Contributors

Saturday, June 11, 2011

How Sarah Could Win

I haven't really talked about Sarah Palin in awhile as I have refused to be a part of the bizarre relationship she and the media have with one another. She pretends to hate them but needs them desperately...doing an excellent job of playing them any chance she gets. In return, most of the media talk about how stupid she is yet they still fall all over each other to cover her.

Honestly, it's pathetic. She's at the point right now where she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. The Paul Revere thing is an example. She says something factually wrong, the media go ape shit, her supporters foam at the mouth and accuse the media of asking her gotcha questions, and she becomes the headline.

Maher had an interesting take last night on how Sarah Palin could win the 2012 election. First, we have 40 percent of the country who would never vote for the president even if he personally saved them from drowning. One can see the validity of this statement by reading my comments section. Second, people tend to vote for who they dislike the least not who the like the best. In looking at Sarah's negatives, it would seem that people dislike her more. But figure in the economic situation coupled with the fact that she is hot and it could turn out to be her that they dislike the least. Finally, it sucks that is has come to this but anyone could get elected in this dumb fucking country.

That last one is a frustration but it really is true. If Sarah Palin were 300 pounds, had short hair, and was missing teeth, would she still be as popular? Would anyone even be listening? No, they wouldn't. We not dumb because we lack intelligence, although that is part of it. We are dumb because looks matter more than skill. Appearance and what is cool is more important than competence. That's the Michael Jordan Generation, though.

We don't give a shit about the steak. All we care about is the sizzle.

16 comments:

Larry said...

Speaking about sizzle without steak, how about your guy Obama? He looked cool and said the right things, though he had absolutely no record of accomplishment other than successfully running for office. Had he not been black, he'd never have had a chance with his meager record. Now that he's in and continuing many of Bush's most hated policies, are you feeling like a rube who bought the sizzle, yet?

Nikto said...

Unlike some Republicans who think that winning an election means you get to destroy everything your opponent favors, Obama has taken the middle road. He has not given me everything I want. But I never expected to get everything he promised. That's not how democracies work.

He was hamstrung by a Senate that has byzantine rules that prevent simple majority rule, and a Democratic Party that much more broadly represents the American people than the extremely narrow band of the populace that the Republican Party caters to. So it's extremely difficult to force Democrats to fall into line like a bunch of zombies on each roll call vote.

The Republican Party has done an excellent job preventing the economy from rebounding. That's been their game plan all along -- obstruct and blame Obama for everything. The structural problems we have are mostly due to the mistakes Bush made (two wars, one totally unnecessary, crushing deficits from giving tax breaks to the wealthy, expanding Medicare entitlements without paying for them, an economy trashed by greedy bankers and dishonest real estate deals, etc.).

So, yeah, I'm disappointed that Obama wasn't able to do everything he wanted. But the reasons why are obvious, and he's done okay given the hand he was dealt.

The Republican Party has retreated so far into insanity that voting for any one of them is totally out of the question. They resemble little more than an organized criminal enterprise with Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers calling all the shots. That Palin and Bachmann are serious contenders for the nomination shows how utterly wacko the Republican Party has become.

Listen to Yourself said...

It wasn't Obama's fault!

He was hamstrung by a Democrat super-majority in the Senate!

The Repube's have been the cause of economic duress! They did that by making the Democratic super-majority in Congress do things they didn't want to do.

It's obvious to anyone with a brain!

The Repubelican'ts are insane organized criminals!

Anonymous said...

Honestly, it's pathetic. She's at the point right now where she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. The Paul Revere thing is an example. She says something factually wrong, the media go ape shit...

http://bostonherald.com.nyud.net/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1343353

You were saying?

Larry said...

Or from what Mark would consider a reliable and completely unbiased source: NPR: How Accurate were Palin's comments on Paul Revere?.

Granted, that was a garbled answer, but that was hardly a prepared interview and she was stumbling. There's no excuse for the idiot Palin-bashers who reacted at leisure with all kinds of time to check themselves. Lord knows, Mark's hero Obama has been known to babble gibberish upon occasion, and when he's without his teleprompter and extensive pre-show prep, my wife calls him the Wizard of Uhh's.

Mark Ward said...

An excellent assessment of the right today, Nikto. I voted for Obama because I knew he was more moderate, Larry. Neither he nor myself are the bleeding heart libs your schematic reasoning makes us out to be. Generally, I'm happy with what he has done...especially given what he was handed. But if you want me to point to something specific, he got bin Laden. Bush didn't. The reason why I started this blog was because I couldn't make sense of Bush's strategies. He literally made every foreign policy mistake in Global Politics 101. Obama has succeeded where Bush failed. Period.

Anonymous, do you honestly think that is what Palin meant by the comment? Really, though, it's trivial compared to my overall point.

Indira said...

Can you summarize your 'overall point' to one sentence please?

Mark Ward said...

No, Indira. That's why I have a blog:) My overall point (how she could win) was summarized by three central themes.

What I do find interesting is how different the reaction to her flub is as opposed to Obama's 57 states mistake. If I reacted in the same way as her supporters did, I would've said he was actually accurate because he was talking about territories as well. I said this as a joke once:) Instead, it's clear he meant to say 47 states and made a mistake that was due to fatigue.

With Palin, that's all she had to say as well. Instead, she doubled down and made her mistake worse. Everyone knows of Revere's mission and who specifically he was warning. She also managed to warp it into a bizarre 2nd amendment dealio which was shamless pandering.

Now, if you want to say that technically they were all British subjects, that would be accurate I suppose. But that misses the whole point of how our country was founded.

Larry said...

You didn't listen to the NPR piece, did you, Mark?

Mark Ward said...

I'd already heard it, Larry.

juris imprudent said...

One can see the validity of this statement by reading my comments section.

I'm with you right up to this point. Who do you think is that disengaged amongst your commenters (and I would guess the critical commenters at that)?

Appearance and what is cool is more important than competence. That's the Michael Jordan Generation, though.

I know you think this is a profound insight, but this argument has been around since Harding was elected (at least). You may want to hang the fault on MJ and those who idolized him (and lord knows, I am not defending him or them), but the simple truth is this is a recurring theme. You think FDR was the 2nd or 3rd greatest president ever - yet he was elected by deceiving the voters about his inability to walk. Is that the kind of media you want again? For all the faults of the current media, I doubt that you could ever achieve that kind of consensus amongst them.

FWIW I don't think Palin can actually win the nomination; which is good because I think she is entirely undeserving of it.

Oh, and Mary H, sasquatch, santa, serial, downtown, etc. - see what happens when M puts up a reasonable post? There is a difference in how I respond.

juris imprudent said...

Isn't that something, no one likes it when I'm agreeable either.

You fucking punks.

Lincoln vs Douglass said...

I'll debate you JI.

Pick a topic and I'll try to argue against you.

It'll probably be difficult, since I generally agree with your opinions, but that will just sharpen my debating skills.

juris imprudent said...

L vs D - how about I argue the liberal position? I can certainly do that better (i.e. at least on an honest intellectual basis) than anyone around here.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough. Next time we'll switch.

So JI (you liberal bastard), explain to me how you plan to confiscate enough wealth from the 'rich', to pay just the interest on the national debt.

Bah... forget it. It's so much easier to go to another blog.

Anonymous said...

Does an excellent job of playing the media....coupled with the fact that she is hot....

So your point is that she combines the best qualities of Barack Obama and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?