17/09: Palin's Religion Attacked
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
When I made this earlier post on Sarah Palin's religious beliefs, I did not know that some already were attacking her on this point. Steve Rempe over at The Institute on Religion & Democracy has this essay in which he quotes from the critics and then counterattacks.
I think that the religious beliefs of a candidate are fair game for questions and discussion. I do, however, prefer intelligent debate to partisan attacks.
I think that the religious beliefs of a candidate are fair game for questions and discussion. I do, however, prefer intelligent debate to partisan attacks.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Morning After.
Yesterday evening, in real time, I offered a less than glowing reaction to the big interview. At first blush, I found Governor Palin a bit stiff and nervous. On the other hand, I thought she escaped the ambush without a mortal wound.
A few thoughts twenty-four hours later:
After re-watching and re-hearing the conversation all day, I stand by my sober assessment of Palin. I think James Carville had it just about right on GMA this morning: C-. However, my sense that she escaped unscathed is gaining altitude rapidly. Not that Palin has improved with the parade of "reviewings;" rather, the more one watches, the more Charlie Gibson and ABC go into the tank. Gibson's sloppy research, erroneous quotations, and snarky condescension regarding Palin's view of "God and Country" becomes more embarrassing to ABC News as the day progresses. When we consider the misleading edit and the willful ignorance of history on the part of Gibson, the whole affair begins to smell of dishonesty and blatant partisanship.
Newsflash: Mark Levin is leading his broadcast with a reading of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural. If you have never paused to consider this seminal treatise on American civil theology, do yourself a favor and read it ASAP.
The other stinking fish from last night's pop quiz seems to be the "Bush Doctrine" question (which I admitted at the time confused me--that's right, even me).
With the passage of time, Gibson looks more and more like the nerdy hall monitor drunk on authority.
What has happened in the last twenty-four hours is the further polarization of this race. Here is the way we see it: the anti-Chritian, anti-Republican, anti-Red State mainstream media is out to humiliate us by any means necessary (obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, misdirection, etc.).
Add in some Matt Damon, the ladies on The View, Pamela Anderson, and Susan Sarrandon, and this has been a very good day for the GOP.
If this race comes down to Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama, we are well served. If this race boils down to "ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-reading," America versus the axis of elite liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and academia)--we win.
Yesterday evening, in real time, I offered a less than glowing reaction to the big interview. At first blush, I found Governor Palin a bit stiff and nervous. On the other hand, I thought she escaped the ambush without a mortal wound.
A few thoughts twenty-four hours later:
After re-watching and re-hearing the conversation all day, I stand by my sober assessment of Palin. I think James Carville had it just about right on GMA this morning: C-. However, my sense that she escaped unscathed is gaining altitude rapidly. Not that Palin has improved with the parade of "reviewings;" rather, the more one watches, the more Charlie Gibson and ABC go into the tank. Gibson's sloppy research, erroneous quotations, and snarky condescension regarding Palin's view of "God and Country" becomes more embarrassing to ABC News as the day progresses. When we consider the misleading edit and the willful ignorance of history on the part of Gibson, the whole affair begins to smell of dishonesty and blatant partisanship.
Newsflash: Mark Levin is leading his broadcast with a reading of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural. If you have never paused to consider this seminal treatise on American civil theology, do yourself a favor and read it ASAP.
The other stinking fish from last night's pop quiz seems to be the "Bush Doctrine" question (which I admitted at the time confused me--that's right, even me).
With the passage of time, Gibson looks more and more like the nerdy hall monitor drunk on authority.
What has happened in the last twenty-four hours is the further polarization of this race. Here is the way we see it: the anti-Chritian, anti-Republican, anti-Red State mainstream media is out to humiliate us by any means necessary (obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, misdirection, etc.).
Add in some Matt Damon, the ladies on The View, Pamela Anderson, and Susan Sarrandon, and this has been a very good day for the GOP.
If this race comes down to Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama, we are well served. If this race boils down to "ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-reading," America versus the axis of elite liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and academia)--we win.
A few months ago, commenting on the Obama-Wright affair, I wrote:
"I find significant discomfort in the parade of conservatives, who, in our pursuit of Obama and his pastor, have adopted the language of the politically correct Left. If we have any hope of returning to sanity on the issue of speech, we must break the cycle of acrimonious sanctimony. Perhaps we should take the initiative and offer grace rather than vengeance while we hold the upper hand in one of these disgusting and frightening public spectacles."
"The repeated accusations of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism are inflicting great injury on our body politic. Accepting the proposition that "hate" and "intolerance" are the ultimate unpardonable sins is an unwise long-term strategy for conservatives; this invidious protocol is a rigged game invented by liberals that we can never ultimately win."
Why were we so relentless and uncompromising in our quest for satisfaction in that sickening affair?
We have suffered great abuse. For a brief moment, the tables were turned, and we wanted our pound of flesh.
Do I exaggerate the circumstances of our trauma?
