Palin, Paul Revere, and Republicanism
We all know a little more about Paul Revere than we did a week ago, thanks to Sarah Palin – or more accurately, thanks to the avalanche of posts analyzing what she meant by her impromptu response to an unrecorded question about Revere:
. . . he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells, that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.
The reactions to Palin’s remark were more interesting than the remark itself. Buried within them is a connection between Palin and Revere, unrelated to his Midnight Ride, which bears on her coming decision about running for president.
The initial wave of comments about Palin’s remark treated her as simply stupid — everyone knows Revere warned his own countrymen, not the British. Our basic knowledge on the subject comes from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. We don’t remember much of his 986-word poem, but we remember whom Revere was warning.
A day or two later, we learned that Palin had been basically right. In his lengthy 1798 letter recounting his ride, Revere described his harrowing detention by British officers after midnight and how he frightened them by warning he had alarmed the country all along his ride and there would be 500 armed Americans waiting for them. That part of Revere’s ride is not described in Longfellow’s poem.
Palin was also right about “taking away our arms.” Revere’s ride had resulted from discovering that British General Thomas Gage had received orders that all cannons, small arms, and other military items be “seized and secreted” and that “the persons of such have committed themselves in acts of treason and rebellion, should be arrested and imprisoned.” Revere was summoned to ride to Lexington to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams. And there were shots and bells as well.
The second wave of comments acknowledged that Palin’s remark was correct but asserted that truth was not a defense. Revere’s letter was supposedly “obscure” and something her supporters had “dug up” to defend her. She had been only inadvertently right. In a widely-read post at Forbes.com, E.D. Kain noted Revere’s letter but asserted you don’t “babble incoherently about warning the British” (he was referring to Palin, not Revere’s letter): “If you answer a question about Paul Revere . . . you recite Longfellow.” In going beyond the words taught to schoolchildren, Palin had gone rogue.
The third wave of comments took the position that the problem was not Palin’s accuracy, but her “incoherence.” Some prominent bloggers on the right took this line, concluding that Palin’s inelegantly expressed remark was further evidence of her “chronic problem” — an alleged inability to speak clearly even when making valid points. Some expressed the hope that this trait, allegedly evidenced by the latest kerfuffle, would end her presidential prospects.
The tri-part reaction to Palin’s remark — (1) she’s stupid; (2) she was only unknowingly right; (3) she was right, but she can’t speak good English — was an elite response. It was the reaction of a class that prizes, above all else, educational credentials and the ability to speak well.
Ironically, that is part of our current predicament. The sitting president is someone elected without experience or accomplishments, largely because he was well-educated, spoke well, and wrote a book. Some Republicans and conservatives thought Obama was potentially a great president while lacking even the qualifications of the vice-presidential candidate on the opposing ticket — a sitting governor with an impressive record of achievement.
one thing for sure. Sarah Palin has proven beyond a doubt she is smarter on her worse day than the liberal IDIOTS are on their BEST day. and thats what eats them up. thats part of whats wrong with the republican party. TOO MANY OF THEM LISTEN TO AND BELEIVE THE LIBERALS AND THEIR BULL crap,
The difference between democrats and republicans is…
Democrats will rally around their people and support them…no matter. Just look at Weiner, Clinton etc Barbara Walters made a fool of herself on her program defending Weiner..
Republicans…..will throw their people to the slaughter and never look back, never defend them..look at anyanyany republican that the left doesn’t’ like, eg Palin,Perry, Romney, Coulter, Hannity…no one steps up to defend any of these people from liberal attacks.
Isn’t that just what this article does? Defend Sarah Palin from liberal attacks?
Personally I don’t think the lady needs much defending. She’s perfectly capable of taking care of herself.
EXACTLY!
Herein lies the core of the matter. As Thomas Sowell put it in The Vision of the Anointed, the Left’s figureheads and mouthpieces, though they preen themselves on their intellectual and moral superiority, are mainly just “verbally nimble.” As such, they bestow their approval only on others who:
1. Share the political postures that they think equate to intellectual and moral superiority;
2. Are also verbally nimble.
To which only one response is possible:
How ironic that you would defend Palin with a leftist like Shaw….
Are you aware that Shaw was a defender of one of the most heinous barbarians that have ever lived? When Stalin forced collectivization in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s, causing an immense famine that caused millions of deaths, a British journalist named Gareth Jones, who was a fluent Russian-speaker, bypassed the security checkpoints and visited some of the villages in one of the afflicted areas. He spoke to the villagers in their own language and learned that they hated Stalin first and foremost for forcing collectivization on them. Number 2 on their Most Hated list was George Bernard Shaw. They frequently heard news reports over the radio to the effect that Shaw was endorsing the Soviet Union as the model for mankind to follow. The villagers, of course, knew what a crock this was.
I don’t mean this to be unduly critical of you. I’ve read plenty of your comments and invariably find them lucid, eloquent, and persuasive. The citation is, of course, a very powerful speech and I can see why you chose it. I imagine you simply weren’t aware of Shaw’s unrepentant leftism during those years.
No, actually I am (and was) quite aware of it, and have been aware of it since I first read “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism,” way back in the cradle. But Shaw, despite his political preferences (and outright weirdnesses, some of which are on lurid display in other parts of Man and Superman), was both candid and eloquent. He makes a sharp contrast to modern Leftists, who dissemble constantly and will lie to your face if that’s the quickest route toward their goal.
I miss adversaries like Shaw. They would actually debate you rather than simply revile you. You had a chance of getting somewhere with them — concededly, a small chance, but more than we have with their political descendants. Along with that, many of them had something of objective value to offer the world, such that you could exclude consideration of their politics and enjoy others of their wares.
Anyway, this isn’t the first time I’ve used Shaw for pro-freedom purposes. But I’ve “done worse:” When I wrote this essay, I concluded with a beautiful quote from a card-carrying Communist — and that was one of my most libertarian screeds of all time!
Ironies abound, eh?
What I find really, really, funny is that all this time was spent trying to analyze a single Palin comment on, of all things, Paul Revere. Yet I’ll bet you few people out there even know what Obama said this week about the state of our economy, let alone how to fix it. And while Obama is struggling to form coherent sentences without the aid of his teleprompter, the main stream media is literally hanging on every word Sarah Palin is saying, a person who isn’t even in office! Tell me again, WHO actually is president here?
Can you just imagine how insane the White House would be if Sarah Palin started issuing regular policy statements and if she started “advising” the President on Facebook on how to run the country? The White House would go insane. That alone would be worth watching. So tell me again, if Sarah Palin is such a flyweight politically and intellectually, why are so many people listening to her, following her around the country, and analyzing every single thing she says? I’m really getting confused who the president is these days. According to the main stream media, it sure doesn’t seem to be Obama.
Good points.
Competent women who do not tow the liberal line are scary. One with accomplishments such as hers are more so.
Long ago, in the schoolyard, one learned that if you shoot the messenger, you kill the message. That is what is, disingenuously, what is being attempted here. Fortunately, we are no longer schoolchildren. This tactic is not only failing, it is backfiring.
