The Palins' message for America.
Earlier this season, I woke up to a hungry cat and the news that John McCain had tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate. Yeah, I slept in… so sue me. To say that McCain’s pick worried me would be an understatement. Commenters here, and conservative bloggers afar, had billed Sarah Palin as a moderate, and the consummate reformer, a vision of conservatism in its heyday before the taint of the Bush years. She had the folksy wisdom to woo moderates, and the, eh, equipment to capture disenchanted Hillary voters. It was a bad morning.
In fact a different story emerged. Today, the McCain/Palin campaign is in shambles. Even if it manages to reverse its steady decline and somehow become competitive again, it will be, like Rome after Alaric’s invasion, forever changed. Sarah Palin, alleged moderate, turned out to be nothing more than a barbaric culture warrior, content to laud America’s towns by insulting its cities, mock community service, insult middle-America by justifying her ignorance as “small town values,” and stand idly by while her supporters hurl racist, ridiculous smears. Her folksy wisdom was, in fact, no such thing. The real Sarah Palin is a woman who hides behind an insulting stereotype of middle-America and masks bitter hatred in folsky colloquialisms…
…while the rest of us, perhaps foolishly, attempt to secure a modicum of respect and decency after a trying and divisive eight years.
The good news is that these tactics are losing, and should they fail to carry Election Day for the re-invented, single-mindedly anti-Obama Republican Party, it could function as a repudiation of not just Sarah Palin, but Sarah Palins everywhere. There’s no doubt that Sarah Palin’s political career, at least on the national stage, will be much damaged by a defeat in this election, but because (as Nate Silver argued) victory is the only judge of electoral tactics, for the foreseeable future, we could see an end to wedge politics as a campaign strategy and a return of substantive policy to the forefront of politics. This is good news for America, and the Democratic Party, too – when Americans aren’t being duped into bashing good ideas as “elitist,” at least for the past twenty years, Democrats have had a monopoly on good ideas, from not lashing out and starting superfluous wars, to controlling spending and budgeting responsibly.
The 2000 Election taught us that pandering to “small-town values” and artificial demographics (“hockey moms,” “Joe Sixpacks”) works when the nation’s doing well, and the American people can afford to validate our vision of an idyllic nation of citizen-farmers, and give ignorance a chance, and 2004 proved that an election cannot be won just by trashing the incumbent. But 2008 stands to prove – potentially, at least – that pandering doesn’t actually work when the nation is affirmatively in trouble, and that the culture war, the religious right’s rearguard action against the course of history, has to take a backseat to wars that actually matter. When we have real matters to attend to, people like Sarah Palin just don’t matter.
Too…many…fallacies….to….process…..
So I’ll just select one: reducing the deficit. It isn’t a high priority for Obama. It was fun under Clinton as he reaped the peace dividend and the IT boom, but you won’t see it happen under Obama and he has admitted it’s not a priority for him.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 9, 2008, 2:59 pmHas the past month, at least, disabused you of any positive feelings towards Ms. Palin?
Posted by Ames | October 9, 2008, 3:28 pmPersonally, I don’t like her religious views, but I’m pretty confortable with her lack of pursuing them legislatively.
As for poor interviewing, I am sympathetic. I know my job backwards and forwards but I have one boss in particular that can ask questions that will have me going, “uh…uh…uh” and second-guessing myself. I can only imagine being interviewed for national TV.
As for her ‘negative attacks’ I think the sad thing is that the Ayers relationship will only be fully explained by the press after it’s too late. Palin is doing her best to get that out there now, so i don’t fault her there either.
I blame most of the missteps on the campaign team, not her. She has been mishandled from the start.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 9, 2008, 4:05 pmPC, I’m frankly surprised. I thought the only people still supporting Palin were the far-right, of which you are most certainly not a member. I appreciate the generosity you’re giving her on the basis of her previous successes as governor, but as far as blaming her handlers, it takes two to tango. They can write those horrible lies for her to read, but she’s free to ignore them. How is her frankly racist stumping not off-putting?
I’m also surprised you’ve drunk the Ayers kool-aid….
Posted by Ames | October 9, 2008, 9:13 pmToo … much … transparently contrived … ad hoc flimflam …
Well, we can easily compare two competing hypotheses here.
