Yes, it was a great speech, possibly the highlight of the Republican convention. And yes, it was the climax of a big day for the GOP. First Romney and then Huckabee made their effective case against Obama and Biden. Then Giuliani came in as the Mafia Man to rough up Obama, a bruising he delivered with obvious relish. I would not have thought Palin could top these three seasoned veterans, but she did. It doesn't really matter how McCain does; the Republicans are off and running.
Commentators have noted that Palin spoke with aplomb. The liberals had sought to portray her as a bungler and a problem pick, akin to George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle. But the attacks created for Palin a great opportunity. All she had to show was that she was not the small-town nitwit of Democratic propaganda. Palin also demonstrated that she could mount a devastating attack on Obama--basically a "community organizer" who knows how to talk a slick game--without coming across as mean-spirited. This is a real art, to know how to punch with a smile. As commentator Fred Barnes said later, this is not an easy skill to learn. Palin didn't really learn it; she is a natural.
What struck me most about Palin, however, was not her pungent one-liners or her savoir faire. Rather, it was her girlish innocence, her unexpected candor and small-town charm. Palin came across as a really wholesome all-American, a real contrast with all the men in the race. Both by her words and her style, she contrasted herself with both Biden and Obama. Biden is basically a mediocre fellow (he graduated in the bottom 10 percent of his law school class, where he was found guilty of plagiarism) whose only original ideas have been terrible ideas, like carving Iraq into small pieces. He is also a product of the back-slapping Washington D.C. establishment. Republicans haven't bothered to attack Biden because he isn't worth attacking. By contrast, Democrats are going crazy over Palin because she scares them.
Even Palin's so-called problems highlight her normalcy. So her husband had a DUI conviction twenty years ago. First of all it wasn't her, it was her husband. Second, how does this compare with Obama, who was snorting cocaine twenty years ago? The media, with its familiar one-sidedness, has been commending Obama's "honesty" over his drug use while blasting Palin for her husband's irresponsible driving. Then Palin's daughter got pregnant at 17: apparently the "family values" didn't entirely get through. Even so, Bristol and the boyfriend are keeping the baby and getting married. So responsibility wins out after all.
By contrast, Obama said he wanted to preserve abortion rights because if his daughters got pregnant one day he wouldn't want them to be "punished" with a child. (Let's be glad that Obama's mom didn't think this way because if she had at the age of 18, Obama wouldn't be around today.) Even Palin's alleged action to fire the state trooper who split with her sister and then harassed her is precisely the kind of action that most Americans would take in a similar situation. While Obama is a cunning Chicago pol who has played his rhetoric and his machine connections to rise through the ranks, Palin remains authenticially all-American with ordinary and recognizable problems.
The problem for the Republicans is that many Americans have become jaded about them. McCain's maverick reputation helps, but it doesn't alter this reality. Palin, on the other hand, is a completely fresh face. I predict she will appeal not only to Christian conservatives but also to working-class independents, male and female, who see in her the promise of real reform. Palin offers change, but this does not take the form of warmed-over socialism. Instead, it is change in congruence with traditional American values. I don't know if an unspoiled person like Palin can actually clean out the Augean stables in the nation's capital, but she does seem determined to try. She is the new star of this political race and already she has altered the whole equation.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 44)
76. What is Sarah Palin's appeal? People, please...
In this day and age, when media is king and style trumps substance in every arena?
Telegenicity. Is that a word? If not, it should be.
Ms. Palin is INCREDIBLY TELEGENIC! I am a die-hard rational anarchist (I'll explain that some other time.) who is also very male, and very human. And she is intriguingly attractive, in spite of all her frightening realities.
But back to the telegenicity issue. Were this the radio era, she would be nothing, less than nothing, a cipher- her voice and vocal rhythms are somewhat less than stimulating. However, she ROCKS on camera, so much so that we ignore her marked lack of actually being able to ignite a room of anything other than Republicon choir-boys who are still locked in the throes of the Oedipal complex (blinded by the tit, so to speak).
Ms. Palin's choice WAS brilliant, from a Republicon standpoint, for one simple reason- She IS AMERICA'S CHEERLEADER!!! The spokesmodel for the Republicon agenda, the darling of the Conservative cause- This bitch can shoot with the boys, fight the bastards, and have baby after baby without missing a beat, and read from a teleprompter without looking old, stupid, or both.
Talk about genius. Considering that, you gotta hand it to the Rovian brain-trust handling this whole affair from behind the scenes.
But about her speech. From the standpoint of a sentient human (as opposed to a somnolent one) AVERAGE. Delivery, B. Substance D. (Because it was trite, and considering it was written by a top speechifier from W's camp, smacks of being lazy and deritive.) Therefore earning the grade of "C"- Average.
Fear not, comrades, this will get much better now that the pointless pep-rally coronations are over, and we can get to the REAL MEAT of this upcoming election.
Aloha!
Robert at 9:59AM on Sep 5th 2008
77. ONCE MORE I AGREE WITH YOU, THIS WOMAN IS AN ASSET NOT TO THE REPUBLICANS BUT TO THE COUNTRY..AM SO HAPPY CAUSE SHE CAN BRING A LOT OF SOLUTION TO USA PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW, SHE HAS THE WILLING, SHE HAS THE STRONG DESIRE TO DO IT,,,AS YOU SAID SHE IS NOT CONTAMINATED AND AS YOU SAID SHE IS NOT A TREATHEN SOCIALIST BUT A WOMAN WHO KNOWS THE MIDDLE CLASS AND IS ABLE TO CLEAN THE WRONG PEOPLE AND TO CUT TAXES AS SHE HAS DEMOSTRATED FROM HIS OWN TOWN.. NOT MATTER HOW MUCH THE MEDIA TRY TO SLAM HER...THEY SHOULD TRY WITH OBAMA AND BIDEN THEY HAVE A LOT OF MATERIAL, SHE HAS LEAD A RESPONSIBLY LIFE AND COMPETENT JOB....
PET at 10:10AM on Sep 5th 2008
78. Oh, and AMG?
"Nostra-dumb-ass"?
Brilliant.
(Boink!)
Robert at 10:06AM on Sep 5th 2008
79. "A LOT OF SOLUTION TO USA PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW"
Which problems do you speak of?
fed up at 10:16AM on Sep 5th 2008
80. Dinesh,
You mentioned Obama's admission of having tried cocaine, but again hypocritically failed to mention Palin's admisssion of using marijuana.
Obama honestly admitted using cocain while Dubya said he can't remember if he did or did not. This is your poster boy of christian values.
When a Republican does drugs,cheats on their spouse, accepts bribes, send troops to die needlesly, sell arms to terrorist, over-spends, raise tax for bombs but cuts tax for people who do not need it, runs for high office on an unacomplished academic record, does not attend church, overty supports racism, promotes killing by supporting tobacco and other nefarious things; you make excuses or keep quite. For the same actions you condemn liberals. You are a hypocrite of great magnitude as are most conservatives. Your professing to be Christian is false and a great sin against God.
Peter English at 10:17AM on Sep 5th 2008
81. In all honesty, far too many of you take these political arguments in support of McCain/Pailn or Obama/Biden far too seriously. Think about it: If Obama were more experienced than McCain, Obama's supporters would be making *exactly* the same arguments against McCain that McCain supporters are making against Obama. Just look at how people on both sides of the political spectrum are treating the presidential and vice presidential candidates: those who support Obama largely ignore his lack of experience and boast of Biden's experience, while downplaying McCain's experience and attacking Palin's lack of experience; those who support McCain boast of his experience and ignore Palin's lack of experience, while attacking Obama's lack of experience and downplaying Biden's experience.
Here's more evidence for this claim:
Palin is being criticized for only having been a governor for two years of her first term, but George W. was a two term governor when he ran for the presidency.
Palin is being criticized for being governor of an admittedly large but lowly populated state. George W. was a two term governor of a very large, highly populated state.
Palin is being criticized for lacking foreign policy experience. George W. was a two term governor of a large, highly populated state, and he had foreign policy experience in dealing with Mexico.
Now, George W. had everything Palin is said to lack, yet what was the consisntent charge made against George W. in his first run for the presidency: It was that he lacked 'gravitas.' The 'g' word is noticeably absent from media coverage of Obama, who is patently less qualified than George W. was when he ran for the presidency. Yet, media interest in 'experience' is suddenly on the rise with the nomination of Palin as McCain's VP.
Clearly, we cannot make any sense of these facts unless we conclude that these arguments are not meant as arguments, but as propaganda. And I'm not referring to only one 'side' here; as I said above, if the situation were reversed, all of you would be talking up Obama's experience in office and his bravery as POW while attacking McCain's lack of experience, accomplishments, etc. and those of us who support McCain would be making the same sorts of arguments to support him that all of you are making now to support Obama. Let's be honest, now.
Eric at 10:17AM on Sep 5th 2008
82. Eric,
Hey bright boy "far too many of you take these political arguments in support of McCain/Pailn or Obama/Biden far too seriously". These arguments, this propaganda, is what gets VOTES! It is taken seriously, because it is SERIOUS. What was the purpose of putting a ban on gay marriage, but to get the far right to the polls in 2004? Why the rallying cry for banning abortion, even though with majority control, the Republicans did nearly nothing to achieve their stated goal? Propaganda works because people buy into it. The Neo-Cons figured that out, why are you feigning surprise?
fed up at 10:33AM on Sep 5th 2008
83. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris3-2008sep03,0,3801278.story
Palin: average isn't good enough
She's not qualified to be president, and in picking her, McCain shows that he has little respect for the presidency.
By Sam Harris
September 3, 2008
» Discuss Article
So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?
The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper's scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain's medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.
As many people have noted, placing Palin on the ticket has made these final months of the already overlong 2008 campaign much more interesting. Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that's precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don't look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!
Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.
This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars. (WOW!)
McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.
And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.
Tune in next week and watch cousin Sarah fuss with our nuclear arsenal ... .
Sam Harris is a founder of the Reason Project and the author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
Bart at 10:43AM on Sep 5th 2008
84. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris3-2008sep03,0,3801278.story
Palin: average isn't good enough
She's not qualified to be president, and in picking her, McCain shows that he has little respect for the presidency.
By Sam Harris
September 3, 2008
» Discuss Article
So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?
The actuarial tables on the Social Security Administration website suggest that there is a better than 10% chance that McCain will die during his first term in office. Needless to say, the Reaper's scything only grows more insistent thereafter. Should President McCain survive his first term and get elected to a second, there is a 27% chance that Palin will become the first female U.S. president by 2015. If we take into account McCain's medical history and the pressures of the presidency, the odds probably increase considerably that this bright-eyed Alaskan will become the most powerful woman in history.
As many people have noted, placing Palin on the ticket has made these final months of the already overlong 2008 campaign much more interesting. Is Palin remotely qualified to be president of the United States? No. But that's precisely what is so interesting. McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television: Don't look now, but our cousin Sarah just became leader of the free world! Tune in next week and watch her get sassy with Pakistan!
Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.
This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars. (WOW!)
McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.
And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes. Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting year.
Tune in next week and watch cousin Sarah fuss with our nuclear arsenal ... .
Sam Harris is a founder of the Reason Project and the author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
Bart at 10:43AM on Sep 5th 2008
85. Gosh I love the fact that the Democrats are fearful of Palin...I can't wait until the debates. Unless a written speech is in front of Obama he is unable to portray himself as someone who has a brain and a stance on the issues...Biden is a huge joke...wonder who's speeches he is plagiarizing these days...he is a panderer of huge proportions and has his nose so far up Obama's butt in gratitude for picking him...Palin is going to crucify Biden during the debates...and Biden's jadedness will be on display for all to see.
And for those who say that McCain deserted his 1st wife...that Palin's daughter is pregnant and unmarried...Cheney...a gay daughter...puzzling...aren't the democrats supposed to be the ones sympathetic to social issues? I mean after all Obama's own mother was a single, unmarried woman...Obama admits to drug use, including cocaine...he supposedly supports gay and lesbian rights...jeez, what's up with THAT??? You can't be all things to all people - although I give Obama credit...he certainly tries.
Dorothy M. at 10:42AM on Sep 5th 2008
86. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
» Discuss Article
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
This could be huge.
Bart at 10:44AM on Sep 5th 2008
87. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
» Discuss Article
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.
Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.
Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.
Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.
This could be huge.
Bart at 10:45AM on Sep 5th 2008
88. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/04/gop/index.html
The GOP's cheerful viciousness
With last night's cheerfully vicious speeches from Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin, the Republicans did what they always do in order to win elections: they exploited raw cultural divides while mocking, belittling and demonizing Democratic leaders. Yet again, they delivered brutally effective and deeply personal blows to the Democratic presidential candidate grounded in the same manipulative and deceitful yet very potent themes they've been using for the last three decades.
Ever since Ronald Reagan's election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited "negativity" and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.
The derisive attacks on Obama's character last night were exactly what Democrats decided -- yet again -- that they would studiously avoid at their own convention when discussing John McCain. On the third night of the DNC -- after Biden spoke but before Obama spoke the next night -- I wrote:
More politically damaging still is the absence of any truly stinging attacks on John McCain. Even Joe Biden's speech -- billed as the "attack dog" event -- almost completely avoided any criticisms of McCain the Person, who will emerge from the four days here as a Wonderful, Honorable, Courageous Man -- a friend to Democrats and Republicans alike -- who just happens to be wrong on some issues. The Republicans will spend the next four days mercilessly ripping Barack Obama's character to shreds, as they did to John Kerry in 2004. . . .
