Long post below the fold, for those interested.
An occasional reader sent me a private note last week that I’ve been meaning to get around to, but haven’t quite found the time:
First, I want to say that I’ve been reading your blog for years, and I’ve made comments to your posts a couple of times, and submitted some plane.pr0n once, I am not a contributor to the Flight Deck, and am therefore probably unknown to you.
You are, in my opinion, one of the most eloquent, reasonable, and level-headed people whose blog I read, which is why I’m directing the question below to you rather than to another blogger I read (I read a lot of gun blogs, which, unfortunately, are populated mostly by politics posts rather than pictures of gun pr0n or range reports), or one of my rabidly conservative, ill-spoken dog-park or pub friends (not that you’re rabid or ill-spoken, but all my conservative IRL friends are).
Because I expect a reasoned, thoughtful, and lucid answer.
Why the love for Sarah Palin?
I mean, I get the whole librarian MILF thing, but you’re a smart guy. Come on, would you really want her to be running the country if Mr. McCain doesn’t make it through his term?
Really?
It just seems to me, as an outsider, to be kind of cheer-leading, go-team chest beating rather than reasoned, thoughtful opinion.
I mean this in the most sincere, non-partisan way.
I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and I have no party affiliation, and no tie to either’s ideology. In 1988 & 1992, I voted for George H.W. Bush. In 1996 for Clinton, in 2000 for Gore, and in 2004, as I will do in 2008, I threw my vote away by giving it to the Libertarians.
I find myself to be mostly a three-issue voter: I’m pro-gun rights, pro-gay rights, and pro-choice. Which, to my liberal friends, makes me a crazy. And to my conservative friends, the same thing.
Neither of this election’s candidates particularly float my boat on these issues. If it were a McCain/Ron Paul ticket, I’d vote Republican without giving it a second thought. Obama and someone other than Biden, maybe, but only because of the pro-choice thing.
Obama’s positions on gun control, and his cowardice at embracing civil rights (i.e. opposing gay marriage (fifty years ago I would not have been allowed to marry my Chinese wife, due to similar laws prohibiting interracial marriages (I am white)), and his, uh…general creepiness keep him from getting my vote.
Anyhow, back to Gov. Palin. To this citizen, she seems like a (forgive me) total fracking idiot, (though my opinion may be biased because all I know of her is what I’ve seen on TV), and having chosen her as a running mate makes McCain look to be at best, ill-informed, and at worst, to have really rotten judgement.
So. I hope none of this offends you. If it doesn’t and you wish to turn this into a blog post, I humbly and respectfully request that you withhold my email address and my surname, as I would really rather remain un-Googleable and not receive posts from Internet crazies like me.
It’s a legitimate, thoughtful question. And it deserved a thoughtful response. But I’ve pretty much been maxing out my CPU cycles at work – as you can probably tell – and haven’t had the time to pen an answer worthy of the question.
Which is why I received this in the mail so gratefully (quoted at length, since I couldn’t find it on line)
Biography
Prioleau Alexander, a native of Charleston, South Carolina, and a graduate of Auburn University, is a former Marine officer, an advertising veteran, and a conservative-libertarian, gun-nut, religious wacko with anarchist leanings. His wife, Heidi, and their three dogs are okay with that.
The Abyss Between Us.
by Prioleau AlexanderThe 2007/2008 War for the White House. There are those that say it’s the worst race ever, and those that say it’s the tightest race ever, and those, like me, who say it’s pretty much politics as usual: My Guy, Yea! Your Guy, Boo!
There is, however, one new phenomenon in this year’s race that baffles me, and I can say with confidence it is a new phenomenon in American politics. I’m speaking of the left’s searing hatred of a vice-presidential pick, Governor Sarah Palin.
Where does this come from? What is it about her that inspires such white-knuckled rage? I’m a conservative, and I think Barrack, Joe Biden, and runner-up Hillary have goofy political ideas, but I don’t hate them. I’m happy to admit, in fact, that they are all smart, ambitious, inspiring to their followers, and savvy. I also admit to finding them to be elitist, affected, racist, and narcissistic, but I don’t hate them; it takes a lot to inspire that emotion in me.
But Governor Palin? If you have access to the Internet, you already know what I’m talking about– there is fury amongst tens of millions of Americans at the mere mention of her name. According to these haters, she’s not just dumb, but she’s an embarrassment. She’s not just unqualified, but she’s proof that John McCain is an idiot. She’s not just a deeply religious, but she’s a close-minded, hateful bigot.
