# Sarah Palin - Seriously? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029 "2010-02-07T14:42:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/161 "2010-02-09T00:47:55Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > How am I supposed to give you a cite for that? It’s not a citable fact. It’s an opinion. You stated it as a fact. > [@](#): > > It’s an opinion fairly widely shared Shared by who? Teabaggers? > [@](#): > > her ‘death panels’ comment put the Administration on the defensive No it didn’t. It gave them ammunition to paint their critics as nutbags. “Death panels” was a gift to the Obama administration. > [@](#): > > and as more than one wag has said, any time a politician has to start a debate on his policy by promising he won’t kill your grandmother, he’s in trouble. No, the person making the moronic accusations is in trouble. No one _believed_ the “death panel” garbage but retards. It didn’t hurt Obama any, it just made Palin look stupid. > [@](#): > > Well, it proves _something_. It proved what? In what way did she “make a splash?” What did she actually SAY that was significant? Who was impressed by her that was not already impressed? The media paid attention for the same reason that it followed Paris Hilton’s car on her way to jail. Morbid, prurient fascination. > [@](#): > > Look, Palin clearly has some kind of intelligence. Cite? > [@](#): > > It may not be analytical intelligence - it might be emotional intelligence, or a gift for reading the mood of the public, or something. But she seems to keep pushing exactly the buttons that her followers want pushed. Pandering does not require intelligence. Palin’s driving characteristic is narcissism, not political cunning. She insulates herself from any real press, and does little pole dances for a very narrow, closed little audience of the least intelligent people in the country. She isn’t gaining in any popularity outside of her little established, teabagger fanbase. > [@](#): > > So far, they’ve accomplished the destruction of the Democrats’ supermajority, and they’ve put Obama on bipartisan spin cycle. That’s quite a lot, actually. Cite that they had anything to do with the Massachusettes election? You DO know that the Republican elected there was a liberal, pro choice, pro government health care Republican, do you not? In what way does he represent the teabaggers? Your statement about Obama being on a “bipartisan spin cycle” has no truth in it at all. On the contrary, despite the smug expectations of the Reoublicans and the right wing media echo chamber, Obama flatly _refused_ to back off HCR or make any concessions to the Party of “No.” Obama is the only one who has EVER tried to be bi-partisan, by the way. The Republicans in Congress are too terrified of Rush Limbaugh and the teabagger base to tell Obama hello. They’ve offered no alternative health care plan at all. You can’t refuse to sit at the table at all, then accuse the other side of not being bi-partisan. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/162 "2010-02-09T00:49:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Hentor, it was the _Los Angeles Times_ that made the comparison. I simply cited it as my original source for my memory that they had been within one point of each other. No they weren’t. It compared two different ratings. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/163 "2010-02-09T00:53:17Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I did note, though, that this hasn’t translated into people wanting her to run for President. That’s still a very low number, even among Republicans. We liberals have all our toes and fingers crossed, so maybe that will put her over the top. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/164 "2010-02-09T01:10:13Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > How am I supposed to give you a cite for that? It’s not a citable fact. It’s an opinion. Okay. You listed it along with a bunch of factual assertions such as Palin’s having a bestselling book and raising millions of dollars, so I somehow managed to get the impression that you intended it to be accepted as a fact. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Stop adding ‘presidential fitness’ to everything - I never said she was fit to be president. I never said you did. But you were asking whether a “brilliant campaign” would increase her perceived presidential fitness: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Just out of curiosity - if Palin runs a brilliant campaign, will that be accepted of evidence of her ability to be president, the way Obama’s was? So I pointed out that most of the accomplishments you listed weren’t actually based on demonstration of ability but rather merely on celebrity status. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Are you saying that John Edwards isn’t intelligent? I certainly wouldn’t. Neither would I. But I don’t think that his fundraising capacity really says anything about his intelligence, any more than Palin’s fundraising capacity is a meaningful indicator of her intelligence. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Look, Palin clearly has some kind of intelligence. I don’t think anybody here is really arguing against that position. Nobody’s saying that Palin isn’t sharp enough to look out for her own interests or find a schtick that will be profitable for her personally. We’re just noting that she seems to be uninformed and uninterested about the actual substance of the political issues that she uses as her vehicle for seeking money and fame. If so, then that’s a kind of intelligence that she doesn’t have, and it’s a pretty important one for a politician. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > She comes across as one of those brash know-it-all women who just repeats the soundbites she hears from the TV, but with way more conviction than her actual understanding should warrant. […] > > Her popularity rating is now higher than Obama’s as well. […] > > **Hentor** , it was the Los Angeles Times that made the comparison. I simply cited it as my original source for my memory that they had been within one point of each other. Yeah, I hate when brash know-it-all women just repeat soundbites from the media with more conviction than their actual understanding warrants. 😉 > [@Sam Stone](#): > > So far, they’ve accomplished the destruction of the Democrats’ supermajority, and they’ve put Obama on bipartisan spin cycle. That’s quite a lot, actually. If you’re asserting as a fact that the Tea Party movement is responsible for this, could you provide a cite? Or if you’re stating it as your opinion, could you explain why you think this is true? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/165 "2010-02-09T01:11:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Hentor, it was the _Los Angeles Times_ that made the comparison. I simply cited it as my original source for my memory that they had been within one point of each other. Oh, you only quoted the LA Times as the source? > [@](#): > > But it turns out that in the interim, her popularity has dropped back to 43%, so he’s still got a lead. Show me in the LA Times where it says her popularity is at 43%. Hint: it doesn’t. You attempted to continue to compare her favorability to his approval rating in what seems a very odd attempt at deception, given that you acknowledged the two are in fact different less than two hours before. > [@](#): > > And you’re right - it is a trivial matter. But you’re the one who demanded cites and then starting picking nits with the trivia so you could somehow work in your never-ending tiresome thread-hijacking ad-hominem attack dog schtick. Trust me, I’m always going to demand cites when you come in making deceitful and false statements. Don’t like it? Stop doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/166 "2010-02-09T01:22:21Z")
This thread is making me feel better and better. One more Palin defender stops by to defend her honor with “but I wouldn’t _vote_ for her!” This was fun too: > [@Righteous Sam Stone](#): > > Her popularity rating is now higher than Obama’s as well. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > … so he’s still got a lead. > > Not that I think this means a whole lot - ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/167 "2010-02-09T01:33:17Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I don’t know for an absoute certainty, particularly in the U.K. which is where I believe you are, but I can tell you I’ve never heard a movie referred to as a program in my life. I live in rural East Texas, and they are called programs and shows here. “Avatar was a cool show” - if you are younger. “We are going to miss the feature/program” if you are old. Guess what, Biden’s like a million years old. Oh, and I really don’t give a shit either way. Just saying. Anyway, carry on. Just because I haven’t seen Sandra Bullock naked, doesn’t mean it never happens, **SA**. You are trying too hard on this one, there is no possible way you could be that dense. If you have a real point, don’t trot this crap out around it, because it makes you seem dumb and I am really sure that you are smarter than that. I mean, you post here. (No sarcasm meant) - Independent voter **TD** ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/168 "2010-02-09T01:34:28Z")
It’s easy to laugh at the incoherent and misdirected white rage, represented so well in characters like Palin. However, the notion that these people are uniquely blinkered or hypocritical in their protest is wrong. For example, Democrats (and many non-Dem progressives) are technocratic managerial utopians who truly, truly believe that if only the right people were in charge, things would be fine. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/169 "2010-02-09T01:58:32Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > It’s easy to laugh at the incoherent and misdirected white rage, represented so well in characters like Palin. However, the notion that these people are uniquely blinkered or hypocritical in their protest is wrong. > > For example, Democrats (and many non-Dem progressives) are technocratic managerial utopians who truly, truly believe that if only the right people were in charge, things would be fine. Yeah! I mean no! I mean, what? Is it the claim of the teabaggers that the Democrats are technocratic managerial utopians? I don’t remember seeing that on any of their signs. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/170 "2010-02-09T02:01:23Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > It’s easy to laugh at the incoherent and misdirected white rage, represented so well in characters like Palin. However, the notion that these people are uniquely blinkered or hypocritical in their protest is wrong. > > For example, Democrats (and many non-Dem progressives) are technocratic managerial utopians who truly, truly believe that if only the right people were in charge, things would be fine. That is just such crap. No one wants to micro manage the market it’s some stupid meme spread by astroturf marketing companies. There weren’t massive new regulations put in place during the Clinton years. In fact, he was pretty laissez faire. Regulations are put in place during a crisis and then when we forget why they were done we loosen them until the next crisis. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/171 "2010-02-09T02:13:56Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > It would appear that neither you nor **Face Intentionally Left Blank** have read my response in post #40 to **Lobohan**. > > I am on record several times as having said that I don’t believe Palin is seriously considering a run for national office. I also think she is most effective doing exactly what she is: functioning as a lightening rod for conservative values and frustration over the way things have been going in this country the last few decades, and inspiring conservatives to feel they have a voice and to get out and vote. Pretty much the same thing Rush Limbaugh does but without the “kiss my ass, liberal douchebags” attitude that Limbaugh projects. I predicted both her current speechifying activities and upcoming cable talk show at the time she resigned her governorship. Again, IMO she functions best, and is most valuable to the conservative movement (and yes, there is one and it’s growing all the time), by doing just what she is, and it’s my hope that she will continue doing that for the foreseeable future. > > I do not see a future for Palin in holding political office; she exhibits little interest in gaining the knowledge and experience she’d need in order to function well once in office, and I haven’t seen much evidence of the necessary drive either. Frankly, I feel she is probably as smart as Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, and could probably function just as well as they do on that level, but she lacks the drive and determination and willingness to turn her life over to it that that kind of career requires and which Boxer and Feinstein have done. Yes ,you are on record as being completely wrong. She has indicated she will consider a presidential run in 2012. She is the front runner. She believes if it is gods will for her to run, she will just have to answer the call. I can not imagine anyone saying she is smart enough for the office. It is impossible to compute. she has no interest in politics, but if she can make money she will run. Her ego loves campaigning. But she does not like the job. She quit the Alaskan governorship. Who does such a thing? Who can actually accept that as OK? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/172 "2010-02-09T02:27:10Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > … Is it the claim of the teabaggers that the Democrats are technocratic managerial utopians? I don’t remember seeing that on any of their signs. Covered under “socialist homosexuals”. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/173 "2010-02-09T02:49:44Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > D) have one of the best-selling books of the last year Bro, you know me and I had about as much input on THREE international bestsellers as she did on her single, purely-local one. Do you think that qualifies me to be president? I didn’t think so. I know I don’t think so, though I may toss my hat in the ring to me the Illinois Democrats replacement candidate for Lt Governor. I’m at least as qualified as the guy who just dropped out. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/174 "2010-02-09T03:20:48Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Trust me, I’m always going to demand cites when you come in making deceitful and false statements. Don’t like it? Stop doing it. **TWEEET!** First, you will stop accusing other posters of dishonesty in Great Debates. Then, EVERYONE will back off from attacking posters and their motivations in this thread. (Although Hentor has been the far worst offender, there have been other unnecessary shots, here, as well). Stick to discussing the issues and leave your (collective) impressions of what other posters believe out of this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/175 "2010-02-09T03:53:08Z")