Not by much. Many of us labor in a culture of extreme intolerance for any hint of intolerance.
Even as the collective rhetoric of the American intelligentsia purports to prize nonconformity, critical thinking, and dissent as the most admirable of all public virtues, the shock troops of nonconformity stand ready to intimidate and punish public figures and private individuals who fail to conform to our most sacred cultural creed, the ideology of tolerance.
The charge of "racism" has become the most stigmatizing condemnation in our society, often signaling a painful and potentially career-ending ordeal for accused public figures and/or academics.
This poisonous theater in the culture war has exacted a high price over the years:
Republicans lost a Senate seat in 2006 (and probably a fairly decent fellow), when George Allen uttered one word: "macaca" (the exact meaning of which remains mysterious to me still). The Party of Lincoln cashiered a Senate Majority Leader in 2005 after he stooped to praise an ancient political warrior on the occasion of his 100th birthday and impending retirement. Even the great conservative hero of our generation, Ronald Reagan, a man praised by objective chroniclers for his unflinching sense of fairness (racial and otherwise), still faces the specter of evil intentions for an ambiguous sentence spoken at a county fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980.
Any fair-minded observer will admit things have been tough for conservatives over the past few decades, and, even more importantly, the mainstream media has prosecuted a merciless double-standard.
What about the "lipstick and the pig" comments?
We must abandon this theatrical display of victimization immediately. We sound too much like DemocRATS (remember that one?).
Obama called Palin a pig? Sort of? Maybe. Close enough? I am always suspicious of "coded" race and/or sex baiting. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. Even if it was the real thing, SO WHAT? Suck it up. Good one, Obama. Bite me! Pretty pathetic attempt at a burn, actually. We'll see you chokers in the playoffs.
But let's stop demanding apologies. It makes us look like the pusillanimous party.
If this were going the other way, you say, they'd have our asses. Pretty much. Can't argue with you there. If someone had said something like, "this really is the pot calling the kettle black," all Hell would have broken lose. But the double-standard be damned--I don't want to win that way. Let's walk it off. Pin the quote up in the locker room and take it out of their hides on the field of play.
Is she the new Reagan? If she is, she's going to laugh off this desperate slight and say, "Well, Barack, there you go again," and then counter with a rhetorical sharp right cross to the jaw.
UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.
"I find significant discomfort in the parade of conservatives, who, in our pursuit of Obama and his pastor, have adopted the language of the politically correct Left. If we have any hope of returning to sanity on the issue of speech, we must break the cycle of acrimonious sanctimony. Perhaps we should take the initiative and offer grace rather than vengeance while we hold the upper hand in one of these disgusting and frightening public spectacles."
"The repeated accusations of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism are inflicting great injury on our body politic. Accepting the proposition that "hate" and "intolerance" are the ultimate unpardonable sins is an unwise long-term strategy for conservatives; this invidious protocol is a rigged game invented by liberals that we can never ultimately win."
Why were we so relentless and uncompromising in our quest for satisfaction in that sickening affair?
We have suffered great abuse. For a brief moment, the tables were turned, and we wanted our pound of flesh.
Do I exaggerate the circumstances of our trauma?
Not by much. Many of us labor in a culture of extreme intolerance for any hint of intolerance.
Even as the collective rhetoric of the American intelligentsia purports to prize nonconformity, critical thinking, and dissent as the most admirable of all public virtues, the shock troops of nonconformity stand ready to intimidate and punish public figures and private individuals who fail to conform to our most sacred cultural creed, the ideology of tolerance.
The charge of "racism" has become the most stigmatizing condemnation in our society, often signaling a painful and potentially career-ending ordeal for accused public figures and/or academics.
This poisonous theater in the culture war has exacted a high price over the years:
Republicans lost a Senate seat in 2006 (and probably a fairly decent fellow), when George Allen uttered one word: "macaca" (the exact meaning of which remains mysterious to me still). The Party of Lincoln cashiered a Senate Majority Leader in 2005 after he stooped to praise an ancient political warrior on the occasion of his 100th birthday and impending retirement. Even the great conservative hero of our generation, Ronald Reagan, a man praised by objective chroniclers for his unflinching sense of fairness (racial and otherwise), still faces the specter of evil intentions for an ambiguous sentence spoken at a county fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980.
Any fair-minded observer will admit things have been tough for conservatives over the past few decades, and, even more importantly, the mainstream media has prosecuted a merciless double-standard.
What about the "lipstick and the pig" comments?
We must abandon this theatrical display of victimization immediately. We sound too much like DemocRATS (remember that one?).
Obama called Palin a pig? Sort of? Maybe. Close enough? I am always suspicious of "coded" race and/or sex baiting. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. Even if it was the real thing, SO WHAT? Suck it up. Good one, Obama. Bite me! Pretty pathetic attempt at a burn, actually. We'll see you chokers in the playoffs.
But let's stop demanding apologies. It makes us look like the pusillanimous party.
