Just Perfect On Palin
Heather MacDonald has a terrific piece on what's wrong with Palin -- how little there there there actually is. You have to read the whole thing, over at City Journal, but here are a few excerpts:
I'm, like, man, I really don't know if I'm ready for a vice president who goes: "My son's, like: 'Mom, I'm in the army now,' and I'm, like: 'I'm so proud.'" And who's, like, "And [my son] goes, 'O.K., well I'll be praying.' I'm like--total role reversal here, that's what I've been telling him for 19 years.'" Or who goes, "This is a time when, man, politics have got to be put aside." (As Alaska governor Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity, William Kristol, and Katie Couric.)...Her speech differs somewhat from the verbal knots into which George W. Bush so often tied himself. She is less given to malapropisms; apart from her teen mannerisms, her linguistic oddness is more subtle, and seems more often driven by a failure to grasp subject matter.
Nevertheless, Palin's verbal hodgepodge may say nothing about her qualifications for the vice presidency. Judgment and political acumen could well rest on different mental capacities than the ability to order thoughts into smooth sentences. But the inability to answer a straightforward question about economic policy without becoming tangled in words suggests either ignorance about the subject matter or a difficulty connecting between ideas. Neither explanation is reassuring.
...Conservatives once insisted that women can't always have it all: raising a child requires certain unavoidable trade-offs between family and career. A mother, a father, and day care are not fungible, particularly for very young children. Yet now comes Sarah Palin, with a disabled baby who will be barely a year old when the next president and vice president take their oaths of office, and conservative pundits suggest that only the fear of strong women could lead someone to question whether a mother with such a young, needy child can serve both her oath of office and her family as each deserve.
Liberal hypocrisy on Palin's family dilemmas has matched the conservative turnaround with perfect symmetry, of course. And perhaps both sides will blithely and unapologetically switch places yet again as soon as circumstances allow. Still, the conservative position on the family happens to be the right one. So, too, was the erstwhile conservative defense of articulateness, knowledge, and uncommon achievement. It's a shame to have sacrificed these ideas, even temporarily, in the quest for political advantage.
Over in McCainland, from CNN, it sounds like the honeymoon is over. (They're even trotting out the "D" word, as in "diva.") I'm guessing Palin will be known as the rash choice that cost the little man the presidency.
I've repeatedly made it clear how unqualified I think Palin is for the office, so I'll ask you about all four losers we have running: Do we deserve the presidential and vice-presidential candidates we got -- or is there something terribly wrong with the system? How did it end up that we get to choose between two socialists who are simply bribing different sectors of the population? Handouts to the rich, handouts to the poor and middle-class...it's all my money going in somebody else's pocket. Whose pocket it is...that's just details.
I'll grow old and die without understanding why the man on the street is so impressed with intellectuals, or at least with people who appear to be intellectual. Not just in politics, but certainly there...
The most intellectual president of our generations is probably Clinton, who'll be remembered for the vigilance of his radiant schvantz. Whatever magic might have been brought to our nation by dint of high-wattage, Oxford-trained brain seems only spent on mopping up his personal crises. The middle east, Africa, Asia, the poverty of the inner city... Did he make anything bad go away?
Sharpen a pencil, grab a clean pad, and write a list: What are the best things that a really, really, really smart and well-spoken person ever did for you personally?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 12:15 AM
PS- I love Heather and I love Hitchens and I love a lot of those people*... But we see that when push comes to shove, the articulate people who do well in classrooms will always stick with each other, presuming that they're the ones who should be running the show.
By the way, the guys on the football team, the guys in the marching band, and the guys in the chess club each feel they ought to be running the show, too. There's nothing particularly admirable about the presumption.
Anybuddy wanna see the links I post on this topic about twice a year? OK... Here you go.
* Chris Buckley notsomuch.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 12:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600210">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]She just hasn't rubbed two words together that suggest she understands anything more than the need to pull together buzzwords and generate emotion in American voters. I'm no snob. One of the minds I respect the most is that of retired a French woodworker who may or may not have finished high school.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 1:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600213">comment from Amy AlkonP.S. I place a big bet that he knows more about foreign affairs, economics, AND American current and past history than our Republican vice-presidential candidate.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 1:15 AM
'like' is actually a word in the English language, would you believe it?
Here's the original quote:
“He called the day of the debate, and it was so wonderful because it was the first call since they were deployed over there, and it was like a burden lifted even when I heard his voice.” Palin said that she told him that she had a debate that night. “And he says, ‘Yeah, I heard, Mom,’ and he says, ‘Have you been studying?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, I have,’ and he goes, ‘O.K., well I’ll be praying.’ I’m like — total role reversal here, that’s what I’ve been telling him for 19 years.”
Doesn't sound like the bimbo you quoted above.
bluestate at October 26, 2008 2:02 AM
She just hasn't rubbed two words together that suggest she understands anything more than the need to pull together buzzwords and generate emotion in American voters.
You haven't been listening to her, than. She's been extremely insightful on quite a few issues. Even in her 'bad' interviews - you did read through the entire transcripts and not just through the cut-up edited version?
bluestate at October 26, 2008 2:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600229">comment from bluestateShe's been extremely insightful on quite a few issues.
Which ones would those be? And do give details. The fact that she OCCASIONALLY doesn't seem tongue tied, unable to put a coherent thought together and unable to do more than stick Republican buzzwords and emotional calls to action into a sentence does not a qualified VP candidate make. And no, I don't think Barack Obama or John McCain are good candidates either. And while I don't like Joe Biden for a host of reasons, at least the guy knows foreign policy.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 2:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600230">comment from bluestateDoesn't sound like the bimbo you quoted above.
Yay! She can talk about her kid without stumbling! Hell, why stick her in the VP slot. Elect the woman president!
Low standards anyone?
Because she's a Republican, probably believes man saddled up the dinosaurs, and is anti-abortion, and hot does not make her qualified for the office. Be honest: If she were a Democrat, you'd be knocking her every which way and Tuesday.
Luckily, I'm neither, so I can be honest about her. Wanted to like her, but the evidence that she's incurious, not knowledgeable and completely unqualified -- plus has too many children to have a high office like this with so much responsibility -- stands against her.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 3:02 AM
She's the reason Obama can't close the deal.
LOL! Oh my goodness.
Have you been talking to Matt Damon? That was a joke on a blog that somebody took for her own words.
Amy, you would never, ever say this about any male candidate. The logical gymnastics people are going through to condemn her are amazing.
Jim Treacher at October 26, 2008 5:09 AM
Oh Amy Amy Amy. You are getting hysterical on this, and lowering your cred on others issues by association. You've yet to post an actual non-edited quote by her. Or a full, non-edited interview. I can cut 'n paste words you've typed here, and make you sound like a raving religious prolife nutter. Does that make you one?
I don't think she's going to stand by as Israel gets nuked. That's one point in favor of her over foot-in-mouth-ignored-by-media Biden. She also understands energy pretty thoroughly, and I for one LIKE paying less than $80 to fill my car. I'd like it to continue.
momof3 at October 26, 2008 6:01 AM
Amy I agree with you 100%.
Nina at October 26, 2008 6:23 AM
Really? Biden knows foreign policy? That's highly amusing, and exceedingly wrong. The man started getting top-secret briefings, and what does he do? Goes and runs his mouth about the world testing Obama, and him getting it totally wrong, but we need to stand behind him anyway. And yes, and the french and us and hezbollah, he got that spot-on. I am constantly in awe of his brilliant mind.
Sarcasm off.
momof3 at October 26, 2008 6:54 AM
Read Heather's piece for quotes.
amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 6:54 AM
Amy -
You know what? It pains me to say this, but I think your opposition to Palin is the same as Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan.
You can't stand Palin because she's hot.
There's no reasonable justification for Parker and Noonan to jump ship to a candidate that is to the left of the woman they helped defeat (Clinton). I suspect that the so-called intellectuals of the right would have been perfectly happy with a Lieberman choice from McCain.
And Biden on foreign policy? The man is a joke. An empty head. Biden couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map.
brian at October 26, 2008 7:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600290">comment from brianOh, please. I like Palin because she's hot. What, you think I'm...jealous? I'm not Angelina Jolie, but I'm not exactly a barking dog myself, thanks. I appreciate beautiful women, and I like Palin for her charisma and moose-hunting. I simply find her unqualified. Mainly because...she seems to have little interest in or curiosity about economics or foreign affairs, has not done well in her terms in office if you look at the facts, and seems more unqualified every time she opens her mouth.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 12:37 PM
I'm with Amy, except that I came to this conclusion about September 1st. Moreso, it is incredibly worrying that she had to be picked for the sake of getting out the fundamentalist vote, a required component for McCain to win presidency; without this, he would be nothing, particularly because he has to convince this voting block that he's not the same guy they voted AGAINST back in teh 2000 primaries.
