Steven Hayward, “Give ’em Hell, Sarah,” WS:
Lurking just below the surface of the second-guessing about Sarah Palin’s fitness to be president is the serious question of whether we still believe in the American people’s capacity for self-government, what we mean when we affirm that all American citizens are equal, and whether we tacitly believe there are distinct classes of citizens and that American government at the highest levels is an elite occupation.
It is incomplete to view the controversy over Palin’s suitability for high office just in ideological or cultural terms, as most of the commentary has done. Doubts about Palin have come not just from the left but from across the political spectrum, some of them from conservatives like David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will. Nor is this a new question.
[…]
The issue is not whether the establishment would let such a person as Palin cross the bar into the certified political class, but whether regular citizens of this republic have the skill and ability to control the levers of government without having first joined the certified political class. But this begs an even more troublesome question: If we implicitly think uncertified citizens are unfit for the highest offices, why do we trust those same citizens to select our highest officers through free elections?
In his reply to Adams, Jefferson expressed more confidence that political virtue and capacity for government were not the special province of a recognized aristocratic class, but that aristoi (natural aristocrats) could be found among citizens of all kinds: “It would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.” Jefferson, moreover, trusted ordinary citizens to recognize political virtue in their fellow citizens: “Leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise.”
Today’s establishment doubts this. The establishment is affronted by the idea that an ordinary hockey mom–a mere citizen–might be just as capable of running the country as a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This closed-shop attitude is exactly what both Jefferson and Adams set themselves against; they wanted a republic where talent and public spirit would find easy access to the establishment.
Part of what bothers the establishment about Palin is her seeming insouciance toward public office. Her success with voters, and in national office, would be n affront and a reproach to establishment self-importance. Anyone who affects making it look easy surely lacks gravitas and must not grasp the complexity or depth of modern political problems. Partly this is the self-justification for establishment institutions and attitudes, but partly it represents the substantive view that the size and complexity of modern government require a level of expertise beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. Some of the doubts about Palin are doubts about self-government itself.
[…]
For Truman and Reagan the key ingredient to successful statecraft was simplicity. “I say there are simple answers to many of our problems–simple but hard,” Reagan liked to say; “It’s the complicated answer that’s easy, because it avoids facing the hard moral issues.” Churchill wrote that he immediately liked Truman when they met for the first time in Berlin in 1945 because he could see that Truman possessed the “obvious power of decision.” We can see already from Palin’s record–unseating a governor of her own party, delivering a long-blocked pipeline deal–that she shares this trait; another six years in the governor’s office isn’t likely to tell us anything we can’t already discern if we don’t let status bias get in the way.
Reagan and Truman forced their way into grudging acceptance and eventual recognition by the establishment through genuine and hard-earned political success, and Palin too will have to prove herself. She shows signs of sharing their humility, power of decision, and simplicity toward self-government.
In her first innings, Palin has offered a unique display of the capacity that John Adams described as the essence of a “natural aristocrat” in America: “By an aristocrat I mean every man who can command two votes–one besides his own.” Here Adams was reminding us of the centrality of substantive persuasion in political life, something Republicans haven’t been very good at of late. The talking heads of the establishment deprecated Palin’s debut. “Sure, she gives a good speech, but  .  .  .” They should be saying to Palin, “Welcome to the aristocracy, governor.”
To which the appropriate reply is, of course, “Moose burgers, for Chrissakes! Snowmobiles and dogs as a means of transportation. Jesus. Have you peasants no shame…?”
David Frum is an NPR toady. He’s too young to be so pathetically old school. I think he was one of those rich kids where it was very stunting for him. I would like to see misfortune visited upon him just to see what he would do.
Hey, Rock, watch me pull a rabbit out of Obama’s ass!
Again?
Nice little essay by Hayward. Not sure if he or some sub-editor was responsible for the title “Like Truman, a natural-born executive“, but whoever, it was very telling to be comparing Palin to Truman. Guess we’ll wait and see.