(1) The steady reduction in the federal deficit during Clinton’s administration was the direct result of changes in the tax code enacted early in Clinton’s first term with his backing and that of a Democratic Congress.
(2) The deficit went down under Clinton because of the peace dividend … which started under Bush I but only really kicked in under Clinton and then stopped for Bush II… and the IT boom, which also started at the same time as the Clinton tax increase and stopped at the same time as the Bush II tax cut.
Hypothesis (1) has in its favor that it is simple, makes sense — higher tax rates result in higher tax revenues — and that it is well supported by abundant empirical evidence.
For conservative economic theorists, though, hypothesis (2) has a kind of reverse schadenfreude (Goddamn, that Bill Clinton was a lucky guy!). In comparison to (1), it is baroque in its complexity, an example of what the perceptive z once called “Occam’s shaggy beard.”
Among all the goofy economic ideas embraced by conservatives, the notion that tax cuts increase GDP more than enough to make up for their impact on tax revenue has to rank up at the top. All the data argue against it, requiring its defenders to go through contortions like the one above. Which gives it a certain entertainment value, at least.
Posted by jre | October 9, 2008, 9:15 pmAmes, I’m not sure what ‘lies’ you think Palin is telling. What is your understanding of the Ayers connection?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 10:24 amPC…so what’s your defense of Palin? She’s not “that religious” and she’s done “bad interviews”? Is that all she is?
You’ve said yourself PC that Palin is a commanding speaker as seen in the past. The only difference now, besides some added pressure, is that she hasn’t had to deal with these issues before in her life. Not like this.
People have pointed out she obviously seems scripted. I’m not saying she’s not a bright woman, I’m just saying that she wasn’t prepared for the position she was put in for these interviews.
Even all of her shining credentials of reform and ethics have been tarnished/doubtful with some of the information coming out of Alaska which isn’t all pure. And more and more, probably because of her position as VP attack dog, she’s a more divisive figure than any I’ve seen.
What’s left?
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 11:21 amOh and the Ayers connection is benign. It’s just something convenient for the Republicans to point to.
He was a professor at the college Obama went to, and someone active in the Chicago community, the community Obama was trying to help. Who happened to do radical things when Obama was 8. GASP!
http://www.slate.com/id/2201953/pagenum/all/#page_start
Interesting article on the Ayer’s.
I still think when you compare things like this to some of the problems with lobbyists in McCain’s camp….they are more crucial. Because valid or not, it is based on concern of improper lobbyist influence on actual political decisions, not based on some conspiracy theory of Obama being a terrorist and “palling around” with them.
Because what are they trying to say? That Obama is secretly trying to undermine the government with his terrorist and muslim henchmen and it’s a bunch of hyperbolic tin-foil crap.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 11:28 amI think Americans, liberals specifically, are waaaaaaay too quick to make a big deal about this ‘divisive’ stuff. We could spend the next month discussing president after president that was ‘divisive’ at times by current standards. It seems that we often forget that this is politics and if you don’t win even the best ideas are likely to suffer from neglect.
I feel like ‘divisive’ is a liberal codeword for ‘too conservative’, meaning if a politician is even slightly right-of-center they are unacceptable to the Left and thus we will be divided.
I just saw an article yesterday that cited a recent non-partisan study that shows Obama has actually run more negative ads in the last month than McCain. But liberals will overwhelmingly say that Republicans are more ‘divisive’ because you so completely reject conservatism as an ideology.
A recent Palin dig was that she was in 2nd grade when Biden was elected to the senate. Biden responded that she was in 6th grade the last time McCain had a new idea. both were funny comments, but unfortunately only one of them is characterized as ‘divisive’.
I would just like us all to be adult enought to realize that electoral politics is the dirtiest game around and mudslinging has been the norm on both sides of the aisle for over 200 years.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 11:36 amThe first meeting Obama ever had to discuss running for office was in Ayers’ living room. Obama lied when he acted like they were mere acquaintances. Ayers also has no remorse for what he did and he supports the radicalization of students. I think it’s worth asking Obama to exaplin why he lied and why he thought it was a good idea to let this person help him as he started his political career.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 11:39 amI’m just saying divisive because that’s what I thought was one of her “qualifications”, that she kinda worked across the aisle and was hard on both republicans and democrats.
Instead she’s generating mobs for McCain against Obama.
