Here is the take of "Neo-Neocon"♠ regarding former VP Candidate Sarah Palin and her comment telling Tea Party folks that it wasn't yet time to “party like it’s 1773”. It turns out that Blogger Markos Moulitsas♥ doesn't know his American History.
So, Palin 1, Kos 0 based upon this dust-up.
Then we have this item from The Washington Post, where the author talks about five (5) myths about Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is the most polarizing politician to come forward since Richard Nixon. But, that doesn't mean she can't get elected. I have to admit that the first time Tricky Dick ran for President I voted for HHH, the Happy Warrior, but the second time I voted for RMN, since I couldn't bring myself to vote for Senator George McGovern (I had been hoping the Democrats would nominate Senator Scoop Jackson for President and Shirley Chisholm for VP, but it was not to be).
It would be a mistake to count Sarah Palin out.
Regards — Cliff
♠ The person is supposed to be a New England-based blogger.
♥ The Daily Kos.
9 comments:
Ironic that someone so taken by slurs to Massachusetts politics (tell me where the "real" America resides, Sarah?) would co-opt their essence as a campaign theme.
Actually, Massachusetts wasn't the only place having Tea Parties back in the day. There were Tea Parties in other colonies as well. As for slurs, I think, slur for slur, the People of the Commonwealth are ahead right now.
Regards — Cliff
In no other colony did the tea consignees not resign and/or return the ships to England. Only Boston had opportunity to act in civil disobedience of the Tea Act, and did. As for slurs, you call out the "People of the Commonwealth", but furnish no citation. I would certainly like to learn to what slurs you refer when you claim any sort of lead in the mud-slinging game. Shall we say that my recollection of the timeline and the utterances of October, 2008 are somewhat different than yours seem to be.
From Nahant.
Joan Vennochi.
Picking on McCain for Picking Palin.
Derrick Jackson says she is an idiot, but with more words and a less direct approach.
I looked at a Dan Kennedy post, but it was only so-so.
Scott Lehigh says the Mass Republicans snubbed Sarah.
And, I think there were tea parties or tea actions in other colonies, including a woman's group down below the Mason-Dixon line and some action in Maryland, and I think in Philly.
And, the point is, just because she is a pariah, rather than a barracuda, doesn't mean she won't be back. Even Dick Nixon came back—and got elected President. Twice.
Regards — Cliff
I might be guilty of "threadjacking" here but did anyone catch the whole thing about Christine O'Donnell and the First Amendment?
She (rightly) mentioned at a debate that the Constitution does not explicitly refer to a "separation of Church and state." Of course, she was roundly ridiculed by media elites from both parties who claimed she had no understanding of the 1st Amendment...but the pesky little problem was that they were wrong. Even her debate opponent couldn't make his way through the five freedoms outlined in the 1st Amendment.
I know this is a Sarah Palin thread but it seems like an appropriate example, even though it's a different subject.
Greg
I think Blogger Ann Althouse made the point that people don't really listen, but just react to what they think is a dumb comment. A little investment in listening can overcome some of that. She was trying to make a point and folks assumed that Ms O'Donnell was just stupid. She may be but this was not the topic that proves it.
Regards — Cliff
Forgive me for actually checking the dates on the supposed first slurs/stones thrown, but the citations you offer are all from 2009, and the Palin utterances we all so clearly recall were from 2008.
As for searching for the literal words "church and state", vs. correctly interpreting the Constitution as constraining public schools from adoption a religious-based curriculum, I'm not quite sure why the semantic argument is being put forward to replace the substantive one? O'Donnell desperately wants to find a literal interpretation to excuse her interest in expunging Darwin from our public school textbooks, and because one particular interlocutor failed to be up to the task of calling her on it, somehow this means she's not wrong to be trying to hijack our science textbooks?
I think this covers it well, so to speak, and it dates from 29 March 1976.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment