a pretentious moron with "just enough of learning to misquote." I do not think Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, nor would I like to see her run for president unless she prepares herself intellectually for the task, but the hatred for her displayed by Heath and others is pathological. Get help.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 12:20 PM
One pretentious moron slaps the back of another.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 12:23 PM
Hatred? No, it's disdain, and well deserved. Palin is too pitiful to hate.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 1, 2009 12:30 PM
Pot meet Kettle.
Posted by: Chilidog | December 1, 2009 12:34 PM
Actually, the reason I focused my comment on his analysis is that I appreciated his analysis. Whether or not he was writing things that I agreed with is a separate issue. The nuances of discussion do appear to elude you on occasion, however.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/11/palin_the_creationist.php#comment-2093109
Posted by: Josh | December 1, 2009 12:36 PM
No, it is naked hatred, your various delusions (including delusions of adequacy) notwithstanding.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 12:36 PM
Bruce @ 19:
>>>Hatred? No, it's disdain, and well deserved.
I agree. Those who feel the criticism that Palin's rec'd in the past year is "hatred" are missing the point, and giving into the lame Sarah/Martyr mentality so many of her fans espouse.
Speaking for myself, I do not hate Palin.
However, I do see Sarah as a political clown, one who bristles at those who have the gall to fact-check her statements as if they should instead just lighten up, and accept her words at face value.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
Posted by: CHV | December 1, 2009 12:39 PM
CHV @ 7:
I agree. One of the biggest surprises for me last year, especially given that I supported Sen. McCain in the 2000 primary over President Bush and thought better of him relative to Mr. Bush until the summer of 2008, was that I concluded that President Bush was a far better President than Sen. McCain could ever be while Sen. McCain obviously dwarfs Ms. Palin. Primarily because of all of Mr. Bush's flaws, he was far more emotionally intelligent than either McCain or Palin and had his priorities far more aligned with America's than Ms. Palin's though not McCain's. (while still considering those referenced attributes in Mr. Bush as failing).
What I consider the bottom of the possible pile has deepened considerably since the 2000 election. Prior to the 2000 election I thought the worst presidential candidate to run was a tie between Sen. Dole and Gov. Dukakis (starting with 1980). I found Sen. Kerry less than Dukakis in 2004, a very mediocre candidate; yet I strongly advocated for him that year in spite of my still being a member of the Republican party in 2004 given Mr. Bush's incredible incompetence and find all four (Bush, Dole, Dukakis, Kerry) superstars relative to either Sen. McCain or Ms. Palin demonstrated inability to be executives or administrators.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 12:39 PM
You betcha, I've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.
Posted by: mark | December 1, 2009 12:41 PM
What you refer to as "analysis," I call mere assertion. Heath says Palin would not make it in the business world, of which he is a part. Well, his content-free blathering would not cut it in the research/academic world, of which I am a part.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 12:42 PM
Micheal Heath - Thank you for the analysis. The scariest thing about Palin isn't the woman herself--it's her fans. Or more specifically, the fact that she has any. She really should have an "I'm with Stupid" shirt with the arrow pointing to her audience.
As far as her being a gifted speaker--she is. Give her her due, she's riveting. (I mean, here we are, talking about her.) While it's true that her statements rarely survive the most casual fact-checking (and that "hot librarian" shtick she depends on so relentlessly can only work, even in theory, with half the audience, and in practice only with the sex-starved dullards in that half--which probably made it perfect for the state with the most Y chromosomes per capita), she became the VP nominee largely because she was (and is) more personable in front of a crowd than the other considerees.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 1, 2009 12:43 PM
As a fellow member of the research/academic world, I would agree that comment #2 would take its lumps--in a venue that wasn't a blog...
Posted by: Josh | December 1, 2009 12:49 PM
Milesuis:
The comments left by Michael Heath are a major reason I bother delving into the comments here. He leaves thoughtful analyses that spark rigorous thought, and on the somewhat rare occasions when I end up disagreeing with him, they force me to carefully reconsider my position.
You could learn something if you felt the urge to (and we return tangentially to the topic at hand).
Posted by: TBRP | December 1, 2009 12:55 PM
I have no hatred of Ms. Palin.
In fact I voted for Sen. McCain in the Michigan 2008 primary. I realized then he needed help on the administration side given his failure to be a good administrative officer in the Navy and how little executive skills one needs to run a Senate office if that is not your sweet spot*.
So I was hoping that Sen. McCain would pick either a successful executive who was an expert in economics, or a successful governor who was also strong in both economics adn other domestic policy matters. Not just because such traits complemented McCain's obvious weaknesses, but also because these were traits quickly disappearing from the party since the start of the Bush 43 era.
In addition, my first exposure to Ms. Palin was that her maiden name was the same as mine and her father was a science teacher. Given she was governor I was actually intrigued by the pick though that was coupled to why I hadn't heard much of her if she was an authentic talent. I immediately started researching her and this was one of my first discoveries, i.e., her total historical ignorance and her willingness to lie about our founding fathers (see Palin's written, not off the cuff answer to the Pledge question).
It only got worse from there, the pathological lying, the drama that follows her rather than results, her ignorance even on matters she claims expertise, her inability to lead or work with the state legislature, her divisiveness, her incredible laziness (she rarely worked hard and was frequently plaing hooky while charging the state for being home rather than at work) and her quitting office rather than toughing out hard times which would have forced her to flip-flop on the talking points she promoted that were already falsified as defective.
*I am sure there are Senators who have excellent executive skills which are needed to be either a great leader within the Senate or as Committee Chair. My point is that Sen. McCain's success in the Senate did not come from such activities, but instead in his ability to promote ideas in the public square and occasionally get bipartisan support for specific pet projects. From my perspective he was more a moral leader with some individual, not managerial, sales skills.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 12:58 PM
Milesius—I, too, am a part of the research/academic world, and I find your commentary extremely lacking. You appear to be throwing invective and ad hominems freely while doing the exact thing you are accusing others of: "content-free blathering."
If you want to present a substantive argument, I'd be happy to see it. But, for example, your sentiment that, "What you refer to as 'analysis' I call mere assertion," when not backed up by substantive argument, is a sterling example of equivocation. You are wanting to substitute a definition of "analysis" to which those here do (and a reasonable person would) not subscribe.
Mr. Heath's analysis is based on expertise gleaned from the relevant field—expertise which you apparently concede. Based on this expertise, he offers a well-informed critique of a hypothetical situation to provide unique illustration of how inadequate Ms. Palin would be in a context other than politics which requires a similar skill-set.
How his commentary does not fall under the heading of analysis is hard to fathom.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 12:59 PM
And your writing is such a good example of what does "cut it in the research/academic world". Unbelievable.Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 1, 2009 1:04 PM
Milesius, if you have an objection to Mike Heath's statement then explain please where he is wrong. Simply shouting that you disagree and that anyone who agrees with Mike is an idiot really isn't helpful. (I don't agree with everything Mike had to say, but it is very clear that his remark has been much contentful than the totality of comments you've made in this thread).
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 1, 2009 1:09 PM
You must have tenure.
Posted by: T.Bruce McNeely | December 1, 2009 1:10 PM
Milesius @ 26
I never intended to provide corroborating evidence of her failures in this forum, that would require a long magazine-length article though easily able to buttress my claims with facts. I can easily do such however, which is what I described doing in the comment section of the Amazon reviews of her book.
And we're way beyond mere assertion in terms of Ms. Palin's noted weaknesses. The woman quit her job as governer just when times in their state got tougher.
In addition, we have her gas pipeline deal, where she allowed a clause that TransCanada never even has to build a supply line if they get both financing and clears all regulatory hurdles. This is contrary to Ms. Palin's lies that led people during the presidential campaign to believe construction had already begun, construction which is iffy and best case, years away. I could go on and on about her failures as an executive, this is merely two.
Citation for the gas line contract fail: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-11.html (who provides citations)
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 1:12 PM
I can't comment on a book I haven't read. Not to say I won't read it, since I did read the semi-sycophantic Bush bio Dead Certain and I'm fascinated with people I perceive to be demagogues and authoritarians and the inexplicable phenomenon of their popularity; I just won't pay money to read it (hello, college interlibrary loan system).
When possible, it's probably best to go to the source material yourself and make your own evaluation.
Posted by: marnk | December 1, 2009 1:13 PM
Yeah, her comment re: the Pledge is a matter of grave importance. What a vapid pedant you are. There are a few possibilities here:
1. She did not know the phrase "under God" was added later.
2. She knew but want to score some political points with voters.
3. She views references to God by the founders (e.g., "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.") as functionally equivalent to and presaging the phrase "under God" in the Pledge.
In no case is it a big deal. Is your vacuity typical of your profession?
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 1:16 PM
While we're on the subject, it should come as no particular surprise that Sarah Bailin' strikes again.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 1, 2009 1:19 PM
You provided one possible failure. I do not consider her resignation to be a failure as an executive.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 1:22 PM
Milesius has had a hard-on for Michael Heath for some weeks. Not sure what else he's about.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 1, 2009 1:25 PM
I'm not really sure what this means... Usually when people use "common sense" in a positive way, I assume what they are referring to could easily be described as "practical wisdom". Can someone fill me in on the difference?
Posted by: James Sweet | December 1, 2009 1:28 PM
Oh snap!
Sorry--had to. It's been that kind of day.
Posted by: Josh | December 1, 2009 1:29 PM
Molly @ 27, directed at me:
What I stated and stand behind @ 2:
I think the content-free, mind-spinning, totally irrrational press conference where she quit as governor is much more indicative of Ms. Palin's speaking skills. That performance was also corroborative to her press conferences with Gibson, Couric, and even Hannity. It's riveting a couple of times sheerly for the novelty of hearing someone just blather horseshit. And let's remember, we have seen little of her in non-controlled environments so rarity alone makes for riveting drama when coupled to her physical attractiveness and the surprising inanity of what she says. If she was actually exposed to the press like other national candidates or in a national office with the attendant regularity; I think our* current interest would wear quickly, just like any individual car crash scene.
*I actually think this would be true even of many of her supporters after the novelty wears off and the non-delusional ones confront reality after being repeatedly exposed to her.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 1:29 PM
@7 Sadie:
It could be that Reynold's is simply still going through the grieving process -- the denial stage to be precise.
Posted by: tacitus | December 1, 2009 1:29 PM
What you refer to as "analysis," I call mere assertion.
Another mere assertion by Milesius.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 1, 2009 1:29 PM
MikeMa—Ah, I wondered. He's certainly not doing anything beyond embarrassing himself.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 1:30 PM
Milesius,
Damn. I like her and yet I consider her resignation to be a total failure on her part.
Posted by: heddle | December 1, 2009 1:31 PM
Two points:
1. I think she was being harassed by frivolous nonsense, at a cost to the Alaskan taxpayer.
2. Even if it were a failure, it does not mean her entire tenure as governor as Alaska was a failure. (I imagine you and I are in agreement on this point.)
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 1:35 PM
Michael Heath, #2:
Excellent post, thanks Michael.
Plus, for a bonus you got that goofy clown Milesius involved, and that's always good for a few yuks. Thanks!
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 1, 2009 1:39 PM
Raging Moron,
Dick makes a number of unsubstantiated claims. Jane notes that Dick has merely offered assertions sans argumentation. Jane is not required to say anything else at the moment because the onus is still on Dick to make his argument. Spot chimes in with "Another mere assertion by Jane." Jane pats Spot on the head because he is, after all, just a dog.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 1:42 PM
Milesius @ 48:
1. Are you suggesting this presents mitigating circumstances? In other words, if she, as president, were "harassed by frivolous nonsense," would you condone a decision on her part to resign?
2. This doesn't appear to be responding to anything anyone here has asserted. Mr. Heath referred to her resignation as a failure. It is incorrect to extend this to her entire tenure.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 1:44 PM
The danger of Sarah Palin isn't that she's going to be president one day, it's the damage she and her enablers like Beck and Hannity are doing to the political discourse in this country.
Just that one idiotic remark about "death panels" may end up costing some Americans the chance of benefiting from effective health care reform (which even if it passes is likely to be watered down). Even if there is no lasting damage from that remark, it was the capper on any chances that conservatives would engage in a serious discussion about healthcare reform.
Posted by: tacitus | December 1, 2009 1:50 PM
"She has the potential for greatness, but sees no need (or perhaps room) for improvement over who she is now."
Of course, the same is true of most toddlers.