If this were going the other way, you say, they'd have our asses. Pretty much. Can't argue with you there. If someone had said something like, "this really is the pot calling the kettle black," all Hell would have broken lose. But the double-standard be damned--I don't want to win that way. Let's walk it off. Pin the quote up in the locker room and take it out of their hides on the field of play.
Is she the new Reagan? If she is, she's going to laugh off this desperate slight and say, "Well, Barack, there you go again," and then counter with a rhetorical sharp right cross to the jaw.
UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.
07/09: The Indian Vote for McCain
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Overheard this week, quite a bit of political talk among my Indian parishioners and locals on the presidential campaign. I do mean "overheard" because while I am very vocal about issues, I do not talk politics in the parish in the sense of parties or candidates.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But Palin's nomination has some Indian women rethinking their vote for this fall.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But John McCain has a good reputation among our local Indians. Recently I heard a significant figure in tribal politics, usually a Democrat, declare to a group that he was going to vote for McCain, because of McCain's record on Native American issues.
Here in Oklahoma, the state will go for McCain with or without the Indian vote. But in New Mexico we may see a McCain win in November because of the reservation vote.
I have not heard Obama's color mentioned publically around here, but our local Indians tend to be prejudiced against blacks. My suspicion is that some will not vote for Obama because of his race.
For my previous post on the Indian vote this fall, see here.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But Palin's nomination has some Indian women rethinking their vote for this fall.
Native Americans usually vote Democrat. But John McCain has a good reputation among our local Indians. Recently I heard a significant figure in tribal politics, usually a Democrat, declare to a group that he was going to vote for McCain, because of McCain's record on Native American issues.
Here in Oklahoma, the state will go for McCain with or without the Indian vote. But in New Mexico we may see a McCain win in November because of the reservation vote.
I have not heard Obama's color mentioned publically around here, but our local Indians tend to be prejudiced against blacks. My suspicion is that some will not vote for Obama because of his race.
For my previous post on the Indian vote this fall, see here.
The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis. Source: the official website of the Selective Service Administration.
and
Mr Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" programme whether he'd ever thought about military service and replied: "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service [a means of conscription in case of war] when I graduated from high school.
"And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.
"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue." Source: The Telegraph
I am puzzled. Obama states that he graduated from high school in 1979. And, Obama states that he registered for selective service when he graduated from high school. But, there was no Selective Service registration in 1979. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, having no teleprompter or notes to consult. He seems not to have anticipated the question. He is not good at thinking on his feet when forced off his talking points: witness his mispeak "my Muslim faith" in the same interview.
If George Stephanopoulos can rattle Obama into misstatements, how will B.H. Obama do with Tsar Vladimir?
and
Mr Obama was asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week" programme whether he'd ever thought about military service and replied: "You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service [a means of conscription in case of war] when I graduated from high school.
"And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.
"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honourable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue." Source: The Telegraph
I am puzzled. Obama states that he graduated from high school in 1979. And, Obama states that he registered for selective service when he graduated from high school. But, there was no Selective Service registration in 1979. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, having no teleprompter or notes to consult. He seems not to have anticipated the question. He is not good at thinking on his feet when forced off his talking points: witness his mispeak "my Muslim faith" in the same interview.
If George Stephanopoulos can rattle Obama into misstatements, how will B.H. Obama do with Tsar Vladimir?
06/09: Is She Reagan?
I am seeing all kinds of Ronald Reagan-Sarah Palin comparisons careening around the blogoshere over the last seventy hours (perhaps the most eerie from Mike Reagan). Any validity? Maybe. I see some similarities.
Truly, she has a Reagan-like gift for communication. She talks, we listen, and we understand exactly what she means. Moreover, we admire her style even as we process her message. She feels at ease with us--and vice versa. She is confident, sincere, and approachable. Those are rare qualities that Reagan possessed in spades.
A member of the Bosque Boys community, "speakerofdacommoner," recently compared Palin to John Kennedy:
"She is bright, enthusiastic, matter of fact, and easy on the eyes! JFK was able to appear like a regular Joe each time he took center stage – almost as if he were having a conversation with just you. Palin did a remarkable job of appearing as real and rooted as anyone since Reagan. She seems trustworthy, honest, and tough – yet strikingly feminine: assertive without outright aggression."
"Speaker" is right to NOT shy away from her appealing appearance. The sheer physical beauty of Reagan and Kennedy should not be overlooked in explaining their political allure. Most of us are naturally drawn to beautiful people. Of course, you need to do more than look pretty (ask John Edwards). But an attractive countenance seems a wonderful starting place for a public figure.
One other comparison to Reagan (and this may be important):
She is polarizing. Just about half of us have already fallen in love with Sarah Palin--but the other half seems intent on ripping her heart out. If you remember the Reagan days, you will recall how much the left hated the Gipper. Even as there is a new energy and sense of great expectation on our side about her, our opponents are overflowing with fulmination. You could feel an uneasiness and dread on the part of the Obama nation and the almost intuitive and collective desire on the left to crush Palin immediately. This lady Hercules needed to be killed in the cradle, but, instead, she showed up on Wednesday night smiling and joyfully taunting her tormentors with the carcasses of the unsuccessful character assassins.
