Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Rants: Sarah Who?

X

Alright, I'll admit it: I actually tried to watch Sarah Palin's debut as a paid talking head on O'Reilly last night. But she was, quite frankly, boring. I'd much prefer to watch any Geico commercial. Or even the Progressive girl.
X
As for those of you who expect Sarah Palin will be running for POTUS in 2012--y'all are delusional. She is interested in money, not in hard work. She has demonstrated the fact of her aversion to toil both as a failed candidate for VP, who refused to prep effectively for such things as the big debate with Biden, and as the takes-her-puck-and-goes-home quitter of an Alaskan governor.

It amazes and disturbs me that she has so many Americans bamboozled by her Grand Ole Opry good looks and the bumpersticker sloganeering that, for her, passes as political philosophy.
X
"God help this once great nation." ~ Bill Barker

25 comments:

William R. Barker said...

Actually, Rob, my fear is that Palin "weakens the brand" by appearing to be a "prop" for the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity.

This move lacks... gravitas.

I don't know if you notice, but Palin comes across to me as very uncomfortable with O'Reilly. I can't say I blame her. O'Reilly just isn't that bright and he's more of a "feelings" kind of guy than a logical intellectual with a "unified ideology."

Palin tends to TRY TO HARD when she's with O'Reilly.

Did you note her use of the... er... "unword" "uncomfortableness" at one point?

Hey... anyone can have a moment of brain freeze. Obviously she was looking for "discomfort" and just couldn't "find" the word. It happens. Still... that's exactly the kind of situation where the double standards of the media can do her in. I certainly won't be surprised if a skit based upon last night's O'Reilly "interview" opens SNL this coming Saturday.

(*SHRUG*)

Palin isn't an intellectual. (Clearly!) She's no poised policy wonk nor can I see her teaching college level courses in government. She's no Newt Gingrich.

HOWEVER... as you know, Newt Gingrich, for all his smarts (you may differ, but love him or hate him only a blind ideologue would fail to acknowledge Newt's pure intellectual heft) has alienated me. (*SHRUG*) Is that smart - to alienate "the Bill Barker wing" of GOP support if your goal is to further the interests of the GOP as clearly Newt's is? No. Obviously not.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's "smart" and then there's "SMART." Sarah Palin has the kind of "Big S" smartness that appeals to the American electorate when it's able to break free from Left wing propaganda.

Hey... look at Reagan. You hate him - I know. That's besides my point though. My point is that no doubt you ALWAYS looked upon Reagan as a dummy. Right? Well, besides the fact that you're wrong (I know... I know... you'll never accept that), there's the fact that Reagan won two landslide elections for the presidency.

(*SHRUG*)

Palin has a bit of what Reagan had.

Anyway... following up your further comments... no, I don't think Palin is doing this for the money. I mean, com'on... she can make seven figures just giving a couple speeches a month.

Nope. My guess is that she's thinking this will keep her in the spotlight.

It will... but I'm afraid there's more at risk than can be gained by the gamble. Again... let's see if SNL and The Daily Show and Letterman use this as an opportunity to go after her. I'm guessing they will.

(Of course THAT could backfire too...)

(*SHRUG*)

Anyway... just my two cents.

BILL

Rodak said...

The bottom line, I think, is that Palin (like Reagan) can deliver a speech pretty well. Her training (again like Reagan) was to speak to a camera effectively.
But I don't think that she can hold her own in off-the-cuff situations.
You may remember the occasion, after he left office, that Reagan took $2 million to give a speech in Japan. After he delivered the set piece, the Japanese were horrified (and angered) to discover that he was incapable of delivering anything worthwhile in a Q & A. It caused a bit of a stir at the time it happened.
I think that's where Palin is at. But, she's also shown herself to be lazy. I don't think that it's unfair to say that.
I will be very surprised if she has any role in 2012 other than fund-raiser.

William R. Barker said...

"I don't think that she can hold her own in off-the-cuff situations."

Rob. She kicked Biden's ASS in their debate.

(*SHRUG*)

Com'n.

(*SMILE*)

As to Reagan's Japan speech, yes, I remember the $2 million fee, but I don't recall any Q&A "stir."

Hey. I'll take your word that you recall a "stir."

(*SHRUG*) (*SMILE*)

Back to the original point, folks like YOU always thought Reagan was "dumb" and yet he won the presidency in landslides not once but twice.

(*SHRUG*)

Now Palin isn't NEARLY as skilled - NOR I get the feeling as intelligent - as Reagan, but in today's political environment I don't think she needs to be.