Not “tow the line”, dammit! It is “toe the line”! If you do not know what the phrase means, you should not use it. It speaks of a thoroughly regimented system, like the military or prison camps. They have a line painted on the concrete. All the troops or inmates are told to line up by putting their toes on the line. No deviance is tolerated. Toes on the line. “Toe the line.”
I keep seeing this phrase used on this site by the commenters, and they almost all spell it wrong. When you spell it wrong, it does not convey the very strong message of regimentation (the conscript troop or the prisoner).
Besides, you look really dumb if you cannot spell the word ‘toe’. (And I do not mean “pota-toe”.) Who is going to take your comment seriously? Get it right.
/rant
Thank you, Professor Pedantic. Let us be glad no one said “for all intensive purposes”, for surely your aneurysm would have ruptured.
Some people do get that one wrong, but not most. If it were to become pervasive, yes, I would be irritated. It would make our side look ignorant.
I’m not being pedantic here. I do not set the bar very high. I do not demand folks know the difference between the use of a comma, ellipsis, or a semi-colon. However, frequent use of “tow the line”, is just ignorance, and it makes us seem like a bunch of rubes. It DOES matter. It hurts us.
One need not set the bar high, but the bar should be set somewhere.
In Fact, “toe the line” was ORIGINALLY used in the English Parliament: in the House of Commons, along the front of the Government side, and also along the front of the Opposition, there are red lines, woven into the (green) carpet. These lines are more than 2 sword lengths apart. Members of Parliament were not supposed to go beyond the line in front of their side, ie, they had to “toe the line”, or risk being thrown out of Parliament by the Speaker.
The lesson? It is really hard to make a civil parliament government work without violence.
Thank you for that. I had never heard that. Very interesting bit. However, I doubt that it originated there. Militaries have used it throughout the ages. Your example still demonstrates regimentation, strictly enforced, but it is more of a line not to be crossed, ‘twould seem.
Your vignette reminds me of the phrase once used in boxing, “toe the scratch”. The new round used to start with both fighters putting a leading toe on the scratch line, thus within hitting range of one another. They did not come out of their corners and start dancing around. They started out slugging. I understand it was called the scratch, rather than the line, because the line was scratched in the dirt or the ring by a foot. The scratch was a beginning point, not an end point like the line is. Different words. Different imaging. Different connotation.
Lots of English phrases reflect body language. Keep your head down. (Don’t challenge authority.) Keep your head up. (Do not quit.) Keep a stiff upper lip. (Tough it out.) Put your best foot forward. (Really reach out when you go to shake hands, to make a good first impression.) Stand up and be counted. (Show your support.) Don’t lead with your chin. (Don’t challenge with your greatest weakness.) Shifty. Shifty-eyed. Sneaky. (Guilty or lying or thieving. Dishonest.) Grin and bear it. (If you are being roasted or razzed, smile along with it.) Put a brave face on it. (Similar to the previous phrase, but with more grave circumstances.) The list goes on and on.
If you get the physical phrase right, the meaning reaches people better. “Toe the line” is just such a physical phrase.
Please keep going, your really interesting and have peaked my interest.
lol. Now you are just baiting me.
Yes, we spend time on drivel like a Revere remark, as the liberals want us to
…while Weiner wags his wiener around and the liberals draw the wagons around him to protect this man.
AND while the Bilderberg conference is going on
So tell me again, if Sarah Palin is such a flyweight politically and intellectually, why are so many people listening to her, following her around the country, and analyzing every single thing she says?
That’s simple. The MSM is listening to her in the hopes of catching her saying something that will make her seem unelectably stupid, like her discussion of books with Katie Couric. Her fans are listening to her in the hope that she will say more of what she’s famous for: the things they all want to say about how messed up the country is and what direction it needs to go.
The MSM is absolutely not listening to her in the expectation that she will provide policy suggestions that will get the country moving in a better direction. They loathe her – and fear her – and each “journalist” is competing with all the others to capture the moment where she says something that utterly kills her chances of obtaining the presidency. They all want that exclusive.
Isn’t it Joe Biden? He’s meeting 24/7 with the RINOS to fix the economic hiccups we are going to have to endure until we reach full employment as The One said we would. At some point in the future.
Obama was actually elected President but he soon thereafter took a leave of absence, delegating his authority to Biden, Reed, Pelosi, Nato and the United Nations. Now Joe is calling the shots. I think. Does anyone know for sure?
We can turn this country around if we have the right person in leadership with the Congress forced to have some cajones for once. Without the leadership we will just have more of the same.
If anyone other than Sarah Palin has shown sufficient leadership to pull the US populous and the elected representatives with her I haven’t seen them. That is the underlying reality that the public senses and why Sarah Palin hasn’t just faded like thousands of other Presidential wantabees before her.
Bingo…. In my opinion, she is the only one who can do it.. And the so-called moderates, the so-called female Republican’s who hate her, the so-called independats are fools if they don’t see it.
The issue lies in the fact that there are two kinds of republicans right now.
Type 1) Want to elect republicans for the sole purpose of – Electing Republicans.
Type 2) Want to elect republicans for the purpose of – Accomplishing Something.
I first noticed this phenomenon when Pat Toomie ran in the Primary against Arlen Spectre. The Type 1′s all said “It’s not the time. We have to win. It’s more important to have someone (get ready for it) “ELECTABLE.” (Medved was in the lead with that theme.)
I do beleive it is the Type 1′s that Hate Sarah the most and the Type 2′s that keep on sustaining her.
I saw the Tea Party as consisting of Type 2 Republicans Fed Up finally with the squish and MSM suck ups and wanted some action, not just ‘numbers.’
very well put and, IMO, accurate.
Except for the few that you can count on one hand, all are wrong that hold their party’s success higher than the document they swore to protect and defend. In their view Sarah’s inability to compromise for party member reelection is both a short fall for the continued deal cutting that has plagued both houses from the time of party origin and a direct threat to media owners successful perpetuation of agenda completely foreign to the growing numbers now hearing the lonely patriotic few. Could it possibly be that the corruption of compromise has peaked amid its own detrimental confusion ?
Hey Nickel:
The MSM and the RINOS keep telling the world his name is PAWLENTY. Don’t you believe them?
Mr.Richman,
She is indeed a paul Revere and more; much more.
I don’t think the legacy media understands the kind of person that Palin is. Francis W. Porretto put it right. The only thing that is left of the Left is posture. They are just a bunch of empty suits with a formula they repeat over and over because they don’t know anything else. Their papers are not selling, their TV shows tank in the ratings. They are moving by pure inertia. Soon they’ll be out of history’s exit door.
Check out this dialog from the script of Good Will Hunting. I see it in my own way: Will is the new “working class young conservative,” Clark is the new generation of the Left, hopefully the last generation of the Left.
———–
(Clark (a student) is trying to impress some girls at a pub)
CLARK: There’s no problem. I was just hoping you could give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the early colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War the economic modalities especially of the southern colonies could most aptly be characterized as agrarian precapitalist and… (Will, who at this point has migrated to Chuckie’s side and is completely fed-up, includes himself in the conversation.)