“You betcha”, to coin a phrase; a bigot married to an Eskimo; happens all the time.
So why the hate? Poor Dan Quayle was the butt of a billion jokes, but people didn’t hate him. What are the reasons Governor Palin inspires such an emotion? Let’s explore a few ideas that come to mind:
She’s beautiful. No two ways about it, she’s America’s hottest governor from America’s coldest state. Not only is she beautiful, but she’s just had a fifth kid and still retains a body that would bode well in a bikini. I think her beauty is most horrifying to the grim-n-grumpy feminists on left, who are far more comfortable with female politicos that angrily eschew things like looks and fitness: Madelyn Albright, Janet Reno, and yes Hillary. Pretty girls are the butt of these smart women’s jokes, because pretty girls have it all handed to them on a silver platter, right? Now don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of beautiful women who hate Sarah Palin, but it’s for a different reason. They hate her for her stunning, meteoric success that she rose to become Governor in a male-dominated state, while remaining married to her blue-collar husband, while raising five children, while being involved in church and athletics and now she’s potentially one heart-beat away from being President! Beautiful women just don’t do that because they don’t have to, of course: maybe marriage, a career, and school board, but not that level of success. For a beautiful woman to see another beautiful woman put in such hard work, ugh. It’s hateful to be reminded of one’s decision to take the bench early, I guess.
She’s married to a man’s man. For the last forty years, the hard left has sought to recreate American men and American women as American human beings, as if we are somehow differentiated only by reproductive organs. Men should cry more. Women shouldn’t cry at all. Men should be sensitive. Women should be tough. Men should get manicures. Women should compete harder in sports. The destination is a mushy, gushy middle, where everyone is equal, and equally unattractive to the opposite sex. And you know what? There’s been a lot of success in this area. Grim-n-grumpy feminists wake up in the morning with the Pillsbury Doughboy next to them. (Boy, that’s a turn-on). The Pillsbury Doughboy looks in the mirror and sees, surprise, surprise, what he’s become: Effete and helpless. Then comes Todd Palin. He works the nightshift; in the oil industry; in Alaska. He races snow mobiles. He’s got a flat belly. And he’d kick your ass in a bar fight. He’s everything the Grim-n-grumpies strangled out of their husbands, and both parties in the bed know it. That’s cause for a lot of hate.
She’s apparently happy. The twenty-year marriage, five kids, started life without a trust fund, didn’t marry money, works sixty hours a week; just two of these horrifying
afflictions would have the hysterics on the left on meds and in therapy. And yet, Sarah Palin is not only surviving, she’s thriving. She seems to be happy. She talks about her husband as still my guy. She looks like she’s having fun when she gives speeches. What’s not to hate?She’s low-maintenance. Sarah Palin can stalk, shoot, and field-dress a moose. She lives above the Arctic Circle. She snowmobiles with her guy. She ran against her own party to become Governor in an uber-macho state and maintains 80%+ approval ratings. She and her husband pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They work as a team. She is, quite literally, the polar-opposite of Hillary Clinton. She seems to offer evidence that you don’t have to be a bitch to make it. She seems to demonstrate that a sham marriage is not a pre-requisite to making it big. She is hardest, meanest dose of reality a Hillary supporter could ever be forced to see; and the result is hate.
She makes clear the inexperience of Senator Obama. Barrack Obama has less that 200 days service in the United States Senate. He has zero executive-level experience. None. In fact, at one point he pointed to his campaign as his executive experience, as if running for President makes you qualified to be President. Personally, I have no problem with Obama’s lack of experience. Hell, I think I could be President, sipping on martinis and taking advice from my hand-picked advisors. But the problem with Sarah is this: A leftist cannot rub her face in the dirt of experience without stuffing Barrack’s in there too. She has executive experience as a mayor and a Governor, and he has none. Zero. And the fact that Obama supporters are put in a position where they have no choice but to sound stupid and hypocritical in discussing Obama’s superior qualifications well, hatred is the only viable emotion.
She is one of us. This, I think, is the thing that inspires the deepest hatred. You see, Americans love their champions and leaders up on a pedestal, invincible and removed. We like our sports heroes to embarrass and crush the challengers. We like our movie stars nothing less than perfect. We like our politicians to be members of Mensa, or brilliant orators, or war heroes, or fabulously wealthy aristocrats who’ve never worked. Why? Because we love our stars not for the light they shine down on us, but how far away from us they are. Sarah Palin reminds us of how little most of us have achieved,that 99% of us are mere scrappers, vying for 2,010,000th place. She is the American success story of a woman who took what she was given, and multiplied it one-hundred fold.