Posted by: Jon H | December 1, 2009 1:50 PM
Milesius @ 50:
It is readily apparent that the participants in this forum do not agree with the "Jane notes that Dick has merely offered assertions sans argumentation," statement, and therefore the assertion that "Jane is not required to say anything else at the moment because the onus is still on Dick to make his argument," holds less credence.
If you are (or anyone is) interested in investing the energy to advance the discussion, you might say more on why Mr. Heath's commentary fails to qualify as analysis. Mr. Heath essentially puts forward a gedankenexperiment: "What if Ms. Palin were trying to climb the corporate ladder?" Thought experiments have a long history and as such, offer many options for criticism.
On the other hand, if you would like to continue to offer only ridicule, then all right. It's a free internet, after all.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 1:52 PM
Milesius @ 37 - total misrepresentation of what I stated @ 30. I noted that her lying about the founders and Pledge was only one of my first observations, not the only, nor my determinant to oppose her as you dishonestly assert at 30.
I also noted @ 30 immediately after Palin's dishonest Pledge answer far worse observations which you conveniently ignore and I repeat here:
Given your demonstrated impotence in making a cogent argument coupled to your complete lack of integrity by dishonestly quote-mining a source in the very thread it's published, I think it's safe to say you are a weasly liar.
Regarding the Pledge: 'under God' being added later is somewhat irrelevant since the Pledge itself was not developed until the late-19th century, decades after the founders were dead. I also italicized "written" since it wasn't an off-the-cuff lie, but a written one with ample to time to not lie about the founders or the Pledge. If you don't know something, lazily ascribing oneself to others with complete ignorance of their actual position is dishonest. Lastly, there is a vast difference between the DofI's argument justifying our revolt and a ritualized Pledge of Allegiance, one can compellingly argue they are in direct conflict with each other, the former a demand for freedom, the latter a demand for submissive loyalty. However, that's not the point regarding Ms. Palin's rank ignorance and dishonesty but instead merely more evidence of your dependence on logical and rhetorical fallacies.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 1:57 PM
The perfect job for Palin would be as an infomercial presenter.
Posted by: Buffybot | December 1, 2009 2:01 PM
Dumb ass,
Her response re: the Pledge was a concrete example. This:
Has no concrete examples. Learn the difference between the two. I respond to concrete examples, not your unsubstantiated, content-free blathering.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 2:03 PM
I think she was being harassed by frivolous nonsense.........considering all we have seen and heard from Mrs. Palin I think that statement is the most hilariously delusional I have heard this year.
Posted by: dublinbay | December 1, 2009 2:06 PM
@Michael Heath: we really should be grateful for the fact that vocal social conservatives almost always out themselves as dishonest and incapable of reasoned debate. It's one of their many common denominators.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 1, 2009 2:10 PM
Milesius @ 57:
There again seems to be a disagreement as to the definition of terms. At minimum, I would think that "...her quitting office rather than toughing out hard times..." qualifies as a concrete example. This is tangentially supported by the fact that you responded to it @ 39.
As for Mr. Heath's other assertions, they are all summaries of repeated behaviors. While I agree they probably do not fall under the heading of "concrete examples," their plurality on its own does not discount their possible truth.
On the other hand, given the body of commentary in the thread so far, I am forced to conclude that your assertion that "I respond to concrete examples [only]," is, regrettably, extremely dishonest.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 2:14 PM
Awww . . . Michael has a pet, innit cuuuute! Do remember, Michael, to clean up after your pet. This one seems especially adept at making messes.
Posted by: Dave | December 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Reynold's also has a chapter-by-chapter commentary on Palin's book (if you can stand it). As a classical scholar he seems particularly pained by the fact that she actually uses fake quotes from Plato and Aristotle in her book.
What is it about these wingnuts and fake quotations? Do they actually believe that when they read the words "as XYZ once said" that it must be true?
Posted by: tacitus | December 1, 2009 2:17 PM
dublinbay,
Lay off the chronic. Either Sarah Palin was harassed by frivolous nonsense while in office or she was not. Her faux pas on the "speaking circuit" have no bearing on whether she was, in fact, harassed by frivolous nonsense while in office.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 2:17 PM
No, it is dependent on the subject in question. When Sarah writes a dissertation on "Distinctions in Symbolism in Modern French Philosophy," I'll review it. Since her current arguments are on the level of, "I thot I herd a puddy-tat," I'll pass.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 1, 2009 2:18 PM
You can add that delusion to your stockpile.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 2:19 PM
Milesius @ 63:
Three points, one for each sentence:
1. Ad hominem.
2. False dichotomy.
3. Non sequitur.
Milesius @ 65: "You can add that delusion to your stockpile."
Ignoratio elenchi.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 2:28 PM
I've been annoyed by frivolous nonsense....never 'harassed' by it.
Follow this example and persecution and delusion will be forever kept from your door.
Posted by: dublinbay | December 1, 2009 2:35 PM
Insulting someone is not an instance of ad hominem pseudo-argumentation.
Really? Then, by all means, please show the other possibilities besides Palin being harassed by frivolous nonsense or not.
Show it.
You appear to remember the terms from logic & critical thinking but do not apprehend them well enough to apply them.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 2:38 PM
Milesius @ 68: "Insulting someone is not an instance of ad hominem pseudo-argumentation."
The insult here is used in such a way as to discredit the author's argument. For example, calling someone a "quack" is an ad hominem. Attributing drug use to dublinbay is an attempt to smear his character and mental state. As such it qualifies.
"Really? Then, by all means, please show the other possibilities besides Palin being harassed by frivolous nonsense or not."
This is false dichotomy due to a dearth of information. For example, other options include harassment not by frivolous nonsense; the "frivolous nonsense" not constituting harassment; etc.
"Show it."
All right. dublinbay's comment was this:
Your response was, "Her faux pas on the 'speaking circuit' have no bearing on whether she was, in fact, harassed by frivolous nonsense while in office."
Unfortunately, as I read it, dublinbay's comment has nothing to do with the speaking circuit, and as such I'm not sure where your response originates. For example, his mention of "...this year," refers to your commentary, not Ms. Palin's. It's possible I've overlooked something.
Finally, "You appear to remember the terms from logic & critical thinking but do not apprehend them well enough to apply them."
This is, again, an assertion without proof, and is, again, ignoratio elenchi. If you are unable to refute a certain argument, you might consider saving yourself the time and refrain from attempting to do so.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 2:49 PM
"1. I think she was being harassed by frivolous nonsense, at a cost to the Alaskan taxpayer."
So she quit to save the Alaskan taxpayer money? OK.
What might that 'frivolous nonsense' be, and by who's definition is it frivolous?
Should every 'lame duck' politician faced with it resign because of frivolous nonsense?
Posted by: GaryB | December 1, 2009 3:00 PM
Uh, no. Even if that were all I wrote, for it to be an ad hominem, it would have to take the form of "your claim is unsound because you are a pothead" or some such.
Nope. "Harassment not by frivolous nonsense" and "frivolous nonsense not constituting harassment" are contained in the complement of "harassed by frivolous nonsense."
To have engaged in non sequitur, I would have had to post an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if I misrepresented his claim, it does not follow that I engaged in non sequitur.
I stand by my judgment; you know the terms but fail in applying them correctly.
Posted by: Milesius | December 1, 2009 3:08 PM
"As a classical scholar he seems particularly pained by the fact that she actually uses fake quotes from Plato and Aristotle in her book. "
Say, what is Latin for "betcha" anyways?
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 1, 2009 3:11 PM
Milesius in #37 said: Yeah, her comment re: the Pledge is a matter of grave importance. What a vapid pedant you are. There are a few possibilities here:
Yes, exposing the ignorance of someone vying for the second highest office in the land is of grave importance thank you. But I'm sure Milesius is on record dressing down those "vapid pedant"s who harped on Joe Biden's relatively (by comparison) small error on FDR and the supposed depression TV address, and those obsessed with the "57 states" gaffe, so we can at least give him points for consistency. Right Milesius?
He also demonstrates the common tactic of countering facts (which conservatives are supposedly so interested in) with pure speculation. He gives no evidence that any of these possiblities are true, just the possibility is all that is needed to dismiss the more straightforward conclusion that Sarah Palin is an idiot. Rightwingers do this constantly, and need to be called on it. Speculation is not evidence.
Posted by: Science Avenger | December 1, 2009 3:34 PM
Forged antiquities have a long history in European culture. Consider all of the periodic neoclassicist movements, if nothing else. Then there are all of the backdated religious citations.
When you get right down to it, the past is very plastic. You can rewrite Isaiah to change "a young woman" in the near future to "a virgin" centuries later and found an entire religion on it.
Any number of European (and I suspect Asian) scholars have borrowed the sanctity of the ancients for their own creations, too. The fact that the practice continues to the present even in jurisprudence (retconning the Constitution, for instance) just illustrates how deeply embedded it is in our culture.
With that background, and given the religious authority-based epistemology of today's conservatives, it's practically inevitable that they would retcon history to be the 1950s with tricorn hats and write the lines that the Founders must have written (and lost) or else would certainly have written if they'd thought to do so.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 1, 2009 3:42 PM
Some substantive arguments! Finally!
Milesius @ 71: "Even if that were all I wrote, for it to be an ad hominem, it would have to take the form of 'your claim is unsound because you are a pothead' or some such."
This is implied in prefacing your comment with the insult. A reasonable person would interpret "Lay off the chronic. Either Sarah Palin was harassed by frivolous nonsense while in office or she was not." exactly as "your claim is unsound because you are a pothead." The second sentence is a statement, not an argument, and as such does not constitute a refutation on its own, leaving the only refutation against dublinbay's comment the ad hominem.
Are you aware of the defintion of dichotomy?
The non sequitur gets weirder the more I look at it. I'm forced to conclude it's simply an irrelevant refutation, unless you can show me how the "speaking circuit" had anything to do with the frivolity.
Well, obviously. The one rule of internet arguing is that no one changes his/her mind. Unfortunately, I can't continue now; I've got other things to do. As a final note, I would point out that your commentary here amouts to little more than baseless trolling devoid of substantive content, and as such warrants you all the invective directed your way. Were you honestly interested in constructive conversation, it would not have taken this level of back-and-forth to get you to utter anything but insults and empty rejoinders.
Cheers everyone!
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 3:45 PM
Milesius:
Since we can't agree on 3000-year-old definitions and analyses of things actually said right there, let's just get to some useful abstractions.
Is Sarah Palin's book good?
Do you think she is a better leader or politician than Barack Obama? Would she be a good legislator? Judge?
Was she a good governor?
Would she make a good president?
Do you care to rebut any of the many particulars that have been called 'lies' or 'fictions' in her book? Or do you have some explanation for why she might have included falsehoods in her book? Overuse of chronic, perhaps?
Is there some reasonable explanation for her undistinguished and peripatetic undergraduate years?
Do you think she should evolve a complex explanation for why she hangs on every word of John Wooden Legs, or just let that one go and hope nobody mentions it anymore?
PS--Let's drop the ad hominems. They're just not civil. But you are a pussy.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 1, 2009 4:13 PM
The question is, is Milesius being a shrew?
Posted by: James Sweet | December 1, 2009 4:24 PM
Milledshit:
Dude, where is the link to your published work? C'mon guy, we been axin' for a while now.
Posted by: democommie | December 1, 2009 4:28 PM
Kris stated:
I think it's important to distinguish concessions. Not an exhaustive list:
1) Concede one's solid argument to a marginally superior one (a true mark of character)
2) Concede one's admittedly tenuously-held argument to a superior argument (more evidence of character)
3) Concede that your opponent's argument is arguable when it is though not convincing to oneself.
4) Concede one's argument based on it being fatally flawed (usually because it's some combination of poorly framed or based on inaccurate assertions.
Re # 4 - We should all do this and if we find this a test of character, than we've got trouble. Yet, when debating conservatives this is by far the most voluminious type of debate, i.e., fisking their fatally flawed argument without ever getting to the position (e.g., "defending marriage"). We've seen electoral victories and careers made relying exclusively on flawed arguments, e.g., Sarah Palin (celebrity and money), Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, creationists, George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Rick Warren, ad infinitum).
Unfortunately I had to concede an argument to heddle yesterday. Unfortunate not because I wanted to win, but because I wasted every reader's time and heddle's energy fisking my totally irrelevant argument to his, which had gone whoosh over my head.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 4:34 PM
ice9, a frequent commenter here, left a particularly good comment @ 40 at the First Things review Ed originally linked to in this thread.
First Things was my last attempt to find some good or intelligence within conservative Christianity (about nine or so years ago). While I enjoyed the Jewish contributors, I found most of the rest merely better able to couch their often repugnant mostly dishonest rhetoric than Rick Warren / James Dobson are capable of doing (especially on constitutional matters and founding ideals). The founder and then-editor in chief editorial Richard John Neuhaus was as vile a creature as any social conservative leader; which had me sometimes wondering how he got a significantly better class of Jewish writer than himself to frequently contribute.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 5:14 PM
I'm glad to see that Reynolds actually said the words, "This is a bad book." in his longer, free-form post. In most of the reviews I've seen, the execrable writing is barely even mentioned; instead, we are treated to synopses and some rehashing of the 2008 election. Shouldn't book reviews have, at least, some large portion of them devoted to the prose?
Posted by: clamboy | December 1, 2009 5:26 PM
I think that the concession of arguments and even the changing of minds happens all the time on the Internet, but--and this is key--only for those who enter into a debate for the purposes of debate, and not for trollery, bullying, ego-boosting, etc.. It is, of course, increasingly rare to find online conservatives (and, admittedly, liberals sometimes apply here too) who are truly receptive to a debate and who don't arrive at an ideological venue with the stalwart purpose of not considering the other side's point of view.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 1, 2009 5:32 PM
I don't know if this has happened to anybody else here but, while I used to wander the interweb (sticking around at "anti-atheist" blogs, which had a point of view that was alien to me), reading, researching and arguing, arguing with "them" pretty much destroyed my ability to argue in good faith. Too many times I saw people getting quotemined, misquoted, quoted out of context, theories (every science that conflicts with, say, YEC...so all of them, pretty much) being misinterpreted/misread/etc, debunked tropes being repeatedly brought up, Gish-galloping and the like, that the part of my brain that cares about what things actually are got burned out, leaving only the spongy bit that cares about winning. In short, I started out trying to figure out what the truth was (and to see if I could see how/why other people think) and ended up, not trying to advance a good argument, but instead simply trying to prove that they were wrong.
Arguing person to person face to face is hard enough. Arguing in text only (without the emotional indicators of posture and facial expressions) is even worse. Add to that the multi-input nature of blog commenting...
I don't know what my point was, but I'm quite certain that, if you had been me when I thought up whateveritwas, you would have found it as illuminating as it was profound.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Kris,
You've just described Milesius to a T, this is the very definition of it's smarmy efforts here whenever it befouls a thread. I truly find it amazing that an institute of higher learning would award someone so utterly hollow in both intellect and character a position cleaning their floors let alone a tenured posting. The idea that Milesius earned a degree, minus a mail-order or Crackerjacks facsimile truly defies imagination.
So Milesius, when you were at WhatsamattaU, were Rocky and Bullwinkle the star football players?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 1, 2009 6:35 PM
dogmeat: Of course not: Bullwinkle had nothing up his sleeve: Milesius has nothing else.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 1, 2009 6:57 PM
Priceless.
ROFL. And I actually did follow your point quite easily--& concur.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 1, 2009 7:24 PM
Ice9 (postscript #76) & James Sweet (#77) - Get behind me Satan! :) - DJ
-------------
PS: Damn you JS! Yes, but only in the sense of having a similar EQ, Fore/hindbrain proportion, and gyri depth and frequency, as any of several small, mouse-like insectivores of the genus Sorex and related genera.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 7:27 PM
Ever since first encountering Michael Heath's comments here, I've thought of him as a genuinely independent thinker who analyzes people and ideas dispassionately but with the depth of a wide variety of experience and expresses his conclusions with carefully chosen words.
Tonight, alas, my illusion has been terribly shattered.
From # 43: ... the novelty of hearing someone just blather horseshit.
There is an impending-trainwreck fascination to hearing Palin's burblation, but "novelty", in 21st century America, is absolutely the wrong term for that sentence.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 1, 2009 8:03 PM
Clamboy--
Reynolds did even more than that--he worked the chapters one by one, a particularly awful task that remind me of the time I had to go down into Granpa's septic wearing hip boots and carrying a hoe, which wasn't enough tool for the job.
Of course, he still veils his critique in high hopes for Palin's eventual replacement for the Evangelical No Problem party, or the Anybody But Obama party, or whatever. Truth is, I couldn't stand more than a few chapters' worth because the idea of a First Things Neuhaus protege fact checking Palin made me existentially dizzy.
ice9
Posted by: Ice9 | December 1, 2009 8:11 PM
Pierce thinks I'm not jaded enough given my comment regarding our initial interest in Palin with my comment, "the novelty of hearing someone [Palin] just blather horseshit."
I think you might have reading, "the novelty of hearing someone just blather horseshit, when my intention was, "the novelty of hearing someone just blather horseshit.
There's an old joke about distinguishing different types of shit though I couldn't google it. Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich are classic bullshitters. However, I find Ms. Palin's shit to be some very distinguished shit, in fact novel shit for politics, horseshit I call it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 9:39 PM
Fourth, Palin has the makings of a splendid executive and is a gifted speaker. She could learn what she needs to know, but my fear after reading this book is that she does not care to learn it...
Why should she? As we all know, excellence is elitist.
Posted by: Shay | December 1, 2009 9:43 PM
"Going Rogue" is not an intellectual book and that is not its purpose.
The book is her story in her words. It's called an autobiography.
She's a do'er and a leader, not an intellectual. The two are completely separate functions.
I read the book and thought it was a great read. She has the courage, the beliefs, and charisma to be POTUS.
Adlai Stevenson she is not. Unlike him, she'll win the job in 2012.
Posted by: Sapwolf | December 1, 2009 9:44 PM
She's a quitter and a charlatan, Sapwolf.
(Appropriate name, btw).
Posted by: Shay | December 1, 2009 9:53 PM
Michael - given her Gubernatorial record perhaps that should be 'chickenshit'.
Sapwolf - what's that old expression involving pigs and lipstick again? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 1, 2009 9:56 PM
Seems like Ed bought all the Sarah Trash from the left and added some. Why are people so eager to tell others how to live their life or what to do? I could care less about Sarah Palin (or any other politicians -they are all liars) but why all the patronizing from the elites and highly educated? Who do you all want her to read books and get the kind of knowledge you believe to be required in order to be President of the United State? Why are you trying to make her to be just like another educated politician (like all the lawyers we have in Congress?).
Sarah Palin is who she is, who she has always been and who she will always be. There is no need to expect her to be anything else. You either like her as a genuine mid level educated American (which mirrors the majority of Americans) with strong beliefs or dislike her for not being educated and knowledgeable enough. Those that elected her in Alaska knew what they were getting and she did not disappoint them. She cleaned a corrupted government; reigned on spending and delivered what she promised in a short period of time (whether it works or not is another matter time will tell). She did what she campaigned and was voted in office for. Alaskans did not vote for the intellectually knowledgeable governor, they voted for the regular gal that took on the corrupt elites. That's who Sarah Palin is.
Why would she change her ways by pretending to be who she isn't (reading books which may help her be one of these candidates that do well on interviews just to disappoint when hired, being more about theories (from reading). Many of her current supporters are far more educated and knowledgeable about issues (in theory) than she is but they like her regardless. What they see in her is being true to herself and not pretending to be someone else. There are tens of millions of people like Sarah Palin out there but none have the courage to put themselves in the spotlight like she does. So they admire that. They see themselves in her. She is giving them satisfaction that they aren't that irrelevant in society and can have their say...through her.
I also think that Sarah Palin should not be underestimated because just like Obama, she will bring in NEW voters, the millions of Americans that never cared to vote because they did not think politicians cared about them (just as African Americans mobilized for Obama). The poll of CURRENT voters may look bad for her but she will tap into new voters, her kind of voters, the one that voted her in Alaska and many of the one that voted for Bush twice.
You have to understand that the majority of Americans are of Palin level of education (or lower), are suffering with unemployment, rising bills and Sarah is turning out to be their spokesperson... They won't be reading blogs or caring about such critics: They just connect with her. Many can't even tell you about Palin positions on issues: They don't care. Criticizing her is criticizing them. IF Palin is dumb, they are dumb too. Their payback will be to mobilize and put this "dumb" in the white house and if unemployment remains high in 2011, Palin can be President thanks to those new voters along with many fed up Americans.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 1, 2009 10:32 PM
Sapwolf @ 92:
She's not a doer or a leader. She quit her governship and rarely even worked hard at it; spending vast amount of times at home rather than on the job at either office but espeically in the Juneau.
In addition, one can be smart, a doer, and a leader, our country's had several Presidents who meet that test. In fact, being well-informed is correlative to being someone with the energy and committment to "do" and to "lead". Intellectually laziness and willful ignorance are in no way correlative to "doing" or "leading".
Sapwolf @ 92:
Not even close. 70% of Americans find her unqualified. 50% of Republican women find her unqualified. 44% of Republicans find her unqualifed. 66% of all men and 74% of all women find her unqualified.
She wasn't even qualified to answer questions from the press or successfully preside in the least-populated state in America. She distinguishes herself from even Dan Qualye in total incompetence. There are literally tens of millions of Americans more qualified to be president than Ms. Palin.
The deluded Palinistas need to get this through their head, their gal will never be President. She can't even handle the press or citizens' questions, let alone manage a campaign to get through a primary or attract non-deluded voters to her side.
This is like arguing that Glenn Beck would be better at QB for the Pats than Tom Brady.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 11:01 PM
Robin Singleton @ 95 states:
Not true. After quitting on the citizens of Alaska, Ms. Palin yielded slightly higher unfavorables than favorables with Alaskans.
Robin Singleton @ 95 states:
She has a following certainly, but its small with almost zero chance of growing, no matter how bad the economy sinks and given continued predicted challenges in Afghanistan and Iran. In addition, the poll I linked to in the above post was not representative of voters or likely voters, but instead Americans, which means her incompetence is already recognized by people that don't vote.
Ms. Palin is attractive to who she's attractive to, but there is no way she can attract voters beyond what she has now - because she's a quitter, she's a liar, there's no way she could manage a campaign, and there's no way she can even handle questions from the press. Her celebrity as a candidate will soon die down after she saturates the niche buying her book, I predict never to return unless a "Left Behind" / Glenn Beck-friendly party rises, and even then they'd have to affix their star to another party since the crazies on the right only total at best 22% of the electorate.
I understand people's frustrations, and they have right to accuse both Republicans and centrist Democrats for their role in getting us into this economic mess (primarily their not adequately monitoring Wall Street through a modern regulatory framework). But there is just not enough people who'll tolerate her complete incapability to ever be an effective executive at any job, especially given her failure to successfully complete her term as governor where it was obvious she was going to fail.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Responding to Michael Heath @ 79:
I agree (at least, in spirit; I've yet to see it) about the four concessions you detail. I was, sadly, implicitly referring to arguments with people who aren't trying to be intellectually honest, since those seem to be the norm. I agree with Sadie Morrison @ 82, on the same point.
Responding to dogmeatib @ 84:
I had not had the pleasure of reading milesius' commentary until today. It was a special kind of joy I hope few experience. But, thanks for letting me know I'm not alone in the sentiment.
Posted by: Kris | December 1, 2009 11:41 PM
Robin Singleton:
No. The people she appeals to already vote; they are the evangelical right, and they vote in high numbers for the "values" they've been spoonfed by demagogues like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Glenn Beck. Those few among the 20-something generation who might respond to her dog-whistle shout-outs to God Almighty are already Republicans, and the brighter of those, in my family at least, are already disenchanted. She might conceivably attract some evangelical, in particular Pentecostal, Hispanics, if only she weren't too bone-lazy and tone-deaf to exert herself to campaign to them -- but of course, were she to do so, she'd have to take a position on immigration that would likely disaffect the lower-SOC whites who form her base.
Not to mention the fact that prolonged exposure to the rigors of a campaign would wilt little Miss Quitter's perky smile.
Pity, that; we Democrats are salivating over the cornucopia of missteps, bloopers, and WTF moments such a campaign would provide.
Yes. They are dumb too. Willfully ignorant and apathetic people are generally as dumb as stumps, don't you find?
Such people can easily be herded with a few outrageously mendacious chain emails disseminated through their churches, or by artful manipulation from Faux Noise. But even in dumbed-down America, they're not so numerous that they can win a national election all by their lonesomes.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 2, 2009 3:04 AM
Does it seem unreasonable for us to expect somebody running for President to be able to answer questions like, "What are your thoughts on the biggest financial crisis we've seen since the Great Depression?" Is having meaningful opinions on the most important issues of our time something that only weenies with too much time on their hands bother with?
I think that we should be careful about drawing a line and assuming that the world is divided into people who are "book smart" and people who get things done. That's just something that people who are lacking in one of those categories like to believe. It's not actually true.
I won't argue with you on that point. It's a fact. You and I might disagree on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, though.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 2, 2009 3:14 AM
I don't think she's going to try to tap into any voters at all. I will be astonished if she runs for national office again. Why should she, when she can find a cushier and far more lucrative gig as an "analyst" for Faux Noise, "write" the occasional potboiler memoir, and sell herself as a speaker while carefully excluding all press from the venues? Organizations as unscrupulous as Murdoch's will ride that winky mare until her audience tires of the "aw shucks" shtick. (See "Mike Huckabee" for how it's played.)
True, it might not be a long-term career; best-case, perhaps she can fool some of the people all of the time, so that she keeps an audience and keeps raking in the shekels. She might even wield a little influence on the small part of the electorate which takes her seriously.
But what the hey; she doesn't seem to like committing to a job for long anyway.
I wish to pete she WOULD run; that would be the gift that keeps on giving . . . to us Democrats.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 2, 2009 3:46 AM
Robin - Kudos on your post, much better than the average Palin supporter, both in content and style.
Early in your post you asked: "[Why] do you all want her to read books and get the kind of knowledge you believe to be required in order to be President of the United State?"
Brief response: 'Exhibit A - George W Bush' and didn't that work out well? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 5:58 AM
As to the populism, regular folks, identifying with the regular, etc.--
Protest too much much? Though Palin's educational attainment is rocky at best (and comic at accurate), she still stands well above the average American's educational attainment...but well below the average capacity to express or act on it. People keep saying Palin is smarter than she seems, but aside from a couple of non-representative pro-Palin trolls here, we've been unable to detect it because she doesn't do politics.
Politics involves several things Palin refuses to do: talk in public about things of interest to various factions (including, sure elites, but including also pretty much everybody who votes); Palin talks in nonsensical generalities. A majority of her 'facts' are laughably wrong, so she stays in the atmosphere.
Politics involves discussion of policy, predictions, and promises. Palin avoids these (as VP she kind of got away with it) but unless Going Roger is a dramatic exception she won't be able to do this at all in any venue. She may begin to do it and surprise us all, but then she'd have to make sense.
Politics involves presenting credentials to the voters as both a record of action and success and a record of consistency and affiliation with a particular political stripe. Palin has in fact damaged what was already a mediocre record in this regard, most by quitting but perhaps most lastingly by writing Gong Rong, in which she creates a permanent record of quibbles, wiggles, and outright lies that can be checked (and have been). And, of course, there's UCLA great John Wooden Legs.
And her popular appeal is hollow too. Newest question? Did Palin zip from conservative suburb to conservative suburb aboard a Gulfstream private jet then pop out of the bus at each Barnes and Noble like a regular joe? Poorly educated god-swopped doops want to know.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 2, 2009 7:53 AM
According to Michael Heath, Palin can't be elected because she is a liar and quitter that cannot answer question. Do you know any politician that isn't a liar? Didn't Obama and Clinton quit for the better job? Didn't Obama believe there were 56 States in the United States? Any case you can make against Palin, you could against many current elected politicians. And please stop referring to the pre-book polls because they are outdated. Her numbers have improved a lot and her favorability ratings are up. Her post Oprah and book tour numbers will show a lot of improvements at the same time Obama numbers are going down. Was Bush qualified to be president?
Comparing Palin to Bush is the right thing to do. G W Bush has higher education but his mentality mirrors Sarah. The many religious voters he dragged to the poll wouldn't get up for McCain. Just how did G W Bush get enough votes to win 2 close contests? Because Rove was able to mobilize the Christian right! These voters will go out and vote for Palin along with others that never voted. Obama got an extra 5% from Palin will get 5-10% from average working class people that never trusted Politicians enough to vote. Add in the Bush religious voters and hardcore Republicans (that won't dare voting for a Democrat) and you have a close Obama/Palin 2012 Presidential contest.
From what I saw of her career, Sarah Palin will go for it in 2012. Her next step is the oval office and she knows that her time is now. She feeds off populace anger against the establishment and this may be her only window. I don't think she is open minded enough for a daytime talk show or educated/knowledgeable enough for a prime time TV spot. And she and her supporters shouldn't be underestimated despite their apparent lack of knowledge. Sometime, people win with heart, not brain. Bush certainly did.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 2, 2009 8:35 AM
Eh?
As I remember it. Obama waited till he had won an election and there was definitely a better job he could walk straight into. Palin waited till she had lost an election and there was definitely not a better job to walk straight into.
I have no real interest in this bit of your politics but this argument doesn't even make sense. You are saying in effect that resigning your job with the intention of applying for another in a few years is the same as resigning with the contract for a new job signed and ready to go.
Posted by: Matty | December 2, 2009 8:51 AM
Leigh,
I wouldn't be too excited about the prospect for Palin to run for president. No, I don't believe she'd have a chance in hell, I agree with the assessment that she is uniquely unqualified and unsuited for a presidential campaign let alone the job itself. The concern I have is that, were she to run, she would pull the Republican party even further to the right. Many Democrats believe that such a move would virtually guarantee their victory, but they are leaving out the influence and stupidity of the media. This is the same media that presented George W. Bush as an "aw shucks" guy from the middle, a moderate, "compassionate conservative" who had a legitimate, equally viable economic plan that was just as valid as arrogant old Gore's silly plan that involved paying back the debt, etc.
My concern is, if Palin were to run, the media would end up portraying a far right Republican (but left of her) as a moderate, minimize their extreme views, minimize their adherence to failed policies (a'la Bush & co.), and set us up for another decade of economic, political, and foreign diplomacy disaster.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 2, 2009 9:16 AM
I read the whole Reynolds review and was heartened to see that even someone who claimed to have voted "more for Palin than for McCain" approached the task more or less objectively. The bottom line is that Democrats should pray nightly that God will lead Sarah Palin to the Republican nomination in 2012 -- nothing, but nothing would serve Barack Obama's reelection interests better.
Posted by: Karl | December 2, 2009 9:22 AM
No, as happened in the last election, Palin would win the religious right by completely alienating the moderates. You make the same mistake that cost the GOP the last presidential election: thinking your base is big enough to go it alone. We found out conclusively not long ago that it is not.
Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2009 9:36 AM
Mostt of the religious right did not turn outto vote in the last election because they could cafre less about McCain. If Palin runs the show as the top of the ticket, they will vote in drove.
Just what portion of Bush voters wouldn't vote for Palin? Sarah will get the same amount of votes as Bush did and some more (she will bring non religious average Americans that heart her for being like them).
Keep on believing that Palin will only attract 20% of voters...to your peril. You should all study the Bush path and how he got the necesary votes to win...and figure out why his voters wouldn't go for Palin. Most of them stayed home in the last election.
I for one believe that Sarah saved her national aspiration by not finishing her term. Has she done that, she would be damaged for good and wouldn't be able to re-introduce herself in time for the 2012 election. She now has 3 years to change enough minds and increase her base.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 2, 2009 10:49 AM
Robin baldly stated: "And please stop referring to the pre-book polls because they are outdated. Her numbers have improved a lot and her favorability ratings are up."*
Citation please.
"Mostt of the religious right did not turn outto vote in the last election because they could cafre less about McCain. If Palin runs the show as the top of the ticket, they will vote in drove."*
Again, citation please. (actual figures show that self-identifying Republicans overwhelmingly thinks she's not qualified.) - DJ
-----------------
* Various errors in grammar and spelling are from the original quotes.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 11:05 AM
Dingojack: Citations are for Ivory Tower eggheads and pointy headed liberals. Every Real American® knows that belief is knowledge and declaration is fact.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 2, 2009 11:18 AM
Late to the party, but let me add that I'm also a member of the research/academic community, and I agree that milesius is making a poor case against Heath. Heath has clearly presented a stronger, more solidly evidenced, argument against Palin than milesius has against Heath.
Collectively, the two are strong evidence that it's not native intelligence that separates academics from non-academics, because Heath seems to have that in spades over milesius.
And as a political scientist, may I add that the idea that resigning from an executive office doesn't suggest failure is not just wrong, but laughably wrong? If she had resigned to move to take a better office, then obviously the resignation would be a sign of success. But to resign because she couldn't handle "being harassed"? To resign because she didn't want to put the state through a lame-duck legislative session? Those are signs of someone who couldn't handle the job anymore. I.e., a failure.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 11:21 AM
This is where you are completely, 180 degrees wrong, and we can see the same misconception at work here, as well.
You see, average Americans are nothing like the religious right. It seems to be a delusion particular to Palin's base that they represent the "true" Americans, that most of our society thinks like they do.
They don't. Not by a longshot. The last election proved that. How is Palin going to simultaneously convince both the extreme right evangelicals now composing her base and non-religious moderates that she's one of them? That would be a legendary feat of rhetorical legerdemain, and she has the oratory skills of a turnip on peyote.
Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2009 11:23 AM
Clearly MO is quite correct. Let me begin again.
Robin of Singleton - is Absolutely the aforementioned turnip on peyote. As Thomas Jefferson once said (and I agree with him) "The constitution Does not Prohibit the ingestion of psychoactive drugs by Root vaetAbles. In god we truss!!! eleventy-one!" Sarah Plain will Absolutely make the kind of President that will Makes us look back at the Years 2000-8 With nostalgia. Palin/Turnip 2012!!!!
Did I do better this time? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2009 11:40 AM
Oh,and
Eh? "Non-harassment" is included in the definition of "harassment"? Are you really in the research/academic world? If so, I'm guessing you're in engineering of some sort?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 11:55 AM
Robin Singleton states:
My consistent point about Ms. Palin is that she distinguishes the volume and absurdity of her lies relative to any politician I’ve ever encountered. The fact that dishonesty is a common bug among politicos and Ms. Palin lies far more than any other politician on the national stage that I’ve observed is well worth noting and considering. Her dishonesty was quickly noted by the McCain campaign as well, who both shielded her from the press for this and other motivating factors, her rank ignorance, and rebutted her lies. Even Sen. McCain has come out to fisk one of her lies (Ms. Palin’s lie that she paid the legal costs for VP nomination vetting when in fact those were costs to defend her abusing the power of her office as governor in Troopergate.). McCain’s campaign staff, Ms. Palin’s own Executive staff, and the Alaskan state GOP legislators are primary sources for validating the lies Ms. Palin continuously manufactures; unlike any other I’ve ever encountered. It’s not liberals revealing her lies, its her own formal allies.
As a fierce advocate for honesty, I frequently count the number of lies told in presidential and vice presidential debates, along with the State of the Union addresses. I’ve done this irregularly since 1980. My count in the Palin – Biden debate was that Ms. Palin lied 41 times and Mr. Biden 3 times. Honesty is part of a major determinant of who I vote for (personal qualities like intelligence, emotional intelligence, priorities, demonstrated executive skills, and character), far more important that my agreeing on their policy positions. So yes, I take particular notice of Ms. Palin’s lies because she tells them so much more. BTW, I find far more than the factchecker sites because I have far higher standards. If a speaker is technically telling the truth but attempting to present a false version of reality, I count that as a lie. I also counted strong and weak points in that same debate. I had Mr. Biden making 63 strong points and 13 weak ones, while counting 22 strong points by Ms. Palin and 46 weak ones (I’m not a fan of talking points which are misapplied or falsified with historical evidence).
Robin Singleton states:
Mr. Singleton, this comment argues you may actually reside in a delusional alternate reality. President Obama and SECSTATE Clinton both did the American thing, sought or accepted an office with far higher responsibility serving the public interest. Ex-Gov. Huntsman of Utah is also an example of being called upon by a more senior official to serve in a different capacity as Ambassador to China prior to his term was up. Ms. Palin appears to have quit primarily to avoid taking ownership for mounting failures in her current job and financially exploit her recent celebrity.
The only conceivable way we can argue that Ms. Palin is better serving her country by quitting is that she recognized her inability to govern Alaska relative to her replacement. That is not a good argument to become President given her failure to govern Alaska by quitting office without any higher calling being offered by her country. Her claim she quit so as to not distract the Alaskan government with her ethics violations and charges was also a lie. Nearly all of those were resolved prior to her quitting and these issues are delegated to lawyers.
