Maybe she’s just being honest about how she got the nomination. One of my favorite lines from a show that nobody else will likely recognize, “Besides your looks, what have you contributed lately?”.
-Joe
Ok, thats what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are doing about it, but I think the dark places where racism thrives is where it’s also encouraged. In that environment it is the person decrying racism that is alone and is mocked.
Is it your position that forcing racial tolerance is wrong so instead we should just wait for it?
Boo fricking hoo. The polite nice white-starched-shirt people had the chance to do something about racism, and failed. Address your whiny complaints to them, and to them alone. We aren’t interested.
Well, it’s not that bad when you consider that maybe 30-35% of registered voters are registered Republican. So, 70% of that, plus some independents and possibly even some “blue dog” Democrats. These kind of polls also tend to exclude any kind of choice, like would they vote for her OVER someone like Pawlenty or Gingrich? That’s kind of why they’re called “the base”, they’re most likely to vote for any Republican.
Even 30-35% is generous. There was a poll not too long ago that showed only 22% of voters being currently willing to self identify as Republicans. So you’re talking about a party identification that is already currently stripped down to its most ideological core. In that light, 70% seems a little on the low side.
Which is just the break the McCain campaign…
The Times article makes her seem so… so human. Not weak, not a little girl who can’t handle the pressure, but someone who was grossly unprepared for politics as not portrayed on television. If you believe her and align with her principals (at least the ones in the sound bites), it’s very Ms. Smith Goes to Washington, in that she was an honest, hard working idealist who was inundated by attacks and unjustly dismissed by an elite. So all she has to do now is wax philosophic about the issues of the day, taking cues from talking points and commentators, ghost write a book or two, and play semi-kingmaker by appearing at choice rallies (highest bidder). No one is going to look at her finances, no one is going to question her dealings – at least not anyone who matters to her – she just gets to play queen all the way to the bank.
(by the way, what’s so hard to understand about Sr. Beef’s point? ISTM that he’s simply saying that it’s possible to simultaneously have been: conservative; strongly opposed to proposed government methods to combat racism; not a racist; existing in the 1950s. I’m not a conservative, and I don’t hold with any of SA’s 50s were better inanities, but I don’t see what is so hard to understand about Sr. B’s statement.)
Actually, I don’t hold that the 50’s were better. I hold that the pre-1968’s were better. 
The usual suspects are the ones who like to home in on the 50’s as they think it gives them better ammo for dismissiveness.
As I said earlier, I was an admirer of Barry G., and believed him when he says his opposition was principled. I think he was still wrong.
You seldom get a totally clear issue. One might very well think that a Federal demand for civil rights for black people was an intrusion upon Constitutional principles. Bu then the question becomes: so what?
Civil rights is an existential issue for a democracy, if civil rights are not extended to any portion of the population, then the “democracy” is a lie, it does not exist, and there are no principles to defend. There is no risk of endangering democracy, there is nothing to endanger. Such a situation demands reform, by any means necessary.
So it’s all Nixon’s fault?
Mine, actually. And nobody ever even thanked me.
Oops… sorry, didn’t mean to wade too thickly into that (there are a lot of voices in there already), and that was a bit snarky. Sorry. I was trying to isolate Sr. B’s point from the general storm.
No problem. Thanks.
Hmmm… you are pretty specific with 1968… (ie not “the late 60’s”), so what was it in 1968 that caused this decline in moral standards?
- The Tet offensive in Vietnam?
- Pueblo Incident off Korea?
- The My Lai Massacre?
- Signing of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
- Arab Baath Socialist Party coup in Iraq puts Saddam Hussein in power?
- Brig. Gen. Idi Amin promoted to major general?
- Democratic Party convention in Chicago?
- Nixon wins presidency?
I’m betting it was this one:
- Pierre Elliott Trudeau, well known leftist hippy, elected to be Prime Minister of Canada
It’s a pain that never ends…
Well, it ended briefly in 1979 and then permanently in 1984, but still…
French-Canadian. Not a hippy. Common mistake.
Suddenly I’m envisioning Palin singing this. It’s a scary thought.
You forgot the assassinations of MLK and RFK, by those leftists James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan.
But you did make a very specific comment concerning the 50s which is why it was homed in on. **Rhythmdvl ** was right and needn’t apologize. Your comment was obviously incorrect along with other statements about the evils of liberalism that you have failed to offer support for. Just so we’re clear.
Nah, they all pale in significance compared to this.
Starving Artist, that wasn’t an insult. It was a wisecrack, a kind of sarcastic retort which, incidentally, predates 1968.
70% of 25% = electoral ass-whipping in 2012.