Peter Heck - columns - Reagan In a Dress

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Sunday, October 11 2009

Reagan In a Dress

On July 6, 2009, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty summarized the conclusion of the mainstream media by stating that former Governor Sarah Palin, "won't have the same impact if she doesn't carry the mantle of governor of Alaska...she becomes...a thumbsucker."

In a related story, on September 30, 2009, Sarah Palin's memoir "Going Rogue" shattered records by hitting number one at Amazon and Barnes & Noble...48 days before the book even hits shelves. Not bad for a thumbsucker. To put it in perspective, at the time Sarah's book catapulted to the top of the bestseller list, it didn't even have a cover and hadn't even been edited yet.

One might begin to wonder how Cafferty can be so clueless and still keep his job - even if it is on a network that just became a laughingstock by fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit in defense of their beloved Obama. But the truth is that Cafferty is merely mimicking the uncontrolled Palin-derangement that plagues the entire left-wing old media.

Since the moment she burst onto the national scene, there has been an unparalleled effort amongst the so-called sophisticated elites to destroy Sarah Palin. Unparalleled, but not unprecedented.

In the 1970s, the dominant left feared the rise of another radical right-wing governor of a western state named Ronald Reagan, and they utilized a full arsenal of tactics to try to slow his meteoric rise. Comparing their words and actions then to their current anti-Palin crusade now is stunning.

First, the media attempted to downplay Reagan's intellect. They called him a buffoon, an empty suit, dim. They said this despite Reagan's articulate approach to issues and his effective leadership of the country's most populous state. Surely no one needs to be reminded of the Tina Fey parodies, the New York Times references to "Caribou Barbie," or Newsweek's declaration that Palin was an "ill-informed, inarticulate, shopaholic" to see how little has changed in the left's playbook. They said all this of Palin despite her breadth of knowledge on key domestic issues like energy and her effective leadership of the country's largest state.

The old media also denounced Reagan as unqualified. He was just a "B-movie actor" who spent more time focusing on campus athletics at his second rate college than he did academics. That sounds startlingly similar to CNN's Fareed Zakaria who wrote, "Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president," and other left-wing media sources that scoffed at her degree from the "substandard" University of Idaho.

The parallels don't end there:

Reagan was the target of ageism (New York Times Magazine in 1976 proclaimed Reagan "too old to run"), while Palin is the target of sexism (the Today Show, Washington Post, and PBS all suggested Palin should be staying home with her kids).

Reagan was proclaimed politically dead after his term as governor ended (Newsweek in a 1971 piece called "Ronald Reagan's Slow Fade" said that Sacramento would "mark the end of Ronald Reagan's political road"), while Palin has been labeled finished after resigning the governorship of Alaska (David Shuster on MSNBC prophesied, "I've said it before, I'll say it again, Sarah Palin will never recover from this...she has no future").

Reagan was termed a radical (columnist John Coyne wrote, "Reagan seems somewhat out of step with the new political stirrings"), while Palin is called a right-wing nut (columnist Jonathan Alter lamented, "She is a far-right conservative who...thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in schools").

Reagan used TV and radio appearances to address fundamental issues of the day without having to worry about his words going through the filter of the liberal media. Palin is accomplishing the same thing through her utilization of Facebook, Twitter, and the new media.

Is it possible these are nothing but coincidences? Sure. But perhaps they're not.

Try as they might, the left ended up completely impotent in their efforts to dampen the American public's fascination and admiration of Reagan. As Palin chooses which of her over 1100 speaking offers to accept, packs venues and sells out banquets, watches her book soar to unmatched sales numbers, curries political favors from Republican Party officials for lending her star power to their events, and uses her charisma - unrivaled on the right - to build momentum towards 2012, perhaps the mainstream media helplessly sees the writing on the wall.

After all, everyone knows how the Reagan story ended: the annihilation of a bumbling predecessor, a clear conservative agenda that revitalized the American economy and ended the Cold War, a landslide re-election of embarrassing proportions, and a legacy as one of America's greatest Chief Executives. Considering then the striking parallels between the "Gipper" and the "Pitbull with lipstick," maybe the left's deranged animosity towards her is simply born out of a fear of the inevitable.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:47 pm | Permalink | 79 Comments | Email

Comments:

The greatest element of American conservative ideology is its absolute belief in the ideals of liberty and freedom. It matters not who expresses the ideology. Thus, Sarah Palin is as inspirational in her expression of American conservative ideology as was Ronald Reagan. It matters not that she is a woman, just as it matters not that noteworthy economists Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are not white Americans or that Michelle Malkin is female and not white and so on. Freedom aspires for each individual to be able to attain his or her level of success comensurate with effort, talent, skill, experience, and so forth.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/11/2009 17:21:58

Sarah Palin is an invaluable punchline. We need to keep her around.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 10/11/2009 22:48:01

Solid, stirring analysis as always, NGav.

Posted by peterheck on 10/12/2009 08:03:39

One must wonder if NG is aware that people like him said the same thing about Reagan...which, of course, was the point of Heck's column. That's probably asking too much of our friend NG to pick up on those subtleties, however.

Posted by Observer on 10/12/2009 08:05:36

Mr. Gavelis has enjoyed telling us that conservative (& some Republican) opposition to the healthcare reform known as Obamacare is a call to maintain the status quo. Imagine my interest when those two words showed up thusly... "I want Americans to be clear that I have introduced major healthcare reform every year I've been in the Senate. Barack Obama did not introduce any that I'm aware of. He voted against Republican reforms that would have made it less expensive and more accessible for individuals to have their own insurance if they didn't get it at work," Sen. Jim DeMint (R - South Carolina) points out.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/12/2009 14:05:42

"He's done everything he can to maintain the status quo so that he could call for government intervention -- and we need to expose that to the American people."

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/12/2009 14:06:04

"Sarah Palin is an invaluable punchline." I find Mr. Gavelis's response to Peter's article a valuable lesson in hypocrisy. While the left is running around with tears streaming down their cheeks and gnashing their teeth over the "nasty, terrible" townhall meetings & TEA party protests because of the "hateful" discourse, they really cannot help being who they are. I just cannot help but wonder why astute folk like Mr. Gavelis do not take seriously those who speak in support of the liberties afforded the citizens of our Constitutional Republic.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/12/2009 14:11:34

As someone who voted for her when she ran for Gov. of Alaska, I can tell you she absolutely knows how to handle critism from both sides of the isle. When she ran against good ol' Frank Murkowski, a fellow republican, he hurled all kinds of insults. Then when she beat Tony Knowles, the Democrat, same story. She handled it with class and smarts. She was a fantastic Gov. and would make a wonderful President. Did I mention that those two people were former Gov's of Alaska and she was just a "small town mayor." Not bad for a hockey mom.

Posted by Derek Vester on 10/12/2009 17:37:21

I hope Sarah Palin runs too. I don't think she'll win, but I really want them to bring back tina fey with the SNL skits. Palin's speeches are always genuinely amusing and never fail to bring a smile to my face. I didn't realize how much I miss her. I know that you take her very seriously, so much so even to compare her to the Republican poster boy, Regan, but I don't know that she is the savoir the Republican party (or at least a few republicans) are hailing her to be. Besides, it will be tediously difficult for her to win out over Pres. Obama unless he turns out to be so miserable a failure as Republicans predict he will be. So far I'm perfectly happy with his progress for the most part, and plan on voting for him in the next election.

Posted by Chelise on 10/12/2009 20:33:28

I think we all should remeber that supposedly it was Palin who sank the McCain/Palin ballot. Many of my Republican friends turned their back on McCain once Palin became his running mate, and refused to vote for him or even took it a step further and voted for his rival, the infamous Mr. Obama. THe New York Times/CBS News poll reveiled the same. And may I also point out that so many Republicans were arguing that Obama didn't have much political experience, and therefore didn't belong in office. Palin really isn't much better off. Yes, yes I know. She was the govenor of Alaska for 2 whole years with a gargantuan population of 1 person per square mile, the presidency is the only next logical step. Really?

