What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Why They Hate Her

An on the money blog post by Jonathan V. Last at First Things:

There are reasonable criticisms that can be made of Sarah Palin, both as governor and a vice presidential selection. Yet little of what we have seen in the last six days has been either reasonable or critical (in the traditional sense of the word). Instead, much of the left and many in the media simply lashed out at Palin, particularly at her family.

And not only the fringiest parts of the political fringe: A writer at the Washington Post attacked Palin for the fact that her seventeen-year-old daughter was going to have a baby.

[continuing reading here]

(cross-posted)

Comments (55)

This post seems like the elaboration of a conservative's fantasy of how liberals must think.

In point of fact, the pile-on, such as it is, is because Palin is a brand new, barely-vetted addition to the national scene. So there is considerable curiousity about this woman we just began to meet a week ago today.

I am rather repulsed by Andrew Sullivan's morbid speculations, but to insist that "liberals" hate Palin is rather specious. There has been a lot of curiousity about Ms. Palin, and quite a bit of speculation, some of it rather tasteless.

That is all.

This post seems like the elaboration of a conservative's fantasy of how liberals must think.

Not entirely. He has provided some actual links to actual liberals who think this way.

This is a fine post, Frank. I hope Mrs. Palin has the peace of heart to bear up under the evil, which is only just beginning. I think the finest argument against it came at the convention when the youngest daughter (I forget her name) licked her palm and smoothed down Trig's hair while holding him in her lap. This little girl wasn't using "a prop," nor entertaining any debate about meaningful life. He's just her brother and she loves him. Anyone not moved by it is simply missing something. Inside, that is.

Osama Von...

A writer for a major magazine stating in print even so much as a "conjecture" that the baby is not Sarah's but her daughter's, is not to be classes as "curious". You or I might say such a thing verbally, and follow it up with a caveat or verbal shrug of "but we don't really know," without moral offense. To put something like that in public writing without actual evidence constitutes defamation of character, at the very least. Calling it "speculation" is facetious, because whether the author is speculating in his own mind or something worse, to put it in print is a whole nother act, and that act is wrong.

The little one is Piper, and I think that was when I started laughing and crying at the same time.

This post seems like the elaboration of a conservative's fantasy of how liberals must think.

Michael Moore:

But before everyone gets all smug and self-righteous about the Palin selection, remember where you live. You live in a nation of gun owners and hunters. You live in a country where one out of three girls get pregnant before they are 20. You live in a nation of C students. Knocking Bush for being a C student only endeared him to the nation of C students. Knock Palin for having kids, for having a kid who's having a baby, for anything that is part of her normalness -- a normalness that looks very familiar to so many millions of Americans -- well, you do this at your own peril.

When Micheal Moore is your voice of restraint, you know you are in trouble.

Remember Osama Von, there are a few of us who move in both circles. We not only know how Sarah thinks, we also know how the Atlantic writer thinks. And, believe it or not, we have friends and adversaries in both realms, and we know their virtues and their vices. Remember, original sin, like the image of God, has been equitably distributed. For that reason, it is only the presence of certain institutions and ways of life that allows us to enhance and nurture either one or the other. That's why Sarah Palin is just an objectively better example of what it means to be a flourishing human being than Bill Maher or the Atlantic writer. We can see it with it our own eyes. No wonder the left hates her.

She's also an Evangelical Christian, which for the left, is worse than being a Weatherman. It is a religion that no one they really know actually practices. This leads to the conclusion that for the Left it is better to practice anonymous sex than to belong to anonymous sects.

I'm surprised Last only saw one article on the civilization shaking fact that a seventeen year old is pregnant, or did he only have room for one? The NY Times managed to find room for this cosmic news on page one, where for a year no breath of the untoward concerning John Edwards ever touched.

Osama Von, it isn't that hatred on the left is specious, far from it. With your own noteworthy and honorable exception, I always give people the benefit of the doubt, it is virtually a life giving, sustaining force. It is what gives them the strength to arise from their bed of nails in the morning and commence their day dreams of who and how they can bend the recalcitrant ignorant to their wills and power, whetted by the wisdom of the NY Times and new found seers like Keith Olbermann.

