Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Beck and Palin didn't help or win

Douglas L. Hoffman, a previously unknown accountant from Lake Placid, ran as a Conservative, and drew the backing of social and fiscal conservatives like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck





Democrats won a special election in New York State’s northernmost Congressional district Tuesday, a setback for national conservatives who heavily promoted a third candidate in what became an intense debate over the direction of the Republican Party.

One can only hope that the right wingers continue their unabashed push to the extreme.

The battle became one of the most closely followed races in the nation, drawing in some of the biggest forces in politics in both parties. Republicans who viewed the race as a test of the party’s most deeply held conservative principles — including Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska; Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a presidential hopeful; and grass-roots groups that have forcefully opposed Democratic economic and health care policies — rallied behind Mr. Hoffman.

And they failed.


The finger pointing among Republicans started on Wednesday morning. Some conservatives were blaming the Republican Party for the loss, saying that if they had supported a more conservative candidate all along, the seat could have been won.

Victory has many parents, defeat is an orphan.

“I think Doug Hoffman likely would have won if he had been the Republican candidate from the get-go,” said Mike Huckabee, the former Republican presidential contender. “It wasn’t a spike in the end zone for the Democrats. They got that seat not because Democrats were brilliant, but because Republicans were stupid.”

Stupid? Par for the course.

Many conservatives attempted to frame Mr. Hoffman’s defeat as a victory, saying that despite Mr. Hoffman’s loss, conservatives prevailed because the moderate Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was forced out of the race.

Spin, spin, spin.

“Our number one goal was to make clear that the Republican Party cannot take someone as liberal as Dede Scozzafava and thrust her out on the voters and expect the voters just to accept it,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which worked to defeat Ms. Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who faced a challenge from Mr. Hoffman.

I rest my case. Still, pray tell, what is this NOM? Their website states opposition to same-sex marriage.

Leading conservative voices — including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and The Weekly Standard and the talk show personalities Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck — took on the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Scozzafava, who supports gay rights and abortion rights and had embraced some Democratic economic policies like the federal stimulus package. They labeled her as too liberal.

A veritable who's who of the hard right.

But the race was perhaps most notable for the fissures it opened in the Republican Party. Ms. Scozzafava, who was selected as the Republican nominee by the 11 leaders of the county committees that comprise this vast district along the Canadian border, was excoriated by Washington’s conservative establishment almost as soon as she was nominated.

County leaders chose a candidate that met with disapproval from the conservative establishment, much of which is Washington-based, or otherwise elite.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

A blithering idiot

No Buyers for Palin's Speeches

If need be, she could always downgrade to the bar mitzvah circuit: The New York Post reports that the Washington Speakers Bureau—which also represents George W. Bush, Laura Bush, and Condoleezza Rice—is having a hard time convincing potential clients to book Sarah Palin for $100,000 a pop. One industry expert tells the Post: “The big lecture buyers in the U.S. are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot.” Palin is believed to have quit her job as governor of Alaska early, in part, to earn more money. According to the source, many big lecture circuits are subscription series, and bookers are afraid of ticking off subscribers by putting her on the roster.

Sarah's lectures a tough sell (from NY Post)

Sarah Palinis said to have pocketed a $7 million advance for the 400-page memoir she turned in four months early, but she might not have such an easy time on the lecture circuit. After quitting as governor of Alaska in July, Palin signed with the top-notch Washington Speakers Bureau, which also reps George W. Bush, Laura Bush,
Condoleezza Rice, hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger, LA Dodgers manager Joe Torre and magician David Blaine.

Palin's bookers are said to be asking for $100,000 per speech, but an industry expert tells Page Six: "The big lecture buyers in the US are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot."

Many big lecture venues are subscription series, "and they don't want to tick people off," said our source. "Palin is polarizing, and some subscribers might cancel if she's on the lineup." Other lecture buyers are universities, which have a leftist slant, and corporations, which dislike controversy.

"Palin is so uninteresting to so many groups -- unless they are interested in moose hunting," said our insider. "What does she have to say? She can't even describe what she reads."

Palin likely quit as governor just months after losing the election as John McCain's vice-presidential running mate because of money. "She knew that if she waited until her term ended in 2010, these opportunities would be gone," said a source. "She would have lost millions by staying in office."

Palin's "Going Rogue: An American Life" is described by Harper publisher John Burnhamas "her words, her life, and it's all there in full and fascinating detail." Harper wouldn't discuss what Palin was paid.

Lynn Vincent, Palin's collaborator, wrote the book so fast, publication has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17.

How much can there be t say?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Palin Speaks to Investors in Hong Kong

Jonathon Stone, the chairman and CEO of CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, with Sarah Palin at a meeting in Hong Kong on Wednesday.





Just yesterday I was wondering what'd happened to her, and to day I wonder what she could have said of interest to this audience.


''I'm going to call it like I see it and I will share with you candidly a view right from Main Street, Main Street U.S.A.,'' Palin told a room full of asset managers and other finance professionals, according to a video of part of the speech obtained by The Associated Press. ''And how perhaps my view of Main Street ... how that affects you and your business.''

Main Street? Gimme a break.

It marked Palin's first major appearance since she resigned as governor in July, and the speech's location and international scope could help boost her credentials ahead of a possible bid for president in 2012. While she's thought to be considering that, her Hong Kong trip bore no political overtones, said Fred Malek, a friend and Palin adviser.

Going to Hong Kong is foreign policy experience?

In her speech -- closed to reporters -- Palin argued that many average Americans are uncomfortable with health care reforms that infringe on private enterprise, Chris Palmer, an American fund manager for Gartmore Investment Ltd., told reporters.

They need her to know that? Why not just watch or read some news?

In an apparent reference to tensions between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese that have led to riots, Palin mentioned China's ethnic problems, arguing they are ''a sign that China lacks mechanisms to deal with regional issues,'' Palmer said.

They'll love that in Peking (oops, my age shows: Beijing).

She also criticized the U.S. Federal Reserve's intervention in the economy over the last year and praised the conservative economic policies of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, according to another attendee who declined to be named because he didn't want to be seen as speaking on behalf of his company.

It is so easy to praise Ronald Reagan for his economic policies while ignoring their true impact and actual effects: he conducted deficit spending (Keynisian), cut taxes for the wealthy and threw the US into recession.

Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said Tuesday the group knew little about Palin's speech.

''We're curious as to what she's willing to say in private but not in public,'' Sevugan said. ''Are there other countries that she can see from her window that she doesn't want us to know about?''

Touche.

Friday, July 31, 2009

Palin chases the dollar signs

Look for Palin to take frequent journeys to the bank before going on the road to the White House.

Absolutely.

The public's attention span is short, so it is in Palin's self-interest to seek the gains that come with fame.

