This is via the Althouse blog, where there are comments Professor Althouse says:
I've been staring at the odd illustration, a weirdly masculinized painting of Palin. That title and that painting... so angsty... so expressive of something eating at the hearts of Palin-haters.As one commenter notes, the downturn at the corners of the mouth look unnatural.
If you read the article, note the comments about Mr Bill Allen, who will, I hope, show up in a future blog post about the Senator Ted Stevens corruption trial and its aftermath.
Regards — Cliff
10 comments:
And the lefties lament the conservative splinter groups called "truthers" and "birthers." Never in the history of American politics has one political party and socioeconomic philosophy been so pathologically obsessed with two historic figures, Sarah Palin and George Bush. For the left, these two are iconic of everything that ever has gone wrong in America, or what ever will go wrong.
In Sarah Palin's case, it is as much if not more the fact that she is female, married, educated in a land grant institution, and not bred into American royalty.
That the lame stream media would devote so much of its energy keeping the left's anger and vituperation alive is as much a commentary on its lack of ethics as it is on its absence of critical thought.
Yes, "civility" in modern American society. Let the LOVE shine through...but only if WE LIKE you....e.g., if you think like us.....otherwise....you are cheap trailer trash and we will spare no expense to destroy not only you, but anyone who has the apparent misfortune to be in any way associated with this two hapless harlots of history.
Do as we say....don't you DARE do as we do.
Overall, the entire display of pseudo-intellectualism displayed in today's media is vacuous and pornographic.
Not that I personally care about her or her political aspirations, but I think it would be a grand stroke of poetic justice if, one hundred years hence, America and its citizens would find, from the security of their collectivist living cells that Sarah Palin would have made a difference for the better.
But I sure don't blame her for not trying.
I don't like Palin because she is selling snake oil to dolts. The cottage industry of conservative hacks orbiting her are deleterious to America.
The first two paragraphs of the comment above are inaccurate and emblematic of a disenfranchised group who can't grapple with the world enveloping them.
Note: Palin was educated in several institutions. They just may have all been "land grant," but how does one keep track.
PS. Lamenting the "truthers" and "birthers" should not be the pervue of the Left.
Gee, I thought Truthers and Birthers were from the Democratic Party fringe, along with the Racers.
On top of that, I am not so sure I am comfortable with "left" and "right" or "blue" and "red". They mean less and less to me as I grow older.
Regards — Cliff
Neal, I'm not quite sure "never in the history" passes the sniff test, and the $40 million pursuit of the trail of Bill Clinton's penis springs to mind as one possible example. Teddy K's past aspirations for the presidency evoke another.
Each side cultivates its bogeymen and women. (Used to be no better way to bust up a righty party than to say "Hillary" out loud, or can't you recall that far back?) Neither side does so with perspective or reason, and neither opposite side can rest while feeling that their sacred candidate(s) or issue(s) is being treated unfairly.
I'll tell you plain that I believe the beauty contestant from Wasilla is not qualified for the Presidency, but you'll dismiss me as one of those "haters" with the same lack of perspective with which you accuse her accusers. Pots and kettles all, and you really need to relax about it.
If we listen to the right, we already have a bad dictator in Barry O...
the whole pathetic circus that we tolerate as politics.
The best money can buy. :v/
Kad said "I'll tell you plain that I believe the beauty contestant from Wasilla is not qualified for the Presidency". I tend to agree, but then neither was Senator Obama on Election Day 2008.
So what is the criteria for being qualified?
And, more interesting, was former Texas Governor and Texas Rangers Owner George W Bush qualified?
What about former Arkansas Governor and Law School Professor Bill Clinton?
How about former CIA Director and former US Ambassador to China George H W Bush?
And former Trade Union President and former California Governor Ronald Reagan?
Former Navy Submarine Skipper and former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter?
Vice President Jerry Ford, former House Minority Leader and hero of the fire on the USS FRANKLIN?
Former House Member, former Senator, former VP Richard Milhous Nixon?
Former School Teacher and US Senate Majority Leader and VP Lyndon Baines Johnson?
Former US Senator John F Kennedy?
Former President of Columbia University and leader of a coalition of nations that fought its way into Nazi Germany from the West, General Dwight David Eisenhower?
Former haberdasher, former US Senator and former VP Harry S Truman?
Former Navy Secretary during WWI and former New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
Finally, we come to a guy qualified for the job, from his success in managing large engineering projects, from his success in feeding millions in war-torn Europe and from his time as a Cabinet Secretary, Herbert Hoover.
But, what is our criteria for being qualified?
Regards — Cliff
Cliff, I offered the example to illustrate the defensive conclusion drawn, (i.e. that you must be a right-hater if you don't support she-who-shall-not-be-named), not to try to justify the subjectivity of the opinion. Agreed that many/most/all who stand for the Presidency these days do so without the sort of experience that would best serve the office. I'll offer that GHW Bush (41, not 43) is the most recent guy with the sort of resume we should be requiring of our candidates, but that 42 and 43 at least completed the terms of their governorships, and did not have the bankrupting of entire cities on their CV before their aborted gubernatorial tenures. Barry, being without executive experience, indeed also falls short.
For another example, I appreciate the importance of the experience Hillary is gaining as Sec'y of State, and hope that her critics will be willing to re-acquaint themselves with her should she stand for office again. I disliked her as a candidate prior to her appointment, but I know that I have to get to know her again now to better understand her qualifications should she run again. (And we can contrast the value of this experience with being a reality-TV hostess in case further defensive comparisons be included in any potential reply).
Let's face it--applicants to the City of Lowell Superintendant of Schools position get more professional scrutiny than our Presidential contenders, and that's more than a little troubling. Right now we run a quadrennial beauty contest, and we're at risk for running further down this road to ruin. (Yes, I'm including Barry O in the implication).
Kad
I think we are fairly close on this, examples aside. You pick Wasilla and I pick Bill Ayers.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment