Palin Derangement Syndrome
The press likes to tell us she’s a dumb hick who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. So, I wonder why they spend so much time trying to demonize the woman. I mean, if she’s that dumb, why spend time digging up the dirt? Palin’s greatest attribute is her ability to drive the press and the left (but I repeat myself) insane. It amuses me.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
because they are afraid of her, and more importantly the resonance she has with the average citizen. They fear that she is attractive to people who are tired of double talking politicians and may take her message to heart when they go vote.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
No straightarrow, what scares us is the fact that she came this close to holding high office. And it scared us because we think she’s a dumb hick who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time (to use Uncle’s colorful characterization). We do not fear her as an actual political force.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Battlefield prep is what it is.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Guav, you lie. Simple as that. It may not be what scares you as an individual, but it is what scares the Hell out of Democrats and a great many Republicans.
She is just too “common”, and they fear that “common” being the definition of most of us she will resonate with the electorate.
Anybody who voted for Obama or McCain can’t really care about the qualifications of who holds high office.
Proof is in the White House now. Had the other major candidate won, same thing.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:39 am
I’m thinking a fun bumper sticker would be: “Don’t blame me, I voted for Palin”
Probably want to put that on your clunker, I suspect the peace-loving lefties would go all SEIU on it.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:30 am
She said, in seriousness, that she can see Russia from her house.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Aubrey: How dumbass can you get?
That was from a Saturday Night Live sketch, and was said by an comedian pretending to be Palin.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:41 am
They were spoofing something she actually said. Talk about dumbass.
She’s currently embroiled in the middle of a People magazine imbroglio with the dumbass who knocked up her daughter, a kid barely old enough to buy a beer.
You want a president who’s bickering in finest Jerry Springer fashion with someone that used to fuck her daughter on TV?
Please.
Want to ensure Obama is reelected? Support Palin in 2012.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Right, but what she really said that living near Russia counts as foreign policy experience, which is just as retarded.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
straightarrow: No, it’s not as “simple as that.” You may think I am wrong, but I am not “lying”—there’s a difference, and you have no reason to accuse me of being a liar simply because we disagree or because you think I am wrong about something.
Though 76% of Republicans want her to be a national political figure, only 45% of Americans do—and up to 71% of the public believes she’s unqualified to be president. There’s a large gap between Republicans and the rest of the county. She doesn’t resonate with “the average citizen” in general, she resonates with the average citizen in certain regions of the country. I’m not even sure there’s such a thing as an “average” American citizen anymore.
Aubry: Yes, it’s just as ridiculous, so use the real quote she said instead of the satirical one she didn’t, otherwise nobody has a reason to take your critique seriously.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Since when did being “common” make someone a good candidate for president?
November 17th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Since some people in this country decided that they wanted a “folksy” leader just like them who doesn’t need facts because they have faith, and would makes decisions with their gut and not their head. After all, knowledge is stupid and expertise is for elitist eggheads.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Guav pretty much nailed it, and I kinda wish our host has parsed the reasons she draws such reactions a bit more.
It’s not really her politics–it’s the anti-intellectualism she openly espouses (well, that coupled with the fact that come the fuck on, grownups, let along POTUS candidates, don’t get in tacky tabloid spats with 22 year olds about dumb shit) that makes people go “you’ve got to be kidding”.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Then why do they exaggerate her supposed stupidity? I mean, no need to lie about her saying she can see Russia from her house nor lie about her wanting to teach creation in school. Both are untrue but parroted as truth.
Don’t get me wrong, Palin’s shiny new political smell wore off for me long ago. It’s just the treatment she gets from the left and the press (but I repeat myself) that I find staggering. If she’s that dumb, let her own dumb speak for itself. No need to make it up.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
It’s not that they “lie” about her saying she can see Russia from her house, it’s that the joke quote was so close to what she actually said—which was just as absurd—that the two easily get confused. Had the SNL skit never existed, we’d still be mocking her for claiming that the proximity of an Alaskan island to a Russian island gives her foreign policy experience. Come on, that shit was fucking ridiculous and deserving of mockery. Let’s not even get started on Putin rearing his head into Alaska’s airpsace—that’s actually more comical than anything Fey ever said.
