April 15th - Tea Party Day?

[RainMaker]

So I guess tomorrow is the big day for all the tea parties/bagging that will take place across the country. Is anyone here going to it? What exactly happens at it?

The whole thing has me a bit confused. Is it a Republican thing now? I know the Republicans hated Ron Paul during the primaries so I find it weird they are stealing his supporter's ideads now and trying to claim them as their own.

[cartman]

It seems to be mainly a Fox News driven event. But if they hope to get more widespread support, they had better hope scenes like this one from a previous event are the exception, rather than the rule.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[flounder]

Yeah, I wonder where all these people were when Bush was busting budgets left and right.

[Logan]

I plan on doing some teabagging tomorrow.

[sterlingice]

<table style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);" width="360" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353"><tbody><tr style="background-color: rgb(229, 229, 229);" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart (http://www.thedailyshow.com/)</td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">M - Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;" colspan="2">IndigNation! Populist Uprising '09 - The Enragening (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220573&title=indignation-populist-uprising)</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: rgb(53, 53, 53);" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 360px; text-align: right;">thedailyshow.com (http://www.thedailyshow.com/)</td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><embed style="display: block;" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220573" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000" width="360" height="301"></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 0px;" colspan="2"><table style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;">Daily Show
Full Episodes (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml)</td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;">Economic Crisis (http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House)</td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;">Political Humor (http://www.indecisionforever.com)</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

As usual, the Daily Show says it best

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Protests have to walk a fine line. You need to get big enough to get noticed, but the bigger you get, the less coherent your message.

[JediKooter]

It seems to be mainly a Fox News driven event. But if they hope to get more widespread support, they had better hope scenes like this one from a previous event are the exception, rather than the rule.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

At 1:58 in the clip, is that Senator McCarthy that started talking?

[sterlingice]

Yes, it's still the Commies!

SI

[lungs]

Predictions:

1. Conservatives declare this a resounding success.

2. Liberals mock Conservatives.

3. Conservatives blame liberal media.

[Greyroofoo]

Where were these people when Bush was running massive deficits?

I would go but it just seems to be a bunch of conservative circle jerks.

[SirFozzie]

and let's not get into the latest ravings of the Michelle Malkinvanian....

[lungs]

I'll bet these protesters are the same people that mocked the anti-war protesters during the last administration. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As one conservative blogger says when he mocks liberal protesters, most of us are too busy, you know, working.

[molson]

I'll bet these protesters are the same people that mocked the anti-war protesters during the last administration. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As one conservative blogger says when he mocks liberal protesters, most of us are too busy, you know, working.

And I'm sure the that people that mock this are the same people that defend similar pointless protests on the other side.

If you don't agree with it, it's dumb to do.

It's really lame to mock people who are making a political statement, and it doesn't make you any better, or forgiveable to say, "duh...they do it too"....When we don't even know if that's true across the board, or what % we're talking about. If it's one individual person you can point to, that's one thing. But to mock the whole thing - you're just as bad as any republican who does that, and you can't see that because you're so sure you're "right".

[JPhillips]

I saw a sign for the Dayton teabagging that used "Taxation Without Representation" at the top. When did Ohio lose its two Senators and eighteen representatives?

Fuckin' Obama.

[sterlingice]

I saw a sign for the Dayton teabagging that used "Taxation Without Representation" at the top. When did Ohio lose its two Senators and eighteen representatives?

Fuckin' Obama.

So, lordscarlet was lying. He was in Dayton, not Nats Opening Day on Monday

SI

[lungs]

And I'm sure the that people that mock this are the same people that defend similar pointless protests on the other side.

If you don't agree with it, it's dumb to do.

That was my point.

It's really lame to mock people who are making a political statement, and it doesn't make you any better, or forgiveable to say, "duh...they do it too"....When we don't even know if that's true across the board, or what % we're talking about. If it's one individual person you can point to, that's one thing. But to mock the whole thing - you're just as bad as any republican who does that, and you can't see that because you're so sure you're "right".

I'm not sure if you're trying to accuse me of having a double standard here because I happen to disagree with intent of the tea parties but that's not the case. The observation I am making, is actually something we are agreeing on.

Somewhere, at one of these tea parties, somebody is going to say something very stupid. The other side will pounce on that and portray it as a broad brush of the conservative movement. We're recycling the same bullshit that happened with the war protests.

Nothing earth shattering here. I'm not mocking one side. I'm mocking both sides, because their positions were reversed a few short years ago. I may agree with one side on policy, but the mechanisms both sides use are laughable because I'd guess that a majority of people in this country don't give a shit. Sometimes I wish I didn't give a shit.

[chinaski]

This rightfully deserves to be mocked, imo. Its never been a grassroots movement, its the astroturf of protests. This is funded by corporate pacs and propagated by Fox News. Never did war protests have corporate backing and media sponsorship. Never did you see CNN trumpet 24/7 to rally the people to come out to a war protest. War protests grew organically, these teabagger protests were formed via a top down process.

[JPhillips]

I think a better example were the immigration rallies from a couple of years ago. Some of those were huge and they relied on word of mouth and Spanish language radio.

[Noop]

Tea Party? We're American make it a beer party or a coffee party sponsored by Starbucks and catered by Dunkin Donuts.

[JediKooter]

Tea Party? We're American make it a beer party or a coffee party sponsored by Starbucks and catered by Dunkin Donuts.

Or the Beer and Hot Chicks Scantily Clad party.

[Ksyrup]

One of these is going on about a half-block from my building, and I can see/hear it from up here. Looks like maybe 100-150 people.

And while I support the notion, I also can't help but laugh at this (at least, the first minute or so before it gets serious):


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8i-OWDjOQfI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT>

[Noop]

It seems to be mainly a Fox News driven event. But if they hope to get more widespread support, they had better hope scenes like this one from a previous event are the exception, rather than the rule.

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kwdOwgD5OsY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>


This people are fucking nutcases. Burn the books? Don't send your kids to college? These people need serious help.

[sterlingice]

And while I support the notion, I also can't help but laugh at this (at least, the first minute or so before it gets serious)

Actually, the last part where he makes a Dick Armey joke is pretty good, too ;)

SI

[Flasch186]

And I'm sure the that people that mock this are the same people that defend similar pointless protests on the other side.

If you don't agree with it, it's dumb to do.

It's really lame to mock people who are making a political statement, and it doesn't make you any better, or forgiveable to say, "duh...they do it too"....When we don't even know if that's true across the board, or what % we're talking about. If it's one individual person you can point to, that's one thing. But to mock the whole thing - you're just as bad as any republican who does that, and you can't see that because you're so sure you're "right".

or patriotic. I mean, you know, to dissent or voice any contradictory opinion to the Government is unpatriotic. Remember.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Both sides act the same in and out of power. And message board arguments are the same no matter who is in power, just with the sides switched.

[RainMaker]

And I'm sure the that people that mock this are the same people that defend similar pointless protests on the other side.

If you don't agree with it, it's dumb to do.

It's really lame to mock people who are making a political statement, and it doesn't make you any better, or forgiveable to say, "duh...they do it too"....When we don't even know if that's true across the board, or what % we're talking about. If it's one individual person you can point to, that's one thing. But to mock the whole thing - you're just as bad as any republican who does that, and you can't see that because you're so sure you're "right".

I don't have a problem with the protests and I don't necessarily think they're dumb. I do think this one is a little humorous though. I mean the people protesting didn't care about any of this when Bush was doing the same exact shit Obama is doing (bailouts and big spending).

The rally by me though seems to be going well.

http://www.johnmugarian.com/399px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg

[molson]

or patriotic. I mean, you know, to dissent or voice any contradictory opinion to the Government is unpatriotic. Remember.

Who said that?

Oh right, "some of these same people". That's such a dumb logic no matter what sides it comes from.

So anybody who say, voted for Obama, is invalidated/hypocritical/whatever because of any fringe nutjobs that might have also voted for Obama?

[molson]

I don't have a problem with the protests and I don't necessarily think they're dumb. I do think this one is a little humorous though. I mean the people protesting didn't care about any of this when Bush was doing the same exact shit Obama is doing (bailouts and big spending).

The rally by me though seems to be going well.

http://www.johnmugarian.com/399px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg

That picture reminds me of the political threads here. (not everyone of course).

Generally, sheep = people that disagree with you.

Is it possible for a Democrat to recognize Democrat sheep? Or a Republican to recognize Republican sheep? It never happens.

[Fighter of Foo]

Both sides act the same in and out of power. And message board arguments are the same no matter who is in power, just with the sides switched.

For the people who are loyal to their teams, sure. There are a few people who don't self-identify with one of the two factions and are capable of independent thought.

[molson]

For the people who are loyal to their teams, sure. There are a few people who don't self-identify with one of the two factions and are capable of independent thought.

The "team" aspect of politics sucks so much, the collective feeling of superiority over other groups. It really destroys any chance of progress.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

For the people who are loyal to their teams, sure. There are a few people who don't self-identify with one of the two factions and are capable of independent thought.

Based on my experience there's a lot more of the former than the latter.

[RainMaker]

That picture reminds me of the political threads here. (not everyone of course).

Generally, sheep = people that disagree with you.

Is it possible for a Democrat to recognize Democrat sheep? Or a Republican to recognize Republican sheep? It never happens.

I think sheep are people just go along with something because they are told to. Happens on both sides. When Daily Kos has a post on it and everyone on that side goes bezerk for it. Or when Glenn Beck tells people to protest the government for some reason (I really don't even know what this is about).

The country lacks independent thought. People just turn on Olbermann or O'Reilly and let them tell them what to think. Both sides care more about a D or R next to the name than the actual substance. Obama could recite a Reagan speech word for word and there would be people on the right bashing it.

[Big Fo]

BURN THE BOOKS

which ones?

The evolution ones!

[Galaril]

BURN THE BOOKS

which ones?

The evolution ones!

That and the "Pinko Commies are using digital tv to brain wash you guy" are fucking hilarious.

[Greyroofoo]

That and the "Pinko Commies are using digital tv to brain wash you guy" are fucking hilarious.

Hey!

That guy works in marketing so he knows what he's talking about :jester:

[Subby]

This just in: white people be crazy!

[cartman]

Wow.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlR5Rxfk67o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlR5Rxfk67o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Granted, I did see a lot of "Bush is a fascist" signs at rallys over the past 8 years, but whenever I saw a person asked why they thought that, they would give some sort of reason, even though it never fit the definition of fascism. Not continually say "It is because that's what he is".

[Galaril]

I guess at a rally in TX the governor said that tax should think of seceding form the US. Wow, just incredible.


Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-union-probably-wont/)

[JPhillips]

What a dumbass. Everybody knows the real secessionists call themselves Texians.

http://www.texasrepublic.info/

[Subby]

Texas seceding would solve so many problems for the US. Starting with the Dallas Cowboys.

[molson]

I guess at a rally in TX the governor said that tax should think of seceding form the US. Wow, just incredible.

Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-union-probably-wont/)

The article actually says the opposite, but whatever, why let the facts get in the way of a rant.

"During his speech to hundreds in a U.S. flag-waving crowd, there were several shouts of "Secede!"

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union. However, Perry says he sees no reason why Texas should make such a move."

[cartman]

The article actually says the opposite, but whatever.

"During his speech to hundreds in a U.S. flag-waving crowd, there were several shouts of "Secede!"

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union. However, Perry says he sees no reason why Texas should make such a move."

That article did not include a quote that Perry made during the same Q&A session where he didn't completely disavow the thought:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/041509dnmetteaparties.d8880855.html

"There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

[sterlingice]

Headline by the crack team at Fox News.com

SI

[Big Fo]

If Texas were to secede that would make two countries capable of playing football. We could start lobbying the IOC to have it be part of the Olympics, possibly by 2016. That'd be kind of cool imo, and a far better to watch than dancing with ribbons.

[Klinglerware]

http://www.texasrepublic.info/

Talk about push polling:




You have only 3 1/2 years left to freely choose whether you wish to be part of the republic of Texas Nation with freedom to retain all of your rights;
-or-
REMAIN a corporate slave to your NEW MASTER NATION



Erm... I'll take "remain a corporate slave" for the win, Alex

[Galaril]

The article actually says the opposite, but whatever, why let the facts get in the way of a rant.

"During his speech to hundreds in a U.S. flag-waving crowd, there were several shouts of "Secede!"

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union. However, Perry says he sees no reason why Texas should make such a move."


Ah......rant... yeah sure . The sentence above and as Cratman linked too he never disavowed the thought and made aveiled threat at the least.But sure whatever you like see counselor.

[molson]

Ah......rant yeah sure whatever. The sentence above but sure whatever you like counselor.

Even the sentence above (that you didn't link, and thus probably didn't know about it when you made your post), doesn't state that:

"the governor said that texas should think of seceding form the US"

That's a big difference. You lied, and I called you on it.

(Only using "lie" because you can't acknowledge an oversight, you're actually sticking with what you said. It's just annoying).

If I made a similar false claim about an Obama position, you'd react similarly.

[path12]

I haven't paid a ton of attention to this other than snickering about the whole 'teabagging' thing but there is one thing I truly don't understand -- if 95% of folks have their taxes unchanged or lowered under Obama's plan, what is the reason for taking it to the streets?

[Senator]

As the elected Senator of the FOFC, I declare my exhaustion after a day of teabagging. It puts the lotion on its skin.....

[SirFozzie]

I haven't paid a ton of attention to this other than snickering about the whole 'teabagging' thing but there is one thing I truly don't understand -- if 95% of folks have their taxes unchanged or lowered under Obama's plan, what is the reason for taking it to the streets?

Because Obama has not been able to put his attempts to raise the taxes of the over 200K crowd through Congress yet (the closing of loopholes), these folks see no way that Obama can pay for the spending without a huge tax raise.

[path12]

Because Obama has not been able to put his attempts to raise the taxes of the over 200K crowd through Congress yet (the closing of loopholes), these folks see no way that Obama can pay for the spending without a huge tax raise.

So they're protesting a tax increase that hasn't happened?

Wow. I think the far left gets way too earnest at times but the far right just boggles my mind (just my opinion, not trying to stir anything up).

[JPhillips]

I just watched a guy rant about how Obama lied when he said he liked Lincoln because Lincoln was all about getting government out of the way and promoting freedom. So now the Civil War is the War of Northern Freedom Promotion?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I just read somewhere that there were 5,000 teabaggers in Lansing. I really had no idea that this was a real thing or people were actually taking it seriously. I guess that (and still being employed) are two positives of being incredibly busy at work (and missing playoff hockey).

[Passacaglia]

I just read somewhere that there were 5,000 teabaggers in Lansing. I really had no idea that this was a real thing or people were actually taking it seriously. I guess that (and still being employed) are two positives of being incredibly busy at work (and missing playoff hockey).

I read that, too. I also read that Joe the Plumber was supposed to speak in Lansing. Take that, Ohio! Michigan dun schooled ya agin!

[Galaril]

Even the sentence above (that you didn't link, and thus probably didn't know about it when you made your post), doesn't state that:

"the governor said that texas should think of seceding form the US"

That's a big difference. You lied, and I called you on it.

(Only using "lie" because you can't acknowledge an oversight, you're actually sticking with what you said. It's just annoying).

If I made a similar false claim about an Obama position, you'd react similarly.


Alright if you are going to fact check me, sure the exact wording was off still the Governor did bring up the secession issue. Yet, in your post you mentioned, I was saying opposite to the truth which also is not accurate. But not to get into a pissing contest. It still does not take away from the fact an elected official (does not matter if he is a Dem or Rep) said (paraphrasing) that Texas might contemplate secession. Considering the history of secession discussions in Texas in the 19th C. it was poor taste I think. I think that the tax rallies are fine albeit somewhat sensationalized by Fox for ratings.