Robin Singleton states:
Try and keep up. Mr. Obama made a verbal gaffe. All people frequently in the public eye do this. We should forgive them given we should want more forthrightness, not less. I certainly defended Mr. Bush’s gaffes, including his ‘crusade’ gaffe; as did our Arab allies. I didn’t use it to attack him.
The lies myself and others have documented and reported about Ms. Palin do not fit verbal gaffes, they are instead dishonest assertions made in written form or in prepared speeches. Certainly Mr. Obama has practiced some policies contrary to previous statements by him, i.e., he’s lied. If you read this blog daily Ed does a great job reporting and analyzing those positions. My monitoring of Mr. Obama’s honesty is that he’s the third most honest President in my lifetime, with Presidents Ford and H.W. Bush (the elder) being better examples.
Robin Singleton states:
I don’t understand your point. I would argue, and predict future historians will as well, that through 2008, the damage that Mr. Bush caused to the country as President is far worse than the management by any other President prior to Mr. Bush. Ms. Palin is obviously much more inferior than Mr. Bush, so I’m not sure why you would raise this topic. I voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 so I bear some responsibility for the harm he’s done.
Robin Singleton states:
Do you have a citation validating your point? I have seen no such numbers. In addition, any book tour bump she gets is irrelevant to getting the GOP 2012 bid given it won’t last her nor any other politician. First she needs to raise money, no serious money will go her way, in spite of the neocons attempts to promote her since they know she’s a vacuous tool whose religious fantasies reconcile to their foreign policy agenda. Second, any campaign will require her to a) answer questions, b) defend her record, and c) debate other candidates. There is no way Ms. Palin could overcome the average competing Republican candidate on these three measures.
Robin Singleton states:
I have no idea she’s run though I doubt it. I can’t see her raising enough money and surviving the intense scrutiny of a presidential run where she won’t have Sen. McCain to hide behind.
You are correct her ‘time is now’, but only in terms of the financial opportunity presented to her last summer and her exploiting that opportunity now by quitting as governor to expedite publication of the book during the Christmas selling season. It helps her family’s financial situation but her quitting alone is political suicide in terms of running for President, ever, unless the kooks that support her become the dominant force in politics – then God save us all.
I do not foresee her lack of character and record of malfeasence can translate into a serious run for the presidency given her base is too small to win a national election coupled to their lack of money. Let’s remember that Mr. Bush had his campaign’s financial requirements already established prior to his even announcing his 2000 run. Ms. Palin has no such resources, both financial and personal (in terms of money and personal qualities).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 11:59 AM
No.
I'm trying to imagine what good end you saw coming when you asked that rhetorical question.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 2, 2009 12:02 PM
Robin Singleton stated @ 109:
Citation requested please (please remember I preemptively provided links to all the provocative assertions I made).
Robin Singleton stated:
It appears you are conceding that she failed as governor and that somehow voters will be so emotionally attached to Ms. Palin they will overlook her failure as governor of the least-populated state and her quitting elected office to vote for her in ‘droves’? Even I don’t think social conservatives are that nuts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 12:09 PM
If this is true, then it is even worse. I am quite sure, for example, that Palin would answer "all five" when asked how many of our first five presidents were Christians, when the correct answer is none. Our founding fathers were not religious men. The most popular book of the late 1700's in the US was Thomas Paine's, The Age of Reason. The man who wrote those words you quoted was not a Christian but at various times in his life was a Desist, an atheist, and a Unitarian. He spoke openly against Jesus being god and was still elected president. (I doubt that could happen today.) If Sara Palin truly believes that our country was founded on some Christian, religious principles, then she is sadly ignorant of what this country means.
Posted by: Tom | December 2, 2009 12:14 PM
I think this is wrong. Some historians actually think James Buchanan was a traitor to the country. Franklin Pierce's signing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act led directly to the Civil War so it would be difficult to say that Bush did anything quite that bad.
Posted by: Tom | December 2, 2009 12:19 PM
Michael Heath @ 118:
This is not a complete citation, but you can look at the NY Times exit polls to get an idea of whether or not Robin Singleton's assertion is valid. The polls show that a majority of protestants and born-again/evangelicals ("80% of the electorate"—can this be right?) voted Republican, while a majority of Catholics (19% ¹ of the electorate) voted Democrat. Additionally, weekly church-goers (40% of the electorate) voted Republican.
So, we know that in terms of those who voted, the religious of them (which in turn represented a majority of those who voted) voted Republican. That doesn't quite get us closer to evaluating the assertion that the religious right didn't show up, but I thought I'd add it to the conversation anyway.
1) There seems to be disagreement in numbers between these tables and the graphs. Possibly because the tables appear to only count "white protestants" and "white catholics"?
Posted by: Kris | December 2, 2009 12:57 PM
Tom @ 120 - I concur that both Pierce and Buchanan are strong competitors. I was careful to parse "worst" given I referred to who did the worst damage which disqualifies your brief description of Buchanan to the standard I presented but puts Pierce in strong competition.
I argue that a civil war was inevitable upon ratification of the Constitution for two primary reasons: 1) the defect in the Constitution to clearly parse the limits of state governments' powers relative to the federally protected rights of the people that eventhe 14th Amendment hasn't completely solved in the courts or public square; left purposefully vague due to the slavery issue. 2) Multiple Congresses whose actions also guaranteed such a war including development and passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act but also subsequent actions.
I find Pierce was in league with many others that led to the Civil War, i.e., he's key piece of the puzzle, not the primary piece which I don't believe exists. Certainly his passisivity is cause to make the list, but I other actors are also complicit.
I see Bush's Executive Branch as taking unilateral, unforced actions, many of which were not even consistent with the Republican platform or conservative ideology and therefore not inevitable. In Bush's case, a compliant Congress followed Bush, not the other way around and contrary to Pierce signing what was a Senate creation designed and led by Stephen Douglas.
Bush distinguishes himself with unforced errors that will cost us for generations. Pierce a lackey who could have delayed what I argue would have happened anyway given it wasn't only about slaves, but also the question of state sovreignity.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 1:20 PM
So Obama can make a verbal gaffe and Palin can’t? Obama actually made a few more gaffes. Did you really believe Palin did not know what she reads? She was meeting the Editorial of the adn (Alaska Daily News) weekly so she could have at least named them. It’s very obvious she was up tight and completely blanked out by the series of unexpected questions. It can happen to anyone. You people just love to focus on Palin failures to diminish her.
While the overwhelming majority of the Christian right voted for McCain/Palin, they did not turn out at the numbers of 2000 or 2004. Democrats were far more energized (especially AA).McCain was not to their liking. My reasoning is that enough of them turned out to elect Bush and they could do the same for Palin as top of the ticket.
Just what portion of Bush voters wouldn't vote for Palin? Do you want to tell me Palin couldn’t get all the Bush voters? Bush was not any more qualified than Palin (thus my previous question) and share similar views with Sarah. Those that liked Bush will definitely like Palin. Sarah will get the same amount of votes as Bush did and some more (she will bring non religious average Americans that heart her for being like them). A third Party candidate like Lou Dobbs would move Independents to him and if it comes to Conservative vs. Liberals? Democrats lose.
I for one believe that Sarah saved her national aspiration by not finishing her term. Has she done that, she would be damaged for good and wouldn't be able to re-introduce herself in time for the 2012 election. She now has 3 years to change enough minds and increase her base.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 2, 2009 1:29 PM
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
That is a complete misrepresentation of anything asserted here. No one is judging Ms. Palin due to her verbal gaffes. Instead they are criticizing her dishonesty. If I accidently make reference to one of my cousins when I intended to refer to another cousin, I’m not lying, I made a mistake. What we have revealed here are dozens, now possibly a hundred plus documented validated lies that Ms. Palin has told, not gaffes – two different things.
Are you challenged in your reading comprehension or are you purposefully and dishonestly misrepresenting our very clear positions?
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
Again, I actually noted in a previous comment that we should applaud forthrightness by not judging people by their gaffes. In addition, no one has used any Palin verbal gaffes as evidence of her dishonesty. We have dozens perhaps now over a hundred independently validated lies made by Ms. Palin (e.g., her position on disinvestment in the Sudan, her attack on Sen. McCain regarding vetting legal fees, her repeated lies to the American people about her position on earmarks in general and the Bridge to Nowhere, etc.).
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
I have no idea what meeting you are referring to and how that meeting couples to specific claims made here. Could you please elaborate? In addition, our characterization of Ms. Palin in no way relies solely on one mere meeting with a newspaper. So I have no idea how such a meeting can be even remotely relevant when it comes to defending Ms. Palin relative to our assertions.
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
Several of us have repeatedly asked for you citations to your quantitative claims. We’ve provided ours, why can’t you do the same?
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
Some plutocrats, all moderate Republicans (e.g., Colin Powell, myself), 50% of Republican women (see my citation to the CNN poll in an earlier comment), at least 44% of Republican men, everyone from 2000 and 2004 who learned that simply because one shares religious views or prejudices with a candidate does not make that candidate viable. Non-deluded social conservatives who’ll vote for other conservative primary candidates. You seem to assume identity politics is a universal attribute or no other socially conservative friendly candidate will run in 2012. While it is with the Palinistas, that’s not true for the vast middle of the country plus social conservatives will have other more competent choices in 2012 than Palin in the primaries.
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
Far less than most, so few I can his off the top of my head. In fact his rate is far less given he’s been so transparent in exposing himself to the public and the media, far more than any other President. Personally however I’ve never weighed a President’s performance relative to his gaffes. President Reagan probably leads in that category in my lifetime and I still consider myself a proud Reaganite. You brought up gaffes as an issue, you fight with yourself on that item; I think to avoid dealing with our assertion that Ms. Palin distinguishes herself as a pathological liar.
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
Not even close. Though it’ll never happen, she can’t make it through a primary. Bush is leagues ahead of Ms. Palin in his capability as a campaigner, e.g., raising funds, managing a run, and actually running. In fact until President Obama’s campaign, I’d argue Bush’s 2000 run was the finest campaign managed in my lifetime. He had incredible discipline, Palin has almost zero discipline.
Robin Singleton states @ 123:
Repeating one’s assertion doesn’t increase the strength of the assertion, especially when it avoids rebuttals made previously, which I’ll repeat here: It appears you are conceding that she failed as governor and that somehow voters will be so emotionally attached to Ms. Palin they will overlook her failure as governor of the least-populated state and her quitting elected office to vote for her in ‘droves’? Even I don’t think social conservatives are that nuts.
Unless you provide direct responses to my points, I won’t be responding to you again. I find your avoidance of well-established properly framed facts and your repeated uncited assertions tiresome.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 2, 2009 2:14 PM
Sorry for the duplicate posts. I got a post limitation message that asked me to come back later. I did not know t went through... I edited and added to the post so it's not completely identical.
There appears to be a lot of animosity toward Palin on here along with doubt about her political future. She deserves most of the criticism but the vile aspect of the attack makes her a victim (Most Americans agree that the media is unfair to her). I believe her favorability numbers will move up to 50% by the time she is done with her book tour while her qualification numbers will remain low. But she has the "interesting" factor and in the US, we rarely vote for boring presidential candidates. Reagan, Clinton, G W, Obama wereall interesting characters. Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin is definitely interesting. A Palin vs Obama will be quite entertaining....and expensive.
Posted by: RobinSingleton | December 2, 2009 2:17 PM
I must be a mentally challenged Sarah Palin fan according to Michael. Anyone that believe she is viable politically must be as dumb as she is lol!
Here is a cnn article quote about the lower turnout among Republicans in 2008:
The report released Thursday estimates that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country.
“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008."
Also s governor, Sarah Palin met weekly with the Anchorage Daily News. All you need to do is go to adn.com and look it up. If you believe that she was not reading any newspaper, you have serious hatred issues.
Sarah Palin will have easier time raising money than McCain did and Romney aside; she will have more campaign money than any other GOP contender. With Huckabee out of it, Palin is now the front runner for 2012 if he goes for it. Money will not be an issue and additional attacks won't bother her at all. She has nothing to lose, having already made her fame and money.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 2, 2009 2:57 PM
Robin, you are absolutely the worst publicist Sarah Palin could have. You're publicly admitting all her worst qualities. Are you sure you're not a very clever Poe?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 3:03 PM
By the way, Robin, would you like to wager on whether Palin becomes the GOP candidate in '12? I'll give you 10-1 odds: if she does, I'll pay you $10; if she doesn't, you only have to pay me $1. Or are you less than $1 certain about the BS you're spewing?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 3:10 PM
Isn't there a codicil in the Internet Bylaws that says a Poe has to confess if they're challenged? I think I read that somewhere.