WILL: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first year grad student. You just finished some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison prob’ly, and so naturally that’s what you believe until next month when you get to James Lemon and get convinced that Virginia and Pennsylvania were strongly entrepreneurial and
capitalist back in 1740. That’ll last until sometime in your second year, then you’ll be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood about the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
CLARK: (taken aback) Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of–
WILL: “Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth…” You got that from “Work in Essex County,” Page 421, right? Do you have any thoughts of your own on the subject or were you just gonna plagiarize the whole book for me? (Clark is stunned.)
WILL: Look, don’t try to pass yourself off as some kind of an intellect at the
expense of my friend just to impress these girls. (Clark is lost now, searching for a graceful exit, any exit.)
WILL: The sad thing is, in about 50 years you might start doin’ some thinkin’
on your own and by then you’ll realize there are only two certainties in life.
CLARK: Yeah? What’re those?
WILL: One, don’t do that. Two — you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on
an education you coulda’ picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges
at the Public Library.
CLARK: But I will have a degree, and you’ll be serving my kids fries at a drive through on our way to a skiing trip.
WILL: (smiling) Maybe. But at least I won’t be a prick. And if you got a problem with that, I guess we can step outside and deal with it that way.
That’s a very impressive quote. Is the rest of the screenplay that good?
It is a very enjoyable movie. The key here is that Will happens to be a genius, who is a custodian at Harvard or some similar college.
Given the oft-heard standard around here, though, you should avoid it because Matt Damon is a liberal.
Dwight, I am one of those people who will not PAY to see Damon or any other liberal who constantly ridicules conservatives or even some of the real Republicans. I find people like him to be offensive and the fact that they are given a voice by the media while having no credibility or experience shows how lame the public is to heed what he says. He has lied about Palin on many occasions. I am not one of those people who can “Enjoy” an airhead’s acting while abhorring their beliefs. When you pay to watch or listen to liberal ranters you are only making it easier for them to remain in the media spotlight.
D-White, should you be avoided too?
Now that really would be a shame…
It sounds as if “Will” and I have a few things in common. As for Matt Damon: As I have my own political, economic, and social opinions, formed over a lifetime of study and thought, I ignore the opinions of entertainers, be they actors, singers, athletes, or any other variety. That leaves me free to enjoy what they actually do well. It’s a posture I commend to others with three or more functioning brain cells.
Francis: I don’t quite recommend the movie, nor the actors. That small part of the exchange is the peak of the whole movie. The rest is pretty predictable. I happen to remember it because I had a similar experience in Boston, when I was in my late 20′s. In fact a friend of mine took me to a movie theater in Cambridge to see that movie the first week it played. I was surprised to see the similarities between my encounter and that moment in the movie. Except that I would never ask anyone to read The People’s History of the United States, not even drunk.
Palin is walking a difficult path: she is morally better than her peers, her political instincts are magnificent. I find her to be very much like Reagan. Ron read more good books than the most learned of his critics. So much so that his Weltanschuung allowed him to bypass the Liberal grip on foreign policy, the western European wind against him, and the ineptitude of the long time liberal Department of State… and hit the Soviets with a right hook that they never saw coming. And all the time he was just plain paying a stupid version of Howdy Doody.
If Palin turns out to be 10% of that–and I believe she has the potential but I am not sure–and she gets elected our first woman president… the Liberals will just die. And I will be somewhere laughing my old butt off.
It’s MATT DAMON, MATT DAMON! Dang it!
Sadly, no.
In fact, Will suggests that Clark read Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States”, because it will “knock your socks off”.
My son has run into the same elitist barriers in attempting to make a career on Wall Street but hasn’t yet seen the irony of his own contempt for Sarah Palin.
If she runs I am hoping he will see the light for his own sake. As it stands now he is bitter about his future which is no way to live.
Ask him if he voted for Obama. Then tell him that elections have consequences. End the conversation there. Do not allow him to rationalize. Just end that part of the conversation. Be firm.
Knowledge vs wisdom.
Sort of like PB and J. But there is a third component and that is morality. IMHO, SHP has all three. PB, J with a big glass of milk!
DD
It really is amazing. Everyday we hear about how “stupid” she is, yet everyday the other possible candidates say truly stupid things.
Newts’s comments on the Ryan budget, Huntsman and Romney on government mandates and “global warming (LOL)”, Cain on the 2nd amendment being “up to the states”, Perry on how the AZ law “isn’t right for Texas”, Pawlenty who wants “means testing” as a way to cheat taxpayers out of what they put into SS instead of phasing out the socialist crap. Yet the talking heads who pretend to be on opposite sides all say she is the one who is “stupid” and “unelectable”.
It’s actually kind of funny that so many complain that she is a “quit-er” when the main complaint I have about all of the other mentioned here is that they refuse to quit (which would be the best thing for the nation) because of their own misplaced pride and arrogance.
Rick Richman provides a brilliant explication of the repulsive condescending disdain that pseudo-intellectual and social climbing snobs express for Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a woman of accomplishment, not the least is taking on the Alaskan Republican Establishment and Alaskan Big Oil, both of whom continue to subvert her.
Sarah Palin is a genius at communicating with ordinary Americans who are scared and who are willing to work for something better.
You can expect this from liberals,on every true constitutional conservativeatter of record,was george washingtons nuber one man,in battle,as they are anti-american,and would have been put before a firing squad,under george washington.Benedict arnold was once known as true a hero,an american patriot,as george washington.He, ended up being america’s best known traitor,in our history books!So what happened.As is usually the case his wife was a jealous glory hunter,outraged that benedict arnold wasn’t getting as much credit and adulation,as george washington,and like her ancestor eve,convinced adam,that their would be more glory,and be made superior to god,by eating the forbidden fruit,and lost paradise as a result.So did benedict arnolds wife convince him to betray his new kingdom,and be made grater,with more praise,and recognition,if he would bite of the forbidden fruit,and betray what would have been his kingdom under the providence,again of god!Ronald reagan had his,eve,with nancy,but she caught between her hatred of,ronald reagans love of,and duty to his country,and her own socialist beliefs,along with the glory she recieved because of his fame,and popularity!As liberal women,or as i call them the daughters of eve!See all males,as a sugardaddy,who will forsake all others to give them superiority,over others.Well marriage wasn’t created by god to make anyone superior over the other.It was a contract that if any sought to violate that contract they would not forsake that contract!When a politician/president signs another contract,for that matter any contract they have made a commitment to the words written in that contract,and if a spouse,dis-agreed with that contreact,trhat was the time to speak up,or forever hold their peace,in the future.Unfortunetely liberals don’t believe in any contracts,or intend to honor them period!These same liberal women through-out history have convinced many of our presidents to break their contract with god,the constitution,and the people who believed them,and let their spouses run the country from their bedrooms,for fear mostly of losing their marriages,and their popwer,as all liberal women are revenge oriented.Everything is all about them,and what they percieve is right in their eyes,and be damned their husbands oaths,and allegiences to their country,that these same women campaigned on those same promises of their husbands with already plans in mind to change them wants their elected!John mccain,a product of his wife,and daughters hatred of americanism,to destroy it,and replace it with a socialist sugardaddy state1Which explaining their hatred for god,and jesus christ because they didn’t lie3 to them,and betray truth,for t5hese women’s vanity,selfishness,and expectation to be like their god,lucifer to be exalted superior over god,jesus christ,law,and human life,Why most hate their father’s who were true fathers that lived discipilined lives,according to gods will,and not theirs,as they expected god,jesus christ,their fathers,husbands,and all men to betray who god intended for them to be,and exalt them superior to all others,and be their sugardaddy.As everything liberal women do,is based on their own inferiority,mixed with their own vanity,of lie,steal,and cheat for me,or i’ll destroy you!Then wonder why liberal men see all woman as hookers,because liberal women in general see’s everyone as sugarddays.Which is why they worship,and fawn like groupies over politiciuans,government,etc.Because they will lie,steal,and cheat,on their behalf,and why these people hate sara palin she is the real woman,that all real men would like to have in a woman,and not a jezzebel,in search of her sugardaddy.these same women will never forsake,a bill clinton,or anthony wiener thes are gods,to these women.they are vain,and ignorant enought to believe they would never cheat on them,and will never be with a man who won’t lie,steal,or cheat,on their behalf,or what they percieve is more important than whats best for them.Everything these liberals do,is based on their own addictions,or obssessions.They will use,and exploit everything,and everyone just to profit themselves”FOR WHAT GOOD IS IT TO GAIN THE WORLD TO ONLY LOSE YOUR SOUL”And they will abandon,or destroy anything,or anyone just to get what they want,including their own children!!!The bush women destroyed the political legacies of their husbands,because they convinced them to betray their oaths,and allegiences,to their country,and become ted kennedy’s,and bill,and hillary clintons,lapdog,To become again,a government sugardaddy,to satisfy their wives,and to get the sugardaddy’s liberal womens vote.Which is insane,as liberal women will never betray her tried,and true,sugardaddy,which is the democrat party.Unless,or until,a better paying sugardaddy comes along who will exalt them superior to god,jesus christ,law,and the human rights,lives,property,and liberties of others!The bible said”IN THE LAST DAYS WOMEN WILL RULE,AND THEIR CHILDREN WILL RULE OVER THEM”Which has been the case for about 100 years now,fastfowarded,a 100 fold the last fifty years!Which is the nunber one reason our country is in the hell hole it’s in now!That these same liberal women only care about themselves,not the condition of the country.because they have never truly been responsible for their own lives,because the american taxpayer has been forced to be their sugardaddy,against their will,so they can have their needs paid for by others,while spending everything else on themselves!This is why these so-called republicans want to put social conservative issues,meaning god,jesus christ,the law,and the truth on the back burner.Because they are not about duty to,and love of country.They are about you the taxpayer being forced to continue being the sugardaddy,of their wives,and liberal women everywhere,and their children,who rule over them.Unless of course these children become incovienient,or an obstacle then they will just susan smith,casy anthony,or planned deadbeat parent them!Why these same liberal women worship homosexuality,because they want all boys to be feminized to think like them,and their girls to hate all males from god,jesus christ,their fathers,the fathers of their children,who refuse,or delay lying to them,and for them,and steal,and cheat!!!Then everyone wonders why the divorce rate is sky high,government is their sugardaddy their husbands are only needed as a sperm donor,and,or for child support,still get sugarmoney from government,seek out other sugardaddy’s,Get jobs they didn’t earn,or deserve through sugardaddy affirmative action programs!And the main reason all of these people hate sara palin,because she doesn’t need,want,or never had to, have a sugardaddy,but a true father on earh,and in heaven,a loyal husband,and a proven record of independent accomplishments,that didn’t require a sugardaddy approach to get!She will destroy the false preception that sugardaddy women are independent women,but instead are predators,and revenge is their motivation.Because god,didn’t automatically make them superior to others!These republicans like the bush family tree,and their hatchet men like karl rove,and liberal republican feminist women who as well hate sara palin,because of fear people will take away their sugardaddy status!This is also explaination why these politicians cheat,on their women.It is because they see all women as hookers,because of women who see allpeople as sugardaddy’s!!!Jimmy Joe.”The Liarfryer”
This is the first time I have manage to slog through one of your stream-of-consciousness rants, probably because you mentioned Washington and Benedict Arnold early on. Generalize much?
Have you ever read about the interractions between Gates and Arnold at Saratoga? I did not realize until now that it was because of their liberal wives. What is your take on Abigail Adams?
Forget Abigail. Ask him to do one on Hillary since it is happening just right now.
I’m sorry, what you are saying may be very worthwhile, but your total lack of whitespace has made this one step above impossible to read.
Even a shifted enter now and then and adding some spaces between a period and the next sentence would show that you have some respect for the readers that you are trying to share your thoughts with.
As it stands I cannot read past the third line of your post without getting lost.
I was going to say the same thing. Very difficult to get through
Palin should have said that Paul Revere rode through all of the 57 states that Obama visited.
Brilliant suggestion! If Palin had said that, the MSM would not have said ONE WORD.
So Sarah Palin is now an artisan? After the Revolution, Revere eventually became a successful CEO of sorts with his factory, a few miles from my humble abode where they produced the copper that sheathed Old Ironsides.
As for the elitist thing, most of the Founders in Massachusetts were social climbers, rather than (with the exception of Hancock) already wealthy. Royal Governor Hutchinson dismissed John Adams and his ilk as insecure, envious men, (Samuel Adams failed in every business he tried and essentially lost his inheritance) trying to better their humble stations. He may have been correct, but they touched a chord with their fellow colonists that Hutchinson no longer could. Ironically, Lawyer Adams was himself an elitist in a different way, respecting PUBLIC education, knowledge of the law, and rhetorical skills; I don’t believe he would have thought much of Sarah Palin UNLESS she were a fellow revolutionary, in which case he would have found a place for her. An even more interesting question is what Abigail Adams would have thought of her. Neither John nor Abigail were into hopey changey or common man type rhetoric.
Right now, Palin is without question a People magazine type superstar, and not as bad as her opponents make her out to be, but not as good as she should be. One could say that she has been seduced by celebrity, although aren’t ALL politicians? If she truly were making the point about Paul Revere that she claims she was, then she should have been more coherent. As it as, she was celebrating the ditzy side of American femaledom, where girls avoid appearing smart, because it intimidates the males, supposedly. One does not have to be a pretentious jerk like the grad student in Good Will Hunting to be clear and precise about what one is saying. That cheesy appeal sucks in, well, who it sucks in. If the woman wants to be taken seriously, then she should act like it. But why should she? She can make millions and be a celebrity acting like a feisty, beautiful goofball. Most of us would probably choose that as well,…if we could.
Hello D-White. This is akin to the am radio version of Light my Fire. Not quite Longfellow, more like that Weiner guy. D-White’s Id -
“I Am Fascinated by Alaska”
I am fascinated by Alaska,
so much
It’s like she works
like a hick.