And for that, I love Sarah Palin. And even if she fades into political obscurity in the next two months, I will always remember 2008 as the year I was, probably for the last time, inspired by an American politician.
There’s a lot of psychologizing going on in there: Not every prominent feminist looks like a lemon-biting sack of potatoes, maybe not even most of them. Certainly not Camille Paglia, the feminist intellectual (no, that’s not an oxymoron) who positively gushes over the Alaska governor (while remaining committed to voting for Obama).
And I’ve had the pleasure over the course of my life to know and work with many powerful and beautiful women who have most decidedly not “gone to the bench” and relied upon the kindnesses of strangers. But even if stereotypes are demeaning when applied to an individual, there’s a reason why stereotypes exist: There’s at least a grain of truth in there, or else no one would get the point.
To add my own little twist, let us stipulate up front that Mrs. Palin is a striking woman. If she looked a little more like Helen Thomas, say, than her own dear self, my enthusiasm for her meteoric rise might be ever so slightly attenuated – but then Nixon won the 1960 debate with John F. Kennedy, for those who listened in on the radio. For TV viewers he got shellacked. It’s not just guys who can’t control their hormones – for good or ill, we all respond favorably to a symmetrical face and favorable lines.
And anyway, let’s be realistic: For any rational mind, Sarah Palin’s beauty is to be appreciated coolly, and at a distance. Like a great work of art, it is meant to be enjoyed – but not touched. Given the relative merits of my own domestic situation, I’ve no intent to jeopardize the very highly favorable gig I’ve got going Chéz Lex, even if it were remotely possible to sneak past the Secret Service (and her daunting, dashing and athletic husband of 25 years) in order to place on display these my austere gifts. I pass beautiful women on the street every day – I live in Southern California, remember – without even giving them a second glance.
Or a third, anyway.
She’s a fetching, intelligent, successful woman, personally and professionally. A woman with her own mind, loving and a protective of her brood. For the normally aspirated, red-blooded, heterosexual American male, what’s to hate?
Alexander touches on the executive experience issue: I happen to believe that leadership is scalable. If you can lead small, you’ll be able to lead big, given the right moral fiber to help you get the big things right, a good set of advisers and a little bit of time. She’s certainly “smart enough” for the job, and given her undeniable political skills and nuanced grasp of complex issues close to home, I have no doubt that she’d be a quick study on the national and international stage. After all, most of their contemporaries considered Abraham Lincoln to be a country bumpkin and Harry Truman to be an out-of-his-depth haberdasher, but history has treated them very well. On the other hand, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter probably top the list of the last half century’s presidents for sheer intelligence, but the former was an amoral snake in a suit, while the latter was a hopeless mess.
I also love the way she enrages all the right people. Not just the misogynists, of course. But the rest of them:
The surprised Columbia J-School grads forced to drop their façades of weary, worldly cynicism and scramble like fourth graders at the bell, pens in hand to Alaska – Alaska, of all places! – in order to grub through trash cans and gin joints in search of dirt, any dirt at all. Who, in an ugly and self-reinforcing frenzy, dropped their treasured (if battered) mask of impartiality to reveal themselves as hateful, naked partisans.
The women’s rights advocates – faced with the best opportunity in a generation to inspire young women and girls across the land to break their shackles of self doubt by elevating a woman right through the glass ceiling to the pinnacle of power – who were suddenly forced to explain why they were only in favor of improving the lot of certain kinds of women. That The Sisterhood had standards, standards that included looking the other way when a grotesque power imbalance allowed a male president to diddle an Oval Office ingenue – and lie about it in court – but that excluded actual women, successful, self-made women, who wouldn’t agree to play the victim game. I loved hearing these people try to explain why a movement dedicated to fighting against the patriarchal orthodoxy as a way of honoring the value of all women’s contributions to society considered heterodoxy of conscience unforgivable. That “pro choice” really was only a code for “abortion”, because choosing life – especially the life of a handicapped child – wasn’t really a valid choice.
I love the angst engendered in those of fawning, second class minds convinced that only first class minds had the right to govern, or even the right to enter the scrum, that ruling class class defined exclusively to those children that had done well enough by age 18 – or who had been born into fortunate circumstances, or both – to get into Harvard or Yale. Thence into the cocooned mind-hive of the coastal elites, from whence they could all rub elbows, the Elis and Harvard grads right there alongside the J-School grads, at all the best cocktail parties in Georgetown and Manhattan. Who looked down their noses, these masters of the universe and their cherished sycophants, at the rest of America. An America that not only pays their wages, but actually creates value – real value – in all the many, vast marketplaces of a great nation.
