Conservatives Upset :Palin NOT the One
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 10-04-2008 - 3:59am |
The dumbing down of the GOPWhy aren't more conservatives disgusted that their party nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the vice presidency (again)?
By Joe Conason
Oct. 04, 2008 | Sarah Palin's debate performance should signal the beginning of the end of her fad. But for the moment it is worth looking at the meaning of her nomination, without the protective varnish of what conservatives usually dismiss as political correctness.
Why should we pretend not to notice when Gov. Palin's ideas make no sense? Having said last week that "it doesn't matter" whether human activity is the cause of climate change, she said in debate that she "doesn't want to argue" about the causes. It doesn't occur to her that we have to know the causes in order to address the problem. (She was very fortunate that moderator Gwen Ifill didn't ask her whether she truly believes that human beings and dinosaurs inhabited this planet simultaneously only 6,000 years ago.)
Why should we ignore her inability to string together a series of coherent thoughts? As a foe of Wall Street greed and a late convert to the gospel of government regulation, along with John McCain, Palin promised to clean up and reform business. But when her programmed talking points about "getting government out of the way" and protecting "freedom" conflicted with that promise, she didn't notice.
Why should we give her a pass on the most important issues of the day? Supposedly sharing the fears and concerns of the average families who face the burdens of mortgages, healthcare and economic insecurity, Palin simply refused to discuss changes in bankruptcy law and proved that she didn't know the provisions of McCain's healthcare plan.
All the glaring defects so blatantly on display in her debate with Joe Biden -- and that make her candidacy so darkly comical -- would be the same if she were a hockey dad instead of a "hockey mom." In fact, the cynical attempt to foist Palin on the nation as a symbol of feminist progress is an insult to all women regardless of their political orientation.
There was a time when conservatives lamented the dumbing down of American culture. Preservation of basic standards in schools and workplaces compelled them -- or so they said -- to resist affirmative action for women and minorities. Qualifications mattered; merit mattered; and demagogic appeals for leveling were to be left to the Democrats.
Not anymore.
Actually, the Palin phenomenon is the culmination of a trend that can be traced back to Dan Quayle, the undistinguished Indiana senator whose elevation onto the Republican ticket in 1988 had nothing to do with intellect or experience and everything to do with the youthful appeal of a handsome blond frat boy. (That was how Republican strategists thought they would attract female voters back then, which must be why they believe Palin represents progress.) Quayle too was unable to articulate, let alone defend, the policy positions for which he was supposed to be campaigning. He too had to undergo the surgical stuffing of stock phrases into his head as a minimal substitute for knowledge and thought. And in the same sad way, he too benefited from the drastically reduced expectations applied to anyone whose inadequacy is so obvious.
Quayle deserved more pity than scorn, however, because he seemed to know that he was fighting far above his weight class. Palin evokes no such sympathy, with her jut-jawed, moose-gutting confidence in her own overrated "common sense" and her bullying insistence that only "elitists" would question her expertise.
As Biden showed quite convincingly when he spoke about his modest background and his continuing connection with Main Street, perceptive, intelligent discourse is in no way identical with elitism. Palin's phony populism is as insulting to working- and middle-class Americans as it is to American women. Why are basic diction and intellectual coherence presumed to be out of reach for "real people"?
And why don't we expect more from American conservatives? Indeed, why don't they demand more from their own movement? Aren't they disgusted that their party would again nominate a person devoid of qualifications for one of the nation's highest offices? Some, like Michael Gerson and Kathleen Parker, have expressed discomfort with this farce -- and been subjected, in Parker's case, to abuse from many of the same numbskulls whom Palin undoubtedly delights.
The ultimate irony of Palin's rise is that it has occurred at a moment when Americans may finally have grown weary of pseudo-populism -- when intelligence, judgment, diligence and seriousness are once again valued, simply because we are in such deep trouble. We got into this mess because we elected a man who professed to despise elitism, which he detected in everyone whose opinions differed from his prejudices. That was George W. Bush, of course. Biden was too polite and restrained to say it, but the dumbing down is more of the same, too.
-- By Joe Conason


Pages
And I'm sure John McCain would thank you for that opinion.
Trouble is, when a PERSON has voted over 90% of the time with the PARTY to which he belongs (which you say shouldn't be a factor in our decisions), I'd say it'd be foolish not to have a look at the principles and operating methods and goals of that party.
Much has been made of Obama's voting with his party also (mostly by conservatives who are terrified to hear that McCain has voted with Bush and the RSRC (Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress) 90% of the time). And, I suppose, if one were truly opposed to the platform of the Democratic party, that might indeed be a reason to vote against the man.