Only thus may a modern liberal find a fleeting peace before the pangs of torment, the absence of fresh targets and victims, the momentary thwarting of control and force, send them off to new paroxysms of hysteria. And never, never will total contradiction, such as stated beliefs in the strong independent woman, offer even a temporary obstacle.

Oh yeah... things are nasty and you can bet they will get even nastier as this campaign moves forward and the Obama camp becomes more panicked about Palin's influence on the electorate. For a group of people who claim to be progressive, enlightened, tolerant, and feminist, it's very revealing to see how much they despise Palin, not in spite of her womanhood but because of it. It's telling to see them detest her femininity and fecundity. It's amazing to hear them use the fact that she is a woman against her and to spew all manner of vile, misogynistic sophistry in her direction. They are showing their true colors.

My Goodness Gracious -

In a country of 300 million, the writings of perhaps twenty people have evidently led the commenters here to conclude that American liberals, as a group (of, say 100 million persons) "hate" Sarah Palin. And evangelical Christians, as well. Well, I don't think so.

There is a tiny rabid left, that sometimes says discraceful things. There is also a tiny rabid right that says things that are equally deplorable. But if you actually looked around, you would find that the vast majority of Americans are decent, and tolerant, and anxious to make America a better place.

Just don't look in the blogosphere.

Just don't look in the blogosphere.

Fair enough, so long as we keep in mind that, on your description The New York Times op. ed. page, The Washington Post op. ed. page, and the premier blogpages ofThe Atlantic, one of America's greatest and oldest magazines -- all employ people from the "tiny rabid left."

I think they hate her for the reasons racist whites back in the civil rights era hated whites who opposed Jim Crow: she's the equivalent of a "traitor" to the feminist and progressive agenda. She's a female Uncle Tom, and she seems a lot more balanced and happy than the ususal caricature of Republican women. She is also atypical; she's not the rocket-ship to success Ivy Leaguer. She bounced around in college, may not be as book smart as the press, does not appear at the usual DC rights of passage like Meet the Press, but she's effective, smart enough, a quick learner, and she has the same basic qualification as Obama, she's a good and inspiring speaker.

Actually the liberal extremists feel threatened by Palin since all along the have been overly confident that the Presidency was "in the bag" for them. However with Barack ******* Obama shooting himself in the foot with his typical rhetoric, gaffes & flip-flops and McCain finally getting aggressive with his campaign, the addition of Palin, an unarguable conservative (some say in the Reagan mold) is causing those liberal extremists in the Democrat Party as well as the national/international corporate media to become fearful that they actually may lose to the Republicans. This fear is manifesting itself in vitriol, ad hominem, slander, libel, smears and all sort of underhanded tactics...all of which, thus far, have failed and in many instances, backfired on the liberal elites. Also the attacks has done more to bolster and enhance the conservative movement to rally behind McCain as well as convince more undecideds and moderates to side with McCain. In short, these attacks on Palin has, thus far, not fooled anyone and actually increased support for the McCain/Palin ticket. Keep it up uber-libs.

Heh. So we ask who's in the chicken coop and we hear, "There's no one but us non-rabid moderates in here."

Son, bring me the Remington.

As one who is on record as agreeing that there are reasonable questions to be raised about Palin (which some on this blog seemed to be aggressively opposed to), what has struck me has been how utterly lame some of the left-wing responses have been. Check out this doozy from the AP wires:

Last week when Palin was introduced to the nation she was described as a straight shooter.

But some of her positions, and her actions, are certainly more complex than they've been described, like getting rid of the governor's jet.

"That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay," she told cheering Republican delegates at their convention last week. True, but she left out that it never sold on eBay. And so state staffers had to broker a deal with a buyer.

Like, what the freak? She said she put the thing on eBay, which was true (3 times from what I understand). She didn't say she sold it on eBay, but because it didn't sell, she's not "shooting straight"? What was she supposed to say? "I put it on eBay. Oh, but I should also mention that it didn't sell, so I had to get a deal brokered independently." Give me a break. Just the fact that she actually put it on eBay (when I heard her say that I thought "was that for real? Cool!") shows what she's made of.

If these are the best retorts that libs can come up with it's going to be a long, cold winter for the MSM.

No wonder the left hates her.

Well I tend to lean toward the left, and I certainly don't hate her. In fact, I like her. I find her compelling, but I won't vote for her.