As a conservative, but no Republican, I’m also thrilled to death that she faced down a GOP old boy’s network that was enshrined in power either for its own sake or for the opportunities it gave them to skim from the public till and beat them into a cocked hat. It refreshes me to discover that there are still people in this world ready to step up to the plate of public service and govern from a position of principle. More like that.
I even like the way she’s stuffing McCain’s professional handlers into a sock, because it isn’t like the BlackBerry set has done done their man a favor, and all of this professional political class agonizing, pre-election fault-finding, beat-you-to-the-exit finger pointing, self-aggrandizing scapegoating and lifeboat racing is more than just a little off-putting.
And by the way, with respects to Mr. Alexander, I don’t think Sarah Palin is destined to pass into political obscurity.
She’s just too damned hot.
badbob wrote, “Did you ever consider that you, a Chief, may someday earn 250K?”
Since about 1947 there has been 1000% inflation. $2500/year then is $25,000/year today.
Most of that inflation occurred in the last 60 years. Many young people today will end up making at least $250,000/year, quite possibly as minimum wage.
Inflation acts as a hidden tax, raising low-real-income workers into higher tax brackets.
Skippy-san wrote, “Would mind explaining how 401K’s are going to be taxed?”
There’s already been a plan floated to confiscate all 401K investments.
Workforce Magazine reported October 16, “House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks”
“House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.”
More.
“all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.”
But,
“No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.”
“However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.”
“No one’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” Mark Twain.
Good coverage on what the Dems have planned for us in the furure Looking Glass. James Pethokoukis has a commentary on the U.S News site which promises even scarier things.
Skippy, quit picking on prowler. We can’t help it if we have had our brains electronically scrambled. Oh well, we don’t have to worry about having any more kids and the tingling sensations did feel good when the jammers were on.
I was not picking on Prowler Guy-I just wanted to see what I missed.
Looking Glass’s report sounds like the CPF
( Central Provident Fund) which is used very successfully in Asia. And as a by product has allowed them to dramatically increase rates of home ownership since the money can be used as collateral against house (apartment) loans.
The Economist made its endorsement today. As usual, they got it right:
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Skippy, it’s only “before-tax” when you put it in. You still have to pay taxes on it when you pull it out. And any “after-tax” contribution you make you still owe taxes on the gains when you take it out.
If you stand to inherit or to pass on money, then you are really going to be screwed.
On the other hand, if you don’t currently have any money or pay any tax, then Obama’s program should be a positive cash-flow deal for you.
Ahh, first a questioning of facts that anyone remotely keeping up with politics this season would be aware of. Before trumpeting Obama’s tax policy, I would think someone posting here would at least be passing familiar with the truth. But I suppose nothing was meant by it. You certainly weren’t trying to call me a liar (in a spineless, cowardly way) I guess.
Then the always reliable logical fallacy – Appeal to Authority. Why, pray tell, Skippy, would we care what any given magazine or publication or pundit declares? Unlike you, I look at the facts and issues and make my own judgments. I don’t rely on someone else to tell me what I think, and I certainly don’t cite their opinion pieces to support any position I take. But that’s just me.
Skippy, I anxiously await the endorsement announcements from Speigel, Le Figaro and Liechtensteiner Vaterland regarding their preferences as to who leads the United States.
Prowlerguy,
How did I call you a liar? Only the USN&WR reported the story you talked about. No other outlet has reported that-including Fox News. So why immediately take the offensive when I just asked a simple question-namely how were 401Ks’ going to be taxed? Geez Louise.
As for the Economist-what that has to do with your comment is beyond me. I was simply quoting words much more eloquent than mine-That Palin is a drag on the Republican ticket-and as a result, they deserve to lose.
I look at the facts too. Just because they are from overseas does not mean they are wrong. But hey-what does this crowd in its own self made cocoon care? They would rather just recite the same tired old shibboleths over and over.
Talk about over sensitive. You pay no taxes more than you did yesterday on your 401K and I would submit to you that Congress will not go along with such a proposal if were to be proposed. Too many lobbies have a stake in not passing such legislation.
Talk about sensitive, Skippy. I NEVER said you called me a liar. In fact I said “You certainly weren’t trying to call me a liar”. But if you jumped to that conclusion, it would seem to be a product of a guilty consciense.
Try googling “Democrat 401k”, and then tell me the only place that has reported it was USN&WR.
