In my mind, that Sarah comes to the national scene as a novice with a clean slate is her main asset. Having a long history of political experience also means a long history of exposure to the political corruption endemic to the process of human governance, with the phony public and private compromises that accompany political experience.
Foreign policy experience? Thank god she has none beyond that of a normal citizen subject to the militarization of our culture over the past 50 years, particularly so in Alaska with its strong military presence. The three other would-be leaders have tons of experience among them. But whether liberal or conservative all three are committed to a policy of American imperialism with the self-appointed role of world policeman. This role of trying to influence the world with our military might sustains bloated defense budgets that profit the few and impoverish the social and economic needs of the many.
The United States spends more on defense than all the rest of the world combined. By comparison, Russia and China—our supposed competitors on the world scene—each spend less that 10% of our budget, preferring to strengthen their economic sectors. Are we not as concerned about the wellbeing of our citizens as Russia’s and China’s leaders are? Do they—or do we—have our budget priorities wrong?
Sarah has literally come to the national scene without owing anything to any party or corporate interest––not even McCain––he needs her more than she needs him. Imagine a person a heart beat away not owned by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporate America or AIPAC. WOW! Can this last? Probably not. But she does have an uncanny sense of political direction and the ability to capitalize on change like putting the public interest above Republican Party interests.
Interesting.
I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. I wonder if she'll get the Paulists to "come home" tonight on the empire, as Gravel suggests? That would be interesting. Though a speech, and a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee.
NOTE Via Arthur Silber, who also gives lots of other facts about Mike Gravel I should grovel -- in fact, I do grovel -- for not knowing.
NOTE * Meanwhile, WKJM
quotes Nooners on Palin approvingly, via Jeralyn. Last I checked, both Quayle and Agnew won....
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Gravel/Kucinch!
She may not belong to those others, but Palin is certainly owned by Dobson, and I really think that that is worse.
How is she "owned by Dobson"
Like Obama is owned by Wright? Has she contributed 20K+ to his church and sat in his pews while he humped the air denigrating a former president? Speaking of ownership - who has connections to lobbyists and voted in their interests?
Hillary Clinton, The Man of My Dreams
Erm,
She was a beauty-pageant contestant and her daughter had sex. And Gravel has the nerve not to dehumanize her???
I'm as post-partisan as the next guy, but standards are standards.
I Thought Gravel's Take
was interesting, especially the idea that not having foreign policy experience is a good thing. Certainly I don't find that Joe Biden makes me feel better about Obama.
Of course, it's also no small matter that Palin is wrong on everything else. So even if she wants to end the empire, which I'll believe when I see, I'm not sure I want to live in Sarah Palin's United States regardless of whether it's an empire or not.
But it is refreshing to read actual discussion of her even if I disagree with it and I always find it useful to read a different take on people.
Gravel is a slut
It's the only explanation.
Sure, I'll believe it when I see it on the empire too. But Gravel was remarkably refreshing to read.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
People Outside the Echo Chambers
usually are. If it hadn't been for this election I'd still be reading the same ten sites that all link to each other and all basically say the same thing. Now I get to read all the voices here, Silber, Chris Floyd, Avedon, The Black Agenda Report, Shakesville, Anglachel and many others I don't think I visited much if at all before. I don't always agree with what I read, but that's kind of the point.
I didn't stop reading some of the O-bot sites because I disagreed, I stopped reading them because they were boring. They weren't saying anything new or even anything old in an interesting way.
Well I don't know from Mike Gravel
(much) but I'm fascinated to read that some actual analysis rather than partisan hackery has surfaced in the media.
Lately I've been reminiscing about way back in the day when a great deal of mdia (mostly print, but some TV) used to do analysis. Now we have hordes of 'analysts' available who, when they're not shilling for someone or some interest, are playing the Master/Mistress of the Obvious game.
But it's been so long I've begun to doubt my memories. Am I just casting a sentimental but fundamentally false memory over the past?
Does anyone else remember news, and separately, analysis?
Waaayy back in the day
when Huntley and Brinkley and etc. used to sit around at the end of every convention day and talk about what had happened and What It All Meant, it was pretty damn good, in my memory.
But my memory is they restricted themselves to talking about events and procedural tactics, not politics per se, if that distinction makes any sense. I don't remember any of this "This will appeal to the base" or "Did Barack Obama make a mistake by not picking Hillary Clinton?" etc.
Early cable was when we had a very, very brief period of at least an attempt at objective "analysis," but that quickly lost out to "Crossfire" type of analysis, right-wingers paired with liberals giving competing spin.
I now realize, btw, why CNN canceled "Crossfire." It was becoming totally superfluous since they went to Dems. vs. Republicans "battling it out" full-time.
Ever notice how little we see of William Schneider on CNN anymore?
testing, testing, 1 2 3
Just lost my post. Blip?
Your Gravel Link Isn't Working
at least not for me. I got there through Silber.
Fixed, thanks
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Palin is Failin'
Does anyone here remember her visit to Ireland as proof of her foreign policy chops?
Just throwing this out there: Would McCain have received his party's nomination without his truculent saber rattling? Would Obama have been crushed by the media lest he appeared concilitory and rational amidst all the hyper-fear broadasting? If McCain wins and then croaks while in office (not a froggy croak, mind you) would Palin be running the country, or would it still be the multi-nationals, the super corporations?
btw: Sarah Palin believes that a woman should carry to full term every single time one of her eggs has absorbed a visiting sperm and addition by cell division has occurred. She is of this opinion even when it comes to the woman having been raped. Zounds! Are we going backwards to South Dakota in the bad old days of March, 2006? This woman wants to run the collective cunt in a way that would make McCain blush.
A big hello to everyone's sisters, mothers, daughters, wives and female friends, here at the blog that respects feminism! Ladies: your reproductive organs are to politics what Yucca Mountain is to spent fuel rods.
++++
And isn't it great to see how the Ds...
... and the blogosphere are helping feminism along!!
But, as I'm sure that Senator Gravel was ignorant of the material you bring to our attention, thanks for the links!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Bottom line for Mike Gravel
Word:
True!
Did I cut that? My bad if so. I was focusing on the experience issue.
One of the reasons I tend toward Green, in my solidly Blue state.
Fortunately, however, Obama will fight the right war in Afghanistan!
Translation: Only solidly pro-Empire candidates are on offer, from either party.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Afghanistan
Nasty problem, that one. Maybe in a couple of weeks, after Palin drops out - for her family's sake, to protect them from the horrible treatment they're receiving from the liberal media and bloggers and Democrats - and is replaced by Joe Lieberman, there'll be time to talk about it.
Since Obama lowered the bar so much
I'm not sure Palin's "experience"--bad or good--is relevant.
In all honesty, I have to say that the doom and gloom about McCain and Palin is making me less scared of them. I can't exactly explain why. I'm sure the world will survive with them at the helm so perhaps I find the doom and gloom just hyperbole now. I don't feel comfortable voting for them, but everyone is calming my fears with their claims of the end of the world. Either that, or I'm just getting myself used to the idea of McCain as president.
We know she is bad
just not for many of the reasons that have been in popular discussion.
Why didn't I get to vote for Gravel?
lambert, you must be referring to home-brew:
"Though a speech, and a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee."
& where was he for the past 30 years?
that's what i want to know.
Gravel was a disappointment
He had some great points and challenged all the candidates, but almost every question he was asked morphed into his war against the war on drugs. That got a little old after a while.
Your only choices: nativism or imperialism
The consequence of this country having never developed any political narratives not ultimately based in American exceptionalism.
...for the rest of us
Jeebus, Dr S
What a great analytical tool. Wow. Yikes. (That's one of the problems with selling single payer, I think. That the rest of the world does it with good results just doesn't even register.)
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
OT Talkleft update
How about a post with a new pool on how long TalkLeft will continue lurching before poor Jeralyn finally closes comments for a spell?
I went there and I don't recognize about 90% of the commenters now, and it appears that Dr. Molly has been banned. Very interesting times we live in.
McCain was a genius to have Palin as his VP. If not genius, then it was a hell of a roll of the dice. Look at how it ravaged the PB 1.0 this last weekend.
Sorry, off topic. Lambert, we need you!
I'd be very surprised
now if BTD came back. When the blog owner announces that Palin's Down syndrome baby is drugged because it "hasn't cried all day," I don't think any kind of rational balance can be brought back.
Link, please
Just for the record. Man. Seems like Palin really hits a nerve with Jeralyn; that's a little over the top.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
It's in the first Palin
speech thread at TL, Lambert.
The depressing thing is that Palin hit a nerve with Jeralyn before she had any more information about her than that she was an evangelical woman governor from Alaska.
There's a fair amount of other ugly stuff in the comments, too, references to Beverly Hillbillies, etc., from some of the new names that have flooded in there in the last week accusing the rest of us of being McCain toadies.
Dr. Sardonicus
With the Republicans you get both. You don't have to choose between nativism and imperialism. Everyone gets ponies! Nativistic, imperialistic ponies, but ponies, nonetheless.