[DanGarion]

Teabaggin! Welcome to D.C.!

[Flasch186]

did somebody say recession?

[RainMaker]

Serious question, no snark here. What was this about? I keep hearing different things. Is it about taxes? Bailouts? Did something happen that I missed on the news?

[JPhillips]

You know how a toddler throws a fit when they don't get what they want? It's kinda like that. They lost the election with a candidate a lot of them didn't like and they can't deal with it.

It's about spending, unless you're talking about a four percent increase in defense spending, which will gut the military.

It's about taxes, except income taxes are currently lower than they were under Bush2.

It's about the deficit, expect most of the protesters would like to cut tax rates to a level that would add trillions to the deficit.

It's just a tantrum.

[sterlingice]

To be more fair, I haven't been watching the lead up too closely, so someone closer to it could tell you better the intent. But, basically, it's a protest against higher taxation, bailouts, and it's mixed in with some anti-socialism and a bit of anti-Obama boogeyman-ism.

In theory, it's a grassroots movement where these sprung up all over the country over the past couple of months. However, there are a lot of accusations of "astroturfing"- basically that it was organized top down by some key conservative lobbying groups and highly promoted by Fox News.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

OK, the political machinations behind this aside, the completely unironic continued use of "teabag" and "teabagging" by the right during this has been a great source of UIC today.

Apparently Michael Steele was urging Republicans to send "virtual tea bags" to Democrats.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - GOP encourages supporters to send virtual tea bags to top Dems « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/14/gop-encourages-supporters-to-send-virtual-tea-bags-to-top-dems/)

It doesn't surprise me how they wouldn't understand it, but that doesn't lessen my enjoyment one iota.

[stevew]

It would be much better if they dumped lettuce into Boston harbor and today there were all kinds of references to salad tossing. But teabagging is still funny.

[ISiddiqui]

To be more fair, I haven't been watching the lead up too closely, so someone closer to it could tell you better the intent. But, basically, it's a protest against higher taxation, bailouts, and it's mixed in with some anti-socialism and a bit of anti-Obama boogeyman-ism.

In theory, it's a grassroots movement where these sprung up all over the country over the past couple of months. However, there are a lot of accusations of "astroturfing"- basically that it was organized top down by some key conservative lobbying groups and highly promoted by Fox News.

SI


Similar to the anti-Iraq War protests... which turned into all sorts of wierd lefty groups going on about something.

[sterlingice]

War protests aren't exactly new. What was the big deal with Iraq war protests?

SI

[RainMaker]

I guess what gets me about these rallies is that they don't really have an issue behind it. The anti-war protests were for the most part to protest the war. The immigration rallies were to protest new stricter immigration laws. Heck, even the KKK has a purpose behind their rallies.

While this one may have started out as one against bailouts (which is an issue to protest), it turned into a right-wing circle jerk that had little to do with bailouts. It was just a place for people to gather to bitch about losing the election and having see a Communist Muslim terrorist running things. There haven't been any tax increases and the bailouts/spending is nothing new. I would argue that most of the people at these rallies had no fucking clue what they were protesting. The most telling was that CNN reporter who tried to ask why Obama was a fascist and the guy had no clue what a fascist was.

Ultimately I don't care, but I just think the whole thing is odd. I'm all for protests, rallies, circle jerks as long as it doesn't block traffic and make me have to sit in the car for longer than I want (fuck you immigation rally!).

[Galaril]

I guess what gets me about these rallies is that they don't really have an issue behind it. The anti-war protests were for the most part to protest the war. The immigration rallies were to protest new stricter immigration laws. Heck, even the KKK has a purpose behind their rallies.

While this one may have started out as one against bailouts (which is an issue to protest), it turned into a right-wing circle jerk that had little to do with bailouts. It was just a place for people to gather to bitch about losing the election and having see a Communist Muslim terrorist running things. There haven't been any tax increases and the bailouts/spending is nothing new. I would argue that most of the people at these rallies had no fucking clue what they were protesting. The most telling was that CNN reporter who tried to ask why Obama was a fascist and the guy had no clue what a fascist was.

Ultimately I don't care, but I just think the whole thing is odd. I'm all for protests, rallies, circle jerks as long as it doesn't block traffic and make me have to sit in the car for longer than I want (fuck you immigation rally!).

Bingo!

[stevew]

If Texas were to secede that would make two countries capable of playing football. We could start lobbying the IOC to have it be part of the Olympics, possibly by 2016. That'd be kind of cool imo, and a far better to watch than dancing with ribbons.

Plus Canada too. We could compromise and have a 105 yard field, with 4 downs and keep the rogue. If only there was some sort of computer game that would enable me to have this type of maximum customization.

[RainMaker]

And the Rick Perry shit pisses me off too. I'm not going to argue semantics on what he said, but I think we all got the jist of it.

We're closing in on 200 years since Texas became a state. Lets get over this independent sovereignty crap already. You win some elections and you lose some elections. Fucking get over it. It's a cheap political stunt that makes our country and Texas look bad as a whole. If you don't like how your state is being treated in Washington, quit sending representatives who spent their time playing dressup cowboy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt05KC3Add8).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess what gets me about these rallies is that they don't really have an issue behind it.

I'd argue that there's definitely an issue behind it, it just isn't being articulated particularly well (or hell, hardly at all beyond the vaguest generalization).

It's about taxes, but more specifically & accurately IMO, about how those taxes are used. There's definitely a sentiment of "if that's the best you can do with it then you damned well ought to just let me keep it" that I don't think is being articulated but is what I think a lot of it really amounts to.

[RainMaker]

I'd argue that there's definitely an issue behind it, it just isn't being articulated particularly well (or hell, hardly at all beyond the vaguest generalization).

It's about taxes, but more specifically & accurately IMO, about how those taxes are used. There's definitely a sentiment of "if that's the best you can do with it then you damned well ought to just let me keep it" that I don't think is being articulated but is what I think a lot of it really amounts to.

I just think they should have stuck to one issue. Bailouts would have worked. No bailouts for AIG, Citigroup, etc. Easy, concise, and something everyone can relate to. Instead it got turned into a circus and a marketing event for the Republican Party and Fox News. Protests are best when they are formed at the grassroots and the parties/news/entertainment industry has nothing to do with it.

The timing of the whole thing is also a bit odd. None of these people cared about spending and bailouts over the past year or two but suddenly cared conveniently when Obama got elected? One might say that they aren't angry about the bailouts and spending, but with what letter is next to that President's name.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One might say that they aren't angry about the bailouts and spending, but with what letter is next to that President's name.

Not the letter, but the priorities associated with that letter.

To borrow from one example mentioned here & elsewhere, you know my take (or should at this point) on the whole "building democracy in Iraq" p.r. campaign. I don't buy it, never bought it, have a hard time believing anybody bought it. I'd far prefer the whole country redeveloped as an oversized Wal-Mart parking lot to "rebuilt".

That said, the misuse of tax dollars I've seen under the current administration feels more offensive than the dollars that I wouldn't have approved of spending there I think largely because it's more personal. It's literally right under our nose everyday whereas that was more abstract, less tangible somehow because of the distance involved. It's a psychological reaction more than an economic one IMO. At least the money spent there one could, if they were so inclined, kid themselves into believing might be worthwhile at some point (however unlikely) as opposed to what we've seen here that many of us are convinced is simply wasted with no hope of being worthwhile. At that point the relative amounts don't matter much, same as bitching about the size of a city councilman's monthly cell phone bill being paid by the local government while saying nothing about millions spent on something like a public works boondoggle. It's about how people relate to the money and it becomes emotional.

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

For the record I skipped yesterday's local events (had at least two within 20 minutes of me in opposite directions) not because I'm not angry -- I have to believe you know better than that ;) -- but because I wasn't in the mood for a choir singing. I already know those songs, didn't feel the need to hear them again, not while I'm trying to figure out where the next dollar (before taxes) is coming from.

I'm not particularly expecting you to agree with any of this of course, or at least not the sentiments or motivations behind it. I'm just throwing out some thoughts from someone who could fairly be labeled as sympathetic to (if not involved directly in) yesterday's events fwiw. Passes the time while the coffee is brewing.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It would be much better if they dumped lettuce into Boston harbor and today there were all kinds of references to salad tossing. But teabagging is still funny.

Or if we could get a Democratic Congressman named Sanchez to start taking bribes...

[Dutch]

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

Nice, reminds me of this one.

http://politics.pwblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/auto-bailout.jpg

[JPhillips]

Not the letter, but the priorities associated with that letter.

To borrow from one example mentioned here & elsewhere, you know my take (or should at this point) on the whole "building democracy in Iraq" p.r. campaign. I don't buy it, never bought it, have a hard time believing anybody bought it. I'd far prefer the whole country redeveloped as an oversized Wal-Mart parking lot to "rebuilt".

That said, the misuse of tax dollars I've seen under the current administration feels more offensive than the dollars that I wouldn't have approved of spending there I think largely because it's more personal. It's literally right under our nose everyday whereas that was more abstract, less tangible somehow because of the distance involved. It's a psychological reaction more than an economic one IMO. At least the money spent there one could, if they were so inclined, kid themselves into believing might be worthwhile at some point (however unlikely) as opposed to what we've seen here that many of us are convinced is simply wasted with no hope of being worthwhile. At that point the relative amounts don't matter much, same as bitching about the size of a city councilman's monthly cell phone bill being paid by the local government while saying nothing about millions spent on something like a public works boondoggle. It's about how people relate to the money and it becomes emotional.

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

For the record I skipped yesterday's local events (had at least two within 20 minutes of me in opposite directions) not because I'm not angry -- I have to believe you know better than that ;) -- but because I wasn't in the mood for a choir singing. I already know those songs, didn't feel the need to hear them again, not while I'm trying to figure out where the next dollar (before taxes) is coming from.

I'm not particularly expecting you to agree with any of this of course, or at least not the sentiments or motivations behind it. I'm just throwing out some thoughts from someone who could fairly be labeled as sympathetic to (if not involved directly in) yesterday's events fwiw. Passes the time while the coffee is brewing.

Which, if you'll forgive me, sounds like a tantrum over a lost election.

Listening to the people and reading the signs, everything was the same as an October Palin rally. At some point the Republicans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that their base is a shrinking demographic. The rallies were probably 90% or so white and over thirty. Playing almost exclusively to that audience won't win national elections anymore.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Playing almost exclusively to that audience won't win national elections anymore.

And playing to the audience that does is so disgusting a prospect that a lot of us would really simply rather find another game to play. Eventually we'll either change the playing field by wits, weapons, or die off naturally (or otherwise) and it'll cease to be an issue. But where's the point in going quietly into that good night?

Like I said, I didn't go yesterday because I wasn't in the mood for a pep rally. If other people were & it made them feel better somehow, good for them. Just didn't see any reason to think it'd work for me so I skipped it.

[molson]

The timing of the whole thing is also a bit odd. None of these people cared about spending and bailouts over the past year or two but suddenly cared conveniently when Obama got elected? One might say that they aren't angry about the bailouts and spending, but with what letter is next to that President's name.

This point as been made multiple times in this thread, and it's definitely true that some had zero problem with Bush's spending, a ton of problems with Obama's, and their participation in yesterday's protests was strictly partisian. No doubt.

But you can't invalidate the entire opinion/movement just because of the motivations of some. Many absolutely WERE outraged by spending under Bush. Ron Paul raised a ton of money in his presidential campaign, based on this anger. It's there. Many hate what the Republican party has become, but in a country with only two choices, it's still closer to their ideal.

And even aside from that, it's a matter of degree. Obama's sepnding dwarfs Bush's. The ramifications of that, for our future, are very scary to a lot of people. The projected budget numbers for the next 8 years are very scary. We're in completely uncharted territory. One can be scared by the degree of the spending/bailouts now, but not to the same degree under Bush. That's not illogical.

Somebody, earlier in the thread, mocked the fact that people are basically protesting tax increases and appropriations of private property that hasn't happened yet. But isn't that the best time to be heard? Before the inevitable happens? To say that you were against something before it happened? People believe taxes will increase drastically in the next 8 years, and the decisions now are what will force America into a different kind of government. You may agree, you may disagree, but the opinion isn't invalid, no matter how much one mocks someone else's political expresssion.

The sheer size of the protests, yes, you're not going to get that many people out for something like that with a Republican in the White House. But that doesn't invalidate every opinion, contrary to Obama's, that anyone might have. That sentiment is just bullshit.

It's similar to all those youtube videos of liberals saying stupid things at democrat rallies ("Obama's going to pay my gas, pay for my house, etc") That video doesn't make any viewpoint that overlaps with Obama's invalid (though some Republicans will attempt to make that case).

[molson]

Listening to the people and reading the signs, everything was the same as an October Palin rally. At some point the Republicans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that their base is a shrinking demographic. The rallies were probably 90% or so white and over thirty. Playing almost exclusively to that audience won't win national elections anymore.

Yes - but these opinions expressed at these protests, even though "Republican", are a different voice then you heard from the Bush Republicans (as many here have mocked). Aren't they SUPPOSED to change? Isn't the smart thing for Republicans to reinvent themselves?

We're always going to have at least two parties (hopefully - though I wonder how many Democrats feel that way). If one party dominates politics (and we're not there yet), the other party will find the voice that has been left out and that voice will grow. The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform. That's the voice that was out there yesterday.

[JPhillips]

And playing to the audience that does is so disgusting a prospect that a lot of us would really simply rather find another game to play. Eventually we'll either change the playing field by wits, weapons, or die off naturally (or otherwise) and it'll cease to be an issue. But where's the point in going quietly into that good night?

Like I said, I didn't go yesterday because I wasn't in the mood for a pep rally. If other people were & it made them feel better somehow, good for them. Just didn't see any reason to think it'd work for me so I skipped it.

I think that's a Quixotic way of looking at things. I'd rather some of my priorities get done while compromising on others rather than achieving nothing. That's why I don't support a third party movement even though I'm often frustrated by the Dems. I don't see the point in feeling ideologically pure if it means the country is moving farther away from the things I think are important.

[JPhillips]

Yes - but these opinions expressed at these protests, even though "Republican", are a different voice then you heard from the Bush Republicans (as many here have mocked). Aren't they SUPPOSED to change? Isn't the smart thing for Republicans to reinvent themselves?

We're always going to have at least two parties (hopefully - though I wonder how many Democrats feel that way). If one party dominates politics (and we're not there yet), the other party will find the voice that has been left out and that voice will grow. The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform. That's the voice that was out there yesterday.

I'd argue that fiscal reform was just the veneer on an anti-Obama rally. What's the reform being advocated? It isn't deficit reduction as most of those attending support tax rates that would add trillions to the deficit. There isn't much appetite to reduce spending by the hundreds of billions required to balance the budget under the Bush tax code. The only fiscal reform being advocated is a fairy tale form where eliminating earmarks and pork are the answers to balancing the budget.

The one consistent argument I will give you is a disdain for any spending in this fiscal crisis. I think the idea of a spending freeze and no bailout of the financial industry is insane, but that does seem to be a view rather consistently held by teabaggers.

[Fighter of Foo]

We're always going to have at least two parties (hopefully - though I wonder how many Democrats feel that way). If one party dominates politics (and we're not there yet), the other party will find the voice that has been left out and that voice will grow. The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform. That's the voice that was out there yesterday.

We have ONE party in this country and TWO factions. Arguing any viewpoint outside of the sphere of consensus (see Paul, Kucinich) will see you mocked, harassed and ultimately made irrelevant. Fiscal conservatism ain't in the playbook and won't be until we're bankrupt.

