Palin=W.?

George W. had a good amount of star power, aw shucks charm and, early on, a similar intimacy with foreign affairs.

Intimacy? Is that the word you are looking for?

Aside from the fact that neither of them let their incompetencies stand in the way of their ambitions, I see little in common between Bush and Palin.

Bush went to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed University, remember?

I’d like to think the American people have had their fill of strutting, anti-intellectual authoritarians, although our enemies might argue that it only takes one attack to turn us into a bunch of shrieking pants-pissers.

Huh, weird, this sort of thing just came up over at Ta-Nehisi Coates’s place. Allow myself to repeat myself…
-
George Bush Jr. was like a caricature of the Republican critique of affirmative action and political correctness– that people promoted for their identity, not their merit, wind up incapable of doing hard work because they are rewarded simply for parroting the “right” opinions.
-
Political correctness was never a big deal except on about a dozen college campuses for a few weeks in 1988. And, other than embittering Clarence Thomas, affirmative action hasn’t really produced much in the way of massive negative effects. Whereas Bush ran America and the world into the ground.
-
Palin’s appeal can only be attributed to the deep feeling of cultural grievance, separate from any consideration of merit, on the part of many of the nation’s whites. Sarah Palin is the O.J. Simpson of white people. The difference is, a notable contingent of blacks clapped when a possible murderer was acquitted, whereas a sizable contingent of the nation’s whites want to give the nuclear launch codes to a talentless, know-nothing, resentment-driven former beauty queen.
-
Where is the hand-wringing about the problems of the white community?

compassionate conservatism part deux?

There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again. – GWB

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Jesus Christ! What is it with you people?
.
Enough with the Palin already!
.
This person is just not that interesting.

I think Jay’s use of “intimacy” was ironic. “Understanding” might have made the point more clearly.
.
The more Palin has in common with Dubya, the more it becomes necessary that she never win another election.

Over 60% of people polled don’t believe she has what it takes to be president…of the local PTA, let alone the US. Yet she keeps popping up like a bad computer virus. W proved that you don’t have to have much intellect to run the nation. But it’ll take a lot more than pretty looks for her to be noticed.

“Nice girl but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.” –Foghorn Leghorn

With all due apologies to the Almighty.

One can hope it will run it’s course, soon.

SZ: I enjoy reading your posts and agree with more of them than not, but I love the stories on Palin. She goes beyond interesting. She fascinating on cultural grounds alone. Love her or hate her, she’s a major force in the republican party and her status among her admirers goes well into the territory of cult worship that the right claimed Obama supporters were guilty of.
.
Remember how McCain was spouting all the nonsense about Obama being a celebrity and how he stopped when Sarah moved into that arena? Sarah’s here to stay and unless she gets caught doing something truly horrific, she’s not going anywhere.

Thanks, Jay. Will you be “officially” reviewing Palin’s book, or is there a team effort? Will you interview Sarah again, perhaps on the road during her book tour? (and when will you and KT write your books? please! we need solid good stories to read to balance hers) thx

The way I see it is, the more people see Palin, the more of them will turn away.So keep the coverage coming. Sure, the R base will keep cheering, but they’re what, 20% of the country? The more this lunatic is put front and center, the worse her odds of ever winning a national election become.

I don’t want Palin to win a national election, but there’s no way in hell I won’t be sending her money for the primary. She’s got a good shot of getting that. The die-hards vote in the primaries and she’s very popular with the base. Huckabee and Romney might have the support of the rank and file, but the door knockers like Sarah.

I saw her on Oprah yesterday. In a nutshell: Look at me! I am a poor victim of the drive by media/Katie Couric/nefarious forces in the Obama campaign/nefarious forces in the McCain campaign/and people who are just really jealous of me.
Seriously it was one long pity train of how her many eff-ups were the fault of X, Y and Z but not her. After about 10 minutes it just became too flat out annoying to watch.

Sarah, what do you want to be when you grow up?

stuart, what sacred said. I’d add though, that for now she is HIGHLY relavant because of the R’s situation, and to explain this I do thank YOU: I think the odd R alliance of the fiscal / biz / elitist and social / religious / populist groups is starting to fracture. Tea parties and NY-23 were first shots. One group may push the other out of the R party, or both will literally go their own ways / separate parties. Bye bye R power. Your elitist / populist conservative explanation helped clarify this. *Sarah IS the face and spokeswoman for the s-r-p group.* Unless Huckabee or someone else poaches the s-r-p red meat base from Sarah, she is in control. If she wants to run in ’12 (I think so) she has a chance to win the nomination; if not, she will disrupt the process. The s-r-p base is not enough to win ’12 WH back, but it’s large enough to lose it for the R’s. Also, stuart, even if my opinion is irrelevant here, Andrew Sullivan is quite relevant. He keeps after Sarah even now. I’d like to see you two debate this, but I digress. Here’s an article for you about Sarah that explains her status. Thoughts? thx
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/how-sarah-palin-made-hers_b_358434.html

“but the door knockers like Sarah”
Must be because of her knockers. It is the only reasonable explanation I can think of.

sacredh: I understand your interest in American “unexceptionalism”. I listened to Mika B and Andrea M on Morning Joe going on and on with a mixture of envy and cattiness. Then MikaB got on her high horse and asked why everyone was attacking the ex-Governor, because….. I guess the Whingeing Wing of the Republican Party has found its next leader; and the Mika B’s are coming to the defence of one of their own. Is no one embarrassed?

Jay’s next post: Cheney = Cheney?

deconstructiva: Even if Sarah doesn’t win the nomination outright, she might decide to hold her delgates from going to another candidate unless she gets what she wants. A convention floor fight in 2012 may be her trump card. I wouldn’t put it past her to threaten to turn it into an ugly donnybrook unless her influence is stamped all over the party platform. She’s already proven over and over that she’s shrewd and ruthless.

…and we shouldn’t have misunderestimated W, either.

bitterpill8: In no way am I a supporter of Palin. I’m just as amazed as most other people that someone like her could rise to the top of a major party. I want Sarah to get the nomination because I believe she would be the easiest to defeat and I feel that she’s also the person most likjely to split the party. I root for her because of her ability to wreck havoc.

I, for one, am not in the middle of Palinmania. Sorry.

Actually I tend to think that her game plan is to make herself into a type of political pundit. I keep waiting for her to pop up in her own Fox News show. I don’t think she plans on running for office again herself though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111602630.html

I will preface my comment by first saying that I do not believe that Sarah Palin can be a viable Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2012, and challenge Barack Obama. She is too polarizing a candidate. I also do not believe she has the life experiences to yet become President of the US of A.
.
With that said, she does command a large audience, especially the far right of the Republican Party. Her appeal in my opinion is that she is not from the moderate or middle of the road crowd. She most certainly is not from the Progressive wings of either party. She is simply a down to earth individual who is charismatic, and does appeal to the average American.
.
Because she is very polarizing, she reminds me a lot of what Hillary represented in the last election. I do believe that she would bring a lot of admiration from the right, as well as a great deal of criticism from the left (as witnessed on this very thread).
.
But what I find not only amusing, but also hypocritical is Obama’s own lack of self awareness, lack of judgment and experience. The same lack of experience, etc that Obama has proven to be thus far, yet, those on the left are not able to see those faults of his. Palin actually has much more experience than Obama, even at this point in time with her Governor’s experience to back her up. Obama’s experience to date is totally a learn on the job. And, I might add he has done poorly at that.
.
Perhaps it is simply a situation of “as long as they spout out my ideals and beliefs, then they are ok. If not, then I am totally against them for any political office they might seek to hold”.
.
What I do find interesting is the bias that is so evident by women, in particular liberal women. It is indeed an amazing world we live in.

queencersi: I have serious doubts that Sarah could do well for more than a couple of weeks with her own show. Any serious opposition would serve up her ass on a platter. It wouldn’t surpise me if she stayed on the sidelines for a bit and then gives in to her supporters pleas that she enter the race. Even though she isn’t that bright, she plays her base like a fiddle.

Rust: You forget that Hillary is SMART. People hate her in part out of jealousy, not because she’s deficient intellectually. Ya girl hasn’t proved that she has a grasp on issues.

Ah Rusty, we have heard this argument before.

Right. And neither of them is too familiar with the King’s English, though both can give very fine speeches if somebody else writes them.

And they like guns. And red meat. And the real America.

And neither has the slightest idea that the presidency is best served by a competent, intellectually curious individual.

If this country hasn’t learned its lesson after 8 years of a disastrous President, I guess it deserves another one. President Obama had better quit talking about “looking forward” & start reminding folks what we have to look back on.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Yeah, I would agree that Palin = W. on a competence…make that incompetence level. When he left office, I think the world was hip to the havoc he wrought. What scares me is that people have short memories, and that according to nflfoghorn above, only 60% recognizes her incompetence. I would guess that this figure is similiar to that for W. before the supremes awarded him the first election, and he won the second without outside intervention.

rusty, and W. was not a polarizing figure??

I see what you are saying sacredh, but I have the opposite opinion. I think her political goose is cooked. At least outside of Alaska. But I have to wonder if she wants to run for any office. It is so much more fun to run around, make iinflammatory statements on twitter and collect money from speaking engagements. Holding public office implies that at some point she would have to settle down and do a job. A job that would require her to be accountable for her actions and words, at least on some level. No, I think her game plan is to keep doing what she is doing and laugh all the way to the bank.

sacred – yes, Sarah’s ruthless nature is brazen even in today’s R party. (why do we have a “ruthless” but NOT a “ruthfull”?) Reading her real history (from Alaskan blogs like mudflats and Shannyn Moore + Palin-specific blogs like palingates and others) is entertaining / bewildering. Raw ambition and the willingness to run over others IS enough to carry her this far. Brains, talent, rhetoric? meh.

Sarah’s biggest problem is her problem with the simple truth not that this isn’t a problem for all politicians. However, Sarah seems compulsive about it. Then there is the issue that it is never ever her fault someone else is always to blame. At some point this flies in the face of reality, not everything in life is the fault of others.

For all the rights mantra about personal responsibility this woman flies in the face of it. She takes none.

…make that ARE enough. Reading too much Sarah will screw up anyone’s English (what’s that?). We’ll need lovely Jay or someone here to translate Palinish to English for us (let alone listen to Palin’s own reading on her book on CD).

Gotta check the link, sacredh. It’s a clearly ironic statement.
.
She does, though, have great political instincts and timing.
.
Umm…yeah. Like this?
.

.
…Rove seems to be warming up to the former vice presidential nominee…
.
No wonder; Palin’s easily manipulated, as was Dubya.

Palin ≠ W.
-
Palin = Parody of W.
-
W. = Parody of Reagan
-
Gop = self-parody
-
Reagan at least knew that when his massive tax cuts caused massive deficits he had to turn around and raise taxes—massively. No such encounter with the real-world consequences of his governing decisions were ever allowed to get within spitting distance of W. Palin and her disciples seem to have only one answer when their glib slogans fail to produce the hoped for result: more slogans!