I like to hunt, explore,
the outdoorsy stuff,
but she just gets more
and her voice
Maybe it’s just me
in her own skin
I first heard her
Possibly she was just playing
the real Sarah.
the voice and persona
have filled
something more
I have been to Wasilla,
if only passing through.
As I recall,
firecrackers at Fred Meyer.
maybe Preparation H?
lust for Sarah-poo, alas,
is serious
She is a beautiful woman
opens her mouth…
have to admit that,
swollen streams,
splintered
butt, who knows?
Ah, more cutting and pasting fragments of images from my trenchant comments.
C’mon, with your “creative” occupation, and the hundreds of rich images which I have supplied since I came here, you should be able to do a lot better that that.
As often, you apparently have some plot-line pulsing in your brain, but it never attains coherence on the computer screen. These Wasilla and a few other lines mean something profound or malignant to you, but I’ll be damned if I know what point you are trying to make.
On the other hand, you could try to respond to the substance of my last points, but then you would be over your had. Reasoned response does not seem to be part of your musical mind, so go with what you have. Sarah does.
O D-White of The Left of the Pick It Fence But, this is Found Composition. As a duly secular Minister of the D-Education Establishment, you should recognize the D-White genius for providing manure so that flowers may blossom in the sterile field of Ping Pong Tongue elitists.
“On the Other Hand”
Ah,
C’mon,
since I came here
On the other hand,
I’ll be damned
Sarah
I have supplied
These Wasilla
and a few other lines
to make something profound
Sarah does
Plot-line pulsing
attains coherence
rich images
but then in your brain
Sarah does
What you have
the hundreds
the substance
but it never attains response
on the computer screen
Sarah does
Your had.
52. Dwight
I voted for Obama, but knew that he was just another guy.
February 23, 2011 – 8:29 pm
The circus is in town.
“….then she should have been more coherent.”
You mean more coherent than the guy at the end of the following link? I know the question has been asked a million times, but “what would the media do to her if she acted like this guy”? He gets elected. Maybe she didn’t get much sleep, like Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&NR=1
Actually, Dwight, this is the most insightful post I have ever seen from you. Nice!
However, I have seen some of her speeches. In them, she does speak more seriously, and still mixes in her folksiness. The fact is, it is good politics, not bad. It appeals to more people than you think. You might think that is a sad thing, and you may be right, but times are what they are. I prefer a more eloquent style (not affected), but many folks cannot follow such. I have no trouble understanding Palin, despite her dumbed-down delivery. If you want to change people’s minds, first, you have to speak a language they understand.
What I am saying is, I think she does it on purpose… because it works for the majority. I have seen her be far more cogent. I think it may be a feature, not a bug.
Maybe not, but Revolutionaries such as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson certainly were. Sarah Palin may not have been welcome in Braintree, Massachussetts but she would have been right at home in colonial Virginia.
Patrick Henry WAS probably the best natural orator in the country at the time, so effective that even his OPPONENTS in the Ratification process, like Jefferson, who damned well WAS an intellectual elitist, stood in awe and fear of his ability to sway the Virginians AGAINST ratifying the Constitution. He failed, though, and may have not thrown his full powers into the fight against it. The aristocrat elitists were in Virginia, not in Massachusetts. You are confusing your eras, or simply your people here, possibly because you have a misguided sense that the southerners were good ole boys. The Federalists and all the supporters of the Constitution were the Big Government folks; that would be Washington, Jefferson, Madison, although NOT Patrick Henry.
IIRC Jefferson was actually partial to the AntiFederalists.
I was lucky to have a true old school college course in American history, focusing on the Revolutionary period. Few these days read much of The Federalist papers — we actually read many of the AntiFederalist writings as well.
What do you think Hamilton would have thought of her? Him being a self-made outsider, compulsive truth-teller (to the detriment of his career), war hero, anti-slavery activist, purposeful capitalist, and budget hawk (he believed in keeping a bit of debt as a way of demonstrating creditworthiness, and therefore as an aid to solvency)?
Also Patrick Henry was pro-slavery, and Jefferson talked a good game but didn’t do much about it.
What! an article— “A”.
Though: “It was the reaction of a class that prizes, above all else, educational credentials and the ability to speak well.” was made correct and amplified in other places, to simply reiterate and offer this: “. . . . a class which prizes an ability to speak well.”? Do what? , . . . dropping consonants, and without a prompter, most unable? I have heard left-winger exclaim over him, . . . but, . . . And Biden??? Do what? Ability to speak, and speak, and speak, gosh that guy must love hisself, . . . but, actual ability? OMGosh, C’mon, Dude, . . . get real, . . .
And in fact, in the 2nd to the last para., I actually notice a double space—between that final “as” and the “her”—where “Biden” may have been intended to have been fit in: “. . . . she would not likely say anything as dumb as her . . . .”.
In all, at the deepest level of spiritual human response, her detractors simply would see Mrs. Palin, despised, . . . misshapen creatures,. . . but of their own doing, . . .
Perhaps Paul Revere might have been a better president than those who were?
The clarity of moral courage is sadly lacking in a world run by a corrupt and self-serving elite.
There is no greater true and benevolent elitism than that of a person “who sees things as they are”, as different from the venal or devilish elite that now holds sway.
AJ Nock (http://mises.org/daily/2765):
” . . We have all seen men who were quick witted, accessible to ideas and handy with their management of them, whom we should yet hesitate to call intelligent; we are conscious that the term does not quite fit. The word sends us back to a phrase of Plato. The person of intelligence is the one who always tends to “see things as they are,” the one who never permits his view of them to be directed by convention, by the hope of advantage, or by an irrational and arbitrary authoritarianism. He allows the current of his consciousness to flow in perfect freedom over any object that may be presented to it, uncontrolled by prejudice, prepossession or formula; and thus we may say that there are certain integrities at the root of intelligence which give it somewhat the aspect of a moral as well as an intellectual attribute. . . “
What Sarah Palin ought to do is read George E. Baker’s book, The Penobscot Expedition http://www.amazon.com/Penobscot-Expedition-Saltonstall-Massachusetts-Conspiracy/dp/1557502129/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307808562&sr=1-1, and publicly discuss Paul Revere’s court martial. He was accused of insubordination & leaving his duty post. He was court-martialed on February 19, 1782. He was acquitted. The level of historical knowledge exhibited by her accusers is minimal and could even be surpassed by a insouciant teenage parody of Longfellow I learned as a kid in the Fifties.
Now listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere.
He got in his car and stepped on the gas,
The engine blew up and he fell on his ___.
Now don’t get excited, don’t get alarmed.
The engine blew up and he fell on his arm.
So up on his horse and off went a-running,
To tell all the world, “The Redcoats are coming!”
The Redcoats are coming, not “the British” is just one subtle nuance of greater accuracy by teeenagers then than today’s media can muster. If she takes up the challenge to make this a learning experience for herself and a teaching moment for her critics, she would be doing us all a great favor and we would have some fun in the process. You go girl!!!