[lungs]

The best candidate for that voice is government fiscal reform.

It'd all be fine and good, but isn't this what propelled the 1994 Republican revolution? Why should I believe them this time around?

[molson]

It'd all be fine and good, but isn't this what propelled the 1994 Republican revolution? Why should I believe them this time around?

You probably shouldn't. Unless there's been enough turnover in the Republican ranks in the meantime.

But then where should citizens with those kind of concerns put their support? A Democratic party that mocks them and looks down their nose at them? A Third Party? Or should they attempt to reinvent the Republican party back to ideals that it used to have, or pretended to have? The third seems the most practical.

[Fighter of Foo]

You probably shouldn't. Unless there's been enough turnover in the Republican ranks in the meantime.

But then where should citizens with those kind of concerns put their support? A Democratic party that mocks them and looks down their nose at them? A Third Party? Or should they attempt to reinvent the Republican party back to ideals that it used to have, or pretended to have? The third seems the most practical.

They should leave government/politics entirely. The modern version of the federal government is a near total waste of money & space. Work for yourself if/when possible, focus on your community where you can actually have an impact, and brace yourself for when the system fails.

[molson]

They should leave government/politics entirely. The modern version of the federal government is a near total waste of money & space. Work for yourself if/when possible, focus on your community where you can actually have an impact, and brace yourself for when the system fails.

I like your style.

[lungs]

You probably shouldn't. Unless there's been enough turnover in the Republican ranks in the meantime.

Turn over the ranks all they want, but young Republicans were mentored by old Republicans.

But then where should citizens with those kind of concerns put their support? A Democratic party that mocks them and looks down their nose at them? A Third Party? Or should they attempt to reinvent the Republican party back to ideals that it used to have, or pretended to have? The third seems the most practical.

I'd agree with that, but part of the reinvention of the Republicans will necessitate moving into the 21st century on a lot of their social views. There's going to be a lot of resistance to that and I'm not sure the Republicans have the balls to really take it on the chin while they sort out the infighting. The Democrats went through the same thing during desegregation.

[RainMaker]

Not the letter, but the priorities associated with that letter.

To borrow from one example mentioned here & elsewhere, you know my take (or should at this point) on the whole "building democracy in Iraq" p.r. campaign. I don't buy it, never bought it, have a hard time believing anybody bought it. I'd far prefer the whole country redeveloped as an oversized Wal-Mart parking lot to "rebuilt".

That said, the misuse of tax dollars I've seen under the current administration feels more offensive than the dollars that I wouldn't have approved of spending there I think largely because it's more personal. It's literally right under our nose everyday whereas that was more abstract, less tangible somehow because of the distance involved. It's a psychological reaction more than an economic one IMO. At least the money spent there one could, if they were so inclined, kid themselves into believing might be worthwhile at some point (however unlikely) as opposed to what we've seen here that many of us are convinced is simply wasted with no hope of being worthwhile. At that point the relative amounts don't matter much, same as bitching about the size of a city councilman's monthly cell phone bill being paid by the local government while saying nothing about millions spent on something like a public works boondoggle. It's about how people relate to the money and it becomes emotional.

As one of the more notable signs at yesterday's Atlanta rally put it "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage". That summed up yesterday's anger in a catch phrase better than most of the speeches as far as I'm concerned.

For the record I skipped yesterday's local events (had at least two within 20 minutes of me in opposite directions) not because I'm not angry -- I have to believe you know better than that ;) -- but because I wasn't in the mood for a choir singing. I already know those songs, didn't feel the need to hear them again, not while I'm trying to figure out where the next dollar (before taxes) is coming from.

I'm not particularly expecting you to agree with any of this of course, or at least not the sentiments or motivations behind it. I'm just throwing out some thoughts from someone who could fairly be labeled as sympathetic to (if not involved directly in) yesterday's events fwiw. Passes the time while the coffee is brewing.

I understand why some may have been there and I completely understand people being upset with bailouts, tax credits, and big spending. I'm against a lot of that stuff too.

My issue is the timing. If the issue is bailouts, why not protest last year when we swooped in to save Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, AIG, etc? Why not protest when the rich had to pay for the rebate checks for the poor and middle class? Where was the tea party when Bush was signing budgets not too far off from Obama's?

As for the sign he's holding, it doesn't fit either. The top 1% of this country pays 40% of total tax revenues. The top 5% pays 60%. So unless these people are making strong 6 figures, there's a good chance that someone else is paying for their use of public services.

Not to mention the irony of people bitching about socialism while standing in a public park.

[Fighter of Foo]

My issue is the timing. If the issue is bailouts, why not protest last year when we swooped in to save Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, AIG, etc? Why not protest when the rich had to pay for the rebate checks for the poor and middle class? Where was the tea party when Bush was signing budgets not too far off from Obama's?

Fox News & Rush told them to go yesterday. So they did.

[RainMaker]

This point as been made multiple times in this thread, and it's definitely true that some had zero problem with Bush's spending, a ton of problems with Obama's, and their participation in yesterday's protests was strictly partisian. No doubt.

But you can't invalidate the entire opinion/movement just because of the motivations of some. Many absolutely WERE outraged by spending under Bush. Ron Paul raised a ton of money in his presidential campaign, based on this anger. It's there. Many hate what the Republican party has become, but in a country with only two choices, it's still closer to their ideal.

I'm well aware of Ron Paul supporters and have no issue with them. I don't agree with everything they believe in, but they are passionate and stick to their guns. The odd thing about bringing Paul up is that the same Republicans fawning over this "bring back small government" mantra were the same people who were destroying Paul during the primaries. Paul was saying this same exact stuff over a year ago (actually he's been saying it for decades) and he was chastised by Republicans for it.

And even aside from that, it's a matter of degree. Obama's sepnding dwarfs Bush's. The ramifications of that, for our future, are very scary to a lot of people. The projected budget numbers for the next 8 years are very scary. We're in completely uncharted territory. One can be scared by the degree of the spending/bailouts now, but not to the same degree under Bush. That's not illogical.
Is dwarf a fair word here? Isn't it a difference in 3.5 trillion (Obama) vs 3.1 trillion (Bush)? Isn't part of that deficit from legacy programs like the new Medicare bill Bush signed into office years ago that is going to cost us trillions? Or paying for a failed was which some are estimating will end up costing this country $3 trillion dollars?

That isn't to say I'm a fan of his budget or the spending. I have my issues with it. Ultimately I'm not an economics guy and there is no way I could make an educated assumption of what this will mean for us in the next 10 years. I do know there are some highly respected economists who believe the spending is needed, and some others who say it isn't. I don't think it's some secret "socialist" agenda, but instead a guy who's doing what he think is best for the country. All I can say is I hope he and his economic guys are right.

Somebody, earlier in the thread, mocked the fact that people are basically protesting tax increases and appropriations of private property that hasn't happened yet. But isn't that the best time to be heard? Before the inevitable happens? To say that you were against something before it happened? People believe taxes will increase drastically in the next 8 years, and the decisions now are what will force America into a different kind of government. You may agree, you may disagree, but the opinion isn't invalid, no matter how much one mocks someone else's political expresssion.

The sheer size of the protests, yes, you're not going to get that many people out for something like that with a Republican in the White House. But that doesn't invalidate every opinion, contrary to Obama's, that anyone might have. That sentiment is just bullshit.

It's similar to all those youtube videos of liberals saying stupid things at democrat rallies ("Obama's going to pay my gas, pay for my house, etc") That video doesn't make any viewpoint that overlaps with Obama's invalid (though some Republicans will attempt to make that case).

I'm not saying their viewpoint is invalid or that they shouldn't protest. I'm saying that many of those people out the other day were protesting not because of bailouts and spending, but because Obama is the man in office.

[flere-imsaho]

I love this protest. It's so full of irony.

#1: The original Boston Tea Party was sparked by the British government's decision to temporarily reduce the East India Company's tax burden when importing tea (of which they had a surplus) into the colonies. Doing so gave an unfair advantage to the East India Company and undercut smugglers and other importers (such as the Dutch). So basically the original Boston Tea Party had more to do with trade protectionism (or, more accurately, favoritism) than the misuse of tax funds. :D

#2: The famous rallying cry was, of course, "no taxation without representation". Anyone familiar with the taxation plank of the Democratic platform in the 2008 campaign, and with the results of that campaign should come to the logical conclusion that the government that was fairly elected intended to raise taxes and use them in a particular fashion. While it's unfortunate that the minority who lost the election will now have government decisions, with which they do not agree, affect them, that's kind of how Democracy works. For more information, see 2000-2008. :D

[molson]

#2: The famous rallying cry was, of course, "no taxation without representation". Anyone familiar with the taxation plank of the Democratic platform in the 2008 campaign, and with the results of that campaign should come to the logical conclusion that the government that was fairly elected intended to raise taxes and use them in a particular fashion. While it's unfortunate that the minority who lost the election will now have government decisions, with which they do not agree, affect them, that's kind of how Democracy works. For more information, see 2000-2008. :D

The current losers should definitely look towards the losers of 2000-2008, to see how to handle that situation with class.

I mean are you serious? The losers should just shut up? Is that a new Obama rule? "How Democracy Works" is the loser having a voice too. Or at least you thought that was true under Bush.

[lungs]

The current losers should definitely look towards the losers of 2000-2008, to see how to handle that situation with class.

I mean are you serious? The losers should just shut up? Is that a new Obama rule?

They shouldn't shut up. But they should find a better slogan than "No taxation without Representation." Considering that they do, in fact, have representation.

[flere-imsaho]

The losers should just shut up?

Did I say that?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

"No taxation without the representation I wanted"

[molson]

They shouldn't shut up. But they should find a better slogan than "No taxation without Representation." Considering that they do, in fact, have representation.

These things aren't usually literal. Bush isn't a monkey, or a fascist, for example.

When enormous amounts of taxpayer money is handed directly to failing corporations and their executives, I can see how someone might feel lacking in representation from a government, even though the technical representative model is still in place.

[molson]

Did I say that?

Not exactly, that's why I phrased it as a question, because I thought that was the inference.

[flere-imsaho]

Free speech is free speech and if the Fox Talking Heads (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and their surrogates (Coulter, Malkin, etc...) want to make themselves foolish by hysterically claiming we're now living under a tyrannical government (a tyrannical government that nonetheless is a weakling on the world stage), then please, by all means, let them continue.

My post, honestly, was mostly about mocking them. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

"No taxation without the representation I wanted"

That actually ain't half bad. It really isn't far from how I feel about it and it doesn't seem likely that I'm alone on the score (I may however be more upfront about it).

[Toddzilla]

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/04/IShavedMyBallsForThis_71fe7.JPG

[DanGarion]

Or if we could get a Democratic Congressman named Sanchez to start taking bribes...

That only happens here in Orange County.

[path12]

hxxp://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/04/15/teabagging-michelle-malkin/

[Tekneek]

I have to ask... Were women present at the Boston Tea Party? And, is it very likely they would've huddled under umbrellas if it were raining? Those are 2 things I noticed in the limited footage I saw yesterday, while listening to commentators talking about how it was just like 1773.

Fox News has been going nuts about the "tea parties" for weeks, and now are going nuts about how "the media" (presumably not them) doesn't "understand" what they were all about.

[RainMaker]

hxxp://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/04/15/teabagging-michelle-malkin/

Wow.

[Galaxy]

Free speech is free speech and if the Fox Talking Heads (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and their surrogates (Coulter, Malkin, etc...) want to make themselves foolish by hysterically claiming we're now living under a tyrannical government (a tyrannical government that nonetheless is a weakling on the world stage), then please, by all means, let them continue.

My post, honestly, was mostly about mocking them. :D

I hate Fox News, but I laugh at how they are painted in this thread. As the other networks are "angels". They all suck. They aren't even "news" networks anymore.

All the networks are horrible for promoting an agenda or people. If you lean to the left, you won't like Fox. If you tend to lean to the right, you won't like MSNBC/CNN. Both have talking heads that are morons (to be honest, I think they are all).

I will say that these protestors needed to stick to one issue instead of brining the stone-aged conservative religious stuff out.

[sterlingice]

I don't think there is any way you can do more than a surface deep comparison of the three networks and come up with the same brush strokes. It is intellectually dishonest at best and more likely deliberately misleading. They all have their failings but they are different failings. So, get your insults straight.

Speaking of intellectually lazy, not everything is binary in politics despite what we've really tried to paint the last decade. I don't just mean that some people think one side is better while others think the other is better and that everything the other side does is wrong. I mean in the sense that just because something has some similar circumstances doesn't mean the action/event/idea as a whole can have the same criticisms leveled on it.

This goes back to the charge earlier in the thread of the war protests and how these are "just like" these protests. Huh? You want to compare them to the protests after Gore lost the election in 2000- that's probably a bit more accurate. A losing side who had kindof lost their way just protesting that their guy lost. How are war protests anything like this except that they have the word "protest" in it?

This is the same for the news networks argument that I made above. Just because all networks have their failings doesn't mean they have the same failings. Just because Democrat and Republican senators have problems doesn't mean they are the same problems. Identify the problems and attack the problems. If there are similarities to be had, go after those. One could say something like "well, the GOP-led Congress ran up big deficits, too" when comparing the current and former Congress. But this binary line of reasoning is the equivalent of "the GOP-led Congress ran up big deficits so gays in the military, here we come" or "the last time our deficits were heading this direction, the Patriot Act was passed so get ready for Patriot Act III!" They're complete non-sequitors.

Leveling the criticism: "Bush crushed rights and civil liberties with the Patriot Act and torture so he's a fascist" and then hearing "Obama is taxing us to pay for social services, so he's a... FASCIST" just is ignorant. You want to call him socialist- great. That's an accurate hyperbolic (if accurate and hyperbolic can be used together- but you know what I mean) statement. If you really want to go all out, call him a Communist. But where's the fascism? Hell, the best course of action for the economy would be nationalizing the banks and exerting huge government control over them but he's been extremely reticent to do that- hardly sounds like the actions of a fascist. Throwing bad money at free market companies rather than tanking them? Again, sounds a lot like socialism not fascism.

So quit being so damn intellectually lazy and participating in this third grader "I know you are but what am I" ignorance fest. Get your criticisms straight, if you're going to insult someone. Because at this point, these things just sound like they're coming from Pee Wee Herman.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I hate Fox News, but I laugh at how they are painted in this thread. As the other networks are "angels". They all suck. They aren't even "news" networks anymore.

No one's saying the other networks are "angels".

FNC has been pretty overt in their support of the whole Tea Party thing, so they're getting the brunt of the mockery here.

[Galaxy]

No one's saying the other networks are "angels".

FNC has been pretty overt in their support of the whole Tea Party thing, so they're getting the brunt of the mockery here.

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

[sterlingice]

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

In this false choice, it could be... ... ... wait for it... ... ... ... ... NEITHER!

It could be something to the effect of pretending it's a grass roots effort when it's very much being organized from the top down.

Or that they had Fox News personalities actively participating.

Or that because of this vested interest, they gave it disproportional coverage to the relevancy of the event. I mean, geez- it looked like they had more reporters "out in the field" than they did for Super Tuesday.

But, if you want me to choose one of yours which is, again, a false choice as this isn't an either/or- it could be any number of things- but should they really be taking a position on a news story? That shouldn't be done either.

SI

[path12]

In this false choice, it could be... ... ... wait for it... ... ... ... ... NEITHER!

It could be something to the effect of pretending it's a grass roots effort when it's very much being organized from the top down.

Or that they had Fox News personalities actively participating.