Posted by Chelise on 10/12/2009 21:04:41

Chelise, you have some reasonable points and some unreasonable ones. First, you don't take Palin seriously. You're entitled to your opinion, but please read the transcript of her recent speech in Hong Kong and tell me that it isn't substantive. The media has done it's part to paint her as a joke, but those who actually listen to what she has to say realize that there's a lot more to her than the "pundits" give credit for.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/12/2009 23:07:39

Second, it remains to be seen what kind of president Obama will be. I'm curious what he has done thus far that you consider "progress". We will see what will happen, but I think he's headed down the road to economic and foreign policy disaster much like Jimmy Carter. The Republican who runs on the "are you better off than you were four years ago?" like Reagan did will win if this is the case. Third, the idea that Palin hurt the ticket is a myth. While Palin was not utilized for the strengths she presented and her negatives were hammered, that is more the fault of horrible management, not a flawed VP candidate. Palin easily drew in more fence-sitting conservatives than lost moderates on the ticket.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/12/2009 23:08:12

Fourth, the experience question did undermine the McCain/Palin ticket to a degree, but it still was a much stronger case than having the lack of experience at the top of the ticket as with Obama/Biden. Fifth, if you wish to make the population argument, why not make the same case for Biden who offered a state with the same number of electors as Palin. Please explain to me how diminishing her role due to the nature of the state she represents is not elitist. It would be much akin to belittling Obama because he hung out with people from the 'hood' in Chicago prior to running for office.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/12/2009 23:08:36

The left's fascination with entertainment is remarkable. They hope candidates run who can provide for, directly or indirectly, their entertainment. Small wonder that those living in the land of left-believe remain unconcerned about the larger issues of liberty. It is, after all, a not-so-brave and not-so-new world.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/13/2009 07:45:42

Asburystrider remarks: "It would be much akin to belittling Obama because he hung out with people from the 'hood' in Chicago prior to running for office." Whoa, 'Strider! Clearly a racist remark here, as are all criticisms of "da man." There might have to be a little CNN investigation here to correct your obviously flawed thinking. So purify yourself now by heading down to the soup kitchen to help serve and throw a few bucks from your Coach wallet into the basket. (Just to make it real clear to anyone who might mis it, I'm being just a tiny bit sarcastic here. Plus, I wouldn't mind hangin' out in Obama's Chicago hood myself.)

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/13/2009 11:53:52

Mr. Heck assertion that Gov. Palin is the next Ronald Reagan makes no more sense than comparing Obama with Carter. It's up to history not high school history teachers with an agenda (don't care if it's right or left wing) to make that judgement. I'm glad that leaving office after 2 years have put her in the same footstep as Reagan. At least Reagan stayed Governor for 8 years. No one could question his experience.

Posted by IndyJones on 10/13/2009 18:32:59

Hi Indy, I imagine you take a pretty dim view of Obama then as well, correct? Oh, and what's an agenda? I mean...could you define that term? Thanks.

Posted by peterheck on 10/13/2009 21:41:09

Asburystrider, we could fill up ten pages worth of comment boxes debating why I believe ex-governor Palin is lacking in substance in practically every aspect of her political career, but I do not believe that either of us would be swayed one way or the other. And, it would be an even longer discussion for me to supply the evidence for "Obama's progress" only to find that we disagree on the definition of progress. All of the people he "bailed out" are going to find the answer to your question "Are we better off?" to be a no-brainer.

Posted by Chelise on 10/13/2009 22:40:59

Trust me, the answer you're hoping will surface is not going to be as clear cut as you may expect which is why I stated that unless he fails miserably and the economy crashes, he's probably going to remain where he is for another term. As to Palin sinking the ballot being a myth, I already made a vague reference to the stats, but here they are just in case anyone wondered what I was referring to about the CBS poll.

Posted by Chelise on 10/13/2009 22:42:49

"A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job." Published Oct. 30 of last year in the New York Times. You can say whatever you like about who she pulled in and the few (according to you) that she pushed away, but when you strip away the decoration, the truth is that she sunk the ballot. Voters attest to this.

Posted by Chelise on 10/13/2009 22:44:06

As to your fourth and fifth arguments, I am not addressing her legitimacy for the role of vice president. Unless I have horribly misunderstood this article, Heck believes that she is aiming and may very well end up being president of the United States. I am speaking specifically of her intentions and, as it appears, some republicans' intentions for the future. How, and I repeat, HOW can Republicans make the argument that Obama was under qualified due to lack of experience and then turn around and put their party behind a woman who's political career consists almost entirely of 2 years (not even a full term) of the governor of Alaska (A state that has to cancel taxes and pay a dividend to encourage people to live there).