Also true.

The governor's Fairbanks farewell speech last Sunday, with its warnings about big government and attacks on the media -- even a celebration of hunting -- was tailored to tastes of America's political right.

Her base.


What the far right wants is red meat, served up bloody red.

We have, this week, Fox News' race-baiter Glen Beck calling President Obama "a racist" and accusing Obama of having a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

What is white culture? One thing it is is not black.

On CNN, Lou Dobbs has fanned the Birthers, challenging Obama to "provide the long-form birth certificate," and hinting -- without evidence -- that the certificate produced in last year's campaign is not "the real document."

Dobbs is a certified dirtbag, a hysterical demagogue.

As this column is written, CNN's "Larry King Live" is readying a lowbrow face-off: Judge Sonia Sotomayor's qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court will be discussed by left-wing publicity hound the Rev. Al Sharpton and right-wing attention seeker Ann Coulter.

Who cares what those two think? Judge Sotomayor is about to become a Justice, and whatever objections Coulter has are irrelevant.

Sarah Palin would fit cable TV "commentary" like a glove, witness her 2008 speeches about Obama "palling around with terrorists." If caught wordless, she could always wink at the camera.

William Kristol surely would love that.

Doubtless, the former governor will undergo analysis by the elite media's two ranking psychobabblers, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and Gail Sheehy of Vanity Fair. They've sucked every possible milligram of blood out of Hillary Clinton. But such attacks will only strengthen Palin's credentials with the right-thinking faithful.

Elite psychobabblers; love that. Yes, the more the liberals in the media attack her, the more Palin's supporters will love her.

The right does the nominating in the Republican Party, and two early deciding states -- Iowa, with its caucuses, and South Carolina with its primary -- are strongholds of the Christian right.

As well, Palin -- for the moment -- is an honest-to-goodness national celebrity.

Time will tell, but if she writes a book (well, if someone writes a book that she can say she wrote) the publicity will keep the spotlight on her. And she is surely going to travel and campaign for certain candidates, all of which themedia she loves to bash will cover.

Alaska lawmakers attending last week's National Council of State Legislators' meeting were spotted wearing buttons saying, "I'm from Alaska. Please don't ask me about her." A Washington, D.C., airport newsstand, displaying the Time magazine with Palin on the cover, put out a sign reading "Only two copies per customer." "Starting this afternoon, she's someone else's story," the Anchorage Daily News' irreverent "Alaskan Ear" column opined last Sunday.

They'll miss her. Until this month, I never thought any Alaska governor could match Wally Hickel's famous declaration: "We can't just let nature run wild."

But that was before Sarah Palin intoned: "Only dead fish go with the flow."

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Sarah and Hillary

This is a good column from Dowd.


July 29, 2009 - Op-Ed Columnist
Sarah Grabs the Grievance Grab Bag From Hillary
By Maureen Dowd

WASHINGTON

The woman who was prematurely counted in is out. And the woman who was prematurely counted out is in.

Goodbye, Sarah. Hello, Hillary.

Palin should not be counted out.

In their vivid twin performances Sunday — Hillary on “Meet the Press” in Washington and Sarah at her farewell picnic in Fairbanks — two of the most celebrated and polarizing women in American political history offered a fascinating contrast.

Hillary, who so often in the past came across as aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing, was confident and comfortable in her role as top diplomat, discussing the world with mastery and shrugging off suggestions that she has been disappeared by her former rival, the president.

She is almost 62; in politics, that's middle age.

Sarah, who was once a blazingly confident media darling, came across as aggrieved, paranoid and press-loathing in her new role as bizarre babe-at-large, a Nixon with hair extensions ranting about “American apologetics,” which sounds like a cross between apologists and Dianetics.

Her bizarro followers probably clapped and cried.

Sarah once criticized Hillary for being a whiny presidential contender, arguing that women who want “to progress this country” should not complain about being under a “sharper microscope,” but instead should just work harder to prove themselves capable. Now Sarah is a whiny presidential contender, complaining about the sharper microscope that women wanting to progress this country are under and rejecting advice to work harder to prove herself capable.

Clips of Nixon after losing the California governorship have been played in the last few days; he looked awful, but, then again, the quality of the film is terrible. The voice is unmistakable. 6 years after telling the press they wouldn't "have Nixon to kick around any more" he won the presidency. That must be kept in mind.

The Alaskan who shot to stardom a year ago as the tough embodiment of Diana the Huntress has now stepped down as governor and morphed into what the Republicans always caricatured Hillary as — preachy, screechy and angry.

And Hillary, who is at long last in a job that she earned on her own merits, has lost that irritating question mark she used to carry around above her head like a thunder cloud: What is Hillary owed because of what she gave up, and went through, for Bill?

During the campaign, Hillary got in trouble for pretending to be more than she was, for bragging about dodging bullets in Bosnia and making peace in Northern Ireland. Just so, Sarah got in trouble for pretending to be knowledgeable about foreign affairs just because she lived across the Bering Strait from Russia.

But now Hillary does not have to tell stretchers. She’s fully qualified for her job and doesn’t sound defensive. Now Sarah has taken up Hillary’s old habit of keeping grudges and playing the victim and blaming the press for her own mistakes in judgment and gaffes.

If Sarah’s problem on the trail was that she knew too little, Hillary’s was that she knew too much. Before her misty turn in New Hampshire, Hillary’s wonkiness got in the way of her ability to make people comfortable.

Sarah, lacking Hillary’s cerebral side, has decided to wing it, Quayle-style, and go only for the visceral. That’s why she now sounds like a demagogue, embodying grievances and playing to people’s worst impulses.

Some people love it. Not many, but some.

Hillary’s radiant robustness, on the other hand, even with a sore elbow, makes the dictators in Iran and North Korea we’re so worried about seem like frail, little creatures.

Obama advisers say privately that the president truly respects the woman he ran against, and that they have a good relationship, so good it has even surprised Hillary. Certainly, she doesn’t have to worry that this president’s gaze is going to drift over her shoulder to some pretty thing behind her. In this White House, Barack Obama is the pretty thing who is taken with Hillary’s serious, smartest-girl-at-Wellesley aura. In a funny way, he’s the man of her dreams.

His support of her has allowed her to keep her paranoia in check — even with Richard Holbrooke and Joe Biden biting off parts of her portfolio.

Just to make sure it stays that way, Obama advisers told Hillary that she could not bring on board Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide de camp nicknamed G.K., “Grassy Knoll,” for his tendency to stoke her grievances.

In her cuckoo speech in Fairbanks, Sarah warned Alaskans to “be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn’t come free.” Funny coming from a woman who charged the Alaskan taxpayers every time she worked from Wasilla.