The GOP's attacks on Kerry in 2004 were mocking, scornful, derisive, demonizing and deeply personal -- in speech after speech -- and they were also highly effective. They weren't the slightest bit deterred by the fact that Kerry was a war hero who was wounded multiple times in Vietnam while George Bush and Dick Cheney. . . . weren't. Has there been anything remotely approaching those attacks on McCain by any of the prime-time Democratic speakers?
The GOP assaults on Barack Obama will be -- have already been -- even more vicious and personalized, which means by the end of their Convention next week, John McCain will be, by all accounts, an honor-bound, principled and courageous patriot (who, at worst, is wrong on some issues), while Barack Obama will be some vaguely foreign, weak, appeasing, super-ambitious, exotic, empty-headed, borderline un-American liberal extremist. Democrats seem to be banking on the fact that the agreement which most Americans have with their policy positions, along with widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of things, will outweigh the effects of this personality war -- a war which they, yet again, have allowed to be one-sided.
None of this is to say that the GOP attacks will enable them to win the election. It is quite possible that enough Americans this year are so alienated from the GOP brand that they are now largely immune from these kinds of substance-free personality assaults, that they won't be blinded by cultural tribalism and personality appeals into handing this political party an additional four years of power. But these tactics have worked in the past because cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think -- in general, they're more powerful than rational assessments of policy positions or even one's self-interest -- and the Democrats' gamble that they can win this election without really engaging those issues, while allowing that war to be waged in a one-sided manner yet again, is a true gamble.
Even today, fresh off of watching Sarah Palin rip Barack Obama's face off using the most intense forms of derision and condescension, Joe Biden -- Obama's "attack dog" -- went on The Early Show and said he was "impressed" with Palin's speech:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: How do you think your Republican counterpart did here last night?
SEN. BIDEN: Well, my plane was landing. I only caught the last two-thirds of the speech, but I was impressed. I think it was a skillfully delivered political speech with confidence and directness and so I think she did what she was supposed to do. I was impressed.
I was also impressed by what I didn't hear in the speech. I didn't hear a word--didn't hear the phrase middle class mentioned, I didn't hear a word about health care. I didn't hear a single word about what we're going to do about the housing crisis, college education, all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now. I didn't hear the words Afghanistan or Pakistan where al-Qaeda lives and bin Laden resides, so I also, you know, there was a deafening silence about the hole that the Republicans have dug us into and any specific answers to how the McCain-Palin ticket is going to get us out of that hole.
What Biden said was arguably wise (attacking Palin personally -- as opposed to McCain and/or Palin's ideology -- is a stupid strategy). Biden's remarks were also all true, as far as they went. Palin's speech -- indeed, the entire GOP Convention -- was almost entirely bereft of substance and "issues." But it is that way by design.
The Republicans are well aware that they can't possibly win the election if it is even partially decided based on issues. They need and intend to win despite the fact that Americans hate their positions on the issues, and to do that, they want to ensure that a majority of Americans love and respect the strong, honorable, principled, culturally familiar all-American mavericks John McCain and Sarah Palin (even if they don't agree with them on everything) while strongly disliking that wishy-washy, snooty, foreign, exotic, self-absorbed Eastern elitist Barack Obama (even if he says the right things on issues).
Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country's dislike of Republican policies. This year is indeed different -- dissatisfaction with the Government is higher than ever before, the GOP is as discredited as a party can be, and Obama is a more effective candidate than those who preceded him -- but the attacks last night were only the beginning, not the end. If John McCain remains -- even from the mouths of Democrats -- the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.
-- Glenn Greenwald
Bart at 10:45AM on Sep 5th 2008
89. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/04/gop/index.html
The GOP's cheerful viciousness
With last night's cheerfully vicious speeches from Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin, the Republicans did what they always do in order to win elections: they exploited raw cultural divides while mocking, belittling and demonizing Democratic leaders. Yet again, they delivered brutally effective and deeply personal blows to the Democratic presidential candidate grounded in the same manipulative and deceitful yet very potent themes they've been using for the last three decades.
Ever since Ronald Reagan's election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited "negativity" and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.