Sarah Palin is just an objectively better example of what it means to be a flourishing human

Oh really? How did you come by this knowledge? How do you measure degrees of flourishing objectively? Is "degree" even the proper unit? Perhaps it is ounces or maybe it's a volume like square inches.

"It isn’t any of Palin’s specific policies or ideological beliefs which have so antagonized the liberals (although they surely dislike her for policy reasons, too). They simply hate her for who she is."

Perhaps if Sarah Palin had given a speech that had any policy content there would be more specific policy criticism. Charles Krauthammer is concerned about "the paucity of any Palin record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time." All we have so far is a speech that was written for her that lacked any policy substance which she delivered quite well. OK, she can read a teleprompter way better than most.

If the writers of the article and you all for that matter actually read what folks who are concerned about Palin had to say you might understand the reasons for that concern. The whole First Things article is a red herring designed to keep the base distracted. We hate her because she has five kids? Al Gore has four. It has been decided that the culture war needs to be fired up and this article is part of that, I guess.

(Brief aside: Doesn't the Catholic Church do community organizing around social issues? Aren't folks who picket abortion clinics and volunteer for anti-abortion activities engaged in a species of community organizing? Just asking. Mirror of Justice has a post on this.)

If any of you actually seek out comment on the other side, you will discover all sorts of objections to Palin that have nothing to do with her family. I have never seen a reference to the size of her family and the other matters have been peripheral at best.

The use of the word "hate" is designed to stir up the base and has nothing to do with matters - no one south of the 55th parallel likely knows her well enough to hate her. There are very real problems however. Her speech was very well delivered but it was chock full of lies so we now know that she can lie with an ease that makes some of us very uneasy. I hear what lies, OK:

The Bridge to Nowhere - big lie.

Earmarks in general - big lie

Sells plane on Ebay - small lie

Obama's record and proposals - big lie

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

(aside - the link policy on this blog is really very strange. Links are a convenient way to share information and the ability to link is a major advantage of the medium. The free flow of information should not be problematic if accuracy is a goal.)

Anyway, we have a candidate who was not vetted in any meaningful way and who so far refuses to submit herself to the media scrutiny that candidates routinely undergo. We know little about her record as a mayor and the more I do see the less I like.

Rather then than wallow in the persecution mentality that seems so attractive and comfortable to most of you, check out the line ups for the Sunday talk shows and see who is missing and ask yourselves why. Then ask yourselves if Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Hutchinson, or Whitman would likely be MIA had they been selected for VP.

I don't hate Palin; I don't know her. I saw her give a speech in a very skilled manner but it was a speech in which I heard no serious policy, a lot of snark, and lie after lie. What I have been able to find out about her performance as mayor and governor seems, so far, to involve lobbying for earmarks, debt, taxes, a questionable deal involving an oil pipeline, and using state power to carry out personal issues. I've seen videos in which she seems to conflate her religion with public policy.

So far, on the Republican side, we have a candidate who is way past his prime and a candidate who reads a speech well who is not very available. To sum that up as "they hate her" sounds like a whine designed to distract to me.

Sells plane on Ebay - small lie
Please read my previous comment. She didn't say she sold it on eBay. She said she put it on eBay, which is the truth. The rest of your information seems debatable, but if this is what you call a "small lie" when in fact it wasn't a lie at all, it gives me a lot less confidence in everything else you say. It seems like your sources are willing to stretch the truth to find accusations here. Thinking people aren't going to buy it.

If lefties want to believe Palin Derangement Sydrome is a right-wing fiction, I say let them.

That is why I listed it as a small lie. There is simply no reason to have said it that way unless she was trying to embellish. Alaska listed planes previously on Ebay so it was hardly innovative. All she had to say was that I sold a plane that the state had no business having. By itself this would count as a typical embellishment that politicians often make - a small lie. Taken as a whole I see it as another indication that we have someone who doesn't respect the truth.

Now we have question. The whole earmark/bridge to nowhere thing is a case of her repeatedly lying and it has been clearly documented by now. Why did you mention the plane when the bridge is a far larger thing in which she clearly lied?

I don't expect you to accept or reject anything anyone, including myself, states without checking it out. The linking policy on this site makes things difficult but we always have the google.