Truth of the matter is, I don't think I can give sanction to McCain or Obama, as they violate economic principle, lack sound judgment on the nature of rights (property), although I cannot deny that Obama seems to be a more contemplative person on making judgments, as opposed to the knee-jerk reactions we get from McCain. There are few absolutes in this world, and we need someone to see the grey-area, not pronounce everything as solidly black and white.
At this point in time, I think conservatives, particularly the disenfranchised conservatives, should not waste thier vote on McCain. Rather, they should vote on thier principles of limited government, that is, for Bob Barr on the Libertarian Ticket. There is no conservative case for McCain, and while there 'may' be one for Obama (debatable at this point), there most certainly is one for voting the LP.
Is it not ironic that the very disdain we have for the MTV Generation follows just the same for our disdain for Palin and the unequivocal support for her? It's literally like cheering on britney spears. we know she doesn't write her own music, but she can sing whatever is given to her pretty decently. She's a little bat-shit crazy but is good at covering it up or gathering sympathy. And people like her because she's hot, not because she has any substance. We like the idea that small-town people can make it big, though we do understand that it is all about corporate machinations detached from her actual talent.
We like her because she makes us feel good and doesn't make us think.
farker at October 26, 2008 2:04 PM
I'm not so sure that any president of any party makes much difference. Sure, there's wrong choices, but ultimately, don't the forces of the global markets impact us more?
Palin's not any stranger than just about any one in Congress, and she's not any stranger than Obama. (His degrees don't impress me much, as affirmative action and saying the right things can propel any bright young thing into a name-brand school.)
The Democrats loved Ann Richards, who wasn't very qualifed, but also slung a great phrase. Richards was a one-term govenor, but the NYT acted as though she'd been of paramount importance to national politics when she died.
""She was nobody's fool," then-New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen wrote the next day. (after her speech at the Demo. National Convention) "She made them listen and she made them listen good, with precisely those qualities that we often try to iron out of politicians in general and female politicians in particular: a sense of fun, irreverence and general cussedness."
And would Quindlen write this way about Palin? I'm not holding my breath.
Kate at October 26, 2008 3:59 PM
And Heather's dragging the baby into it is so silly. Down Syndrome babies have pretty much the same needs as do "regular" kids. The "disabled" part becomes more vital if the child has a heart problem (common in DS kids), but the early years are really more the same than they are different. I wish people would quit freaking out over this. Do they really think she's going to be spending 12 hours a day with the flashcards?
Kate at October 26, 2008 4:02 PM
> Do they really think she's
> going to be spending 12 hours
> a day with the flashcards?
Well, the joke's just sitting there. Anybuddy want it?
> picked for the sake of getting out
> the fundamentalist vote, a required
> component for McCain to win presidency;
> without this, he would be nothing
You don't think Obama (let alone Biden) was selected for his appeal to a base constituency for his party?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 4:16 PM
And seriously, let's give Amy some props: Her fault with Palin is not entirely about appearances. I think Amy's wrong, but not by a whole lot. It's a judgment call.
The "heat" from Palin that lefties find so threatening is not showbiz sexual allure, but the appeal of a woman who's built a life of achievement, including a large, loving family, without cashing her husband's accomplishments as her own and without whining about distant and nebulous oppressive forces. It's not that Palin's pretty; it's that she's happy.
Wordy, lefty intellectuals can't stand that.
Crid at October 26, 2008 4:22 PM
and crid, desipte your hilarious 'flashcard' comment!, what bout us right-intellectuals? what is it that WE despise about Palin? can you articulate that for us? Just wanting to know what you believe it to be.
farker at October 26, 2008 4:53 PM
As I recollect, qualifications for VP are implied as those for Prez....35 years of age, natural born citizen, and some continuous residency limits. And they need be from a different state (hence Chaney's Wyoming-ness)
I have been warming up to the idea of our legislature being formed by lottery. If a draft is good enough for a military, by god it should be good enough for a legislature. A completely new house every two years, and a third of the senate similarly being replaced would be most entertaining.
alkkemist at October 26, 2008 5:01 PM
> can you articulate that for us?
Not better than Nozick does in the earlier link. (Shortest possible paraphrase: Booklearnin' is a brotherhood particularly dependent on exclusivity.)
> I have been warming up to the idea
> of our legislature being formed
> by lottery.
This calls to mind the Motor Voter fanatics in California. Or the Australians, who are compelled to vote by law. I don't see the point. Why shouldn't voters vote when, and for whom, they want to?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 5:15 PM
are you suggesting that right-leaning intellectuals don't like Palin because she supports Capitalism?
if so: BWAHAHAHAHAHA, are you out of your friggin mind?
if not: then perhaps you linked me to the wrong piece?
farker at October 26, 2008 5:24 PM
But enough about Barack Obama.
Jim Treacher at October 26, 2008 5:25 PM
> if so: BWAHAHAHAHAHA,
If that's actually a noise that you make in the presence of other people, it would be no surprise that the larger point was lost on you, in my comments here and Nozick's article there.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 5:38 PM
intrigue me, crid. I'm a radical free market capitalist. Convince me that I'm wrongly denouncing palin, and do cite to Nozick if possible.
farker at October 26, 2008 5:48 PM
> I'm a radical free market capitalist
That's not true! You're a self-proclaimed "right-intellectual" who makes the noise "BWAHAHAHAHAHA"!
PS- Heather Mac would never invite you for tea and crumpets!
Crid at October 26, 2008 5:53 PM
Here's Sarah expounding on ANWR and energy policy with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26462569?_source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS
There is nothing here that would justify the unhinged hysteria flying around at the mere mention of her name.
"but at least the guy knows foreign policy"
If I didn't know you better, then that remark would make me think you're clueless. Joe "NATO kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" Biden constantly spouts off about foreign policy, but he most certainly doesn't know it, and I don't understand how you can rationally believe otherwise, in the face of 36 years of overwhelming evidence.
Martin at October 26, 2008 6:48 PM
farker:
It's very, very simple. She's not sufficiently ideologically pure.
Which is why I get such a laugh out of the LP's sudden support of Bob Barr, who not five years ago was feeding at the same trough he now claims to want to drain.
conservative case for voting FOR McCain: he's proven throughout his career to be against frivolous government spending.
conservative case for Obama: {}
case for Obama: {}
Case for Libertarian Party: At least they ain't Obama!
If the LP had even a 5% chance of victory, I could see voting for them just to watch them go down in flames as the Congress gangs up on him to override every single veto he signs. But the LP has 0% chance of winning, so that's academic.
brian at October 26, 2008 6:49 PM
yes crid, do you think they're mutually exclusive or something?
farker at October 26, 2008 6:50 PM
Here's the other question--what does the VP matter, really, in the big scheme of things? From the looks of McCain's mother, he's not going to catch a cold at the swearing in and check out with 48 hours. So Palin moves to Observatory Circle and has an office? What's the worst that can happen.
I'm far less worried about her than I am about Obama's tax and spend plan. I do hope I can qualify for food stamps. I'm also not excited about the Islamofacists figuring that he's either a weenie or a closet Muslim, so that the odd nuke or two in the direction of Tel Aviv will be met with snores from 1600 Pa. Ave.
Kate at October 26, 2008 7:12 PM
Farker, stop trying to say you are not a leftist! You quote them line by line. I know it's the left's plan of attack to enter blogs and say "I'm a republican but.....", but we all see through you! Give it up, or show proof you actually are a registered republican.
I can not wait til 11/5. Really. It'll be over then. Amy can stop obsessing, I can either get back to my life or move. Either way, an end would be nice here.
momof3 at October 26, 2008 7:19 PM
"Do we deserve the presidential and vice-presidential candidates we got?"
I think you'd make a much better candidate than any of them. So why don't you run for office?
I'm guessing it's because:
A) You could not run & win as a Republican without abandoning your principles & pandering to bible-thumpers, big-government "compassionate" conservatives, etc.
B) You could not run & win as a Democrat without abandoning your principles and pandering to socialists, nannystaters, radical feminists, etc.
C) You know that if you stayed true to your principles and ran as a Libertarian, you'd get 1 % of the vote.
You're not the first person to wonder why colonial America, out of a population of a few million people, could produce Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin and Payne, while today's America can't seem to produce even one person of that caliber out of over 300 million. But how would any of the Founding Fathers do today if they had to get 100 million people to vote for them?
Martin at October 26, 2008 8:25 PM
don't get testy, momof3. you're out of your element arguing that Palin is qualified. If you think I'm quoting 'leftists' line by line, then there is no hope conveying to you the ideas and the power of the free market. I would recommend you start with Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, but I honestly don't believe social conservatives have EVER been stewards of the free market, and I don't think it would EVER start with you bucking such a trend. (Thomas Sowell, I think, excluded).
See the problem with Palin is, in fact, that she is not ideologically pure on economic factors. Conservatives have made sacrifice upon sacrifice to the social 'conservatives' so long as there has been lip service to strong economic principles of free market advocacy. Consequently, we have, with fingers crossed, faught for a party who has done nothing to reduce the role of government in our lives and particularly reducing the burden on our pocketbooks and wallets. "ENOUGH" is what conservatives like myself are shouting at the GOP. McCain doesn't even mention the reduction on the size and scope of government. He talks about 'freezing' spending, but never talks about REDUCING it. He talks about "cutting earmarks" but NEVER TALKS ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS. He pushed for Campaign Finance laws, which, if you saw the John Stossel series, would understand what a DETRIMENT that is to competition in the political marketplace. He stopped his campaign to run to DC to help garner bipartisan support to pass the Bailout Bill; in turn, he invoked the spirit of John Major in his last few weeks in Parliament: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpZhugomNJE when he couldn't ended up on the other side of his team.
McCain has called Bush's tax cuts, "tax cuts for the rich", he joined hands with Teddy F'ing Kennedy to pass immigration amnesty, and wow, the list goes on and on and on. For the simple fact that he was wanting to choose Joe Lieberman for his VP, had Lieberman make a key speech at the RNC, should be more than enough to tell you his hostility to conservative principle.
But, clearly, McCain is a conservative. Whatever the hell that entails now, I'm not even sure, and don't intend to speculate any further. Apparently it amounts to whatever people point thier finger at every four years. I guess if it is as subjective as that, then Palin will always be a conservative, and I, according to Momof3, will always be a leftist.
farker at October 26, 2008 9:43 PM
heck, at least just consider voting for Chuck Baldwin or writing in Ron Paul. Or, if only for amusement, Galt/Taggart. heh.
farker at October 26, 2008 9:45 PM
> do you think they're mutually
> exclusive or something?
Should we care yet? You claim to be intellectual and you claim to be conservative. You want use to trust you on these points, and preemptively offer our beliefs for your review. Well, Amy has thoughtfully provided an archive for you to peruse at your convenience. Maybe you should start there.
Because your most heartfelt analysis so far....
| she hasn't even held a legit
| press conference yet. What a
| tragedy that the GOP refuses to
| let her go and answer questions.
| Parading towards Moscow, imo...
| Posted by: farker at October 17,
| 2008 7:26 AM
...Has, in fact...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 11:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600384">comment from farkerI honestly don't believe social conservatives have EVER been stewards of the free market,
People mash together fiscal conservatives like me and the religious right (not me) and it's a mistake. George Bush is a lip-service fiscal conservative and so is McCain.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2008 11:08 PM
...been superceded by events.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 11:08 PM
That's Amy, always gettin' in the middle.
(just a joke!)
But wait! There's more!
(I worked as a tech at that show for years. I promise, they're not go to ask him about the Lebanon thing....)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 26, 2008 11:11 PM
Amy:
Having spent a few years at the Pentagon working, among other things NATO issues, I have some knowledge of foreign affairs, and have retained an abiding interest despite being retired now.
With that as a basis for my conclusion, I find the notion that Joe Biden has any particular knowledge in this regard is mistaken. His howler about the US, the French and Hezbollah is but one example.
Regarding experience, I find it singularly astonishing that one can find Gov Palin lacking, whilst completely neglecting to view Sen Obama through that same lens.
Her speech differs somewhat from the verbal knots into which George W. Bush so often tied himself. She is less given to malapropisms; apart from her teen mannerisms, her linguistic oddness is more subtle, and seems more often driven by a failure to grasp subject matter.
How does this differ from pure ad hominem attack?
Hey Skipper at October 27, 2008 1:19 AM
Skipper, mixed feelings... To call this ad hominem kinda misses the point. Heather Mac's contention isn't that Palin's missed the boat on any particular issue, hit's that the candidate isn't suitably articulate for the office. So, like, yeah, she's faulting a personal characteristic. But she's not targeting any particular Palin position by doing so.
I think MacDonald is clucking. But see this blog post and the column linked by it. There's an argument to be made that people in such positions of authority need better than average communication skills.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 27, 2008 1:46 AM
Farker -
I don't think anyone here is seriously arguing that McCain's a conservative's conservative.
Politics, like so many human endeavors is relative.
Compared to Obama, Jerry Brown is a conservative.
So, McCain and Palin aren't ideologically pure. News flash: neither was Reagan.
Your (and many in the Reason and NRO crowd) advocacy for Republican defeat is counter-intuitive however. We can look to the past to see what has happened in other instances where the Republican party found itself losing due to doctrinaire conservatives staying home. In each and every instance, the Republican party has moved left. The victory of the Democrats has told them time and again that the answer is "Go left, young man", and they have.
I fear that this country has moved irretrievably to the left. This does not bode well for the human condition.
brian at October 27, 2008 4:38 AM
Wait. You won't vote for McCain/Palin because she's insufficiently ideologically pure, yet you expect people to cast a "protest vote" for (in order) a man who has not even a glancing familiarity with Constitutional law, an isolationist crank, and a fictional character?
Is the point to punish the republicans, or is it that you want the cool "Don't blame me" sticker either way?
Because if Obama wins, it will largely be because of people like you and Kathleen Parker.
brian at October 27, 2008 4:41 AM
You don't get to choose the best candidates, you only get to choose the least harmful of the two. You choose to obsess about a Vice Presidential nominee?
Here's some advice. Consider the platforms of the two parties. Which is least noxious? Then consider their abilities to implement those platforms. I'm voting McCain, because he can't do much with a Democrat controlled Congress. Not being able to do much to me is as good as it's going to get.
MarD at October 27, 2008 6:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/26/just_perfect_on.html#comment-1600470">comment from MarDI'm voting McCain, because he can't do much with a Democrat controlled Congress.
Sad, huh, when the best thing we can do is see which of the two losers running is more hobbled and vote for that person. My vote won't count in California, which will go Obama. I just have to figure out where I put my protest.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2008 6:58 AM
Obama's spending money in CA. That can only mean one thing: California's in play.
The only way we are going to tamp down this undercurrent of socialism is to defeat it soundly. The reason they've been so quiet until recently is that they got trounced in 1984.
We need another 1984-sized loss for the Democrats for them to excise their commies back to the wilderness for another two decades.
brian at October 27, 2008 8:25 AM
brian -
You can't stand Palin because she's hot.
Are you fucking blind man? Amy's pretty fucking hot herself, in much the same way (physically) that Palin is. The major difference and what makes Amy a whole hell of a lot sexier is the fact that she has more than half a fucking brain and is extremely articulate.
DuWayne - water birthing fan at October 27, 2008 12:16 PM
Amy -
Sad, huh, when the best thing we can do is see which of the two losers running is more hobbled and vote for that person. My vote won't count in California, which will go Obama. I just have to figure out where I put my protest.
Big Bird '08
Though I do believe that divided government is better than one party rule. Didn't like it under the repubs and just know it will suck under the dems.
DuWayne - water birthing fan at October 27, 2008 12:24 PM
I've pretty much banned myself from commenting on the candidates because I'm a resident alien and it's poor form to butt in when you can't vote.
But I do think Palin is the most embarrassing novelty VP pick since Spiro Agnew.
(Now I'll go back to silently cheering Amy's posts.)
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2008 1:08 PM
Sorry, I keep forgetting vp.
Big Bird/Grover '08
DuWayne at October 27, 2008 1:50 PM
DuWayne - There is no harsher critic of a hot chick than another hot chick. If Amy's holding out on voting for a female candidate until she gets one that can best her intellectually, she'll be waiting a very long time.
Palin's acceptable in ways that most of the women in Congress are not. At the very least, she's not possessed of the arrogance that she knows better than I how to live my life.
Jody - Stockdale was a far more embarrassing novelty VP pick. The poor man had no idea what he was doing, and clearly was not interested in doing it.
Big Bird? He's a bit risky, isn't he? I mean, he talks to an invisible friend, so you've gotta wonder about his sanity.
brian at October 27, 2008 4:48 PM
Crid:
Skipper, mixed feelings... To call this ad hominem kinda misses the point. Heather Mac's contention isn't that Palin's missed the boat on any particular issue, hit's that the candidate isn't suitably articulate for the office.