Posted by Chelise on 10/13/2009 22:45:22

This looks really hypocritical. I have never believed that a good presidential candidate could be measured solely by how long their political record is. It is republicans and not dems who were making this argument last November. There is no way to justify disregarding her lack of experience when so many republicans made it a central argument of last year's election!

Posted by Chelise on 10/13/2009 22:46:44

Just wanted to add that I think her "effective leadership of the U.S. largest state" is a purposefully misleading statement. As I stated before, Alaska's population is literally 1 person per square mile. It's not exactly a metropolis.

Posted by Chelise on 10/13/2009 22:52:54

Someone is going to have to explain to me how someone like Sarah Palin who speaks out in defense of our Constitutional liberties is fodder for SNL skits while a duly elected president of the U.S.A. who surrounds himself with czars who have failed to pay taxes, advocated violence against other citizens in their past, advocated racist policies, and proposed harvesting organs from "helpless patients" is worthy of a Nobel Peace prize. Rod Serling could not have concocted a more bizarre plot twist.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/14/2009 07:30:13

Chelise, please. You say that the list for Palin's inadaequacies and Obama's progress are endless yet you fail to mention one of either. Again, please read Palin's Hong Kong speech and tell me that it is not substantive. Likewise, please provide some objective data on why Obama is leading our nation in a positive direction, otherwise what you are suggestion is opinion without basis in fact. I still contend that Palin's drag on the ticket is unfounded for the very same reason. Her positives weren't utilized and her weaknesses were magnified. Your poll says nothing to the contrary.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/14/2009 12:15:36

As far as the experience question goes, it runs both ways. I've actually been critical of the fact that Palin has a lack of experience. I've said it to others (including Peter), I felt she should have run for Murkowski's Senate seat in 2010 for this very reason. But flipping the argument is those who are critical of Palin's lack of experience but supporting Obama.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/14/2009 12:34:10

It works both ways, and in this respect I've been very consistent and they haven't. Again, if you're critical of Palin for being governor of Alaska, then you would also be critical of Washington (farmer/general with no executive experience), Lincoln (lawyer, senator from small state), Woodrow Wilson (governor of New Jersey), and Eisenhower, Grant, Harrison, Taylor and Jackson (generals with little/no executive experience). So let me ask the same question you do. Why are you "measuring" her "solely by the length (or in your case quality) of her political record"?

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/14/2009 12:34:42

First off, as I have already stated, I do NOT believe a person can be judged completely by their previous experience. I've already said as much. You assume that I am judging her for that reason, but I actually disapprove of her for an entirely different set of reasons. Now, I am asking for a little understanding as to why I do not wish to reveal my reasons for disliking her and her policies just yet. If I post my reasons, all of the responses that I get will be, for the most part, about my opinions and reasons behind them.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 19:26:39

I do NOT want this because then people will have an excuse to go off on tangents rather than address the main point I am trying to make which is the question I have in capital letters a few more comments down. They will attack my opinion rather than answer my ONE straightforward question which I still have NOT received a direct answer to.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 19:27:33

I am begging you! PLEASE! Neither of us is going to agree on Palin. You like her, and I don't; let's just leave it at that for now. I have my reasons and I would be perfectly willing to share them with you after this has been addressed. You want to know my reasons behind my opinions, but I will withhold that information until I receive some sort of answer.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 19:28:23

All that I am trying to point out at this point is the fading irony that the republican party made the argument that Obama did not belong in the white house due to his severe lack of experience. They said it was dangerous. They said he couldn't handle it, and the entire argument all came down to "he doesn't have the necessary experience." Dems said that yes, he may be lacking a little in experience, but he is going to accomplish what we want him to. Republicans said THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. He is naïve and dangerous due to his LACK OF EXPERIENCE.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 19:29:15

Now please just answer my one straightforward question: HOW CAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOW, AFTER ALL THAT THEY HAVE ARGUED, SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO HAS SO LITTLE EXPERIENCE???? The obvious answer was that this was a hollow and even hypocritical argument. I understand that you may not personally have argued against Obama for his lack of experience, but the republican party did. Even now, I hear Republicans say "Well, he's trying, but he just doesn't have the experience. He's in over his head."