(*SHRUG*)

Bottom line... she's smart enough.

As to your charge that she's "lazy," frankly I don't know where you're getting that from. (*SHRUG*) To remind you, I thought her resigning the governorship when she did was BRILLIANT. (You're of course free to disagree, but I don't call my blog "usually right" for nothing, bro!)

(*GRIN*)

Anyway...

BILL

Rodak said...

Back to the original point, folks like YOU always thought Reagan was "dumb" and yet he won the presidency in landslides not once but twice.

I also think that most people are "dumb." I think that the saying "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." is spot on. I'm arrogant and elitist. But I have my reasons.
You are clearly ignoring, or discounting every negative thing you've ever heard about Palin. That being the case, there is no point in further discussion.

William R. Barker said...

"I also think that most people are "dumb.""

Yeah, yeah... but that's not the kind of "dumb" we're talking about and you know it.

"You are clearly ignoring, or discounting every negative thing you've ever heard about Palin."

Clearly NOT. (*SHRUG*)

But, hey... your blog... your choice.

(*WINK*)

BILL

Rodak said...

Look, be honest. You, of all people, you who have always STRESSED the need to know one's history in order to argue intelligently in the present; you are ignoring the ever-more obvious fact that Sarah Palin knows NEXT TO NOTHING about American/World history. You ignore that. Or discount it. That's HUGE in any person wanting to be POTUS. That is a charge I would never have been able to make, or support, against Ronald Reagan. Or even to the extent displayed by Palin, of George W. Bush.
She doesn't know why there are two Koreas. She isn't sure about WWI and WWII. It goes on and on.
I don't doubt that she will remain popular with the rubes. I don't doubt that she will be able to raise money for the GOP. But the thought of an ignoramous like Palin in the Oval Office is almost literally sick-making.

William R. Barker said...

Rob. I'll take you latest post as a sign that you've changed your mind about "enough said."

(*WINK*)

BEFORE, however, I get to my response to your latest post, allow me to just throw this out FYI:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/12/as-mascot-and-martyr-sarah-palin-debuts-on-fox-news/

I just stumbled upon it while browsing RealPolitics.com

Interesting. I'll comment more later.

BILL

Rodak said...

Yes, I concur with the gist of the TIME article. Palin as mascot (almost subhuman); Palin as sop for the lowest common denominators of society; brainless drivel, plus eye candy for the brain-dead. Nobody would quibble with the statement that Roger Ailes knows how to assemble a mob, er, audience. So did P.T. Barnum. And he's the guy who never went broke underestimating the intelligence of the bleating merinos.

William R. Barker said...

"...almost subhuman..."

(*SIGH*)

Rob. I'm not a shrink, but there's more than a tad of self-loathing in you that pushes you to write stuff that doesn't just push the envelope, but rather marks you as someone with a problem.

Oh, you can control yourself, sure, but often you don't.

I know you have no ambition to "be someone" and so have no fear that anything you write today will bite you on the ass tomorrow, but still... there's a huge difference between candor and being... umm... a bit of a douche.

(And, Rob... you KNOW that I tend to shy away from crude language like that - but it's appropriate in this case.)

Anyway... back to Palin... do you have access to TELEVISION in Ohio - cable, fiber optic, or satellite "pay" TV that is?

(*GUFFAW*)

OK. OK. Kidding.

Seriously, though, do you have a DVR and do you have access to Fox News?

(Or even a VCR as long as Fox News is unscrambled...)

Anyway... if so... check when the replay of this afternoon's Beck show is in your neck of the woods. Beck interviewed Palin today and it was a totally different experience than the O'Reilly-Palin interview.

You should record and watch it. I believe if you do then you'll get a better feeling for why I feel as I do about Palin and how I've reached my conclusions about her.

BILL

Rodak said...

"...almost subhuman..."

The next time you watch a college football game, check out the mascots, dude. You seem to be under the impression that the TIME article was truly laudatory. Get a clue. It wasn't.

Rodak said...

In order to watch Palin on Beck, I'd have to watch Beck. No thanks. I hate cleaning up vomit.

EdMcGon said...

Bill,
I do have to side with Rodak on one aspect: Palin is not that intelligent.

Although I do disagree with him on the lazy charge, which shows his sexism at it's most bizarre. let's see, ran for political office while having a family AND a Down syndrome child? If anything, that screams "overachiever".

I think what Rodak calls "lazy" is actually Palin taking mental shortcuts, which most people are guilty of at one time or another.