Or that because of this vested interest, they gave it disproportional coverage to the relevancy of the event. I mean, geez- it looked like they had more reporters "out in the field" than they did for Super Tuesday.

But, if you want me to choose one of yours which is, again, a false choice as this isn't an either/or- it could be any number of things- but should they really be taking a position on a news story? That shouldn't be done either.

SI

You've made very good points in your past couple posts. Not that it will make any difference. But I appreciated them.

[flere-imsaho]

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

[sterlingice]

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

I love how there's a battle going back and forth over the past few days on wiki over trying to add the Tea Party to that page.

SI

[Galaxy]

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

[Tekneek]

Bloomberg does a pretty good job. CNBC is a joke.

[RainMaker]

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

I still think Fox News is the worst of them all. They really make no effort to balanced. I personally wouldn't mind it at all, but I think the "fair and balanced" shit they spout is a slap in the face to everyone. Just be like right or left radio stations and say what you are. Call yourself Conservative News or GOP News.

MSNBC is more or less becoming that way for the left but doesn't go as overboard. CNN on the other hand just plays the populist message and desparately tries to find their niche.

I actually think Fox does the best job when it comes to breaking news on non-political issues. They are usually quick on the scene and get more inside access than anyone else. Their reporting on Katrina was real good up until the Bush administration needed them to go into face-saving mode.

I also dislike CNBC. They don't slant in any direction (although most of the personalities lean to the right), but their personalities simply overshadow the reporting and news. It turns in to shouting fests about nonsense no one can predict. Bloomberg is by far the best and just sticks to the news.

[ISiddiqui]

Throwing bad money at free market companies rather than tanking them? Again, sounds a lot like socialism not fascism.

How in the world does that sound more like socialism than fascism?!

A business-government partnership, as has somewhat been created by TARP, and the government running of some banks is far more like theoretical fascism (which very much was for a corporatist state) than theoretical socialism.

[Galaxy]

I still think Fox News is the worst of them all. They really make no effort to balanced. I personally wouldn't mind it at all, but I think the "fair and balanced" shit they spout is a slap in the face to everyone. Just be like right or left radio stations and say what you are. Call yourself Conservative News or GOP News.

MSNBC is more or less becoming that way for the left but doesn't go as overboard. CNN on the other hand just plays the populist message and desparately tries to find their niche.

I actually think Fox does the best job when it comes to breaking news on non-political issues. They are usually quick on the scene and get more inside access than anyone else. Their reporting on Katrina was real good up until the Bush administration needed them to go into face-saving mode.

I also dislike CNBC. They don't slant in any direction (although most of the personalities lean to the right), but their personalities simply overshadow the reporting and news. It turns in to shouting fests about nonsense no one can predict. Bloomberg is by far the best and just sticks to the news.

MSNBC does has it talking heads (Keith and Chris) that can compete with the worst of Fox News. I will give Fox News the nod on one part, they seem to have the hottest reporters.

As for CNBC, how is Bloomberg's TV channel?

[RainMaker]

How in the world does that sound more like socialism than fascism?!

A business-government partnership, as has somewhat been created by TARP, and the government running of some banks is far more like theoretical fascism (which very much was for a corporatist state) than theoretical socialism.

Is it really either though? Do people really believe it is Obama's goal to take over every company in this country? Or is he just entering into partnerships with insolvent banks/companies to try and avoid what would be an economic apocalypse? What a lot of these protesters don't understand is that without these bailouts to AIG and Citi, our economy would have completely collapsed.

My issue is with how easily these words get thrown around. All it takes is wanting to add a health care program and you're now Joseph Stalin.

[RainMaker]

MSNBC does has it talking heads (Keith and Chris) that can compete with the worst of Fox News. I will give Fox News the nod on one part, they seem to have the hottest reporters.

As for CNBC, how is Bloomberg's TV channel?

No doubt, although I do have a thing for Contessa Brewer. I'm also a little fond of the CNBC ladies like Erin Burnett and Becky Quick. Plus that chick that looks like a pornstar on Headline News. CNN is the one place that is really not even trying when it comes to news hotties.

Bloomberg's TV is straight reporting and news. CNBC focuses more on entertainment and opinion. I guess it depends what you're looking for, but I've grown tired of the screaming talking heads over the years and prefer Bloomberg now.

[ISiddiqui]

Is it really either though? Do people really believe it is Obama's goal to take over every company in this country? Or is he just entering into partnerships with insolvent banks/companies to try and avoid what would be an economic apocalypse? What a lot of these protesters don't understand is that without these bailouts to AIG and Citi, our economy would have completely collapsed.

My issue is with how easily these words get thrown around. All it takes is wanting to add a health care program and you're now Joseph Stalin.

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

[path12]

Personally, I think socialism (particularly the democratic sort of Scandinavia) is a far better alternative than corporatism (which seems more the direction we are heading if not already there).

[sterlingice]

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

Again, see post 104- just throwing your hands up in the air in exasperation and then saying they all suck is a great way to be intellectually dishonest, either lying to yourself or everyone else.

There are degrees of suck- Millwood and Wang both lost yesterday, but they don't both suck equally and should be held proportionally to task. Millwood pitched well and lost to a better pitching performance. Wang got blown out of the building. Fox is the latter- they don't even try to moderate their bias.

SI

[sterlingice]

Personally, I think socialism (particularly the democratic sort of Scandinavia) is a far better alternative than corporatism (which seems more the direction we are heading if not already there).

+1

SI

[sterlingice]

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

In all honesty: you have a lot of communist friends? I didn't think anyone really self-described themselves that way and it seems rare to see that. I have a couple of friends who are pretty far left socialist (in the European sense) but I don't think they would even describe themselves as communist. Tho, to be fair, we've never seen true communism in place anywhere- the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc were all just dictatorships pretending to be communist, but we're getting far afield.

I agree with most else of what you've said in this and other posts. But I have a major objection to the claim that we are heading more towards fascism: I think a key part of fascism is control of government over industry. We have the exact opposite where industry controls goverment, for the most part. It leads to a different type of dystopia- one that is neither fascist or socialist.

I also think there was a substantial shift between the past administration and this one in that the previous one had more control over industry, primarily using fear, something this administration has been reluctant to do. And that's not to say the previous one wasn't influenced greatly by many industrial figures.

SI

[RainMaker]

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

I think people are too quick to stick by one ideological stance and paint everything the same way. Things just aren't black and white in the real world and our politicians shouldn't treat it that way. Each political/economic system has its strengths and flaws. It is up to our politicians to do what they feel is best for the people and for the citizens to support what is best for it too.

The bailouts are an issue where people have gotten too ideological. I hate the bailouts as much as anyone. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we got put in this position. But I also realize that the bailouts saved us from an economic apocalypse. That if we abided by the wishes of those at the tea party, we'd see every major financial instituation in this country go out of business. We'd be sent back a century and it would take a generation to recover.

So if shifting a little more toward corpartism temporarily is the best solution for the country, why does it matter? Shouldn't the goal ultimately be what's in the best interest of the country? After the mess is cleaned up, the goal should be shifting back toward a capitalistic system that has much stronger regulations to avoid this happening again. Ideologies are nice on paper, but they don't work in the real world.

People shouldn't be mad about the bailouts, they should be mad at why they were necessary. They should be mad at the politicians who have been asleep at the wheel for many years. They should be mad at the people who ran these companies and defrauded millions. Those are the enemies, not people who are currently trying to fix the mess.

[sterlingice]

People shouldn't be mad about the bailouts, they should be mad at why they were necessary. They should be mad at the politicians who have been asleep at the wheel for many years. They should be mad at the people who ran these companies and defrauded millions. Those are the enemies, not people who are currently trying to fix the mess.

Hell, asleep at the wheel? How about the ones who actively have worked to undo regulation for the past two decades? That's not passively asleep at the wheel, that's driving the school bus to hell.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

In all honesty: you have a lot of communist friends? I didn't think anyone really self-described themselves that way and it seems rare to see that. I have a couple of friends who are pretty far left socialist (in the European sense) but I don't think they would even describe themselves as communist. Tho, to be fair, we've never seen true communism in place anywhere- the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc were all just dictatorships pretending to be communist, but we're getting far afield.

Yep. I have a friend who ran for Congress under the Socialist Party of the America, down in Fort Lauderdale. He considers himself a full fledged Communist, but definitely not a Cuba/China, etc Commie. His wife is too. True, I met him online (on another forum), but I have met him IRL as well.

Oh, and European countries aren't socialist either. They are more into the welfare state, sure. But they believe in capitalism unpinning their economies.

I agree with most else of what you've said in this and other posts. But I have a major objection to the claim that we are heading more towards fascism: I think a key part of fascism is control of government over industry. We have the exact opposite where industry controls goverment, for the most part. It leads to a different type of dystopia- one that is neither fascist or socialist.

Well, I think it'd be referred to as "proto-Fascism". And corporatism isn't necessarily all that cut and dried. Industry having power over government means that in times of populist anger (like real, hanging people from lamposts populist anger), industry turns to a strong corporatist leader who would let them keep their money (which happened in Italy, Spain, and, of course, German).

Now I'm not saying we are GOING to be Fascist (I don't even think we are sliding into it, not even on a sliding level). I'm just saying that if you are going to allow people to make a political hyperbole, we are closer to heading towards Fascism than Socialism.

I also think there was a substantial shift between the past administration and this one in that the previous one had more control over industry, primarily using fear, something this administration has been reluctant to do. And that's not to say the previous one wasn't influenced greatly by many industrial figures.

Both parties are pretty intermarried to business. They may be more closely intermarried to different businesses, but the general point remains the same.

[ISiddiqui]

After the mess is cleaned up, the goal should be shifting back toward a capitalistic system that has much stronger regulations to avoid this happening again.

THAT, though is the fear and the problem. Rarely do things shift back, unless there is some sort of huge change (like the stagflation of the late 70s... remember before Reagan [and the problems under Carter], the Rockefeller/Nixon branch of the Republican Party was dominant, and Goldwater was just someone who failed horridly. Remember Nixon created the EPA and was pushing for universal health care... in the 1970s).

[ISiddiqui]

Hell, asleep at the wheel? How about the ones who actively have worked to undo regulation for the past two decades? That's not passively asleep at the wheel, that's driving the school bus to hell.

SI

That leads to the question. Which regulations have been "undone" that caused this. Because it sure as Hell wasn't Glass-Stegall (undoing that may have actually helped prevent the recession of 2001 and the current one from becoming more severe).

Rainmaker is correct. It's asleep at the wheel. After all, Western European countries, who we apparently look at for regulation strength, didn't have the proper checks on their businesses either (and they didn't need a Gramm-Leach-Bailey, because they already allowed what the bill did in the US).

[sterlingice]

ISiddiqui, I'm enjoying the conversation- I don't often say that about the political ones on the board :)

Anyways, how did the part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley that ended Glass-Steagall help the economy (i.e. prevent 2001 recession and cushioning this one)? I guess one could argue that those large banks had something to cushion their fall (i.e. their lending banking business) when the investment side fell apart. But I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at.

That said, I would argue the creation of "too big to fail" megabanks is a much worse development for the economy than anything that could have happened if we taken the other road in 1999. I think these risks wouldn't have been taken in so heavily by major players.

(Then again, I'm an advocate for the government nationalizing the lot of them, breaking them up, and then putting them back out onto the market- which definitely has its own substantial problems)

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Gramm-Leach-Bailey helped the economy by allowing investments banks to buy failing deposit banks. Prior to GLB, those banks would have ended up failing as no one could buy them. Washington Mutual would have folded (or had to bailed out big time) instead of JP Morgan being able to buy them up, as one example (Merrill Lynch and BOA is another).

Without GLB, the TARP would have probably been twice the amount it was simply because you couldn't have had all those banks fail.

[Tekneek]

Isn't it Gramm-Leach-Bliley?

[ISiddiqui]

Probably... I was trying to go off the top of my head.

[sterlingice]

Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Glass-Steagall if we want to be really correct :)

SI

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Tonight is the big "National Tea Party Convention" in Nashville.

Tickets cost several hundred each. Sarah Palin is the big "guest" speaker, supposedly pocketing $100,000 for her part.

I just spoke with someone I know who is there & asked him what teas are being served. Strangely enough, he said he has not seen anybody drinking tea.

[RainMaker]

Tancredo spoke last night. Just needed a pointy white hood and everything would have been perfect.

[Greyroofoo]

Tancredo spoke last night. Just needed a pointy white hood and everything would have been perfect.

Tancredo's a member of the KKK?

[lungs]

Glad they brought up the birth certificate again. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/joseph-farah-to-cheers-at-tea-party-convention-again-questions-location-of-obamas-birth-.html)

[JPhillips]

Tonight is the big "National Tea Party Convention" in Nashville.

Tickets cost several hundred each. Sarah Palin is the big "guest" speaker, supposedly pocketing $100,000 for her part.

I just spoke with someone I know who is there & asked him what teas are being served. Strangely enough, he said he has not seen anybody drinking tea.

Has he seen anyone with a nutsack on his face?

[sterlingice]

Let me guess: CNN and MSNBC mention a couple of minutes of it while Fox is giving it wall-to-wall coverage

SI

[JPhillips]

Did they change things and allow other broadcaster media besides Fox? I know initially they were very stingy with media credentials and only gave them out to "friendly" media, but reports have around 100 media members at her speech.

[JPhillips]

Palin can't remember "energy, tax, lift America's spirit".

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palinhandsmaller1.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palinhandclose.jpg

[Dutch]

She's not using a teleprompter?

[Flasch186]

That cant be true! That's gotta be photoshopped

[JPhillips]

That cant be true! That's gotta be photoshopped

Nope. Watch the video of the Q/A and she clearly checks her hand while answering a question about her priorities.

[JPhillips]

She's not using a teleprompter?

See House GOP Retreat, Obama discussion with.

[Dutch]

Stefan Sirucek: EXCLUSIVE (Update): Palin's Tea Party Crib Notes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html)

Here's the article from the Huffington Post that details the scandal in full.

[lungs]

Palin identifies with the common person by using her hand to write notes instead of an elitist liberal like Obama that uses these fancy machines to script every single word that comes out of his mouth.

[Flasch186]

{shaking head}

If she is ever our president I truly do fear for us and not in a "OMG hes a socialist" kind of way, or a "he's a maverick and we wont know what he'll do" kind of way, but in a "our president wont be as smart as most country's leaders might be" kind of way.

[Dutch]

I don't mind Sarah Palin, but I don't support her Presidential efforts or the Tea Party thing (don't know much about it honestly). But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

[Flasch186]

right, she didnt invite any judgment at all from scribbling crib notes on her hand while giving a key note speech and getting paid $100k. Totally unwarranted.

[JPhillips]

I don't mind Sarah Palin, but I don't support her Presidential efforts or the Tea Party thing (don't know much about it honestly). But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

When she used the teleprompter line she kinda brought it on herself.

edit: On the Tea Partiers, right now they have the freedom to be all things to all people. If they ever start a real political [party and have to stake out clear positions on issues they'll be in trouble. There are a lot of people angry with the government, but once you start spelling out a platform I think most people will stick with the GOP or the Democrats.

Of course I'm still not convinced that at an organizing level the "movement" isn't about supporting the right kind of GOP candidates anyway.

[Greyroofoo]

At least writing something on your hand is much more cost effective than using a teleprompter.

[JPhillips]

It might be a little silly, but I wouldn't blame her for writing on her hand if it was something difficult to remember, say a specific quote of Reagan's. But it's telling when you have to crib the three things you consider a priority.

[JonInMiddleGA]

right, she didnt invite any judgment at all from scribbling crib notes on her hand while giving a key note speech and getting paid $100k. Totally unwarranted.