That is obviously her contention, but the manner in which she makes it is pure ad hominem:
her linguistic oddness is more subtle, and seems more often driven by a failure to grasp subject matter.
Seems? Failure?
Leaving aside the mealy-mouthed, personally subjective, modifier her use of the word "failure" within the context of the sentence means the word is a stand-in for "inability".
It is, in fact, possible to determine whether "seems" should become "is", and "failure" become inability by assessing Gov Palin's performance in areas that have been within her purview.
I don't have any links off-hand, but IIRC, Gov Palin's answers to questions within her purview (e.g. energy policy; social breakdown in native communities) have been articulate and on point.
Therefore, to avoid ad hominem, Ms. McDonald needed to recast the sentence to say something to the effect of "... when questioned about matters with which she has limited familiarity, Gov Palin often produces garbled responses."
Then Ms. McDonald could then objectively address the question as to whether Gov Palin can, given the time between the election and assuming office, after the campaign grind is over, master the subject matter at the level of detail required for an executive.
Ms. McDonald did not do that; instead, she wallowed in ad hominem.
I absolutely agree that the ability to speak paragraph-perfect content-free English whenever called upon is valuable to a politician.
However, what seems to be getting assessed here is her ability to provide empty BS to questions coming from the blue, on subjects about which she has had virtually no time to work through.
While my expertise in this issue is pretty much limited to being an Alaska resident, my impression is that she is easily smart enough to grasp the issues at hand at an executive level, and the instincts to make good, pragmatic, decisions.
Hey Skipper at October 27, 2008 5:32 PM
> instead, she wallowed
> in ad hominem.
"Wallowed."
Dude, could you be any prissier about it?
Accusations of ad hominem are a bubbling fashion, like tattoos, or whatever handbag Jada Pinkett carried to her latest movie premiere. People have latched onto ad hominem as champion without crying foul on any of the other logical fallacies that pepper this intercourse. (Amphiboly gets no love on the blogs, though Lord knows it deserves some.) What accounts for AH's popularity?
First, it's not too difficult to spell.
Second, it reduces everything to the schoolyard scuffle of yesteryear: "Oh yeah? Well, he oughta say that to my face!"
I remember having these discussions on the BBS's in the early nineties. The priggish term that people liked to throw around those days was "vitriol". I always thought it got famous because it sounded like a science-y gasoline additive from the late 60's. Like our young champion AH, it had strong powers of condescension: 'I personally would not lower myself to participate in such gutter engagements,' sniffed many a Hayes Smartmodem-owning Clinton voter.
But you can look this up: Ad hominem only applies as a critique of an argument if MacDonald is dismissing some other position of Palin's. And she ain't. She's saying the Governor's failure of articulation itself disqualifies her for the Veep office. That's what makes these fuckers (Hitchens / MacDonald / others) so repellent. The unspoken yet deafening addendum to these attacks is 'Calm down! It's nothing personal....'
Challenging these people in latin is not only more trouble than it's worth, it's their playground.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 27, 2008 11:30 PM
crid:
The reason I say it is ad hominem is becuase she used subjective terms to disparage the person, without actually addressing any substance.
The implicit argument is one or both of two things: she is intellectually deficient, or she is inarticulate.
If there is evidence to the contrary -- and there is -- then this amounts to name calling.
For example:
But the inability to answer a straightforward question about economic policy without becoming tangled in words suggests either ignorance about the subject matter or a difficulty connecting between ideas. Neither explanation is reassuring.
First, there is absolutely no reason why ignorance of some subject matter should be disturbing, unless the person does not possess the means to alleviate that ignorance.
Well? Does this "terrific piece" (our hostesses words) give any evidence to suggest Gov Palin is stupid?
If not, and I think "not" is very much the answer, then suggesting ignorance is an explanation that is not reassuring is -- it is impossible to put this kindly -- vapid nonsense.
Now, let's move to the other half of the "or"; that is, "... a difficulty connecting between ideas."
Ignoring for the moment the irony of accusing someone of such a difficulty whilst using the ugly, and redundant, formulation "connecting between". How else, after all, does one connect than between? Given time enough to write, and reflect, is there any excuse for this, other than Ms. MacDonald's inability to order thoughts into smooth sentences?