And in a state with a socialist slush fund, er, a royalties fund.

She also went after that old conservative villain Hollywood, saying, “They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets” for “their anti-Second Amendment causes.”

The Second Amendment, guns, is the conservative favorite these days.

Sarah seems happily oblivious that she benefited from Hollywood casting techniques. Just as movie directors have beautiful young actresses playing nuclear physicists and Harvard professors, knowing the fusion of sex appeal and a heavyweight profession will excite, the novelty of a beautiful former beauty queen and TV reporter cast in a powerful role that has featured dour, gray old men like Dick Cheney was thrilling. At first.

As McCain pal and Republican strategist Mike Murphy so sagely observed recently: “If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?”

Hee, hee.

Sarah should follow her own advice to Hillary and work harder to be capable. Until then, she’s all cage, no bird.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

She went to Wasilla

Friday the Governor announced she was not running for re-election, and also resigned. Remaining a lame-duck, Governor Palin declared, is a selfish act, akin to going with the flow -- and only dead fish go with the flow.

What her reasoning is, and what her plans are, baffle people, though Keith Olberman is happy as a pig in slop delineating the self-destruction of one of his favourite punching bags. I think anyone underestimates Sarah Palin at their own peril.

Yes, she's a ditz, barely articulate, inconsistent, shallow, and a host of other bad things, yet she is also a heroic figure to the extreme right, she's attractive, she plays the aw-shucks you-betcha role to perfection, and has a promising future.

Yes, she's continuing the absurd line that socialism is creeping into America, that government needs to be shrunk, that the US is an extraordinary nation, and that the media distorts news, controls the discourse, and is biased against her.

All of those contentions are inaccurate, wrong and deliberately misleading. Yet they work. Her believers believe her, and become more ardent the more the media and the left ridicule her.

Palin Says She's a Fighter, Not a Quitter Palin, in TV interviews, said she recognizes she might not have political staying power after her resignation and that "all options are on the table" for her future.

Palin: If I die politically, so be it Boston Globe -Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has gone fishing -- literally -- since her shocking announcement that she is resigning. But the polarizing Palin resurfaced today on the morning news shows, wearing her waders but not taking the bait to make her political ... Sarah Palin Talks to ABC News About Why She Resigned

Thursday, July 2, 2009

She's from Wasilla

The pattern is inescapable: she takes disagreements personally, and swiftly deals vengeance on enemies, real or perceived. Illustration by Risko.
After the debacle that was the Reublican presidential campaign (not that it pains me), John McCain went back to being a Senator, and an inconsistent (what is often called a maverick) Republican.

On the other hand, Sara Palin went back to being Alaskan Governor, an unpredictable Republican (not called a maverick), and, unlike her benefactor, the Senator from Arizona, did not lower her profile for long.

Like Richard M. Nixon, who chose the coalfield town of Hyden, Kentucky, for his first post-resignation public appearance, Palin has come to a place where she is guaranteed a hero’s reception. She is not only a staunch foe of abortion but also the mother of a boy, Trig, who was born with Down syndrome just a few months before John McCain chose Palin as his running mate. The souvenir program for this evening’s dinner is full of displays for local politicians and businesses, attesting to their pro-life bona fides. An ad for Hahn Realty Corporation reads, “If you need commercial real estate, call Joe Kiefer! Joe is pro-life and a proud supporter of the Vanderburgh County Right to Life.”

Commercial real estate and opposition to abortion: quite a mix.

Her appeal to people in the party (and in the country) who share her convictions and resentments is profound. The fascination is viral, and global.

And resentment is a key, integral ingredient of the Governor and her admirers.

What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life?

Nothing much good. Parallels can be drawn, inferred, postulated, none flattering.

Palin is unlike any other national figure in modern American life—neither Anna Nicole Smith nor Margaret Chase Smith but a phenomenon all her own. The clouds of tabloid conflict and controversy that swirl around her and her extended clan—the surprise pregnancies, the two-bit blood feuds, the tawdry in-laws and common-law kin caught selling drugs or poaching game—give her family a singular status in the rogues’ gallery of political relatives. By comparison, Billy Carter, Donald Nixon, and Roger Clinton seem like avatars of circumspection.

Tabloid fame is part of modern-day society.

Another aspect of the Palin phenomenon bears examination, even if the mere act of raising it invites intimations of sexism: she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs. This pheromonal reality has been a blessing and a curse. It has captivated people who would never have given someone with Palin’s record a second glance if Palin had looked like Susan Boyle. And it has made others reluctant to give her a second chance because she looks like a beauty queen.

Sexism? She plays the sexy card: the winks, the beauty queen look. The first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs is quite a phrase.

The caricature of Sarah Palin that emerged in the presidential campaign, for good and ill, is now ineradicable. The swift journey from her knockout convention speech to Tina Fey’s dead-eyed incarnation of her as Dan Quayle with an updo played out in real time, no less for the bewildered McCain campaign than for the public at large. It is an ironclad axiom of politics that if a campaign looks troubled from the outside the inside reality is far worse, and the McCain-Palin fiasco was no exception.

For the hard-core believers, it is not a caricature; they love her, admire what they see her representing, and believe.

Palin had been on the national Republican radar for barely a year, after a cruise ship of conservative columnists, including The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, had stopped in Juneau in 2007 and had succumbed to her charms when she invited them to the governor’s house for a luncheon of halibut cheeks.
Wonder if Willie K swooned; seems so.
At least one savvy politician—Barack Obama—believed Palin would never have time to get up to speed. He told his aides that it had taken him four months to learn how to be a national candidate, and added, “I don’t care how talented she is, this is really a leap.”

He was right about that, too.
The paramount strategic goal in picking Palin was that the choice of a running mate had to ensure a successful convention and a competitive race right after; in that limited sense, the choice worked. But no serious vetting had been done before the selection (by either the McCain or the Obama team), and there was trouble in nailing down basic facts about Palin’s life.

Time heals, and people forget over time, but she seems content being who she is, and that helped her lose the election.

There is virtually nothing about Palin’s performance in the fall campaign that should have come as a surprise to John McCain. Had he really attempted to learn something about her before the fateful day of August 29, 2008, when he announced that she was his choice for running mate, he would easily have discerned all the traits that he belatedly came to know.
Choosing her was a move of desperation, what is called a "Hail Mary pass" (toss the football as far as you can, and pray), and he didn't seem to bother finding out who she really was.

In dozens of conversations during a recent visit to Alaska, it was easy to learn that there has always been a counter-narrative about Palin, and indeed it has become the dominant one. It is the story of a political novice with an intuitive feel for the temper of her times, a woman who saw her opportunities and coolly seized them. In every job, she surrounded herself with an insular coterie of trusted friends, took disagreements personally, discarded people who were no longer useful, and swiftly dealt vengeance on enemies, real or perceived.
A man showing such traits might be labeled Machiavellian; she was nicknamed Barracuda.

The first thing McCain could have learned about Palin is what it means that she is from Alaska. The state capital, Juneau, is 600 miles from the principal city, Anchorage, and is reachable only by air or sea. There is little sense of government as an enduring institution: when the annual 90-day legislative session is over, the legislators pack up their offices, files, and computers, and take everything home. Alaska’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, maintains no full-time bureau in Juneau to cover the statehouse.Alaskans of every age and station, of every race and political stripe, unself-consciously refer to every other place on earth with a single word: Outside.
Provincial.
It is in this Alaska—where it is possible to be both a conservative Republican and a pothead, or a foursquare Democrat and a gun nut—that Sarah Palin learned everything she knows about politics, and about life. It was in this environment that her ambition first found an outlet in public office, and where she first tasted the 151-proof Everclear that is power.

Power is an aphrodisiac for men and women.

The second thing McCain could have discovered about Palin is that no political principle or personal relationship is more sacred than her own ambition.

Is that rare in a politician?

When she ran for Governor of Alaska in 2006, her style was already apparent.

Palin’s lack of knowledge turned out not to hurt her. Andrew Halcro later remembered that he and Palin once compared notes about their many encounters, and she said, “Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I’m amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, Does any of this really matter?”

Sadly, in many cases, no, it does not matter. Yet she did win the race, and rode the wave of rising oil prices to increased royalty payments to Alaskans (wait, is that socialism?).

Palin was able to increase the annual distribution from the state’s Permanent Fund to about $3,000 per resident, almost double the amount received the previous year. She could be a fiscal conservative and a big spender all at the same time.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not.

Palin’s anti-politician stance had worked so well in her campaign that she carried it over into her dealings with actual politicians in Juneau, who didn’t take kindly to the practice.

Politicians will be politicians.

When Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig’s condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God’s, and signed it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”

Say, what?

Then came the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, Troopergate, and, after the campaign ended, the video of Governor Palin, who had pardoned a turkey and pronounced for local television cameras that the campaign hadn't changed her, standing in front of a worker pushing turkeys through a kind of grinder, what seemed an all too apt metaphor for how Palin’s political fortunes had changed in the wake of her great national adventure, even if her personality had not.

Perhaps nothing has caused a bigger stir than Palin’s nomination of Wayne Anthony Ross to be Alaska’s attorney general. Ross is a two-time gubernatorial candidate and a board member of the National Rifle Association. He had sown controversy over the years by referring to gays and lesbians as “degenerates” (he later sought to downplay the remark, saying his aversion to homosexuals was no different from his aversion to lima beans) and for staunchly opposing subsistence-hunting preferences for native Alaskans. A flamboyant divorce lawyer who drives a big red Hummer with the vanity license plate war, Ross is a good old boy of pithy expression and considerable charm. (“In Alaska,” Ross told me, “a liberal is someone who carries a .357 or smaller.”)

What a guy: equating people with lima beans.


None of McCain’s still-loyal soldiers will say negative things about Palin on the record. Even thinking such thoughts privately is painful for them, because there is ultimately no way to read McCain’s selection of Palin as reflecting anything other than an appalling egotism, heedlessness, and lack of judgment in a man whose courage, tenacity, and character they have extravagantly admired—and as reflecting, too, an unsettling willingness on their own part to aid and abet him. They all know that if their candidate—a 72-year-old cancer survivor—had won the presidency, the vice-presidency would be in the hands of a woman who lacked the knowledge, the preparation, the aptitude, and the temperament for the job.

Not presidential timber.

To ask why none of them dared to just walk away is to ask why Colin Powell did not resign in protest over the Bush administration’s foreign policy, or why none of Bill Clinton’s disillusioned aides resigned after he lied to them about Monica Lewinsky. The question cannot comprehend the intense bonds that the blood sport of modern politics produces. To leave a campaign—especially a struggling, losing campaign—is akin to desertion in wartime, and even as they began to understand her limitations, plenty of McCain aides still saw Palin as the campaign’s best hope. Some still believe that, simply in terms of the electoral math, she helped at least as much as she hurt, and maybe helped more.

Colin Powell staying on is understandable, for a life-long soldier does not abandon his assignment, but as a person he showed an enormous lack of judgment and no political courage. If Palin helped as much as she hurt the campaign, what was the value of her choice?

McCain will not talk about the campaign, or about his VP choice, period. McCain’s daughter Meghan, who has continued the blog she began on the campaign last year, has said that Palin is the one topic on which she will have no public comment. And she discusses everything else.

In Evansville, though, Palin concentrated on the task at hand: an emphatic defense of the anti-abortion cause.

And that is what the cause is: opposed to abortion, not pro-life.

Sarah Palin is a star in Evansville and all the many Evansvilles of America, but there is a big part of the Republican Party—the Wall Street wing, the national-security wing—in which she cuts no ice. She could do well in the Iowa caucuses or South Carolina primary, but it is much harder to imagine her making headway in New Hampshire, where independent voters were turned off by her last fall. It is also difficult to see just how she would expand her appeal beyond the base that already loves her.

Well, politics has a way of moving in unpredictable directions, so handicapping the 2012 election in July 2009 seems absurd.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

GOP fight

As far as I'm concerned, this can go on for ages: Republicans self-destructing. After the November debacle came Rush Limbaugh assuming leadership of the Party, Cheney pronouncing on national defense and War, Newt Gingrich reappearing as a pundit, Senator Ensign admitting to an extra-marital affair, and Governor Sanford admitting to having been, not hiking on the Appalachian Trail but dallying in Buenos Aires (and expounding on how many other times he "crossed the line").

Now the One from Wasilla, who last month had a verbal spat with David Letterman when the comic made a crude joke about a Palin daughter getting nailed by Alex Rodriguez, is back, and, of course, with a vengeance.

A hard-hitting piece on Sarah Palin in the new Vanity Fair has touched off a blistering exchange of insults among high-profile Republicans over last year’s GOP ticket – tearing open fresh wounds about leaks surrounding Palin and revealing for the first time some of the internal wars that paralyzed the campaign in its final days.

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain, touched off the latest back-and-forth Tuesday morning with a post on his magazine’s blog criticizing the Todd Purdum-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager.

In turn, Schmidt praised Kristol's skills set: “I'm sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign. After all, his management of [former Vice President] Dan Quayle’s public image as his chief of staff is still something that takes your breath away."

Randy Scheunemann, a longtime foreign policy adviser to McCain who is also close to Kristol, joins the fray: “Steve Schmidt has a congenital aversion to the truth. It was like meeting Tony Soprano.”

Take that, punk.

The vitriol also suggests the degree to which Palin remains a Rorschach test not simply to Republicans nationally but within a tight circle of elite operatives and commentators, many of whom seem ready to carry their arguments in 2012. Was Palin a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric “diva” who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party? Or is she a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids where she can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations?

Let the debate continue. (tee-hee-hee)

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Statehouse Journal

Gov. Sarah Palin has rejected suggestions by detractors at the Capitol that she has been distracted from state business.


“The source of the greatest tension this year between the Legislature and the executive has been certainly the appearance that the executive is prioritizing her national image, her national brand, over the day-to-day operations of state government and the interests of the State of Alaska,” said Mike Hawker, the Republican co-chairman of the House Finance Committee.

Who wants to govern a mere, and far-away, state, when the national spotlight beckons?

Recently, she has sparred publicly with Levi Johnston, the 19-year-old father of her grandson, who broke up with Ms. Palin’s daughter Bristol. On Thursday, while lawmakers hone the state budget, the governor is to speak at an anti-abortion group’s fund-raising dinner in Indiana. The next morning, she addresses a breakfast for a nonprofit for families like her own who have a child with Down syndrome.

Ms. Palin and her aides insist she is as engaged with state businesses as ever. “We have a very good working relationship, as far as we know, with lawmakers,” Ms. Palin said last week in her office, where she met with reporters. “Our door is always open.”

A royal we?

“There are critics out there who say she’s not engaged in the national ambitions that they have for her,” Ms. Stapleton said. “The fact that she has people criticizing that she’s not doing it the way D.C. insiders would do it is a compliment to her.”

She could turn out to be a shooting star that burns out quickly.

At one point, someone complimented her hand-painted clogs. “Cute shoes,” the person said. Ms. Palin responded, alluding to a recent dust-up over being seen wearing the logo of her husband’s snow machine sponsor: “I may not be able to tell you who paints them or I may be charged with an ethics violation or something.”

Or something. Still, she is not be counted out. Such feigned simplicity plays well with some.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Forgive? Forget?

Sen. John McCain with Jay Leno on 'The Tonight Show,' on Monday April 13. The real joke may have been on his former presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.






Who's poised to lead the Republican party out of the woods? John McCain seems convinced that one GOP notable is not the person for the job, someone he's quite familiar with - his former running mate.

On Monday's "Tonight Show," Jay Leno asked the Arizona Senator to name the new guiding lights of the Republican party, and McCain was quick to rattle off a list of "young, dynamic" governors around the country.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

U.S. Births Reach Record Level

The new numbers indicate the nation is experiencing a baby boomlet with fertility rates higher in every racial group. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. The highest fertility rates were among Hispanics.

Associated Press

ATLANTA -- More babies were born in the U.S. in 2007 than any year in the nation's history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday.

There is both good and bad news from the more than 4.3 million births: The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend. However, the teen birth rate was up for the second year in a row.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40%, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women -- especially those in their 30s and 40s -- are choosing to have children despite their single status.

The new numbers indicate the nation is experiencing a baby boomlet with fertility rates higher in every racial group. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. The highest fertility rates were among Hispanics.

But it's not clear the boomlet will last long. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.

"I expect they'll go back down. The lowest birth rates recorded in the United States occurred during the Great Depression -- and that was before modern contraception," said Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted.

Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation. Mr. Morgan noted the pregnancy of Bristol Palin, the unmarried teen daughter of former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The young woman had a baby boy in December, and plans for a wedding with the father, Levi Johnston, were scrapped.

"She's the poster child for what you do when you get pregnant now," Mr. Morgan said.

Teen women tend to follow what their older sisters do, so perhaps it's not surprising that teen births are going up just like births to older women, said Sarah Brown, the chief executive for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Indeed, it's harder to understand why teen births had been declining for about 15 years before the recent uptick, she said. It may have been due to a concentrated societal effort to reduce teen births in the 1990s that has waned in recent years, she said.

The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers also showed:

-Cesarean section deliveries continue to rise, now accounting for almost a third of all births. Health officials say that rate is much higher than is medically necessary. About 34% of births to black women were by C-section, more than any other racial group. But geographically, the percentages were highest in Puerto Rico, at 49%, and New Jersey, at 38%.

-The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s. Experts said they aren't sure why it went down.

-Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate and Vermont the lowest.

CDC officials noted that despite the record number of births, this is nothing like what occurred in the 1950s, when a much smaller population of women were having nearly four children each, on average. That baby boom quickly transformed society, affecting everything from school construction to consumer culture.

Today, U.S. women are averaging 2.1 children each. That's the highest level it's been since the early 1970s, but is a relatively small increase from the rate it had hovered at for more than 10 years and is hardly transforming.

"It's the tiniest of baby booms," said Mr. Morgan in agreement. "This is not an earthquake; it's a slight tremor."

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Winning In Afghanistan

In the post below, The Afghan Quagmire, I quote Bob Herbert quoting Andrew J. Bacevich, so it seems appropriate to read Bacevich's article and see what he says. The subtitle to the article entitled "Winning in Afghanistan" seems instructive: Victory there won't look like you think. Time to get out and give up on nation building. The article was published Dec 31, 2008.

Bacevich is a retired military man (Herbert calls him a retired Colonel; I've seen him on teevee and do recall him being a full colonel, or perhaps a lt. col. - his credentials are quite impressive: Andrew J. Bacevich is Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University. A graduate of the U. S. Military Academy, he received his Ph. D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University. Before joining the faculty of Boston University in 1998, he taught at West Point and at Johns Hopkins University according to his bio from BU).

He gets right to the point: Persisting on the present course—as both John McCain and Barack Obama have promised to do—will turn Operation Enduring Freedom into Operation Enduring Obligation. Afghanistan will become a sinkhole consuming resources neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government can afford to waste.

The allied campaign in Afghanistan is now entering its eighth year.

So easy to lose track of that when so much attention is given to Iraq. While we wanted a quick victory in Afghanistan, that so much was devoted to the Iraq fight prevented such a victory.

The real problem is that Washington has misunderstood the nature of the challenge Afghanistan poses and misread America's interests there.

Afghanistan's total land area is 647,500 sq km (12.13% of that is arable).
Iraq's total land area is 437,072 sq km (13.12% of that is arable).

Afghanistan's population is 32,738,376.
Iraq's population is 28,221,180.

Bacevich states that Afghanistan is a much bigger country—nearly the size of Texas—and has a larger population that's just as fractious.Its population is 4.5 million greater than Iraq's, indeed, and its land area is nearly 50% larger. Further, he states that Afghanistan has a far lower literacy rate, an even less effective central government (not exactly a lofty standard) and aside from opium, produces nothing the rest of the world wants. That is in very significant contrast to Iraq's petroleum.

Meanwhile, the chief effect of allied military operations there so far has been not to defeat the radical Islamists but to push them across the Pakistani border. As a result, efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan, with potentially devastating implications. September's bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad suggests that the extremists are growing emboldened. Today and for the foreseeable future, no country poses a greater potential threat to U.S. national security than does Pakistan. To risk the stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake.

The article seems to have been written around October; no note is made of the attack in Mumbai. No matter; his points are pertinent and important.

Of course, it seems ludicrous to speak of Pakistan being (further) destabilized, considering how unstable it (always) is.

All this means that the proper U.S. priority for Afghanistan should be not to try harder but to change course. The war in Afghanistan (like the Iraq War) won't be won militarily. It can be settled—however imperfectly—only through politics.

Outside of politics for public consumption, how serious is anyone about the Afghan conflict being won? It seems to me that it is implicitly assumed that neutralization is the real aim. The Colonel must certainly understand politics.

The new U.S. president needs to realize that America's real political objective in Afghanistan is actually quite modest: to ensure that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda can't use it as a safe haven for launching attacks against the West. Accomplishing that won't require creating a modern, cohesive nation-state.

Indeed, the colonel does seem to understand politics.

U.S. officials tend to assume that power in Afghanistan ought to be exercised from Kabul. Yet the real influence in Afghanistan has traditionally rested with tribal leaders and warlords. Rather than challenge that tradition, Washington should work with it. Offered the right incentives, warlords can accomplish U.S. objectives more effectively and more cheaply than Western combat battalions. The basis of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan should therefore become decentralization and outsourcing, offering cash and other emoluments to local leaders who will collaborate with the United States in excluding terrorists from their territory.

Sounds similar to what seems to have become the policy in Iraq.

This doesn't mean Washington should blindly trust that warlords will become America's loyal partners. U.S. intelligence agencies should continue to watch Afghanistan closely, and the Pentagon should crush any jihadist activities that local powers fail to stop themselves. As with the Israelis in Gaza, periodic airstrikes may well be required to pre-empt brewing plots before they mature.

Does not seem the Colonel is stating a new approach to policy, though it does bear repeating.

Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University, and the author, most recently, of “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.”

I wonder if Governor Palin would, if she read, agree with that subtitle, considering her oft-repeated emphasis on American exceptionalism.

Monday, November 17, 2008

The “Bitch” and the “Ditz”

Even as speculation on Obama's Cabinet and policy decisions build up into a frenzy, some post-mortems on the Election continue. Not that Governor Palin participates. She has said she will not look back, but forward, and has been appearing in countless teevee shows.

It’s hard to get too worked up on Palin’s behalf, of course; she was complicit in her crucifixion. But it is disappointing to watch what some have called the “year of the woman” come to such an embarrassing conclusion. This was an election cycle in which candidates pandered to female voters, newsweeklies tried to figure out “what women want,” and Hillary Clinton garnered 18 million votes toward winning the Democratic nomination. The assumption was that these “18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling,” as Clinton put it, would advance the prospects of female achievement and gender equality. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way.

8

I'm struck by the nearly identical poses of the two.

(Photo: From left, Michael Edwards/Redux; Nigel Parry/CPI-Syndication)


Crucifixion seems an extreme word to choose, but it does capture the essence of what happened to Governor Palin.

As for Senator Clinton: In the grand Passion play that was this election, both Clinton and Palin came to represent—and, at times, reinforce—two of the most pernicious stereotypes that are applied to women: the bitch and the ditz. Clinton took the first label, even though she tried valiantly, some would say misguidedly, to run a campaign that ignored gender until the very end.

It seemed that Senator Clinton wasn't so much ignoring gender as not allowing it to become an issue. Of course, for some it was an issue.

She was a grind, scold, harpy, shrew, priss, teacher’s pet, killjoy—you get the idea. She was repeatedly called a bitch (as in: “How do we beat the”) and a buster of balls. Tucker Carlson deemed her “castrating, overbearing, and scary” and said, memorably, “Every time I hear Hillary Clinton speak, I involuntarily cross my legs.”


Perhaps Tucker Carlson has a problem (well, obviously he does); but to assign it to men generally is not appropriate. And yet, there is an important point made. Men who are hard-chargers, pushy, ambitious, are called, well, ambitious; women are often called bitches. Indeed. If Chuck Schumer were a women, his personality would be bitchy. To some, yet still, a bitch.

When Sarah Palin first stepped onto the national stage, I was, like many women, intrigued by her. Here was a woman who—even if you didn’t agree with her politics—seemed to have achieved what so many of us were struggling for: an enviable balance between career and family. She was “a brisk, glam multitasker,” to quote the Observer’s Doree Shafrir, with a good-natured stay-at-home husband at her side and several adorable young children in tow. She was running a state and breast-feeding a newborn and yet, amazingly, did not seem exhausted. There was something inspiring about seeing a woman so at ease with her choices, even as both liberal and conservative critics chided her for running for vice-president when her family needed her. Politics aside, when, at the convention, she delivered a politically deft speech like a pro, it was pleasing to witness the first woman on a Republican ticket perform so well.

Point well made: no man would have been similarly criticized for making that choice.

Of course, the myth of Sarah Palin unraveled almost as quickly as it was spun.

Right after wondering of McCain had hit upon the magic solution to counter Obama's ascendence, it became clear that Sarah Palin was a caricature. Only two reasons seemed credible as explanations why McCain chose her: any woman to try and exploit Democratic women's resentment of Hillary not having been chosen; a woman who believed that even women who'd been raped should not have legal recourse to an abortion had to be a sop to the evangelical extreme right wing.

All it took was one interview, with a Charlie Gibson who was painstakingly accomodating to her, who had been chosen as her first interviewer because he is such a nice, cuddly guy, to expose Sarah Palin's secret: she was not ready for prime time. A second interview with Katie Couric showed that it was not Charlie Gibson tertosterone that tripped up the Alaskan Governor; a second underwhelming interview showed that the moose-shootin' hockey Mom was simply way in over her head. Way in.

Palin was recast as the charmer, the glider, the dim beauty queen, the kind of woman who floats along on a little luck and the favor of men. While it’s obviously not Palin’s fault that men find her attractive, it is fair to criticize her for campaigning on a platform of charm rather than substance.

It became obvious, embarrassingly so, that this Governor had no intellectual depth. Her assertion that Alaska being so close to Russia tha t whwn Putin "reared his head" the first thing he saw was Alaska was embarrassing. What is lost is not just that anyone could make such a ridiculous assumption in public, but that she was coached to make such assertions.