The majority of the “dumb” that she is criticized for ARE things she actually said.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
But those aren’t the examples folks fall back on, illustrated in this post. Just sayin.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Oh and her being dumb and the press treating her this way are not mutually exclusive.
For instance,if we compared her dumb things said meter to Joe Biden’s and then compared her press coverage to his for dumb things said, I imagine the trend is easy to spot.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I agree. I doubt the AP would assign a bunch of staffers to fact-check a book by Joe Biden. There does seem to be a double standard.
That being said, I know some very smart people that say a lot of dumb things—they’re bad with the whole talking thing, putting their thoughts into words. And I know some very dumb people that say dumb things—because they don’t know any better. There IS a difference. Putting your foot in your mouth—repeatedly—is not really the same thing as having no idea what you’re talking about. Personally, I don’t think Sarah Palin has any fucking idea what she’s talking about. I don’t think she has the knowledge or the intellectual curiosity or capacity to making world-changing decisions.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I don’t think so. I think she stuck to the folksy shtick & script that the McCain campaign told her to stick to. But time will tell.
And I don’t think Biden’s that smart either. He says dumb things because he says dumb things.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
On the other hand, perhaps the reason Biden gets a pass in a way that Palin didn’t is because almost nobody knew who the fuck Palin was when McCain tapped her—so there was a flurry to find out about her. Part of that entailed looking into her past, her affiliations, etc. People became critical of Palin because they were trying to figure out why McCain thought it was acceptable to pick someone so …. so …. dude, she was a sportscaster. Biden has been in politics almost as long as Palin has been alive.
Look, I was sort of impressed with Palin after her initial public appearance. I thought she might be a formidable foe. I didn’t think she was an idiot. But then, after watching her interviews, after watching her debates, it became clear to me that she was not all that prepared for the national stage, to put it lightly. I think Glenn Greenwald put it well:
Or maybe I’m just sexist 🙂
November 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Palin”
How about this;
“I Voted For The Loser” would fit in all situations, assuming you voted.
I heard Palin’s interview with Rush this morning. Though I did actually hear her say a couple of things for the first time ever, I’m still not impressed. At all. She either did a focus group before the interview, or did it all ion her head, but she repeated “common sense conservatism” about thirty seven thousand times (give or take). It seemed to show up in every answer to Rush’s questions, as though it were her mantra for the day/week/lifetime. Someone passionately adherent to principles needs not cling to silly catchphrases. I’ve heard vastly superior representatives of the principles of liberty.
Here’s her entire interview in a nutshell;
Tax cuts because those who create jobs and wealth need it, and will create more jobs and wealth if they can keep more of what’s theirs (cool). More freedom to develop domestic energy sources so we’re not sending billions of dollars to foreign interests, some of which are openly hostile to us (cool). Dither a little, splutter, cough, and eventually say that Earth’s climate is cyclical (which of course it is) and that the science isn’t all that settled (better than Bush I guess).
No mention of the need to rout out socialism from the U.S. By failing to bring it up, we’re left wondering just how much socialism and other forms of corruption she advocates. She did speak of “shrinking government”. No clue given as to what that could mean. It’s curious, especially in light of the fact that it’s never been done. Ever. Well, maybe we could count the American Revolution as an example, but there’s no other since.
Full transcript here.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Another conservative who equates reducing government solely with reducing spending, unable to conceive of any sort of freedom that doesn’t come in the form of green paper.
Which of course means absolutely no mention of cutting back the numerous non-monetary ways the State impinges on liberty.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Guav, you are correct, I apologize. I should not have said you lie, but rather you have deceived yourself and not intentionally deceived me. I am sorry for the ugliness of my first sentence in that post.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Stormy Dragon, I didn’t say she was a good or a bad candidate for president, what I said was she was considered “common” and that scares the hell out of those politicians in both parties who hold us common folk in contempt, because she just may resonate with them.
But to turn your question back on you, what proof is there that Harvard and Yale educations make good candidates for president? I haven’t seen any.
As as anecdotal evidence that being common doesn’t automatically reduce your gravitas as a candidate or president, no one was more common than Harry Truman. Pretty good president.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Lyle said “Someone passionately adherent to principles needs not cling to silly catchphrases. ”
You mean things like “Change we can believe in.” or “Hope and Change”?
Just asking.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Just had to add this in support of Uncle’s view of this being Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Everybody here who has denigrated this woman has held her to a standard that they didn’t hold the “presidential” candidate of the other party to. There is a reason for that. Palin beats him in nearly every comparison of like to like.
She had much more executive experience, she had more foreign relations experience, don’t shake your damn head, she did. She negotiated a contract with a foreign government, which gave her more experience than the “presidential” candidate of the opposition, but none of you mention that, although her experience does not qualify her as an expert or even at that point competent, none of you mention that her experience exceeds that of the opposition’s “presidential” candidate. However, if we compare her to her opposite number the “vice-presidential” candidate, he had much more experience in foreign affairs, and has been monumentally wrong in every utterance he has made in regards to foreign policy.
Then there are those who question her stance on government corruption, even though it is a matter of record that she went after and got corrupt officials in her own party in her state. But none of you mention Obama’s ties to criminals and terrorists.
Now think about this, you criticize her, rightfully or wrongly, by criteria you won’t and didn’t even apply to the head of the other ticket. And she wasn’t even the head of her ticket. None of you seem interested in speaking of Idiot Joe’s qualifications or intellectual powers and it has even been hinted that he may not be good verbally while not being stupid (by the way, I disagree, Joe is dumber than a box of rocks trying to float downstream), however if Palin had a bad interview or two it was because she was stupid.
Gentlemen that is Derangement Syndrome. When you must change the criteria by which you judge within the same issue to reach your predetermined conclusion, you are deranged. The fact that is on purpose is not an ameliorating factor.
Now for the really dim among us, let me point out I did not defend Palin nor her philosophy, nor did I attack Obama or Biden (well, ok, Biden a little bit) I merely pointed out the inconsistencies most of you apply to the issue.
Uncle is right, this piling on Palin when the same criteria aren’t used for others justifies his use of the appellation “Palin Derangement Syndrome”.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
straightarrow: Thanks for the apology. We’re going to disagree a lot, and sometimes I’ll be wrong, but I’m not going to lie to you.
To be fair, those are campaign slogans. The candidates did not drop those phrases into answers to every question in an interview.
On the other hand, imagine if an unknown, woefully unprepared and unknowledgable black politician from a large urban area, bearing the distinctive linguistic hallmarks and mannerisms of his adopted hometown, was put on a ticket and didn’t know what his job entailed, said that he was prepared to engage internationally because he could see Canada from the northern edge of Illinois and routinely told boldfaced lies about the one thing he was supposed to have done in office. Not only would he be laughed out of every room he was in, it would set black candidates nationwide back years, if not decades.
I was never as interested in the experience of the candidates as I was with their knowledge. I didn’t care that Palin didn’t have extensive foreign policy experience. It bothered me that the campaign claimed seeing Russia from Alaska gave her some.
As far as “executive experience” goes, this matters only if you focus on the “type” of experience rather than on the nature of their relative experiences. And by that same measure, she had more “executive experience” than McCain as well. To say that she was more prepared to be president than McCain would be absurd, because the nature and scope of his experience completely trumps hers, even though hers was “executive.”
Since she only gave one or two interviews, that’s like 100%. And she was bad in the debates. She just strings words together, and they frequently don’t make any sense at all. It gives the impression that she has no idea what she’s talking about.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“To be fair, those are campaign slogans. The candidates did not drop those phrases into answers to every question in an interview.”
[He did as a candidate and still does in many of his speeches. Did you miss it?]