One thing about Reagan, the more you disparaged him, the more he smiled. "Well, Jimmy, there you go again." She smiles a lot--even when she is giving her opponent the business. Put me down and I will laugh good-naturedly--but you better be ready for my comeback. You make fun of me for being a small-town mayor, I've got a joke that puts you in your place, buster. And when it is all over, you will wish you had never opened up that can of worms.
One more thing I like: she doesn't look off into space; she looks directly at me through the television set.
One note of caution: we met Ronald Reagan the politician in 1964. We watched him for sixteen years before we elected him president, which included eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union and two unsuccessful campaigns for president.
We met Sarah Palin eight days ago.
Truly, she has a Reagan-like gift for communication. She talks, we listen, and we understand exactly what she means. Moreover, we admire her style even as we process her message. She feels at ease with us--and vice versa. She is confident, sincere, and approachable. Those are rare qualities that Reagan possessed in spades.
A member of the Bosque Boys community, "speakerofdacommoner," recently compared Palin to John Kennedy:
"She is bright, enthusiastic, matter of fact, and easy on the eyes! JFK was able to appear like a regular Joe each time he took center stage – almost as if he were having a conversation with just you. Palin did a remarkable job of appearing as real and rooted as anyone since Reagan. She seems trustworthy, honest, and tough – yet strikingly feminine: assertive without outright aggression."
"Speaker" is right to NOT shy away from her appealing appearance. The sheer physical beauty of Reagan and Kennedy should not be overlooked in explaining their political allure. Most of us are naturally drawn to beautiful people. Of course, you need to do more than look pretty (ask John Edwards). But an attractive countenance seems a wonderful starting place for a public figure.
One other comparison to Reagan (and this may be important):
She is polarizing. Just about half of us have already fallen in love with Sarah Palin--but the other half seems intent on ripping her heart out. If you remember the Reagan days, you will recall how much the left hated the Gipper. Even as there is a new energy and sense of great expectation on our side about her, our opponents are overflowing with fulmination. You could feel an uneasiness and dread on the part of the Obama nation and the almost intuitive and collective desire on the left to crush Palin immediately. This lady Hercules needed to be killed in the cradle, but, instead, she showed up on Wednesday night smiling and joyfully taunting her tormentors with the carcasses of the unsuccessful character assassins.
One thing about Reagan, the more you disparaged him, the more he smiled. "Well, Jimmy, there you go again." She smiles a lot--even when she is giving her opponent the business. Put me down and I will laugh good-naturedly--but you better be ready for my comeback. You make fun of me for being a small-town mayor, I've got a joke that puts you in your place, buster. And when it is all over, you will wish you had never opened up that can of worms.
One more thing I like: she doesn't look off into space; she looks directly at me through the television set.
One note of caution: we met Ronald Reagan the politician in 1964. We watched him for sixteen years before we elected him president, which included eight years as governor of the most populous state in the Union and two unsuccessful campaigns for president.
We met Sarah Palin eight days ago.
05/09: The Homerun
Due to a debilitating and painful combination of injuries, Kirk Gibson came to bat only once during the 1988 World Series. His single plate appearance transpired at the conclusion of Game One with one man on and two out in the bottom of the ninth; the scrappy Los Angeles Dodgers trailed the mighty and heavily favored Oakland A's by one run. Painfully limping into the batter's box, Gibson faced the American League "Rolaids Relief Man of the Year," ALCS MVP, and future hall of famer, Dennis Eckersley.
Dodger announcing legend, Vin Scully, with the call:
"...and all year long, he [Gibson] answered the demands, until he was physically unable to start tonight——with two bad legs: The bad left hamstring, and the swollen right knee. And, with two out, you talk about a roll of the dice... this is it."
Fifty thousand Dodger fans waited breathlessly at Chavez Ravine, while millions of white-knuckled fans crowded over TV sets all over the City of Angels. Gibson quickly fell behind in the count (two strikes, no balls). On the sixth pitch, as Gibson worked his way back to 3-2, the runner on first, Mike Davis, stole second base placing him in position to score the tying run with a base hit. However, it also allowed Eckersley and the A's the opportunity to intentionally walk the normally heavy-hitting Gibson in favor of the next batter, Steve Sax. No way. The brilliant pitcher and the sagacious manager, Tony LaRussa, saw Gibson as wounded and vulnerable. This was the opportunity to put away the nettlesome Dodgers.
Scully: "the game right now is at the plate."
The three-two pitch.
Scully: "high fly ball into right field, she i-i-i-is... gone!!!"
Scully again: "In a year that has been so improbable... the impossible has happened"
Jack Buck on CBS radio: "Unbelievable! A home run for Gibson! And the Dodgers have won the game, 5 to 4; I don't believe what I just saw!"
