Jump to content

GOP Wars Episode 2: Sarah Palin Fights Back!


Pangloss
 Share

Recommended Posts

I mentioned in the Giffords Shooting thread that a recent opinion poll showed that most Americans disagreed that inflammatory language was behind the shooting, but felt that it is a problem in general. Well, more polls have been coming out, and what looked initially like bright news for the Sarah Palin camp is turning into something else entirely.

 

In short, the public doesn't approve of her reaction any more than it approves of liberals blaming her. People simply aren't buying what she's selling. I've seen several stories along these lines, which we can basically summarize as a rapidly-falling, lowest-yet approval rating for Palin.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47772.html

 

I don't think the woman is stupid and I do think she's unfairly trashed sometimes, but my problem with her is that she's a walking two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. She dwells in the most partisan territory possible, not only condemning progressive policies, but actively engaged in declaring progressives/liberals to be stupid, detrimental, unpatriotic, and having no common ground whatsoever with conservatives. Can anyone even remotely imagine her sitting down at a table with Democrats and hammering out a compromise? Seriously?

 

In a nutshell, she's exactly the opposite of what I think mainstream conservatism should be about. Her partisanship undermines absolutely everything that I believe in.

 

My two bits, anyway. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're right.

Sarah Palin will - at best - divide the USA completely. As you said, she is not one for compromises... but with a politician like her receiving a lot of attention, you should watch out for a widening political gap between her fans and her opponents. Her rhetoric cannot close that gap. Her political style actually aims to widen it.

 

And simply for those reasons I think she is not suited to be president. A president should be the president of all the people, not just of a part of a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned in the Giffords Shooting thread that a recent opinion poll showed that most Americans disagreed that inflammatory language was behind the shooting, but felt that it is a problem in general. Well, more polls have been coming out, and what looked initially like bright news for the Sarah Palin camp is turning into something else entirely.

 

In short, the public doesn't approve of her reaction any more than it approves of liberals blaming her. People simply aren't buying what she's selling. I've seen several stories along these lines, which we can basically summarize as a rapidly-falling, lowest-yet approval rating for Palin.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47772.html

 

I don't think the woman is stupid and I do think she's unfairly trashed sometimes, but my problem with her is that she's a walking two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. She dwells in the most partisan territory possible, not only condemning progressive policies, but actively engaged in declaring progressives/liberals to be stupid, detrimental, unpatriotic, and having no common ground whatsoever with conservatives. Can anyone even remotely imagine her sitting down at a table with Democrats and hammering out a compromise? Seriously?

 

In a nutshell, she's exactly the opposite of what I think mainstream conservatism should be about. Her partisanship undermines absolutely everything that I believe in.

 

My two bits, anyway. What do you think?

 

I agree. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin ... dwells in the most partisan territory possible

Ditto. Any extremism is the simplest and easiest ideology to maintain. Palin suffers from a near-utter lack of tact, poise, diplomacy, savoir-faire and overall brain-power essential for any top national office. Her abysmal failure at, and abdication of, the Alaskan Monarchy says volumes about her inabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, the public doesn't approve of her reaction any more than it approves of liberals blaming her. People simply aren't buying what she's selling. I've seen several stories along these lines, which we can basically summarize as a rapidly-falling, lowest-yet approval rating for Palin.

So what exactly is it she is selling? Is she preaching anything beyond reactivism against liberalism fiscal and social?

 

I don't think the woman is stupid and I do think she's unfairly trashed sometimes, but my problem with her is that she's a walking two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. She dwells in the most partisan territory possible, not only condemning progressive policies, but actively engaged in declaring progressives/liberals to be stupid, detrimental, unpatriotic, and having no common ground whatsoever with conservatives. Can anyone even remotely imagine her sitting down at a table with Democrats and hammering out a compromise? Seriously?