The derisive attacks on Obama's character last night were exactly what Democrats decided -- yet again -- that they would studiously avoid at their own convention when discussing John McCain. On the third night of the DNC -- after Biden spoke but before Obama spoke the next night -- I wrote:
More politically damaging still is the absence of any truly stinging attacks on John McCain. Even Joe Biden's speech -- billed as the "attack dog" event -- almost completely avoided any criticisms of McCain the Person, who will emerge from the four days here as a Wonderful, Honorable, Courageous Man -- a friend to Democrats and Republicans alike -- who just happens to be wrong on some issues. The Republicans will spend the next four days mercilessly ripping Barack Obama's character to shreds, as they did to John Kerry in 2004. . . .
The GOP's attacks on Kerry in 2004 were mocking, scornful, derisive, demonizing and deeply personal -- in speech after speech -- and they were also highly effective. They weren't the slightest bit deterred by the fact that Kerry was a war hero who was wounded multiple times in Vietnam while George Bush and Dick Cheney. . . . weren't. Has there been anything remotely approaching those attacks on McCain by any of the prime-time Democratic speakers?
The GOP assaults on Barack Obama will be -- have already been -- even more vicious and personalized, which means by the end of their Convention next week, John McCain will be, by all accounts, an honor-bound, principled and courageous patriot (who, at worst, is wrong on some issues), while Barack Obama will be some vaguely foreign, weak, appeasing, super-ambitious, exotic, empty-headed, borderline un-American liberal extremist. Democrats seem to be banking on the fact that the agreement which most Americans have with their policy positions, along with widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of things, will outweigh the effects of this personality war -- a war which they, yet again, have allowed to be one-sided.
None of this is to say that the GOP attacks will enable them to win the election. It is quite possible that enough Americans this year are so alienated from the GOP brand that they are now largely immune from these kinds of substance-free personality assaults, that they won't be blinded by cultural tribalism and personality appeals into handing this political party an additional four years of power. But these tactics have worked in the past because cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think -- in general, they're more powerful than rational assessments of policy positions or even one's self-interest -- and the Democrats' gamble that they can win this election without really engaging those issues, while allowing that war to be waged in a one-sided manner yet again, is a true gamble.
Even today, fresh off of watching Sarah Palin rip Barack Obama's face off using the most intense forms of derision and condescension, Joe Biden -- Obama's "attack dog" -- went on The Early Show and said he was "impressed" with Palin's speech:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: How do you think your Republican counterpart did here last night?
SEN. BIDEN: Well, my plane was landing. I only caught the last two-thirds of the speech, but I was impressed. I think it was a skillfully delivered political speech with confidence and directness and so I think she did what she was supposed to do. I was impressed.
I was also impressed by what I didn't hear in the speech. I didn't hear a word--didn't hear the phrase middle class mentioned, I didn't hear a word about health care. I didn't hear a single word about what we're going to do about the housing crisis, college education, all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now. I didn't hear the words Afghanistan or Pakistan where al-Qaeda lives and bin Laden resides, so I also, you know, there was a deafening silence about the hole that the Republicans have dug us into and any specific answers to how the McCain-Palin ticket is going to get us out of that hole.
What Biden said was arguably wise (attacking Palin personally -- as opposed to McCain and/or Palin's ideology -- is a stupid strategy). Biden's remarks were also all true, as far as they went. Palin's speech -- indeed, the entire GOP Convention -- was almost entirely bereft of substance and "issues." But it is that way by design.
The Republicans are well aware that they can't possibly win the election if it is even partially decided based on issues. They need and intend to win despite the fact that Americans hate their positions on the issues, and to do that, they want to ensure that a majority of Americans love and respect the strong, honorable, principled, culturally familiar all-American mavericks John McCain and Sarah Palin (even if they don't agree with them on everything) while strongly disliking that wishy-washy, snooty, foreign, exotic, self-absorbed Eastern elitist Barack Obama (even if he says the right things on issues).
Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country's dislike of Republican policies. This year is indeed different -- dissatisfaction with the Government is higher than ever before, the GOP is as discredited as a party can be, and Obama is a more effective candidate than those who preceded him -- but the attacks last night were only the beginning, not the end. If John McCain remains -- even from the mouths of Democrats -- the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.
-- Glenn Greenwald
Bart at 10:46AM on Sep 5th 2008
90. "How anyone can be proud of being a Roman Catholic in this day and age is beyond me"?
William Hays,
This woman is VERY PROUD to be a ROMAN CATHOLIC!!! I chose to convert. I wouldn't be anything else. You are a hate filled, angry, condescending person! You come on this blog with nothing good to say about anyone. A person that is content does not feel the need to belittle others; it only reflects the lack of meaning in your life and low self-esteem. I pity you and those like you!
janesophie1 at 10:49AM on Sep 5th 2008