Although it doesn’t compare with the current polarized political atmosphere (you’d probably have to go back to the Vietnam protests for that), I certainly remember a lot more anti-Reagan vitriol than you seem to.
And while I agree that Reagan often seemed “out of the loop”, at the time I ascribed it less to incipient Alzheimers/senility and more to him being one of those people who sticks to a certain worldview and refuses to accept any facts to the contrary. I vaguely recall his daughter attempting to bring some subject to his attention and being told that all the evidence she was presenting to him was “lies”. Margaret Thatcher was much the same way; likewise Donald Rumsfeld, who often claimed that people who thought his approach to the war in Iraq was dangerously misguided simply didn’t understand the situation properly (although history has shown it was Rumsfeld who was living in cloud-cuckoo-land). Reagan believed the dream.
Please be careful about dismissing your own capacity for bias.
In all honesty, I think confirmation bias is the biggest obstacle in every debate on this forum, and for the public at large. I long for folks to present fact-based arguments, and to quit with the jingoism and blatantly false sound bytes (understand I’m not referring to you, but expressing a general desire). The more of the former I see, the easier it is for me to fight my own bias, while the latter pushes me back to eyerolling and quick dismissal - which is OK, perhaps, for those particular cases that deserve it, but I fear it may carry over to other discussions, even ones that are well-argued.
That’s why I needed to come forward and admit my mistake to Starving Artist earlier, when I had misremembered him as having used the “Obama teleprompter” meme on previous occasions. I needed to fully admit my mistake to myself as well as others so that it won’t be as likely to color my opinion of him in the future. The human mind is wired in such a way that we see things the way we’re predisposed to see them, and that pisses me off. Trying to discover and understand myriad variables, finding facts you can trust, getting meaning from those facts, etc, are all enough of a challenge without some dude in your head with his thumb on the scale throwing off the balance. EVERYONE has that bastard in their head, and he’ll never admit to putting his thumb on the scale. “What? Naaaw, it’s all good!”
My biggest fear, despite that high-minded speechifying above, is that I might not be convinced this applies to me. How screwed up is that? But I guess trying to be aware of it, and doing your best to counter it, is all you can do.
Danica is an apt comparison; however, she is racing in the Nationwide series on Saturday, not the big race on Sunday. She also was the Indycar rookie of the year, and did finish 3rd in last year’s Indianapolis race.
I can see it now…Palin is being interviewed by Barbara Walters. Baba asks “if you were a tree, what kind of a tree would you be?” Palin glances furtively at her palm and says “Elk. No…wait…elm. I mean elm.”
I liked my explanation better. It at least made sense, even if it wasn’t plausible (seeing as how sweet tea – at least the “sweet tea” that’s been offered to me – tastes like ass).
Be honest: If, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama had been caught having the words “Hope” and “Change” written in his palm and was seen looking at his palm before answering questions, wouldn’t that raise many serious questions about him? Why would he ever need to write those words on his palm? They were central themes of his campaign.
Obama not remembering Hope and Change is the same as Palin not remembering Tax cuts and Energy. Having to jot down the central themes that Republicans have been hammering at for the past few decades and that any moron could cite if asked for basic Republican talking points is seriously disturbing and brings up serious questions about her.
Can you imagine, say, Henry Kissinger having to look at his palm before answering a question? Never in a million years. I may not agree with many of his opinions but I can at least aknowledge and respect that he is intelligent.
Why must Republicans continue to put up complete morons to run for office in the past several years? I guess because it works. Yes, this latest event, just like anything that makes Palin look like an idiot will not have any effect on her popularity because True Believers will not see anything she does as wrong and may, conciously or not, even like her more the more of an idiot she is shown to be, because “she’s just a regular person like us”
Yes, bringing this latest event up will not affect her popularity, but we have to face it: it makes her look like a complete idiot.
Crib notes on your palm are for things that are difficult to remember: phone numbers, shopping lists, Avogadro’s Number, the treaty that ended the War of 1812, “Defenestration of Prague”. Not for the 3 platitudes that answer a softball question you’ve been given in advance.
This sort of comment illustrates why you think that Reagan was so hated by the left: because you equate criticism, scorn and disdain (at least from left-leaning sources) with hatred.
Nobody’s denying that the left strongly opposed and criticized Reagan: in fact, we’re proud of it, and I for one feel no inclination to soften my assessment of him because right-wing revisionism in recent years (plus the sympathetic feelings engendered by his long illness and death) has polished up his popular image somewhat. I personally didn’t make fun of him or call him a senile old clown, but I certainly remember lots of people saying such things. To that extent, your (Canadian) memory of those times doesn’t contradict my (American) one.
However, the point that’s being made here is that the sort of criticism, contempt, scorn, disdain, opposition and insult that Reagan encountered didn’t reach the vitriolic levels that public political enmity has attained in more recent times. Maybe you just knew a lot of especially belligerent Canadian leftists during the Reagan administration, or maybe your unconscious is playing the victim card to dramatize what a rough deal poor old Saint Ronnie got from the mean liberals.
(Yes, the phrase “poor old Saint Ronnie” is a sarcastic denigration. No, that’s not the same thing as a vitriolic expression of hatred.)
Meh, Palin couldn’t govern a state with 600,000 people without quitting. Why people think she’s qualified to lead 300,000,000 is beyond me. She represents the anti-intellectualism that currently plagues politics. Being educated and eloquent is “elitist,” while clueless average joes (like certain plumbers that have thankfully disappeared) are seen as heroes. I have a real problem with that, but if anything, it shows the poor state of public education in this country.
6.02 x 10 to the 23rd (don’t know how to do exponents). I haven’t needed that bit of information for 39 years but apparently it’s impossible to forget.
When Palin was campaigning (or was it at the convention?), she got about a week’s worth of coverage out of the joke: What’s the difference between a bulldog and a soccer mom? Lipstick! (I never knew dogs wore lipstick but then again I’m a cat person)
SNL did a great parody on this during a Fey-Palin/Poehler-Clinton skit.
On the right-wing forums, the common explanation is that she resigned because the Left wouldn’t leave her alone- that she’d have to spend all of her time defending herself, and wouldn’t be able to effectively govern.
You see, her resignation was a noble sacrifice, not a blatant grab for money. These same people want her to run for President in 2012, and they can’t see the error in their logic.