32 Replies to “On lightweights and gravitas”

1. sdferr says:

   July 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm

   Femvoice questioner beginning at 34:51:

   Um, I understand that looking at her record as Governor, you know it’s very good and there’s a lot of politics that came out of it and I know that the media does blow these things up but how do you explain some of the things that she’s said, I mean can we really have someone with that much power who doesn’t know the center of power here and who doesn’t … you know, how do you explain that and I understand that like her record as Governor appeals to governance and everything but —-

   It’s not that the question is ill delivered as that it seems curiously empty of substantial content, yet the reply begins “I think that’s a very important question”, so I’m left wondering, what? What’s a very important question? I’m utterly at sea here for want of any idea what the presumptively young lady is talking about — specifically, that is? Any ideas?

2. geoffb says:

   July 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm

   My take is that he is using the non-question question as a means to make a statement he wishes to make and that the “I think that’s a very important question” is to be polite to the one who has presented the opening.

3. Jeff G. says:

   July 9, 2011 at 12:48 pm

   She’s asking, how do we overcome what we’ve been taught to think about Palin by a media and even those on her “own” side who have sought to take her out of context, create a cartoon, and then destroy it?

4. geoffb says:

   July 9, 2011 at 12:54 pm

   I mean can we really have someone with that much power who doesn’t know the center of power here and who doesn’t … you know, how do you explain that

   I agree, Obama needs explaining, as does her “question.”

   Seriously, the only thing I can read out of it is she is asking how can we elect someone to the Presidency or even allow them to have any real power unless they have been part of the Washington DC establishment and know who to stroke and all the ins and outs of making deals in DC.

5. sdferr says:

   July 9, 2011 at 12:57 pm

   Ah, yes then — Unicorns: their shapes and colors? — or, Angels: the figure of their dance, Gavotte or Gigue, Allemande or Courante?

   Ah well, it being so open ended I’m glad to see Bannon choosing to answer as he himself wishes.

6. geoffb says:

   July 9, 2011 at 1:14 pm

   From another “Time” [3/31/80] but the song remains the same.

   But to say that Reagan can be elected is by no means to say that he will be. On the contrary, he looks very much the underdog. Some party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: “There’s a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party’s response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years. We’re at the same stage the Whigs were. There’s no choice.”

   Carter, for all his problems, has the power of incumbency. As President, he can react to challenges by changing the direction of the whole Government, which he has done recently by attempting to balance the budget in the coming fiscal year, a course urged by all Republican candidates. Carter is an undeniably deft—and extremely lucky—politician. He also is a relatively known quantity in the White House, whereas the inexperienced Reagan would require a definite leap of faith by voters supporting him. Says Northwestern University Political Scientist Louis Masotti: “There’s a variation on the old cliché: you don’t change horses’ asses in midstream. You’ve got one, and at least you know its contours.”

   Reagan has a history of committing rhetorical blunders that drive away voters. His quest in 1976 was damaged when he suggested vaguely, without proper research and consideration, that $90 billion in federal programs should be turned back to the states. He then spent months explaining that the affected programs would not be eliminated, only transferred. As Governor, Reagan was outraged by student unrest and once proclaimed: “The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity.”

   Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan’s relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems. He is aware that he is charged with this failing, and in his 1967 inaugural address on becoming Governor of California, he asserted: “We have been told there are no simple answers to complex problems. Well, the truth is there are simple answers, just not easy ones.”

   This approach to public policy continues to characterize Reagan’s 1980 campaign. One of his proposed cures for inflation is the notion that a huge tax cut will restore the productive vitality of the economy and control price rises. Most economists believe this approach is nonsense, that it would simply fuel more inflation. Reagan also asserts that “inflation comes from the Government spending more than the Government takes in. It will go away when the Government stops doing that.” Economists say that a balanced federal budget would still trim less than a percentage point from the inflation rate.

   Of the energy problem, Reagan says: “From the time of the horseless carriage until 1971, there was no energy shortage. What happened is that in 1971 Government got into the energy business. If Government would just get out of the energy business and leave the oil companies alone, the greatest petroleum geologists have told me we would not have to buy from OPEC.” Reagan ignores the fact that before 1971, the Government was heavily involved in energy, largely by erecting tariff barriers to protect the prices of domestic oil and to limit imports. As for those future supplies that Reagan sees waiting to be drilled, the American Petroleum Institute says that if all the economically recoverable oil in the U.S. were being drilled, production would be increased by 4 million bbl. a day, only half of current import levels.

   Reagan’s loose statements and flabby positions will make splendid targets for Jimmy Carter. John Sears, Reagan’s former campaign manager, was worried by that very problem during his year-and-a-half reign, and after Reagan fired him in late February, Sears complained publicly that Reagan does not have well-prepared policy positions. Frets Sears: “I’m not sure that he is now adequately briefed on matters on which politicians and the press and the people hold him to account.”

7. s. finger says:

   July 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm

   ‘Sup? Finger here. Seriously–help a troll out.

   I’ll withhold from all of the hatey/hoochey/snowbilly stuff.

   She quit her job as Governor. People were being mean to her–for whatever reason–and she quit so as not to be a distraction. And people want her to be The President of the United States–which is probably a lot harder/more high pressure and lightning roddy than Governor amirite?

   And people still take her seriously on a professional level. Why.

8. s. finger says:

   July 9, 2011 at 2:11 pm

   “Why?” I mean.