Entirely unrelated. http://twitter.com/TrackingIke There’s IM report from Galveston. Also http://twitter.com/leighjones
Perhaps you already know this.
Back to your regularly scheduled.
I have pondered on this for a while now. Isn’t the instruction manual on how to be pres written in the constitution? Everything else is personal opinion. And that is what we vote on.
K
I thought Frum was a Canadian hf? If so, mightn’t that stand for the misfortune you seek to see, and hasn’t his reaction been to flee to the US (with many other worthies and unworthies alongside him?)
That said, I still lump him in with the Ponnuru type guys I can’t bring myself to trust any farther than I could throw them, given the chance.
Oh, noes! Not HOOTERS!
Always with the Owls Dan, what’s’it? Minerva fetish? Or just a Rice fan?
Hooters. The humanity…
You haven’t been listening to Palin have you, Jeff? It’s snowmachine.
oh. You’re right he was Canadian I guess until he got his upward social mobility on. Yes. He’s very Ponnuru. You know who I miss is William Safire.
That’s fine and all, but doesn’t it go a long towards undercutting McCain’s main argument against Obama.
Goose meet Gander.
Or is this all about Harvard?
The one drawback post-American revolution and it’s rejection of any monarchy is that too many Americans have tried to reinvent aristocracy over and over again. At least a toothless British monarchy provides a “pomp” outlet for fetishizing (ie the deification of Diana) without much, if any, interference in the actual running of government. Here we have made movie stars, celebrities, sports figures part of a cultural aristocracy … and they respond by acting like inbred, drunken despots … but still have little power outside of the cultural influence.
The problem has come in making career politicians a new aristocracy, specifically because they DO control the government. McCain may have a long career in government, but Biden has been there longer and Biden has never done much besides government. At least McCain had 20 plus years in the military.
Palin backed into government by a route many people looking to be involved in their own neighborhoods take … PTA. That this citizen-politician should actually accomplish things without going to the “right” schools or attended the “right” cocktail parties or polished the “right” powerbroker knobs has them in a panic.
How DARE she!
The aristocracy may politely applaud Frank Capra, but they are appalled by a real “Mrs. Smith goes to Washington.”
Victor
Barry is the TOP of the Dem ticket. Palin is in the #2,backup/trainee position.
And please, cite a Barry accomplishment … and his two published books don’t count because they are about him.
One of the free-floating problems in this self-governance business is, for my part, like this: Sarah Palin comes on the scene, I (we) watch her awhile (not long) and from queues uncertain conclude she is a virtuous person, has what it takes to govern, etc. and then along come other folks who seem to me to have every capacity that I have to make such evaluations (and, I can admit, quite possibly better capacities and knowledge), like Richard Bennett, for instance, (though I do not know him well, let me make him stand in here for now) and they reach the very opposite conclusions in regard to Gov Palin.
To put it another way, though we humans are supposed to have highly refined BS (cheating) detectors built-in, we are nevertheless often fooled by our fellows. Our virtue detectors fail at a fairly high frequency. So how can we trust us?
Averages, is the only ready answer I can come up with. We get it right more often than not. Otherwise…..Doomed!
This campaign is not about me it’s about you and what is up with this annoying Alaskan hoochie?.
Sdferr
Who to trust? Yes, we can be bamboozled and manipulated (Barry won over Hillary basically because the MSM dragged him over the finish line).
But my rule of thumb* is based on if the person looks as government as limited-basic necessity or preferred institution of FIRST resort. When career politicians look to expand government and its mission, they are padding their jobs and making their own personal power greater.
Those people I tend not to trust.
You may get a chuckle out of today’s Daily Telegraph: “Barack Obama under fire for ignoring advice on how to beat John McCain“
Darleen,
Please don’t take me wrong here. I just think that when you deputize Reagan, Truman, and Churchill in a conversation that’s about the merits of Sara Palin that this can blur the lines a bit, hurting McCain’s argument.