None of us could. Dodger Stadium erupted in a way never witnessed before or duplicated since. The streets of Los Angeles resounded with a cacophony of car horns and primal screams of sheer jubilation.
The Dodgers went on to win that series in five games. Gibson did not appear again. Orel Hershiser won the Most Valuable Player. Orel was tremendous, shutting out the A's in Game Two and Game Five. Nevertheless, I have always believed that Gibson deserved MVP honors for his single at-bat. Life is made up of moments. Gibson with one incredibly heroic and unlikely swing of the bat changed the trajectory of that series. Without that turning point, it is impossible to imagine the Dodgers overcoming the opening game loss at home. But with that win, the impossible suddenly seemed within their grasp--and it was.
Sarah Palin
Her stunning address to the Republican Convention and thirty-seven million television viewers on Wednesday night was a walk-off homerun. Under intense pressure, and against all odds, Sarah Palin delivered a game-changing swing of the bat. It does not mean the Republicans will win the series--but they have won Game One--a feat nearly unimaginable two weeks ago.
The Palin Homerun automatically stands as one of the Greatest Political Moments of All-Time.
Dodger announcing legend, Vin Scully, with the call:
"...and all year long, he [Gibson] answered the demands, until he was physically unable to start tonight——with two bad legs: The bad left hamstring, and the swollen right knee. And, with two out, you talk about a roll of the dice... this is it."
Fifty thousand Dodger fans waited breathlessly at Chavez Ravine, while millions of white-knuckled fans crowded over TV sets all over the City of Angels. Gibson quickly fell behind in the count (two strikes, no balls). On the sixth pitch, as Gibson worked his way back to 3-2, the runner on first, Mike Davis, stole second base placing him in position to score the tying run with a base hit. However, it also allowed Eckersley and the A's the opportunity to intentionally walk the normally heavy-hitting Gibson in favor of the next batter, Steve Sax. No way. The brilliant pitcher and the sagacious manager, Tony LaRussa, saw Gibson as wounded and vulnerable. This was the opportunity to put away the nettlesome Dodgers.
Scully: "the game right now is at the plate."
The three-two pitch.
Scully: "high fly ball into right field, she i-i-i-is... gone!!!"
Scully again: "In a year that has been so improbable... the impossible has happened"
Jack Buck on CBS radio: "Unbelievable! A home run for Gibson! And the Dodgers have won the game, 5 to 4; I don't believe what I just saw!"
None of us could. Dodger Stadium erupted in a way never witnessed before or duplicated since. The streets of Los Angeles resounded with a cacophony of car horns and primal screams of sheer jubilation.
The Dodgers went on to win that series in five games. Gibson did not appear again. Orel Hershiser won the Most Valuable Player. Orel was tremendous, shutting out the A's in Game Two and Game Five. Nevertheless, I have always believed that Gibson deserved MVP honors for his single at-bat. Life is made up of moments. Gibson with one incredibly heroic and unlikely swing of the bat changed the trajectory of that series. Without that turning point, it is impossible to imagine the Dodgers overcoming the opening game loss at home. But with that win, the impossible suddenly seemed within their grasp--and it was.
Sarah Palin
Her stunning address to the Republican Convention and thirty-seven million television viewers on Wednesday night was a walk-off homerun. Under intense pressure, and against all odds, Sarah Palin delivered a game-changing swing of the bat. It does not mean the Republicans will win the series--but they have won Game One--a feat nearly unimaginable two weeks ago.
The Palin Homerun automatically stands as one of the Greatest Political Moments of All-Time.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
There's talk on the street; it sounds so familiar
Great expectations, everybody's watching you
People you meet, they all seem to know you
Even your old friends treat you like you're something new
Remember that fellow Barack Obama? He was the young man with the winning smile who could do no wrong. The nice boy who was all the rage for a while. What ever happened to him?
Seriously, when the McCain campaign called Obama the "biggest celebrity in the world," they had it exactly right. The assertion: the Obama boom has had much more in common with the career arc of Britney Spears than Abraham Lincoln. The mainstream prObama press, so desperate for McCain to go negative, pounced on the fairly innocuous but absolutely penetrating assessment with enthusiasm. Team McCain was right to suspect that the hubris of the Obama campaign (movement) would not brook such blasphemous drivel. The Obama nation took the bait with gusto. Dirty campaigning! Karl Rove! Lee Atwater! Alex Castellanos! How dare you compare our Redeemer to a Messiah! How dare you compare our Deliverer to a cinematic Moses! And, for the first time in this campaign, the McCain needle moved a bit. The truth (albeit said in jest--but finally said) resonated.
Next Phase: how do you combat the star power of Paris Hilton? Invite Lindsey Lohan and her lesbian girlfriend to your party.
What is the genius of the Sarah Palin pick?
