"It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's 'intelligence,' coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.
Now by 'smart,' I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a 'quick study'; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is."
— Elaine Lafferty, who knows that over-arching cynicism isn't a sign of starts, even for The Daily Beast
I guess her 'photographic memory' ran out of film when she was asked all those 'trick' questions, like the name of even one magazine or newspaper she regularly read, what some of her running mate's accomplishments were, or what the Bush Doctrine meant. Now her cheerleaders like you are blaming the media for being 'unfair' to her. Sorry, but every day in the White House will be another pop test, and she won't get do overs or have coaches to always tell her the answers. Anyone who says she's capable is either lying or too stupid to cast a reasonable vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's already been proven that Sarah Palin got The Bush Doctrine right and Charles Gibson got it wrong. That fact you don't know that says several things:
ReplyDelete1) You're a media tool who doesn't think for yourself.
2) You don't investigate on your own but believes what the MSM tells you to believe.
3) You believe if someone isn't "media friendly" or doesn't always immediately come across well on TV (which is a talent one learns) that equals "stupidity" - despite the fact Sarah Palin worked her way up, politically, and has far more executive experience than the other three candidates combined.
4) Your mind is cultish, willing to whittle out the obvious (like Palin's credentials) to create an image that comforts you. That's why the question on magazines is of interest to you: whoa - her magazines are of national importance, aren't they? Man, if she doesn't mention a magazine, for any reason (like just being shocked at such a silly question) then she has no right to lead, right?
How immature can you get?
Figured youd answer like that. Keep making excuses. She'll be gone soon enough.
ReplyDeleteHey man! She couldn't answer the fucking questions. Not even the easy ones. If being able to see that makes me a media tool, what does pretending not to see it make you?
ReplyDeleteSee: that's cultishness.
ReplyDeleteI gave you EVIDENCE you were wrong. Rock-solid proof the media line on Sarah Palin and The Bush Doctrine is wrong - that you're being manipulated to think a certain way - and you ignore it in favor of your "belief". Well, one of my new favorite sayings is from Abraham Lincoln, and it goes (kinda) like this:
You can believe a tail is a leg but believing doesn't make it so."
Whoever you are, you better consider what you're doing, because it's all on the line now. I don't know about you but I've lived under socialism in France (been there 5 times, and stayed as long as a year, and not all of it in Paris like most visitors) and it's nothing nice: You work harder, everything's taxed (television even) and nobody wants to do anything. Is that what you want for your home - The Greatest Country On Earth? And don't forget:
I was a Democrat when I lived in France.
But when I got back to America, I kissed the ground - and switched parties. Barack's never lived under socialism. It's all academic to him. I have and it sucks.
Like I said, don't be a tool.
Hey Earl,
ReplyDeleteShe's got her sea legs, and she's out there every day now - without one gaffe - while Biden makes them every day, after 36 years in the Senate, but your answer seems to want to give him a pass while holding Palin's feet to the fire for one or two instances when she first arrived on the national stage. Not only that but, when Biden can't answer questions, the Obama campaign shuts down media access. Has the McCain campaign done that? Nope. But you don't care, right?
That's unfair and pure cultish thinking.
yeah... them cults be everywhere. Better go hide under the pillow till 2016!
ReplyDeleteJesus, man, how long have you been reading this blog? CNN noticed it. Tons of writers have mentioned it. An Australian reporter heard the Obama campaign refer to it as "The Cult Of Obama". And you have the nerve to doubt me? Here - an example - to show I'll even do the work for you:
ReplyDeletehttp://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/02/do-not-doubt-me-cult-of-obama.html
And here's an Australian reporter who overheard the Obama campaign calling it a cult themselves:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html
Now what do you say? You are part of a political cult. The Obama campaign says it themselves. Shoot the messenger if you want but there's no doubt that you've lost the ability to reason. As cult watchers say, if you're the kind of person who says "I could never be in a cult, then you're the kind of person who could be in a cult."
Conclusion:
One of us is crazy but it's not me.
Fact is when someone be crazy, they the last one to know. Guess what... you the last one to know. :)
ReplyDeleteSure, Earl:
ReplyDeleteYou're the one arguing against the evidence.
Bullshit. Your idea of evidence is anything that agrees with you. I seen people give you proof, and all you do is say it aint true. You the tool. You just dont know it.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Are you denying the post I did on Charles Gibson and Sarah Palin (linked above with the words "got it wrong") is a lie? Are you insisting, despite the evidence, that Charles Gibson was right and Sarah Palin was wrong? Prove it. I know that's the Left's line - and the media's part of the Left now - but the facts don't bear that out. Which means, if you buy it, you're a tool.
ReplyDeleteAs far as how I handle things - again: prove it. (I was just accused of only printing letters that agree with me, but it was easy to prove that one wrong, too.) I have a feeling what you witnessed was me dissing bad evidence. I'm more than happy to be corrected - I mean, who likes to be stupid but Democrats?
Anyway, prove me wrong: show me a post where someone gave me good evidence of something and I "say it aint true." I dare you. That ain't me. I'm probably the most fair man you'll ever encounter.
I just won't be played for a fool.