Guns!
Red meat!
Real America!

Now we’re talkin’!

Cool video. Another picture of real America.

…and Sarah did her educational duties with that interview. She showed city girls that turkeys do NOT come from the supermarket. Now will her next video show where babies really come from? (given some anti-Sarah blogs’ questions about her pregnancy with Trig, this could be highly amusing)

Actually, I don’t think so. Palin rose to her staggering levels of ignorance, immaturity and self-absorption without the benefit of a rich, connected, patrician family. So no suing your way to the White House with the help of your Daddy’s “conservative” buddies, Missy.

That’s one of my favorite videos. I can’t speak for what would happen in other parts of the country, but here in eastern Ohio, Sarah would win the republican nomination hands down. All but one of the guys at work that voted for McCain would vote for Sarah in a heartbeat (Romney gets the other vote). If anything, they’re more enthusiastic about Sarah. I live within minutes of West Virginia and Pennsylvania and the republicans I know there would vote for her also.

What has Hillary ever done that was smart? Get dumped on by her husband? Butcher heatlhcare reform in 1993? Declare she doesn’t do milk and cookies in the 1st campaign and get a sock stuck in her mouth? Go to Africa ad berate a student for asking about Bill? Appear on Israel national TV to give BiBi the spotlight to do his Gandhi imitation while Hillary enrages the Islamic world by praising Nertanyahu’s unprecidented off NOT to stop settlement construction?

As Joe point out in his mixed-bag review she’s a gaffe machine who looks good only when she stands next to Joe biden.

Thanks so much for all of your responses, everyone…I have some thoughts on why this is good “the odd R alliance of the fiscal / biz / elitist and social / religious / populist groups is starting to fracture” for liberals…unless we fall into the centrist trap of condemning populism.
.
Also, with respect to:
.
even if my opinion is irrelevant here, Andrew Sullivan is quite relevant
.
I disagree with deconstructiva.
.
I think that deconstructiva’s opinions are more relevant than Sullivan’s, precisely because Sullivan doesn’t comment here.

It seems impossible conceptually, but I believe J N-S has managed to demean two people by comparing them to one another.

Nice work. Next up, Liz Cheney=Elizabeth Hasselbeck?

How many weeks on the NYTs and Amazon nestseller lists do you expect? For someone so inept she’s done pretty well for herself. She’s going to make > $10M in 2009 and 2010 and you rhink she’s the dope?

RustyDog,
Thank you for a very good, thoughtful post.
.
However, I have to take issue with one of your assertions:
.
graf1:”She is too polarizing a candidate.”
.
graf2: “She…and does appeal to the average American.”
.
I agree with statement 1, the truth of which is affirmed because statement #2 is false. She is polarizing precisely because she does not appeal to the average voter.
.
Palin appeals to a segment of the American electorate that likes to think of itself as “average”, but is firmly on the RHS of the equation.
.
Will she be a player? Probably.
.
But, then, many of us thought that Dean, Gulliani, Hart, and Thompson were players before they flamed out…

Thanks, stuart.
Sullivan, alas, doesn’t engage readers anywhere as much as the swampbloggers do here. Then again, he’s ripping Sarah to pieces today.

Paris Hilton will make more than that this year too.

[...] 17, 2009 · Leave a Comment jay newton-small: When I was up in Alaska in July, a lot of politicians and political aides up there said [...]

Funny how some people confuse how much money someone has with their worth as a person.
.
By that standard, Mother Teresa was a complete loser.

“For someone so inept she’s done pretty well for herself.”

You must be mistaking this country for some sort of meritocracy. You must also have been asleep for the past eight years. Wake up and look around you. David Gregory runs Meet the Press, Chuck Todd is NBCs political analyst and CNN hosts “the best political team on television” (oh, and George W Bush was president for a while). Failing upwards is a modern Washington pastime (that’s how we got to where we are today).

rdw, you are absolutely correct. The real dopes are the fools who buy her book under the dilusion that she has anything worth saying. And you know what? Those dopes will also believe the dilusion.

Another picture of real America.
.
Actually, open-air shambles are pretty common all over the (third) world. ‘Real American’ slaughterhouses have more oversight and regulation, at least more than when Sinclair’s [The Jungle] was written.

A fatal flaw in the movement conservative psyche is an inability to objectively analyze the political landscape. For these wingnuts, if they share the views and values of a “conservative”/Republican then that person must be good, smart, honest, etc. Likewise, if they disagree with someone, that person must be a stupid, America-hating, communist. It is comical to watch, really.

A liberal might criticize Bush, Palin, Cheney, Rove, Lieberman, Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Steele, Jindal, Boehner, Cantor, or McCain, but the criticisms are not going to be identical. Liberals may hate Cheney and Rove, but I never heard anybody call them dumb.

The irony of all this is that Obama has totally exposed himself as a tool for the financial industry. A Perot-Ron Paul-esque Republican could probably give Obama a run for his money in ’12. But the Palin-Malkin-Beck wing of the party is actually doing Obama a tremendous favor. Their clownish attacks on the administration as “Maoist” are not only self-discrediting but they insulate Obama from charges of being too close to the banksters.

I certainly HOPE Sarah Palin runs for the office of President of the united States. She would be the best thing to happen to American politics in ages.

She would be the last nail that finally seals the lid on the coffin of the Republican Party.

I’m HOPING the Democrats run an opponent who is as far left as Palin is far right. That will prove once and for all that the ultra-liberal left is as incompetent to run the country as the ultra-conservative right.

If we can get that dichotomy of candidates wide enough apart, we may be able to find a candidate who speaks to the majority of the country who, like me, are at the center. To the left, I’m a right-wing con. To the right, I’m a limp-wristed liberal. To my fellow Americans, I’m Joe Average who’s tired of partisan politics, tired of the us versus them mentality that was started by Rove and perpetuated by both parties, tired of not being able to get anything meaningful done in this country without catering to the businesses and special interests who finance how they want things to be.

I do not want business as usual any more.

I want campaign finance reform. I want lobbyists outlawed (or corralled under a microscope where their every move is watched). I want the American people to decide who should rule this country and not two committees offering cookie-cutter candidates whose views differ only in delivery and not content.

Most of all, I want a new party who listens to and represents the majority of Americans who are moderate in viewpoint. I’m tired of the elitist libs and the religious cons messing up my country. It’s time for both sides to take a time out, reflect on the error of their ways and let a new party of mature, rational and reasonable people be in charge for once. Send the bickering kids to separate corners and let the adults run things for a change.

Rusty, explain to me how EVEN NOW, you say Palin has more experience than Obama. That makes absolutely no sense. Prior to the election, one could argue – and many did – that her almost 2 years as governor outweighed Obama’s almost 4 years as a US senator because she had executive experience. I didn’t buy that and I still think that was mostly spin, but it was at least reasonable spin. But to say that NOW, after Obama has been president/president-elect for over a year, he STILL has less experience than Palin, who quit the only relevant political position she’s ever held, is ridiculous.

You say Obama’s experience is “learn on the job.” Well that’s true for every other new president (at least those not named Grover Cleveland). I doubt any position, for any length of time, can totally prepare someone for what a US President faces. You don’t get a practice country to try things out on.

And as a liberal, I am certainly able to find faults with Obama. Overall I think he’s doing a good job, sure, but I have numerous complaints about his handling of various issues. But I’m wondering where, as you say, he’s proven his lack of experience? Specifically where would more experience have caused him to do things better, keeping in mind that he’s a liberal, and you’re going to be against almost everything he does anyways.

Who cares – I like the word JNS used.
[Some kind of slip?]

!
A rapid cognitive overload, if I ever got one.

She makes Bush look like Einstein.

The biggest difference between Bush and Palin is that Bush knew he wasn’t smart and he would repeat back what his handlers (Rove and company) would tell him to say.

Palin, on the other hand, relishes blathering on (about nothing, generally), proving over and over just what a clueless dolt she is.

She may have been able to smirk her way into the governor’s mansion in Alaska, but I think she has an awfully long way to go to shed her “complete moron” persona among the vast majority of Americans.

Sacredh: ” .. I love the stories on Palin. “

“love stories”? Gosh!

” .. She fascinating on cultural grounds alone. “

“Culture”? What culture? Gosh!

” .. .. her status among her admirers goes well into the territory of cult worship ..

The Kool-Aid guzzlers! OMG!

” .. Sarah’s here to stay ..”

I have ways of dealing with fads, cults and cult worship – especially the type one finds on TV:

1) Sit way back, far back, away from the TV. Turn off the sorround sound. Watch it on the small 13″ screen, say, in the den.

2) Turn the volume low – preferably on one small squeaky speaker. You may even turn off the volume and watch the caricutures.

3) Wait a day, and then watch the speech or the event on replay. Suddenly you wonder what the hoopla was all about.

4) Read the transcripts instead. That should kill any worship one may have for a vacuous Palin as a leader and as a policy guru.
Do wingnuts read anything – other than the sports page in the newspaper?

[ Yet I realize that we like those who look like us - and Palin would be a darling of rural America of the moose-killing, hard-working, very hard-working Americans - the hillbillies -who would go on a spending spree once they got to Washington, DC and had a free credit card in a high-end clothing store ... ]

@shepherdwong: Don’t forget: “Heckuva job” Brownie. The past 8 years have been the “Peter Principle” in action…

Sarah has done a brilliant job positioning and marketing herself in a country that is the closest thing to a meritocracy on the planet. She is already wealthy and is a rock star among politicians attracting crowds as large as Obama. Niether Clinton nor Gore nor GWB were able to attract crowds as large as hers,

She has a very appealing biography and is holding 4 aces in terms of the GOP candidacy in either 2012 or 2016 or 2020. She can take her time and choose. If she doesn’t run she’ll have a bright future as a political personality. If she runs she’ll ow the largest votng block in the country, conservatives.

If you missed Digby’s column today, it is an important read. Alas, most people have probably given up on this thread, but I don’t want to post it in any of the others.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/gamming-up-works-by-digby-joan-walsh.html

“Republicans would run him for President and crow about their diversity”

Dream on airhead. Since Nixon in 72 there have been 7 terms for Republicans and this is the 4th for a Democrat and his polls have caved the fastest of them all.

Gallup is polling conservatives at 40% of the population and liberals at 21%. Rignt now the GOP has an almost 6% genric ballot lead and is leading is a number of key states including Ohio and PA. There will be another census realignment that will transfer8 to 12 house seats and electoral votes from Blue to Red in 2012. Ca and NY could lose 4 to Texas.

Worse for Democrats is the fact that blue state economies are in the toilet. Corzine lost because the highly taxed NJ economy is in the toilet. NY, MI, Ca and OR to name just 4 are worse off.

CA is a liberal disaster. The eco-freaks have it so you can’t build an electric plant of any type. Even if you wanted to build a solar plant you can’t build the transmission lines to distribute the power. You can’t drill for OIl so as the oild fields dry up CA will import ALL of it’s gasoline from Texas and Louisanna. How cool the enlightened citizens of the Golden State are paying Texas and Louisanna enough in gas taxes these states don’t need an income tax.

If Intel were ever to expand again in the USA, very unlikely under high tax Obama, it absolutely won’t be in California. It will be in Texas. Don’t know if you watch Fox but Kia and another foreign auto maker are building 3 plants in GA, SC and TN. They have power and low taxes. Michigan didn’t want thsoe jobs.

The reason I love Sarah being in the news (and popular with the right wing) is because she is so far out there that she makes the folks in my party look good by comparison. She is the most popular republican figure since Reagan. She doesn’t appeal to as many of them and that makes her a godsend for the democrats. She’s electabvle within her party but not in the electorate as a whole. She’s a Christmas present every day of the year. It doesn’t hurt that she’s bangable either. Smart women of either party can’t stand her. Thank you Jeebus.

GWB was smarter than Gore and Kerry and Obama. His test scores and marks prove it.

One of the funniest aspects of the SBV debacle os Kerry had to refuse to release his military records. Bush had done so immediately. Kerry knew if he released his records they would show Bush did better on his service aptitude tests.

It’s 2009 more than 5 years after the SBV debacle and John still hasn’t made good on his promise to release his records.

You have to admit the SBVs were great theatre in a summer full of it. Dan Rather almost destroyed CBS news with his comically inept fraud on GWBs National Guard duty.

It’s something that Bush was no Einstein but he might as well have been compared to his liberal opposition.

Bush was smarter than Obama and his test scores prove it? I don’t think so.

Sarah doesn’t make the folks in your party look good by comparison. Obama’s polls show him falling faster, further than any Post WWII President. Biden and Clinton are gaffe machines. The GOP just won NJ and Va and are ahead 6% in generic polls. They also lead on all statewide races in PA and OH.

Sarah is going to be great for the GOP even if she doesn’t run. No one has her talent for driving liberals crazy. She can be very effective on the campaign trial for generating huge crowds and maior contributions. This is almost certainly what she will do in 2010 as she’s working on her own campaign skills.

The problem liberals have is their over the top hatred. Attempts to portray her as a radical because she kills her own food are misplaced. This gets urban females upset, urban males even more upset, but not so much independents.

She’ll find out after 2010 if she has the fire in her belly and the skills needed to become President. In the meantime she’s going to become a very wealthy and even more famous lady. She will be the most desired republican on the campaign trail and the most prolific fund-raiser.

You s/b very cheerful. You will get what you asked for. You will almost certainly regret it.

Ahem.
Many can be classified as ‘bangable” – from Ted Bundy’s lovely mates in necrophilia to – if you are a nature-loving governor of South Carolina – the crack of dawn …

[...] Palin Bears Some Similarities to a Young George W. Bush … [...]

Look it up. Don’t you remember the press touting Obama’s scores and marks?

No? Hmmmmm? Why do you think that is?

Obama taught constitutional law. Bush was a cheerleader. There’s a difference.

Sarah’s an ass clown. She is going to be very wealthy because her disciples just can’t get enough of her. You want her to lead your party. We do too. As for the fire in her belly, there’s always Tums.

rdw, Bush drove every business he ever touched into the ground. Not only was he unintelligent, but he was exceptionally lazy, always bailed out by his daddy’s friends.
.
That said, he was an excellent puppet. Rove, Cheney et. al. knew he was lazy and fed him just about everything he ever said. He was the perfect foil — stupid and lazy.

Bush was a Harvard MBA not an affirmative action over-ride. There is a difference. You didn’t answer the question.

What were Obama’s marks? Why don’t we know? The MSM reported GWBs marks as well as Kerry and Gore.

So why didn’t they report on Obama? Hmmmmmmm. Gee, I wonder.

Actually I don’t. He’s an affirmative action override. That’s why. He got in because he’s black. He got out because he’s black.

Liberals have lost 7 of the last 11 Presidential elections. GWB beat you two times.

And he’s the dope?

Are you sure?

I’ll be honest. From where I am sitting, He defeated the liberals in elections 2x’s in Texas and then 2x’s to the WH. If there’s a duce in that equation it’s not him.

One of the more delicious moments in the Gore campaign when a few days before the debates Bob Schrum had an ephinany. Not for nothing has Bob gained so much experience writing concessions speeches. Bob’s ephinany was, “Uh Oh, we’ve made so much of Al’s intellectual superiority it’s going to be near impossible for him to meet the high expectations we’ve created”.

Ya think Bob??? You wuz right. Gore lost the debates and the job. So what does Kerry do 4 years later?

Libs are the smartest people on the planet.

GWB 4 – Libs ZERO. But he’s the dope.

Sarah is easy on the eyes. And the ears. How did you like her Newsweek cover? Showing all that leg. Think that was sexist?

Of course it was.

Wonder what liberal feminists will have to say? Nothing of course. They’ve sold their values so many times we all know what they are.

formerlyjames,

It’s worse than you think. Those dopes do more than buy book. They vote.

Why do you think we were so honored to have GWB for 8 years?

“That said, he was an excellent puppet”

So what was your favorite piece of puppetry? Afghanistan? Iraq? Tax cuts?

My favorite was his unwavering support for Israel. You might remember when the infatada reached his peak Sharon decided it was time to start killing terrorists but not the mules. He went to the top. He killed their top leader and after a week of outrage from the UN Sharon killed his replacement. GWB supported both killings. Hamas bought a clue and stopped announcing their leaders. But Sharon killed another dozen and started building the fence. Arafat was at the time locked in his compound with 160 of his best buddies. Sharon destroyed his two copters and the landing area and for 3 years kept his water off. 160 men, all the food you can eat. No toilets. That had to be fun.

GWB supported all this althought I am not sure who was acting as puppet master. GWB went on to copy Sharon in Afghanistan and Iraq. The focus was on killing the leadership. NO repeat of the niceties of Desert Storm and arny v army. You might remember the shock and awe that started the invasion. GWB went after Saddam 1st. Huge difference in US policy. Does that make Sharon his puppet master? To take it a step further, consider Uribe in Colombia. He’s devastated FARC. By going after the top 1st. Of course the CIA was close by. Does that make GWB Uribe’s puppet master or is it Sharon? It doesn’t seem like being a puppet is the worst thing.

Do you know how to count? 7 of the last 11 elections were won by Republicans.

“Liberals have lost 7 of the last 11″

Poor libruls.

I wonder why you stopped counting at 11 ….

” ..Showing all that leg. “

Ahem.
Down, Marmaduke, down …

Come and get it, the leg winks.

19,000,000 new cases of STDs in USA EVERY YEAR …
Does that leg still look easy on your, eh, health?

” ..Sarah is easy on the eyes. … How did you like her Newsweek cover? ..”

Not much. It was like a kid matched a body to the wrong head – that of a scared, wide-eyed roadkill caught in the glare of the headlamps.

I started counting in 68 when the Democrative Party shifted from the right wing JFK/LBJ team to pacificist. The switch hasn’t been good. You got a post watergate Jimmy Carter and a centrist Bill Clinton. Obama is the 1st true liberal and so far he’s got the lowest polls of all of them.

rdw, I can chose arbitrary cut-off points too. Democrats have won 3 of the last 5, 11 of the last 20, …

And what polls are you referring to? Most polls have Obama’s approval above or around 50%. As your man Cheney said, all you need is 50+1. And according to you, THAT is the lowest poll in the last 40 years for a democratic president. Clearly democrats must have done a fine job in office during that time, at least compared to the Repubs, because at least of few of those left with less than 35%.

1968 isn’t arbitrary. It was the most momentus election for the Democrat Party since FDR but in a negative way. It when they turned pacifist and PC. The anti-war freaks so repelled voters they elected Nixon in a landslide 2x’s. The most important for the GOP was Reagan in 1980. Nixon was not conservative. Reagan and JFK were ideological twins.

Carter was elected in 76 for the same reason Obama in 08. Voters wanted the GOP out. They didn’t vote FOR the democrat. Clinton was different and he ran as a centrist, a New Democrat, and still only got 43% of the vote.

BTW: You don’t know much about Obama. He was elected to the Senate in 2006. He did not serve 4 years in the Senate. He served 2 years and for most of them he was running for President and never there. Obama was elected with ZERO executive experience. He’s been on the govt payroll his entire life. Aside from a low level back office job shortly after school Obama never worked in a profit making enterprise. No man has been less prepared for the office and it shows.

BTW2: The pollster to watch is Rasmussen. They are the best and it’s not close. They poll likely voters and that’s all that matters. Gallup is next best. Newsweek is garbage. Today Obama is -14 on their daily index, tying a record and it’s the 3rd day in a row and he’s 47-52% on the approve-disapprove. Rasmussen is always ahead of the other pollsters. I think Fox and Gallup are catching up. He’s below 50% in several.

rdw,

Yes it is arbitrary. Okay 1968 was a momentus election. It was also 40 years ago and you’re using that cut-off point to make an argument about today. You say the only reason Carter and Obama we’re elected was because “voters wanted the GOP out.” That could be said basically every time the incumbent party loses. Nearly every election has some anti-incumbent sentiment, but it’s disingenuous to simplify it down just that.

I’m not sure what you’re point on Clinton is. That running as center-left candidate gets you 43% of the vote? I still don’t get it, and I mean, that was a 3-way race.

Let me correct you about Obama because you are WRONG. He was elected as a Senator in 2004, not 2006. You may remember he gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention for John Kerry. Do you think they give that to random state senators? No. While he wouldn’t be elected as a U.S. Senator until a few months later, they gave him the speech because it was widely known he would win (he got almost 70% of the vote). Check your facts.

The last year as a Senator he was running for president and didn’t spend much time in Congress. Fair criticism, sure, but it can also be applied to any presidential candidate holding an office at that time of the campaign.

No executive experience, okay, you got me, but this issue was way overplayed. All we’re talking about here is the ability to manage your staff, which Obama showed his capability in running his campaign (although I’m sure you’ll disagree). And other presidents have had “zero executive experience” – Ford, JFK, Lincoln to name a few, and so did McCain. The issue (at least in the campaign) was raised in contrast to Palin. I’d take someone with a grasp of the issues over someone who was mayor of a 5,000 person city.

I’m also not sure what you’re point is about Obama never working for a profit-making company. He didn’t run to be the CEO of Microsoft or something. And you say he’s “been on the govt payroll his entire life.” So? Is government work or non-profit work not real work? Yes, they don’t have to fight for the same efficiency and bottom line as private enterprise, but the way you’re phrasing it makes it sound like it were a welfare handout.