As far as the relevance of my second paragraph, that was, as I noted, in response to your later post, where you make an appeal to authority. You didn’t simply quote them, you trumpeted their “endorsement” (a term usually reserved for parties who have some sway). And then you state, as a fact, that Palin is a drag on the ticket. Funny, fundraising is up, polls are up, and what was once considered a done deal is now looking less like a sure thing. At least, that’s the way the Obama camp sees it, or else why the extravagant 30 minute infomercial/propaganda on all the networks (save one)? But you just keep telling yourself that a successful, attractive, assertive woman is somehow inferior, because otherwise it might just be too painful for you to confront the real cause for your position.
And again, what relevance does any foreigner’s opinion have to US elections? Why do you put so much stock in it, and why do you care about our election anyway? You have nothing but disgust and disdain for your native land, and only your lack of a paying job and the consent of your desired homeland have you returning (unwillingly) to your land of birth. I would think you would be more concerned with the politics of the Kokkai.
prowlerguy, Hai.
Prowler guy,
Its like this-Palin is deal breaker with me as far as McCain is concerned. Its not just me- a lot of people who are smarter than I am are feeling the same way. Had McCain not picked her-gone with his heart and picked a lot of different and better candidates this race would be a lot different. Hell-even Lieberman would have been better than Palin. At least he’s qualified to be President.
As for the relevance of a foreigner’s opinion-well the Economist is not exactly a hotbed of liberal sentiment. Its opinions are reasoned and well researched. They, like me, are disappointed that this McCain betrayed his real roots to kowtow to the so called “base” of the party. The guy in 2000 had potential-this guy not so much.
I tried your Google terms-took me to the 9th page to come to a major media outlet. And I’ll say it again-there’s a long way from a statement in Congress to actually passing a law.
As for loving my country and voting-even if were overseas, I’ll always vote here. As do 1000′s of other Americans. As for coming back-well, I already had a work visa in Japan- I made a reasoned choice to come back, and I’ll be crossing the IDL the other way soon enough.
Skip-
Just want to make sure I got this right. You aren’t voting for McCain because Palin is unqualified?
So who are you voting for? (Be careful- it’s a trick question.)
Best,
Nose
badbob –
“In one paragraph you go from Navy colleagues to religious crowd to hate mongers..Well this Navy vet doesn’t appreciate being “boxed”….I don’t care what color or religion Obama is.”
Yeah, you got me there. I guess it was a bit of rough writing. No intention to box anyone into a stereotype, just trying point out that it seems like if you are/were in the service, then the Republican party is the only choice that any self-respecting service member can vote for without fear of intense scorn. Regardless of the GOP track record or support for the military.
Regarding your other point,
“Did you ever consider that you, a Chief, may someday earn 250K? I reckon not, though it’s possible you know and likely if you put your mind to it. How about Joe the Plumber? Can’t he look up and out? Improving one’s economic status is the American way. Ever think just why all these immigrants come here for?”
Well, maybe not $250K, but a comfortable income that allows me to live the lifestyle I’ve grown accustomed to. Don’t mistake me for someone queing up for my handout. Many years ago I left active duty to put myself through college (with a little help from our uncle and the GI bill). I worked full-time while going to school full-time. So I could have health insurance. Yeah, the freemarket system was working real nice for me as I lived paycheck to paycheck and worked damn near 7 days a week. The extra bit of cash from my weekend or two a month as a reservist helped for sure.
Not trying to tell sob story, just that I’ve walked in the shoes of the people Obama is talking about helping. Normal folks working their butts off in the wealthiest country in the world, which can’t even guarantee all of its citizens has health insurance. No, I’m not for taxing like crazy, and I agree – folks should be rewarded for their initiative (I’m no hardcore softy liberal) and hard work. But I do think the government ought to help make sure everyone can see a doc when they need to and emergency rooms aren’t the only place people go – when they are critically sick.
“Yep. I know where you’re coming from. You’ve been charmed by whole B.H.O package..”
Actually, no. I’ve been one of those oft mentioned swing voters, who took a long hard look at both sides before finally making a decision. Charmed, not quite, but I’ve heard more promise (not promises) from him than the JM/SP duo who between Joe the Plumber plugs have basically spent the last few months mostly bad mouthing their opponent. I don’t agree with everything the Democrats want and consider myself a centrist (which is why I’ve long admired the McCain of yesteryear).
“And what about defense. Surely as a Navy Chief you must have some reservations about Obama’s experience and ability to lead in a time of war?”