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 19:30:22

I am asking for a republican to please explain to me WHY A CANDIDATE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REQUIRES A PLETHORA OF EXPERIENCE AND A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME REQUIRMENT. I am not critical of Palin's lack of experience, I am critical of Palin. I am not critical of Palin for being governor of Alaska, I am critical of the flagrant hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 19:31:17

I just realized our misconception. Did you believe that when I stated "And, it would be an even longer discussion for me to supply the evidence for "Obama's progress" only to find that we disagree on the definition of progress." that I meant his list of progress would take forever to discuss? What I meant by that statement is that it is pointless for me to site Obama's progress because what I consider progress and what you consider progress are two different things.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 22:11:06

I meant that we would end up arguing until the cows came home about what is progress and what isn't. I was not implying that Obama's progress is endless. I just don't want to argue about something neither of us is willing to change their mind on. For example, I consider the change in the international atmosphere to be progress whereas you probably don't. Then we are not even arguing about S. Palin anymore; we're off on something completely different. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Posted by Chelise on 10/14/2009 22:11:58

Sarah Palin does have little political experience compared with some in Washington,... so did President Obama. What I don't understand is how you can vote for President Obama over John McCain if you are so concerned with the experience issue. I am a conservative who was extremely unhappy with McCain representing the Republican party in the election. But I ask, if experience is your issue with Sarah Palin, why did you Obama supporters not vote for McCain, who has a ton of political experience and is a rather liberal Republican?

Posted by Derek Vester on 10/15/2009 00:20:16

Chelise, a part of the problem with what you're asserting is the assumption that the Republican Party is propping up Palin. This assumption is faulty. McCain bucked the Republican establishment (which was prompting selection of individuals like Romney, Ridge, and Pawlenty) when he selected Palin as his VP. If you look at who's promoting Palin today it's not the "Republican Party". The establishment of the Republican party is actually doing what they can to toss her aside. I'm still at a loss how you can say Democrat party "REQUIRES A PLETHORA OF EXPERIENCE" while the Republican party "DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME REQUIRMENT" when Barack Obama was the Democrat nominee for President.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 09:42:00

Frankly, if all you're saying is that you don't like the actions of the Republican Party leadership then let me join you. But please don't confuse the Palin supporters with the Party establishment. They're a completely different breed and always have been. Palin never has fit any mold, Republican or Democrat, which is why she held such appeal among independents for so long. What you will find is that the Republican shills and the Palin supporters are not necessarily one in the same. It's an important distinction and a part of what made Palin such a polarizing figure in the campaign.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 09:54:20

Palin wasn't allowed to be Palin. She didn't fit ideologically into the Republican template of what a candidate should be but was told to conform during the election. She was asked to represent something she was not and behave in a manner not accustomed to her nature and all it did was drive her negatives up among the crowd she appealed to most. So all the support of Palin was not from the establishment Republican Party. The criticism of Obama's experience while the ignoring of hers was certainly from the establishment which was simply looking to exploit weaknesses in the opposing candidate.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 09:54:44

As far as progress goes, we very well may disagree as to the definition of progress. If you see international progress as defined by a rise in our admiration around the world, then I could see why you see Obama as successful. He is easily more popular than President Bush and certainly has gained favor of nations. But my idea of progress is what has actually been accomplished in countering enemies or assisting allies.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 10:07:41

Among our enemies, Iran and North Korea are running full steam towards nuclear weapons, the Taliban is on the rise in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the influence of American economic strength has only decreased since he took office. Among our allies, we've ticked off nations around the world due to our protectionist tariffs, we've enlisted absolutely no help in the war on terror and in economic matters, and the governments of France, Germany, and others have been critical of American weakness. We've reached out to Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinijad while condemning or remaining indifferent to anti-totalitarian movements in Honduras, Iran and Tibet.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 10:11:32

So you're right. We may differ on ideas of progress. If you see being loved as progress, then I can see why Obama may be seen as making progress. If you see progress as destroying the enemy, assisting friends, or promoting freedom, then it's hard for me to see how Obama has been successful.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 10:11:54

The problem is that the right blames every little issue on Obama. Example Limbaugh-NFL. Peter is drinking this koolaid too. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well." That's racist and those are Rush's words. McNabb may have not been playing well at the time, but it had nothing to do with his race. The NFL owners are a conservative group for the most part. This is not an Obama issue and the same reaction would have taken place a couple of years ago. Grow up Rush and those on the right.