As far as accomplishments, I think it’s clear that Obama has the exact type of record that the left holds most high- “community organizing”.
Now, now you wacky Libertarians put down your Constitution and don’t think I don’t see you looking at the Federalist Papers! We need Experts! You know that….
At you feet, a sapphire:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2076624/posts?page=7
happy?
See Dar, I don’t trust schtoopnagles like me who write queues when they should write cues, if you get my drift.
“Moose burgers, for Chrissakes! Snowmobiles and dogs as a means of transportation. Jesus. Have you peasants no shame…?â€Â
While, at the same time, the unlucky “citizens” of the enslaved island of Cuba are praised for their “green consciousness” because they’re using ox carts for taxis in Havana.
What a world.
Apparently, we’ve been getting it all wrong – it’s the McCain campaign that has been telling all the stretchers (warning – nasty womyn alert).
The rhetoric in Silver Whistle’s linked piece might almost persuade one that the Obamaians are a bunch of closet MILITARISTS (is Tim Shipman one of Claire’s spare brain cells?):
“are under fire… sparked… squandering… in denial… hidden racism… hard-fought… bombarding… blowing the greatest gimme… the most arrogant bunch… limp in responding to attacks… He rammed home… doubts as hand-wringing and bed-wetting… a bunker mentality… voters lie… reluctance to vote… a black candidate… the cold electoral calculus… the toxic effect… the atom bomb of ritual abuse… another alpha female… “
Mmmmmmm – bed wetting.
Beware the alpha female.
Hyenas.
With big pseudo-penii. And teethyjaws.
They just laugh and laugh ….
Am reading a book by Chernow on Alexander Hamilton at the moment. It’s dry as dirt, so I can only manage a few pages a night before the toothpicks snap and my eyes clamp shut, but so much of what I’m reading about the perception of Hamilton shared by old aristocratic types like Jefferson and NY’s Governor Clinton applies to what’s happening now with Sarah Palin: “Who in God’s name is this wretched little bastard from the Carribbean and where does he come off telling me — me!!! — that he knows better how to midwife a just-founded republic?”
The most obvious and glaring difference between the two being that Hamilton was incredibly diligent with his schooling, most of which he did on his own time and of his own volition. As much as I dig Palin, I rather doubt she spends her down time breezing through tomes on banking, government, etc. Of course, unlike Hamilton, she’s not being asked to create a national economy out of whole cloth. So the need for her to do these things is dubious.
I had the same reaction when reading Ellis’s Founding Brothers: the realization that, idealogically, so many of our political battles have been fought before, and probably will continue to be fought as long as the Republic stands. The thought gives me comfort.
Yet even Jefferson got all weird and non-Jeffersony when he got the job. They may have elected a good and wise man, but they didn’t get that kind of President. No one ever has.
It’s still occasionally possible for a basically decent person to get the nod, like Reagan did, and Palin might, but they rarely, and ever more rarely, get within reach. And a few months in, every President’s the same kind of monster — worse, in a few cases. (They’re the ones on the money. And Obama does look like them.)
The only failures I’ve seen in Palin’s coming-out have been the flashes of her becoming-McCain — the wrong one. John McCain was an admirable man. Senator McCain isn’t at all. And he’s the one who picked her.
“Welcome to the aristocracy” is “Say farewell to the people.” If she says “thanks but no thanks” anywhere along the line, she’ll be the first. The press/etc. reaction does suggest they think she might be the one. If so…
Yeah, no. They’re just stupid. And he picked her.
I rather doubt she spends her down time breezing through tomes on banking, government, etc.
Why would you doubt? Do you know her?
Psycho at 32: Everything I’ve read about Jefferson indicates the man was just a mean little prick.
From time to time throughout our national history there have been an attempt to create a political aristocracy. Since FDR’s braintrust, and especially since the ’50s, the political left has increasingly taken on the point of view of the Euro-socialists. That’s where, for all the talk about the nobility of labor and the prolitariat, they insist that those same folks recognize their need to be governed by their betters of the intelligensia. This outlook is certainly reinforced, if not driven in part, by the uber-heirarchal arrangement of European society well into the 20th century.