Interesting take by Gravel.
“Sarah has literally come
"Sarah has literally come to the national scene without owing anything to any party or corporate interest...."
Oh. So despite those earmarks she was so eager about--you know, the ones that McCain allegedly used to think were bad ideas--Sarah Palin owes nothing to "any party or corporate interest"?
Okay....
Relative to the usual standard, sure
But she's pretty "fresh" by Beltway standards, I would think.
So now, after smearing a 17-year-old, the Ds are going to do a haka about petty corruption. Like that's going to work in the face of the great TV we just saw.
Hillary had the right idea: It's about the direction of the country. Palin trumps hopey-changey with her life story and snark, but direction of the country trumps Palin's life story. Corruption doesn't, because everyone, and with good reason, sees the Ds as weak and corrupt anyhow. 9% approval, anyone?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Source, Lambert?
for the "9% approval"? Not asking you to chase down a link, although that would be great if you have it at hand; just asking where did you get that number for approval of the Democrats?
Democratic Congress polling is wicked low
My memory, surprise, is slightly faulty. Rasmussen:
It's low because they suck. Granted, it's not a poll on the part; but it's definitely a judgment on D governance.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Weeel, you might be wrong in that interpretation, Lambert
Polls are very odd things, and so much depends on the specifics of the question. Asking "Do you approve or disapprove of Congress?" without a followup as to why isn't a good practice. Congress has sucked for a long time now and the approval numbers have been falling for years. Most of that time it was in the hands of the Republicans, and since 2006 it has been all but gridlock. People Left Right and Middle want something done about a lot of issues, and when that doesn't happen they blame Congress as a body. There is as much unhappiness now on the Right as there is on the Left, and more recently the Middle has also become unhappy.
The blame, however, is for the institution and not specific to the Democrats. The Democratic Party as a whole is vastly more popular than the Republican, and is now approaching historic highs. I'll see if I can find the numbers and come back here with them.
Democratic vs Republican Party approval
From Gallup:
Been like this all year. With numbers like these, once the dust begins to settle Obama/Biden should move farther ahead and are all but a lock. Figure +20 seats in the House and +6, maybe +7 in the Senate.
And from Rassmussen, Generic Congressional Candidates survey breaks pretty strongly for the Dems:
the "styrofoam column" dig was a keeper--
she had a bunch of really really good ones
: >
It's also a subliminal housing bubble reference
because the pediments on the McMansions were stryofoam covered with vinyl.
Anybody who actually worked building a house would know that.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
i didn't know that--really?
i hate mcmansions--people don't need that much space, and on trading spaces and stuff never had enough furniture to fill the rooms.
I Guess...
It depends on what the defintion of "is" is, huh...?
Generic Numbers
Yeah, it's been said, for months, that the generic numbers for Democrats vs Republicans should make it so that this shouldn't even be a race. All other polling of the actual two candidates shows McCain outperforming his party, significantly, and Obama underperforming. This should be an absolute give-away for Obama. I'm really not sure what those numbers are supposed to prove that we don't already know. They make Obama's poll performance look terrible.
You're reading the generic numbers incorrectly. Given that you've, at least, implied yourself that McCain is not into this to win this (i.e. describing the pick of Sarah Palin as a joke, among other things), the numbers can only be explained one other way: Obama's candidacy is fighting a wave of advantage the Democrats have accumulated over the past few years. How anyone could point to the generic numbers and infer that this shows the strength of the Obama candidacy is crazy. Those numbers are a terrible sign for his candidacy.
But Palin's life story == direction of the country.
Lambert:
Someone's already pointed out that among her 5 kids, she's got three of the big things that parents fear: a son off to war, a daughter pregnant, and a special-needs child.
Every politician of every stripe discusses the direction of the country in his or her own way, and the populace relates it to, basically, what that means for their own families. She's getting tempest-tossed by times and troubles like few other prominent pols, and people are definitely going to project onto her that she cares about the future (esp. with a spec-needs child who will likely outlive her).
Perhaps she is GOP-psycho/Xian Dominionist enough to not actually care about the future direction of the nation or state of the planet, like most of these people, but I bet a lot of voters would have a hard time being convinced of that. The Obamacrat party will have a hard time selling their favorite caricature of the GOP (Social Darwinist slash-and-burners) about Palin.
& McCain doesn't fit that stereotype either--
even with his recent pandering to them--America knows why he's doing that, and don't think of him as a Buchanan or Robertson--or a born-again Dubya type either.