Posted by IndyJones on 10/16/2009 06:44:27

Indy, I guess you decided to take a pass on my first two questions to you. We'll see if you'll take the 3rd. If the statement of Rush's that you listed is indeed racist, will you concede that Tom Jackson and Michael Irvin, both of whom are black and both of whom agreed with Limbaugh's statement are racist as well?

Posted by peterheck on 10/16/2009 09:41:25

To Derek Vester, I do not judge candidates solely based on political experience as I have stated multiple times now. You are right; if I were simply looking to support the candidate with the most experience, it easily would have been McCain. However I do judge a candidate on their message and what they intend to accomplish. If I agree, then I support said candidate. This is virtually how an election works.

Posted by Chelise on 10/16/2009 23:23:10

I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies with the party that chooses to condemn an oppsing candidate for "lack of experience" and then turn around and support a candidate with just as little experience. Do you see the problem I have with putting any kind of trust in a party that cares more about furthering their own candidate rather than living up to their own stated ideals (a candidate with experience?)?

Posted by Chelise on 10/16/2009 23:23:58

To Asburystrider, isn't it the intention of all those who support Palin that she will be the next Republican nominated candidate for the presidency? And if that is the case, then won't the Republican party be supporting a woman with little political experience on her record? In 2012, won't that argument be completely turned on its head? Won't it be Republicans arguing that a candidate can have substance without experience rather than Democrats making that argument? If it will not be repubs propping her up in 2012, who will it be?

Posted by Chelise on 10/16/2009 23:25:11

And I was not stating that the Democratic party requires a plethora of experience; I was stating that during the 2008 election, the Republican party was arguing that to run for the office of the presidency, a candidate should have a wealth of experience (as in McCain has much more experience in these matters than Obama) but in order to support Palin on the Republican ticket they COULD NOT keep this rule. They would have to concede in order to support her. And it is here that I notice a great plank in the eye of the republican party.

Posted by Chelise on 10/16/2009 23:26:30

And isn't kind of cheap to say "well the Palin you saw during the election wasn't the real Palin. She wasn't free to be herself." Then how do I know who the real Palin is? Especially if whenever her behavior is unflattering and/or unbecoming, her supporters just respond that she's "not being herself or wasn't free to be herself?"

Posted by Chelise on 10/16/2009 23:27:40

Peter, You're missing the point. Rush (and you) are trying to blame this on Obama. He might as well blame his failed marriages and drug problems on Obama. I don't care about Jackson and Irwin's comments. I am a sports fan and Rush's comments about the media being obsessed with McNabb as a quarterback soley because he was black was inaccurate and confirms Rush's true feelings about race. Rush was a terrible sports commentator and would be a worse owner, Pompous blowhards never are. At least Olbermann knows to keep politics and sports separate on NBC Sunday Night Football Sports Show .

Posted by Indy Jones on 10/17/2009 10:30:45

Chelise, you raise two very fair questions. First, to the experience question. For the sake of argument, let's assume Palin wins the nomination in 2012. If the Republicans who argued against President Obama solely on his lack of experience made nothing of Palin's, then, yes, that would be hypocritical. I think we both agree that deciding a person based only on a resume is a poor basis for deciding making. To me the greater question is accomplishment and in this sense as governor of Alaska I believed Palin to have already achieved more in her short time than Obama had in his entire political career. Again, this goes back to your definition of progress and accomplishment, but that's an entirely different matter.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:03:55

Second, we may disagree on this point, but I don't believe adding an inexperienced VP candidate invalidates questioning of the opponent's Presidential candidate's experience. Why an inexperienced VP candidate was selected is a legitimate question in its own right, but it by no means diminishes the question of experience on the other foot. It then should go back to looking at their record of accomplishment which the Democrat party made every effort to avoid. Let's be honest, Obama was elected for his persona and promise, not his record.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:09:23

Finally, I don't think it's cheap at all to suggest that the real Palin didn't come out. I think it's a very legitimate question as to Palin really is and I believe both parties, and particularly the media provided a horribly distorted (and at times untruthful) picture of her.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:38:53