What O! and the elitists on the far left will never realize is the Jacksonian appeal of both Mav and ‘Cuda. They marvel at this affinity and identification in the same incredulous way that the notion of these same folks voting against their economic interest befuddles them. What they never learned in the Ivy League Ivory Tower is that rank and file Americans, especially those in rural areas isolated from the polluting influence of an urban public school system indoctrination, take an especially dim view of being instructed by their betters as to how to view the world and live their lives. Just as with the European prediliction for an authoritarian, centralized, state is related to their historical societal arrangements; so too is the prediliction for rural Americans to reject the rule of their betters just as they did so long ago during the American revolution…
The Democrats of the academy can’t understand how these regular folks recognize and come to respect the aristoi based on their shared values as well their tangible leadership capability. That’s the main reason why Obama faltered in Appalachia and the rust belt late in the primaries, and not any blind allegiance to Hillary. And it’s also why those same folks, along with millions of other across the rural US, will support the Republican candidates this fall…
Barring any amazing turn in the race, the regular folks will come to recognize O! as the pseudo-aristoi he really is…
Both Adams and Jefferson were peckerheads in their own ways. That is immaterial when discussing their contributions to this nation.
Not at all. Obama has been polished and constructed for inside-the-Beltway politics. He has all the right credentials, has hobnobbed with all the right people.
He is inexperienced, certainly. But that inexperience, the subtext suggests, can be ignored because of his pedigree. To me, it’s not that Obama hasn’t done much. It’s that the things he’s chosen to do are in keeping with those on the political class tenure track. Which shows me a political opportunist and careerist who cares less about “change” than about power.
Palin appears to me like she can take it or leave it.
Hell, I can remember when Mr Smith Goes to Washington was the kind of flick those on the left would idolize. Buy again, only in theory, as it turns out.
Many of these people are hypocrites of the worst sort.
Comment by Darleen on 9/13 @ 11:32 am #
You are right in target, Ms. Darleen…
A well articulated comment that I would personally like to see fleshed out further!
Regards
Bob
Everything I’ve read about Jefferson indicates the man was just a mean little prick.
You do realise he introduced his buddy G. Washington to the delights of Ch. Lafite? Nothing mean about that. I demand satisfaction, Sir. Grass for breakfst.
Comment by Darleen on 9/13 @ 11:32 am #
Career politicians are a big problem with our modern government. We’re told (by our betters) that they are the most effective at getting things done, knowing the ins-and-outs of legislating, blah, blah, blah…
While I am aware that the founders put no restrictions on service in the constitution, leaving such a matter up to the individual voters, it doesn’t seem like something that the founders necessarily had in mind!
I’m pretty sure that their notions were along the lines of aristoi stepping up and taking their turn for a while before retiring back to private life. More along the lines of McMav’s experience than many of his collegues on capitol hill. And while the senators were originally to be seated by the method preferred by the individual state, their status has reverted to a “super congressman” since the early part of the 20th century…
Either way I don’t think they ever envisioned the process to be dominated by lawyers!
(I hope my wife doesn’t see this-he writes timorously…)
I learned a prejudicial lesson on breeding when I was very young (7 or 8) that’s stuck with me to this day.
Do you want an intelligent and loyal dog?
Then get yourself a many-breed mixed-up cur, and you’ll stand a far better chance at getting what you want than the Kennel Club blue bloods with their pedigreed goof-balls chasing their own tails.
Humans? Pah, t’hell with ’em, not worth the tongue sweat of a good hound. (Never did hang out with horses much.)
Jesus, people. Nobody cares about Bambi’s inexperience because he’s intended to be a sock-puppet! Does Cowboy Bob give a crap about Howdy Doody’s experience?