I knew Palin was right.. not because SHE spoke it, but because I’ve taken it upon myself to STUDY that era of our history. Revere did, indeed, warn the British.. SHOCKING them that HE knew the reason the Redcoats were out and about that night and THEY Redcoats, did not. Fact is, he was wrong.. he declared five hundred would be there to confront them on their raid to disarm the colonists. In fact, within twelve hours of REvere and Billy Dawes leaving Dr. Joseph Warren’s home in Boston ten PM Tues 18th April, more than FOURTEEN THOUSAND armed men were afield to drive off the British. No facebook, no cell phones. WHY? The PEOPLE were ready to confront the tyranny of the British, they ALL had established a system of warning based on recent British actions against them. The two aims of Gage’s raid were to seize Adams and Hancock, AND to seize the cached arms of the COlonists.
Wo, who WAS Revere? Basically a common tradesmen, nothing more.. EXCEPT he’d seen the increasing tyranny of the British, how they disregarded the wRITTEN LAW and continually did… precisely the same sorts of things our current administration do on a regular basis.
Read the book Paul Revere’s Ride, by David Hackett Fisher.. well written, THORUOGHLY researched, digs deeply into the issues and sentiments of the time, gives accurate account of who did what when, where, and why. Revere was NOT the “lone wolf” portrayed in the famous poem. He was well connected to likeminded patriots in functional relationships.. well respected and trusted as an individual of high integrity, and a strong passion to live free of government intrusion. Would we had a few million likeminded patriots today. We’d certianly NOT be in the political, internationsl, or financial mess we’re in.
I don’t think Palin will be the best president.But I am VERY pleased to see her standing up to the corrupt power elite currently in charge… and in that position because WE have let them ascend to it. How bad will things have to get before enough true patriots simply rise up and say NO MORE? Where will the line in the sand be drawn? For Revere and his contemporaries, it was the campaign of Gage to disarm the colonials. HE knew that, disarmed, they’d be controllable. Yet we sit back playing patty cake as the current administration works “under the radar” to disarm us, systematically, and by any means possible. Can’t get it past our COngress? Fine… promote it through the United Nations. DCan’t do it that way? How about an executive order? Think I’m crazy? Wake up… be aware of what is happening round about you. and DO something. THAT is what set Revere apart from today’s masses.
Back to basics…OUR US Constitution says “WE THE PEOPLE.” It doesn’t say “WE THE ELITE PEOPLE.” George Mason (political philosopher, Vice President to George Washington and second President of the US) said the colonies were composed of “Gentlemen, Freeholders and other Freemen.” And George Mason, as we all know by now, was our “Founding Father,” who added the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, authored the Bill of Rights (modeled after Virginias Declaration of Rights). Another like minded individual, John Adams, assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Nowhere is the word ELITE found in any writings (Federalist Papers) US Cosntitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence. Folks, it was WE THE PEOPLE. That is what Sarah Palin is trying to do…break the hold the “self anointed, self appointed” Washington ELITE have created. Our Country (may God Bless her) was never designed (by our Founders) to be like our British counterpart.This article is proof positive of this mind-set in Washington DC. Washington DC ELITE have established this “club” of “egg heads” who are destroying our USofA. They’re the “ruling class” and WE THE PEOPLE are the “great unwashed.” What matters (to these “egg heads”) are the Mid Atlantic States…the rest of our USofA, are States the RNC and DNC must “deal with” during each election cycle. Then the Wasington ELITE play off each State against one another. Sarah Palin has it right, folks, it’s WE THE PEOPLE who want our Country back. The Washington ELITE are going to push back with everything in their arsenal…because they will become irrelevant, meaningless, TOAST. Study our three documents, read them, check it out. ITS WE THE PEOPLE…not WE THE ELITE PEOPLE. Go Sarah Palin…give ‘em hell! VOTE, dammit!
Was not Mason one of the elite?
Good question. At first blush, it would seem to be YES! But if we examine his lineage, ownership (a bit fuzzy on details), and subsequent marriages we find the plantation was his wife’s (whom he married in 1750) when he was 25 years old. This, after his father having died as a result of a boating accident when he was only 10. He went to live with his uncle where he educated himself from books available. Yes, his father was married and they had a plantation, its not clear why George Mason didn’t return to his family plantation in Fairfax County.After he married, we understand he moved to Dogue’s Neck, Virginia where he built a house, named Gunstone Hall on the Potomac River. It was completed in 1759 when he was 34.We are to understand this was a joint tenancy with his wife. This would qualify him as a Gentleman. Since he was “self taught” it is questionable as to his “ELITE” status. Yes, he was a political philosopher, activist, land owner absent his education. Did he circulate amongst the “GENTLEMEN” of the time. No question. I believe they would be more considered “PATRIOTS” rather than “ELITE.” Would you deliver an assignment to current day Washington DC “ELITES” to elaborate the US Constitution? And would the results be the same. I think not!!! So, to anwer your question, “Was George Mason a “GENTLEMAN PATRIOT” or an “ELITIST?” He was a “GENTLEMAN PATRIOT.”
Bring it on! Sarah Palin = 1 Progressives = 0 Home Run, yeah!
I learned, and alas promptly forgot a fair number of things about Mason when I read “The Ratification of the Constitution etc” several months ago. I do recall that Mason became an anti-Constitutionalist during the ratification process, setting him against Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams etc., but underneath it, it was understood that he would ratify IF there was a Bill of Rights. So he lost Round One, but won Round Two. Question: did he get the right to bear arms from the Virginia Constitution? I shall also review Mason’s portrait from that book to see if I can find possible Palin parallels.
He got it from the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Glad you are reading this stuff. It shows in your posts. Good for you.
It is moving you rightwards, meseems. I suspect that, combined with your previous leanings, you’ll swing all the way over to become a Libertarian, skipping Conservatism. You clearly have religious upbringing. Maybe that will take more hold as you study, and perhaps you’ll stop at Conservatism then. We’ll see.
God bless, Dwight.
Except for the few that you can count on one hand, all are wrong that hold their party’s success higher than the document they swore to protect and defend. In their view Sarah’s inability to compromise for party member reelection is both a short fall for the continued deal cutting that has plagued both houses from the time of party origin and a direct threat to to media owners successful perpetuation of agenda completely foreign to the growing numbers now hearing the lonely patriotic few. Could it possibly be that the corruption of compromise has peaked amid its own detrimental confusion ?
“…an elite response. It was the reaction of a class that prizes, above all else, educational credentials and the ability to speak well.”
Nothing against Sarah with this, but it is interesting to read this remark, and then go on to read today’s lead story, which contains the following:
“Western education … has been atrophying … not only in the performance of our students but in the mental emaciation of our politicians, journalists, academics, and public intellectuals. These are people many of whom, with only a few welcome exceptions, can no longer think straight, some of whom cannot formulate a coherent sentence, and others of whom are reduced to relative helplessness without external devices to shepherd them through a political speech.”
I’m just bemused by the jarring inconsistency here, almost a double standard which is more the hallmark of the Professional Left than of thoughtful conservatives. I do believe that the ability to speak and write well is both reflective of, and conducive to, a well-ordered and thoughtful mind. (None of which has anything to do with how well you read a teleprompter.)