Let's be realistic here: Her presence was most of the $100k, not what she said. And she earned her money once she delivered "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?" Anything after that was gravy for the organizers since they'd already gotten their money for ticket sales & she came up with the home run line that summed up the feelings of a lot of people in a very concise nutshell.

Given the problems that Obama has with speeches (and fair reminder that I defended him here for his lack of 'prompter skills) I don't know if anybody should say much about whatever works for somebody if it keeps them on track. Palin's trick isn't one I've used but I imagine plenty of people have, and could be as simple as an idiosyncrantic thing to avoid fidgeting with index cards (as one example).

[Dutch]

It might be a little silly, but I wouldn't blame her for writing on her hand if it was something difficult to remember, say a specific quote of Reagan's. But it's telling when you have to crib the three things you consider a priority.

There aren't detail as to whether the speech was good or not.

If she really attended this speech with only a few notes on her hand and with no telepromter and the speech was done well, would you feel differently about her? Or do you feel the Huffington Post told you all you needed to know about the situation?

[sterlingice]

That has to be staged, right?

I mean, she scratched out budget and put "tax cuts". Did she really change her mind on that on the fly? That sounds more like something her handlers told her to do beforehand.

SI

[Flasch186]

Let's be realistic here: Her presence was most of the $100k, not what she said. And she earned her money once she delivered "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?" Anything after that was gravy for the organizers since they'd already gotten their money for ticket sales & she came up with the home run line that summed up the feelings of a lot of people in a very concise nutshell.

Given the problems that Obama has with speeches (and fair reminder that I defended him here for his lack of 'prompter skills) I don't know if anybody should say much about whatever works for somebody if it keeps them on track. Palin's trick isn't one I've used but I imagine plenty of people have, and could be as simple as an idiosyncrantic thing to avoid fidgeting with index cards (as one example).

However, I think youre ignoring the point I brought up in the Obama thread which is that she is MORE than just a speaker, a paid for one at this particular event. She carries more weight with her words than just any joe blow and considering that I believe she will be running for Pres. than that makes things like this all the more glaring in regards to whether or not she is qualified to be a President of the country. Writing shit on your hand before giving a speech is just pure and simple outlandish regardless of party affiliation. Use a fucking teleprompter....she did just fine at the GOP convention with one. Its simply put stupid and in all honesty, so much so, that I was certain it was photoshopped.

[JonInMiddleGA]

However, I think youre ignoring the point I brought up in the Obama thread which is that she is MORE than just a speaker, a paid for one at this particular event.

A paid speaker solely because she was an attraction that could sell tickets. This had nothing to do with anything she said, this had to do with people willing to pay to be in proximity to her. Period.

She carries more weight with her words than just any joe blow

I'll give you that one. And based on the quotes I've seen, she delivered quite well on what the audience wanted.

Writing shit on your hand before giving a speech is just pure and simple outlandish regardless of party affiliation.

Sorry, I just don't see it as an issue. And I wouldn't have ripped Obama for it either (not many things I can say that about). Whatever works afaic when it comes to public speaking, and she appears to have hit the points she needed/wanted to hit for the speech to serve its purpose, I really don't give a damn how she got that done.

[Flasch186]

well we disagree there. I dont think the Pres or VP for that matter has their hands, In lieu of index cards/teleprompter, as a luxury to be written on.

[duckman]

Seriously? Bitching about writing on a hand? *sigh*

[Schmidty]

I don't think this is a big deal at all.

Same old mindless partisan bullshit. It goes both ways, I guess.

[sterlingice]

I don't know if anyone thinks it's a big deal. Maybe someone out there does.


...but it is kindof funny. *snicker*

SI

[jeff061]

It's not a big deal, but it is very amusing. It gets a little more play because her intellect was already in question, this compounds it. But if it really blows up for more than a day or two I'll be annoyed.

Let's be realistic here: Her presence was most of the $100k, not what she said. And she earned her money once she delivered "How's that hope-y, change-y stuff workin' out for you?" Anything after that was gravy for the organizers since they'd already gotten their money for ticket sales & she came up with the home run line that summed up the feelings of a lot of people in a very concise nutshell.
I agree, but rather than going for the gravy or lack there of, she may haven taken a dump in the potatoes. If this gets play beyond rabid blogs it's damaging to the tea party's image, warranted or not.

[Dutch]

It's not a big deal, but it is very amusing. It get's a little more play because her intellect was already in question, this compounds it. But if it really blows up for more than a day or two I'll be annoyed.


I agree, but rather than going for the gravy or lack there of, she may haven taken a dump in the potatoes. If this gets play beyond rabid blogs it's damaging to the tea party's image, warranted or not.

Writing key points to hit during a speech on your hand is not questioning one's intellect. This will be a talking point argument of the left, nothing more.

[jeff061]

Like I said, it compounds the image already there. On it's own? No it doesn't.

This will be a talking point argument of the left, nothing more.
No kidding, but irrelevant. Everything is only a talking point for one side or the other at the end of the day.

[Flasch186]

Well I dont mind being in a camp alone, to me I find it mind-numbingly dumb to do it, and inexcusable for ANYONE on that stage. Perhaps, I view her as being on a bigger stage than most of you all, and that would explain our incongruity on the severity of the event.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I don't think this is a big deal at all.

Same old mindless partisan bullshit. It goes both ways, I guess.

We agree.

I still think the pics look photoshopped, and if that is the case more harm is done than good (much in the same way constantly referring to "teabagging" by the left provides an easy out for those on the right who rather than wishing to engage in an actual debate want to point fingers.)

Both sides suck.

[RainMaker]

I don't think this is a big deal at all.

Same old mindless partisan bullshit. It goes both ways, I guess.
Pretty much. It's what's in the speech that matters, not how it's delivered. Index cards, writing on hands, teleprompters, whatever. People more concerned about mindless bullshit to propogate hate.

[RainMaker]

Tancredo's a member of the KKK?
I don't think his speech was far off from one you'd see at a white supremacist rally.

[Flasch186]

Pretty much. It's what's in the speech that matters, not how it's delivered. Index cards, writing on hands, teleprompters, whatever. People more concerned about mindless bullshit to propogate hate.

hate? thats an awfully strong word. I dont think I hate her. I think she's a liar, a hypocrite, and completely unqualified to be P or VP but I most certainly dont feel hatred. At least by how I define it.

come to think of it, I dont hate many people.

[Dutch]

I don't think his speech was far off from one you'd see at a white supremacist rally.

How would you classify yourself, Rainmaker? A moderate Democrat?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think his speech was far off from one you'd see at a white supremacist rally.

You don't get out much, do you?

[RainMaker]

How would you classify yourself, Rainmaker? A moderate Democrat?
Moderate libertarian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal but not as far as Libertarians would want to go on eliminating stuff.

I donated to Ron Paul in the primary and no one in the general election. Knew he wouldn't win but thought his message should get out there more.

[rowech]

Moderate libertarian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal but not as far as Libertarians would want to go on eliminating stuff.

I donated to Ron Paul in the primary and no one in the general election. Knew he wouldn't win but thought his message should get out there more.

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. You're not even close.

[RainMaker]

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read. You're not even close.
How so?

[rowech]

How so?

Unless you simply say things in your posts for the sake of saying them, there is no chance you would ever be considered a Libertarian in any, way, shape, or form.

You are firmly left of center in every post I've ever read from you in a political thread. You might be seeing yourself one way but the world is CLEARLY seeing you as the opposite of what you say.

[Abe Sargent]

Unless you simply say things in your posts for the sake of saying them, there is no chance you would ever be considered a Libertarian in any, way, shape, or form.

You are firmly left of center in every post I've ever read from you in a political thread. You might be seeing yourself one way but the world is CLEARLY seeing you as the opposite of what you say.

That wouldn't make him the opposite, just the tangent. Libertarian is not the opposite of Liberal.

[RainMaker]

Unless you simply say things in your posts for the sake of saying them, there is no chance you would ever be considered a Libertarian in any, way, shape, or form.

You are firmly left of center in every post I've ever read from you in a political thread. You might be seeing yourself one way but the world is CLEARLY seeing you as the opposite of what you say.
I don't argue my position a lot, just like to point out hypocrisy in statements by partisians. Don't see a huge difference in the two major parties with the exception of one party hates what they used to love four years ago. Rinse and repeat as powers shift. I'll even argue a position I like because I feel it's presented with bullshit. Such as those who want lower taxes for the rich because it'll "trickle down". I want lower taxes for the rich because I think they pay way too much of our revenues right now. I know the "trickle down" stuff is bullshit and just used to sell it the the public.

One of the problems is what you mentioned above. If you believe in 70% of a party's platform, they consider you on the other side. Independent thought within a party is discouraged and they essentially want robots spouting the daily talking points (see MBBF).

As for my thoughts and what you'd classify them as, I don't know. I don't believe in welfare and think unemployment should be privatized. People should have the ability to opt out of Social Security at any age in life. I think we should eliminate limits on competition in health care and open borders for prescription drugs. Only fight in wars that effect our direct public safety and stop occupying lands.

I know that's not hardcore libertarian thinking because I don't want to eliminate things like the FAA, NTSB, and CDC, but I think it's a rather drastic cutback in what we do spend and what our government operates and has control over. Liberterians are the only party for reduced spending so like I said, I lean in that direction. I don't know if I'd ever want that party controlling government, but I'd love to see them have a nice percent of the voting block in the Senate and House.

Socially I'm pretty much anything goes. I don't care what you inject into your body as long as you don't hurt others. I don't care if you want to gamble your paycheck away or spend it on hookers. Gay marriage wise, I don't even think government should be involved in marriage at all. Should be a spiritual thing between two, three, or 50 people if that's what they want. The fuck do I care if some guy wants to have 49 wives (as long as their not minors). At the same time, I do believe in the death penalty (in cases of extreme guilt) and feel it should extend beyond murder to multiple time rapists and those who sexually abuse children.

I don't know what the chart says that would make me. Moderate Democrat, Moderate Libertarian, or just an independent. I do know I liked a lot of what Ron Paul had to say in the primary with the exception of eliminating all the stuff he'd want to. I wish we had 50 people in the House and 10 in the Senate who would vote down all the bullshit like him.

[RainMaker]

That wouldn't make him the opposite, just the tangent. Libertarian is not the opposite of Liberal.
I'm basing it off of charts like this and tests that are out there. Most of the time I show up near the middle and half way up the chart. Not in libertarian area but close.

http://civilities.net/images/PoliticalGrids/KerryBush.gif

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't argue my position a lot, just like to point out hypocrisy in statements by partisians. Don't see a huge difference in the two major parties with the exception of one party hates what they used to love four years ago. Rinse and repeat as powers shift.

One of the problems is what you mentioned above. If you believe in 70% of a party's platform, they consider you on the other side. Independent thought within a party is discouraged and they essentially want robots spouting the daily talking points (see MBBF).

As for my thoughts and what you'd classify them as, I don't know. I don't believe in welfare and think unemployment should be privatized. People should have the ability to opt out of Social Security at any age in life. I think we should eliminate limits on competition in health care and open borders for prescription drugs. Only fight in wars that effect our direct public safety and stop occupying lands.

I know that's not hardcore libertarian thinking because I don't want to eliminate things like the FAA, NTSB, and CDC, but I think it's a rather drastic cutback in what we do spend and what our government operates and has control over. Liberterians are the only party for reduced spending so like I said, I lean in that direction. I don't know if I'd ever want that party controlling government, but I'd love to see them have a nice percent of the voting block in the Senate and House.

Socially I'm pretty much anything goes. I don't care what you inject into your body as long as you don't hurt others. I don't care if you want to gamble your paycheck away or spend it on hookers. Gay marriage wise, I don't even think government should be involved in marriage at all. Should be a spiritual thing between two, three, or 50 people if that's what they want. The fuck do I care if some guy wants to have 49 wives (as long as their not minors). At the same time, I do believe in the death penalty (in cases of extreme guilt) and feel it should extend beyond murder to multiple time rapists and those who sexually abuse children.

I don't know what the chart says that would make me. Moderate Democrat, Moderate Libertarian, or just an independent. I do know I liked a lot of what Ron Paul had to say in the primary with the exception of eliminating all the stuff he'd want to. I wish we had 50 people in the House and 10 in the Senate who would vote down all the bullshit like him.

really i don't need to even post in this thread, can we just create a new screenname that represents both of us, because i think you about nailed me in this post too (maybe with the exception of welfare+unemployment)

[Tekneek]

If scrawling notes on her hands can help her make sense, and maybe even make a few truly relevant points in her speeches, then it is a massive improvement for her. She might want to write the name of a newspaper on there too, before her next interview with hardballer Katie Couric. "All of them" is not a realistic answer and nobody with a brain bought that answer last time.

[JPhillips]

There aren't detail as to whether the speech was good or not.

If she really attended this speech with only a few notes on her hand and with no telepromter and the speech was done well, would you feel differently about her? Or do you feel the Huffington Post told you all you needed to know about the situation?

She read her speech. The notes were used in the Q/A session after the speech, which, btw, featured pre-screened questions.

She didn't wing her first major address on national television.

[RainMaker]

really i don't need to even post in this thread, can we just create a new screenname that represents both of us, because i think you about nailed me in this post too (maybe with the exception of welfare+unemployment)
With unemployment I just think it could be better privately. We all pay 6.2% on the first $7000 we make. That's on top of whatever the state has for a program. So in essence, we are all paying for "insurance" one way or the other.

If you did it privately, it would allow those who don't need it to not have it. High school kids, college kids, or those working small part-time jobs would not have to give up that kind of money for something they'd never need. On top of it, if it was private, you could pay for more customized coverage.

Lets say you have a really in-demand skill and know that you'll never be out of work for more than 3 months. So buy a plan that will cover you for up to 3 months at a cheaper rate. Lets say you have a family and can't afford to miss or have any reduced income. Buy a more expensive plan and get your full salary. Or if you have a huge nest egg, don't bother with anything at all.

We all currently pay into a plan that doesn't really suit anyone in particular. I just think a more customized approach would work better for everyone and having a lot of competition would get everyone good rates. On top of it, it would be in their best interest for you to get a job quickly so maybe they offer job placement services or training for free.

I know when someone says eliminate unemployment it can sound heartless, but I actually think in this case it gives people way better options (including those who get hit hardest by job loss). Wouldn't you rather have a custom plan for your job based on what you need on a monthly basis and how long you think it would take to find new work?

[JPhillips]

Seriously? Bitching about writing on a hand? *sigh*

Live by the teleprompter joke, die by the teleprompter joke.

[Tekneek]

She read her speech. The notes were used in the Q/A session after the speech, which, btw, featured pre-screened questions.

She didn't wing her first major address on national television.

If that is true, this certainly changes the spin a bit.

[JPhillips]

With unemployment I just think it could be better privately. We all pay 6.2% on the first $7000 we make. That's on top of whatever the state has for a program. So in essence, we are all paying for "insurance" one way or the other.

If you did it privately, it would allow those who don't need it to not have it. High school kids, college kids, or those working small part-time jobs would not have to give up that kind of money for something they'd never need. On top of it, if it was private, you could pay for more customized coverage.

Lets say you have a really in-demand skill and know that you'll never be out of work for more than 3 months. So buy a plan that will cover you for up to 3 months at a cheaper rate. Lets say you have a family and can't afford to miss or have any reduced income. Buy a more expensive plan and get your full salary. Or if you have a huge nest egg, don't bother with anything at all.

We all currently pay into a plan that doesn't really suit anyone in particular. I just think a more customized approach would work better for everyone and having a lot of competition would get everyone good rates. On top of it, it would be in their best interest for you to get a job quickly so maybe they offer job placement services or training for free.