Maybe I was wrong with that part of Palin as a potential VP candidate though.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 11:44 amOh no! He helped him! He does want to undermine the government after all! This is an important issue for the country.
Yes he’s talked with him in his living room, but that doesn’t mean they were best friends. And I don’t think there’s any evidence they spent a lot of time together.
Either way…what’s the point PC?
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 11:46 amI have never used “divisive” to have that secret meaning. Rather, I intend it to addresss the tendency of politicians to appeal to non-relevant issues or cultural issues that the politician has no intention of addressing, except to distract. Bush’s invocation of federal marriage amedments is the axiomatic case, and this Ayers crap is too. You’re right insofar as conservatives engage in this type or attack more often, but it’s not attacking conservatives for being conservatives; it’s attacking them for being assholes. If the shoe fits….
If Obama’s keating ad had come out in a vacuum, I’d be equally disappointed.
PC, why are you defending this borderline racist smear campaign? You’ve drunk a little too much of the koolaid. It’s not progressive to defend a campaign that’s 100% smear, 0% substance.
Posted by Ames | October 10, 2008, 11:58 amPC–Kindly submit your references for inspection. And good luck with that.
Posted by Ian | October 10, 2008, 12:42 pmBecause I genuinely believe that I don’t want a person as president that relied on ex–terrorists to get ahead in his career, attended a church with a racist minister for 20 years, worked with a political group that is uder federal investigation for voter fraud, etc etc.
I’m not sure what’s racist about pointing these things out?
Forthe last 8 years we have been told that Bush started a war for oil because he and his family and his VP have ties to big oil. So in the liberal narrative relationships DO matter and DO affect policy. So then why are they now trying so hard to downplay Obama’s relationships with radical figures?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 12:43 pmIan,
The references to Obama and Ayers relationship are not tinhat stuff. They’ve been covered at Politico and CNN and a host of other mainstream media outlets. If you want linkage find it yourself. It will probably take about 30 seconds in Google.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 12:47 pmI was more interested in which conservative blogs you’ve been reading.
Do you think Obama’s going to be a “terrorist president”? Is there any evidence from what Obama has done or said in the lat year that he has been influenced by Ayers’s views? Is there any evidence that he is a “radical” (and by that I don’t mean liberal) that he can implement in the executive branch?
While I don’t want to digress about Bush and oil, I do think that the oil lobby has done a lot more say financially for Bush and Bush has done a lot more for the oil industry than Ayers and Obama have ever done for each other.
Posted by Ian | October 10, 2008, 12:57 pmI mean, I don’t think those things matter PC unless you really think some of those crazy batshit conspiracy theories are true.
I think anyone who does, is just looking for another reason to dislike him. Otherwise they’d look at his policies and record.
And stop making random stuff up as reasons to not vote for him.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 1:05 pmPC: I do like your reaction to Palin, “but she dosen’t legislate like that!” Despite her crazy preachers, but somehow it means something with Obama’s preacher even though there’s never any evidence that shows anything of a character flaw based on anything he’s ever done.
If you look at the man, if you look at his policies, that’s what you get. Stop trying to make up a sinister shadow figure for Obama, again, it’s silly.
p.s. Sorry for all the double posts.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 1:07 pmAnytime I hear something like that I wait until the mainstream media picks it up before I start to take it seriously. Example, there was a rumor of a tape floating around that showed Michelle Obama saying racist things at Wright’s church. It never went beyond fringe conservative sites and I’ve never mentioned it.
This is mainstream now and I think it’s beyond dispute. All that remains is interpretation.
I honestly don’t care about the degree of involvement. point is, if I’m ever running for office and someone introduces me to a terrorist, i’m walking out the door, not staying for cocktails. If my minister starts spouting off the kind of stuff Wright said, i’m out the door, not hanging around for a few more years.
The trouble is that Obama has risen to power so fast that it’s really hard to know what he will do. The same people that are so concerned about alin’s wacky church (and I agree, they are wacky) don’t seem the least bit concerned about Obama’s questionable ties. He says a lot of centrist sounding things, but no one on the Left really bothers to look at his voting record in IL which is EXTREMELY left wing.
It seems like a lot of willful ignorance on the part of Obama’s supporters and a completely unwillingness to consider that maybe they don’t really know this guy very well.