1. She is a new even more outlandish storyline for the celebrity-driven mainstream media. Somebody told me that Barack Obama made a speech a while back and drew a pretty good crowd. I vaguely remember that--but last Thursday seems like a month ago. Did you know that Sarah Palin earned her nickname, "Baracuda," as the point guard for her state championship high school girls basketball team? Was that before or after she was a runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Her husband seems dreamy. I wonder what he is really like?
You're walking away and they're talking behind you
They will never forget you 'til somebody new comes along
Advantage McCain. Of course, a big difference in Obama and Palin is that the mainstream prObama press will not be nearly as friendly to this new star bursting onto the scene. Sarah Palin will need to watch her back and carefully think out every move she makes. One misstep and this campaign is over. Talk about pressure. If she can walk this tightrope, she is more than up to handling the pressure of executive responsibility. However, as long as it lasts, Obama's star is diminished somewhat.
2. McCain has tricked the Obama boosters into making experience the central issue of this campaign. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready to lead on day one. Hmmm. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready for a three a.m. phone call. Really? The attack on the inexperienced veep candidate from the inexperienced presidential campaign seems tantamount to sacrificing your queen for the other fellow's bishop.
Message to Democrats: she's rubber and you're glue. Anything you say bounces off her and sticks to you.
3. She has a chance to become America's sweetheart. I said earlier she is Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington, but she may also be Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm--Mary Pickford. The righteous woman gone to Babylon, taking on the powerful and the underhanded and the dastardly, and finding a way to triumph in the end. It's a compelling narrative. Will it take hold? Hard to say. To repeat, she is not going to have a friendly mainstream media to "boom" her story--but, if all the stars align just right, it might just catch on anyhow.
But, until a negative consensus actually forms in the mind of the American people organically, the Palin persecutors snipe at her at their own peril. There is bound to be a lot of ugliness directed her way. How cruel it is, and how well she handles it (she needs to be tough but not shrill to be truly sympathetic), will go a long way in determining who we decide she really is.
Developing...
Great expectations, everybody's watching you
People you meet, they all seem to know you
Even your old friends treat you like you're something new
Remember that fellow Barack Obama? He was the young man with the winning smile who could do no wrong. The nice boy who was all the rage for a while. What ever happened to him?
Seriously, when the McCain campaign called Obama the "biggest celebrity in the world," they had it exactly right. The assertion: the Obama boom has had much more in common with the career arc of Britney Spears than Abraham Lincoln. The mainstream prObama press, so desperate for McCain to go negative, pounced on the fairly innocuous but absolutely penetrating assessment with enthusiasm. Team McCain was right to suspect that the hubris of the Obama campaign (movement) would not brook such blasphemous drivel. The Obama nation took the bait with gusto. Dirty campaigning! Karl Rove! Lee Atwater! Alex Castellanos! How dare you compare our Redeemer to a Messiah! How dare you compare our Deliverer to a cinematic Moses! And, for the first time in this campaign, the McCain needle moved a bit. The truth (albeit said in jest--but finally said) resonated.
Next Phase: how do you combat the star power of Paris Hilton? Invite Lindsey Lohan and her lesbian girlfriend to your party.
What is the genius of the Sarah Palin pick?
1. She is a new even more outlandish storyline for the celebrity-driven mainstream media. Somebody told me that Barack Obama made a speech a while back and drew a pretty good crowd. I vaguely remember that--but last Thursday seems like a month ago. Did you know that Sarah Palin earned her nickname, "Baracuda," as the point guard for her state championship high school girls basketball team? Was that before or after she was a runner up in the Miss Alaska pageant? Her husband seems dreamy. I wonder what he is really like?
You're walking away and they're talking behind you
They will never forget you 'til somebody new comes along
Advantage McCain. Of course, a big difference in Obama and Palin is that the mainstream prObama press will not be nearly as friendly to this new star bursting onto the scene. Sarah Palin will need to watch her back and carefully think out every move she makes. One misstep and this campaign is over. Talk about pressure. If she can walk this tightrope, she is more than up to handling the pressure of executive responsibility. However, as long as it lasts, Obama's star is diminished somewhat.
2. McCain has tricked the Obama boosters into making experience the central issue of this campaign. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready to lead on day one. Hmmm. This woman, Sarah Palin, is not ready for a three a.m. phone call. Really? The attack on the inexperienced veep candidate from the inexperienced presidential campaign seems tantamount to sacrificing your queen for the other fellow's bishop.
Message to Democrats: she's rubber and you're glue. Anything you say bounces off her and sticks to you.
3. She has a chance to become America's sweetheart. I said earlier she is Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington, but she may also be Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm--Mary Pickford. The righteous woman gone to Babylon, taking on the powerful and the underhanded and the dastardly, and finding a way to triumph in the end. It's a compelling narrative. Will it take hold? Hard to say. To repeat, she is not going to have a friendly mainstream media to "boom" her story--but, if all the stars align just right, it might just catch on anyhow.