But in an election year when we have had nearly-unfettered rule by the OTHER party for almost a decade, and the policies of THAT party have led straight to the disasters we have now, I wonder how many will be receptive to the cry of "he's voted with the Democrats!!!" as a reason not to vote for Obama. I would think that this year "he's voted with the Republicans" is - by FAR - the more damaging charge.
can't use a keyboard b/c of injuries isn't the same as 'don't know how' but in any event I couldn't care less if he KNOWS how to use the internet.
the thought that palin was to gain hilary voters makes no sense to me
you chose Obama, I chose mcCain ... but the
McCain voted with his party 82
I think that if you look up the various branches of the government you will find that the White House (President, VP, etc.) fall under the Executive branch while Congress falls under the Legislative branch.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the VP is a part of the Legislative branch.
>Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.<
By your own article it states CONGRESS has the legislative powers.
>The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.<
>The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
This means the VP is the non-voting PRESIDENT of the SENATE (at ALL times, Joe, not just when it's time to cast the tie-breaking vote).<
Although the VP may hold a title as President of the Senate he is, nonetheless, still the VP as an elected official and, as such, a part of the Executive branch, NOT the Legislative branch.
Biden was right...
My thoughts exactly! I want well educated leadership who respects education, science, and serves as a role model to higher standards. And does not seek to create a theocracy and jam their version of religion down the entire country's throats. :( As a world power, we have lost so much credibility in the past 8 years. If we elect more of the same, we'll be even more a laughing stock to the world. I have been so ashamed. And another "dumbed down" white house is not what we need....
Blessings,
Gypsy
Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.
It's not the dog's fault.
All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."
--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/
Mika Dog
"All things share the same breath;
the beast, the tree, the man.
The Air shares its spirit with
all the life it supports."
--Chief Seattle
"If there are no dogs in Heaven,
then when I die I want to go where they went."
~Will Rogers
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
~~Mahatma Gandhi
Blessings,
Gypsy
)O(
"the thought that palin was to gain hilary voters makes no sense to me"
Then you think McCain makes no sense, because that's part of why they picked Palin.
"McCain's advisors predicted she would be a strong draw to women -- particularly independents and supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton who were reluctant to back Barack Obama." http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinappeal2-2008oct02,0,7842658.story?track=rss
"you chose Obama, I chose mcCain ... but the biggest difference is I can debate (and make my choice) without being insulting, misleading or ugly about candidates or to other posters."
When did I insult you friend? I find your accusation insulting. Could it be a case of sour grapes?
The person on your youtube link is not a constitutional scholar. He teaches environmental law, so I'm not even sure what his opinion means in this conversation. He seems to have a bit of background with constitutional law with respect to white collar crimes and criminal procedure, but as far as being a "constitutional scholar," he's not that.
He was addressing Palin's version. I was addressing Biden's version. He didn't say Biden DIDN'T misrepresent the role of the VP. He just said Palin did.
If you reread my post, you'll see that the first ("primary") mention of the VP's powers enumerates the legislative powers of the VP, particularly that the VP presides over the senate (just as Pelosi presides over the House--only difference is VP only votes to break a tie). In Article 2, which enumerates the powers of the Executive Branch, the VP is given NO authority EXCEPT "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office" the VP shall discharge the duties of the President as enumerated in Article 2, Section 2 & 3.
Please let me know how the following on Biden's part was correct, and not a boo-boo
1. Biden's referral to Article 1 of the Constitution as that which enumerates the powers of the executive branch;
2. Biden's referral to the duty of the vice president to preside over the Senate "only in the event of a tie" (and not always);
3. Biden's characterization the notion that the VP is a member of the legislative branch as some "bizarre notion invented by Cheney;"
4. Biden's statement that the "the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought." {as in, I'd like to know where Joe Biden's Constitution states this, if it's not a "boo-boo"?}
And, separate and distinct from the discussion about whatever Palin said, once it's acknowledged that the above 4 statements on Biden's part were inaccurate (by which I mean wrong), and that he fully misunderstands and mischaracterized the duties of the office of the VP, it will be said that he only made a teensy weensy boo-boo, while Palin's eggregious misrepresentation was not only SCARY, but DANGEROUS.
And, by the way, if Biden is right that the VP supports the President, then the President can have the VP do anything the President wants, right? To me, that's precisely the definition of "flexible," which is precisely the term used by Palin.
Certainly it can't be argued that there is a limited legislative role granted the VP by the Constitution. But certainly it can't be argued that the VP, according to the Consitution (and also, apparently, Cheney having read his Constitution), the primary power of the VP is legislative. I find nowhere in the debate transcript where Palin referred specifically to the VPs flexibility of the legislative role--it is the executive role where there is much flexibility, as it is a delegated function of the president. She was speaking of executive flexibility, not legislative. In Palin's words:
"Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience."
She's talking about the presidential agenda, not the congressional agenda. She is talking about administration, not legislation. She's talking about her executive experience. She's talking about the delegation of presidential duties, not expansion of legislative duties. The "constitutional scholar" made all sorts of "it seems like she's saying," and "it sounds like she meant"--it's clear what she said, and it doesn't sound like she's saying anything about her legislative authority--she only speaks of the president and executive powers-only someone who wanted to think she were talking about legislating that would hear that.
((
Palin first said:
I would also beg to differ on your statement that Jonathan Turley is not a constitutional scholar.
Pages