Al,

It doesn't appear that she lied about the bridge either, in fact. Even your source recognizes that she did oppose it. They're accusing her of flip-flopping, which is an entirely different charge. Maybe she did. But in fact she did still oppose the bridge, so saying that she opposed it is again a true statement. If you want to say she's a flip-flopper, go ahead. That's different than calling her a liar.

And you still don't get the point about the eBay thing. There was no lying involved, "small" or otherwise. I'm getting the impression that you're the one who doesn't respect the truth.

No, you don't get the point of the plane. Like most on the left, I like detail and accuracy. I am suspicious of folks who embellish on a consistent basis. In the overall context of the speech, it is a problem.

She supported the bridge until it was clear it was a real problem, then she flip-flopped. Stating she opposed it in the manner she has, carries with it the implication that she always opposed it. That you see the manner in which she has presented it, as anything other than a lie, testifies to your standards.

Politicians do this sort of thing all the time. A Senator who votes for cloture on a bill, knowing that there are enough votes to pass the bill and then votes against the bill and trumpets that latter vote as his deeply held position is a liar if he fails to also disclose his vote on cloture.

John, the standards you are willing to accept are why we are lied to all the time by the media and the politicos. If we learned to recognize mendacity and insisted on accuracy and honesty instead of self-serving spin we might actually get it.

While Palin's speech was excessive in its lack of truth and serious policy it is hardly the only example.

At least one member of the media elite feels (not so) bad about his behavior.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html

Although the feeding frenzy going on now is over the top, with reporters swarming every village near Wasilla, I would simply mention that the Swiftboating of Kerry really took away from the notion that any aspect of a politician's history will be accepted at face value. The rationale given was that he brought his military record up before the public, therefore it was fair game to tarnish it.

“Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.” – Peggy Noonan

"Like most on the left, I like detail and accuracy."

So there is a herd mentality? Or, is this a genetic predisposition reserved for the elect? Just curious why you felt obligated to ascribe a personal virtue to an entire ideology.

Fair question, Kevin. In its present degenerate state, the right is mostly about resentment and outrage and not so much about actual policy. One has to go pretty far out on the left to get to the point where that sort of thing predominates.

Most of the center-left to left has concerns that lead one direcrly into policy. If one sees government as a means to good, then one is more likely to think in terms "how". If one sees government as the problem, then then the inevitable trajectory of natural selection will give us folks in public life who only seek power and riches.

"Like most on the left, I like detail and accuracy."

Well, yeah. Sure. When you want detail, and when you care about accuracy.

I.e., now and then...as ideology permits.

Step2, Kerry got "swift-boated" because there was a *there* there.

Whatever you think about this or that detail, there's simply no doubt that the guy betrayed his comrades, big-time.

With Palin, there's NO *there* there.

"Like most on the left, I like detail and accuracy."

Yeah, this is just a bit rich. As an earlier commenter, I think, pointed out, no political party has a corner on original sin. And the corollary would be then that no party has a corner on virtue either. I'm in the middle of an argument with a friend about the practice of political "dirty tricks," and whether or not Republican political operators have historically employed them and become the masters of them. He thinks that they don't and aren't, but even if they do and are, it is only a reaction to liberal/Democrats who are the original sinners, that surely Republicans are by nature virtuous, and conduct all of their activities with utmost probity. Clearly my friend is kidding himself on this point, because he's so ideologically in thrall to the Republican myth. Even the most ultramontane and triumphalist of Catholics wouldn't say about the Church of Rome and her adherents what partisan ideologues will say about their political movement.

So "the inevitable trajectory of natural selection" means the left refuses power and riches? If true, why your pre-occupation with politics? Are you an outlier from the left-wing population pool?

As for your lofty interest in policy, I left a question for you at the "Did Obama Give McCain a Gift?" thread.

"...what partisan ideologues will say about their political movement."

What is most interesting about Al's cosmology is its exceptional purity. Most political religions accept the possibility that some of their adherents suffer from a fatal flaw. Stalin had his Show Trials and Hitler had his Night of the Long Knives. Al's conception of the modern American Left is free of sin and therefore, purges. Joe Lieberman for one, will be relieved.

With Palin, there's NO *there* there.

Depends on which *there* we are talking about I suppose. I would like to ask Steve why the choice of Palin has caused him to do a complete reversal on the McCain ticket.

"Perhaps if Obama had given a speech that had any policy content there would be more specific policy criticism. Charles Krauthammer is concerned about "the paucity of any Obama record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time." All we have so far is a speech that was written for him that lacked any policy substance which he delivered quite well. OK, he can read a teleprompter way better than most."

Al, I went ahead and put Obama's name in every place Palin's name was in because it's laughable that you would say she's all show and no substance, when the exact same charge can be made of the left's new messiah. Actually, one of the few things we know is that he would do everything he can to make FOCA a reality. How noble.

But to say she's of no substance as if that's some reason for the media to go after her family and 'speculate' vicious rumors is sad.

"(Brief aside: Doesn't the Catholic Church do community organizing around social issues? Aren't folks who picket abortion clinics and volunteer for anti-abortion activities engaged in a species of community organizing? Just asking. Mirror of Justice has a post on this.)"

I'm Catholic and I've done some pro-life work on a city-wide level so let me take a shot at this. I headed an effort for a couple of years to coordinate a city-wide life-chain on respect life Sunday. When I put that on a resume, I don't say 'community organizer'. It sounds 100 times better to say that I was the 'Life-Chain Coordinator', because that tells people something. Never once have I said "community organizer" and if I ever run for president, I won't do it then either. Hopefully I'll be able to point to my executive experience on a city-wide and/or state-wide level. But I may not understand what you're getting at.

Like most on the left, I like detail and accuracy.
You mean like the "accuracy" you displayed when you represented Palin as saying that she sold the plane on eBay when in fact she said that she put it on eBay?

How can you deliberately put a statement in someone's mouth that they never made and then with a straight face say that you like detail and accuracy? Apparently accuracy to you doesn't mean repeating what the other person actually said.

That you see the manner in which she has presented it, as anything other than a lie, testifies to your standards.

You're right, it does testify to my standards. By my standards, a lie is a false statement which is known to be false by the person making it. She said she opposed the bridge, and that is actually a true statement. Apparently by your standards a lie is a statement which you've reconstructed by changing a word here or there, put back in your opponent's mouth, and then called a lie.

Now, did she flip-flop? It does appear that way. Politicians who don't flip-flop are pretty much a minority (in fact, I can't think of a one). People change their minds for all kinds of reasons. She may have changed it for political advantage, and I'm not denying that. I haven't heard her side of that story. All I've heard is the liberal media doing what you're doing - putting words in her mouth that she didn't say and then falsely accusing her of lying. Unfortunately, that doesn't give me much confidence in how they present "facts" that I'm personally unable to verify, when the ones that I can verify turn out to be false.

Contrast that with Obama's statement that the surge worked beyond anybody's wildest expectations or something to that effect. That actually was a lie. It worked beyond his expectations obviously, since he voted against it, but it clearly didn't work beyond the expectations of the people who proposed it and voted for it (like McCain). Somehow the media lets that lie slide but then twists Palin's words (like you've done) to make it sound like she's lying when in fact she isn't. Now, if a Republican had said the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, that would have been on the front page of the NY Times and you know it.

When I put that on a resume, I don't say 'community organizer'."

Please stop absorbing and repeating the ridiculous rhetoric of the mass manipulators. Denigrating the
term community organizer reeks of the kind of condescension elites typically hold for those who prefer the local to the cosmopolitan. What would Burke say if he saw his little platoons being trashed? The Founders? Tocqueville?

If one suspects Obama's particular brand of activism was actually Mau-mauing, please support it with evidence. But to belittle grassroots activism in principle, makes no sense on any level.

But to belittle grassroots activism in principle, makes no sense on any level.

I really don't think that was the intention of Palin's speech. She and others were belittling Obama's inflation of his own resume by using that as a qualification, just like the Dems were belittling Palin as a small-town mayor. I think there's also the jab that "community organizer" isn't really an actual job or position, but just kind of vague title that could mean almost anything. But to say that they were belittling grassroots activism in general is quite silly it seems to me.

Kevin,

I'm certainly not trying to 'absorb and repeat' the bumper sticker slogans of the mass manipulators (which are on the right and the left as I'm sure you know). I was simply responding to what I _think_ Al was getting at.