Anyway, Robin WoodenLegs has a good point--I think we must concede to her. Sarah Palin met with journalists, so she isn't stupid about current events. Dang! So simple! By the way, students attended my class today, so they are therefore taughtened up to very high standards.
Ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 2, 2009 3:29 PM
Independents and Moderates are two different things. It's hard to see Lou Dobbs, with his winks towards the Birther movement and his rants against brown people, as a moderate candidate. As a conservative Independent he would be competing with Palin for the Republican base and make things even worse for her.
The thing is that so far it isn't shaping up to be Conservatives vs. Liberals; it's Conservatives vs. Everyone Else, with candidates on the right (Republican, Libertarian and Independent) vying for the title of Conservative standard bearer. The problem is, there just aren't enough conservatives to go it alone. They need to win the middle.
She was just as interesting in the last election, when she alienated the moderates.
Your claim was that the religious right failed to turn out. Your quote only shows a modest decline in overall Republican turnout. What makes you so sure that those staying home weren't the disaffected moderates?
Why is that? Seriously, what do you base that on?
Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2009 3:47 PM
Bait on James Hanley! If Palin enters the primary, she wins BY SUPER TUESDAY.
As I said inn my first post, I agree with most of the Palin critics, just not the vile aspect of it. I also said that Palin is not your typical politician. She is who you all think she is (limited and mostly unqualified) but it has not stopped her from going from beauty Pageant to LEADING her school basketball team and from housewife to mayor then governor (she learned from her failure to win as LT governor).She is a populist opportunist that feeds off mass anger against government. She has a grass rout base that hearts her and a hardcore opposition that will never vote for her. If we are still in a bad economy and messed up wars in 2011, some moderate will go for the average gal that wants to clean up Washington if just as a protest.
Disclosure: I am an African American that voted for Obama.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 2, 2009 3:49 PM
I think "grass-rout" is the best expression I've heard so far to describe a Palin-led ticket.
Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2009 4:35 PM
We should be careful to distinguish between misspeaking and showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm certainly willing to spot her the Pledge of Allegiance thing since so many politicians are ignorant/dishonest enough to use it that's it's really nothing special.
No, certainly not. I am willing to believe that she reads very few (if any) papers, that she knew that fact would be embarrassing, and that she was trying to figure out which publications sounded good and wouldn't come back to bite her later. It's what I would have done in her position. At least, I would if I didn't read very much.
This wasn't a one-time thing, though. It's not like she usually gives good, coherent answers and then had one bad day. Take the financial crisis: I can't think of *one* instance in which she made a cogent point on the topic, no matter how many times she was asked. It was always just a rambling word salad about her maverickiness and how she'd tear down regulatory barriers and how we've got to cut taxes for the average Joe.
Anybody who has seen students answering questions about a topic when they haven't done the reading has seen this before. It's unmistakable. It's not even a case of a sly politician wanting to dodge a touchy topic. It's clearly just an attempt to make enough noise to gloss over the fact that she had no good analysis to offer.
If I could see an instance of her speaking (or even writing) incisively about any topic of substance, my opinion would be different. As it stands, this sounds like an attempt to draw equivalence between a smart, well-informed person misspeaking and a vapid, clueless person faking it.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 2, 2009 4:56 PM
Robin Singleton @ 126:
Thank you for the quote. I managed to track down the article the quote is from if others want to have a look. The article links to a report authored by Curtis Gans, Director of Center for the Study of the American Electorate at the American University in DC.
Robin Singleton @ 109, 123:
I think the reason everyone is reacting negatively to these sentiments is demonstrated by a CNN article that appeared a day after the one Ms. Singleton quotes from. To wit:
Admittedly, I don't know how Mr. Gans came to his conclusion. But it is telling that the author of the report Ms. Singleton cites to support her position in fact claimed the exact opposite viewpoint. According to Mr. Gans, it was Palin who poisoned the well, not McCain.
Posted by: Kris | December 2, 2009 5:17 PM
Could you provide some evidence to support this claim? The voter turnout in 2008 increased from 121 million to 129 million. Are you actually trying to claim that the religious right didn't go to the polls and they could, if they chose to do so in '12, swamp an 8 million vote increase that happened in spite of their alleged refusal to go to the polls? What will happen to those 8 million voters? Are you claiming that there are more than 8 million evangelicals who refused to go to the polls in '08? If so, how will those, say 9 million evangelicals offset the then 17 million new voters who not only replaced them, but apparently 100% voted for Obama?
Your arguments and claims are pipe dreams. There aren't enough religious right voters who failed to go to the polls in '08 to offset the massive Obama victory of '08. Bush never won by more than 3 million votes; even when he won 78% of the religious right or evangelical voters, he still never won by more than 3 million votes. McCain won 74% of white evangelical voters. Looking at 10 states that lean towards evangelical conservative christianity, you see that the Republican voter turnout increased in 7, stayed the same in one (less than a thousand vote increase), and dropped in two. The total drop in those two states combined was less than 110,000 votes.
In fact, McCain garnered slightly less than 60 million votes, at his highest turnout, Bush only got 62 million votes. To be silly you could try to claim that McCain lost 2 million votes of evangelicals who didn't come out and vote, if they came out, then McCain would only have lost by 7 million votes.
You're living in a dream world...
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 2, 2009 5:52 PM
Robin,
Does "Bait on James Hanley" mean you're accepting my wager? A simple yes or no will make things clearer.
And I'll not worry about Super Tuesday--I'll generously offer you the whole of the primary season, up to and including the Republican National Convention.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 2, 2009 5:57 PM
The capitalization of "LEADING" makes me wonder if Robin is maybe a Poe. Are we seriously saying that being captain of the basketball team is some remarkable achievement in a prospective President? Really?!?
Posted by: James Sweet | December 2, 2009 5:59 PM
I have to lean towards the Poe idea here as well. An African American Obama supporter who thinks that Palin will win the nomination in '12 "by super tuesday" and then win the presidency? C'mon, that's right up there with the blind black guy who joined the Klan. What are the odds?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 2, 2009 6:05 PM
Palin won't run for office because it's too much work. She has no staff and no one to ringer campaign. She blasted all the repugs that had any knowledge about campaigns. She is going to do the lecture circuit and talk show host.
Posted by: Emma | December 2, 2009 9:55 PM
LOL! You guys are too funny. So an African American guy can't make a case for Sarah Palin unless he is an Uncle Tom? Yeah right!
I am a conservative Democrat that voted for Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry and Obama. I was fully behind Hillary during the primary and even volunteered for her. The anti war activists far left cost the nomination during the series of caucuses in February. In caucuses, activists rule and Hillary made the mistake to put all her eggs on big States. I am no big fan of Obama because he is all rhetoric but I still wouldn't vote for warmonger McCain. I have NEVER voted for a Republican and will probably not vote for Palin in 2012.
So I am NOT a Sarah Palin voter. In fact, I laughed at her after her at first until the insane and plain dirty attacks on her by the Obama media made me feel sorry for her and her family. I became sympathetic to her and admired her ability to keep her head up and live her life. She is a BRAVE woman that was and still being soundly savaged by the left and elite right. This obsession to putting this woman down makes me want to defend her and this is the FIRST time I am actually posting about her. She may be misinformed, a quitter, unqualified to be president but DOES NOT DESERVE THE VILE ATTACKS on her and her family. So this is where I am coming from.
Let me now respond to some of your comments:
1. The captain of a basketball team in high school or college is the de-facto LEADER of the team. He/she is not necessarily the best player but leadership is far more than just talent. It's not every day the pretty girl that supposed to be the cheerleader becomes Captain of the athletic basketball team. That by itself is a big time achievement.
2. In 2008, the percentage of Republican voters decreased and McCain got 2 million less voters than Bush on a very high turnout election year. 2008 was a Change year and Obama had the youth and African Americans mobilized. He has not lived up to his rhetoric and losing the attention of all these young people. Many blacks went for history and Obama will lose some of them in 2012. The 2012 numbers will be to the 2004-2008 range and it will be a close election no matter who the GOP nominates. What Sarah loses in Moderate, she will gain in working class conservative...What Romney will gain with moderate; he will lose with religious right.
3. The bet is on, James! I know it was bait but I take it as a bet. If Palin goes for the Republican nomination, I have no doubt she will get it very early.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 2, 2009 10:18 PM
I suppose it's a matter of perspective. When comparing her to other applicants at a moderately selective university, I suppose that counts for something. When you're comparing resumes with the people most likely to inhabit the Oval Office, the story changes a bit.
When I was in high school, I went to an information session for a selective engineering school and the admissions officer put it in perspective. When he asked how many students there held elected offices at their schools, a third to half of the hands went up. Ditto for 1450+ on the SATs. Ditto for varsity athletics. Again for 4.0 GPAs. Not always the same hands, mind you, but it's worth remembering that the pond gets pretty big pretty fast once you start competing for selective spots.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 3, 2009 12:46 AM
Troublesome Frog - Just to further your point. I'm guessing the selectors didn't say to themselves: "Hmmm, this candidate has absolutely no aptitude at all for any kind of engineering, but gosh, they're captain of the basketball team, so we've just gotta have 'em!"
An ability to play a sport is a great skill to have, but Kennedy didn't wire Khrushchev and say: "Let's settle this missile crises by a playing a game of tennis", did he?
Not all skills are transferable to all situations, this is especially true when the result of a poor decision could be a national disaster (or worse).
Palin (IMHO) just doesn't have any of the appropriate skills to be President of the US. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 3, 2009 1:06 AM
What, you think that the pool of non-republican-voting working class conservatives is comparable in size to the pool of non-republican voting moderates? You're delusional.
You.
Can't.
Win.
Without.
The.
Middle.
Not in a two-party system.
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2009 6:43 AM
I could have guessed conservative, and I'll also venture religious. I would say "very religious", though you might not see yourself as being unusually devout. I don't see how else you could lack perspective so much as to think Sarah Palin would attract "ordinary Americans" because she's "like them".
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2009 6:50 AM
DaveL - I thought you might find this book review of Coyne's Why Evolution is True interesting: http://www.amazon.com/review/R35F0A7J3537RC
I for one would love to see your thoughts to this review and the reviewer's subsequent comments (in that forum/thread of course).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 3, 2009 7:17 AM
I am not a Church regular but have strong faith. I am mostly conservative in social issues and have as much beef with the far left as the far right. I am far more compassionate than moderate Republican and am far more aligned with the Clinton. Hillary has the position I liked. Obama was the celebrity copycat that still hasn't lived up to his rhetoric. As an African American, I was very proud to have voted for the first Black President but I always knew he was just a pretty talker. I found myself with tears when he won but that was my race crying, not my mind. Having an African American President meant a lot to us but If I had my wish, Hillary Clinton would have been the President of the United States.
The far left got Obama elected because he pretended to oppose the Iraq war when even himself said he would probably have voted for it has he been a US Senator. The moveon.org and other far left group just never forgot Hillary for voting Yes on the Iraq war resolution...
As for Palin, I believe she can do a Reagan on us even if far less knowledgeable than he was. You may not agree with this article but it's well written:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/sarah_palins_reagan_qualities.html
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 8:23 AM
Robin Singleton:
Unlike others here, I'll just take your blathering at face value and say that you're am unhinged fucking loon.
This:
"As an African American, I was very proud to have voted for the first Black President but I always knew he was just a pretty talker"
Pretty much tells me that you don't consider critical thinking, in your own mind or other people's, to be a laudable trait.
You're an idiot, an extremely wordy one, but, still an idiot.
Posted by: democommie | December 3, 2009 8:43 AM
Robin,
The bet is on. Don't run away from me now come '12. I'm easy to find, so you have no excuse for not sending me $1 a couple years from now.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 3, 2009 8:55 AM
Robin: Now read the comments. They tend to represent the kind of mindset that we don't want in charge. Paranoid, ignorant, angry and zealously sure of their righteousness.
That's the Republican base.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 3, 2009 8:56 AM
If you mean building a massive deficit, consolidating wealth to the highest degree since the Gilded age, destroying unions, expanding government, and making us more reliant on foreign goods. Sure, I see her inflicting a Reagan on us.