That said, intellectual "heft" doesn't necessarily make a good president. Jimmy Carter, prior to his recent senility, had plenty of intellectual heft. And he was one of the worst presidents we ever had. On the other hand, Bill Clinton had the intellectual heft (Rhodes scholar, Yale graduate), but you would never know it because he had an innate ability to connect with people, not unlike Palin. Clinton could play the populist while still making rather intelligent decisions (politically speaking).

While Palin has the right philosophical grounding, much like Reagan did, I just can't see her having the ability to change course as needed, or to recognize that it's needed.

All in all, while I don't discount Palin in 2012 (populists can do quite well in economically adverse elections), I can't say she is the best choice out there.

Rodak said...

Hi, Ed--
I heard a poll cited on "Morning Joe" this morning--Newsweek, I think--that showed that more people say they would vote for Palin for president than think that she's qualified for the job. That scares me.
By "lazy" what I mean is that I think Palin has determined at this point that she'd rather travel around, first-class, giving speeches for big money, than be a chief executive, even of Alaska, much less of the USA. And she'd rather, drop in on a TV show and opine for five minutes than work 18-20 hour days, trying to do umpteen things at once, while taking flak from an organized enemy all the while.
Now, this wouldn't be called "laziness" in any normal person. But it has to be called "laziness" in any person who is being touted as a presidential hopeful: she doesn't have the desire for it, imo. I don't think she'll run, because I don't think she wants any part of it.

William R. Barker said...

"Bill, I do have to side with Rodak on one aspect: Palin is not that intelligent."

Two points, Ed:

1) You DO realize - I hope - that Rob sincerely believes that YOU SIR are... er... fairly stupid; certainly his intellectual inferior by wide margin? (Don't you...???)

2) Backing up Rob's "gut" in this case is your evident inability to comprehend MY points.

2b) Case in point...

QUOTING MYSELF --

"Palin isn't an intellectual. (Clearly!) She's no poised policy wonk nor can I see her teaching college level courses in government. She's no Newt Gingrich."

"Now Palin isn't NEARLY as skilled - NOR I get the feeling as intelligent - as Reagan, but in today's political environment I don't think she needs to be. (*SHRUG*) Bottom line... she's smart enough."

Ed. Not to hurt your feelings, bud, but when you START OFF either deliberately or inadvertently mischaracterizing MY position vs. Rob's... well... speaking of not too bright...

(*SHRUG*)

Reading further, it appears clear to me that BOTH you and Rob are clearly sexists. The difference... Rob knows he's a cheap shot artist and revels in delivering cheap shots; you on the other hand probably don't even realize you're doing it.

(*SHRUG*)

Finishing up...

"While Palin has the right philosophical grounding, much like Reagan did, I just can't see her having the ability to change course as needed, or to recognize that it's needed."

You might be right. Time will tell. The fact that she left the governorship and is presently engaged in what's obviously part of an effort to "jump over" the MSM and "separate" herself from the attachments of office seems to indicate just the opposite... (*SHRUG*)... but it's possible you're right.

BILL

William R. Barker said...

"I heard a poll cited on "Morning Joe" this morning..."

You LISTEN to that phony, Rob; I'm surprised.

(*SHRUG*)

"...she'd rather, drop in on a TV show and opine for five minutes than work 18-20 hour days, trying to do umpteen things at once..."

Two points:

1) You STILL refuse to understand that resigning as Governor while putting her own handpicked successor in office poised to serve for the remainder of Palin's term plus (probably) two terms of his own was a BRILLIANT move.

Hey... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. (As usual, though... you're wrong.)

(*SMILE*) (*WINK*)

2) Actually, Rob, I'm guessing that Palin's day is FAR fuller than your or most folk's.

2a) As to getting paid buku bucks for minutes of media airtime... nice work if you can get it!

Rob. Seriously. I'm still waiting for someone to PAY ME to bloviate!

(*WINK*) (*GUFFAW*)

BILL

Rodak said...

Bill--
You certainly have neatly avoided any response to my pointing out Palin's REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATED lack of any basic knowledge of history. It isn't just that she's no philosopher; it's that she doesn't have a clue about where America came from, or how we got where we are today. She hears things, and repeats them without knowing what they mean.
(And the thing about my opinion of Ed's intelligence was unnecessary, btw.}

Rodak said...

The history thing is important, Bill, because you have repeatedly used lack of historical knowledge as an indicator of poor judgement w/r/t current events and have stressed knowledge of history as a prerequisite for being taken seriously in political debate.

William R. Barker said...

