Sarah Palin is going to wind up getting elected
I’m not a Sarah Palin fan. The idea of a populist “conservative” scares the living day lights out of me. Conservatism is supposed to be the ideology of people who think independently, who realize that they can’t vote for their own self interest and expect to have a functioning, viable country.
But if the left keeps on dragging her out into the spotlight, she’s going to win high office.
Former Alaska half-term governor Sarah Palin delivered a highly-anticipated and ridiculously lucrative speech to around 1,100 supporters at the Tea Party Convention last night, but she couldn’t get through it without a few notes scrawled on her hand.
Oh no!!!
OMG!!!
She had five words written on her hand for notes!
What? Did these idiots forget TOTUS? ENTIRE SPEECHES, word for word, by Obama, and they attack Palin for having a five word crib sheet?
OMG…
This sort of attention is what makes her popular! The “simple” folk of the country, as the left likes to think of rural conservatives, see her doing something they would do, and feel a kinship with her. Providing that kind of attention to her is going to backfire on the liberals. Seriously. It’s like Kanye West jumping Taylor Swift when she got her award. Leave it be.
Latest posts by Mike McGowan (Posts)
- From one single father to the next - July 20, 2012
- Why isn’t anyone talking about the man - February 13, 2012
- Questions about the power of precedent - February 8, 2012
- Suffer not the Innocent to find relief - February 2, 2012
- Romney v. Newt: How the GOP and the conservative media killed the TEA Party - January 31, 2012
Print This Post
F*ck me but these people take the cake. She also used the word ‘revolution’ I believe, a popular metaphor in use around the world, and that had some of the bedwetters up in arms.
Even if she were elected, she’d probably quit within six months, just as she’s quit every tough political job she’s ever had. The person you should really fear is the one she selects as a running mate.
The ex-governess of Alaska had more than a criib sheet. She had a printed speech — which she referred to immediately before and after looking at her palm.
TelePrompter, printed speech — what’s the difference?
None.
So then what’s the big deal if she had some words written on her hand? I don’t get it. I’m no fan of hers either but I don’t see why everything is given “End of the World” status. Although I recently read a great article in The Atlantic about that very same topic. It kind of put it into perspective I guess.
I can’t stand her.
In my mind, if she’s going to play the game she’s playing, then it’s incumbent upon her to show us that she’s in it for more than the celebrity ‘bonus’ factor and the power rush.
The left hates her because she’s inarticulate, uninformed and so obviously full of shit. But that doesn’t really make her unique in politics.
To me, what makes her repulsively unique (uniquely repulsive?) is something more subtle. It’s not just her narcissism — plenty of narcissists are likable and talented, after all — it’s that she’s completely unaware of her narcissism, or at least appears to be.
That is the WORST kind of narcissist.
That sort of narcissist strives for a career in journalism for the “prestige” of a byline, regardless of what kind of turd dangles below the byline. That sort of narcissist goes into politics for similar reasons.
It’s a completely deplorable personality type — not only is the person totally self-involved, but the person doesn’t even have the reflective powers to grasp this ugly truth. Hell, even narcissist supreme Joe Biden telegraphs a subtle (?) message that says “Yep, I’m full of shit. No argument there! But you’re buying it because Joey Baby is the one selling it!”
Whenever Palin speaks, I want to tell her: “Lady, I am not a fool. These empty platitudes and applause-generating slogans are for head-trauma victims and sitcom fans. For Chrissakes, give me something substantive. Some detail. Some policy ideas.”
Obama is guilty of similar tactics, but I don’t think he plumbs the depths quite as much as Palin does. At least Obama KNOWS he’s uttering superficial banalities. Palin hasn’t a clue how pointless she is. She juxtaposes mega-condescension with mega-naivete in a freshly exasperating way.
I almost forgot this thought-provoking gem via Palin:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/193919.asp
She calls the science behind global warming “snake oil science.”
Well, OK.