Robin,
You seem to be completely unaware of how American politics works. Normally in the United States, 1/3 consider themselves Democrats, 1/3 consider themselves Republicans, 1/3 consider themselves independents. In those measures it becomes patently clear where both parties tend to orient themselves, towards the middle. Currently self identified Republicans are down in the 20% range, that means the party, if it wants to be successful, needs to move towards the middle to obtain those moderate independent voters. Sarah Palin is precisely the opposite of that, she is an extreme, hard-core, right wing religious conservative. She scares the crap out of moderate independents, especially those who might be fiscally conservative but socially liberal or libertarian. Her social policies are far too conservative for moderates to vote for her, her fiscal and foreign affairs policies are far to simplistic and idiotic for anyone but the most dedicated Republican to vote for her. She is an unelectable idiot, she is Pat Buchanan without the racism.
Also, if you believe that the "liberal left-wing" got Obama elected, you are a world class idiot. Obama catered to the middle, that is what made him a strong candidate. Despite the reich wing rhetoric, he is a moderate through and through. His fiscal policies, foreign policies, and social policies aren't that different from Clinton's, the big difference is that he didn't have the baggage she had with moderate conservatives and he ran a better campaign.
That's the key, Obama is successful with the middle, with moderates. He gets the liberal vote because they would rather vote for a moderate Democrat than take the chance that another Dubya gets into the White House. He caters to the moderates, if the Republicans nominate Palin, barring a massive Great Depression Two economic situation and/or another major terrorist attack, Obama would defeat her rather handily.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 3, 2009 9:17 AM
"she is Pat Buchanan without the racism."
It's early, yet. Give her time.
Posted by: democommie | December 3, 2009 9:34 AM
@Michael Heath,
That will take some time to respond to, I might not get around to it for a couple of days.
@Dogmeat,
I think Robin and we continue to talk past each other because what Robin believes to be the "far left" is actually the middle, or possibly left-of-center, while what she believes to be representative of moderate, ordinary Americans is actually a small group of religious conservatives.
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2009 9:38 AM
For those who want another take on Sarah's tome, check out the Amazon Review by Jesus' General.
Posted by: democommie | December 3, 2009 9:38 AM
Talking about close minded extremists, some of you really fit that label! There is no way to reason with you guys. You are too glued to your political conviction for any gray area. You believe Palin to be an insignificant idiot, anyone that sympathize with her to be another idiot, people that buy her books to be idiot and anyone that actually give her a chance to win the GOP primary or general election to be an idiot. If that person happens to be black, it must be an uncle tom. If that person is a democrat, he must be a right religious nut. It's either black or white for you guys: no middle ground.
You are all so perfect that you were never in a situation where you your heart ruled over your mind! Great. I can guaranty you that all those African Americans that voted for Obama without believing on his policies or rhetoric aren't incapable or critical thinking or idiots: One has to have grown up as a black person in America to understand. One has to grow up through discrimination to understand why a black person that does not agree with Obama would still vote for him... You people are too perfect and intelligent to understand.
I lived in San Francisco for awhile and definitely know what the far left looks like. I also lived in Missouri to know what the far right looks like. I am completely aware of how American politics works. By 2012, most voters will call themselves independents but everyone knows most of them are centrist Republicans or Democrats.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 10:12 AM
Robin of Singleton - Even if you lived in Haight-Ashbury during '68 you certainly don't know what the far left looks like.
American politics is (relative to the real world) extremely skewed to the right.
In the rest of the Western world, the most extreme left-wing Democrat would be too rightist for even the most moderate leftist patries; the most extreme right-wing Republican would be kicked out of extreme Neo-Nazi Parties for their über-Nazi zeal.
However this is not really the relevant issue is it? The real issue is that nearly three out of every four of all American voters* thinks that Sarah Palin is not Presidential material. How do you explain that? - DJ
-------------
* Over four in every ten male self-identifying Republican voters and over six in every ten female self-identifying Republican voters think she is not Presidential material, clearly higher in self-identifying independents and Democrats.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 3, 2009 10:43 AM
Do you, now? Then perhaps you can tell us how the "far left" supposedly got Obama elected? Was it for his promise to enforce strict vegetarianism? His ties to the Communist Party? His commitment to overturn the 2nd Amendment?
Really now, what about Obama is supposed to have appealed to the "far left"? He's against same-sex marriage, but in favour of civil unions for same-sex couples. This is not a far-left position, but a carefully calibrated centrist one. He supports a public healthcare option but opposes a single-payer system, again a carefully calibrated centrist position. His entire campaign and presidency nas been calculated and nuanced not to set off too many alarm bells with either the left or the right. To call his support base the "far left" you have to either:
1) Not understand what the far left is; or
2) Be talking out your ass.
Now, how is anyone here an extremist? Is merely being convinced that Palin alienated the center in 2008 and would do so again if she ran in 2012 enough to make someone an extremist?
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2009 10:53 AM
What poll are you looking at? I know , the PRE-BOOK tour polls when all the memories of Palin were the Katie Couric interview. A LOT has changed since then with her interviews with Oprah, Walters and Bill O. Palin has MUCH better numbers now. You may not trust the last foxnews poll but some liberal polls will show better numbers. Let's see what the next Gallup poll looks like.
How many Americans thought Reagan was electable 3 years before he ended up winning? How many people thought Obama was electable?
Public opinion change in no time and Palin may just have enough dressing to fool many people into voting for her. When heart and anger cloud minds, a lot can change. As I said, it will all depend on the economic situation 3 years from now...Palin is changing some minds; you are just all too STUBBORN to see it.
Keep on living with outdated poll numbers...
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 10:56 AM
For the record, Nate Silver thinks she's got a shot at the Republican nomination. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/10-reasons-that-sarah-palin-could-win.html
I hope he's right.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 3, 2009 11:07 AM
Here come the insults, Oh boy! So predictable from close minded people that think they have all the answers. Better check your blood pressure because I don't want to be sued.
Obama did not have to share far left views to get their support. They don't like Clinton for her centrist position (stronger on national security for example) and like I said, voting for the war in Iraq was a non-starter for leftist groups like moveon.org. MoveOn is the reason Obama won all these February caucus and their endorsement of Obama made the difference during the primaries.
Does anyone know where Obama stands on any issue? The reason he loved voting "PRESENT" is his indecision. He is too pragmatic for his own good, dragging his feet to take a position for fear of political repercussion. His half way decision on Afghanistan is vantage Obama: uncommitted but doing just enough to appease people. Obama is actually conservative on social issues like same sex marriage but won't dare alienate his left like Bill Clinton did. The guy is a sweet talker, nothing more, nothing less. We would have been better off with Hillary.
Again, I don't agree with Palin and will still vote Democrat in 2012. I live in California and she has no chance here. But I respect her for standing up to her values, keeping her head up under vile attacks from the left and elite right and going around small town America meeting people that share her views. I am not one that dismisses others as idiot because everyone has something to offer in society. I also believe he can surprise us like Reagan did. Let’s just agree to disagree and please bare me of further insults.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 11:41 AM
dogmeatib @ 150 - as a moderate and recent independent, you speak for me in this post on two counts:
1) As you note for my demographic, Palin's policies scare the crap out of me, yes. However I would also add that both her total lack of character and her mental deficiencies scare me far more than her policies. I would argue it was these personal attributes that scared more moderates to Obama than her objectionable policies.
2) You also accurately describe why I became an Obama supporter by the late-summer of 2008 in terms of Obama being a moderate. I would add though that Obama's legacy and intellectual journey is one of someone mainstream left moving to the center. I'm pretty close to where Obama is on the continiuum, where I merely started from the Right.
I do strongly object to this statement you make:
I find Buchanan one of the most interesting enigmas out there. He has some indefensible positions, I think some because he starts with a poor framework (e.g., his position on World War II, the legacy of races when confronted with enlightened thinking and their resultant political liberties), and a few that are outright delusional (Christianism).
However, after reading wo books by Buchanan and following his weekly column for decades now, I will unequivocably stand by this:
He's far smarter than Palin.
His interests are far more aligned with the national interest.
He's far more honest than Palin, though again, he has some tangential forays into bad thinking, but I'd argue far less than most conservatives. He just says what he thinks while they couch behind shallow talking points.
He has far better executive capabilities than Palin.
For the most part, he is on an honest intellectual journey and will adapt his positions. His problem is he started so far right, and a few issues, his retreat would be distant to back on track.
I'm not going to defend Buchanan's horrible positions, given my monitoring of him I know them as well as anyone and also find them just wrong and/or even repugnant. However, it's my judgment that Palin is not even close to being Buchanan's league. I also think he'd be far less partisan as an elected official than people give him credit for in spite of my being extremely cognizant he's an officer on the wrong side of the Culture War.
I can not defend anything about guys like Rick Warren, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, the Catholic Donohue fellow, Tony Perkins, all the sleaze-ball social conseravtive Senators (Brownback, Inhofe, Cornyn, etc.), but I will Pat Buchanan especially stacked against Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 3, 2009 11:48 AM
Then how on earth can you say the far left won the election for Obama? If the support of the far left was a given for the Democratic Party no matter what their policies or campaigning, and the support of the far left can win the election for you, then logically the Dems should have won every election in recent memory. They haven't. That's because your claim that the far left won the election for Obama is ridiculously, laughably false and he won by convincing the moderates.
What does that have to do with the general election?
Now, since you dodged my last question I'll repeat it again: how is anyone here an extremist?
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2009 11:52 AM
Robin of Singleton - you keep speaking of these hypothetical 'post-book' polls, where are they? Without evidence your assertions are simply fantasy. Show us the evidence. -DJ
--------------
PS President Obama was always a moderate, that is what he was elected as (except in the fevered imaginations of Palinistas), get over it. The Democrats reached out to the centre and won; the Republicans tried to shore up their base and were trounced.
For the Democrats, 2012 is shaping up to be a repeat at worse.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 3, 2009 11:54 AM
Robin, possibly a permanent PUMA, possibly a Republican plant, blithered thusly:
Does anyone know where Obama stands on any issue?
He's smarter, braver, and more honest than ANYONE currently in the top ranks of the Republican Party. That's not saying much, I admit, but it's all I need to know. I don't need to be able to guess his every decision; I just need to know he actually gives a shit and will try to do the right thing.
But I respect her for standing up [for] her values...
"Standing up" for your values is easy; applying them responsibly, and taking responsibility for the results, good or bad, is not so easy.
...keeping her head up under vile attacks from the left and elite right...
What "vile attacks," exactly? Since when was it "vile" to prove someone is a chronic liar (as Sullivan and "the left" did), or point out that she's not at all qulaified for the job she seeks (as both "the left" and "the elite right" have done)? And yes, they did back up their charges with actual quotes and factual citations. She can't even tell the truth about a scrabble game, ferfucksake, let alone something of any importance. (No, you can't hoard letters.)
...and going around small town America meeting people that share her views.
What's so respectable about "going around" to carefully-vetted audiences of people who already agree with you and can be trusted not to question any of your statements, no matter how ignorant or false?
I am not one that dismisses others as idiot because everyone has something to offer in society.
...says the person who dismisses Obama while totally ignoring what he's offered. We're still waiting to see what Palin has to offer, and you haven't listed anything. The people of Alaska gave her a chance to show what she had to offer, and soon found she had nothing. Then she ran away and pretended it wasn't running away.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2009 3:28 PM
Michael,
I would agree that Buchanan is more intelligent than Palin, my point was that she is about as unelectable, her support, like Buchanan's is far more narrow than that necessary to be a successful candidate.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 3, 2009 4:07 PM
Ummm, if she "stood up for her values," then why did she take oil money as the governor of Alaska? That's socialism and redistribution of wealth. She's a "tough hockey mom," if so, then why did she quit? If she was all for small government, then why did she accept so much federal funding for her state? Why did she argue in favor of the "bridge to nowhere" before it became politically expedient to argue against it? Why did she argue against the stimulus money but then accept it? If she is an honest politician, then why did she abuse her powers as both mayor and governor? If she was resigning to save the state money, then why does she allow the state to continue to pay the tab for the legal cases still pending against her former administration? If she is so loyal and good, why has she thrown basically everyone who ever supported her in Alaska and worked with her during the '08 campaign under the bus? If she loves our country and supports the troops, why did she try to turn an allegedly charitable visit to Fort Hood into a publicity grab and tried to violate federal law and turn it into a campaigning speech? Why did she violate federal law and use it as an opportunity to campaign without the speech?