Thanks, David. I hardly ever go there anymore unless someone links. I just got locked out of my office for an hour, by the way. This is because I wished misfortune on Mr. Frum. Which makes me think Baracky is gonna be in a world of hurt when his Palin karma kicks in.
Sdferr,
That advice may well be useful when chosing a family pet, but in my experience, if you want a good, intelligent, obedient bird dog, it is best to chose the offspring of parents who exhibited the same characteristics.
Not at all. Obama has been polished and constructed for inside-the-Beltway politics. He has all the right credentials, has hobnobbed with all the right people.
He is inexperienced, certainly. But that inexperience, the subtext suggests, can be ignored because of his pedigree. To me, it’s not that Obama hasn’t done much. It’s that the things he’s chosen to do are in keeping with those on the political class tenure track. Which shows me a political opportunist and careerist who cares less about “change†than about power.
The entire 2008 Democrat campaign, in just three lines. (Bravo!)
“He is inexperienced, certainly. But that inexperience, the subtext suggests, can be ignored because of his pedigree. To me, it’s not that Obama hasn’t done much. It’s that the things he’s chosen to do are in keeping with those on the political class tenure track. Which shows me a political opportunist and careerist who cares less about “change†than about power.”
Right on Jeff G, as usual you are on the mark!
Obama’s inexperience isn’t a bug, it’s a feature to his long term backers, those who have brought him along the way. It means he’ll be more likely to be beholden to them for advice, money, or any other assistance he needs.
Help me understand how you resolve the tension between declaring “Not at all” versus the phrase “the subtext suggests“.
It would seem to me that if the significant difference between Obama and Palin is implied, then it runs the risk of remaining undiscovered, unseen, or not clearly understood by some quantifiable amount of observers, thus invalidating any claims that lines aren’t being blurred towards Obama’s advantage.
A progressive would take this piece and say… “So much for your experience arguments”, to which I think you are responding by pointing to class distinctions (correct me if I’m wrong) when you talk about “…political class tenure track”. But if this is correct, are you not turning the traditional “class warfare” argument on it’s head?
That’s kind of what I was getting at with the shorthand Harvard remark.
Anyway, any help here would be appreciated.
#40 Bob Reed
The Founding Fathers looked to the House as the citizen’s chamber – two year terms in which local people elected by their neighbors would leave their businesses/jobs/professions to come to The People’s business of legislation. Kind of like a super-jury duty thing. It was supposed to be a part-time, short-lived gig because the Fed Government only had a few [legitimate] obligations – National defense, international trade/treaties, the judiciary. This is also why the House is proportional … all citizens with an equal voice. The Senate was the states’ chamber, where with 2 votes all states had an equal voice. Senators were elected by their respective state’s legislatures, not popular vote. Thus they got six year terms to mitigate the vagaries of state legislature election cycles.
Unfortunately, the House was capped at 435 representatives, which distorts Congressional districts and has diluted Congresscritters accountability to their own constituents. Congresscritters can easily ignore their voters because they now represent so many they just need enough power backing to keep out or marginalize any opposition.
Additionally, do you think that criticizing the “…political class tenure track” diminishes the Churchill/Reagan comparisons?
Can you make anything (metaphorically) out of the contrast between the “intelligent and loyal” dog and the “good, intelligent, obedient bird dog” that Silver Whistle and I have on offer, Victor?
The one, a generalist, virtuous enough but not particularly superior at any single task, the other, a carefully (even generationally) prepared specialist, far superior at the thing it does, but potentially useless for something else outside its ken?
Or maybe not.
While Hayward via Jefferson is quite right in pointing out that in terms of political evolution, the aristoi are to be found among the mongrels, classic Mendelian genetics does suggest that stupid, ugly parents have Rosie O”Donnell. Just saying.
Just because it is a subtext — after all, Obamaco isn’t going to come out and say, “hey, lookit! I’ve been groomed for this since day one!,” lest he risk undercutting his own “changiness” platform — doesn’t mean it isn’t an obvious subtext.