Amanda Fortini, writer of the New York Magazine piece on which I am commenting, at first asserts it was possible to take pride in Sarah Palin: When Sarah Palin first stepped onto the national stage, I was, like many women, intrigued by her. Here was a woman who—even if you didn’t agree with her politics—seemed to have achieved what so many of us were struggling for: an enviable balance between career and family. She was “a brisk, glam multitasker,” to quote the Observer’s Doree Shafrir, with a good-natured stay-at-home husband at her side and several adorable young children in tow. She was running a state and breast-feeding a newborn and yet, amazingly, did not seem exhausted. There was something inspiring about seeing a woman so at ease with her choices, even as both liberal and conservative critics chided her for running for vice-president when her family needed her. Politics aside, when, at the convention, she delivered a politically deft speech like a pro, it was pleasing to witness the first woman on a Republican ticket perform so well.

That is a pure gender play: her politics do not matter; he genders matters. Such patience soon ran out.

“What’s infuriating, and perhaps rage-inducing, about Palin, is that she has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype,” Jessica Grose wrote on Jezebel.com, in a post titled “Why Sarah Palin Incites Near-Violent Rage in Normally Reasonable Women.” Palin had taken a match and set fire to our meritocratic notions that hard work and accumulated experience would be rewarded.

Soon after approving of her simply because of her gender, leftist women became incensed with Palin for being such a lightweight. More, they were angry that Palin undermined their ideologic assertions that what matters is merit (never mind that originally she had looked favourably on the Alaskan governor for seming able to do everything).

In a rare moment of sympathy for Palin, Judith Warner, writing in the Times, noted that Palin’s admirers must “know she can’t possibly do it all—the kids, the special-needs baby, the big job, the big conversations with foreign leaders. And neither could they.” But many women do manage to do it all, or pretty close to all. They at least manage to come prepared for the big conversations and the critical meetings, no matter what they have going on at home. “Do we have to drag out a list of women who miraculously have found a way to balance many of these factors—Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Michelle Bachelet?—and could still explain the Bush Doctrine without breaking out in hives?” wrote Rebecca Traister in Salon.com. Why then must Palin’s operatic failure be the example that leaves a lasting imprint?

Well, Palin was at first admired, if not downright venerated, for seeming to be a perfect woman. Even liberal woman took pride in her, for being a woman who seemed to prove that it is possible for a woman to be a mother and a governor simultaneously. But such admiration arose out of a false sense of gender pride. It is understandable that women look for accomplished women to show that it is possible for women to accomplish just as much as men. But my opinion is that gender is not enough of a standard.

But because so few women are present at the highest levels of government, they carry the burden of representing their gender more so than men. In politics as in business, an unqualified woman does more damage than no women at all. She serves to fortify the stereotypes that the next woman will have to surmount.

It will take women overcoming that orthodoxy for owmn to be free to be politicians and not simply women politicians.

A jerk is a jerk, male or female.

But among the darker revelations of this election is the fact that the vice-grip of female stereotypes remains suffocatingly tight.

To put too much stock in Sarah Palin, for whatever reason, is a losing proposition. She is a lightweight. She is not a lightweight because she is a woman; she is a lightweight, period.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Palin decries 'extreme partisanship'

This qualifies as:
1. extreme stupidity
2. extreme chutzpah
3. extreme contempt for the intelligence of anyone but the brain dead

Palin decries extremist partisanship? Say what?


Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday argued that she and her fellow Republican governors were ready to put aside "extreme partisanship" and act if Washington fails to provide the leadership America needs.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin talks to reporters at the GOP governors' group meeting Thursday in Miami, Florida.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin talks to reporters at the GOP governors' group meeting Thursday in Miami, Florida.

Speaking at her first formal news conference before the national media since the GOP presidential ticket lost last week, the former vice presidential nominee argued that her fellow Republican governors "don't let obsessive, extreme partisanship ... get in the way of doing what's right."

"I think that this group is going to be looked to and looked at for leadership that perhaps had been lacking in Congress and in Washington, D.C.," she said. "This group is going to be uniquely qualified to provide leadership in this nation."

Asked why she chose to hold her first formal news conference now, Palin replied, "The campaign is over."

Who buys this crap?

Palin decries 'extreme partisanship'

This qualifies as:
1. extreme stupidity
2. extreme chutzpah
3. extreme contempt for the intelligence of anyone but the brain dead

Palin decries extremist partisanship? Say what?


Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday argued that she and her fellow Republican governors were ready to put aside "extreme partisanship" and act if Washington fails to provide the leadership America needs.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin talks to reporters at the GOP governors' group meeting Thursday in Miami, Florida.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin talks to reporters at the GOP governors' group meeting Thursday in Miami, Florida.

Speaking at her first formal news conference before the national media since the GOP presidential ticket lost last week, the former vice presidential nominee argued that her fellow Republican governors "don't let obsessive, extreme partisanship ... get in the way of doing what's right."

"I think that this group is going to be looked to and looked at for leadership that perhaps had been lacking in Congress and in Washington, D.C.," she said. "This group is going to be uniquely qualified to provide leadership in this nation."

Asked why she chose to hold her first formal news conference now, Palin replied, "The campaign is over."

Who buys this crap?

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Echoes of a Distant Time

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

During the presidential campaign of 1928, a photograph began circulating in rural areas of the Southwest showing Alfred E. Smith shaking hands with a fellow politician on the roadway of a tunnel. The image depicted Smith as he was officially opening the Holland Tunnel, which had been built during his tenure as governor of New York. The people thousands of miles away who received copies of the picture were given a decidedly different explanation: Smith planned to extend the tunnel under the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Vatican, so he could take secret orders from the pope. As just about any informed voter that year already knew, Smith was the first Roman Catholic ever to win a major party’s presidential nomination.

A tunnel under the Atlantic Ocean is not feasible even today, 80 years later.

At the remove of 80 years, it is tempting to laugh off such a crude attempt at fearmongering and character assassination. With Catholics unquestionably part of the American mainstream — one of the most coveted swing groups of voters in the current race for the White House — the misrepresentation of the photo might seem the artifact of a benighted past.

Except for two things.

It took another 40 years before a Catholic got a presidential nomination (a Democrat, at that). And the anti-Muslim smear of this year.

As for the second point, scholars of Smith’s career and of American Catholicism say nothing in presidential history since 1928 more closely resembles the smearing of Al Smith than the aura of anti-Muslim agitation that has swirled around Barack Obama these past two years.

In the Times today there is a picture of a 50ish white man wearing a t-shirt that says Vote McCain Not Hussein. The implication is clear: Obama is a Muslim. Which he isn't.