Hmm, this will get me even more heat, but yeah as a Chief, I think he’ll do fine. Better than the current leadership who broke the 7P rule (something that was beat into my head during iniation) going into Iraq in ’03. And we are still correcting that lack of preparation.
And he has certainly been calm under fire – the 3rd debate was proof to me of that. I don’t think military service must be a prerequisite for chief executive. Respect of the military and hesitancy to use the big stick (but willing to unleash the fury when needed) matter to me. No disrespect to McCain, SERE was enough for me, 5 years is hero. But that doesn’t mean he instantly has the right plan for the future.
My $0.02, thanks for hearing me out.
The left thinks that all people who are not white men are oppressed, and that all oppressed people are victims, and that all victims should proclaim that fact, share the leftist philosophy, and demand reparations from the Government, who should get the resources from white men, who are the only people in the US who have any power.
Now comes a member of an oppressed class. But she refuses to view herself as a victim. She refuses to demand reparations – worse, she actually worked for everything she has gotten and expects others to do the same. Then there’s the problem that she buys into the concept that there are are inherent differences between men and women and that women should breed, and revel in that paternalistic role.
Oh, and that guns are hunting are to be enjoyed, not condemned. Overall, she infuriates because all women should be their brand of feminists and should buy into the leftist memes and help promulgate them.
A white man who does all this is, after all, a man. He’s expected to do so. He has no credibility, and so represents no danger to their message. He can simply be opposed. But her identity gives credibility to her success, sets a terrible example and puts their narrative of victimhood to the lie. So she cannot simply be opposed; she strikes to the root of their message, and so she must be destroyed.
As far as Sen. Obama goes –
I’m a resident of Cook County, near Chicago. Sen. Obama was raised up by the Cook County political machine (which happens to be Democratic, but that’s actually not all that germane to my point). They funded and supported his first and all his successive campaigns financially and with workers and expertise. And he has returned the favor; in the last set of campaigns numerous reform candidates ran against the machine in the primary. They asked for Sen. Obama’s support. He denied them, and endorsed the Machine candidates.
The Cook County machine embodies all the worst in American politics. Corruption, nepotism, featherbedding, deceit. Tony Rezko’s recent conviction is the latest documentation of influence peddling and play-for-pay politics (you donate to me, I give contracts to you) that pervade politics around here. And as the inefficiencies inherent in corruption and govenrment-for-sale inflates the cost of services, politicians like our Cook County President (who got his job because his father won the primary and then resigned) won office by promising to cut payroll and taxes and then … increased payroll by about 1200 worksers and raised our sales taxes to 10%, the highest in the nation.
Sen. Obama is a Chicago politician, a constituent part of the machine where everything is for sale and where lying about taxes and spending is a way of life. He can tell me about his tax plan until he’s blue in the face; I just flat don’t believe him.
Obama was unopposed in the first State Senatorial election he won because he managed to get enough signatures on his opponent’s nominating petitions invalidated that she was pulled off the ballot. After that the machine made sure he ran unopposed in the primary; in Cook County and Chicago winning the Democratic Party primary is tantamount to winning the election.
In his senatorial campaign his first opponent quit after his divorce records were unsealed and allegations by his wife (unsupported by any actual evidence, BTW) that he dragged her to sex clubs and asked her to do another patron while he watched were revealed. The Republican party was without a party chair at the time (the incumbent having stepped down under threat of indictment for using his public workers on his campaign on public time and money). Sen. Obama SHOULD have been opposed by a sitting incumbent Republican Senator, but that worthy gentleman had made the mistake of winning election without being a member of the Republican branch of the Illinois political establishment and had compounded his sins by hiring as U.S. Attorney for the District of Northern Illinois an honest man who was also outside the Illinois political establishment and who has amused himself by putting more than 3 score of members of that establishment in jail, including the current Governor’s immediate predecessor (and he is closing in on the incumbent). So in a year when the GOP was desperate to hold on to every Senate seat, the Illinois GOP spent 6 years sticking knives in their incumbent’s back and then prepared to run someone against him in the primary. He got the hint and quit.
So Obama walked into the Senate over the body of Alan Keyes, who replaced Jack Ryan (his ex-wife is Jeri Ryan, a.k.a. 7 of 9). Alan Keyes is from Maryland and was a non-starter for numerous reasons in Illinois, especially coming on late in the campaign. If Sen. Obama wins the Presidency, thank the Illinois GOP, who decided that corruption and play-for-pay politics were more important than honest government.