Regarding pollsters – first off, Rasmussen has him at 47% right now. Hardly a horrible approval-rating like you’re making it seem. Plus their poll from just last week had him at 50% exactly. Second, why is Rasmussen the best and “ahead of other pollsters”? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Dozens of other poll likely voters, so you’ll need a better reason that that. Please cite some, because otherwise it seems like they’re simply the ones who best fit your views. Rasmussen, while known to be fair, is also known to lean conservative. And oh, he’s below 50% in the Fox poll? Wow, damning evidence.

Last thing, you say “no man has been less prepared for the office and it shows.” Can you please cite specific examples where it shows? Keeping in mind he’s a liberal, and you’re going to be against almost everything he does anyways.

(I apologize for the length)

I stand corrected on Obama. He was elected in 2004. I had looked it up before I posted but either read it wrong, most likely,or got a bad source.

1968 is important because of the dramatic shift in the Democratic party. That’s when they swung far left becoming anti-war, running large deficits, reversed the Kennedy Tax cuts and started to accomodate Communism and other lefty isms such as fascism and every form to totalitarinism. .

Reagan is important as the 2nd supply-sider (after JFK) and the 1st true conservative. Reagans election was an issues election. He ran on very specific issues such as lower taxes, less govt and stronger defense to be used to defend liberty as JFK set out in his famous inaugural address. There’s a fair argument Reagan won because Carter was such a disaster but at the time Conservatism had not been tried and was suspect. He ran the most issues oriented campiagn of the last 50 years.

Clinton benefitted from the fact GHWB was not a true conservative and the deficit was an issue. Clinton was able to take a centrist position. He was very clear to call himself a NEW Democrat. He was not a liberal and banned the term from his campaign.

GWB ran as a tax cutter strong defense but NOT.small govt. He wanted to infuse govt with conservative values. No child left behind was about bringing standards to education. He wasn’t trying to spend less or get the feds out of it he wanted to make it work better.

Obama ran as not being GWB. He did not run on any of these programs he’s trying to pass which are all are polling under 50%. He’s dithering now on Afghanistan because he’s dying to surrender but had been so agressive when it was politically expedient to do so.

Obama’s method of ruling is the most dramatic shift since Reagan but Reagan was able to enact huge changes despite never controlling the house via the power of his ideas and his political skill.

Obama’s lack of experience means everything. He’s declared war on business and we’re losing. The economy is in the tank and no business has any confidence in him. He’s nationalized and destroyed GM. In the last month 3 foreign auto manufactures announced they are building new plants in Tenn, Sc and GA.

Reagan was an economics major and spent 40 years in business. As an actor he only made 3 pictures a year because he went into the 90% tax bracket. He was the President of the screen actors quild for 2 contracts and was asked to come back after he retired to negotiate their 1st big TV contract. Obama has been humiliated in negotiations with Honduras, China, India, Palestine, Israel and Iran to name just 6. He started out with a No Settlement stance with Israel even Palestinians admit was stupid as it was pointless. He stopped negotiations before they had a chance to start.because he drew a line in the sand where none existed, A line Netanyahu could not accept. The NYTs, LATs and Wash Post all agree it was dumb and we’ve been setback in Palestine. He capitulated to Russia on star wars and got NOTHING except pissed off Poles and Czechs,

In short Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster in part because he doesn’t have a clue on how to negotiate. His economic policy has been a disaster in part because he knows NOTHING of business and incentives to make money. .

Reagan was not about cutting taxes to collect less money or for people to pay less in taxes. He hoped they’d use the incentived to make more money and thus eventually pay more in taxes. He stopped making movies after 3 pics because he was in the 90% bracket. What fool would works if the govt takes it all? JFK understood this and lowered marginal rates from 90% to 70%. Reagan after several reforms finally got them down to 28%. Reagan was always about MARGINAL rates and restoring the incentives to work and invest. That was the product of his education and business/work experience.

Obama has NO relevent experience. When Charley Gibson asked him about increasing Capital gain Tax rates Obama didn’t know everytime the rate is increased the amount of taxes collected drops. Everytime the rate goes down the amount collected increases. ONly after charley assured Obama 2x’s this was a fact did he move on and then said he’d still raise the rates to be fair. That’s just stupid.

I gave you the example of NO Settlements as a classic example of an inept negotiating tactic (the parties have been negotiating since the early 90′s and settlements were being built the entire time).

Reagan called the bluff of the air traffic controller when they went on strike by ifring them and in his finest hour in Iceland negotiating with Gorby on missle reductions gorby tried a fast on in insisting Reagan dump star wars. Reagan told him to cram it and walked away. Reagan knew their economy was a wreck and they could not keep pace with the booming USA economy. It was a disaster for Gorbachev. Less that a year later Gorby relented and signed the deal. We all now know how important Star Wars is.

Check out Joe Klien a few posts ago. He wondered what’s going to follow Obama’s Rodney King phase. He’s tragically unprepared.

Wow. Okay. Not sure how this evolved into a history lesson on every election of the last 40 years. If you want to believe 1968 was the most important event of the democratic party, go ahead and believe that. Whatever. But when we’re talking about today, clearly there are other events since then that matter as well. Saying “7 of the last 11” tries to claim a trend as if nothing has changed with the Democrats in four decades. And, no serious democratic politicians (then or now) were promoting fascism or totalitarianism … come on.