Since the parallel here is to Reagan, let me add to Peter's parallel. In Reagan's 1980 presidential run, party leaders saw him as too extreme, too whimsical, too old, and too common in his message. As such his campaign manger, John Sears, tried to limit his exposure to the public and focus his campaign on making safe policy speeches to demonstrate his command of the issues and attempt to control his perception as a radical. He lost Iowa to upstart moderate George H.W. Bush and doubts started to surface about Reagan's viability as a candidate.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:39:27

Reagan was furious and vowed to run his campaign his way. He changed his tone to his message, much to the disapproval of Sears. He absolutely embarrassed Bush in the New Hampshire debate and destroyed him in the primary. Likewise, Sears was canned by Reagan and replaced by William Casey. Reagan, of course, went on to defeat Bush in the primary and Carter in the election. The parallels to Palin are eerie. In the election, she was given limited interviews, had pre-approved messages to "mask" her deficiencies, and and was never really allowed to play on her strengths.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:46:09

Despite being an intriguing and popular figure and outdrawing President Obama at many events, she was protected and directed by campaign managers. Despite being a very bright person, she was depicted as ignorant and silly. She was given several hostile interviews where she did not handle herself well which confirmed the template the media had already created of her. I do think that at some point her confidence was a bit rattled as well due to the pressures and limitations placed on her which only caused the campaign to put up more barriers in her path.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:57:26

Like Reagan, her greatest strength is her ability to resonate with people. She should have been hitting interviews with talk shows EVERY DAY. Let her speak. Get her message out. When Reagan spoke, his message was in such a contrast to his depiction as ignorant and radical that people believed him over the media. Likewise, the real Palin is a sharp contrast to this cartoon depiction of her. When Palin is allowed to be Palin, she resonates with people. It's something we didn't see in the 2008 election.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 14:57:50

The experience you are going on about, Chelise, has nothing (or very little) to do with the difference between Palin & Obama. The difference is that Palin understands the difference between freedom and tyranny; Obama does not. Or, worse, if he does, then he chooses tyranny over liberty.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/17/2009 21:12:42

Wow, Indy, I wish I had your God-like abilities. If only everyone could see past the surface of things like, oh, objective, declarative facts and see the motives of people like you do. I'm amazed at how you know with complete certainty that when Peter brings up the Rush issue it's really a dig at Obama. Or when Rush comments on McNabb as overrated and a media sensation because of his race that he does so out of purely racist motivation. That's amazing. Maybe one day I will be as blessed as you, oh almighty one. Oh, and for the record, I felt Rush was overrated as a football analyst too, I just don't see sinister motivations out of my political opponents.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/17/2009 21:18:25

IndyJones, since you seem to have such a lock on the NFL-Limbaugh saga, would you mind sharing with this group who DeMaurice Smith is and what part he played in all of this?

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/17/2009 21:18:43

To the fans of the Obama administration: I have an assignment for you. Go to bloomberg.com and search for Robert Schmidt and "Geithner Aides Reaped Millions." Read the article. After you have done your homework, come back and answer the final questions from the article asked by Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant at the SEC: "Where is the transparency this administration promised? You just wonder, who is representing middle Americans?"

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/17/2009 21:23:31

All of you critics of anyone who criticizes this administration, ya see. Many of us who criticize this administration actually do so from an informed, factual basis. If this president was really interested in leading America in such a way that is anywhere close to Constitutional principles, we critics would be his biggest supporters. As it is, we tend to take a dim view of those who seek to pervert and usurp the Constitution and its principles.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/17/2009 21:27:23

You can very well argue that the media presented a "distorted" picture of Ms. Palin, but her cheif embarrassment was at her own hands.It was her own words that betrayed her and gave away her lack of understanding through her interviews (especially the one with Katie Couric). Now, you can make the argument that these interviews were hostile, but many of us who watched them were asking ourselves "even if Katie Couric does have it out for Palin, shouldn't she still have been able to answer those questions considering the position she is running for?"

Posted by Chelise on 10/18/2009 21:24:43

I don't disagree that some of her speeches may have been noteworthy (especially if she was allowed any kind of counsel and preplanning), but it is in the personal interviews that she fails because she is not reading from a prompt, she has to think on her feet and she can't. She may suddenly gain a wholesome understanding (and better interview skills) over the next few years, but currently, I don't think she has a shot at the presidency in 2012.