Hang in there Skippy-san. When you are presented with a closet full of imaginary monsters, there is no reasonable line of discussion a sentient being can offer. One of those fanged long tailed monsters that is lurking in the closet is, oh my gosh, he is going to tax the 401K’s.
To my mind the acid test of this Republican campaign has been their unwillingness to focus on specific issues or to engage in dialogue. Instead we get a degree of anti-intellectualism the simply jars the bones, and repeated straw men that are not even worth the match to burn them on a cross.
In five days this campaign will be over. The remarkable thing is that even if McCain wins, he will have no governing base party. The only folks he will be able to claim is the extreme Center Right; the thinking conservative have departed. If McCain loses, the Republican philosophy will have to be rebuilt from scratch as a problem solving machine. It can no longer bring Joe the Plumber to center stage, when another US car manufacturing plant closes down, jobs shifted to Canada, because the company can no longer support health care benefits…
Hang in there Skippy-san, you are joining those whose thumbs may be being streeeeched, but whose mind are not being polluted.
OP,
I figured you to be one of those that burned things on a cross or at least held yourself in readiness to declare what was fit to be burned on a cross. I thought you were at EMCON after your recent idiotic post demanding that the perpetrator of an anti-Obama screed submit himself or herself promptly for a media perp walk of shame. You probably stepped in an intellectual sidewalk crack and had to spend a couple days tunneling to freedom.
I passed on your links since, what’s the point? When it comes to Marxists, they tend, overwhelmingly, to be monkey see, monkey do. The One and his ilk in the democrat party can point, charmingly, to Kirchner’s trail blazing path viz 401ks and other economic policies and just try to get the rest of us to drink the same koolaid.
I think my overriding contempt and disgust for you and the marxists is that you are so stupid that you don’t understand that this has been tried again and again and is an abysmal failure. You point to Europe and keep expressing the POV that, if it works there, it will work here and yet there is no evidence to date that it works in Europe. It certainly didn’t work in eastern Europe or in the USSR or in Africa or in South America. It never worked and yet here you are saying that if we just try hard enough, Pol Pot’s vision and Stalin’s vision and Hitler’s vision will all come true here.
You epitomize the ignorant elite left.
OP, I can’t leave without quoting you can I? “extreme center right”.
WTF do you call the right wing? You really are an endless burbling fountain of idiocy.
Let’s say, OP & SS, just for the sake of fun, that plans to tax 401k’s are not actually real, ignoring the fact that those doing the speaking are the Chairmen of Way & Means and the Chairman of Education & Labor. You still have the other two points of my post, neither of which you have bothered to refute, which would be hard since the ole’ Messiah has stated those goals. So even without 401ks being taxed, my middle class taxes are still going up under one party rule.
And again, I don’t see why a foriegn publication “endorses” candidates for US President and why anyone should care. I mean, when was the last time the Atlanta Journal-Constitution endorsed someone for Prime Minister of …. well, anywhere? What is it about the Euro-trash mindset that convinces them that anyone here (other than their socialist syncophants hungry for validation) listens?
Our Paul,
You said “To my mind the acid test of this Republican campaign has been their unwillingness to focus on specific issues or to engage in dialogue.”
McCain wanted 10 face-to-face meetings with Obama. Town hall format. Discuss the issues.
Obama wanted 0. They settled on 3 “debates.”
You fall for the Democrat spin. Like a Kennedy falling for a drink. Bet you, like Skippy, don’t like Palin because she is “unqualified.”
You talk a lot. A lot. But what you say, not much to it.
BTW, Chief N -
Well said, but you need to listen to a wise man – YOU!
“Not trying to tell sob story, just that I’ve walked in the shoes of the people Obama is talking about helping. Normal folks working their butts off in the wealthiest country in the world, which can’t even guarantee all of its citizens has health insurance.”
1. This is a great country, and the wealthiest country in the world, because people like you worked their butts off and lived through tough times in order to get ahead.
2. Why is it “the country’s” responsibility to guarantee all of its citizens health insurance? It is “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Not “Life, Liberty, and 80% of your annual colonoscopy covered by Uncle Sugar.”
AWC N,
Ok- so you like Obama’s health insurance plan- check. He says he is going to create a government health program to cover 8o million Americans, similar to the government plan (HMO) that members of Congress. Wow- noble and sounds great! Plus, he says he’s going to do it for only 180 billion!
I say it’s impossible. If you lay every program out he proposes and confiscate the wealth of everybody who makes over 250K a year you still would not be able to afford 50% of it…..A bridge to nowhere except Hope for Change…..