Plus he just flat-out lied about the Ayers thing. Doesn’t that count for anything?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 1:11 pmOneiroi, PLEASE tell me what I’ve made up. Do you disagree that Obama has connections with a terrorist?
I would also ask you if you’ve actually bothered to explore Obama’s voting record in IL. Instead of hanging your vote on what he says he will do, why not look into what he HAS done.
The sad thing is that a more thorough vetting of Palin’s political record was done in two weeks than has been done of Obama’s in two years.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 1:15 pmI think you’re just wrong PC on the vetting thing. He’s been in the public eye and scrutinized for long, if there was anything there, it would have come out. But the truth is they have nothing, and they’re scraping the mud at the bottom of the barrel so they can plant doubts in the mind of voters. PLEASE you have to admit that’s all this is. It’s not like this stuff wasn’t talked about in the primaries. But guess what? It has no traction.
I’ve looked as his record, thanks.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 1:27 pmHaha, I agree with John Stewart, who the hell is Palin to say, who is this guy. From someone who’s been hiding so much of her past while not answering to any of the scandals she’s associated with.
At least Obama’s been asked these questions. Addressed them.
And maybe more polls will come in, but everyone who’s seen the debates, who’s been watching him, obviously think that their shady characterizations are just wrong.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 1:33 pmPC, your name is incorrect. You are not a progressive anything. TC would be a better moniker for you, as in “Typical Conservative”. How sad you are.
Posted by Mel | October 10, 2008, 1:34 pmOneiroi,
Obama was asked the question about Ayers and he lied. If you’re satisfied with that then so be it.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 10, 2008, 1:52 pmI am fine with that, because you haven’t said one sinister thing that would come from this. Like just simply say that you think he’s a secret terrorist if that’s what you mean.
I think you’re way overblowing this.
And don’t you dare act like Palin and McCain have oppositely been sitting around telling the truth. You’re obviously just as okay with it when it suits your agenda.
If they had an ounce of credibility or ammunition on this subject, they wouldn’t have waited this long to use it.
Posted by Oneiroi | October 10, 2008, 5:26 pmPC – Obama does NOT HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A TERRORIST. Because…….Ayers is no longer a terrorist. Ayers has not committed a terroristic act in over 40 years.
On the other hand, Palin associates daily and nightly with a known separatist. One who bore the separatist mantle up until only 6 years ago.
Here are some more quotes from the life of Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party of which The First Dickhead was a member:
The Alaskan Independence Party quotes Vogler as stating “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
In a 1991 interview currently housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Vogler is recorded as saying “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won’t be buried under their damn flag. I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.”
Vogler disappeared under suspicious circumstances in May 1993, just weeks before he was scheduled to give a speech to the United Nations on Alaskan independence, sponsored by the government of Iran.
In the opinion of AIP Chair Lynette Clark and other AIP leaders, however, Vogler’s death reflected more than a dispute with West. Clark has stated, “He was executed.” She notes that Vogler was about to appear before the United Nations to address the issue of Alaskan independence: “The United States government would have been deeply embarrassed. And we can’t have that, can we?”
The above was from wikipedia in an UNCONTESTED entry.
So, we need to hear more from McCain on his judgement in selecting a Vice Presidential candidate who so obviously hates America and who continues in her liason with a male who also so obviously hates America and who belonged until recently to a political party that was sponsored by IRAN.
Oh yes – btw, the McLie campaign denies all of this very well documented relationship just as they recently denied the finding by the REPUBLICAN controlled Alaskan Senate about her unethical dealings in Alaska.
It’s amazing how Republicans, even in the face of undeniable facts, absolutely refuse to accept responsibility for ANYTHING.
Also, we haven’t yet had a chance to discuss McCain’s voting record with respect to greater penalties for abortion clinic bombers (aka domestic terrorists) and abortion doctor murderers (aka domestic terrorists) and his presence on the board of a right wing outfit that funded South American right wing death squads. He had little to do with that but….ya know…..guilt by association….right PC?
Posted by Oldfart | October 13, 2008, 12:19 amSorry guys, but as a European I have to ask how a member of the democratic party can be called left wing?
Posted by Alfred | October 19, 2008, 8:18 amI suppose “left wing” is relative :)
Posted by Ames | October 19, 2008, 12:58 pm