But, until a negative consensus actually forms in the mind of the American people organically, the Palin persecutors snipe at her at their own peril. There is bound to be a lot of ugliness directed her way. How cruel it is, and how well she handles it (she needs to be tough but not shrill to be truly sympathetic), will go a long way in determining who we decide she really is.
Developing...
30/08: Sarah Palin, Plain and Tall
I don't know how tall Sarah Palin actually stands. I am guessing she is no giant, as she played point guard on her small-school high school girls basketball team--they called her "Baracuda." She is certainly not plain, at least not in the sense one means when we describe a woman with that word. To the contrary, Sarah Palin is the most strikingly comely vice presidential candidate in American political history.
An Aside: as much as this pick is designed to attract (and revivify) national security moms, I am convinced Governor Palin is also aimed at men from forty-two to ninety-five, who like to sneak a peak at Desperate Housewives every once in awhile--regardless of the less-than-plausible plot lines. I am guessing that Sarah Palin grew up watching Jill and Kris Monroe, Kelly Garrett, and Sabrina Duncan kicking and judo-chopping their way through a slew of bad men and evil-doers. She was not alone. There is a whole generation of us out there who like our women smart, beautiful, and ultra-capable.
Sarah Palin looks very comfortable in her fatigues squeezing off rounds in the desert. She strikes us as both tough as nails and soft to the touch as she shepherds her five kids onto center stage. Moreover, she grabs the microphone with the confidence and poise of a beauty queen who knows one important secret: she has been successful at everything she has ever attempted.
John McCain hopes fervently that his pick will stand tall and strong in the face of the upcoming media barrage--and he certainly hopes that beyond her good looks, her "regular Jane" story will resonate with plain folks.
My thoughts on the news?
Ambivalence. Quite frankly, my head is spinning.
On one hand, a really weird campaign took a dramatic turn toward ridiculous.
When I close my eyes and ponder Sarah Palin as the veep, my stomach hurts.
When I watch her and listen to her, my spirits rally.
What is wrong with Palin?
By some reckoning, the wise old statesman, John McCain, just burned his most meaningful trump card: EXPERIENCE. The conventional thinking called for McCain to paint his opponent as a forty-seven year-old, wet-behind-the-ears, half-term senator, far too naive to fully grasp the intricacies inherent in leading the most vital nation on the planet through a complicated swamp of pitfalls in an extremely dangerous world. McCain gave that up yesterday. Why? Not because it was not true (that line of argument was fairly accurate). No, McCain tossed EXPERIENCE because it was likely NOT compelling to a majority of Americans. Why give away this issue? Ask non-nominee Hillary Clinton? As Mark Shields said yesterday on the Newshour, John McCain was on a path to garner 45 percent of the vote.
In that sense, giving away the EXPERIENCE issue was probably a smart (even necessary) strategic choice. But, unfortunately, John McCain went even further when he tapped a forty-four year-old, half-term governor from a fairly insignificant electoral state (whose first and only prior job in politics was mayor of a small suburban town) to run as his second chair.
The Danger? If America elects John McCain, this woman, Sarah Palin, will be one heartbeat away from the presidency and be in charge of leading the most vital nation on the planet through a complicated swamp of pitfalls in an extremely dangerous world. McCain is a seventy-two year-old, weathered and shopworn, former POW, "cancer-survivor" (as all the Democratic pundits and spokespersons keep reminding us). Was this a responsible choice?
Is she ready?
Is she ready to be president? Is she ready for the next sixty-eight days? Is she ready to trade jabs with these lethal and seasoned heavyweight contenders in the most intense and punishing political prize fight around? Or, to switch sports metaphors, did John McCain really just call up a promising minor leaguer to pitch the first game of the World Series?
Is she ready? It is hard to imagine how she could be--but we will see.
What is right with Sarah Palin?
She is a woman. My initial thought on this gambit: Too Gimmicky. Come on. No one is going to fall for this. The shout-out to Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton. The chastisement of the good old boy network. The reference to women's suffrage. Doesn't this play way too manipulative and obvious?
All the talking heads are quick to point out that she is not an old school feminist. She is pro life. She is an evangelical. She is a movement conservative. Was anybody really expecting that the disaffected Hillary gals were really going to vote for this Bobby Jindal in a skirt?
By the way, she really does shore up the conservative base--but in a completely unorthodox way. Albeit breathtakingly brief, she possesses an actual track record as a conservative reformer, taking on the Republican establishment and thrilling hardcore conservatives simultaneously.
Why might women identify with her? The same reason many men will.
She is a no-nonsense fresh face. She radiates sincerity and authenticity. She exudes real personhood. She really is (no joke, no spin, no Hollywood magic) one of us. Although she takes away the EXPERIENCE card, she actually reaffirms McCain's true ace in the hole: his reputation as a maverick--which translated into the language of the common American means: "we think he is an honest man."
We know nothing about her--but at first blush, she strikes us as an honest woman.
At first blush, she is Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington.