As for turning the traditional class warfare argument on its head, no, I don’t think so. I haven’t said Obama can’t be a good leader because he’s been groomed for it, I’ve said his having been groomed is the reason he gets a pass on questions about his experience from those who buy into class warfare to begin with.
Re: the “political class tenure track,” I don’t see how that applies to Reagan. He spent a lot of times doing other things before coming to politics. And in Britain, class distinctions are practically ingrained. They still have a fucking queen, after all.
And you have the Kennedys. To each his own.
When did we start demanding the citizen who leads be more than a citizen?
It was at that point we lost sight of ourselves.
‘Life and everything’ is not all that complicated.
Be nice, but be sure and destroy those who refuse to be so.
Any questions?
When did we start demanding the citizen who leads be more than a citizen?
I think that was around the time that Sen. McCain announced his VP pick.
“Any questions?”
What is the meaning of life?
then along come other folks who seem to me to have every capacity that I have to make such evaluations … and they reach the very opposite conclusions in regard to Gov Palin.
Because people have different priorities in what they want vis-à-vis gubmint leaders. You cited virtue as a must-have, but other people have other desires.
The Founders operated under the assumption that the electorate would generally prefer virtuous, competent leaders. They also were cognizant of the fact that if the electorate becomes morally degenerate enough that they prefer something besides virtue and wisdom and competence, the system they’d set up would no longer serve its intended purpose.
In other words, we always get the leadership we deserve, for better or worse.
“Any questions?”
Who is going to win Stoke v Everton tomorrow? At 3/1 against Stoke, it looks like a good bet.
“Any questions?â€Â
So Katrina is the low point of our entire nation’s history, but Ike is not. How come?
People got the hell out of Ike’s way. Gustav’s too. Katrina was a disaster before the storm ever made landfall.
She’s not a hockey mom any more. She’s a governor. A member of the political establishment. This is one of the dumber things I expect to read this week.
um… you can explain how those are mutually exclusive?
–“This is one of the dumber things I expect to read this week.
– As frantic and foaming at the mouth as the Left is right now, your expectations will be short lived.
Um, because Hayward is setting up a false dichotomy between “hockey mom/citizen” and members of the “political establishment”. I’m just using Hayward’s frame, in which she ceased being a hockey mom once she was elected.
care to show your work on that one?
Read the first sentence of my prior comment. Don’t be tedious.
you first. how does being governor preclude one from being mother to children that play hockey?
I think I should have used “exclude”. did you even read the article? because then you would understand that the “requirements” for being part of the establishment are more than merely holding office.
Always worth a reprint:
FROM THE ARCHIVES: So We Groan:
Anyone who can write that is not altogether a mean little prick.
Now she’s an infantry mom, not a hockey mom. Unless Willow is lacing ’em up.
Did you see the part where she sold the plane, fired the chef and chauffeur? And the part where she went around the old boy network (read – the establishment) and got a long stalled, multi-billion dollar infrastructure project greenlighted?
See, that’s not establishmenty. And I agree, your comment probably is the dumbest thing you’ve read all day, but the night is still young. I”ve got faith in you, Smedley.
I’m kinda surprised she hasn’t been attacked for putting people out of work instead of creating jobs. but maybe the pipeline thing outdoes that.
No he isn’t setting up a false dichotomy, nor are you using his frame — at least, not appropriatelyy. He’s pointing out that the criticism aimed at Palin is all of a certain tenor — beginning with the “Mayor of a little town in Alaska” to Governor of a state that we are now learning that liberal elites and establishment media types only seem to care about when it comes to the fate of the caribou. Beyond that it is an outpost for slutty hillbillies and stinky fishermen who live in trailers and drink Busch Beer from cans. Being a governor doesn’t give one insidership. That’s been made fairly clear; whereas “community organizing” and being groomed by the Chicago political machine is what gets you a made man inside the beltway.
Were I a Dem in Alaska, I’d be appalled at how the Dem establishment (and even some on the right) are painting Alaska and Alaskans.