"You certainly have neatly avoided any response to my pointing out Palin's REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATED lack of any basic knowledge of history."

Ha! Ha! Oh, Rob... a ridiculous claim. Sure... Palin's no Bill Barker when it comes to rote knowledge of historical facts... but then again... neither are YOU my English major cyberbud.

(*WINK*)

Rob. You're focused on gaffs. I direct you to... Joe Biden.

(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)

OK... moving away from Mr. Human Gaff Machine... allow me to remind you of Obama's infamous "57 states" blooper.

(*SNORT*)

Rob. I'm guess that Ed's knowledge of history is FAR superior to Palin's. That said, what this indicates is not that Palin is "dumb" but rather that Ed has a true history lover's knowledge of history.

Rob. I simply call 'em like I see 'em. (This drives Ed nuts at times... he looks upon my EXTREME even-handedness as disloyalty...) As I wrote in a previous post, Palin is "smart enough." (Book smart enough that is.)

"...she doesn't have a clue about where America came from..."

God? The Big Bang? (*SMILE*) (Oh... you mean the political entity that is the United States of America.)

Anyway... I see no evidence to support your ridiculous accusation.

(*SHRUG*)

"And the thing about my opinion of Ed's intelligence was unnecessary, btw."

(*SNORT*)

This from the guy who coined the nickname "Special Ed" and used to denigrate "Politics and Pigskins" unmercifully - that is UNTIL you got your own blog.

Oh, Rob... don't tarnish the POSITIVE attributes of you character by playing the hypocrite. Please!

(*SAD SHAKE OF THE HEAD*)

Ed's a big boy. I'm wasn't pointing out anything he wasn't already WELL aware of.

Do you DENY it, Rob...??? Com'on... how dishonest will you be when push comes to shove?

(*TAPPING MY FOOT; JUST WAITING*)

"The history thing is important, Bill, because you have repeatedly used lack of historical knowledge as an indicator of poor judgement w/r/t current events and have stressed knowledge of history as a prerequisite for being taken seriously in political debate."

Yes! Agreed! Acknowledged!

But, Rob... what you're MISSING is that since *I* judge Palin to be "smart enough"... therefore she is.

Oh... and btw... reading Ed's post in its entirety, in context, while Ed does state that he doesn't think Palin is "that intelligent" he certainly doesn't infer that she's stupid.

Ed. Clarify. Define what you meant by "not that intelligent" in the context of some sort of politician hierarchy.

BILL

Rodak said...

Anyway... I see no evidence to support your ridiculous accusation.

Then, as I said, you're either ignoring or discounting the plentiful support for my accusation that's been widely discussed in the press since McCain's campaign staff has gone public concerning their efforts to prep her to meet the press.
If you're not going to be serious about the topic, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

Rodak said...

The book – "Game Change," written by political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann - alleges McCain aides quickly grew troubled with Palin's lack of understanding on key issues, including the job of the Federal Reserve, the difference between North and South Korea, and the purpose of the war in Afghanistan.

Source.

Rodak said...

More re: Game Change/Palin.

She is, of course, denying everything. But publisher's lawyers vet this stuff, and the writers are not fringe guys, but respected journalists.

Rodak said...

but then again... neither are YOU my English major cyberbud.

Neither am I in politics or allowing my name to be bandied about as a potential presidential candidate.
Look, I think history is boring. Palin clearly agrees with me. My point here is that YOU have always stressed its importance. Now, suddenly, when Palin is revealed to be kinda like ME, she gets a pass: suddenly, history ain't no big thang. Get your ducks in a row, Bill.

Rodak said...

Actually, I did come up with Special Ed, but it was AIP who always downgraded "P & P", not me.
But I'm not being a hypocrite. I've said nothing about Ed's intelligence here. I just pointed out that your bringing it up was unnecessary. It has nothing to do with Palin, or with MY accusations about her.

EdMcGon said...

Ed. Clarify. Define what you meant by "not that intelligent" in the context of some sort of politician hierarchy.

Bill,
Truth be told, Palin reminds me of Ross Perot, although I think Perot was smarter in general terms. But both of them are loose cannons.

The one thing that Palin did wrong was to leave the Alaska governorship. She needed the political credibility, and being a VP candidate is NOT a better thing than being governor of Alaska. She should have at least finished her term.

Rodak said...

That's true, Ed. Being governor of a state is the very best positioning available to a serious potential presidential nominee.
I reiterate my firm conviction that Palin is about celebrity and making money; she's not about public service and hard work. In short, she's a phoney.