“I was never as interested in the experience of the candidates as I was with their knowledge. I didn’t care that Palin didn’t have extensive foreign policy experience. It bothered me that the campaign claimed seeing Russia from Alaska gave her some.”
[Her campaign didn’t claim that, the media claimed it her name. The campaign stressed that she had negotiated a complicated contract with a foreign government. She must have had some ability to learn.]
“As far as “executive experience” goes, this matters only if you focus on the “type” of experience rather than on the nature of their relative experiences. And by that same measure, she had more “executive experience” than McCain as well. To say that she was more prepared to be president than McCain would be absurd, because the nature and scope of his experience completely trumps hers, even though hers was “executive.”
[I agree, but you didn’t compare her to McCain (who by the way I could not vote for) you compared her to Obama where any experience at all exceeded his.]
“Since she only gave one or two interviews, that’s like 100%. And she was bad in the debates. She just strings words together, and they frequently don’t make any sense at all. It gives the impression that she has no idea what she’s talking about.”
Here we vehemently disagree, she left Joe gasping like a fish out of water, she crushed him. Her interviews weren’t too good, but consider the Couric interview. Nine hours of interview, 7 minutes aired. Gee, you don’t think the media being in the tank for Obama may have influenced their editorial decisions? Really?]
“It gives the impression that she has no idea what she’s talking about.”
[That you perhaps couldn’t understand what she said doesn’t mean she didn’t know what she was talking about. That is what scares her detractors, that a great many understood her.]
November 19th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Yes, because clearly our only two options are Jane Six-pack and Havard Lawyer. This is the false dilemma that is destroying the right. The problem with the left elite is their ideas, which need to be combatted with better ideas, not some populist hostility to all ideas.
And Guav is right, Palin does just string together phrases without bothering if they make sense. Because, like much of the right now, she isn’t trying to make sense; these phrases are just conservative gang-signs that people flash to identify themselves as a member of the tribe. Any meaning they have beyond that function is purely coincidental, because they haven’t really thought about what those phrases mean.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I’m sorry, but on at least four separate occasions, John McCain, Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin herself claimed that Alaska’s mere proximity to Russia (“Right next door!”) gave her foreign policy and/or national security experience. That’s why it became an SNL joke, and why Katie Couric asked her about it. She then proceeded to once again affirm that Russia’s proximity to Alaska gave her foreign policy experience—despite the fact that Moscow is 4,530 miles from Juneau—and made the hilarious “Putin’s head in our airspace” comment.
Only after that repeated claim backfired did we begin to hear about “a complicated contract with a foreign government.” She didn’t have a passport until 2006 and never even left North America until 2007.
You’re the one who compared her to Obama, not me. I didn’t complain about her lack of experience at all. You said she had more executive experience than Obama—I agreed and, by way of a link, explained why that’s irrelevant, and added that by that same standard, she had more executive experience than McCain too. My point is that the nature of the candidates experience is more important than the type.
You think so, but not very many other people thought so. Viewer response, audience response and polls all showed Biden to do better in the debates. She certainly did better than many—myself included—expected her to do, but she also neglected to actually answer the questions. She had preformulated answers, and when a question didn’t lend itself to one of her memorized answers, she just said she wasn’t going to answer the question and talked about some other shit—usually energy, maybe the only thing she’s actually knowledgable about.
Also consider the fact that she adamantly refused to prepare for the Couric or Gibson interviews. Sure, you could edit nine hours of interview down to 7 minutes of idiotic blathering to use, but only if there’s 7 minutes of idiotic blathering. Here she is on FOX yesterday being interviewed by Sean Hannity, talking about Iraq when she was asked about Iran (Sure the names are similar, but in the past—also being interviewed on FOX, she said we had to win the wars “over in Iraq and Iran.”) Maybe that’s why she didn’t want to do interviews when campaigning, because she realizes what you don’t: she’s no good at them.
“But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.” Sorry, but that is just absolute, complete nonsense. It’s a bunch of words strung together. She sounds like Ms. South Carolina from the Miss Teen USA 2007 pageant.