I know when someone says eliminate unemployment it can sound heartless, but I actually think in this case it gives people way better options (including those who get hit hardest by job loss). Wouldn't you rather have a custom plan for your job based on what you need on a monthly basis and how long you think it would take to find new work?

While I'd want to see it in detail, I can at least buy the premise of this. However, nobody should "know" they won't be unemployed for more than three months.

[JPhillips]

If that is true, this certainly changes the spin a bit.

Google the video. You can clearly see her reading the speech and much later checking her hand during the Q/A.

[RainMaker]

hate? thats an awfully strong word. I dont think I hate her. I think she's a liar, a hypocrite, and completely unqualified to be P or VP but I most certainly dont feel hatred. At least by how I define it.

come to think of it, I dont hate many people.
I'm not saying you, just those that turn every single thing into a way to cut down someone on the other side. Those that throw a fit over a someone writing notes down for a speech or what kind of mustard they put on their cheeseburger. I think there hits a line when the person is no longer talking about the issue but instead a hatred toward the other person. Barack Obama could literally recite a Ronald Reagan speech word for word and before he finished there would be people flooding the web with how liberal and socialist. There is nothing he can do, just as there is nothing Sarah Palin can do.

I consider what people like Olbermann and Limbaugh do an almost form of politically correct hate speech. There are a lot of extremists on both sides that get off on hating others. You are definitely not one, but I'm talking about a percent of the Daily Kos/Red State diehards. They don't want to talk about issues, they just want someone to hate.

[RainMaker]

While I'd want to see it in detail, I can at least buy the premise of this. However, nobody should "know" they won't be unemployed for more than three months.
If you're over 50 or perhaps work a unique job that just doesn't have a lot of options, you might know it'll take awhile. Just as a guy working a grill at a fast food joint might realize it won't take long to find a similar job.

[DaddyTorgo]

With unemployment I just think it could be better privately. We all pay 6.2% on the first $7000 we make. That's on top of whatever the state has for a program. So in essence, we are all paying for "insurance" one way or the other.

If you did it privately, it would allow those who don't need it to not have it. High school kids, college kids, or those working small part-time jobs would not have to give up that kind of money for something they'd never need. On top of it, if it was private, you could pay for more customized coverage.

Lets say you have a really in-demand skill and know that you'll never be out of work for more than 3 months. So buy a plan that will cover you for up to 3 months at a cheaper rate. Lets say you have a family and can't afford to miss or have any reduced income. Buy a more expensive plan and get your full salary. Or if you have a huge nest egg, don't bother with anything at all.

We all currently pay into a plan that doesn't really suit anyone in particular. I just think a more customized approach would work better for everyone and having a lot of competition would get everyone good rates. On top of it, it would be in their best interest for you to get a job quickly so maybe they offer job placement services or training for free.

I know when someone says eliminate unemployment it can sound heartless, but I actually think in this case it gives people way better options (including those who get hit hardest by job loss). Wouldn't you rather have a custom plan for your job based on what you need on a monthly basis and how long you think it would take to find new work?

very interesting point - you know honestly i had never thought about it that way (and also wasn't sure what exactly your thought was). That's a really good idea!

[Tekneek]

Google the video. You can clearly see her reading the speech and much later checking her hand during the Q/A.

I don't know if I can put myself through that so soon before the Super Bowl. Maybe tomorrow.

[JPhillips]

If you're over 50 or perhaps work a unique job that just doesn't have a lot of options, you might know it'll take awhile. Just as a guy working a grill at a fast food joint might realize it won't take long to find a similar job.

I just think it's a terrible idea for anyone to save for unemployment that they know won't last for more than three months. I wonder how many people in the current recession knew they wouldn't be unemployed for long?

[sterlingice]

Yeah, what happens when everyone needs to cash out at once in a recession. Particularly when those insurance companies go under at a time like this? It's a lucrative industry for 9 years and then they go under every 10 and people are screwed.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

I'm pretty sure antagonizing the left-wing media is part of her modus operandi. Surely it's at least 1/2 the reason she was hired by Fox News. (Clearly they didn't hire her for her extemporaneous speaking skills.)

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, what happens when everyone needs to cash out at once in a recession. Particularly when those insurance companies go under at a time like this? It's a lucrative industry for 9 years and then they go under every 10 and people are screwed.

SI

good point on the other side

[Tekneek]

Confirmation on the speech thing. I am certainly convinced that (1) she read her speech, and (2) those notes on her hand were to help her with the Q&A.

Can anyone tell me what her appeal is? I get the whole MILF / Hot Grandmother thing, but I would never even slightly entertain $100k speaking fees or an election to any position of responsibility based on that alone. People tell me they like her because she isn't as polished as the other players. So, they like that she crashes and burns in her interviews? Even the friendly ones with people like Glen Beck. They like her speeches, which all seem to wander off into the wilderness, seemingly devoid of any major point or thesis behind them? I really don't understand.

[flere-imsaho]

When people say they like her because she isn't polished, they're invariably saying her lack of polish makes her more "real" than other politicians.

She would not be the first politician who has tried to use this particular bit of image-crafting to her advantage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can anyone tell me what her appeal is? I get the whole MILF / Hot Grandmother thing, but I would never even slightly entertain $100k speaking fees or an election to any position of responsibility based on that alone.

Well first, separate the $100k fee and being elected, because the two have different criteria.

Specifically the $100k fee is based almost entirely on her ability to draw achieve the desired result for the organization hiring her. In the most recent case, it was the ability to sell tickets & therefore raise money, so look no further than that on that part. How she does it (within the confines of the broader goals of an organization at least) is pretty much irrelevant.

Now the second part is tougher.

[Flasch186]

Well I dont think the money was her main motivation so I guess we differ there and therefore differ on the 'polished-ness' I think is acceptable or not...no?

[Tekneek]

Well first, separate the $100k fee and being elected, because the two have different criteria.

I know. I was just stating that I couldn't understand doing either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well I dont think the money was her main motivation so I guess we differ there and therefore differ on the 'polished-ness' I think is acceptable or not...no?

Not her motivation, the motivation of group(s) hiring her. In this case, raising money. In other instances probably more about attracting attention than directly raising funds.

Although I'd probably argue how much of her motivation the checks provide too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I know. I was just stating that I couldn't understand doing either.

On that part, look no further than this snippet from the NYT coverage of the speech.

The convention had gathered here to try to turn the activism of the Tea Party rallies over the last year into actual political power. Her speech was the keynote event of the convention, and the big draw for many of the 600 people who had paid $549 to attend – another 500, organizers said, paid $349 just to see for her speech alone.

That's $174,500 just on tickets for the speech, basically $75k profit for the group (minus related expenses covered with the additional money & then some) off that one night, never mind donations and the influence on the number of full event attendees.

They wanted to draw a paying crowd, she delivered that for them. End of mystery on part one.

[Tekneek]

They wanted to draw a paying crowd, she delivered that for them. End of mystery on part one.

I was saying that I would never entertain the possibility. I fully understand that she has some appeal to the type of people who would attend that event. I have not been able to grasp what that appeal is based on, though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was saying that I would never entertain the possibility. I fully understand that she has some appeal to the type of people who would attend that event. I have not been able to grasp what that appeal is based on, though.

Well damn, I assumed you meant "the royal I" as it were. If you aren't in charge of speakers for an event that could max their revenue by booking her, not entertaining the possibility makes perfect sense.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think the better question Tekneek is trying to get some insight into is "What is her appeal to the person who is paying $349 just to hear her speak?"

[Tekneek]

Well damn, I assumed you meant "the royal I" as it were. If you aren't in charge of speakers for an event that could max their revenue by booking her, not entertaining the possibility makes perfect sense.

I would hope that, were I in charge of an event, it would be for people who would be more inclined to deal with substance/reality. I cannot honestly say that I aspire to perpetrate that kind of fraud. That I would pocket money for parading somebody like that in front of them. It seems like the kind of thing only a con artist would do, since I cannot understand why anybody would pay any sum of money to see her speak. Going to Toastmasters would probably be more enlightening.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have not been able to grasp what that appeal is based on, though.

As I've said before in this thread & others, that is a tougher proposition. But there's clearly a combination of her looks, her gender, and some form of "it" charisma (as in "whatever it is, she's got it) in play.

Then you can add factors like the sheer level of annoyance she brings to the left, that's not a drawing card that should be ignored. Anyone who can rile 'em that much has to be reasonably okay in most cases.

She is capable of hitting the long ball very quickly & in few words (her "how's that working out for ya" riff this weekend was a line drive rocket that splashed into the bay)

She's not the dismal lukewarm disappointment of McCain, probably can't count that out either.

A man certainly familiar with the whole charisma thing (whether I saw it or not) is Bill Clinton. And his comment during the last campaign was this:
Bill Clinton said Monday he understands why Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: because people relate to her.

"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton said. "Why she's doing well."

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, the former president described Palin's appeal by adding, "People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married.'"

Clinton said voters would think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008195867_apbillclintonpalin.html

Regular contributor to the NYT Stanley Fish said about her book that "I find the voice undeniably authentic (yes, I know the book was written “with the help” of Lynn Vincent, but many books, including my most recent one, are put together by an editor). It is the voice of small-town America, with its folk wisdom, regional pride, common sense, distrust of rhetoric (itself a rhetorical trope), love of country and instinctive (not doctrinal) piety."

Combined, those describe another part of her appeal, the image (myth?) of being "one of us", and seemingly able to do it to multiple constituencies at the same time. Much like the old gag about how important sincerity is ("once you can fake that then you've got it made"), part of her appeal lies in her talent for making people see her as they want to see her. If you can do that then you've won a big part of the battle. Don't ask me to explain how she does it, if anyone could fully do that then they'd be a far sight wealthier than I am today.

I think if you're looking for any one answer, or even a fairly narrowly defined answer then you're probably going to be disappointed. Her popularity doesn't seem to be about any one thing, it's the combination of those things that makes up the whole.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would hope that, were I in charge of an event, it would be for people who would be more inclined to deal with substance/reality.

I've tried to address some of the "why she appeals" stuff in another post but seeing this one afterwards, let me try it again.

Here's the "reality": Hearing her deliver a few rips on Obama is worth $349 to enough people to fill the room. You're talking about enlightenment, they were looking for entertainment, that's two really different things.

Let's be clear, I'm not personally sold on Palin long term. I've said that several times previously, still say it today. But if I'd been in a position to comfortably pay $349 for the speech, I'd probably feel like I got my money's worth based on the single quote I mentioned earlier alone. It conveyed an adequate amount of contempt for the target, tweaked their minions, all the while dismissing the target at the same time. That pretty much summed up the feelings of the room in a nice neat ball, not unlike a song that manages to cover a lot of ground with a well turned lyric or two. I believe you're completely out of synch with the purpose of hearing her (or most speeches) if you're looking for something enlightening. This was about being entertained, probably simultaneously validated by hearing from a (seemingly) kindred spirit, same paying big bucks for a concert from a favorite band.

[RainMaker]

I would hope that, were I in charge of an event, it would be for people who would be more inclined to deal with substance/reality. I cannot honestly say that I aspire to perpetrate that kind of fraud. That I would pocket money for parading somebody like that in front of them. It seems like the kind of thing only a con artist would do, since I cannot understand why anybody would pay any sum of money to see her speak. Going to Toastmasters would probably be more enlightening.
People ultimately like having their point of view validated by someone else. That is what they are paying for.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm just tired of divisive politicians. (insert typical panerd post here). the right and the left are both just playing semantic games and fiddling while rome burns at this point, and feeding into the cycle of divisive politicians is not helping that...it's not helping the person on "main street" (who ironically she pretends to be, all the while being that same divisive-type politician) to have any greater voice in government, or a government that looks out for them anymore.

basically i feel sorry for people that support her, because i think in a lot of instances they are genuinely good people, but they've just been totally hoodwinked by this latest "establishment wrinkle" into thinking that she represents them, when really she's just "politics as usual" with a sheep-skin over it. Maybe in a lot of instances they're very "simple" folk also - i don't know. that's the impression i get from the limited number of them i've seen on tv...generally older voters, typically white, lower-to-middle class. they may (note i said MAY) lack the sophistication to see that they're being hoodwinked.

[Tekneek]

I think if you're looking for any one answer, or even a fairly narrowly defined answer then you're probably going to be disappointed. Her popularity doesn't seem to be about any one thing, it's the combination of those things that makes up the whole.

I suppose, then, that it will never make sense to me. Until she started talking, it didn't really matter to me. When you crash and burn so hard when being interviewed by Katie Couric (known softball thrower, and I don't mean fast pitch either), you scare me. When you go out purporting to support various medical research causes, while deriding grants that actually go towards such research, you frighten me more. She seems incredibly ignorant to me, and worse is that she doesn't admit it. When asked about something that she cannot answer, she seems to just make something up. Like the kid in class who didn't read the chapter last night, but hopes they can pull a bullshit answer out real quick and get by.


Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

All of them? Any of them? That's a BS answer, on a softball question.

[JonInMiddleGA]

All of them? Any of them? That's a BS answer, on a softball question.

Yeah, I think you're probably going to struggle with grasping her appeal, because there's a great number of people who could care less about what magazines she reads and found the question even dumber than you find her answer.

[RainMaker]

As I've said before in this thread & others, that is a tougher proposition. But there's clearly a combination of her looks, her gender, and some form of "it" charisma (as in "whatever it is, she's got it) in play.

Then you can add factors like the sheer level of annoyance she brings to the left, that's not a drawing card that should be ignored. Anyone who can rile 'em that much has to be reasonably okay in most cases.

She is capable of hitting the long ball very quickly & in few words (her "how's that working out for ya" riff this weekend was a line drive rocket that splashed into the bay)

She's not the dismal lukewarm disappointment of McCain, probably can't count that out either.

A man certainly familiar with the whole charisma thing (whether I saw it or not) is Bill Clinton. And his comment during the last campaign was this:
Bill Clinton said Monday he understands why Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: because people relate to her.

"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton said. "Why she's doing well."

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, the former president described Palin's appeal by adding, "People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married.'"

Clinton said voters would think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008195867_apbillclintonpalin.html

Regular contributor to the NYT Stanley Fish said about her book that "I find the voice undeniably authentic (yes, I know the book was written “with the help” of Lynn Vincent, but many books, including my most recent one, are put together by an editor). It is the voice of small-town America, with its folk wisdom, regional pride, common sense, distrust of rhetoric (itself a rhetorical trope), love of country and instinctive (not doctrinal) piety."

Combined, those describe another part of her appeal, the image (myth?) of being "one of us", and seemingly able to do it to multiple constituencies at the same time. Much like the old gag about how important sincerity is ("once you can fake that then you've got it made"), part of her appeal lies in her talent for making people see her as they want to see her. If you can do that then you've won a big part of the battle. Don't ask me to explain how she does it, if anyone could fully do that then they'd be a far sight wealthier than I am today.

I think if you're looking for any one answer, or even a fairly narrowly defined answer then you're probably going to be disappointed. Her popularity doesn't seem to be about any one thing, it's the combination of those things that makes up the whole.

I guess that's the thing I don't get. The last thing I want out of a President is someone like me. I like to get drunk, play video games, procrastinate, and watch TV. I don't want someone who enjoys watching a Hoarders marathon on A&E, I want some geeky person who cares about nothing but the country and the different aspects of it.

Sort of like a Doctor. If I'm going into surgery, I don't want some guy I can relate to. I don't want the guy who spent his Thursday nights in college getting hammered and taking home fat chicks while skipping class the next day. I want the nerdy kid who didn't leave his dorm for years and dedicated his life to studying medicine.