Now, regarding Sarah — I do believe she flubbed and ad-libbed herself into a corner. More telling is that when defending herself (at least what I bothered to watch)she mentioned nothing of the capture phase of Revere’s evening which her defenders assert she referenced. Yes, I am in the camp who think that she was “accidentally correct.” Still, I’m OK with that. We don’t have to believe that she walks on water, like Chris Matthews regards His SublimeHoliness B.Hussein Soetoro. But I think it would have been better if she manned up and admitted, Yeah, I was off-the-cuff there, and got mixed up. I would still vote for her over Sock Puppet, a million times over. But I do think there are some better potentials who are actually running.
Bingo on the jarring contradiction between the two threads. I made the same point over there.
Prior to her comment, Sarah and her family had just visited a Paul Revere museum and had listened to a professional guide’s description of what Revere did, including I presume after he was captured. There is no other way she would have known of Revere’s warning of the British or of the bells and warnings shots, all true, all obscure and all at odds with the received wisdom from Longfellow. How else would she have known of it? Yes she did garble some of the facts she had just been introduced to but who can doubt a connection between her recent historical review with a professional guide concerning the complete Revere story and her garbled but eeriely accurate summary of some of the most obscure information concerning his fabled ride. She got it from somewhere. She was just exposed to a professional Revere museum along Freedom Trail. Do the math.
That certainly raises the question of exactly what the guide said. It would be good to know. Whether or not she paid attention would also be interesting to know.
personally, i did not know the “real” paul revere story
i actually thought he was more of a folk hero; like a paul bunyun or davy crockett
the only thing i remember about paul revere is “the british are coming the british are coming”
palin would have hit a home run if she took a deep breath when asked the question, explained the common “british are coming” misconception, then followed up with the real story
she needs to learn from “the donald” about manipulating the media to “work for her;” although i must say she’s getting better at it
[i compare sarah palin to a young kobe bryant who (upon arriving on the lakers) was expected to lead the team and city back to the promised land. heaps of pressure mounted on the young guy that he was chucking airballs in most of his "clutch" opportunities early on-- similar to sarah palin with a couple of "arguable" gaffes-- the point is sarah has some "mad skillz" and just needs to keep pluggin' away]
this entire confrontation with the left revolves around the basic principles and fundamentals of free-market economics and constitutionally limited governments
and every opportunity to explain the differences (conservatism v american liberalism; free markets versus central planning) simply and effectively will win the day
it is also true that a significant segment of society exists to fog up and obfuscate and misdirect so as to avoid a direct confrontation between these two diametrically opposed systems
MSM’s recent kerfuffle with Ms. Palin, her email release, and questions about her bus tour are sure fire indication of three things: 1) MSM obsessing over losing their “elitist” status under a Palin Presidency, 2)RNC and DNC worried about how irrelevant they’ll become in a Palin Presidency and lastly, 3)Progressives of all stripes knowing full well they’ll be quartered and skinned at each corner they stand protest on. This is fact folks. Pouring over 24,000 emails sent during Ms. Palin’s successful dismantling of Alaska’s power ELITE has all three segments of American polital “illuminati” worried sick, trying to find out how she did it ib ONLY TWO YEARS.
But I think it would have been better if she manned up and admitted, Yeah, I was off-the-cuff there, and got mixed up.
Except, of course, that she was exactly right, as several actual, you know, historians have opined.
Let the lunatic Left-Wing-fringe-dwelling leftards continue to demean America’s President and Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief-Elect, Sarah Louise Ronald Wilson Reagan Heath Palin’s, (High) IQ, talent, command of language and competence. Let’s even encourage them.
That way, come January 20 2013, for those among us so ‘collective-istly’ predisposed, the collective schadenfreude will be the sweeter.
“The sitting president is someone elected without experience or accomplishments, largely because he was well-educated, spoke well, and wrote a book.”
Deconstructing this sentence:
a. “Well educated:” he knows nothing about geography-”58 states”
b. Nothing about history-too many blunders to mention
c. Economics: what’s that? may be sarcastic, but his record speaks for itself
d. Speaks well: without his teleprompter, he mumbles, stutters and can’t complete a thought inside of 15 minutes
e. Wrote a book: if it’s Dreams of my father, Jack Cashill’s caee is as close to disapproving that as one will get, probably closer than in a courtroom. It was “some guy he knew in the neighborhood,” Bill Ayers, so close that they served on a board together and Ayers hosted his first political ‘coming out,’ when he ran for the IL Senate.
.
All this kerfluffle about Palin’s attributes always seems to fail to ask the most pertinent of questions. This is true of all the candidates, actually. The most important question is, would he or she make a good President?
Ask that of the candidates of ’08? Which of them do you think would have made a good President?
Ask it of the current declared candidates. Which? Any stellar Presidents in the offing?
Oops. Gotta go. Can’t finish this.
(cont)
Obama? Clearly, those of us who looked at what kind of President he’d be, knew he would stink it up. Should he be re-elected? No. He is clearly in over his head.
Romney? A NE liberal Republican, to be sure. Ideology matters, too, but many “moderate” Republicans would like his ideology. What kind of President would he be? I don’t know. I look at his record as Governor, and it is a mixed bag, but he had a veto-proof Dem legislature. As a business exec, he has had some successes and some failures. Here’s my take on him: he seems an overly-ambitious, lying, self-serving politician who wants to be President for the glory of it. He’s the next McCain. He’d be much like Bush as a President.
Pawlenty? Actually, he’d be okay as President. His record as Governor is pretty good. He did better than Romney in similar circumstances. He certainly offered no RomneyCare. He’s uninspiring, which he won’t have much in the way of coattails. (It would really stink, if he could not help us get over the top in the Senate. We need a strong majority, and a Republican minority Senate would be a bad deal. He’d get nothing done.) He has the qualifications. He’d be a decent President. Not great, but decent.
Cain? Business and management experience. His knowledge of politics is really poor. He’ sone of these execs who think they can translate their business success into politics. Administratively, he’d do okay, but he simply has not been paying enough attention to politics over the years, and now this amateur thinks he can fix it? His heart is right. His knowledge is not. He’d be okay as an under-Secretary of Commerce, until he learned the government ropes. NOT a good President. Not even a good Cabinet Secretary.
Bachmann? She and hubby have had their own business for a long time, employing 50+ people. 5 kids. Good family. Some other successes. Nice resume, but not nice enough for President. Certainly not top-drawer candidate. The Rollins hire was a sign of a lack of managerial skills. Not a good President.
Paul? Damn. but I am tired of him. Dr. Paul, you have failed many times before. I’m tired of you running, after we have told you no many times. Seriously. Go home, you crazy old man. Retire. You are what… 72 I think? Do you really think folks are going to elect someone so old to be a first-term President? McCain was kidding himself, and so are you. You cannot win. Quit. wasting. our. time. Lousy President.
Then there is the other Libertarian running as a Republican. Cannot remember his name. The pothead. Looked like he was high at the first debate. Lousy President.
Huntsman? The Democrat in Republican clothes? Absolutely not. Do folks know that Benedict Arlen Spectre once ran for President? Huntsman is the sequel. Lousy President.