If she wants to take that position based on facts, scholarship and research, then fine. Let’s hear your take, Sarah. Give us your data — give us your analysis. If you have none, then please stop talking.
In the alternative, she could take a more agnostic and intellectually responsible route and say that, while she remains unconvinced by the conclusions of the scientific community, she nevertheless finds the alarmist finger pointing of hyper-green lefties to be reckless and irreparably divisive.
But no, she continues down the familiar path of “I have a microphone, so I’m going to talk, because talking is fun.”
If I were one of her aides and wanted to add to her knowledge base, I would provide this graph as a starting point:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
@ Mr. Cade
The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time. — Franklin P. Adams.
Within Sarah Palin are germinating the same seeds that sprouted Adolf Hitler. This is not to say she is anti-Semitic. As far as I can tell she is not; she may not even know what the term means. Nor is it to say that American soil at this point would accept the seeds. But if it would, the ex-governess of Alaska has them. Though conventionally schooled, she is minimally educated, and unlike Hitler is not even an auto-didact (however badly self-taught he may have been). But those things (and a few others) aside, she appeals to the same sorts of urges he did with the same sort of empty – but fiery — slogans and nostrums. She stirs up the yahoos, and even people who are not yahoos, by calling on her listeners to vote their resentments. The “real Americans” she praises (to the exclusion of the other 80 percent of the country) are Hitler’s “das Volk.” Many things she says are outright lies, and she keeps repeating the lies with impunity, because demagogues know that repeated lies become the truth to those who want to believe them. She implies that President Obama, and Democrats generally, are less than patriotic and are making America unsafe. This is Hitler’s rant against all those who were “un-German” (which, again, was about 80 percent of the country). There are many other troubling parallels, but I will end here with the aside that her English, like Hitler’s German, is not very good.
@ Parsifal
Yeah, except about that whole “smaller government” thing she has built her following on.
Hard to be a brutal dictator when you’re preaching that the government doesn’t have the freedom to be that powerful.
Hitler was a left wing socialist. Palin is a right wing idiot. Big difference.
Actually, Hitler was a right-wing extremist. He exterminated communists and was tightly bound to the fascists of Italy, another right-wing extremist group.
Odd, is it not, how many in the extreme right camp of today’s America love to make liberal use of words such as ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’, and ‘Hitler’ when ranting about Obama.
@ Mike – I think Scott’s article pointed out that a left wing socialist and a right wing idiot are essentially the same thing. Detrimental to freedom.
@ Parsifal – While it is fun to conjur images and comparisons of Palin to bygone epicly evil leaders, I think you give her too much credit. Sure others may have said that this Hitler guy will never be succesful – only to be proven wrong, but I’m willing to risk it that Palin has no chance. Keep in mind that I’m in Africa and am not exposed to the 24 hour news cycle. So I’m either sheltered or clear-thinking because of it.
@ bbuudd – about as odd as those on the left that did the EXACT same thing about Bush. Both sides use rhetoric of evil to describe the other. Scott’s post about political pom-poms hits the nail on the head…in my never to be humble opinion.
bbuudd is essentially correct. Hitler and the Nazis were not socialists, despite the word Socialist in the name of the party. Anyone who equates them with socialism does not know the first thing about Germany history. In fact, they were as opposite from “left-wing” socialism (what other kind is there?) as can be: Nazis were part of the gaggle of extreme right-wing parties that more and more dominated German politics as the Weimar years went along.
@ Jeffrey — My main point, probably ill expressed, about Sister Sarah was that she appeals to and panders to the same gutter politics as Hitler did: Stir up the audience with shouts about how they are the “real Americans,” continual hammering home statements that are patent lies, encouraging xenophobia, saber-rattling, etc. I, too, think she has little chance of succeeding; 21st-century America is not 1920s Germany. But the point is that she uses those tactics; it is the way she makes her living. It is base and unconscionable, and those who admire such dangerous flapdoodle ought to take a good look at themselves — and then take a shower.