Sunday, September 7, 2008

Palin's appeal, according to one supporter

Part of a comment found elsewhere on this blog:

This is why she had won my vote. She is a mom a wife that was not groomed to be a politican. She reminds me of mothers I met at soccer fields, basketball, baseball and the hockey arena cheering on their kids. They are caring, loving and speak from the heart. Not a person that went to elite universities with a goal in mind to be a politican and willing to do what ever it takes. She does not take sides but only looks out for the average person.

This is the same argument advanced as evidence for GWB in 2000. I don't particularly think it's a good reason to vote for someone, but clearly there are a lot of people who do.

That said, I want to note a distinction that I think is blurred - quite intentionally - by this argument: Namely, that 'politician' and 'elitist' and 'craven' (maybe 'lacking principles') are all different categories. Yes, some people are all three, it's true. But they're not the same thing, and there are plenty of people who are one or two but not all three.

The commenter above - who I am using an example for a more generic argument - seems to think that being educated is equivalent to being elitist and craven.

Yes, I'm back to the anti-intellectual and anti-education bias. I think such a bias is dangerous and stupid. Maybe more later, but I have to go now.

UPDATE: That comment implies some other things which I think are wrong...

1) That Obama, in comparison, doesn't care about his family. This is just insulting.

2) That anyone who does desire to be involved in politics is somehow automatically lacking principles, except for Sarah Palin - because she clearly desires to be involved in politics, having run for office seven times (two city council, two mayor, one failed Lt. Governor, one Governor, and now VPOTUS)?

3) That Palin has somehow remained not a politician despite being the governor of a state and a former mayor. (And if that's true, how does that jibe with the claim that she has the necessary experience to lead the country? Is it all of a sudden no longer necessary to have political experience to head the US government?)


crallspace said...

It's not as if the only non-intellectuals exist on that side. Hint, hint.

Dennis said...

No, not at all. But I never hear a Democrat denigrate someone for being too educated or too smart. I'm not saying that denigration doesn't happen; instead, I'm suggesting that, as a rule, it's rare.

That better?

Anonymous said...

Palin has more experience than Obama period.

Dennis said...


Palin: Wasilla City Council 1992-1996, Wasilla Mayor 1996-200,2 and ~19 months (when she was selected) as Governor of Alaska.

Obama: Eight years (1997-2004) in the Illinois State Senate and 3.5 in the US Senate.

How does Palin have more experience, especially given that Wasilla has less than 10,000 residents?

Anonymous said...

As governor of the State, Palin has executive experience like managing the State budget (12.3 billion) yes billion not million like Obama had stated that he managed his campaign finances giving him that experience. The great State of Alaska has a budget surplus. Palin is the commander of the National Guard and what has Obama in command of?

What has Obama done in 8 years in the State Senate and 187 days or so in the Senate? He has 2 memoirs and nothing else. Also the last time I checked Alaska has more than 24000 government workers that Palin is in charge of. Obama has 2000 paid staff on his campaign.

Hillary and Biden said that Obama has no experience and is not ready to lead.

Will you hire Obama to run the country after considering all the facts that he had never being in an executive position before?

It is like hiring Rick to be the next superintendent of School District. No experience but oh yeah, he served on many boards in the community from planning to school Board. That is over 10 years of directorship. Even though Rick has not run a school district he has put in the time. Common Dennis you are better than that.

Dennis said...

"Common Dennis?"

I'm not terribly thrilled about Obama, but I do think there is a difference or two between Obama and Rick Alexander =) For example, Mr. Alexander's tendency to sandbag the public is not a trait I've seen in Mr. Obama.

I don't want to get into an extended debate about who is the better candidate; I don't have the time, and like I said, I'm not that thrilled with Obama. I also hate the "there are only two choices" framing that comes with such debates, and the assumption people will make about my supporting every single thing Obama does. (Hint: I don't.)

I will, however, say this: It's factually incorrect to claim Obama has done nothing in the Senate. Check the link.

I sort of wish Cynthia McKinney had a better chance, though.

Anonymous said...

It is a nice try Dennis but I also do research myself. More details are behind every bill that were Co-Sponsor by Obama (Cosponsor is the catch phrase) He had a few that he sponsored himself that were referred to the committee or die on the floor. In the Senate anybody can be the cosponsor and they will claim to be the owner of the bill if passed. When Obama was the State Senator, Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for 6 years of his seven year tenure. In only 1 year after the democrats took over that he sponsored or cosponsored more bills that were very liberal in nature which he is currently trying to distant himself from some of those bills. He did all that because he wanted to run for Senator. The democrat chair name Emil Jones Jr. knew that in order to advance Obama he appointed Obama to sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, which also anger many rank and file that had more seniority than Obama. It was like they were there doing all the work carrying the ball 99 yards and Obama got to carry it 1 yard and score all the touch downs.

I can go on and on but you get the picture. Obama is not qualify Hillary or any other Democrat I would have prefer but just not Obama.

Dennis said...

Slow down and take a breather there, captain. It appears that you outran your grammar-checker.

The Wikipedia article I linked to made the distinction between sponsoring and co-sponsoring, and for everyone else who reads these comments, I'll note it here: Sponsorship means introducing (and often writing) a bill. Co-sponsorship means signing on in support of a bill that someone else sponsored. This link indicates both.

Also, your response is exactly what I was talking about when I said a) I was not interested in defending Obama (note I am not defending the content of any of his bills or efforts, merely noting that he's done something), and b) I have no interest in the "there are only two choices" framing that goes on.

Did you listen to anything I said? Or did you just perceive someone who didn't agree that Obama is terrible and go into crazed berzerker mode?

This is why I don't debate politics with people anymore.

Dennis said...

Note to everyone: Future comments in which the phrase "democrat party" appears when the phrase "democratic party" should have been used will be gleefully rejected. I'm not going to deal with that level of inane bullshit on this blog.

Anonymous said...

That's why I like the republic party. We aren't so grumpy!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.