Santorum? Good ideology. No exec experience. Does not seem to be running much of a campaign. Palin was right. You do need that “fire in the belly”. Really nothing to tell me what kind of President he’d be. Probably a poor one. Certainly not up to what the next President would have to deal with.
Gingrich? In the ’08 campaign, they painted McCain as “erratic” and “out-of-touch”. McCain wasn’t really. Just look at Gingrich to know what those words really mean. His staff quit for good reason. They were quality people who got out to protect their reps. He is knowledgable, but he’d simply be a poor President.
So, what kind of President would Palin be?
Let’s not nitpick about things like her voice, alright? I’ll grant, those first two interviews with Gibson and Couric were bad, but part of that was just a set-up. I would probably flub my first couple national spotlight interviews too, given the same circumstances. You do not like her folks style? Many folks do. Let’s just stick to substance.
NONE of the ethics complaints were ever shown to be of any substance. There simply has not been any dirt to speak of. She is as squeaky-clean as one could hope for. They are looking for any slight blemish. Nothing, Bupkuas. They have held her to an impossible standard… and she has met that standard.
She has a considerable list of accomplishments for someone who had been in office for such a short time. Those emails just released show her to be engaged, capable, responsive, and pragmatic. She has demonstrated honesty and integrity. She was an excellent Mayor, and an excellent Governor. I believe she’d be an excellent President. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.
She has never had any support from the Republican establishment. If she had, she would not have been put in such bad situations, which made her come off so badly. (Actually, there has been much backstabbing from the establishment Pubs.) She is having to get there totally on her own. Trial and error. If she doesn’t run, okay, but there are really no other stellar Presidents in the offing. She is the best out there from either Party.
Sorry for the long post.
Apologies unnecessary. Good post
I’m desperately hoping Palin throws her hat in the ring. Given the vilification the left has been hurling at her for the last 34 months, I wouldn’t blame her for a second if she decided it wasn’t worth it. But if she’s in, I’m all in with her.
Very good article. Made me rethink a couple of things.
But I always enjoy Richman’s writings. One of the best journalists/pundits around.
i agree; good analysis of the “three waves”
I’ll give you an explanation of this that makes sense. Palin , like many other patriots and conservatives, no longer trusts in getting her historical or other information from traditional mainstream sources. I’m in my library. The walls are covered with primary source material. If I want to know about Cicero I read Cicero, or Lactantius, or Seneca, or Burke, or Acton, etc., ect. I have trouble remembering everything I read. If someone was to ask me what I’m reading I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to answer coherently, but since I’m here…well, let’s see: Roots of Freedom(John Danford),The Alexandrian War (Julius Caesar),Economics in One Lesson (Hazlitt),Commentary (June), From Resistance to Revolution (Pauline Maier), History of Philosophy (Fuller),The History of the Medieval World (Susan Wise-Bauer), Main Currents of Marxism (Kolakowski),Academic Questions (Spring), Claremont review, The City (Houstoon Baptist University). I might not finish a book a week, but I’ve finished as many as eight in one day before (after spending various amounts of time on each). When Palin speaks off-hand about many of these things one should expect her to mis-remember once in a while. She, like me, is an autodictat. I think people like us scare the hell out of academic types because if we were the role models people took up, the academic and journalistic world would be hosed.
It’s necessary to do a little research to glean a major cause of disaffection on the part of the elites for Palin. Whenever you see a critical comment by an alleged “conservative” about Palin (Idaho), go to Wiki and look up their background. I’ve been unceasingly amazed at how consistently I find a common thread.
Medved (Yale) doesn’t like her; neither does Krauthammner (Harvard) or Kristol (also Harvard). Will (Oxford and Princeton) is disdainful; Frum (Dartmouth) can’t stand her. Hindraker over at Powerline (Dartmouth and Harvard) and Mirengoff (also previously at Powerline – Dartmouth, again) has dissed her; Kimberly Strassel (Princeton), another panelist on a recent Fox News discussion with Krauthammer and Kristol, had nothing but contempt for her.
The stench of elitist condescension is becoming overpowering among this useless cabal.
Marc Malone:
“I do not demand folks know the difference between the use of a comma, ellipsis, or a semi-colon.”
If you did impose demands on other commenters and they told you to take a hike, would that make your day?
Yes, it would, actually. It would mean they are demanding a certain standard of me. Reasonable standards are good things, I think. We then discuss reasonable.
Society used to have many reasonable standards, and some unreasonable. When rejecting the unreasonable, we also rejected much that was reasonable. Threw the baby out with the bathwater. Reasonable standards on the part of the voters would have kept Obama out of office.
Hey, if Palin has a reading list like yours, then you have a scoop. But, tell me about Maier’s Resistance to Revolution. I like her approach to the ratification book, and I sure as hell learned a lot as well.
Mr. Richman – excellent. As with other here, I think the following paragraph sums it up in a nutshell: “The tri-part reaction to Palin’s remark — (1) she’s stupid; (2) she was only unknowingly right; (3) she was right, but she can’t speak good English — was an elite response. It was the reaction of a class that prizes, above all else, educational credentials and the ability to speak well.”
Palin has been my favorite candidate since 2008. I would love to see her at the top of the Republcian ticket in 2012.
I would be thrilled if Palin threw her hat in. We need her, she loves our country and can be trusted.
Thank you for all the excellent comments here — great discussion.
The disappearance of the Soviet thread have turned the American ruling elite into snobs.The consequents are obvious.
No, Ben, I remember when the Soviet threat was real and immediate. The Ruling Class were snobs then too.
We must all remember the action is in the primaries. That is where we choose our people. If we just let the media choose our choices then we get what we get. We must get out there and get active this election cycle. And rememeber vote all of the current incumbents out! Replace them all.
I believe the anti-Palin sentiment from the center-right stems from a fear that she would compel hard lines to be drawn, ending the club atmosphere intermingling of party animals (double entendre). For a mental picture, when they disagree they tend to wrist pop each other with the handle of the hammer. They fear Sarah would use the other end, truly setting off a rematch of the Hatfield and McCoy feud. Another poster mentioned that one part of the political culture who sees it as their job to fog and obfuscate matters so that the hard lines between world views will not be brought into a focus that we, the people can address and fix. Sarah is the stiff, cold wind to blow that all away.
give me a paul or *paulette* revere any day over a will, krauthammer, rove, bush, romney, rockefeller, etc.
What elitists of both parties fear most about Palin is that she speaks to the common folk in a language they understand. She has shopped at WalMart, consignment shops and pinched pennies while trying to raise a family and get ahead. Palin speaks to the heart and soul of the often forgotten and usually ignored Silent Majority. I can’t wait to watch this woman make her move. We will finally have a candidate with a cause to celebrate……genuine integrity and honor. The immoral rule by elitists is exactly what has placed our country in an untenable position. What reason on Earth can one justify the extreme vicious and undying attacks on Palin? This last ditch stand by the elites is because they know Sarah will throw open the windows and air out the stink of decades of selfish elitist rule. Power to the people…..GO SARAH!!!!