Attacking democrats on deficits? Do you really want to head down this road? As you mentioned, the deficit was such an issue in 1992. Well it didn’t start with HW Bush. Over the previous 12 years the deficit had more than doubled when you account for population and inflation. That was Reagan right there in the middle of it. You talked at length about the greatness of Reagan’s tax cuts, but with all those cuts came a price.

Conservatives today love to say that Reagan was the first “true conservative.” That’s total bull. Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover, they were all conservatives. Maybe not in the exact mold of lower taxes, reduced gov, increased defense, but they were still conservatives. Oh and neither of the Bushes were “true conservatives” either … riiiggghhht. And while W did increase government, he definitely at least RAN as part of the Reagan mold.

But back to Obama, which is what this dicussion is really about (at least I assume). Okay part of his campaign was on not being Bush. Definitely. I mean, Bush’s poll numbers were in the 20’s so why not play to that? But you’re wrong to say he didn’t run on any of these programs he’s working now. Health care, stimulus, cap-and-trade … all discussed at the debates. Obama’s dying to surrender in Afghanistan? What? He raised the issue of re-focusing again in Afghanistan way back at the beginning of the campaign. And many in his liberal base would LOVE him to bring the troops back, yet he’s still not doing it. I know “dithering” is the great new buzzword, but I for one appreciate that he’s taking his time to make the most informed choice he can. Any troop increases agreed to now won’t reach the ground for at least another year, so the troop levels are fixed in the near term anyways. Would I like him to decide quicker? Absolutely. But I’d take the right decision over a quick one.

Please explain exactly how Obama’s “method of ruling” represents a dramatic shift in presidential procedure. It seems to me like he’s got majorities in both houses and could ram through legislation if he wanted to go about it that way. Health care could’ve already been passed through reconciliation with just 51 votes. But they didn’t go that route. This is hardly a shift towards fascism or tyranny.

He declared war on business? I must’ve missed that speech. If anything I would criticize him to not letting business fail through government bailouts, as opposed to waging war on business. And yes, the economy is in the tank, but have you already forgotten when that started? It was well before he took office that the economy took a nosedive. We lost 700,000 jobs in the month prior to him being in office. But things are starting to turn around. GDP is back in the positive and job losses are decreasing every month (I know, I know, not yet in positive territory, but the slope is headed in the right direction) all in just 10 months. Economists are predicting the first job gains in early 2010. GM has already begun to pay back their government loans, way ahead of their initial schedule. Obamas’s trying. If you want to say he’s failing, okay, you’re entitled to that opinion, but declaring war on business is nonsense.

Again, some of these things you say perplex me. Obama’s been humiliated in negotiations? What? He made a deal to reduce Iran’s uranium. Yes, Iran is wavering and trying to back out, but that’s what Iran does and Bush never came even close to this. A year ago, even this possibility was unfathomable. And the thing is, we still don’t look ridiculous in the negotiations because Iran will have to come back to the table because they can’t produce the enriched uranium for research and medical isotopes on their own. They need a deal of some sorts. Re: Israel and Palestine … did anyone expect Obama to solve that quagmire already? No. The No Settlement stance was that of Palestine. Obama didn’t arbitrarily draw a line in the sand. The Palestinians said they wouldn’t even come to the table until the settlements stopped. They’re the ones who drew the line in the sand. He’s trying (yes, and failing) to stop the settlements just to even get everyone to the negotiating table. You say he got nothing with Russia on missile defense? I say we stopped antagonizing Russia and improved our relations with them (which can help in other areas, like Iran).

In short, there’s no denying we’ve improved our standing in the world (look at any international polls that review that sort of thing). His economic policies have put us on the right track because of how bad it was before he took office and where we’re headed now.

And you say Obama has no relevant experience. Is being a U.S. senator not relevant? The example you cite to prove his inexperience goes to his decision making and grasp of the issues, not experience.

You talk about reducing capital gains taxes increasing tax revenue. I love this argument from conservatives. I understand that at a certain point, increasing tax rates any further harms the economy to such a degree that you actually end up brining in less tax revenue. I get that. But it’s not a 100% of the time, hard-and-fast rule. If that we’re the case, why don’t we just reduce tax rates to 0 so we can bring in the most tax revenue possible. Obviously that makes no sense. It’s about balance. The graph is curved and we’re trying to find the peak in that curve.

“Obama’s Rodney King phase” — no clue what you’re talking about. You’ll have to send me the link cause I can’t figure out which article you’re talking about.

Anyways, for all our disagreeing, I would like to hear your response back. Maybe though we should try to focus on one topic at a time. That way we don’t have to write essays to refute every individual point the other person makes (this was 2 full pages in MS word). If you want to reply to me directly, I’m at logicalmayhem14@gmail.com

[...] panel of Lucky Charms cereal boxes.  The left is convinced that Sarah is dumb, if not dumber than G. W. Bush, whose reading material, or supposed lack there of, they were also obsessed [...]

[...] of Lucky Charms cereal boxes.  The left is convinced that Sarah is dumb, if not dumber than G. W. Bush, whose reading material, or supposed lack there of, they were also obsessed [...]

[...] “Is Sarah Palin becoming George W. Bush?” or, more to the point, “Palin = W.?” wonders another writer. Si l’analogie entre the born again Christian and the born again author ne tombe pas sous le sens, elle cependant souligne que la politique peut être un avant ou un après professionnel, une porte d’entrée, de sortie… de retour ? http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/17/palinw/ [...]