Pot, meet kettle.
Having now vented about an article our hostess has praised that amounts to an evidence free hatchet job, I must admit I completely used the term "ad hominem".
It refers to, of course, attempting to discredit a person's argument by attacking the person instead of the argument.
Ms. MacDonald produced a tendentious, empty, load of argle bargle.
But that, as you say, is not ad hominem.
++++
I think the problem for a great many people is that Gov Palin is, in fact, a beautiful woman.
Female beauty is a force of nature all its own. It tilts the playing field. Men tend to be rendered speechless, or completely stupid, while it makes other women feel threatened.
I don't know how else to explain the kind of vituperation that has been spewed at her.
Even Hitchens, a brilliant writer, has become unhinged. His latest essay in Slate proceeds from the merest thread to the far reaches of silliness.
Is there any other explanation?
Hey Skipper at October 28, 2008 10:09 PM
> she used subjective terms
> to disparage the person,
> without actually addressing
> any substance.
MacDonald's expression couldn't have been clearer. She doesn't think Palin has the candlepower. This City Journal columnist is not Don Rickles... She didn't say it for laughs.
> The implicit argument is one
> or both of two things: she is
> intellectually deficient, or
> she is inarticulate.
The latter is indisputable, the former so obvious we don't need to dwell on it. MacDonald's not subtle and "implicit". This isn't a tricky math problem.
> there is absolutely no reason
> why ignorance of some subject
> matter should be disturbing
In the Executive branch, voters worry about reflexes, and have since the beginning of the Atomic age.
> Now, let's move to
Oh, spark it up a little. This isn't tea in the Hamptons in 1922.
> such a difficulty whilst using
> the ugly
Do you use "whilst" a lot?
> the problem for a great many
> people is that Gov Palin is,
> in fact, a beautiful woman.
As noted above a couple days ago, we disagree. See Barack Obama and Jack Kennedy: Voters can make peace with personal attraction, but they can't forgive happiness and competence.
> I don't know how else to
> explain the kind of vituperation
> that has been spewed at her.
She's a conservative who doesn't whine.
> Is there any other explanation?
I get the feeling you're ignoring my thesis: The smart kids think the world should be their plaything.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 28, 2008 11:31 PM
crid:
I'm not ignoring your thesis, I agree with it.
I also understand MacDonald's position that Palin does not have the candlepower. However, MacDonald completely failed to back that assertion with anything other than some pull quotes from recent interviews.
It seems obvious that she does not possess the ability to provide an articulate non-answer to a question about which she is ignorant.
In order to make the charge her candle doesn't burn brightly enough requires analyzing her previous performance. What does her term as governor have to say? About that, which would supply evidence about the most salient point, MacDonald is completely silent.
A syntactical comparison between Gov Palin's statements and Sen Kerry's while he was running or president.
He concocted some of the most punishing sentences ever to afflict the English language.
When he did it, that was evidence of nuance.
How does that work?
Do you use "whilst" a lot?
I lived in England for seven years. I assimilated some words along the way.
Hey Skipper at October 29, 2008 11:28 AM
I forgot to make clear my thesis.
Amy's lead Heather MacDonald has a terrific piece on what's wrong with Palin -- how little there there there actually is. is wrong.
MacDonald's piece is awful. Because it completely fails to provide any deeper evidence to support her thesis, it is nothing more than a character assassination hatchet job.
Hey Skipper at October 29, 2008 11:32 AM
It was more than that. Not enough more to be persuasive, but more than that.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 1, 2008 1:54 PM
Besides,
> However, MacDonald completely
> failed to back that assertion
> with anything other than some
> pull quotes from recent interviews.
Don't those count?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 1, 2008 1:57 PM
Hey Skipper -
Do you use "whilst" a lot?
I lived in England for seven years. I assimilated some words along the way.:
I rarely use it when I am writing, but it rolls off my tongue on a regular basis in verbal conversations. One of a few that I've picked up from the great many brit authors I love to read.
brian -
Big Bird? He's a bit risky, isn't he? I mean, he talks to an invisible friend, so you've gotta wonder about his sanity.
Safer than anyone in the running. I can deal with questionable sanity, as long as the "person" is reasonable. I'm pretty sure that Big Bird wouldn't fuck me in the ass, the way that everyone else in the running would.
DuWayne at November 1, 2008 9:24 PM
Leave a comment