9. Spiny Norman says:

   July 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm

   After 31 years, Time has never admitted they were wrong on every one of those points. Hell, they could barely bring themselves to admit that Reagan actually won (it was the damn stupid voters’ fault!).

10. Spiny Norman says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    So, s. finger, should Palin ever be President, are you telegraphing your political strategy: will you progressives attempt to straightjacket her with an endless parade of frivolous ethics complaints (or Congressional investigations)?

11. s. finger says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    No–

    Lots of politicians get investigated and poked and prodded–in far more rigorous ways than Gov. Palin was subjected to–but don’t quit. And still manage to get a few things done, distractions or no. Some even emerge victorious; Undefeated, as it were.

12. Wolf says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    What I want explained is why people take seriously the people who run a governor out of office with ethics complaints they know are phony.

13. Wolf says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Lots of politicians get investigated and poked and prodded–in far more rigorous ways than Gov. Palin was subjected to–but don’t quit.

    No, you ignorant shit, they don’t.

    THEY DON’T HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE OUT OF THEIR OWN FUCKING POCKET LIKE THE PALINS DID.

14. Wolf says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Sorry, but your ignorance offends me. If you’re genuinely trying to do something about that, I apologize for my language. And maybe the yelling.

    Maybe.

15. s. finger says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Hey–as long as you guys are cool with it.

16. geoffb says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Got tired of the “stink” huh Paul? What does the “s” stand for now?

    BTW that’s some pretty poor trolling bait you’re using there. Happyfeet does it much more interestingly. When he’s on his game he has a way with words. You? Well the “s” fits.

17. Wolf says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    I withdraw my apology.

18. s. finger says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    I either posted by a.) my nomme de snark, Stinkfinger, or 2.) would assume a smartass moniker that played off of something a loathsome commenter had just said. Really. Never as Thor/Meya/Snowcone, etc.

    Posted by: Paul T. Lazaro | Monday, 30 November 2009 at 03:08 PM

    Touche’

    PTL out!1

19. happyfeet says:

    July 9, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    run run rudolph sarah save the christmas!

20. Jeff G. says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    And people still take her seriously on a professional level. Why.

    Because you weren’t able to kill her off. And because she got more done in Alaska in the 18 months before the Alinsky onslaught than most governors ever get done. Big stuff, too.

    Which, had you watched the video first instead of asking us to do the work for you, you’d know.

    So tell me: why should people take you or your questions seriously when you haven’t bothered to do the minimal amount of work it takes to enter into a legitimate discussion?

21. s. finger says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Somebody gets a big job and promises to see it through to the end, but quits when things get rough. Then this person is considered to be a real contender for a REALLY IMPORTANT JOB. Following through–she did it wrong once. Can you see why it may work against her?

22. sdferr says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Gee stink, you were moronic before and you’re a moron still, right? So using you as an example we might should have some doubts — that is, were there any evidence something wrong had actually been done by Gov. Palin, as opposed the merest assertions you, the moron, might make. So, salt-graining the whole, we’ve got what? Palin. Stinkfinger. Palin. Stinkfinger.

    That isn’t even a tough choice.

23. Jeff G. says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Somebody gets a big job and promises to see it through to the end, but quits when things get rough.

    Not “when things get rough.” When her family was imperiled.

    Then this person is considered to be a real contender for a REALLY IMPORTANT JOB. Following through–she did it wrong once. Can you see why it may work against her?

    Your opinion about whether or not she did it wrong is your opinion about whether or not she did it wrong. And let’s face it, you’ll vote for Obama anyway, so who really cares what you think?

    In 2008 you could almost forgive people who were snookered into voting for this arrogant douche. Anyone who works to get Obama re-elected, however, is clearly an enemy of individual liberty, a free-market economy, and the founding principles of this country. And unlike many gutless gladhanders on the right, I’m not going to be afraid to say so.

24. Jeff G. says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    I should add that, should Palin run, I’ll work tirelessly for her campaign.

    The right is always going on about needing another Reagan. We have one. But we’re allowing the left — and the very establishment political class on the right who has helped the Democrats get our country into this fix — to kill her.

    Before Palin was selected as the VP candidate, she enjoyed an 88% approval rating. Because she did what she was elected to do and served the people of her state. As a fiscal conservative / classical liberal / libertarian who bucked her “own” party and took on the establishment political power structure and the crony capitalists. She couldn’t be bought.

    And that terrifies BOTH parties, who found common ground in trying to see her marginalized.

    Still standing, though, she is. Undefeated, as it were.

25. guinsPen says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    Jiggers, it’s the candy acid yellow sledster!

26. JD says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Paul T Lazaro is one of those festering rectal fistulas from SEKs place, no? One who prided himself on calling people racist and name-jacking. Thor’s buddy. The trolls have been out in force everywhere, recently.

27. Jeff G. says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    The trolls have been out in force everywhere, recently.

    They’re safe online.

    I feel sorry for the canvasser who comes to my door trying to sell me on Obama’s re-election.

28. B. Moe says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    How many of Obama’s elected terms did he see through to the end?

29. poppa india says:

    July 9, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Paul, I wonder if you would keep posting if everyone here sued you, dragged you into court, and cost your family money, for everyone of your comments. I’m betting no.

30. Spiny Norman says:

    July 9, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    How many of Obama’s elected terms did he see through to the end?

    :: snort ::

31. Slartibartfast says:

    July 9, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    Doesn’t he get two-thirds pro-rata credit?

32. poppa india says:

    July 10, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Well, here it is tomorrow already and no response to #29 from Paul. Kell Sir Prize!

Comments are closed.