The biggest single difference may be the postmodern aspect of the attacks against Mr. Obama. He is vilified not for the religion he follows but for the one he doesn’t, and much of his campaign’s energy has gone into reiterating that he is a Christian. Either way, the underlying premise of the rumors remains that a Muslim is unfit to be president.

As Colin Powell said, what is wrong with being a Muslim? Well, many people simply associate Islam with terror, and refuse to believe a Muslim can be a loyal American.

“What is similar in Smith’s time is that there was a widespread belief there was something dangerous about electing a Catholic as president,” said Allan J. Lichtman, an American University historian who is the author of “Prejudice and the Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928.” “You couldn’t be a good American and serve American interests if you were a Catholic, because you were beholden to a foreign potentate called the pope and Catholicism held autocratic tenets.

“Likewise today, there is a widespread belief that somehow you cannot be a good American and be a Muslim at the same time, that being a Muslim means you have loyalties outside the United States — and, like Catholics in the 1920s, they are dangerous loyalties to militant groups seeking to do harm. There’s no truth to the allegations, then or now, but they are tenaciously held.”

So who are those who believe this nonsense? Yahoos and assorted right wing nuts, surely. But anyone else? As the governor of Alaska would say, youbetcha.

In the blogosphere and through mass e-mail, however, and even on Fox News and in Insight magazine, the disinformation has proliferated that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim, educated in a madrassa, influenced by an Islamist stepfather and sworn into the Senate holding a Koran.

Ah, Fox News, fair and balanced. Insight magazine? Conservative current events online magazine published by the Unification Church states its website description. Right. Two peas in a pod, this pair.

Robert A. Slayton, author of the Smith biography “Empire Statesman,” suggested in a recent interview that the religious bias against Smith and Mr. Obama served in part as a proxy for nativist resistance to an increasingly diverse nation. The United States in both the 1920s and the 2000s has been bitterly divided over mass immigration — by Jews and Catholics then, Hispanics and Muslims now.

The prejudice is virulent, though couched in homilies.

The most remarkable parallel to 1928 has to do with the idea that Smith was one of ‘those people,’ that the people he represented weren’t real Americans,” said Mr. Slayton, a professor of American history at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. “And when Sarah Palin talks about the ‘real America’ now, I hear an echo of that.”

Real Americans: heartland, small town folk, not Eastern elites, New York Times readers, and, by implication, Muslims, those of color.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Right-wing cabal

A Guardian (UK) journalist is one of many writing about it: Conservatives plan secret post-election strategy session. So does Jonathan Martin of Politico: Two days after next week's election, top conservatives will gather at the Virginia weekend home of one of the movement's most prominent members to begin a conversation about their role in the GOP and how best to revive a party that may be out of power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year.

Who are these people? The meeting will include a "who's who of conservative leaders -- economic, national security and social," said one attendee, who shared initial word of the secret session only on the basis of anonymity and with some details about the host and location redacted.

Details of next week's post-election meeting, to be attended by state chairmen and prominent activists from the conservative wing of the party, are being kept secret for fear of being seen to pre-empt the outcome of the presidential contest.

But someone has already leaked word about the meeting.

Sarah Palin, John McCain's running-mate, though not present, will be a central figure in discussions about the party's future. "It is about what direction the party takes, the proverbial struggle for the soul of the party," Norman Ornstein, an analyst at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the home of the neo-conservatives, said yesterday. "There will be a million postmortems and finger-pointing. What is unusual is that the finger-pointing has begun before the campaign has ended."

Palin seems to have repolaced Huckabee, and certainly Romney, as the darling of the right. Those two presumably are not ready to concede anything just yet.

"There's a sense that the Republican Party is broken, but the conservative movement is not," said this source, suggesting that it was the betrayal of some conservative principles by Bush and congressional leaders that led to the party's decline.

Conservatism not broken? Delusional.

Should McCain lose next Tuesday, the conversation will include who to groom as the next generation of conservative leaders – a list that will feature Palin at or near the top.

Grooming the heir-apparent. To take over what, exactly?

Few believe that the Republican party will respond to another brutal election by following a path of moderation, but conservatives are deeply dispirited and anxious to reassert the core values they believe have not always been followed by Bush, congressional leaders and their party’s presidential nominee . Many on the right, both elites and the rank-and-file, see a rudderless party that is in dire need of new blood and old principles: small government, a robust national security and unapologetic social conservatism.

Retreat to the far right; now, that's sensible.

Rush Limbaugh, a powerful figure in the party whose influence has spanned years of the GOP in and out of power, gave voice to this frustration Tuesday, saying candidly that "there is no elected or political leadership in Washington or in the Republican Party that people can rally around."

Limbaugh the king-maker. A windbag, certainly. An ideologue.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Take 'em back


Peter Brookes strikes yet again.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Palin was stumped

And Mc Cain calls her not only qualified, but "the best qualified." Gee whiz.

Palin stumped when asked to explain her preconditions for meeting foreign leaders.»

Gov. Sarah Palin has attacked Sen. Barack Obama for being “so off base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met.” When asked by NBC’s Brian Williams what are some of those preconditions she envisions, Palin was stumped:

WILLIAMS: Governor Palin, yesterday you tied this notion of an early test to the new president. Would this notion of precondition –

PALIN: Right.

WILLIAMS: — that you both have been hammering the Obama campaign on. What — first of all, what in your mind is a precondition?

PALIN: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il, one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or her allies. It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a– a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them. So that — that’s — that’s some ill-preparedness right there.

Watch it:

Ilan Goldenberg offers this tutorial: “What Palin is describing is what would be called preparation, not preconditions. Just to be clear. Not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiating until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed. ”

Sarah Palin stumped by third grader

It is difficult to decided if Governor Palin is that uninformed, or simply tries to wing it all the time. Still, to not know the duties of the Vice Presidency is ridiculous.

She's contending for arguably the second most powerful title in the country - if not the world. But it seems Sarah Palin could use a brush-up on the vice-president's job description.

This item appeared in the Daily News; I saw a clip of her answer on the news last night.

Asked by an elementary school student what a vice president does, Republican candidate Sarah Palin responded that the vice president is the president's "team mate" but also "runs the Senate" and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes."

Now, this was not asked by the 'liberal mainstream media' not focusing on the concerns of real Americans, but by a third-grader.

While aimed at a typical 8-year-old, Palin's explanations oversimplify the U.S. Constitution's definition of the duties of the vice president and don't match the office's traditional role in Senate activities.

Oops.

The vice president, as a member of the executive branch of the government, has no official role in developing legislation or determining how it is presented to or debated by the Senate, which is part of the legislative branch. In all meaningful ways, the leader of the majority party runs the Senate.

Seems maybe New York's hometown paper is part of the Eastern liberal media elite. Dang.