Back to the 250K. If you want to make that a year (in todays dollars looking glass) you can. Take off the rose colored glasses. In Obama’s system you will stay where you are because the pie won’t get any bigger…Won’t get any bigger…Won’t get any bigger.
Lastly your statement: “And he has certainly been calm under fire – the 3rd debate was proof to me of that. ”
Calm under fire? On TV, in a race he leads and the MSM solidly behind him? A caveman could do that. I would offer what you are seeing is his personality not his capability. Surely as a Chief and people manager you know what I’m talking about. You judge a man by his friends. Are you so willing to not consider the type of associates he’s aligned himself with over his career? Maybe I do because when Ayers and Bernadette were running around setting bombs I was a teen. Longer view and all.
I’ll take a Navy pilot over a community organizer-lawyer any day of the week.
b2
AWC -
I share your background. Five years enlisted, contributing the whole time towards my post-USAF education. Six years in the Guard since they helped with my tuition. Working full time to make up the difference so I could put myself through nine years (I misunderstood ‘tenure’. I thought they said if you went ‘ten years’ you couldn’t be fired) of the local state college engineering program. Paycheck to paycheck for quite a few years. Willing to pay a little back these days. But here’s my problem:
But I do think the government ought to help make sure everyone can see a doc when they need to and emergency rooms aren’t the only place people go – when they are critically sick.
I agree with that. But… it won’t stop there. It never does. They always want more more more. And a Democratic administration paired with a Democratic congress will give it to them – being a Democrat is never having to be accountable for disastrous consequences, after all.
This is purely economics, but my concern goes much deeper. I fear the reprise of the Fairness Doctrine, which only seems inaptly named if you don’t buy into the Democratic definition of the word “fair” and prefer that word’s actual meaning over their bastardization of it.
I fear card check. Unions have a place in ensuring a safe working environment – I wouldn’t want to work at a non-union coal mine, for example. But unions use their extortive power to force untenable financial positions on corporations. See General Motors. Unions do not understand the parable of the Golden Goose.
I fear blanket amnesty. I’d prefer to see our immigration policy made rational enough such that going around it isn’t the only viable opportunity.
But most of all, I fear an America where more than 50% of voters have no skin in the game when it comes to paying taxes. I fear an America that is lazy and slothful because more than half of the citizens have joined the entitlement class.
Obama/Reid/Pelosi will not bring all of that to us, but they will start a ball rolling that will be very, very hard to stop. And frankly, even 30% of that stuff is too much, and I believe they will implement at least 80% of it.
Well, I invested two hours in line yesterday here in the people’s republic of Chicagoland so as to vote early for Ms. Palin, et. al.
The electoral outcome may not be in doubt in a lot of places, but if you can say nothing else about the election, you can say that it has stirred a level of civic participation that we have not seen in a very, very long time.
(Aside: I was not surprised to see the voting instructions printed in English and Spanish. But I was positively shocked to see the voting instructions printed in English, Spanish and Chinese! I guess we will be prepared for world government here is Chicagoland.)
I don’t know about “calm under fire.” He hasn’t really been tested in any real way, and the press has actively conspired to suppress his background and history from the public. In fact, the one time BO got an unscripted question from some guy on the sidewalk, he blundered into revealing that he wanted to confiscate wealth and “spread it around.” Plus, what kind of “calm under fire” person cuts off interviews to TV stations that give his campaign tough questions and throws three major newspapers off his campaign plane when they endorse his opponent?
I think he shows what kind of a guy guy he is by his treatment of the press. He believes very strongly in a free press so long as he owns it and it does what he tells it to.
It’s going to be a rich treat watching a democrat regime tear apart the fourth estate as they attempt to plug leaks that reflect negatively on them. First test of the “new” shield law will probably find all involved detained indefinitely in Guantanamo as designated terrorists.
The comment just above attributed to Prowlerguy was a complete brain fart contributed by Curtis.
Sorry for appearing to put words in your mouth Prowlerguy!
Picker upper for Skippy-san. Tom Barnett comments on The Economist and its endorsement.
Back in the days when Perseverance ruled the waves, The Economist was the primary read for the House Engineer and myself when we wished to catch up on several weeks of news.
Barnett is an Internationalist with strong ties to the Pentagon and the Navy. He has put in an impressive day at the Ted Talks fair. His latest book, Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is due out in Feb. ’09. That he would agree with your wise choice comes as no great surprise.
Meanwhile, James Joiner, who also fancies himself as an Internationalist, holds on to his core Conservative streak, and delivers a classic cheap shot.