Of course, making a good first impression is only the beginning. We shall see what we think of her on second thought. No doubt, this was a "Hail Mary," as some pundits have described it. It was a low percentage play with the clock winding down. But, every once in a while, a Roger Staubauch rears back in the gloom of a Metropolitan Stadium and throws a rainbow into the end zone and a Drew Pearson stands under the football and catches it on his hip.
And the crowd goes wild.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
An Aside: as much as this pick is designed to attract (and revivify) national security moms, I am convinced Governor Palin is also aimed at men from forty-two to ninety-five, who like to sneak a peak at Desperate Housewives every once in awhile--regardless of the less-than-plausible plot lines. I am guessing that Sarah Palin grew up watching Jill and Kris Monroe, Kelly Garrett, and Sabrina Duncan kicking and judo-chopping their way through a slew of bad men and evil-doers. She was not alone. There is a whole generation of us out there who like our women smart, beautiful, and ultra-capable.
Sarah Palin looks very comfortable in her fatigues squeezing off rounds in the desert. She strikes us as both tough as nails and soft to the touch as she shepherds her five kids onto center stage. Moreover, she grabs the microphone with the confidence and poise of a beauty queen who knows one important secret: she has been successful at everything she has ever attempted.
John McCain hopes fervently that his pick will stand tall and strong in the face of the upcoming media barrage--and he certainly hopes that beyond her good looks, her "regular Jane" story will resonate with plain folks.
My thoughts on the news?
Ambivalence. Quite frankly, my head is spinning.
On one hand, a really weird campaign took a dramatic turn toward ridiculous.
When I close my eyes and ponder Sarah Palin as the veep, my stomach hurts.
When I watch her and listen to her, my spirits rally.
What is wrong with Palin?
By some reckoning, the wise old statesman, John McCain, just burned his most meaningful trump card: EXPERIENCE. The conventional thinking called for McCain to paint his opponent as a forty-seven year-old, wet-behind-the-ears, half-term senator, far too naive to fully grasp the intricacies inherent in leading the most vital nation on the planet through a complicated swamp of pitfalls in an extremely dangerous world. McCain gave that up yesterday. Why? Not because it was not true (that line of argument was fairly accurate). No, McCain tossed EXPERIENCE because it was likely NOT compelling to a majority of Americans. Why give away this issue? Ask non-nominee Hillary Clinton? As Mark Shields said yesterday on the Newshour, John McCain was on a path to garner 45 percent of the vote.
In that sense, giving away the EXPERIENCE issue was probably a smart (even necessary) strategic choice. But, unfortunately, John McCain went even further when he tapped a forty-four year-old, half-term governor from a fairly insignificant electoral state (whose first and only prior job in politics was mayor of a small suburban town) to run as his second chair.
The Danger? If America elects John McCain, this woman, Sarah Palin, will be one heartbeat away from the presidency and be in charge of leading the most vital nation on the planet through a complicated swamp of pitfalls in an extremely dangerous world. McCain is a seventy-two year-old, weathered and shopworn, former POW, "cancer-survivor" (as all the Democratic pundits and spokespersons keep reminding us). Was this a responsible choice?
Is she ready?
Is she ready to be president? Is she ready for the next sixty-eight days? Is she ready to trade jabs with these lethal and seasoned heavyweight contenders in the most intense and punishing political prize fight around? Or, to switch sports metaphors, did John McCain really just call up a promising minor leaguer to pitch the first game of the World Series?
Is she ready? It is hard to imagine how she could be--but we will see.
What is right with Sarah Palin?
She is a woman. My initial thought on this gambit: Too Gimmicky. Come on. No one is going to fall for this. The shout-out to Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton. The chastisement of the good old boy network. The reference to women's suffrage. Doesn't this play way too manipulative and obvious?
All the talking heads are quick to point out that she is not an old school feminist. She is pro life. She is an evangelical. She is a movement conservative. Was anybody really expecting that the disaffected Hillary gals were really going to vote for this Bobby Jindal in a skirt?
By the way, she really does shore up the conservative base--but in a completely unorthodox way. Albeit breathtakingly brief, she possesses an actual track record as a conservative reformer, taking on the Republican establishment and thrilling hardcore conservatives simultaneously.
Why might women identify with her? The same reason many men will.
She is a no-nonsense fresh face. She radiates sincerity and authenticity. She exudes real personhood. She really is (no joke, no spin, no Hollywood magic) one of us. Although she takes away the EXPERIENCE card, she actually reaffirms McCain's true ace in the hole: his reputation as a maverick--which translated into the language of the common American means: "we think he is an honest man."
We know nothing about her--but at first blush, she strikes us as an honest woman.
At first blush, she is Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington.
Of course, making a good first impression is only the beginning. We shall see what we think of her on second thought. No doubt, this was a "Hail Mary," as some pundits have described it. It was a low percentage play with the clock winding down. But, every once in a while, a Roger Staubauch rears back in the gloom of a Metropolitan Stadium and throws a rainbow into the end zone and a Drew Pearson stands under the football and catches it on his hip.
And the crowd goes wild.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