Just what are these principles she stands for? From what I see, her principles are Sarah, Sarah, and what's good for Sarah.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 3, 2009 4:21 PM
The far left support for Obama mattered during the primaries and that's what I referred too. I was talking Obama vs. Hillary and the moveon.org support made the difference in February caucuses. Activists scared Hillary supporters and Obama built up a big delegate lead. Hillary won all the big States because they weren't segregated caucus for far left activists.
The general election was a referendum on G Bush and the collapse of Wall Street. ANY Democrat would have won in 2008 anyway.
Again, what does Obama stand for? Voting "PRESENT" and taking 3 months to come up with a half way decision on Afghanistan? Pushing a stimulus that made no difference? Winning a Nobel Prize without any merit?
You guys are really drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. The guy is all talk no action. If he could, he would have voted PRESENT about Afghanistan...He tried for 3 months.
So now I am a Republican plant? LOL! If that makes you feel good I guess. I doubt Republican plants like Palin because they are paid by the elites. Palin supporters are far more emotional than I am. I am just a Democrat black man that happens to be sympathetic to Palin for standing up to diminishing attacks. I am also a disgruntled Hillary support that does not think much of Obama or the current far left leaned Democrats in Congress. Centrist Democrats are at a loss right now and Obama does not want to portray himself as a Centrist even if he is a moderate.
Not everyone that supports Palin is a fan. I respect the woman because she is standing up to killer attacks. I find that to be BRAVE. I don't share her policies, find her uninformed and basic but like her personality. My gal is Hillary Clinton, not Sarah Palin.
There is a foxnews poll that shows Sarah Palin numbers near 50%. The last poll I saw was from Rasmussen and that bodes well for the GOP primaries:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/59_of_gop_voters_say_palin_shares_their_values
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 4:27 PM
"Not everyone that supports Palin is a fan. I respect the woman because she is standing up to killer attacks. I find that to be BRAVE. I don't share her policies, find her uninformed and basic but like her personality. My gal is Hillary Clinton, not Sarah Palin.
There is a foxnews poll that shows Sarah Palin numbers near 50%. The last poll I saw was from Rasmussen and that bodes well for the GOP primaries:"
Mr. Singleton:
If you picked up about 50 IQ points then you'd only be stupid.
See, it's not so much that people like insulting you as it is that you offer such nonsense as the comments you put out here that they really have no choice, other than debunking the memes they have debunked so many times in the past. I'm not into debunking, I'm into telling knucKKKleheads like you to STFU.
Posted by: democommie | December 3, 2009 4:42 PM
Activists scared Hillary supporters...
You're alleging systematic voter intimidation? Citations, please, or admit you're full of shit.
Again, what does Obama stand for?
That question has been answered, in Obama's words and actions, and you're ignoring all of it.
I am also a disgruntled Hillary support that does not think much of Obama or the current far left leaned Democrats in Congress.
Are you kidding me? They can't even force a sensible debate on public health insurance that includes a factual discussion of European health-care policies. If that's your idea of "far left," you don't even know what "far left" means.
Pushing a stimulus that made no difference?
Further proof of your infantile mindset. If you had ANY understanding of economics, and actually listened to people who knew about the issues, you would know the stimulus did indeed make a difference -- as bad as things are now, they'd be a LOT worse without it. Yes, it's clunky and haphazard and riddled with flaws; and no, the work's not done; but it is making a difference. You need to get an education, start seeing past your own hardships, and learn patience.
I respect the woman because she is standing up to killer attacks.
You may find this hard to grasp, but sometimes people get attacked because they've said or done things that are wrong and unworthy of respect. Palin is under attack because she's a well known liar and uncaring uneducable idiot. Do you respect obstinate dishonesty and stupidity? Or are you just easily bowled over by assertive people no matter how wrong they are? Would you show equal respect for, say, Jerry Falwell?
My gal is Hillary Clinton, not Sarah Palin.
Then why are you supporting Palin with such mindless sycophancy? Her looks? I'm not a Hillary supporter, but she's smarter, braver, and more honest than Palin. Does that not deserve respect?
Posted by: Raging bee | December 3, 2009 4:52 PM
Of course I am an idiot! That's why I sympathize with Palin! I have been discriminated against and undermined, underestimated all my life, all the way to a higher education, 2 Masters and managing my own IT company! There is no idiot like me.
I won't STFU because enraging stubborn extremists like you made me very successful...Just as Sarah Palin is showing.
Success is the true measure of any argument or theme. Just because you disagree with certain assertion does not make them unrealistic. Sarah Palin can follow the same path Reagan did and that is not an idiotic statement.
But hey, I am such idiot so what do I know? One has to be a refined empty suit talker like Obama to be seen smart and intelligent.
Just like Hillary (during the primaries) and Sarah, I walk with my head high and have a successful like despite being such idiot.
You guys are hilarious lol! Trust me, I ain't leaving this site. Too much pleasure enraging people like you...
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 4:59 PM
Do you know how caucus work? There is a lot of intimidation and brawl in caucus. It's not as easy as dropping a ballot and moving on. Caucuses are for activists and moveon.org mobilized its member to intimidate the Hillary supporters. I actually attended a couple as a Hillary volunteer, I speak from experience.
Obama has not achieved NADA in 12 months. He has not met his campaign rhetoric about Iraq and escalading the war in Afghanistan. There is lot of ink regarding the effect of the economic stimulus and none showed positive results. I am actually a very active investor and follow the market very closely. In fact, it's so unsuccessful that most of the money is still not allocated. They should use the rest of the money to fund the troops.
I am for Universal healthcare but only if taxpayers are willing to pay for it like they do in Europe and Canada. It has to be paid for with additional tax income for the Federal government. I am actually willing o pay more taxes for more affordable healthcare that covers most of America.
So Sarah Palin and her family deserve to be trashed left and right because she is a liar LIKE EVERY POLITICIAN? Should we start trashing Obama and his family then? Would you be attacking her this viciously if she was a liberal feminist? OF course not. You are attacking her because she does not share your values... That's what you do in the far left: You diminish people you dislike, calling them names and sounding pitiful. I am used to it even as a conservative Democrat living in Los Angeles.
I am full of knowledge and can handle anything you throw my way. I am outnumbered but it does not matter: I have been all my life.
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 3, 2009 5:29 PM
Which ones are those? Seriously.
Again, who here is an extremist and how?
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2009 7:25 PM
I do hope Robin stays. I haven't seen a chew toy this much fun since Pat.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 3, 2009 9:36 PM
"Of course I am an idiot! That's why I sympathize with Palin! I have been discriminated against and undermined, underestimated all my life, all the way to a higher education, 2 Masters and managing my own IT company! There is no idiot like me.
I won't STFU because enraging stubborn extremists like you made me very successful...Just as Sarah Palin is showing."
No, Mr. Singleton, you don't enrage me, you're just another one of the endlessly idiotic Palinbots who, against all reason and evidence, feel she is Joan D'Artic. Get a new fixation, Paris Hilton is more appealing.
Well, either a very strange man who has way too much time on his hands OR a time wasting Poe. Either way, it's like hitting a pinata without being blindfolded. Except when it bursts open it's full of shit, instead of candy and toys.
Posted by: democommie | December 3, 2009 10:33 PM
Demo - I'm sure Robin of Singeton would love to be a
stalkerfollower of Ms. Hilton. I mean she's the 'poster-gal' for his theory; she's incredibly rich so she must have produced lots of stuff that someone else absolutely needed otherwise she won't be incredibly rich, right Robin? - DJ------------
Wealth is not a measure of productiveness, of success in your chosen field nor of your utility to the community as a whole, it's just a measure of how much 'stuff' you've accumulated or inherited.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 3, 2009 11:22 PM
Mr. Singleton, I find it quite incredible that someone who supported Hillary Clinton would find Sarah Palin appealing.
Tell me, which of Secretary Clinton's policies did you support? She was quite clear, as I recall, about her positions on many issues.
I can't think of any issue on which Clinton and Palin agree. Are there points of similarity I have overlooked?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 4, 2009 12:15 AM
It's Mr. Singleton, not Ms.? Sorry for my mis-titlings; Robin is not a common male name to me. In fact, the only two I've known are Robin Williams and Robin Hood, of course.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 12:52 AM
And Kermit's cousin.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 12:58 AM
Wikipedia sez it's his nephew, but regardless, of course! How could I forget. I practically own the DVD set of the Muppet Show. And by "practically" I mean, I'd like to, but I don't.
Of course, by that criteria, I also practically own a Ferrari.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 1:12 AM
Hey! Don't go bringing so-called "facts" into this! I don't.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 1:21 AM
My fault! My fault. Just that wikipedia's where I always turn to for quick facts. Not historically reliable, I know, but I trust in the hivemind.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 2:17 AM
Leigh, have you been reading my posts? I have repetitively said that I don't agree with Palin on policies; don't share her views but SYMPHATISIZE with her. I RESPECT her for standing up tall against vicious and lame attacks on her and her children. I ADMIRE that on. Perhaps growing up discriminated against, suffering through but persevering to have a successful life has something to do with it.
Sarah Palin has been abused personally and she isn't hunkering down or hiding. She may be a liar, quitter, conservative nut but all politicians are liars, most of them opportunists and there are many conservative nut elected in Congress. NONE of them was so viciously attacked as Palin in a very personal and sexist way.
I am not a Palin voter. She does not share my value. I am a Hillary voter with whom I share policy views.
Is that difficult to understand? Can't someone be open minded enough to personally heart a politician with whom they disagree with on policies? Identity politics is really a big problem in America. This is why the country is so divided. Don’t you have family members or friends with whom you disagree politically?
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 4, 2009 10:03 AM
Speaking of Sarah Palin, Sapwolf wrote: "Adlai Stevenson she is not. Unlike him, she'll win the job in 2012."
Sarah Palin will never again run for political office. Why should she? She'll be happier, better paid, more popular, work less hard, and make more money on the lecture circuit.
Not to mention the fact that she thereby largely avoids being either "harassed by frivolous nonsense" or "charged with misconduct." (Pick your preferred phrase.) Especially after that payback book.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 4, 2009 4:06 PM
Robin, I do indeed have much-loved family members with whom I disagree -- in fact, that includes all of them, since my husband, my two youngest offspring, and I are the token liberals amongst a huge clan of East Texas "salt of the earth" folks.
However, I don't find lying opportunists at all attractive. Unlike you, I'm not cynical enough to think that all politicians are inveterate liars. And I don't like stupidity and willful ignorance.
I also can't agree that Palin has been viciously attacked. Derided and mocked, perhaps. Nor have I seen sexism in the way she's been treated. (If anything, Obama's campaign handled her with kid gloves.) It's not sexist to demand that female politicians bring some brains and experience to the table.
Calling someone stupid when she's plainly demonstrated that she's an ignorant idiot isn't a vicious attack, it's merely a statement about observable fact. One only has to look at the vile nonsense the teabaggers spew at the President to understand what an attack looks like . . . and quoting Palin's own words hardly qualifies.
I also don't think she's at all courageous. Excluding reporters from her speeches makes her look pretty lily-livered.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 5, 2009 2:38 AM
December 7, 2009 3:32 PM
Sarah Palin's Popularity Grows, Poll Finds
(AP)A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released today (PDF) finds that Sarah Palin's favorable rating has risen to 46 percent. That represents an increase from the 39 percent favorable rating for Palin in CNN polling over the summer, following her decision to resign from her job as Alaska governor.
Palin, the former GOP vice presidential candidate, remains a polarizing figure, of course: 46 percent view her unfavorably, matching her favorable rating. Just 8 percent of those surveyed did not offer an opinion on Palin, who is currently on a book tour for memoir "Going Rogue: An American Life."
The poll also found that former Vice President Dick Cheney, a frequent critic of President Obama, remains unpopular. Cheney's unfavorable rating sits at 53 percent, while 39 percent view him favorably.
Eight in 10 Republicans view Palin favorably, CNN reports, while more than seven in 10 Democrats views her unfavorably. Men are more likely to view Palin favorably than women.
Palin spoke at the Washington Gridiron Club's winter meeting over the weekend, along with openly gay liberal Democrat Rep. Barney Frank; she suggested to an audience of journalists than they are ideologically biased and don't understand her home state, according to Politico.
"If the election had turned out differently," Palin joked, "I could be the one overseeing the signing of bailout checks, and Vice President Biden could be on the road selling his book, 'Going Rogaine.'"
Posted by: Robin Singleton | December 7, 2009 6:28 PM