I think what you're failing to recognize is that a big selling point for many voters is that a politician should not be a pragmatist and compromise with what they believe is wrong just to maximize their popularity. People consider this somewhat spineless and like politicians that have a strong vision of what's right and work to resolve issues of the opposition. I.e. they think that if the president is right, that s/he should be able to convince the opposition. The problem is that the opposition is just as convinced that they're right and they're willing to scrap as many presidents as it takes to dominate with their prerogative (this is my impression anyway).

 

I think you're right.

Sarah Palin will - at best - divide the USA completely. As you said, she is not one for compromises... but with a politician like her receiving a lot of attention, you should watch out for a widening political gap between her fans and her opponents. Her rhetoric cannot close that gap. Her political style actually aims to widen it.

 

And simply for those reasons I think she is not suited to be president. A president should be the president of all the people, not just of a part of a country.

Like Bush, she may end up being a president who is a president of all people but in unexpected ways giving them what they need more than what they want. I don't think there was anyone who wasn't ultimately disappointed by Bush in some way, yet somehow they are mostly better off because of that. How is it you expect her to divide the USA? What about the world as a whole? My impression is typically that any president who doesn't do anything possible to enrich the global power-classes as much as possible "divides" people, but that is imo because exploitative power has been normalized and anyone who challenges it is treated as themselves exploiting/hurting "the country/world."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Bush, she may end up being a president who is a president of all people but in unexpected ways giving them what they need more than what they want. I don't think there was anyone who wasn't ultimately disappointed by Bush in some way, yet somehow they are mostly better off because of that.

I'd like you to either show a reference, or a very good example.

 

As far as I can see, 8 years of Bush increased the national debt, started 2 debatable wars, severely reduced American popularity in Europe and most importantly restricted the liberties of the American population. But I have a feeling that you have a different view.

 

How is it you expect her to divide the USA? What about the world as a whole? My impression is typically that any president who doesn't do anything possible to enrich the global power-classes as much as possible "divides" people, but that is imo because exploitative power has been normalized and anyone who challenges it is treated as themselves exploiting/hurting "the country/world."

I mean that she will divide the country into a left and a right (not the rich and poor). She fuels a hatred against everything that is left...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, does my eyesight fail me or ...uh... does she appear not so "white" in a literal physical sense. Her videos on the recent shootings (I don't otherwise pay attention to her) show her as though through a sepia filter. Tanning salon, studio lighting, camera settings, video processing, or what? She's looks almost as dark as Obama. :blink: If only they could filter out her twang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like you to either show a reference, or a very good example.

 

As far as I can see, 8 years of Bush increased the national debt, started 2 debatable wars, severely reduced American popularity in Europe and most importantly restricted the liberties of the American population. But I have a feeling that you have a different view.

Bush's fiscal stimulus caused people to question fiscal stimulus. His bank bailouts caused people to question government intervention in the economy. His "commander-in-chief" status caused people to question authoritarianism. His wars got people comfortable enough with war to start criticizing it again (they were afraid to when it all started). His "wire-tapping" and "torture" discussion caused people to deal with long-standing deep-seated fears implanted in the popular psyche from years of subtle insinuations. So Bush sort of affected everyone in a way that made them more independent by causing them to question government, which is basically what the republican movement has been about since its inception how many centuries ago?

 

I mean that she will divide the country into a left and a right (not the rich and poor). She fuels a hatred against everything that is left...

If she does, she will only be exploiting a divide that is already strong - and I will bet that it will weaken in the course of her deconstruction of it. Just as Bush started with high approval ratings for being "commander-in-chief," was compared with Hitler, and was accompanied by a strong culture of repression of dissent; and by his second term he left with a terrible approval rating and hardly a soul who was still afraid to critique him (I think I was/am the only one left maybe); Palin may have similar deconstructive effects.

 

Also, does my eyesight fail me or ...uh... does she appear not so "white" in a literal physical sense. Her videos on the recent shootings (I don't otherwise pay attention to her) show her as though through a sepia filter. Tanning salon, studio lighting, camera settings, video processing, or what? She's looks almost as dark as Obama. :blink: If only they could filter out her twang.

