Conservatives Upset :Palin NOT the One

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Conservatives Upset :Palin NOT the One
82
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 3:59am
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/10/04/dumb/print.html
 
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:09pm

"I need one who is superior in intellect, education, political skill, endurance and courage."

Hey, don't be so liberal elitist on us. It's more fun having someone who acts kinda dumb and goofy as our leader of the free world. Nucular smucular. Having an air head joe sixpack type is good because then I don't feel so bad for being uninformed. I mean, then, hey, the folks at the top are just like me. And hey if they're hot, they're not as boring to look at either.

Long live the fops!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:18pm

1. You make my point: Biden's error is "just a gaffe" but Palin's is "chilling...dangerous...scary." The man has taught constitutional law for 17 years--HOW is that "just a gaffe?"

The Senate's official website identifies the "legislative role" of the Vice President! Not just Cheney!

from http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

"Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine."

2. Biden refers to the "strong convention" as if it's law. You refer to the "strong convention" as if Cheney is violating something by breaking it. The founders established it as a power of the VP. That Cheney exercises it is uneventful; that certain people of certain political persuasions have a problem with it is telling. And, in the event that you are convinced that no other VP has been as influential in Senate deliberations as Cheney, I invite you to read, again, from the Senate's official website, the bio of John Adams, George Washington's VP (who, I daresay, understood EXACTLY what his role and powers were)...

In fact, nowhere on the Senate website is the "strong conviction" of which you speak even mentioned. In fact, your response to my question "which VP has always presided over the Senate" was "UM, NONE." You went so far as to follow up with the incorrect assertion that This has been followed since the constitution's existence.According to senate.gov, you are incorrect." Read on...

"As president of the Senate, Adams cast twenty-nine tie-breaking votes—a record that no successor has ever threatened. His votes protected the president's sole authority over the removal of appointees, influenced the location of the national capital, and prevented war with Great Britain. On at least one occasion he persuaded senators to vote against legislation that he opposed, and he frequently lectured the Senate on procedural and policy matters. Adams' political views and his active role in the Senate made him a natural target for critics of the Washington administration. Toward the end of his first term, he began to exercise more restraint in the hope of realizing the goal shared by many of his successors: election in his own right as president of the United States."

"The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.

During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent."

So it is a far cry from accurate to assert that no VP has ever taken any assertive role as Senate President since the inception of the Constitution. It is worth noting that the recent evolution of the office, as you mentioned is by convention--popular convention, but not by constitutional convention. The constitutional duties haven't changed--and even the senate admits that the personality and skills of the VP commonly dictate the form of their administration of their duties. I find it strange that just because Cheney takes upon more responsibility and serves more diligently and more similarly to the founding fathers in their presiding role, that somehow that is a "bad" thing, a "wrong" way to carry out the office and its duties, and somehow is a breech or violation of the function of the Senate. Cheney is just doing things, as your CNN commentator liked to say, "all 1787 stylie." Please enlighten me as to what's actually wrong with that--aside from the fact that it's more traditional than most recent VPs have done it, and you don't like that.

You also infer that when Biden said, "the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is..." that Biden didn't mention that this was stated in the Constitution--and you indicate that it is NOT stated there. That is my point. The ONLY authority given the VP by the constitution IS legislative authority. Furthermore, the only PLACE to find the authority of the VP IS THE CONSTITUTION. So if it's not there, it's not something Joe Biden himself can personally grant. Second blunder of his definition of the VPs duties. Those ARE NOT the VPs duties--the Constitution doesn't grant them, there we certainly agree. But if not, where did he GET these ideas? Maybe they're some "bizarre notion" of the executive duties of the VP that are aggrandizing some power grab on the part of Biden...or...??????

And you are correct in pointing out that Palin's response WAS an answer to the question:

"Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?"

First of all, Cheney was claiming he ISN'T a member of the executive branch. That's the bizarre notion designed to AVOID any connection to the presidency--not assert powers because of it. He claimed he was ONLY a member of the Executive Branch, unless and until the President was incapacitated or dead. Arguably, at least strictly interpreting the constitution, that's not so bizarre. But he wasn't incorrect to assert that his powers derive from those enumerated as legislative functions within the Article devoted to the Legislative branch. No question he's right on that--look at Articles 1 and 2 and see where you find a DUTY of the VP. Only article 1, unless there's a dead or disappeared President.

Furthermore, the short answer to this question, in a word, is yes. Cheney is correct. The VP is a member of the Legislative Branch. That's where Biden's error wasn't a molehill--it is a mountain. The only enumerated power of the VP is in Article 1, which addresses the Legislative Branch, of which the VP is, Constitutionally, a member. And this isn't Cheney's, Palin's or even my opinion personally: it is a fact, not just because the Constitution states that explicitly (which word Biden used to drive home his gaffe), but because the Senate ITSELF recognizes the VP as a member of the Legislative branch as well (which doesn't mean he is a member of the Senate--he is not). On the web page showing the Senate Leadership {http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/a_three_sections_with_teasers/leadership.htm}, you will see that Cheney is listed as President of the Senate. If that's not enough proof that he IS a member of the legislative branch, then perhaps you have already set out on that bridge to nowhere.

Finally, I notice you seem to distinguish between a "gaffe" (which is what Obama/Biden supporters like to call Biden's mistakes and blunders), and the mistakes attributed to Palin, which are "scary," "dangerous," and "chilling." I was wondering if you can explain why Biden's "gaffes" aren't actually mistakes, or if they are, why they are harmless "molehills" and just meaningless oopsies, while Palin's mistakes are "mountains"--grave indicators of some malicious agenda on the part of her party to abuse, misuse and tear down the very structure of our government and its branches.

Just curious, since my original point was that Biden supporters can see a constitutional law professor of 17 years and an attorney of 35 years miconstrue and misquote our constitution and mischaracterize the nature of the office upon which he intends to enter, and brush it off and minimize it as merely a cute little "gaffe" and boo boos and oopsies, but Palin's are major blunders, indicative of grave misconceptions that will certainly have a devastating impact on our nation.

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:19pm

It's even funnier when you consider he's been a Constitutional Law professor at Widener for 17 years.

Now go clean up that drink you just shot out of your nose!

LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:26pm
Mccullough wrote a pretty thorough biography of Adams. Mccullough says he came to think Adams was an even greater politician than Jefferson. Really admired him. But even Mccullough admitted that Washington iced Adams into being a non-entity as Washington's VP. Facts matter.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:59pm

((If Palin had said it, it would have been one more example of how stupid she is))


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 10:39pm

<>


Last week I accidently put my

 

 

Guild Member since 2009

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sun, 10-05-2008 - 12:03am

((McCain still voted against his party the most))


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sun, 10-05-2008 - 1:27am

1) He chose to abuse the power of his office which helped contribute to the first savings and loan crisis.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 10-05-2008 - 8:57am

McCain's not someone fit to be Pres. IMO.


>"Skousen also notes that "McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress."

It has also never been explained why the son and grandson of Navy admirals would not rise to the rank of Admiral himself. (He exited the Navy as a Captain.) Was it his numerous adulterous affairs or his violent temper? Or both?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2008
Sun, 10-05-2008 - 11:14am
What's BIDEN's excuse--he's pushing 4 decades on the scene, and he's STILL going??!??!
LOVE IT! PRO LIFE Pictures, Images and Photos

siggy1
pregnancy week by week

Pages