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
Why does it have to be in the Constitution in order for Biden to say he should support the President when asked?
Because that's the only place where the "primary" role of the VP is defined, The role he spoke of is the additional role outside the constitutionally defined primary role. Biden was not mistaken--his answer ignored the primary legislative role of the VP, inserting his own opinion instead. Incidentally, the role he defined is quite a "flexible" role which seems to me to be perfectly congruent with Palin's answer--the constitution gives great flexibility. And she didn't say "in the legislative role"--she didn't specify, but she did specifically mention her executive experience--which doesn't lend to a legislative function. The only logical assumption is that she was speaking of the flexibility with regard to the executive functions of the VP--which is an accurate characterization of that role. Without jumping far afield to conclude that she meant things she didn't actually say, where is the DANGER in her answer?
I don't think for a moment that Palin's answer indicated in any way her agreement that there is somehow inherent in the legislative role of the VP an escape clause to avoid the consequences of the executive role, and nowhere in my answer have I even addressed or defended what Cheney did. Neither did Palin defend what Cheney did. That's not even a part of what I was talking about. All the question addressed was is Cheney correct that the VP is part of the legislative branch? He is, no question. The fact that Cheney used that to avoid answering for his actions isn't something that answer even addresses. It's just a fact. If you want to think that just becaues Palin acknowledged that the VPs primary role is legislative that, at the same time, she supports and condones Cheney's actions (which she did not even address), that would be typical of the way Bidenites like to draw conclusions.
But just so you know, the DEFINITION of GAFFE is MISTAKE. It isn't "inadvertent misstatement", which is, I think, how you are using it. Biden didn't misstate anything--he refused to acknowledge that there is Constitutional authority for the VPs legslative role at all, and he misrepresented the extent of that role, not because he was accidentally forgetting part, but for the purpose of minimizing that role because it better supported his answer and his bust on Cheney if he made it look like Cheney didn't have ANY of the authority he "aggrandized" (which authority Cheney did have, under Article 1). I don't think you can forgive this as an oopsie from a constitutional law professor of 17 years, and an attorney and lawyer for 35 years. If all those years of experience, expertise and in-depth knowledge and understanding, this man can make that kind of MISTAKE, what OTHER mistakes is he making--and how DANGEROUS could THAT get?????
Palin's inexperience makes her dangerous...why isn't it more dangerous when someone with three times the experience is STILL making mistakes in his basic understanding of the role of the VP? And trust me, Joe Biden hasn't come out and acknowledged that oops, I meant Article 2. Joe Biden doesn't acknowledge any legislative role for the VP other than a tiebreaking vote. He sees no reason for himself to set FOOT on the floor of the senate--but how do you break the tie when you aren't involved, informed and educated as to the nature of the debate and the nuances of the issue--and according to Biden, he has no authority to be in that room unless there's a tie. To me, that is an abdication of his duties, that opens the door for more gaffes and mistakes based upon lack of knowledge and information, that gets him even MORE out of touch with what's going on behind those doors, and THAT makes him DANGEROUS.
<>
Do you think the moderator was giving a pop quiz to the candidates?
Guild Member since 2009
Biden answed correctly in the exact role that the VP has in the Legislative Branch...
Nope. Sure didn't. The EXACT role isn't ONLY that the VP is the senate president in the instance of the need to break tie votes. The correct legislative role is that the VP is ALWAYS, from INAUGURATION onward, the President of the Senate. Look on www.senate.gov. He is listed as the President of the Senate. Not part time, not only when there's a tie. The President. Biden got it wrong. And he also got it wrong that this is the VPs PRIMARY role, not to assist the president. Not only is it the PRIMARY role (as in first listed, first of importance), but it is the VPs ONLY Constitutionally enumerated power.
I can tell you from my POV, if this was not happening, I would not be as concerned. She is practicing her own form of abuse.
What ruling have you gotten that the rest of us haven't, that she is GUILTY of some sort of abuse of power? She hasn't been found to have committed ANY abuse. And if you're talking about the subpoena thing--I'm a lawyer. Not showing up for a subpoena, pending the outcome of a judge's ruling on your legal objeection is ROUTINE. Blanket subpoena's issued to an entire staff are almost ALWAYS met with objections and filings and rulings. It's totally routine, and not some sign of obstruction or invocation of privilege. It's what lawyers do. And let me tell you, when you're running for VP and the Governor of a state, you do WHATEVER your lawyer tells you to--if you're not stupid. Even if she wanted to show up, if her lawyer told her not to (which he did, because he filed objections), she did what any client does--listened. Don't jump to conclusions before an investigation is finished--it is just as likely to end up being NOTHING AT ALL. I'm not (and I don't think ANYONE is) at this time in a position to judge Palin in light of the ongoing investigation. Until there is a final determination, the investigation is NOT any indication of guilt or violation of any kind. People get investigated for many things every day, and many of them have done nothing wrong. In fact, at this point, French has publicly stated that Palin did not violate the code of ethics in firing the Police Commissioner. So, in that light, it seems to me the remainder of the investigation is merely a formality, and we will have the answer in about a week.
You need to reread the transcript: Biden's answer, verbatim was:
And 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, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
He listed 3 roles: the first (primary) he listed is NOT the primary role from the constitution. The 3rd role his listed is ACTUALLY the PRIMARY role, but he misrepresented it: the VP presides over the senate ALL THE TIME, not "only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote." The fact that he follows that "the constitution is explicit" is a joke, because it explicitly DOES NOT SAY what he said. Where do you find that he is only the PART TIME president of the senate? You can't find it--the constitution is explicit--he is the FULL TIME president of the senate, all the time.
Biden never said that the VP has no role in sitting in the Senate.
WHAT? He said "ONLY IN A TIME WHEN IN FACT THERE IS A TIE." He's WRONG. It's not ONLY when there's a tie--he presides ALL THE TIME. He has the RIGHT to sit during EVERY SESSION. Biden did NOT say that--he said the OPPOSITE--he's ONLY the Presdident IF there's a tie.
Wrong. Completely wrong. No way to even argue it's close. It's dead wrong. And from a 35 year lawyer and a constitutional law professor, to make that WRONG of a statement of the VPs role in the senate, his experience doesn't count for squat in my book.
And as far as his "little whoopsie cutesie gaffes," here's a short list of other ones that I cannot excuse as "oops"....the guy doesn't know whether he's coming or going...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEqyYUGk4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9asFrls4mws&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj1XKn0qugE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi9JtCPbEUk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIJ813Op2Bo {this one is part of a whole series}
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B9dlI2Un_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvZpp9QJRME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmY4Q-HHhaA&feature=related
You can't for one moment seriously say that these are little boo boos....sheesh
((To me, it means he will continue with the same line of apparently flawed thinking, and that's one of the reasons I would never vote for McCain.))
<< I can't judge someone on phrases used or accents.>>
I don't judge SP on that either. How many whites would be deaf to a black person's or a foreigner's accent, and not judge on phrases he/she would use? Just something to think about........
Seems to me there were a few posters here making fun of the fact that Obama pronounced Iraq correctly, just because it was not like their American pronunciation.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM
".
How predictable, always have to bring up the cancer thing.
Pages