This sounds strange to me. Are you trying to make a point about racial identity in politics and, if so, why not just explicate it instead of playing with impressions?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Palin became president, she would have no more trouble than Obama is having today after snubbing the Repubican party for two years. If she got her "butt" in the ringer like this president has, there would be little choice but to compromise. What was it Dunn said: No man is an island? I suppose that could go for females too.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds strange to me. Are you trying to make a point about racial identity in politics and, if so, why not just explicate it instead of playing with impressions?

It seems strange to me too. Palin looks significantly darker, and I don't know who did it or why. It seems that the videos are not live, so there's plenty of time for proper video editing. Maybe all that time away from Alaska has naturally darkened her skin, but the rest of the frame seems "subdued" as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you're failing to recognize is that a big selling point for many voters is that a politician should not be a pragmatist and compromise with what they believe is wrong just to maximize their popularity. People consider this somewhat spineless and like politicians that have a strong vision of what's right and work to resolve issues of the opposition. I.e. they think that if the president is right, that s/he should be able to convince the opposition. The problem is that the opposition is just as convinced that they're right and they're willing to scrap as many presidents as it takes to dominate with their prerogative (this is my impression anyway).

 

Yah that happens, but I think that's the old public trend. The new public trend is recognizing spin and rejecting it. I could be wrong here, but let me lay out my case.

 

Palin's flagging poll numbers are just the most recent example of public rejection of pundit mind control. I think people are gradually realizing that the media-driven "war" between liberals and conservatives is really relatively minor disputes over current problems. And I think that's the way most people are coming to see it, both left and right.

 

There's a reason registered independents now outnumber both parties. There's a reason Obama is more popular when he crosses ideological/party lines. There's a reason Fox News skews conservative-populist instead of completely pro-GOP. There's a reason GOP congressionals have almost as low approval ratings as Democratic congressionals. There's a reason the country "turned against Democrats" so quickly between 2008 and 2010, and it wasn't a sudden love afair with the GOP. There's a reason both Jon Stewart and Glen Beck drew so many people to their rallies, and it's not partisanship.

 

People are sick of it. And they're starting to come around to the fact that being led by the nose by a different pundit on a different station is still just being led by the nose. Sarah Palin cannot thrive in that environment. The media may portray that as "lack of appeal to moderates", but what I think is that at the very same time that she's been learning how to be a partisan hack, people have been learning how to recognize partisan hacks, and they don't like what they're seeing. (Ironic, isn't it?)

 

But maybe I'm just being an optimist. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush's fiscal stimulus caused people to question fiscal stimulus. His bank bailouts caused people to question government intervention in the economy. His "commander-in-chief" status caused people to question authoritarianism. His wars got people comfortable enough with war to start criticizing it again (they were afraid to when it all started). His "wire-tapping" and "torture" discussion caused people to deal with long-standing deep-seated fears implanted in the popular psyche from years of subtle insinuations. So Bush sort of affected everyone in a way that made them more independent by causing them to question government, which is basically what the republican movement has been about since its inception how many centuries ago?

So, you mean to say that Bush screwed up everything he did, but at least people realized that the government isn't perfect?

LOL

To say that people were better off because of all the screw-ups of Bush is quite a nice twist.

 

Anyway, under the assumptions that you make, I must agree with you that Bush was a great man... possibly the greatest president of all time. After all, the entire world now questions and criticizes the leadership of the USA, and a lot of people disagree with the wars that are being fought now.

 

I want to stress however that I disagree with the underlying assumption. I think Bush was the biggest disaster that every happened to the USA... but then again, I expect my government to do the right thing for the people. You seem to want them to deliberately screw up in order to increase criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin's flagging poll numbers are just the most recent example of public rejection of pundit mind control. I think people are gradually realizing that the media-driven "war" between liberals and conservatives is really relatively minor disputes over current problems. And I think that's the way most people are coming to see it, both left and right.

I am independent, but I was adamantly liberal for a long time and I see now how the left tends to strawman republicans as just being about keeping tax money for themselves so they can spend more money. This strawman works well for promoting the tax-spend-stimulus agenda because it appeals to people who basically want to get and spend more money to think that rich people are spending it and not conserving it so they should get to too. It would not be in the interest of fiscal liberalism if rich republicans were living frugally and saving the money they saved in taxes. This is because it is hard to justify taxing someone else when you spend more money than they do. So I think that if people are "gradually realizing that the media-driven "war" between liberals and conservatives is really relatively minor disputes over current problems," that this is just more media spin to convince people that everyone is a spend-happy consumerist and it's just a question of how to drum up the economy to make more spending and consumption possible. Beyond spending, there are also a lot of different attitudes and views toward different issues that should actually not get boiled down to the one most likely to garner a majority. All views should be expressed and discussed critically in public discourse. It should not be about finding strategies of how to "win."

 

There's a reason registered independents now outnumber both parties. There's a reason Obama is more popular when he crosses ideological/party lines. There's a reason Fox News skews conservative-populist instead of completely pro-GOP. There's a reason GOP congressionals have almost as low approval ratings as Democratic congressionals. There's a reason the country "turned against Democrats" so quickly between 2008 and 2010, and it wasn't a sudden love afair with the GOP. There's a reason both Jon Stewart and Glen Beck drew so many people to their rallies, and it's not partisanship.

 

People are sick of it. And they're starting to come around to the fact that being led by the nose by a different pundit on a different station is still just being led by the nose. Sarah Palin cannot thrive in that environment. The media may portray that as "lack of appeal to moderates", but what I think is that at the very same time that she's been learning how to be a partisan hack, people have been learning how to recognize partisan hacks, and they don't like what they're seeing. (Ironic, isn't it?)

That's great, but it's very likely that this dissatisfaction will be capitalized on by pundits like Jon Stewart and Glen Beck (whom I know very little about). The major means of achieving dominance in being a pundit is to claim a neutral or objective stance that puts "realism" over partisanship. This has been going on since at least national socialism in the 1930s.

 

So, you mean to say that Bush screwed up everything he did, but at least people realized that the government isn't perfect?

LOL

To say that people were better off because of all the screw-ups of Bush is quite a nice twist.

That's republicanism. Deconstructing people's faith in the benevolence and other goodness of authoritarian leadership/control.

 

Anyway, under the assumptions that you make, I must agree with you that Bush was a great man... possibly the greatest president of all time. After all, the entire world now questions and criticizes the leadership of the USA, and a lot of people disagree with the wars that are being fought now.

True, but many don't adopt total rejection of authoritarianism as a result - they just seek a better dictator, one who genuinely loves them and will take care of them. For US voters, it was Obama. For most people in the world, it is some form of ethno-national authoritarian regime or cultural ideology. They all tell people that they are going to "stand up for the (insert ethno-national idenitity here) people."

 

I want to stress however that I disagree with the underlying assumption. I think Bush was the biggest disaster that every happened to the USA... but then again, I expect my government to do the right thing for the people. You seem to want them to deliberately screw up in order to increase criticism.

Yes, I want people to question the validity and ethics of expecting a central government or other individual(s) generally to take responsibility for their lives and power. I want people to ask how they can achieve what for themselves and only secondly begin to look to others for help with the means to achieve it. I'm tired of people saying, "the economy needs fixing," when all they mean is that they want more money. I want people to say, "there needs to be more clothes," or "we need more bike lanes because gas is too expensive." Not complain about what they don't have but think about what they want to have and what it would take to get it AND THEN maybe looking to others, including to but not limited to government, to help achieve it. So, yes, I think it's good when people come to question their faith in top-down governance when they've become so uncritically assumptive of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.