Even so, what I said still stands. That phrase is much too vague to convey anything meaningful. What happens when you put "facilitated multi-faceted team work experiences" on a resume? It gets shredded. Employers don't want to hear that meaningless stuff. They want to know what you've done. Even at the risk of 'belittling' team work experience.

John, I couldn't believe Scully twice used the term community organizer as a punch-line. Not very artful, or principled.

Mulder, By the way, don't put pro-life coordinator on any corporate applications. Use volunteers in parish ministry. Trust me.

It was clumsy, no doubt about that. Honestly, I didn't know how many "community organizers" there were or what they did, but then I'm not running a presidential campaign. Somebody probably should have flagged that or at least given some sort of apology afterwards. Of course, Obama hasn't apologized for basically flipping small-town religious people the bird. He obviously doesn't care and thinks he can win without them. Probably Republicans weren't counting on the "community organizers" vote, either. It's a sign of the times, I suppose.

Er, by the way, who's Scully?

Mulder, By the way, don't put pro-life coordinator on any corporate applications. Use volunteers in parish ministry. Trust me.

Duly noted!

Oh yeah, good ole Scully! *Grin*

In its present degenerate state, the right is mostly about resentment and outrage and not so much about actual policy.

If anything is a lie, this is it. I wonder why those on the Left are so quick to throw out the L word. Resentment and outrage? There is much more resentment and outrage on the Left, whether it is over the "white racist power structure" or an oppressive patriarchy. I remember Obama's pastor shouting "God damn America" and blaming the United States for creating AIDS. I remember Michelle Obama saying that America is a "downright mean country" and that only now that her husband has been nominated is she a proud American. She also said that "as a black man" her husband could get "shot at a gas station". Then there is Ted Kennedy screaming "week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie." Then there is Al Gore who shouted that President Bush "betrayed this country" and that he "played on our fears". Then there is that diatribe by Pete Stark claiming that Bush "just likes to blow things up" and that he is amused when he watches soldiers heads blow up. The list could on. If you want to measure resentment and outrage, it isn't even close.

If one sees government as a means to good, then one is more likely to think in terms "how". If one sees government as the problem, then the inevitable trajectory of natural selection will give us folks in public life who only seek power and riches.

On the contrary, big government attracts people who seek power and riches precisely because that's where those goods can be found.

I couldn't believe Scully twice used the term community organizer as a punch-line. Not very artful, or principled.

Why? You've lost me.

"Why? You've lost me."

Voluntarism and active participation in one's community in order to address the needs of those nearby is essentially a conservative understanding of proper civic engagement.

I was surprised that a speech-writer from the Thousand Points of Light wing of the GOP, couldn't jab at Obama's resume without mocking the concept of Subsidiarity in the process.

"... the right is mostly about resentment and outrage and not so much about actual policy."

That's one of the most baffling statements I've ever read, not just on W4, but anywhere. For example, a significant portion of those who post here are members of the political and cultural right. They debate policy continuously; they are thoroughly immersed in it -- and once in a while they get angry, me included. But that sentence affirms the opposite. That sentence is so far from realty that it leaves me only two viable options to explain its origin: either the person who wrote it has never carefully observed the right, or else that person is lying.

There is some kind of insanity beyond imagination in having the stunning effrontery to attack a woman for giving birth to a child.

I note with more than passing interest, and in line with the proudly stated zealotry for truth from liberals, that Obama[ none dare call him Hussien] is recruiting one Hillary Clinton for feminist balance, his wife having disqualified herself by an ill timed discovery of national pride.

Having read bombardments here and elsewhere against lies and asseverations of the purest love for truth, asseverations that would honor a saint or martyr, I confess to both surprise and disappointment, much as I was prepared in a moment of weakness to take liberals seriously.

Hillary Clinton ? The Heroine Of Tuzla !
Dodging all those mortar rounds, a thrice told tale, only to pause to accept flowers from a little girl, certainly a brave little girl. Hillary, canny investor in cattle futures. Hillary, totally unaware and in any event never questioned by our watchdog media, on the steady flow of international bribes and foreign corruption of our election process. I daresay more important than what happened to a bridge in Alaska, even more important than a seventeen year old girl being pregnant.

But perhaps I lack the fine tuned, almost surgically directed morality, of our liberal/Democrat fellow citizens, who love truth above oxygen itself.

Still I can't help seeing more than a little irony here, and a few opportunities for both side. For the Right a chance to make a few comparisons, for the Left an open door to weigh the difference between an e bay controversy and a woman who was named for a mountain climber before he climbed the mountain. It can be, should be interesting.


That sentence is so far from realty that it leaves me only two viable options to explain its origin: either the person who wrote it has never carefully observed the right, or else that person is lying.

I think Al has already sailed away on the good ship Poppycock.

I was surprised that a speech-writer from the Thousand Points of Light wing of the GOP, couldn't jab at Obama's resume without mocking the concept of Subsidiarity in the process.

I don't think that's what he was doing. By accident I saw highlights today of Palin's acceptance speech, in which she drew the contrast between between two localized job descriptions, that of community organizer and the other of mayor, the contrast consisting in the fact that the latter job involves definite responsibilities. So there was (in that instance) no mockery of susidiarity, only of the very vagueness of "community organizer." Furthermore, it's possible to work at the local level for a much more radically expansive shape of things, such that the local effort is nothing more than a trojan horse for the desired governmental behemoth. Which is what should concern you now, since the community Obama wants to organize is nothing short of the entire country under the auspices of those in Washington who know what is best for us.

"So there was (in that instance) no mockery of susidiarity, only of the very vagueness of "community organizer.""

She returned to the community organizer jab later in the speech and it lacked clarity, depth or the sophisticated distinctions between local activism and the trojan horse aspect that you mention.

I understand we're not going to witness a Carter-Reagan, let alone Lincoln-Douglas type of campaign, but we should all be repulsed by the dumbed-down level of discourse that is making this whole election intolerable.

Sarah Palin is at the crossroads. To retain her integrity and authenticity she will have to fight efforts by the consultants to reduce to a mere symbol. Right now there is reason to worry that her role is to play the seductive siren luring everyone into McCain's Cult of Personality. I hope I'm wrong.

Sarah Palin is at the crossroads. To retain her integrity and authenticity she will have to fight efforts by the consultants to reduce to a mere symbol. Right now there is reason to worry that her role is to play the seductive siren luring everyone into McCain's Cult of Personality. I hope I'm wrong.

Agreed. The other day on MSBNC, Pat Buchanan said he thinks Palin could be the leader of the Republican party for the "next 20 years." If that's the case, she's going to have to become much more than a siren.

Kevin,

To understand why Scully was right to mock and deride Obama's job as a "community organizer", you need to know what the job entails. Here is a primer:

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D6E27ECE-9798-4F01-A378-3F1405F69704

Jeff,
Couldn't the speech have had more content and framed the argument as a study in contrasts? Obama as a cultural Marxist (clearly don't use that term)and apparatchik inside a corrupt, big city political machine. Palin the small-town reformer making her local government more responsive to the needs of her community. Tocqueville vs Gramsci.

If the GOP managers can't make basic points like that without sounding like poli-sci nerds, then don't expect much in terms of governance.

Palin's narrative should be the Reluctant Patriot, who at great personal sacrifice to her and her family, enters the fray to assert the values, interests and aspirations of ordinary Americans. She cannot get by for 8 weeks with "Drill Baby Drill", nor should she.


For those of you who need a primer on just what is involved in being a community organizer -- and who aren't up to reading the description of Saul Alinsky's handbook linked above -- here, courtesy of Iowahawk, is a list of the specific duties of community organizers:

* Reach out and work with communities in various ways.

* Liaise with, and for, community agencies for service within affected areas.

* Fight to make a difference.

* Raise awareness.

* Deal with community issues.

* Raise awareness in the community of how we are making differences about undealt-with issues.

* When necessary, refer inquiries to outreach coordinators.

* Help coordination agency administrators identify and address outreach opportunities.

* Model timetables and conceptualize benchmarks.

* Issue guidelines for poster contests and interpretive dance festivals.

* Gather voter registrations, win valuable prizes.

Tim,
Please be clear about the entry above and your understanding of what entails community activism. Surely, you're list is specific to Alinsky and his followers, not those who practice the corporal works of mercy within our urban centers. Right?
You failed to make that distinction, as did Palin's speech writer.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.