As a matter of comparison, for the folks who have been around a while, how did Reagan come across to the Democrats of the time? He was clearly (to me) an infinitely better communicator than Palin, and had been a Governor without quitting. So a) did Reagan get derided at the time for his intellect, adjusting for the absence of the internet and b) if so, was the general sense among Republicans that the abuse was because people on the left feared him and his success at connecting with people? Now, clearly in retrospect Reagan was wildly popular for a good deal of his time in office. I am asking about the, for lack of a better term, extreme reactions to Reagan- those who thought him Near A God and those who thought he was a farce. Are there parallels to Palin? From my perspective, most of Palin’s defenders are hard-pressed to really advocate for her, they simply seem compelled to defend her against media transgressors but that is about where it stops. Palin’s popularity mystifies me, but I consider myself fairly hard left at this point- was there a similar sense about Reagan? ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/176 "2010-02-09T03:56:22Z")
Heh, I voted for him. sinjin, now a bleeding heart liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/177 "2010-02-09T03:56:41Z")
I don’t do impressions. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/178 "2010-02-09T04:10:47Z")
> [@stolichnaya](#): > > how did Reagan come across to the Democrats of the time? He was clearly (to me) an infinitely better communicator than Palin, and had been a Governor without quitting. So a) did Reagan get derided at the time for his intellect, adjusting for the absence of the internet and b) if so, was the general sense among Republicans that the abuse was because people on the left feared him and his success at connecting with people? > > Now, clearly in retrospect Reagan was wildly popular for a good deal of his time in office. On average, he wasn’t. In the concurrent “Reagan’s Birthday” thread, [**Diogenes** pointed out:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12088333&postcount=65) > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Reagan’s average approval rating in office was 52%, lower than Clinton (55%), lower than GHW Bush (61%), lower even than LBJ (55%). Clinton also left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan (68% to Reagan’s 63%), and while Reagan’s highest approval rating was 68%, Clinton’s floated up to 78% during the impeachment. Reagan was very well liked **by his supporters** , which was a change from recent trends in American national politics, when even Republicans weren’t enthusiastic about Ford and even Democrats weren’t enthusiastic about Carter. His opponents thought of him as a polished speaker, but policy-wise somewhat out-of-touch and largely guided by his handlers, willingly delegating most substantial issues to aides. “Disengaged” was the common term for his style of governance. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/179 "2010-02-09T04:27:27Z")
The way the left perceived Reagan’s speaking style was that he was someone who was a polished and telegenic performer who wasn’t really all that in touch with the issues or the public. As time went on, especially during the last few years of his Presidency, it was becoming increasingly clear to the public at large that his facilities were declining. During one of the Presidential debates with Mondale, he was especially bad, with long pauses as he reached for words, lost his train of thought, stammered and hemmed, etc. It was very uncomfortable and disquieting to watch. I voted for Reagan in that election, but I was still dismayed by that debate. By his last couple of years in office, it was a standard meme that he was doddering and forgetful. When his Alzheimer’s was finally made public, it was a surprise to no one. I should probably mention that even most lefties never really _hated_ the guy. He was seen as kind of an amiable codger, as being probably not all there during his second term, and presiding over an administration that ran amok while he napped in the afternoons, but he was not viewed as malicious or evil. Partisan politics in general had not yet become as vicious and intractable as they are now. That more or less started with the election of Bill Clinton (and the advent of right wing talk radio). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029/180 "2010-02-09T04:43:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I should probably mention that even most lefties never really hated the guy. He was seen as kind of an amiable codger, as being probably not all there during his second term, and presiding over an admistration that ran amok while he napped in the afternoons, but he was not viewed as malicious or evil. Yeah. His Cabinet members came in for more direct animosity, especially Edwin Meese, James Watt, and Caspar Weinberger. Reagan himself was often viewed as stupid or ideologically blinkered, especially when he said things like calling the Nicaraguan contras the “moral equal of our Founding Fathers”, or claiming that there were more oil reserves in Alaska than in Saudi Arabia, or saying that trees were the worst source of pollution, and all that stuff. But IIRC those things produced more contempt than hatred. Even his most adamant opponents believed that ultimately he just didn’t know any better, rather than that he was nefariously trying to deceive the people _a la_ Richard Nixon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sarah-palin-seriously/528029.md?page=10)