Looks like you need to give the Hayward article a re-read. Mayor of a little town/Governor of a tiny state has nothing to do with the citizen/establishment dichotomy he asserts, because Governors are part of the political establishment, not ordinary Joes. Todd Palin might fit the bill but Sarah doesn’t. Hayward’s just trying to squeeze Palin into the cultural resentment gambit that has been the go-to move for the GOP for the past 20 years.
Maggie, you clearly don’t understand the role that “hockey mom” is playing in Hayward’s narrative and are taking it too literally.
With Smedley on the case Baracky can breathe easy I think. Shoot. It looked like he was on the ropes there for a second.
Smedley, you should take your own advice. The key is in this:
Hayward doesn’t imply, he states, that there’s a difference between moving from citizen to establishment and it has nothing to do with simply being elected. Many Governors are NOT part of the establishment. Some are, but that depends on their perceived “importance.” Those governors do go on Meet the Press from time to time, especially if they are being groomed for more. I grew up in Oklahoma and Kansas. Governors from those states ONLY get that opportunity by deliberate action from within the establishment. California, New York, Massachusetts,… those are a different case and those Governors are assumed to be part of the club with out need for an entre. As an Okie, I’d expect to have been painted the same way had, say SEN Obama chosen Brad Henry as a running mate.
The reading of Maggie and Jeff is correct. You are the one who needs to recheck.
No true Scotsman. Not impressive.
happyfeet needs to get laid i think.
Smedley,
So now you are not only wrong, you have also shown you have zero class.
OT, but Sarah brings out the daddy in me.
What’s the going rate for the Tooth Fairy these days? My 6 year old is about to lose a tooth. On his own.
Title’s wrong. “Of” and “For”, yes; it’s “By” that has so many knickers in a twist.
Between you and me, I think they’ve been paying lip service to “for” for forever, but they’ll always want “of”.
Smedley says:
Since you do not recognize the counter arguments as valid ones, a meta-“No true Scotsman” to you too!
Patrick –
We did a dollar bill, sprinkled with glitter from the tooth fairy. They are most deeply asleep about an hour after they hit the pillow, if I remember correctly.
I have two ring boxes in my dresser drawer. We managed to save almost all of them – one box for each Goddess. Tonight the oldest is snagging a book at Barnes & Noble, and I await the return of her sister from her Junior Prom; she was beyond beautiful when her date picked her up.
Time flies, etc. And a buck may sound like inflation, but it will be money well spent. Trust me.
She’s not a hockey mom any more
Really? Think Outfit.
Or KGB.
Patrick – $1 coin, the new ones with the Presidents. With a small note from the Tooth Fairy. That way it is something special. The dollar bill with the glitter would work too.
I managed to do the last one while home on leave. I missed the two before that one.
I have this Christmas ornament that was hung on my maternal grandmother’s first Christmas tree. I try to remember to buy an ornament for my nephews and neices for their first Christmas. I think it is a nice thing.
A progressive would take this piece and say… “So much for your experience argumentsâ€Â,
THe obvious answer to the progtard is to point out that there was no concern whatsoever about Obamas experience or lack thereof, which merely points right back to their “concern” about Palins alleged lack; it’s opportunistic bullshit and, yes it has major sexism going for it. There have been many men with less experience selected as VP candidate and none of the caterwaling about experience was ever brought up like it has for SP.
Have it your way, Smedley. I’m confident in my reading; I find yours to be literalist and simplistic.
I was led to believe there’d be nuance.
Term limits for every office, folks. That would help to unseat the legislative class. Turn the power back to the citizens by firing the professionals.
Don’t vote for any incumbents!
Anne,
Unless about five trillion dollars magically appears in the coffers of the federal treasury in the next calendar year, I believe we’ll be seeing a “throw the bums out” election come 2010.
Add California’s treasury to that list, for good measure; the Golden State is bankrupt.
Lamp posts may be involved.