Someone I can relate to is fine if it's someone I want to watch a ballgame or go to Vegas with. Not someone I want to run the free world.

[Tekneek]

I've tried to address some of the "why she appeals" stuff in another post but seeing this one afterwards, let me try it again.

I appreciate you trying to help me understand. I feel closer to understanding why somebody might pay for that, although it seems rather expensive to me. It seems unlikely that it will ever make sense to me, but it does not have to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, I think you're probably going to struggle with grasping her appeal, because there's a great number of people who could care less about what magazines she reads and found the question even dumber than you find her answer.

Really? That's a perfectly valid question to ask a candidate for the executive branch of government, and a pretty big softball question IMO. Who are these people who don't care about how she formed her worldview and can we send them down to your part of the country before we proceed with the partitioning? Because I don't want anybody that....whatever that is, up here.

[DaddyTorgo]

I guess that's the thing I don't get. The last thing I want out of a President is someone like me. I like to get drunk, play video games, procrastinate, and watch TV. I don't want someone who enjoys watching a Hoarders marathon on A&E, I want some geeky person who cares about nothing but the country and the different aspects of it.

Sort of like a Doctor. If I'm going into surgery, I don't want some guy I can relate to. I don't want the guy who spent his Thursday nights in college getting hammered and taking home fat chicks while skipping class the next day. I want the nerdy kid who didn't leave his dorm for years and dedicated his life to studying medicine.

Someone I can relate to is fine if it's someone I want to watch a ballgame or go to Vegas with. Not someone I want to run the free world.

Seriously. Why wouldn't you want the most educated person you could get (or at least a person who is highly educated) to be entrusted with such an important role? What's the appeal of having Homer Simpson in the White House?? I honestly don't get it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess that's the thing I don't get. The last thing I want out of a President is someone like me. I like to get drunk, play video games, procrastinate, and watch TV. I don't want someone who enjoys watching a Hoarders marathon on A&E, I want some geeky person who cares about nothing but the country and the different aspects of it. ... Someone I can relate to is fine if it's someone I want to watch a ballgame or go to Vegas with. Not someone I want to run the free world.

I suggest, young padawan, that your lack of confidence is an indication of how far you still have to go ;)

Okay, more seriously now, here's where I think you part ways from a lot of the country on that. Without hesitation, I can say I believe I'd be happier with the state of the nation right this second if I had been running the country for the last 8 years. I believe that a lot of other people would say the same thing (about themselves, not about me).

Since we aren't in a position where that's likely to come up, what's the next best thing? Either find someone whose positions we like better than our own (dunno about you but those are pretty rare animals for me) or the next best option might be to find someone who seems to relate to us, hoping even against hope that they might do the right/best/correct thing just as we believe we would have done ourselves if given the chance.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I think you're probably going to struggle with grasping her appeal, because there's a great number of people who could care less about what magazines she reads and found the question even dumber than you find her answer.

+1

Really? That's a perfectly valid question to ask a candidate for the executive branch of government, and a pretty big softball question IMO.

It's not a valid question in the eyes of people who view intellectualism with disdain and the mainstream media with derision. And these people a) make up the Tea Party and b) make up a significant core of today's GOP.

[Tekneek]

Yeah, I think you're probably going to struggle with grasping her appeal, because there's a great number of people who could care less about what magazines she reads and found the question even dumber than you find her answer.

I have to say, you cannot be informed about what is happening in the world if you aren't reading any newspapers or magazines (at that level). It seems as if you think the magazine part refers to rags like People. There are plenty of good magazines that she could have named, like National Review, New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Globalist, or Harvard International Review. I'm just touching on a few that come to mind. That she had no idea what she reads to stay informed, means to me that she reads NOTHING to stay informed. I find it to be a very relevant conversation.

[DaddyTorgo]

I have to say, you cannot be informed about what is happening in the world if you aren't reading any newspapers or magazines. It seems as if you think the magazine part refers to rags like People. There are plenty of good magazines that she could have named, like National Review, New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Globalist, or Harvard International Review. I'm just touching on a few that come to mind. That she had no idea what she reads to stay informed, means to me that she reads NOTHING to stay informed. I find it to be a very relevant conversation.

Shit - I think the American people would have accepted "Time" or "Newsweek" for chrissakes.

[flere-imsaho]

That she had no idea what she reads to stay informed, means to me that she reads NOTHING to stay informed. I find it to be a very relevant conversation.

Yeah, it's almost as if she just makes decisions from the gut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness). I don't know anyone in today's America who would prefer that to a well-educated, well-read, "elite" President.

:D

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seriously. Why wouldn't you want the most educated person you could get (or at least a person who is highly educated) to be entrusted with such an important role? What's the appeal of having Homer Simpson in the White House?? I honestly don't get it.

Oh hell, that one is easy to answer (FINALLY, an easy question in today's portion of the thread).

Because a lot of us have had too much first hand experience with "educated idiots" and believe that Homer Simpson could do better than the majority of them.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's not a valid question in the eyes of people who view intellectualism with disdain and the mainstream media with derision. And these people a) make up the Tea Party and b) make up a significant core of today's GOP.

I suppose I don't understand the mindset of those who view intellectualism with disdain. Maybe that's a broader question that deserves it's own thread, but what's so disdainful about intellectualism and being intelligent? Why this romanticism about stupidity or ignorance?

Like I said to Jon - I don't want those type of people here when we repartition the country, so can we just send them all down to his neck of the woods? He seems to be more okay with that (note: not saying you're anti-intellectual Jon, because frankly I don't think you are.)

[DaddyTorgo]

Oh hell, that one is easy to answer (FINALLY, an easy question in today's portion of the thread).

Because a lot of us have had too much first hand experience with "educated idiots" and believe that Homer Simpson could do better than the majority of them.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather an educated person dealing with issues like the deficit or international relations than Homer Simpson with his finger on the button and the ability to send American men+women to their deaths.

At least an educated person is more willing to listen to different opinions (as shown by Obama, who if anything is listening to too many opinions) rather than just "leading from the gut" (which if you'll recall is how we ended up with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are turning into quagmires, and eroded the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration.

If one (speaking in the generic 3rd person to avoid making it personal - so let's avoid a tangential back-and-forth hmm?) has had too many experiences with what one claims are "educated idiots" then perhaps one owes it to themselves to look in the mirror and consider whether the problem is not with the "educated idiots" but with oneself.

[flere-imsaho]

I suppose I don't understand the mindset of those who view intellectualism with disdain. Maybe that's a broader question that deserves it's own thread, but what's so disdainful about intellectualism and being intelligent? Why this romanticism about stupidity or ignorance?

The world's a nicer place when everything can be simple and black and white. Tea Partiers see it this way, and distrust intellectuals who see a lot of shades of grey.

"You're either with us or against us."

[DaddyTorgo]

The world's a nicer place when everything can be simple and black and white. Tea Partiers see it this way, and distrust intellectuals who see a lot of shades of grey.

"You're either with us or against us."

the funny thing is, in many aspects of my life (say the legal system for example) I am a very black-and-white person. one reason why people say i would have made a good cop, or a good lawyer. but when it comes to things of increasing complexity one has to realize that with the multitude of inputs into a given system the resulting output is going to be some shade of grey.

[Greyroofoo]

I think tea partiers hate the the intellectuals who sit in their "ivory towers" who come up with theories but don't actually have to apply any of them. They can sit there thinking but not actually produce anything but bullshit.

They like the people with who become entrepreneurs that create jobs and actually have to abide by the "real world".

I wouldn't consider myself a tea partier but am interested in any movement that shakes up the current system.

[DaddyTorgo]

Being an entrepreneur doesn't mean that somebody isn't an intellectual though.

Honestly in most/a lot of cases, it takes more intellect to be an entrepreneur than to go work for "COMPANY X" on the assembly line, or whatever else. Because as an entrepreneur (says the entrepreneur here), a lot of what you are seeking to leverage and succeed based on, is your intellectual capital advantage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have to say, you cannot be informed about what is happening in the world if you aren't reading any newspapers or magazines (at that level).

I'd disagree in that what they give you is their slant - good, bad, indifferent - on what's happening in the world. And with a subtext of whatever they'd like you to think/believe about topic X.

It seems as if you think the magazine part refers to rags like People.

No, and you'll have to trust me, that's not it at all. I get what Couric was shooting for, I just draw a different conclusion to their relevance.

That she had no idea what she reads to stay informed, means to me that she reads NOTHING to stay informed. I find it to be a very relevant conversation.

Will you at least grant me that I'm current on topics at a rate ahead of the general population of 50% +1? Screw what my take on them is for this purpose, just that I'm aware of the existence of issues X, Y, Z? If not then you can ignore the rest of this because you kind of have to accept that stipulation for this point to work. If so, then let's carry on to the point.

How is it possible that I'm fairly aware of the issues at hand but can't tell you what magazine I read last? Or that I can't name a single magazine I read on a regular basis? The sheer number of sources available plus the incredible accessibility of information in today's multimedia not only means there's a lot out there but that there's also less brand awareness than probably ever before. Did I read article X on ajc.com, onlineathens.com, or latimes.com? Who the fuck knows, the content was largely the same regardless of the source. Did something come from The Heritage Foundation or The Cato Institute or The National Review? Hell if I know, once I've vetted the source to my own satisfaction then the specifics of where it came from matter only insofar as someone needs me to point them to a copy and a little Googling tends to turn that up.

The other thing that I'm starting to sense here is what I kidded RainMaker about earlier in the thread: a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs/thoughts/ideas.

I'm quite well behind the concept of taking relevant input into a situation -- i.e. give me everything you've got about the status of North Korea's governmental stability, weapons/military capability, detailed economic situation, cultural interpretations of various stimuli, etc, etc, and et al -- but at the end of the day, those inputs combined with what should be simple common sense to determine a course or courses of action concerning them. I don't doubt my ability to grasp whatever information is relevant to a given situation, I don't believe Palin does either (and I suspect that's a portion of her appeal as well), but sincerely believe that more often than not the general direction of what to do/where to aim is reasonably obvious & then it becomes a matter of tweaking those to fit as well as possible to at least move in the desired direction.

In short, it's not all brain surgery. Now ask yourself another question or two: How often does a voter find themselves thinking "damn, how stupid does a politician have to be to get ISSUE X wrong?". And how often is that same stupid politician carrying one or more degrees, three allegedly intellectual magazines in their briefcase, and a staff of speechwriters (and/or lobbyists) still needed to make them sound like they have even the slightest clue? Combine the correct answers to those questions & you'll see where the magazine flap is a non-issue for a lot of us.

[JPhillips]

I find the voice undeniably authentic (yes, I know the book was written “with the help” of Lynn Vincent

Fantastic

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I don't mind Palin. In fact, I think she can be very funny and knows full well what she's doing. I think she's actually savvy.

Having said that, I am perfectly fine with her having a speaking career and staying out of elected office.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'd disagree in that what they give you is their slant - good, bad, indifferent - on what's happening in the world. And with a subtext of whatever they'd like you to think/believe about topic X.


Will you at least grant me that I'm current on topics at a rate ahead of the general population of 50% +1? Screw what my take on them is for this purpose, just that I'm aware of the existence of issues X, Y, Z? If not then you can ignore the rest of this because you kind of have to accept that stipulation for this point to work. If so, then let's carry on to the point.

How is it possible that I'm fairly aware of the issues at hand but can't tell you what magazine I read last? Or that I can't name a single magazine I read on a regular basis? The sheer number of sources available plus the incredible accessibility of information in today's multimedia not only means there's a lot out there but that there's also less brand awareness than probably ever before. Did I read article X on ajc.com, onlineathens.com, or latimes.com? Who the fuck knows, the content was largely the same regardless of the source. Did something come from The Heritage Foundation or The Cato Institute or The National Review? Hell if I know, once I've vetted the source to my own satisfaction then the specifics of where it came from matter only insofar as someone needs me to point them to a copy and a little Googling tends to turn that up.

The other thing that I'm starting to sense here is what I kidded RainMaker about earlier in the thread: a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs/thoughts/ideas.

I'm quite well behind the concept of taking relevant input into a situation -- i.e. give me everything you've got about the status of North Korea's governmental stability, weapons/military capability, detailed economic situation, cultural interpretations of various stimuli, etc, etc, and et al -- but at the end of the day, those inputs combined with what should be simple common sense to determine a course or courses of action concerning them. I don't doubt my ability to grasp whatever information is relevant to a given situation, I don't believe Palin does either (and I suspect that's a portion of her appeal as well), but sincerely believe that more often than not the general direction of what to do/where to aim is reasonably obvious & then it becomes a matter of tweaking those to fit as well as possible to at least move in the desired direction.

In short, it's not all brain surgery. Now ask yourself another question or two: How often does a voter find themselves thinking "damn, how stupid does a politician have to be to get ISSUE X wrong?". And how often is that same stupid politician carrying one or more degrees, three allegedly intellectual magazines in their briefcase, and a staff of speechwriters (and/or lobbyists) still needed to make them sound like they have even the slightest clue? Combine the correct answers to those questions & you'll see where the magazine flap is a non-issue for a lot of us.

I know this wasn't to me, but let me chime in.

Yes, magazines/websites/MSM/whatever all give you news with a slant. It's up to you as an educated reader to take their bias into account when reading them and mentally "correct for it." The process of doing so is a key piece of being a critical thinker, and it's something that is a good thing for an elected official to have, the ability to manage multiple inputs and evaluate them and determine a course of action based on the sum of the parts rather than one part that is just "particularly shiny" or whatever.

I would grant that you are more educated and up on the issues than the majority of the population yes. And to be honest, I couldn't tell you what was the last article I read in a magazine either. Although I'd venture it would be "The Nation," and if you were asking about a newspaper it would be the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Just the fact that me (or you, or whoever) can rattle those off is enough though. I don't think Couric was going to come back and say "what article?" and start trying to hit her hard on that. She just wanted some creampuff "I read the New York Times over coffee on the plane or in the hotel every morning" type answer.

And I personally doubt Palin's ability to grasp whatever info is relevant to a particular situation. She's not exactly "educated" by most senses of the word. How long did it take her to finish college, community college no less (right?), after how many transfers, with a degree in communications? After which she went on to be a tv news anchor. Not exactly a job requiring intelligence and critical thinking. She quit her only real job requiring intellect and difficult decision-making halfway into it. Not a great track-record. She's yet to demonstrate the ability to grasp information relevant to particular situations on anything more than a surface level.

As far as your comments about "ISSUE X," this is where I think the disagreement comes in. Me personally, if I see an educated person come to a conclusion different than my own I don't immediately go "man that person is so stupid, their decision was wrong...how can intellectuals be so stupid!" I might disagree with it from a policy level, or believe that they didn't weigh all the factors correctly, but if they're reasonably well-educated then I am at least open to considering the possibility that they might in fact be smarter than me, or have access to more information than I have, or be considering additional follow-on actions, or factors that I didn't consider.

[Tekneek]

In short, it's not all brain surgery. Now ask yourself another question or two: How often does a voter find themselves thinking "damn, how stupid does a politician have to be to get ISSUE X wrong?". And how often is that same stupid politician carrying one or more degrees, three allegedly intellectual magazines in their briefcase, and a staff of speechwriters (and/or lobbyists) still needed to make them sound like they have even the slightest clue? Combine the correct answers to those questions & you'll see where the magazine flap is a non-issue for a lot of us.

None of which explains why she said, "All of them? Any of them?" It is one thing to find them completely irrelevant, by conscious decision, and seek other sources. I'm not sold that this is some calculated decision by her, but rather a lifestyle. Even saying "I start off at news.google.com and don't target specific sources" would've gone a long way. The fact that nothing came to her quickly reflects that staying informed is simply not a part of her life, which goes right along with all of her other interviews and speeches.

It's why she goes out ridiculing fruit fly research, while at the same time claiming she is totally for Autism research, blissfully unaware that there are established connections between fruit fly research and Autism research. The contradiction is important. Her reluctance to be informed directly contributed to a contradiction in what she claimed to be important. Not everything in the world can be boiled down to what somebody from a small town thinks is "common sense." Her "common sense" told her there could be no connection, but it was wrong. Her ignorance led her to draw the wrong conclusion. I have no doubt that her choice of being blissfully ignorant would lead to many more bad choices, based on a "common sense" view that doesn't allow for the complex reality we live in.

[RainMaker]

I suggest, young padawan, that your lack of confidence is an indication of how far you still have to go ;)

Okay, more seriously now, here's where I think you part ways from a lot of the country on that. Without hesitation, I can say I believe I'd be happier with the state of the nation right this second if I had been running the country for the last 8 years. I believe that a lot of other people would say the same thing (about themselves, not about me).

Since we aren't in a position where that's likely to come up, what's the next best thing? Either find someone whose positions we like better than our own (dunno about you but those are pretty rare animals for me) or the next best option might be to find someone who seems to relate to us, hoping even against hope that they might do the right/best/correct thing just as we believe we would have done ourselves if given the chance.
There is a difference though in knowing what you want and knowing how to implement it. If I had a tumor, I know I'd want it out of my system as fast as possible, but I wouldn't be the one telling the doctor how to do it.

And I guess you can call it a lack of self-confidence, but I think it's also just being realistic. I can give an opinion on how I think an economic matter should be handled, but I've never studied economics in depth and dedicated my life to understanding it and the impact various events have on our economy. My opinion would be as educated as my opinion on how to remove a tumor from my body.

[JonInMiddleGA]

She just wanted some creampuff "I read the New York Times over coffee on the plane or in the hotel every morning" type answer.

This is an area I think Palin is actually smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. No matter what answer she gives to the question, it's a losing proposition to the majority of people since there's no publication that gets the endorsement of the majority. In short, it was a no-win question & even if it was more instinct than planning or preparation, I believe there's a very good chance that she knew that at some level.

Let's be honest, if she says something the NYT then she loses credibility with some potential voters. If she says some publication from The Cato Institute she gets vilified by highly unlikely voters same as she got anyway.

For as dumb as she is alleged to be, she's sitting a hell of a lot closer to the WH than a lot of alleged geniuses.

As far as your comments about "ISSUE X," this is where I think the disagreement comes in. Me personally, if I see an educated person come to a conclusion different than my own I don't immediately go "man that person is so stupid, their decision was wrong...how can intellectuals be so stupid!" I might disagree with it from a policy level, or believe that they didn't weigh all the factors correctly, but if they're reasonably well-educated then I am at least open to considering the possibility that they might in fact be smarter than me, or have access to more information than I have, or be considering additional follow-on actions, or factors that I didn't consider.

Let's take those possibilities at the end one by one:
-- Smarter? First, that doesn't always equate to "right" or even "better". The much-maligned financial bigwigs are definitely "smarter" or "wiser to the ways of" uber-money than I am. But I haven't bankrupted a company (not yet anyway).

-- More info? I think it's reasonable to believe that a President can pretty much get whatever info they want and in whatever format they want it.
I believe that point gets rendered largely moot once you're in the office and ultimately it matters not one iota whether I've got most of it sitting here in Athens nor whether she had a lot of it sitting in Alaska or even on the campaign trail. Neither of us were going to be able to do a damned thing with most of that information until we get to that seat, otherwise it's a ultimately the equivalent of an intellectual (or more base, information junkie) sex toy for mental masturbation.

-- Other/unintended consequences -- That last one might just come down to a matter of trust. Whether you believe a person is capable of consistently considering those factors before setting a final course. Goes back to what I said earlier about basic principles + relevant info --> best available course.

[RainMaker]

The thing with Palin is that I don't think she is authentic at all. I think she tries to play to a base and says what she's told to. I just don't see a lot of creativity or innovation from her.

While I believe Bush was a really bad President, I also felt he was authentic. I truly believe he felt what he was doing was best for the country. When watching Sarah Palin, I kind of feel like I'm watching an episode of Spin City. Some smart people behind her trying to mold a blank slate into something they want her to be to a group of people.

[QuikSand]

Jon is just knocking them out of the park in this thread, it's like watching the home run derby.

On the specific issue of the Couric/Palin interview talking about news media, I think you have to keep in mind the deep contempt that most of Palin's intended audience has for the major media outlets. I'm not sure I totally agree with the calculus here, but when asked basically "what papers do you read?" she likely realized there's the potential to trigger a landmine there... say you read the New York Times or some other highly credentialed paper, and you come off like you're sleeping with the enemy. Say that you mostly read the Anchorage Salmonwrapper (or whatever it is) and you come off like a backwoods rube. What if you go to a standard conservative bastion like the Wall Street Journal -- that plays against your plain-spoken hockey mom persona. So you say what? Some Moonie paper? Some hackjob right-wing rag from San Jose? Nah, at that point you're just at risk of endorsing something that might get you into trouble. If you smell this question as a political landmine... and again, it's your own base that sets it up this way... then the best answer, in a flash of judgment, may well seem like a non-answer deferral. And that's what she did.

So, in my view, it wasn't that she is/was too stupid to be able to name a newspaper. She was actually evidencing some degree of "thinking on her feet" albeit maybe not that artfully handled.

[QuikSand]

Damn, I was typing as Jon ran over the same point that occurred to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I believe Bush was a really bad President, I also felt he was authentic. I truly believe he felt what he was doing was best for the country. When watching Sarah Palin, I kind of feel like I'm watching an episode of Spin City. Some smart people behind her trying to mold a blank slate into something they want her to be to a group of people.

If those are the right people with the right intentions then I don't particularly give a fuck, y'know? But at the same time, I think there's more of her in the gimmick (to borrow the wrestling term) than anyone else, but as with any candidate there are people working on how to sell the image(s).

Ultimately though my concern is, pretty much as with anyone else, what their percentage of getting stuff right will turn out to be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon is just knocking them out of the park in this thread, it's like watching the home run derby.

Damn, thanks.

Just imagine if I was actually sold on her and could do more from firsthand instead of it being a somewhat intellectual exercise (weak pun intended)

She was actually evidencing some degree of "thinking on her feet" albeit maybe not that artfully handled.

And that's something she's going to need to get better at between now & any eventual run. Some degree of "not slick" comes off okay, but she probably needs to improve on the response time between her brain saying "landmine" and her mouth starting to move in a given direction.

[Flasch186]

Jon is just knocking them out of the park in this thread, it's like watching the home run derby.

On the specific issue of the Couric/Palin interview talking about news media, I think you have to keep in mind the deep contempt that most of Palin's intended audience has for the major media outlets. I'm not sure I totally agree with the calculus here, but when asked basically "what papers do you read?" she likely realized there's the potential to trigger a landmine there... say you read the New York Times or some other highly credentialed paper, and you come off like you're sleeping with the enemy. Say that you mostly read the Anchorage Salmonwrapper (or whatever it is) and you come off like a backwoods rube. What if you go to a standard conservative bastion like the Wall Street Journal -- that plays against your plain-spoken hockey mom persona. So you say what? Some Moonie paper? Some hackjob right-wing rag from San Jose? Nah, at that point you're just at risk of endorsing something that might get you into trouble. If you smell this question as a political landmine... and again, it's your own base that sets it up this way... then the best answer, in a flash of judgment, may well seem like a non-answer deferral. And that's what she did.

So, in my view, it wasn't that she is/was too stupid to be able to name a newspaper. She was actually evidencing some degree of "thinking on her feet" albeit maybe not that artfully handled.

Well, I think, based on the quotes out of McCain's camp and their book, I'd say your giving her a lot more credit for gameplannig and strategy than they did just a year and half ago. Fair points though that if you agree she was being that strategic she may have been pondering the ramifications of Answers (A-E) or whatever time would allow before answering. Doesnt change the fact that she thought writing things on her hand for a speech to be televised around the world, or a Q & A session to just as many people wherein she felt it A) appropriate or B) did what one might do in school when cheating to find the answer on your hand.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-02-07-palincrib.jpg

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, I think, based on the quotes out of McCain's camp and their book,

If that group told me the time I'd check two watches and the Naval Observatory website. They've got slightly more credibility with me at this point as Jon Stewart .

Fair points though that if you agree she was being that strategic she may have been pondering the ramifications of Answers (A-E) or whatever time would allow before answering.

I don't actually think she's gotten practiced enough to have been reading all the various routes, more likely to me at this point that she went through something that sounded like "oh shit, here comes a LB, who the fuck is open ... dammit, somebody get open before I'm ... whew, that was close but incomplete is better than a sack any time"

[RainMaker]

I agree with Jon on the newspaper/magazine question. Really a no-win for her. If she says the New York times she hurts herself with the base. If she says Fox News, she gets labeled a right-wing quack. If she says a local paper she's going to be labeled out of touch with the rest of the country.

I think her answer could have been more convincing which is the biggest problem with it. She kind of came across confused and wasn't expecting the question. If she casually just said "I sift through most of the major newspapers and news magazines out there and pick the stories I feel are most relevant. I don't particularly have a favorite publication as I feel each outlet offers a unique perspective". She would have been fine.

[Tekneek]

So, there are people who think she bumbles her way through these things because it is what her supporters want? She wants to be known for this? That is her plan for victory?

[ISiddiqui]

As I've said before in this thread & others, that is a tougher proposition. But there's clearly a combination of her looks, her gender, and some form of "it" charisma (as in "whatever it is, she's got it) in play.

I think the charisma portion can't be discounted too much (though it is). She may be a horrible policy person (I guess depending on your point of view), but she can sure deliver a speech. She has personal charisma in spades. A lot of times that can be enough to go far.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is an area I think Palin is actually smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. No matter what answer she gives to the question, it's a losing proposition to the majority of people since there's no publication that gets the endorsement of the majority. In short, it was a no-win question & even if it was more instinct than planning or preparation, I believe there's a very good chance that she knew that at some level.

Let's be honest, if she says something the NYT then she loses credibility with some potential voters. If she says some publication from The Cato Institute she gets vilified by highly unlikely voters same as she got anyway.

For as dumb as she is alleged to be, she's sitting a hell of a lot closer to the WH than a lot of alleged geniuses.



Let's take those possibilities at the end one by one:
-- Smarter? First, that doesn't always equate to "right" or even "better". The much-maligned financial bigwigs are definitely "smarter" or "wiser to the ways of" uber-money than I am. But I haven't bankrupted a company (not yet anyway).

-- More info? I think it's reasonable to believe that a President can pretty much get whatever info they want and in whatever format they want it.
I believe that point gets rendered largely moot once you're in the office and ultimately it matters not one iota whether I've got most of it sitting here in Athens nor whether she had a lot of it sitting in Alaska or even on the campaign trail. Neither of us were going to be able to do a damned thing with most of that information until we get to that seat, otherwise it's a ultimately the equivalent of an intellectual (or more base, information junkie) sex toy for mental masturbation.

-- Other/unintended consequences -- That last one might just come down to a matter of trust. Whether you believe a person is capable of consistently considering those factors before setting a final course. Goes back to what I said earlier about basic principles + relevant info --> best available course.

straight-up...thanks for the reasoned and thoughtful response to my points.

[panerd]

I think what it comes down to is that the people not understanding her appeal (including me) don't agree with her politics or her worldview. It would be like convincing me why John Calipari is a good coach. I don't like the guy at all and continuously question his methods but in the end there is no questioning his results. People can question Palin but she sure gets asses in the seats.

With that said if I had to choose between Democrats, Republicans, and the supposed third entity Tea Party and they chose to run Palin for president I would be sitting out or voting for another Bob Barr like candidate that has no chance of winning. I have only had a chance to skim this thread (appreciate the shoutout DT :) ) so forgive me if I am repeating something already said on pages 1-3. But I think the establishment knows exactly what it is doing by sending Palin after this voting block. In the end she is ultimately just another supporter of big federal government, policing the world, war on drugs, etc that both the Republicans and Democrats have traded being in favor of (or against if they were the minority party) every time they were in power for the past 30+ years.

Ultimately cooler heads will prevail and we will have our typical two party race with both parties coming up with new ways to spend our money and money they don't have. Mark my words there will be some crisis in Fall 2011 that will call for immediate attention by both candidates because the future of mankind depends on them acting now and worrying about silly things like debts and deficits later.

[DaddyTorgo]

I tend to believe what the McCain camp has said about her - when that many people come out and all their stories agree on the broad brush-strokes it's difficult to imagine they're all in collusion to make her look bad. Particularly when a lot of them could be out there working for her and using her to springboard them to positions of more influence and $$.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...sometimes it really is a duck, and not some liberal conspiracy to make a wolf into a duck.

[Tekneek]

I think the charisma portion can't be discounted too much (though it is). She may be a horrible policy person (I guess depending on your point of view), but she can sure deliver a speech. She has personal charisma in spades. A lot of times that can be enough to go far.

Really? All the head bobs and winks just make me laugh. It doesn't win me over. I am not getting this "charisma" thing. She has had quite the opposite effect on me. The more I see/hear/read about her, the less I like her.

If McCain was more like McCain 2000, and didn't have the Palin albatross around his neck, he would've had a good shot at my vote. Bob Barr was going to be a tough sell (and that's after voting for the Libertarian candidate in '96, 2000, and '04), given his history (it didn't help when his VP candidate professed his love for Palin, as well).

[sterlingice]

This is an area I think Palin is actually smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. No matter what answer she gives to the question, it's a losing proposition to the majority of people since there's no publication that gets the endorsement of the majority. In short, it was a no-win question & even if it was more instinct than planning or preparation, I believe there's a very good chance that she knew that at some level.

Let's be honest, if she says something the NYT then she loses credibility with some potential voters. If she says some publication from The Cato Institute she gets vilified by highly unlikely voters same as she got anyway.

This has already been retread a couple of times in this thread but I've always thought it an interesting moment in the 2008 election (clarification: it wasn't really a pivotal moment as the bottom falling out of the economy pretty much wrote that part of history).

That somehow became this odd job interview question for Sarah Palin. I don't think it was Curic trying to bury Palin but it was a high inside pitch which looked like a softball. HR people always tell you to answer every question, even if it's a bad answer (that's a lie: I'm pretty sure that your interview is over once you answer the "Talk about a time you disagreed with your boss" question with "Well, there was that time I almost punched him").

As JIMGA and other mentioned, it was a bit of a no-win question but she needed to do her best to thread the needle. Instead she just took a mulligan, which was the unspoken option number 3. It became a big deal for people and one could argue overblown (tho I'd counter that most who that mattered for only had a skin-deep view of the election and hadn't really been paying attention).

But that did give you a great example of what punting on a job interview question looks like. While it might have been the right answer for that particular question, maybe it cost her in the long run as it inadvertantly fed another perception.

SI

[Tekneek]

But that did give you a great example of what punting on a job interview question looks like. While it might have been the right answer for that particular question, maybe it cost her in the long run as it inadvertantly fed another perception.

That was not a deal breaker for me (by itself), but it is an example of the things she did that made it hard for me to accept her being that close to the office. Were McCain twenty years younger, it might not have bothered me quite as much. There were other problems I had with McCain's 2008 campaign, but bringing Palin along forced me to do what I could to try and keep them from winning.