Posted by Chelise on 10/18/2009 21:25:31

One of the historical interests here is that critics of Palin basing their argument on a lack of some kind of "entertainment value" made similar critiques of Reagan. To them, he was always backward, "hickish" (or "cowboyish"), and not capable to do the job. Who said freedom has to be entertaining? It will be comforting to see history repeat itself.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/19/2009 12:22:06

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe Palin was revealed as a flawed candidate. I believe the true Palin wasn't put forward and her potential remains to be seen. Only one of us can be right on this and only time will tell. Oh, and I wouldn't be pulling the whole "can't work well without a prompter" issue if you're an Obama supporter.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/19/2009 13:12:02

I do believe Palin is flawed, and I believe that anyone who can be so easily exposed is not worth voting for, but you are right, time will tell. And if you want to see Obama at his best without a prompter, just look at the McCain Obama presidential debate.

Posted by Chelise on 10/19/2009 21:23:46

Yet another example of the reality of liberty versus tyranny... and how tyranny gets its foot in the door:

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 10:13:57

****** The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece... several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview last Sunday. (cont'd)

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 10:15:22

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization." (cont'd)

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 10:16:09

...The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." "She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check." ("White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard FOX News," FOX News, 10/19/09) ******

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 10:16:34

****** A SLUGGISH economy, inflation, strikes and rampant crime: much of the recent news in Venezuela has been bad for the socialist government of President Hugo Chávez. Its response has been to intensify its harassment of the media. On August 1st, 34 radio stations were taken off the air for allegedly failing to submit the proper paperwork to the broadcasting regulator... Days earlier the attorney-general, Luisa Ortega, unveiled a draft law against "media crimes" which proposes jail terms of up to four years for vaguely worded offences such as "prejudicing state security" or the "mental health" of the public... (cont'd)

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 10:17:49

The government's concerted crackdown on critical media comes as Mr Chávez is pressing ahead with other measures that seem designed to make his "socialist revolution" irreversible. ("Switched Off," The Economist, 8/6/09) ****** Notice any similarities?

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 10:18:30

If I were to grade performances at the debates, I would give the following grades from lowest to highest: McCain gets a C-. I felt he "won" the debates in a point by point basis, but he didn't accomplish what he needed to by any stretch of the imagination. Obama gets a B. He did a decent job and didn't blow it. He needed to avoid any major gaffes and keep his cool, which he did very well. Biden gets a B+. He got away a ton of misstatements, but his aggressive style made for the VP debates the highlight of the debates. Palin gets an A. The critics were expecting her to be dominated by Biden and she more than held her own (no teleprompter, mind you). So, yes, Obama did well without a teleprompter, but the same can be said of Palin.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/20/2009 13:48:30

Still more reasons to dislike the policies & legislation coming from this administration & Congress...

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 21:30:23

****** Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Nevada would get help with its Medicaid bills. The elderly in Florida and New York would receive additional Medicare benefits. And workers in so-called high-risk professions such as firefighting and construction would get a break on a new insurance tax. Those are provisions that Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, put in an $829 billion health-care bill to shield constituents from measures intended to pay for the biggest overhaul of the medical system in four decades. The result is the new policies may be unevenly administered, with some U.S. states getting preferential treatment... ******

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 21:32:22

As they say, this is our government at work. Yet, conservatives are ridiculed for their "extremist" and "unfounded" concerns about the expansion of this government. I ask yet again of those who are fans of this administration: what policies and policy proposals infatuate you?

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/20/2009 21:34:54

In the same breath, however, Obama didn't also give a hugely embarrassing interview with Katie Couric which is currently weighing down Ms. Palin's overall average with the general population. By the way, I truly believe that the only reason Palin was held in such high regard after the debate (especially amoung McCain supporters) is because she didn't fail miserably the way everyone was expecting her to which for her was a victory. And as much as I like Joe Biden, he's not exactly the most lethal of debators. If she's headin for the white house, she had better be prepared for much worse.

Posted by Chelise on 10/20/2009 21:37:05

I have found it intriguing over the course of several blogs & discussion forums how quite a few representing left-leaning ideologies & issues like to stick any number of unqualified statements into a discussion and then, when confronted with reality, hide away and not come out to play. The forums with no administrator are really fun as the libs come out in all their vulgar, tasteless glory. One thing is for certain - they are not too difficult to figure out.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/29/2009 13:59:08